New-York tribune., 1903-03-10
NO COMPLAINT SINCE '94.
But Plenty of Grevances, Wab0sh
Men Say, in Ansrcer to Injunction.


st. Louis. March "a sweeping denial of al ths
charges made by the wabash Railway ComPthy III
fts hill of complaint upon which was issued Inc IN
junction to prevent strike among It's eInFi99es
was contained in the answer to the injunction sun
filed to-day in the United States District Court oE
counsel for the Wabash hremen and trainmen. In
support of the answer filed the afidaVlts OF
all those named in the injunction Io-morro"
morning Judge Adams will set date for nearing
arguments
panys counsel began the preparation of their argu-
ments against the answer Immediately after 1t was
fled.
Meme of the brotherhood officials have left the
city.
The answer is a joint and several answer of all
the defendants named in the bill of complaint and
against whom the injunction Issued. lt IS 4
specific denial that the Wabash Railway was ever
union or brotherhood road employing exclusively
union brotherhood members, and also denying
that the brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, the orga3iza-
tions involved in the proceedings. ever made ne
mand or an attempt to compel the Wabash to place
restrictions its employees to their connection
with any brotherhood union. II sQecif calIy de-
nies that the organization in way interfered In
the Pullman Palace Car Company's employees strik9
in 1884 charged the bill of complaint, and ad
mits that the Wabash Railway Company never
made any distinction IN the selection Of its en-
ployeS TO whether they members Of any
brotherhood union since or prior to the Pullman
strike.
DENY COMPLAINING SINCE 1894.
It specifically denies all allegations the bill Of
complaint that the Wabash had COM
plaint from its employees respecting wages and
rules regulating their employment since 1H9i- put
states the facts to be that the employees have for
years had grievances and differences with respect
the amount of wages paid and the rules and
regulations and that this controversy arises. not
only from complaints OF members of the brother
hoods but from employees not members OF the
unions involved in the injunction proceedings. ana
that the efforts on tie part of the grievance com
mittees and the officers Of the Brotherhood OF
Railway Trainmen and the Brotherhood Of Loco
motive Fircmen representatives OF over
twelve hundred employees CT the Wabash COM
pany engaged as switehmen. brakemen and fire
men on its lines The states that the sew
eraI employees engaged In the train service OF the
Wabash company have frequently presented their
grievances to SYSTEMS officials for adjustment
and settlement. but that the officers OF the COM
pany have persistently refused to consider or dis
cuss such grievances with its employees during the
last few years or make any reasonable permanent
rules regulations governing the service
RECOGNITION OF UNIONS.
The defendants deny that the labor organiza tions
named in the Iil Of complaint have unla"fuiy OF
rnaliciously consprcd or combined I" force the
complainant to recognize the organizations IH'S
deny that attempt a demand has ever DeeH
made by the labor organizations. or any % tn'if
officers to prevent the Wabash from dealing WIN
it's employees in controTrrsy- They deny that tLe
organizations in Way unlaWtUlIy or ni14i'lo"9'S
ATTEMPTED to induce compel the employees OF lHe
Wabash to quit its service violation of any con
tract or agreement Of employment. or TO prevent
fh4. onerati0n of Wabash trains to prevent tEa-
railroad from carrying out of its contracts with
1t is denied that the defendants combined to com com
pei Wabash and its connecting hhtS or tht!T
ep0ye5 en- 5emC TO with s reerence theret6 or from
preventing the Wabash from carrying mails IN ac-
Tnad STATES an the com3lanant or that they
conspired to prevent obstruct the Wabash IN me
spect 10 the State and interstate commerce laws
STRIKE VOLUNTARY.
The defendants further deny that they ever
maciously threatened to order strike. but state
that they did represent to the Wabash that many
of its employees had determined to Withdraw from
its employment unless it acceded to the reasonable
demands and requests made by the defendants IN
their behalf in the payment of wages and changes
rules but that if strike should occur II would
he q voluntary the part of the employees
1t is also denied that any, attempt was made to
induce strike by letters or circulars 1t is said
that if nnammatory letters or circulars We're sent
of the labor organizations, or with their approval
% with the answer were filed copies of the const-
tutcns bylaws, rules and regulations Of the BROTH
the under the bylaws and constitutions IN
which complaints shall be received and inyestI-
9aay4 savdrs "Pa 10 eect n o9 "S "
employees INITIATED GRIEVANCES.
The defendants state that all differences and
grievances now in controversy between the en-
ploycs and the Wabash initiated from the
ranks of the employees and presented to the re-
spective grievance committees from time to time,
by whom they were presented to the railway OIL
cials The committees unable to effect set
tlement and the grievances were referred to IN"
joint protective hoard which presented them to
President Ramsey. He refused to take them up
or them with the protective board
The defendants say that In thei" attempts to
adjust the differences with President Ramsey II
was stated by him that he received them only as
individuals and refused to consider the grievances
az being presented by representatives of The broth
ThereupOn about twelve hundred of the
EMPLOYEES executed written authority to the de-
PENDANTS to represent them in dema nding and Sc
curing an adjustment of grievances. When this
authority was presented to President Ramsey he
refused to consider II.