The San Francisco call., 1907-03-01

lon of Father YOrke:
1 cannot agree with the statement
made on page 2 of the majority de-
cision, beginning on line seven: ut
was found however that the unions,
in formulating their demands, had in
cluded some matters not covered by
the arbitration agreement, and 1t be-
came necessary for the board at its
first meeting to consider and define the
limits of its Jurisdiction Its unani-
nous conclusion upon this point was
announced at its next session, to the
effect that under the agreement of the
parties the only questions to be de-
cided were the proper hours of labor
and fair rates OF wages"
1t is unfortunate that, owing TO some
disagreement between the representa-
tives of the company and the repre-
sentatives of the men, there is no
stenographic report of the first days
proceedings. My recollection of the
matter is that counsel for the railroad
insisted in his opening statement that
there was contract with the men, that
this contract ruled the proceedings,
that the business of the board was
TO find out if that contract had been
lived up to. If it were decided that the
company were blame1ess, in considera-
tion of the circumstances, the COM
pany, he said, was willing to submit
the matter of any increase in wages to
the board.
To those things counsel for the union
replied that the contract did not enter
into the scope OF the arbitration that
the only questions which the board had
to consider We're those of hours and
wages, and that these questions should
be examined without reference to the
fact whether contract had existed
or not.
QUESTION on CONTRACT
1t was on this controversy, not on the
extraneous matters contained in the
mems complaint. that the decision was
rendered which appears in volume 1.
page /, of the testimony. as follows:
Upon the Question raised at our
preliminary meeting yesterday as to
the scope of this arbitration, 1t is the
unanimous opinion Of the members OF
the board that our powers and duties
are clearly defined by the written
agreement of September IS. 1906, by
which the parties agreed TO submit
their differences to arbitration, and
that the only matters to be decided are
the proper hours of labor and the fair
rates of wages for the employees of the
railroad company"
My recollection as to this matter Is
confirmed by the reports that ap-
peared in the San Francisco daily
papers of October 81. 1906. In all OF
them is given the substance OF Attor-
ney MOore's contention. and OF Attor-
ney Johnson's answer, together with the
statement that the board had taken
the matter under advisement.
In the case of the electrical workers,
agree with the findings. I do not
agree with the statement made on page
5, line 1, and following: I'm the case
Of the station operators who work
upon three shifts during a twenty-hour
day: The shifts are changed every eight
hours, but 1T appears to be established
by the evidence that it is necessary for
the safe operation of the stations that
the retiring operator shall remain on
duty for a time with the. operator who
takes his place. This extra time is
known as the overlap and has hereto
fore been one hour. The board is un-
willing wholly to set aside this ar
rangement and has sought to compen-
safe the operators by an increase in
their wages"
AGREES ON OTHER REWARDS
In my Judgment the testimony did not
establish the necessity Of any overlap
l. consider the increase in wages mer-
tied. not by. the overlap, but by the in
creased work of the operators during
their regular shift l agreed to the
half-hour overlap simply as a compro-
mise.
In the case of the stationary fremen
I agree with the decision.
In the case of the street railway con-
struction workers I agree with the de-
cision.
In the case Of the Street and Electric
Railway Employees of America, Division
No. 205, agree with the decision OF the
board in so far as it concerns those
members who are not motormen, grip
men or conductors. I do not agree with
the statement that the evidence does
not show that the work Of the men
has become more onerous.
In the case of the platform men,
that is to say, the men employed as
motormen. gripmen and conductors. L
dissent from the award and from the
reasoning with which the award is
supported.
AssAILs PLATFORM DECISION
On page of the decision, line l.
and following, it is stated: Case of
the street and electric employees: This
case is complicated by the circum-
stance that written contract. con-
tanning, among a great variety Of
stipulations. explicit provisions in re-
gard to wages and hours of labor, had
been entered into between the union
and the company In January, 1906. for
a term of two years, extending from
May 1, 1905, to May 1, 1907"
In my Judgment the case of the car
uicu Is no more COulpilCdleQ Dy the
contract than is the case of the cleo
tricians. the stationary hremen or the
construction workmen. The four cases
came before the board on precisely
the same footing and under the same
agreement There is no satisfactory
reason to my mind why one of them
should be singled out for extraneous
complications.
AS matter Of fact this question arose at the
very first public meeting OF the board. Counsel
for the company claimed that the contract
ruled the proceedings and that we should de-
eide whether IL had been violated or not. Coun-
sci for the men strenuously repelled the idea
that the contract had anything to do with the
arbitration and IL recolect rightly stated that
his Clients would be foolish to go on with an
arbitration complicated with such conditions.
The board unanimously handed down a deci-
sion declaring that its powers were limited by
the agreement of September IS. 1906 to the
question Of hours and wages. An inspection Of
that agreement shows no mention Of the
tract The four unions so TO the arbitration
together and under the same conditions
Judging the case simply as moralist it is