Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-09-26

cation was in it's infancy ana the pur-
lpose of the language contained there
lin, wherein it says 1T is not the IN
ltention OF this provision to encourage
the discharge of employees or the re-
fusal of employment to applicants pc
Icause Of personal prejudice or ACTIVITY
in matters affecting the U. M. w. A."
was put there for the purpose OF pro-
Itecting men who were doing organ
LIKING work, etc. !,
IN connection with this Will say
THAT that contention is not well
founded, for the reason that Resolu-
ton No. for the contract years Ell
Elective from April 1, 1900 to April !,
3I19O2, gave the operators the absolute
right to employ whom they chose with
out our having any right to raise the
question that at times our active mem
lbers were Disseminated against When
1.-The company refused them employ
ment on account of personal pre1u-
dice or activity in matters affecting
our organization.
| The language as now contained IN
| Resolution No. 5 of the Des MONIES
agreement was first incorporated IN
our Joint agreement for the contract
/ period effective from April /, 1902 to
April 1. 1908. and that language mas
4 been carried forward In each succeed
ing agreement, hence it is evident that
that language was not put there for
the purpose which the operators now
claim it was, for the reason that our
organization was firmly esta blished at
the time they agreed to that being In
corporated in our contract, and 1t was
placed there for the very reason that
We knew there were instances where
our people were being Disseminated
against as hereinbefore mentioned.
We are only asking what Is fair In
this instance, to have disputes growing
out Of that resolution taken Tp and
adjusted in the regular way We have
never claimed nor we don't claim now
that the operator must employ each
applicant for work in the order OF
his application. To do this would
be extremely unreasonable and unw1se
upon our part under our agreement.
Neither would we as executive Off
GERS, raise the question of employment
of any of our members unless enough
evidence was adduced in the individ-
ua1 cases that are brought to our at
tention to warrant lis in taking the
matter up with the operators on the
grounds of discrimination.
In 1905, John Mitchell, who was
then international president of the
United Mine Workers organization,
stated that we could not compel an
operator to employ a man whom he
did not want, provided of course that
his refusal to employ the man was
not the result of prejudice of mans
activity in the union.
In 1908, the joint board of miners
and operators of district No. Is had
resolution No. of the Des Moines
agreement up for consideration and
they placed the following interpreta-
ton thereon, viz: I'm the employment
of men the operators right to hire or
refuse to hire at their own discretion
shall not be questioned except that no
man shall be refused employment on
account of matters affecting the I'M
ion.' This Interpretation is signed
by the officers of both the associations
at that time. Among them, John P.
Reese. former president of the Iowa
Coal Operators association and e. G.
Smith, who is now president Of the
Iowa Coal Operators association and
who now refused to agree to submit
the question in dispute to arbitration,
Notwithstanding the fact that the in
depreciation of resolution No. 5, as l
have just mentioned, states specifical-
ly that no man shall be refused en-
ployment on account of activities in
matters affecting the union, and in the
light of that interpretation we feel
justified in demanding that we have
the right to determine in individual
I, Ind yy;1
bers are being Disseminated against.
AS further evidence that this is not
a new question raised by the execu-
tive board, want to say that ques-
ton of similar character arose in dis
trict No. in the block coal field,
Indiana, and it was decided by the !
miners and operators in that district
that when the district president could |
not settle with the president of the
Coal Operators association, that they |
would bring all cases that showed
traces of discrimination to the atten-
ton of the proper officers, and also to
the Joint board for final action.
I have mentioned these things in
order that the people may know that
we are not raising new issue, or a
new question. We know that we have
certain rights under the Des Moines
agreement and we want to maintain |
those rights peaceably if we can. II
we must fight to maintain those rights |
then we will because we realize that
in the last analysis, the perpetuity OF
our organization rests in protecting
our active members from persecution
and determinations on the part of the !
employer. For many years in the past
our organization has by reasonable
reason maintained comparative peace
with our employers. That peace has
been maintained to the benefit of the
employer, the employe and the pub
lie. Peace that was secured to the
mutual interest of all parties concern
ed when we were dealing with broad
liberal minded men who were big
enough to meet the situation that they
found confronting them. Unfortunately
such is not the condition today. In
other words, the Iowa Coal Operators
association is not willing to meet us
on that fair broad basis that they have
in the past and that has so character