The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1918-11-07

question of wages only, could not law
fully and properly deal with the sub
ject of>the eight hour day and collec-
tive bargaining, and that as a guar
antee to all manufacturers with whom
the board may have future dealings,
such ruling should be frankly
made If the board had cared to
take up such questions in a mediatory
capacity. the manufacturers were en-
titled to notice to that effect, but such
questions should not be grated onto
this limited arbitration proceeding
without warning. The manufacture
ers of Bridgeport have been denied
their day in court on the all-import-
ant subjects of collective bargaining
and the eight hour day, and the exac-
ton of back pay on an eight hour ba-
sis is to them nothing short of confis-
cation.
While the extreme tension of af-
fairs led the manufacturers to accept
the award with it's extraneous provis-
ions, they now protest against the ex-
aminer's rulings in respect thereto in
the following particulars:
% Ruling 8, that the eight hour
provision shall be retroactive as 10
punitive compensation Is erroneous.
No question of the eight hour day was
submitted to the board, and the award
on this point being outside of the
submission the board cannot properly
penalize the manufacturers for work
ing over time when it was lawful and
proper for them so to do. Some of
worked over time If they had known
that it meant a so per cent. wage
| increase.
No tribunal can lawfully modify the
executed wage contracts between en-
ployer and emp1oye Dor the past ex-
| cept in so far as such modification
came within the lawful submission to
the boardd.
! By comparison with the language
used as to the effective date of the
wage schedule, the language of the
award as to the eight hour day clear
ly imports that it is not to be retroac-
tive.
While the principle of collective
bargaining has been accepted, it is still
important to determine in detail the
particular mechanism to be adopted
for that purpose, and the employers
and employees who are most vitality
concerned should have voice in this
matter, rather than leaving it, as the
ruling indicates, to the sole direction
of the examiner. This opportunity
can be afforded them through their
representatives on the local Commu-
Unity Board and if these representa-
tfves cannot agree among themselves
as to the best course to be pursued,
the points at issue can then be taken
before the board of determination. In
this way parties having divergent in
terests will be heard, with a thorough
consideration of the advantages and
disadvantages of every suggestion.
/ go Ruling 8, that the local board
is authorized to create specialized
craft or other boards to work out
craft problems, such as classification
and minimum rates, is erroneous. The
award denied classification and mini
mum wage, and that question is fore
closed at least until Feb. 1, 1919, when
the parties may under some circum-
stances reopen the case before the
arbitrators." In order that the pro-
ceedings of the board shall inspire
faith, its awards must be enforced as
binding adjudications, and this mus
hold good as to all adjudicated ques-
lions whether they result in the grant
ing or denial of any demand.
I The questions of classification and
minimum wage were the two mos
highly controversial factors in the
general wage question, and wer,
largely responsible for the trouble
that arose in Bridgeport. Throughout
this proceeding these questions were
uppermost and it was to secure theil
settlement and allay the controversial
telling growing out of them that the
matter was submitted to this board
If this bone of contention still exists
the action of the board has missed it:
chief aim. The award being a specific
denial of the request for classification
and minimum wage, it is submit r
that no authority exists to revive the
issue
a. Ruling 6, that the examiner
. shall investigate all charges Of dis
elimination and, if sustained, rein
i. state the employees, is erroneous. 1