Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-08-02
WAGE ARBITRATION
FOR D. c. REJECTED
BY COMMISSIONERS
Cannot Delegate Their Own
Powers, Their Reply to
Labor ConciIiators.
"CHARGED UNDER LAW
WITH RESPONSIBILITIES"
Plan for Selection of Referees Had
Been Accepted by Head OF
City Employees.

lily Employees.
suggestion to arbitrate the con-
Sroversy between the Commissioners
of the District and the City Employees
Association, whose president. Joseph
II. Hurley, claims that 2,400 per diem
workers of the District in the water,
sewerage and garbage departments
will walk out by Tuesday night,
tying up the systems, unless settle
ment is made. was turned down to-
day by the Commissioners.
In addition, it vas pointed out by
legal experts at the District building
Court of the United States decided
that the Commissioners were not al
lowed to arbitrate matters Affecting
congressional appropriations The
case involved was the arbitration or
a street paving contract, and IT was
contested through the courts until
the final decision was made upon II
by the Supreme Court.
Cancellation Board Letter.
A letter from the Department OF
Labor board of conciliation, composed
OF Acting Secretary Roland B. Ma
hany, John B. CoIpoys and Walter q.
Davidge, was presented to the board
noon. The letter reads:
THE suggestion is made, which we
heartily indorse, that the controversy
now in progress regarding the wage
scale of the city employees be referred
to board of arbitration, to be COM
posed of three reputable citizens Of
the District of Columbia. none of them
connected with the District govern
ment or having membership in the
employees association. This board to
be selected in the following manner:
One member nominated by the Dis
trfct Commissioners, one member
terminated by the employees associa-
tion and the third to be selected by
the two thus nominated The de-
cision of these arbitrators to be bind
ing and their report to be handed in
by Tuesday night" 49, :
City Enaployes' Head Approves
This plan was agreed ostby Rfesi-
Hssselas1aa asns haF1sy sis Fl the SIX ss
later placed before the District Conn
1nissioners. The Commissioners issued
the following statement:
"The Commissioners of the District
Of Columbia are charged under the
law with certain duties and respon-
sibilities which they cannot delegate.
To agree in advance to abide by an
award Of a board of ofarbitration Affect
ing the expenditure of public funds
would be to attempt an improper and
illegal delegation ofothe powers of the
assent on the part"of. the Commits
sioners to any scheme for arbitration
of the wage scale is impossible"
Reply to Commissioners.
Mr. Mahany. Mr.. Colpoys and Mr.
Davidge, at the Department of Labor
this morning, authorized the follow
ing reply to assertions of the District
(oyn rvaj0 al onerS-
The proof of the Commissioners
agreement that the wage scale of the
navy yard should be the standard for
the per diem employees of the District
ago. Immediately on the conclusion of
negotiations to this end. that wage
scale was at once put into operation
by Commissioners Brownlow and
Knight; that on the 1st of July.
1919, when the navy yard scale was
reduced by the elimination of the
S12o bonus, the Commi ssioners again
applied this standard to the per diem
employees and reduced their wages to
that degree. And the Commi ssioners
who thus confirmed the existence OF
the Navy yard wage scale as an adopt
ed standard were Louis Brownlow
and Col. Charles W. Kutz. The acts
of the Commissioners are conclusive
without the necessity of any words
upon the subject"
Although the offer for arbitration
was decided upon Saturday night
following the meeting of the city en-
ployes. the formal shaping of the
official letter did not take place until
today at a conference between the
three conciliators. 1t is regarded a.
their final step in the matter.
In accepting the arbitration as &
solution of the controversy, President
hurley of the City Employees Asso.
citation today said:
We are perfectly willing to place
the matter before a reputable boart
of arbitration as suggested. Thi:
would coincide with the principles by
which We abide. The suggestion i:
cooperate and pledge ourselves to b,
bound by the decision
Tomorrow Nights Meeting.
This win bring the controversy to &
head at tomorrow nights meeting ot
the city employees At that time, un
less some action is taken within tn,
next thiry-six hours. vote will bt
taken for a strike. Officials of the as.
sociation declare that such a strike
viii cripple the water and sewera q,
departments of the District and vii
paralyze other departments depend
ent upon day labor. including the sur.
garbage and disposal departments
trees and parking department. the re
pair shops and other minor systems.
The Commissioners last night jssuet
a statement in which they chare,
that the utterances by Mr.. Mahany O
the Department of Labor before tn,
meeting Of city employees Saturda
night, regarding the breaking o
faith by the Commi ssioners with theil
employees. was 'unqualifedly false.
Mr.. Mahaney and other members O
the board of conciliation TO-DAY au
thorized reply to this statement.
is as follows: Tuesday night is ne
for a showdown. Since week az,
Saturday night the city has bee,
faced with a threat to strike and +,
tie up the systems of public conyen
it nee. The Commissioners stand i,
the matter is that sihce the estab
lishment of municipal wage board
they are not bound to adhere soIel,
to the navy yard scale as a basis TO
District per diem pay. The navy var,
scale. since July 1. grants an increas
of 76 cents per day to per diem labor
ers. The wage board of the Distric
authorized an increase amounting OF
an average to 40 cents per day to tn
same class of labor.
The City Employees Association
holds that the navy yard scale mus
he rigidly adhered to, basing tn
claim upon the statement of the lat
Brig. Gen. Knight made two year
ago while Engineer Commissioner, an,
on later statements of Commission
ers Kutz and Brownlow.
To the question:: why do you no
abide by the navy yard wage scale l?
the Commissioners reply with an