New-York tribune., 1921-12-11
Garment Union
Contract v old,
Say Employers
Workers Allowed Three-Year
Agreement to Lapse. Is
Manufacturers Defense
Against an Injunction
Many Shops Signing Up
Strike. Now a Month Old,
Is Forcing Concessions,
Its L ad ers Declare

skirt Manufacturers Protective ASsO-
citation to the complaint of tho Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers Union
that the association violated its three
year agreement with the union and
conspired to enforce piece work was
made yesterday to the unions attor-
neys. Argument on the unions in
junction will be made on Monday be-
fore Justice Robert F. Wagner.
The manufacturers make the general
contention that the agreement had
been abandoned by both sides and WAS
not in operation at the time resolu-
tions were adopted on October Is call
ing for . return to the piece work sys-
tenn. cutting OF wages and lengthen-
ing of hours.
They allege that in 1920 the union
officers failed to stop number of small
strikes, and that the clause calling for
adjustment of disputes ceased TO op-
crate; that complaints Of underproduc-
tfon were not remedied as agreed upon;
that the officers of the union were par
ties 30 certain shop strikes, and that
with these events and the employment
OF non-union workers in some shops
the agreement passed out of existence.
Manufacturers Long Reply
; The reply of the manufacturers is q
document of seventy-four printed
pages. About . dozen affidavits are at
tached to 1t, chief ones being those of
Louis Lustig, chairman of the execu-
tive COMMITTEES; of Saul Singer. former
president; Max Lachman, managing
director, and /. NJ. Getsky.
Morris Hillquit, attorney for the
union, said yesterday afternoon that
the reply had been delivered to him in
the morning, and that after examina-
tion he was Of the opinion that it was
heavier in physical weight than In ac-
tual substance.
In the affidavit Of Mr.. Lustig 1t is
stated that the union knew certain
strikes exisbed in 1920, and that, in
stead Of returning the people to work,
it evaded the issue, and thereby broke
the contract. This negligence was
failure on the part of the union, Mr..
Lustig said, to recognize the sanctity
of the agreement. He says further
that shook the women's garment indus
try and nullified the promise of Benja-
min Schlesinger, president of the
union. that q fair days work would
be given for fair days pay.
Mr.. Lustig then attempts to show
how the entire agreement fell into in
operation.
He states that by October, 1920, the
contract machinery for settling dis
putes stopped working entirely and
that no complaint was made by the
union when people were discharged by
the manufacturers.
On their side Mr.. Lustig states that
the manufacturers made no further
complaints of "soldiering" or Of any,
thing else.
Took On Nom Union Workers
Manufacturers began hiring workers
without inquiring as to their union
affiliations and some members Of the
association employed non-union work
ers openly, he says. The union refused
to put workers back where they had
walked out and offered both financial
and moral support to the strikers. he
alleges, and cites letter written by
the union on October 8, 1920, in sup
port Of this allegation.
The letter in question was in reply
to one from the manufacturers. It
offered to return all workers immedi-
ately if the manufacturers would re-
appear before Governor Smiths board
of arbitration fer a decision of what
it called the arbitrary Interpretation"
by the manufacturers of the boards
previous award. This offer the manu-
facturers did not accept.
Mr.. Singers affidavit states that from
conversations with union officials he
inferred the agreement had been aban-
doned by them:
The strike, which called $4,000 men
and women workers from the women's
garment factories, is four weeks old
tomorrow. During the last week 11O
shops, employing 1900 workers, signed
new contracts with the union. This
gives . grand total Of reopened shops