Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-12-13
SQUIRE GLUCKMAN
| DECIDES R. R. CASES
Made Awards in the Suits
Brought by Penna. R. R.
Shopmen.

0TOpittoIs
After nearly two months OF deliber-
alton. Magistrate Barnet Gluckman
today. rendered his decision In the
suits instituted against the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Co. by Charles Martin.
Harry q. vandcrgrift and Frank
Toner. employees st the Todds Cut
shops. as the result of an alleged
wage dispute. The decision follows.
"The aforesaid plaintiffs brought
suit I'm this court against the defend
ant to recover the sums OF S4i.s0.
SAL 80 and S33.2S, respectively, alleged
to be due them az wages for services
performed. At the hearing of these
cases before me, on November 11.l92l.
evidence adduced at the hearing APP
peared To bo as follows Plaintiffs
claim that they were engaged to do
work for the defendant corporation
under a certain written agreement In
various positions, hut under the same
Grade II. at the Wilmington shops. in
which agreement each of the defend
ants agree as follows:
nfifRN HliHiN lpl a ltSlAlNn
as mechanic, Grade Il. at Will
mington shops, and II employed
agree to accept the piece work
system of payment FOR work per-
formed and also agree to accept
the regulations, rate schedule and
graded work classification for the
government of mechanics. helpers
and apprentices I'm the mainten-
ance of equipment department OF
the PENNSYLVANIA System, Eastern
Region, effective August |, 1921.
have received copy of the
above regulations.
Charles Martin, one of the plain
tiffs claims that he signed that con
tract by mark, without understand
ing the contents of the contract. an'
that nothing OF the nature of the piece
way, excepting that they said some
thing about piece work which he hai
been hearing talked about, before an,
after, but that he did not know that h
was to work on piece work, at tn
time thst he made the mark to tina
agreement The foreman of the de
fendant corporation Clains that he di'
inform the plaintiff of the nature o
/ the work to bo performed. but his tes
timony is without confederation
/ Therefore. the evidence as Is befor
me is that of one against the other.
/ AS To Nandegrift. ne, too admit
nuving signed that agreement, and, al
/ though he signed il. II was not eN
plainod To him, that he was to worl
] -. hn
weeks that he worked. after signi
said contract, he was paid Ivy III
/ defendant corporation at the rate q
80 cents pcr hour. as per schedule !
and he disclaims any knowledge q
having heen informed by the foreman
as the foreman testified, that he ha
notified the gang, among whom wa
the plaintiff. that beginning with tn
accond half Of that month. they wer
10 work piece work In this cas-
too. there is no Corrohoratihn on tn
defendants part OF having given nC
ltice.
'In the ease of Frank Toner.
IL ppears from the evidence. that /
started to work for the defendant co,
potation after signing the aforesai
agreement az the time when the var
Gus forcmen of the different depar
tments, where the plaintiffs work, claiI
o. 90 have notified their gangs that II
work they were to perform would !
luiece work, for which period OF TN
this suit is brought.
"In my Judgment each of the'
cases is rnder different status.
The case Of Charles Martin, somctim'
known as. Charles Marko. from II
evidence cannot but conclude TIN
he was not fully aware of the, CO,
tents Of the agreement which he sigi
ed by mark; therefore, -here was !
meeting Of minds. as is required in
contract to be binding. |. therefor
hold that he is entitled TO all Il
money that he expected 10 get. To W
- cents per hour, which amounts
S41e0
In the case Of Harry G.. Vande
grift. believe that he was aware th
he was going to work piece work son
| time, and had the railroad compai
raid him from the time of the sig
ing of his contract, even the first "
weeks. at tho rate e piece work,
would be bound to accept a like ~
> for the second half of that month. HI
{ ne continued working without prote
? Since the railroad company paid hi
the first two weeks at the rate
fifty-two cents per hour, as Is :;
price graded in sChe iule Y, of [
{ regulation. rate schedule and grad
work classification for the governme
, of mocha mics. helpers and Gpprentic
/ In the maintenance of equipment d
! par,ment and not having pr1duc
I colroboi alive evidence that at the /
| ginning ot the second wccl he ~
notified that henceforth he would
paid piece work, and the defenda
hoe having explained 10 tho plaint
in the first place. the reason for pa
: ing him 50 cents per hour and not
, piece work price as per contract. It
: but reasonable TO assure that kt CO
: tlnued to Wort, the second half of I
month. the period for which he is $
-, ing, at the same rate that he was ps
o for the first part of that month.
q therefore. hold that he is entitled
( receive at the Iate OF 30 cents /
d hour, S4l.6o, the amount he is sui
for.
"As TO the case of Frank Toner,
having started TO work under the CO
tract, having previously received
pay. ! hold that nc was aware that
- signed the agreement TO work unc
piece work. and the agreement shol
- be inviolate. /, therefore, adjudge n
: he receive the amount s1s.4i. claim
by the defendant To be due him unt
said contract"
80 Another Elk Landed.