The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-03-24
ROES GIVEN
FAIR DEAL BY
R.LABOR BOARD
sion Discrirninates
gainst 'Trainrnen
~ LELAND ODDS.

.ated Press Industrial Editor.)
u. S. railroad labor boards
n sustaining the right of the
uis San Francisco railroad to
ainate against certain train
employees simply because they
,lored and unorganized is con-
d by A. 0. Wharton, labor's
active member of the board, in
enting opinion. He finds it in
ehensible that a tribunal created
,ngress to deal out justice to
rs irrespective of their race,
or nationality should reach
a decision on the evidence pre-
/.
Unfair to Negroes.
evidence shows, according to
ton, ''that the carrier has ar
" disregarded the rights of
employees and reclassified their
without changing their duties;
it has reduced their rates of pay
established less favorable work
conditions because they are col
men and for no other reason.
IS sought to establish a separate
distinct class based solely on the
that they are of the Negro race
ad of the white race"
lie case involves 145 passenger
emen whom the board describes
ollows: ":The employees involved
his dispute are colored men and
'eb. /, 1921, the effective date Of
wage reduction complained OF
were unorganized. Up to the
] of the hearing of this case they
still unorganized and their COM
1T is submitted by 100 (or more)
rganized employees in accordance
provision of the transportation
Barred From Union.
n account of their color these en-
res are ineligible to membership
he Brotherhood of Railroad Train
1. Prior to the war the carrier
< advantage of this fact to classify
N as train porters altho they were
uired to perform the duties of
senger brakemen. In this way the
was able to evade the
cement with the trainmea and to
these colored employees a lower
re.
Government control changed this
lation. The U. S. railroad admin
alton defined the duties of pas
ger brakemen and ordered that
ored trainmen performing those
les should be so designated and
d the same rate Of wages as white
n in the same capacities. The
d then classified these colored en-
yes as passenger brakemen and
d them accordingly.
n 1921 the labor board confirmed
conditions established by the rail-
d administration subject to change
Y by agreement between manage
mt and representatives chosen by
majority of any class of employees.
specified that such agreements
iuld apply without discrimination
all the craft Of class covered.
Railroad Cuts Pay.
The st. Louis-San Francisco rail-
ID disregarded this order Of the
ard and on Feb. 1, 1921, arbitrar-
feclassified its colored brakemen
train porters. 1t thereupon cut
liz pay to $3.50 a month based on
hours work. The carried admits
t no change was made in their
lies.
Representatives of the employees
scted made two efforts to get the
'rier to conform to the conditions
ablished by the authority of the
lrd and then on July 6, 1921, sub
tied the case for the boards con-
Grafton. The fact that decision in
h case involving the major prin-
les of race discrimination was de-
ed for more than two and half
hrs is itself a commentary upon
5 government tribunal.
112 Trsinmen coereed.
Evidence presented in the case
wed that subsequent to the SUBJ
tied to the submission 112 colored
inmen were individually coerced
o signing an agreement to accept
conditions established by the rail-
ID in violation of its agreement
n the trainmen. In spite of the
t that they later sent signed state
nts to the board repudiating this
cement as made under coercion,
majority board members took this
unhealthy as an excuse for refus-
to right clear cut wrong against
ir own decision, the transporta-
n act and the constitution itself.