Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1924-08-08

CContinued from Page ~
grew it became less friendly in its
attitude, and finall2 in April, 1923,
refused to enter into any further
written agreements with the Bakers
Union in Springfield and in Holyoke,
Mass.
Repudiates Agreement
The local manager in Springfield,
while declaring that it was impossible
for him to renew an agreement and
attach his signature, was willing to
orally agree to maintain previous
shop conditions and pay the wages
scale desired, but shortly afterwards
the president of the corporation gave
an interview to the press, in which he
asserted that no written or oral
agreement would be had with trade
unionists. This statement, coupled
with the corporations developing
anti-union policy, led to a strike
against the Massachusetts, Baking
Company. The strikers picketed the
shop; they carried banners, and the
trade union movement locally estab-
lished a boycott.
The corporation took the usual
steps. It applied for a temporary
injunction, and to assure success it
employed Herbert A. Baker, a Bos-
ton attorney who had represented
corporations in Massachusetts, in a
number of most important injunction
cases which had been decided adj
versely to labor when carried to the
State Supreme Court. The striking
bakers Immediately applied to the
Springfield Central Labor Union for
assistance and advice, advice being
considered the most important in
view of the successive defeats which
Springfield trade unionists had met
with in the State Supreme Court
when appealing from the injunction
which had been issued in the two ia
nous local cases, those of the Moore
Drop Forge company and the Spring
field Foundry company. The Spring
field attorneys who had defended the
trade unionists in these two cases, adj
mitted that in view of the decisions
fthe highest court the prospects of
successful opposition to the issuing of
the injunction were non-existant.
New Method Found
The Central Labor Council APP
pointed a committee of which John
F. Gatelee was the chairman. Mr..
Gatelee, while business agent of the
Moving Picture Operators Union,
nevertheless, worked at his calling
each day, but he had found time to
make some study of the injunction
question, and to realize that the legal
methods which Springfield trade
unionists had adopted in the past to
protect their interests had been fruit
less of satisfactory results. He be-
lieved that under existing equity
court decisions it was practically i'm
possible to secure -even-handed JUS
tice.
He reached the conclusion that it
was a waste of money to again en-
ploy attorneys to represent the bak-
ers in an effort to prevent the issu-
ing of the injunction. His associates
agreed with him, and it was finally
decided that Mr.. Gatelee would APP
pear in court with the strikers; that
they would appear without counsel
and would notify the court that they
came without counsel because of their
conviction that counsel was of no
avail. 1t was not their intention,
however, to be silent as to their posi-
ton. They believed that the reasons
for their appearing without counsel
should be stated in difinite language,
and Mr.. Gatelee assumed responsible
ity for the preparation of a state
ment presenting their attitude and
their reasons, which would be placed
upon the judges bench as he pre-