The Connecticut labor news., 1924-09-20


 in effect for more than a year and that during that time the United Mine Workers of America had failed com pletely to carry out the provisions of said contract.
 As a matter of fact, the agreement
 of the Coal River Galleries with this organization was made on July 6, 1925,
 after a strike of one month and con- inclusive.
 This agreement, signed by Harry Leaberry, president, and Henry L. Porter, secretary-treasurer of the Coal River Galleries, contained a provision that all troubles or disputes failing of
 adjustment locally should be referred to the president of the United Mine Workers of America and Grand Chief Stone of the Brotherhood of Locomo- tive Engineers, or their personal rep resentatives, for final adjustment. Surely you must know that during the life of the aforesaid agreement no grievance, dispute, controversy or trou ble of any kind was ever referred for our mutual consideration under the aforegoing provisions of the agreement. Therefore, your charge of contract violation comes with poor grace.
 In your letter you state that you were exceedingly anxious to operate let +t, were willing to continue the payment of the present scale. In this matter you are manifestly misinformed. The representatives of the Coal River Col lieries have since the first of April consistently refused 10 renew their contract on the basis of the Jackson vile agreement Your local represen-
 tatives have insistently demanded that
 tions, and in the absence of our agree nent to such request your properties
 have been closed down and the men
 have been involved i'll a strike in the same manner as exists at the proper
 ties of other coal companies i'll West Virginia.
 There has never been a day since
 the first of April when your mines could not have started immediately If you had but attached your signature to an agreement based upon the Jackson vile policy. You are evidently familiar with this policy inasmuch as you refer
 to it in your communication. In order to be perfectly clear about the matter will say that the Jacksonville policy means an agreement for three years with no reduction in wages. You refer to the cost of production at your West Virginia properties. Your company occupies no different position in this matter than any other of the thousands of coal companies which have agreements with our or ganization. The United Mine Work CTS can not be responsible for prob lens of management in which they have no voice. The question of efficient management and low cost production to enable you to remain in the market with competing coal companies Is one that must be dealt with by your or ganization. It Is a problem that for ever confronts one who elects to be- come coal operator.
 I have paid particular attention to the statement contained i'll one ot the concluding paragraphs of your letter to the effect that you knew of no one doing as much as I to support the Coal Operators Association in their fight against our union in that field I scarcely expected to see such ster- eotyped statement from the pen of trade unionist 1 hear it every day from the coal operators in various parts of the country, and 1 will be fair enough ot presume that you were speaking as a coal operator and not as a trade unionist. It must be inter esting to have such dual personality You doubtless mean that the employees of the Coal River Galleries must ac- cept a reduction in wages. In this re- spect you are, therefore, supporting the claims which have been made by the West Virginia representatives of your corporation ever since April lst. I regret that your position is such that I must disagree with you, and yet 1t IS true that I have disagreed with many people in this country on that precise subject.
 An international convention of the United Mine Workers of America, with more than 1000 delegates participat- ing, has defined the wage policies of our organization, and can not devlate therefrom at the pleasure of the Coal River Galleries any more than at the request of other coal companies which