The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-12-17

bridge and building painters employ
Western. Five years after the case v
tenance Of way brotherhood and four y
refused to carry out the decision the
board now decides to let the railroad
have its way.
situation Has Changed"
The maintenance of way brother
hood made many attempts to have the
board censure the railroad for refus-
ing to obey the original decision and
subsequent ones to the same effect
But the board delayed two years in
answering the unions final letter
This long interval gave the manage
ment chance to undermine the in
fluence of the union.
When the case was revived the rail
road was able to reply ut since the
original decision ''the situation on the
Lackawanna railroad so far as 1t af-
fects the painters in question, has
been materially changed These paint
ers are no longer represented by the
United Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employees but are and since
April II, 1923, have been represented
by the Federation of Mechanics &
Helpers of the Engineering Depart
ment." ~
The abandonment by the painters
in question of the real union was ap-
parently the only new evidence on
which the railroad and public repre-
sentatives on the board, voting solid
ly against the labor members, rescird-
ed the former decisions and let the
road and its company union have it's
way.
Too Raw for Wharton Even.
This action is denounced in a dis
senting opinion by A. o. Wharton,
formerly president of the shop crafts
federation and now a labor represent
alive on the board. Wharton says,
"On Nov. 20, 1925, or five years and
fifteen days after receipt of this dis
pute, and after four times sustain
ing the contention of the employees,
the board, without the introduction
of any evidence not in it's possession
at the time the first decision was rem
dered, adopted decision completely
reversing its previous decisions"
The original case involved the ap-
plication to maintenance of way paint
ers of the Is cent increase contained
in the labor boards 1920 decision.
The board decided March 4, 1921 that
the Is cent increase applied to the
rates paid these painters on March
| 1, 1920. The railroad contended that
on March 1, 1920, it was paying these
painters a higher rate than prevailed
for similar work on other roads and
that the Is cent increase shouldsibe
applied to rates parallel with those
paid by the other roads. 1t refused,
on this ground, to carry out the de,
cision. -e@e.
Jockey for Time. sidp
After hearing the railroads state
ment of the case the board again de-
cided Dec. 8, 1921, that the railroad
must pay these painters in accord
ance with it's previous decision. On
April IA, 1922, the employees submit
ted detailed evidence of the roads
failure to apply the decision.
The railroad again submitted its ar
gument and the board again replied
that the only legal course was for
the management to apply the deci-
sion and thereafter, if it wanted a
change, to create a dispute and bring
the matter to the board.
Meanwhile, the Union Dies.
The road continued its refusal, the
union wrote the board asking that
the management be cited for disobedi
ence, but the records show that this
letter was not even acknowledged.
Not until two years later did the
board make an inquiry, reverse itself
and sanction the roads defiance.
In other words, in the course Of
the boards delay the railroads Undue
ed these painters to leave the real
union and join the company union
The board helped the management
demonstrate to maintenance men that
decisions make no difference when
hey favor a real union. The boards
policy fostered the company union.