Evening star., 1944-04-27
Government Seizure
|0f Wards C|imaxes
Four-Year Dispute

The seizure Of Montgomery Ward
by the Government climaxes fight
of more than four years between the
big mail-order house and the CIO
United Mail Order, Warehouse and
Retail Employees Union of the United
Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Employees of America over the
Question of collective bargaining
agreement.
As the result of an election for
which the CIO petitioned, the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board certi-
fed the CIO as bargaining agent for
the Schwinn warehouse-one of two
major Montgomery Ward units-in
August. 1910. In February, 1912
the union was certified for employees
of the mail-order house, the other
principal Chicago unit
The certifications were followed
by bargaining negotiations. AT
about the time the union was being
certified as bargaining agent at the
store, there was a disagreement ir
regard to the warehouse workers
and the union filed charges with
the Labor Relations Board, assert
ing that the company was not bar
gaining in good faith. An ex-
aminer, according to the board, held
hearing, but dismissed the conf
plant. He reported that the dis
agreement was over the substantive
terms OF the contract and did no,
involve a question of good faith by
the company.
Biddle Held in Error.
In his letter to President Roose-
velt declaring that the plant seizure
would be legal, Attorney General
Biddle said that the board found
the company had been guilty of un-
fair labor practices in connection
with the certification at the store
but it was said at the Labor Re!a-
tions Board today that the Attorney
General was in error on this point
After the dismissal of the unior
complaint, the management anc
union got together again, and agair
a deadlock ensued, with both the
store and warehouse involved. II
was at this juncture, June, 1912
that the Secretary Of Labor certified
the case to the War Labor Board.
In a chronological account of the
dispute, Mr.. Biddle recalled that the
Secretary of Labor said that unior
security, arbitration of grievance.
and seniority were the issues or
which the disputants had split.
The company Immediately chal.
lenged the Jurisdiction of the board
and insisted that no contractura.
agreement would be made covering
the three issues in dispute.
President Steps In.
On June %, 1912, Mr.. Biddle
continued, the board decided unani.
mously that the dispute might inter.
fere with the war effort If not peace
ably settled, and took Jurisdiction
A panel composed of industry
labor and public members heard the
case and issued two-part report
One dealt with wages and, wher
approved by the board, was accepted
by the company. Another called or
the company to include the contro-
versial provisions for union security
arbitration and seniority in ar
agreement. This, likewise was ap-
proved by the board, but rejected BY
the company, which said, however
that II the action was dictated by
President Roosevelt 1t would comply
President Roosevelt thereupor
directed compliance without further
delay"-this was November 18, 1916
and Sewell Avery, Montgomery
Ward chairman, while protesting
complied. The agreement became
effective December 8, 1912, and was
to be effective for a year. a
Recognition Refused. e.9
Prior to the expiration Of the con.
tract, the company notified the
union that 1t would not recognize
1t. nor negotiate a renewal of the
contract, contending that the unior
no longer represented a majority ol
the $500 employees in the warehouse
and store. Again the case was Ger.
titled to the War Labor Board b,
the Labor Department. A hearing
was held on an order followed or
last January 13, directing that the
contract should be extended for 81
days, without change, provided thai
the union within that period com.
menced proceedings before the Ma.
tional Labor Relations Board for 9
determination of the question.
1t was further provided that Il
the union complied, the contract