Evening star., 1947-02-26
Union Versus Union
Georgetown Hospital Dispute an Example of How
Jurisdictional Rows Hamper Building
By II. /. Kiefer


stall all interior metal trim such as
bucks, jambs, doors, castings, base,
cilair-rail, picture moulding. partitions
and all other material generally re-
ferred to as trim. -
st is further agreed that the install
lation of metal lockers. also the erec-
ton of ordinary plain metal shelving
shall be done by sheet metal workers.
ssA
"If any misunderstanding arises as to
the meaning or carrying out Of any OF
the provisions contained herein, the
matter shall be taken up with the
general presidents Of the two organiza-
tionS."
Trim" or Metal Work.
Mr. Gray's communication failed to
settle the dispute. The carpenters re-
iterated their claim that the lockers
and cabinets were classified as trim"
Therefore, they said, the job properly
was theirs, and they continued with
the installations.
The metal workers insisted that the
lockers and cabinets were Of metal, and
that the installations should be done
by them.
The executive committee of the sheet
metal workers local met the night of
January 2, upheld this stand and au-
thorized a strike. The authorization
was delivered the morning of January
after the workers were on the job.
They then were installing the building
ventilation system. which was about 80
per cent completed.
officials of the Standard Engineering
Co. said their first knowledge that
dispute had occurred was when they
received notification that the sheet
metal workers had quit
Mr.. Gray advised the contractors and
the unions involved that the controversy
would be referred to the general presi-
dents of the involved organizations.
They are Robert Byron, of the sheet
metal workers, with headquarters in
Washington, and William L. Hutcheson,
of the carpenters, who has headquarters
in Indianapolis.
Information as to what has happened
since that time is vague. Efforts to OBJ
tain reports from union sources on that
subject have been unsuccessful.
Inquiries at the Office of Mr.. Gray
have brought the reply either that he
was o'lt or in conference. Calls left for
him have brought no response.
Inquiries made at the sheet metal
workers local have been referred to
Mr.. Byron. Calls at Mr.. Byron's Office
brought the reply that he was not in,
and that persons in the Office did not
know when he would be in. Telephone
numbers have been left there with the
request that Mr.. Byron, or any one else
familiar with the dispute, call The Star.
There have been no calls.
No Dispute, Say Carpenters.
Calls to the Carpenters District
Council brought the reply that, so far
as the carpenters were concerned
there was no dispute and therefore,
nothing to discuss. The carpenters
were working on the installations, and
that seemed to be that.
Efforts also we're made to contact Mr..
Hutcheson while he was in Washington
on union business last week. Requests
left for him to call back brought no
response.
However, the contractors said they
were advised at various times that ef-
forts were being made to bring Mr..
Byron and Mr.. Hutcheson together to
discuss the controversy.
For about two weeks during January,
they and Mr.. Gray were in Miami at
tending the meeting of the AFL execu-
tive council. Both were reported to
have been in Washington last week.
But If efforts to bring them together
have been successful, contractors say
they have not been advised of it. They
have been informed, they report that
when either Mr.. Byron or MIR. Hutcheson
has been available the other was not.
The metal workers expressed willing
ness to return tomorrow under "com-
promise whereby neither they nor the
carpenters would work on the lockers,
pending settlement of the dispute. But
the carpenters union said it knew of
no compromise agreement.
So there the matter stood more than
seven weeks after the sheet metals
walked off the job.
Contractors say that, as far as they
could learn, the situation was exactly
where it was when the strike started,
with nothing to indicate when 1t might
be settled.