Cornell University Library HD 5650.N3 a orks via in the wii HITT ii | ‘ i HN ANIM HANA HNL INL {||| Hi| iM) ANT | WII Hi | \} WI ‘Il 3 1924 002 708 3 i » e < * o X\ 4 t % * * ; y THE MARTIN P. CATHERWOOD LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY WORKS COUNCILS IN THE UNITED STATES Researcu Report NuMBER 21 OcTOBER, 1919 Copyright 1919 NationaL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BoarpD eT 15 Beacon STREET Boston, Mass. ‘ i very + Digitized by Microsoft® This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation with Cornell University Libraries, 2007. You may use and print this copy in limited quantity for your personal purposes, but may not distribute or provide access fo it (or modified or partial versions of it) for revenue-generating or other commercial purposes. Digitized by Microsoft® eye Ay am Ny, CONTENTS Forewnrn n the light of the discussions at the recent Indus- il Conference at Washington, D.C., the accom- aying report on ‘‘Works Councils in the United ites” is of peculiarly timely interest. The report bodies the results of a comprehensive study of rks Councils in 225 American industrial establish- ants. Their experience is of great value in furnish- sinformation for establishing a practical approach personal contact between management and zkers in each industrial establishment. The introductory chapter gives a concise statement the essential character of Works Councils; Chapter reviews the results of experience with them as ius far recorded; Chapter VII presents a broad immary of the entire movement. The intervening 1apters contain a brief historical survey of the forks Council movement and a large amount of etailed information setting forth the various types f Works Councils and important facts as to their rganization, constitution, and methods of pro- edure. The information in general is brought down to ugust 1, 1919, since which date many additional Vorks Councils have doubtless been established. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD 3oston, Massachusetts Ictober, 1919. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® oy N 2) GA CONTENTS PAGE Forrtworp ae 3; at plate testes) . vii I. Inrropuction . . Sees 1 EssenTIAL Nature OF ae CounciLs 1 Score or tHE INVESTIGATION ........... 8 II. Evoiutrion anp History or Worxs CouNcILs IN THE Unrrep STATES . 4 IlJ. Tue Distrisution or Worxs Counciis . 13 Location oF EsTaBLISHMENTS WirH Works Councits . 13 DIsTRIBUTION BY STATES a Sng tay ot gs PONG! DistTRIBUTION BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY . . at 14 DistTrRiBuTION BY INDUSTRIES . 14 ConpiTions IN EsTABLISHMENTS WITH Works Councits 15 DistriBuTION BY S1zE oF EsTABLISHMENT oe we sho DistrRiBUTION witH Respect To TypE oF Man- AGEMENT 3% 5 #8 sa ¢aa 16 DisTRIBUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPORTION OF Mate Emp.Loyvess . . : 16 DisTRIBUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPORTION OF Non-Enc.iisH-SPEAKING EMPLOYEES. ; 17 DistRIBUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPORTION OF SKILLED WoRKERS . ; : ote ede AE DisTRIBUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENT OF TrapE UNIONISM ; etnies 17 IV. OrGanizaTion . coed 19 Two PrINcIPAL neu OF Waske CounciL A 19 Tue “GovERNMENTAL” TYPE. . ini oe 19 Tue “ComMITrEE” TYPE : 4 me 4% 20 CoNSTITUTION. . . . ! : san ah ae sat 20 Sincte Worxs Councits . fy : ~ 2. 21 ELecrep aT LarGE.... oe irae, & 21 SincL—E Worxs CouncILs Hevenen BY DeEpart- MENTS oR VotinG Divisions. ........ 22 i Digitized by Microsoft® CONTENTS— continued PAGE Works Councits Basep upon Drivisionau ComMIT- TEES... . ba Ee ae Rs Be OE Works Paereins Coker BY THE ecGuetae MEMBERSHIP OF THE DivisIoNAL ComMMITTEES 28 Works Councits ConsTITUTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DivistonAL CoMMITTEES....... 29 Works Councits ELecrep By DivisionAt Commir- THES 4. a a ace Ge Dw ae ew eee ee OL ProcEDURE AND Extent oF AuTHoRITY ...... 38 SETTLEMENT BY NEGOTIATION Be Sees 26 « 85 SETTLEMENT By Joint Councits .... ... 86 SETTLEMENT BY JorInT MEETINGS : . . 88 SETTLEMENT BY SPECIAL CoMMITTEES ...... 48 SumMary ... as oe Fs : oe ee we eB ELections os RR eR 2 x « AB QUALIFICATIONS OF S Virrisde be, Bele af ay a CAS. QuauiFicaTIONs oF Empioyvrres’ REPRESENTA- TIVES sh Ge Si ats dae ost fe 48 . 46 Mertuops or Evection ..... 2... 48 TERM OF OFFICE . : Bag 1s : oh Ree 51 REFERENDUM AND RECALL. . . es 51 MEETINGS ‘ aw : em a oe @ 102 MiscELLANEOUS PROVISIONS . . . . een 54 ProrecTion oF EmpiLoyees’ REPRESENTATIVES Acainst DiscrimtNaTION . ey ties CH 54 Guaranty or INDEPENDENCE... . he 54 ComPENSATION oF Counci. MemBers ...... 55 InpustriaL Retations DEPpaRTMENTS oes 56 V. Functions anp Activities or Worxs Councius . 57 Soctat anp RecreationaL AcTIVITIES bar ah. ‘ 58 Livinc anp WorxinG ConpiTIons . . MS vie 59 SoctaL WELFARE OF EMPLOYEES g) emp oe a 160 InpustriaL BETTERMENTINTHE PLANT. sed ae (62) Workinc ConpiTIONS IN THE PhanT ...., 64 Terms oF EMPLOYMENT. . ae eee. 66 REMUNERATION AND Hours oF Worx a ode Mel . 67 Direction of THE Worxinc Force ... . . 69 Sor Discipuine, Hirinc, Promotion anp Dis= CHARGE. . Bt ee ie Aa ae Yee cia? Copa aes a ee pee dy ee Se EG Digitized b}*Microsoft® CONTENTS — continued PAGE DIVUTION a eae ee as ke a ek we es ee REGULATION OF APPRENTICESHIP ..... +e... 72 SELECTION OF FoREMEN ........2eee0 @2 Co-oPERATIVE AND ConstrucTIVE AcTIVITIES ..... 73 Time-KeepPing .... .......2..... 74 EPITOME . : Se ok : Sy. ip aie fare fo eae Jee. cede ga VI. ExprriENce wita Works CounciLs. . : .. 5 ExprRIENCE ACCORDING TO THE TYPE oF Pran .... 76 War Lasor Boarp CoMMITTEES .. 16 Inactive ComMMITTEES . a .. 76 ComMITTEEs OF LimiTED ACTIVITY . a3 80 Active ComMiTTEESs ‘ eo. oe 84 SuipsuiItpING Lasor ApjusTMENT Boarp CommitT- TEES . eo OS Ue : 87 Worxs Councits INITIATED BY EMPLOYERS 94 “LimiTrED” Works CouNcILs 6. Be 95 “Company Unions”. « 97 “InpustRIAL Democracy” PLans ...... 98 OrtHEeR Forms or Employer Pans . j 100 SumMaryY oF EXPERIENCE . . . 106 ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS ; ; 107 CHARACTER OF REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN . . - 109 Worxs Councits anp ArrirupeE or Workers . . lll Worxs Councits anp Lasor Dirricutties . . . 112 Works Councits anp Lasor TURNOVER . . 113 Worxs Councils AND OUTPUT . . . . 113 Works Councits IN RELATION TO TRADE Unionism 113 EpIroME . ones Eee a ete ele ce TS VII. Generat SUMMARY ’ wy se hs . 116 EpiroMeE 126 APPENDIX TABLES. . . She hee bom ae we an ye 129 Aprenpix I. List or InpusrrRiaL Concerns Havine A Form or Employee REPRESENTATION... . . 129 Aprenpix II. Bristiocrarpny: Booxs — Periopicats 133 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF TABLES PAGE TaBLE 1: Distribution of Works Councils by States . .. 1B Taste 2: Distribution of Works Councils by Industries . . 14 Tas.E 3: Distribution of Works Councils by Size of Establish- ment: «0m @ © @ Mw RA ee es be ik ; feo 15 Tapte 4: Numbers of Works Councils Classified According to their Origin, and to Questions of Hours of Work and Remun- eration Dealt With, Singly or in Groups, by Each Class of Works Council «2. 2... ee, bolt 67 Tape 5: Personal Record of Employees’ Representatives in Plants of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation ...... 110 Digitized by Microsoft® Foreword OF the numerous current plans for improving the relationship between employers and their employees and for increasing the efficiency of industrial production, few are attracting more widespread interest than that for securing to employees a voice in the adjustment of working conditions through the instrumentality of committees or councils. This movement is variously referred to by such terms as “Employee Representation,” ‘‘Democracy in Industry,” ‘Shop Committees,” or “Works Councils.” The accompanying report presents a description and analysis of this form of industrial organization as it exists today in the United States. In view of the fact that experience has been comparatively brief, the present report does not aim to present conclusions, but merely to record in an impartial manner the developmental stages of a movement which has arrested the attention of industry and the general public. This report is, therefore, not intended to express the opinion of the National Industrial Conference Board on the desirability or efficacy of Works Councils. More extended experience with this form of industrial organiza- tion will furnish a more reliable basis for judgment. vil Digitized by Microsoft® 2 A Digitized by Microsoft® Works Councils in the United States I INTRODUCTION Up to the period of the war the Works Council! was practically unknown either in the United States or in Great Britain. While the number of establishments having Works Councils today is still relatively small, at the present time such organizations are known to exist in this country in more than 200 establishments employing about 500,000 workers,’ and their organization has pro- gressed even more rapidly in Great Britain. The recent growth in the number of Works Councils, as well as the importance of their aims, gives to the study of this form of industrial organization a timely and vital interest. EssentiaL Nature or Works Councits The Works Council may be described as a form of industrial organization under which the employees of an individual establishment, through representatives chosen by and from among themselves, share collectively in the adjust- ment of employment conditions in that establishment. ‘The Works Council is intended as one means of satisfying the desire of the worker for a share in the adjustment of his work conditions; as a means of lessening labor difficul- ties, of allaying industrial unrest, of increasing productive efficiency; and as an opportunity for informing employees 11t is believed that the term “Works Council” best describes this new form of industrial organization. The expressions “democracy in industry” and “employee representation” obviously are too generic in that they designate the movement and not the specific form which it has assumed. The name “shop committee” is misleading in that the works and not the shop is the real unit of organization. Moreover, it does not distinguish between “employee repre- sentation,” “trade union,” or technical shop committees. The term “Works Council” appears to be properly inclusive as well as definite and exact, and is therefore used in the accompanying report. 2 Estimate based on Table 3, page 15. 1 Digitized by Microsoft® ae fg on production, technical and economic questions. | It provides, in the individual establishment, an organized form of contact between the employer and his employees. Works Councils vary widely in their form and in the scope of their activities, but one characteristic is common to all, namely, the election of the employees’ represen- tatives by and from among the workers themselves* on some democratic basis of representation. For this reason, committees of employees appointed by the management are not considered in this report. Similarly, trade union shop committees are excluded since, instead of being elected by the workers of the individual establishment on a democratic basis, they are chosen by the organized workers only, or by trade union members irrespective of their employment in the particular establishment. The institution of the Works Council obviously involves acceptance by the employer of the principle of collective dealing. Under a plan of employee representation, ques- tions previously settled between the employer and his employees individually are handled by representatives of the employees collectively, and, moreover, on a systematic basis. Recognition of the principle of collective dealing by the employees of individual establishments with their employer forms the very basis of the Works Council. Such collective dealing is, however, distinct from ‘‘col- lective bargaining” in the sense of collective dealing with labor unions as organizations. The Works Council, however, is not in its essence a substitute or an alternative for labor union organization. In recognition of this fact, some notable plans of em- ployee representation expressly provide that employees shall not be discriminated against because of labor union membership. While the Works Council tends to restrict the activity of the labor union in matters purely local to the individual establishment, the union may still be potent in settling problems common to the entire craft, industry or locality. Clear distinction should be made between a Works Council and the occasional meeting of an employer with committees or deputations of his workers, only when some exigency arises. In other words, the contact between 1It is to be noted that, in the case of the “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” the members, while chosen by and from among the workers of the establishment, may, in any conference, call in the assistance of an outside representative. 2 Digitized by Microsoft® management and men established by a Works Council is on a definitely organized and systematized basis and is continuous. SCoPE OF THE INVESTIGATION This report embodies the results of an inquiry com- menced late in March, 1919. Questionnaires were ad- dressed to all industrial establishments in which the creation of ‘‘shop committees”! had been ordered or recommended in awards by the National War Labor Board, and to all shipbuilding yards coming under simi- lar decisions by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board. Inquiries were also addressed to a large number of es- tablishments reported by newspapers, periodicals, or in- dividuals as having introduced some form of employee representation. The report takes cognizance of substan- tially all Works Councils known to have been organized up to August, 1919. In most cases the data were obtained by means of a detailed questionnaire submitted to the manager or some other executive of the establishment. These returns, where necessary, were followed up by correspondence. In about 50 cases, embracing the principal forms of the Works Council and establishments which have had the most extended experience, the information was secured through field investigators. Employee members of Works Coun- cils, other employees, trade union officials, employers, foremen and other plant executives, and a number of the administrators of the National War Labor Board were interviewed. In several instances investigators attended meetings of Works Councils. The information secured by direct inquiry has been supplemented by secondary material wherever such could be found in printed or other sources. The brief existence of most Works Councils does not permit a detailed account in all cases. Nevertheless, sufficient data are at hand to allow of a comprehensive consideration of the Works Council in all of its important aspects. This is the term used by the National War Labor Board. 3 Digitized by Microsoft® II EVOLUTION AND HISTORY OF WORKS COUNCILS IN THE UNITED STATES The influences which have resulted in the formation ot Works Councils were active long before these organiza- tions themselves developed. For years before the first Works Council was established in the United States, employers had organized or had encouraged their em- ployees to form clubs or associations for social purposes some employers had provided for the participation o: employees in industrial betterment activities. More- over, for many years prior to the appearance of the first Works Council informal deputations of workers had ir many establishments been a customary means of adjust- ing differences between employer and employees; again. trade unions had maintained shop committees to represent the interests of their members in individual establishments Hardly had the handicraft system given way to factory production on a large scale, when many employers. beginning to feel the loss of close contact with thei employees, set about to reestablish, through new channels a more intimate relationship. In many establishment: organizations of employees were formed for recreationa and social purposes. Some employers, finding these organizations helpful in the conduct of such affairs occasionally brought before them problems of an indus. trial nature. Later, when employers more generally engaged ir industrial betterment work, some of them turned ove: to their employees a share in the control of these activities particularly along such lines as relief and mutual in. surance. In a few cases employees participated in the administration of profit-sharing plans. With the develop. ment of the “safety first”? movement, employers in some cases set up committees of employees to aid in the worl of accident prevention. These committees were usually chosen by the management, but in some instances they were elected by the employees. Digitized by’ Microsoft® Previous to any of these efforts on the part of the employer the workers themselves had adopted means of negotiating with the management. Very early it became customary for informal deputations representing the employees to take up complaints with the management. In some industries the trade unions formed “grievance committees” or “‘wage committees” in the individual establishment. Not infrequently each department of a large establishment had such committees for several crafts. Where employers dealt with these trade union committees the latter became a recognized channel of intercourse between employers and employees. What, apparently, was the first suggestion of a Works Council in this country appeared in 1886 in an article on “The Shop Council,” by James C. Bayles.!. The writer laid before employers and wage-earners what he termed “fa simple, inexpensive and perfectly practical method” of adjusting labor difficulties. He described in detail the functions and membership of a Works Council consisting of four members, two elected by the wage-earners and two by the management. The chairman was to be chosen by these four members and he was not necessarily to be otherwise connected with the plant. Apparently this plan was never put into practical operation. The earliest Works Council in the United States of which any record has been found was introduced in 1904 by the Nernst Lamp Company, in Pittsburgh.? The plan provided for a ‘“‘factory committee” composed of repre- sentatives from the clerical force, from the factory operatives and from the foremen, with the superintendent of the plant as permanent chairman. The management of the company has since changed several times and the committee has passed out of existence. In 1907 the Nelson Valve Company,’ of Philadelphia, established a Works Council which consisted of a “‘ Lower” and an “Upper” House. The former included one repre- sentative from each shop and the latter was made up of foremen. This plan was later abandoned when the company changed hands. 1 Published by Society for Political Education, New York City, 1886. 2 Porter, H.F.S.: “The Higher Law in the Industrial World.” Engineering Magazine, 29: 641-646, August, 1905. 3“ One Shop Steps towards Industrial Democracy.” Katherine Glover in The Outlook, March 13, 1909. 5 Digitized by Microsoft® Perhaps the best known of the early plans of employee representation was that introduced, in 1911, in the es- tablishment of Hart, Schaffner & Marx, clothing manu- facturers, of Chicago. When, in 1910, serious labor difficulties had occurred, the management, in efforts to reach a settlement, finally resorted to arbitration, one outcome of which was the formation of a “Trade Board.” The Board was so constituted as to comprise five repre- sentatives of the trade union, and five foremen selected by the company representing the various departments of the plant, and a chairman chosen by both parties. The “Trade Board” was charged with adjustment of grievances and with “original jurisdiction” over all matters arising under agreements entered into between employers and employees. This organization is still in active existence. In the fall of 1913 the Packard Piano Company, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, after experiencing a period of labor difficulties, introduced in its works a plan of indus- trial representation patterned after the organization of the Federal Government. A “Business Policy” was formulated by the management and submitted to the employees, who voted upon its adoption. It took effect in the late fall of 1913 and is still existent. In 1914 the Printz-Biederman Company, of Cleveland, introduced a similar plan, which in somewhat modified form is still effective. The White Motor Company, of Cleveland, also in 1914 introduced a form of employee representation at a time when labor troubles seemed imminent. In this case a shop committee was elected in each department. Following the Colorado coal miners’ strikes in 1913 — 1914, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company submitted to its employees a plan of representation. This plan was approved by the employees and by the directors of the company and put into effect in 1915. Under it, em- ployees in each of the company’s mining districts by secret ballot elect representatives, who act on their behalf in matters concerning sanitation, recreation, education, wages and employment. In 1915 an ‘operatives’ association” was formed ‘in the “Clothcraft Shops” of the Joseph & Feiss Company, of Cleveland. The organization elects from its member- ship a council which meets with a committee representing Digitized by M¢rosoft® the management. The operatives’ council handles matters of general interest to the employees, makes recommendations, and has the power to veto but not to change suggestions made by the management. The Plimpton Press, of Norwood, Massachusetts, in 1915 created a grievance committee of four, consisting of two representatives of the employees and two represen- tatives of the management. This committee meets only as difficulties arise. In 1916 the Henry E. Harris Engineering Company, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, made provision for a shop committee, the members of which were elected from the several departments of the plant. The “Bridgeport Plan”! has since superseded this earlier organization. The only other Works Council established in 1916, so far as known, is that set up by the Davis Coal and Coke Company, of Cumberland, Maryland, in its mines in the mountain districts. Early in 1917 Works Councils were still so compara- tively unknown that in an article in The Survey” on Works Councils in Great Britain they are called: ‘‘The Dis- covery — An Account of a New Way to Industrial Peace in Great Britain.” Only a few plans of employee representation were in- stalled in the United States in 1917. Of these, two were “Industrial Democracy” plans; one in the plant of William Demuth & Company, New York, the other in the mills of Sidney Blumenthal & Company, Shelton, Con- necticut. The Irving-Pitt Manufacturing Company, of Kansas City, Missouri, in 1917 established what was termed a “Board of Appeals.” The plan was put into effect at a moment of threatened strike, some of the strike leaders themselves becoming members of the Board. Under the stimulus of wartime demands, a number of governmental agencies actively promoted the organiza- tion of employees’ committees. The first official mention of “shop” committees was made by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board in an “Agreement as to Working Conditions between Employers and Employees in the Yard of the Columbia River District” promulgated in October, 1917. Simultaneously, another shop committee arrangement was being confirmed in the Arizona Copper District by the President’s Mediation Commission. 1See page 9. 2The Survey, May 19, 1917, pp. 156-159. 7 Digitized by Microsoft® Early in 1918, several employers voluntarily initiated plans of employee representation. In March the Standard Oil Company invited its employees at Bayonne, New Jersey, to choose delegates to meet with the officials of the company to consider a plan of employee representation. This conference resulted in the formation of Works Councils in two of the company’s plants. In the same month the Procter & Gamble Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio, made known that it planned at an early date to introduce a form of representation, and in April an ““Employees’ Conference” was formed. The Morse Drydock Company, New York City, also introduced a comprehensive plan of employee representa- tion in its shipbuilding yard early in 1918, before the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board had prescribed the organization of shop committees in the Atlantic Coast district. During this same spring the Hercules Powder Company, of Wilmington, Delaware, instituted a Works Council. About this time also a number of government agencies first became active in promoting Works Councils. The United States Fuel Administration established and recognized nine employees’ committees in the so-called Maryland and Upper Potomac Settlement of May 6, 1918. In the settlement of subsequent disputes in the coal mining industry, the Fuel Administration embodied ‘wherever applicable” the principles, provisions and practices laid down in this settlement of May 6. The United States Railroad Administration stipulated in General Order No. 13, of March 22, 1918, and again in General Order No. 29, of May 31, 1918, that disputes were to be adjusted by a “general committee of the employees up to and including the chief operating officer.” ” Beginning with July, 1918, the National War Labor Board provided in many of its awards for the selection of employees’ committees with the purpose of improving relations between employer and employees, thereby in- creasing wartime production. The Board not only ruled upon the institution of ‘shop committees,” but in some cases prescribed regulations concerning their composition and election, the basis of representation, and other features of organization. The award in the case of the General Electric Company’s Pittsfield Works, approved July 31, 1918, was the first to provide for such a com- mittee. In this award the National War Labor Board Digitized by Microsoft® \ decreed the conditions under which “shop committees” should be elected and further stipulated that “in the elections the examiner shall provide, whenever practicable, for the minority representation in a specific’ manner noted.” The same type of committee was provided for in — an award rendered under the same date covering the Bethlehem plant of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. In the case of the Pittsfield Works, as well as in the cases of the Smith & Wesson Company and of the New York Central Iron Works, Inc., the Board made explicit pro- visions for safeguarding the fair conduct of elections. Aside from ruling that matters in dispute were to be settled by “shop committees” and generally defining the jurisdiction of these committees, the National War Labor Board in many cases specifically designated their functions.. The large majority of these committees were given jurisdiction over such subjects of bargaining as wage schedules, hours of work and piece rates. During the summer of 1918 the National War Labor Board also prescribed Works Councils in the following plants reported upon in this study: Wolverine Brass Works, Bostwick-Lyons Bronze Company, Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Frick Company, Inc., and the Landis Tool and Machine Company. The Shipbuilding Labor Ad- justment Board instituted plans of employee representa- tion in the shipbuilding yards of the Atlantic Corporation, Newburgh Shipbuilding Company, Lake Torpedo Boat Company, and the Mobile Shipbuilding Company. The plan of organization of these committees followed craft lines. The Elgin National Watch Company of Elgin, Illinois, the Acme Wire Company, New Haven, Conn., and the Everlastik Company, Bridgeport, Conn., during the same summer voluntarily introduced Works Council plans. The Bethlehem Steel Corporation also was considering at this time the introduction of a plan of em- ‘ployee representation, which was subsequently introduced in all of the plants with the exception of the one in Bethlehem, where an award of the National War Labor Board had already provided for a committee of workers. In the summer of 1918 serious labor troubles, which threatened to affect war production, developed in Bridge- port, with the result that the National War Labor Board 9 Digitized by Microsoft® undertook an exhaustive investigation of the situation. rior to a decision by the Board, the Bridgeport Em- ployers’ Association submitted a plan of shop committees to a number of local manufacturers, a number of whom introduced Works Councils in accordance with the plan. Following the award of the Board a series of conferences between representatives of employees and employers were held, as a result of which the so-called “ Bridgeport Plan” was developed. This plan provides for the election of employees’ department committees and employees’ gen- eral committees and prescribes by-laws governing the powers and functions and the method of procedure of these committees. This plan was approved on November 27, 1918, by the machinists’ union of Bridgeport and by the National War Labor Board, and on December 16th by the manufacturers and employees of Bridgeport. By April, 1919, this plan had been introduced in 35 establish- ments, and other forms of employees’ committees had been investigated and approved in ten other plants, making Bridgeport the industrial center in which the formation of Works Councils has progressed furthest. The Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board during the fall of 1918 was responsible for the formation of Works Councils in the following shipbuilding yards reported on in this study: The Jahnke Shipbuilding Corporation, the \Atlantic Works, and the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Cor- poration. A number of large manufacturing concerns voluntarily introduced Works Councils in their plants in the fall of 1918. Fayette R. Plumb, Inc., Philadelphia, in an- nouncing to its employees a plan of representation, named a temporary committee of employees ““who had proven themselves loyal to our country and fair minded in dealings with each other and the firm.” A month later a mass meeting was held at which the new plan was for- mally instituted. About this time the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, following the intervention of the National War Labor Board in a strike of its employees, introduced a plan of “collective bargaining.” This plan superseded an organization limited to motormen and conductors which had been formed in 1910. The General Electric Company at its Sprague Electric Works, Bloom- field, New Jersey, at this time also instituted a compre- hensive plan of employee representation. Digitized by k§crosoft® In September the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Com- pany, the first of a number of large concerns in the iron and -steel industry: to institute plans of employee representa- tion during the winter of 1918-19, posted notices in its Johnstown, Coatesville, and Nicetown Works describing the proposed plan. The first election was held in October and a temporary committee was chosen to serve for three months, at the end of which time permanent committees were elected inthe three plants. In December, 1918, the Lukens Steel Company, of Coatesville, Pa., and the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, of Youngstown, Ohio, introduced Works Councils. About that time the management of the Inland Steel Company, Indiana Har- bor, Indiana, formulated a plan of employee representa- tion which was approved by a vote of the employees and introduced in January, 1919. The International Harvester Company early in 1919 submitted to a vote of the employees in its 20 plants a plan for Works Councils. In 17 of the company’s plants the plan was adopted at once, in three it was rejected. The management posted bulletins in these three establishments, stating that no further action would be taken except on request of the employees. Within a few weeks workers at these three plants petitioned that the plan be resubmitted to them. In two of these plants the plan was adopted. The Willys-News, official bulletin of the Willys-Overland Company, Toledo, Ohio, on May 2, 1919, announced the adoption of a plan of employee representation. During the spring and early summer of 1919 employee representa- tion plans were introduced in the silk mills of B. Edmund David, Inc., Paterson, New Jersey, in the plant of the Passaic Metal Ware Company, Passaic, New Jersey, and in the Durham Hosiery Mills, of Durham, North Carolina. Early in July, employees of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio, elected their first repre- sentatives under a plan of employee representation drafted by a committee composed of delegates of the management and of the employees. About the same time, the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, Stamford, Connecticut, introduced a Works Council. Three impulses seem to have been responsible for the development of Works Councils. Employers in their 11 Digitized by Microsoft® desire to establish a close contact with their employees have sought to stimulate organization among their work- ers, sometimes merely for social purposes, sometimes for the handling of industrial betterment activities and, more recently, in the form of Works Councils, for dealing with industrial matters. In the second place, on the part of the employees there has been a parallel desire for effective representation of their interests in the individual estab- lishment. They have secured such representation in some instances through informal deputations merely, in other cases through the medium of trade union shop com- mittees and, finally, in the form of Works Councils. Finally, an extraordinary impetus to the development of Works Councils was furnished by wartime exigencies. Certain government agencies in their desire to promote patriotic activity and, through the improvement of in- dustrial relations, to stimulate wartime production, initiated works committees in various branches of in- dustry at this time. As is evident from the above account, Works Councils in this country have developed under a wide variety of conditions. The various plans of employee representation developed by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, the National.War Labor Board, and individual employers, differ in the features of their organization. Similarly they vary greatly in their scope of activities. As might be ex- pected, their experience has differed widely. Digitized by Wicrosoft® Ill THE DISTRIBUTION OF WORKS COUNCILS _ Practically all of the 225! Works Councils reported upon in this study were formed since January 1, 1918. Eighty- six of these were created as a result of awards of the National War Labor Board and 81 as a result of decisions by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board; three are wartime ‘“‘Government Committees”; 105 were volun- tarily instituted by employers. Sixteen of the latter or- ganizations are of a limited character. Location oF EsTaBLISHMENTS wiTH Works CoUNCILS These Works Councils are found in various settings — geographically and industrially, and in their operation they are influenced by a variety of factors. It is of interest to note in what states, in what size of communi- ties, and in what branches of industry Works Councils have developed. Distribution by States. Works Councils naturally are found chiefly in the leading industrial states of the country. The geographical distribution of the 225 Works Councils reported upon in this study is as follows: TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF WORKS COUNCILS BY STATES Connecticut 58 Minnesota 6 Ohio ..... 2» 21 Maryland 6 Illinois . . . a 20 Colorado a) Pennsylvania 19 Indiana. 7 New York . . .. 12 ‘Maine . fe dee te 4 Michigan... . ate. ao Delaware. ...... 3 Massachusetts . Bibs car oe lel, Louisiana ath ae 8 3 New Jersey ‘ aw 9 MAS8OUTI. o. . ce. se fee ces oes 2 Wisconsin. . ... - 11 Alabama, California, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hamp- shire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming; cach | ag be ewe Gb bee HR HO ew He we 13 Total. ss kee ew Roe ee A Be By Ebony Soe S 225 1 Where Works Councils are known to exist in a number or all of the works operated by a single company or corporation, each such Works Council is counted as a separate organization. The total of companies or corporations having Works Councils is 176. 13 Digitized by Microsoft® Distribution by Size of Community. Works Councils are found in industrial establishments of small towns as well as in those of large cities, but chiefly in the latter group. Of the 225 Works Councils reported upon, 20 are in towns with less than 5,000 inhabitants. 13 in cities with 5,000 to 10,000. 22 in cities with 10,000 to 25,000. 23 in cities with 25,000 to 50,000. 32 in cities with 50,000 to 100,000. 65 in cities with 100,000 to 200,000. 16 in cities with 200,000 to 500,000. 15 in cities with 500,000 to 1,000,000. 16 in cities with 1,000,000 to 2,500,000. 3 in New York City. Distribution by Industries. In each of the nine industrial states which lead in number of Works Councils, the major- ity of these organizations are found in the metal trades. Of the total of 225 Works Councils considered in this survey, 144 are embraced in these trades. ‘The ship- building industry stands next with 31 such organizations. Practically all of these were set up as a wartime measure in conformity with decisions of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board. The distribution of Works Councils by industries is shown in the following table: TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF WORKS COUNCILS BY IN- DUSTRIES Metal Trades 144 Other Industries . . . 81 Machinery and Appliances 41 Shipbuilding ..... ©. 81 Iron and Steel Mills. 20 Coal andIron Mining .... 10 Sheet Metal, Wire, Wire pas SEN se eae i Products ... 14 Textile Ser) o ee eS 4 Tool-Making Shops 15 Lumber |. . aan nse Machine Parts. 12 Public Service Companies 3 Electrical Goods 12 Petroleum. «a a oe aw we es 3 Structural Steel 2 2... 3 DOA Die...) eh oct as Vatlead butot dos dee 2 Automobiles and Automobile Wood Products ....... 3 Bodies... . 2... 4 Rubber Goods ....... 1 Bronze and Brass Goods 6 Printing . 2... 1 Firearms and Ammunition 5 Smokers’ Articles ...... 1 Office Appliances ‘ 3 Bertilizerts® sce ce. Gs ae ca callae 1 Hardware ....... 4 Telegraphy .......0.. 1 Watches and Musical Instruments 2 Milk Distribution .. 2... 1 Foundries % 1 Loose Leaf Binders ..... 1 Silverware 2 BGOESS 9 35 ae Se, Sh ieeask ash Sap Ges 1 14 Digitized by Microsoft® Conpitions In EstaBLIsHMENTS wits Works CouNcILs For an understanding of the organization, functions and the success or failure of Works Councils, it is important to take consideration of the size of the establishment, the type of management and the character of the employees, particularly whether or not they are English-speaking, skilled or unskilled, union or non-union workers. Distribution by Size of Establishment. Works Councils are found in the smallest establishments and in the largest works of the big corporations of the country. The major- ity, however, are in establishments with a working force of over 500. The distribution of Works Councils with Bees to size of establishment is shown in the following table: TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF WORKS COUNCILS BY SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT Number of Number of Employees Establishments Total Less than 200 . 18 2,000 200 tc 500 26 8,500 500 to 800 eo ® 15 9,100 800 to 1,000 ‘ 7 6,200 1,000 to 1,500. ‘ a 8 9,000 1,560 to 3,000 17 34,200 3,000 to 5,000 eo. te 11 36,000 5,000 to 10,000 : 7 39,000 10,000 to 15,000 ek : 5 57,000 15,000 and over 4 ‘ 8 190,400 Totals . go, Oy 122 391,400 It further appears from the above table that the estab- lishments covered by the first seven groups, which total 102 in number, employ only about 100,000 workers. The remaining 20 establishments, in contrast, employ nearly 300,000; but, while in the table only 20 establishments ‘ appear in the last three groups, for reasons indicated in the accompanying footnote, the actual number of works in which these wage-earners are employed is somewhat over 60. The compilation shows that Works Councils are predominantly found in establishments employing large numbers of workers. 1 For some of the large corporations operating several works it has not been possible to obtain a record of the number of workers employed in each works. Only the grand totals for all the works operated by each such corporation can, therefore, be given. The last group in the table is wholly made up of such grand totals; the second last group contains five such corporations. 15 Digitized by Microsoft® Distribution with Respect to Type of Management. Works Councils are found both in businesses conducted as independent units and in groups of plants which are collectively operated under a single business control. The former type of establishment is generally smaller than the latter, and is often, though not necessarily, located in a small city or town. Ordinarily, the chief owner is a resi- dent of the community in which the factory is located and more commonly than not he personally manages the business. Establishments subsidiary to a corporation which controls several concerns — not infrequently in as many localities — are, on the other hand, more often large plants and usually under salaried management. Frequently the management of such establishments has a well-defined labor policy and an industrial manager or director of industrial relations in charge of its adminis- tration. Among the employers who have reported Works Councils there are a considerable proportion who operate a number of works. Thus, the International Harvester Company operates 20 works (in 17 localities) and has Works Councils in 19. The American Shipbuilding Company operates eight shipyards in as many cities on the Great Lakes and the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Cor- _ poration five shipyards. The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company and the Davis Coal and Coke Company each divide their mining properties into five districts. The Bethlehem Steel Corporation operates four steel mills, the Hydraulic Pressed Steel Company and the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company, each three, and the Inland Steel Company,two. There are, altogether, a total of 91 estab- lishments, managed in the aggregate, under the director- ship of 16 distinct corporations. With comparatively few exceptions, Works Councils have been established in several or all of the individual works of these establish- ments, which are operated as industrial units. Distribution with Respect to the Proportion of Male Employees:' In 29 of the 74 establishments included in this survey, men were employed exclusively, and in 18 others they represented 90% or more of the total working force. In 10 establishments, on the other hand, women 1 Companies operating a number of works, in most cases, furnished the infor- mation embodied in the succeeding sections of this chapter for their several works as a whole. Hence, the number of establishments mentioned ordinarily represents a larger number of individual works. 16 Digitized by Microsoft® constituted from 20% to 40% of the total number of employees; in 12 they represented from 40% to 70%; in five, from 70% to 90%. Distribution with Respect to the Proportion of Non- English-Speaking Employees. .The proportion of non- English-speaking persons among the workers ranges up to 70%, but there are only four establishments where it exceeded 30% — two with 30% to 40% and two with 50% to 70%. In 18 plants the percentage of non-English- speaking workers is from 5% to 30%; 25 others have 5% or less than 5%, while 23 reported they had practically no non-English-speaking employees. In the smaller works non-English-speaking employees seldom constitute a large proportion of the total working force. In the majority of small establishments their num- ber does not exceed 10%. In several large establishments, however, they reach the following percentages; 10% of 3,000 employees; 30% to 40% of 12,000 employees. In some large establishments, on the other hand, their numbers are relatively small. Distribution with Respect to the Proportion of Skilled Workers.1 In 48 out of 62 establishments which gave information with respect to the matter, the proportion of skilled workers was 50% or over. Among the 48 estab- lishments in which such percentages obtained, 14 reported 50% to 70%; 22 reported 70% to 90%; and 12 reported 90% to 100%. Among the 14 establishments in which the skilled workers are in the minority, one reported 5%, one 20%, while 10 reported 30% to 50%. The weighted average proportion of skilled workers for the entire group of 62 establishments was 66%; for the 48 establishments where skilled workers constituted a majority, it was 72%. Distribution with Respect to the Extent of Trade Unionism. Of 81 establishments from which information was secured on this point, 71 reported that they maintained “open shops,” while in three others one or more departments were conducted on the “‘open shop” basis. ‘Two were “closed non-union shops” and another was nominally a “closed non-union shop.” A “closed shop” is also main- tained by the “company union” of a public service com- pany. Two firms stated that while their establishments 1 While the meaning of “skilled labor” varies, the accompanying estimates may be regarded as representing the proportion of high-grade labor. 17 Digitized by Microsoft® are nominally ‘‘open shops,” they are practically “closed union shops”; one is a ‘“‘preferential union shop.” Not all of the reports received give adequate information on the extent to which shops are unionized. Of those giving definite information, 10 reported that 90% or more of their employees belong to trade unions, three put the figures at 80% to 90%, three at 70% to 80%, two at 60% to 70%, and eight at 50% to 60%; four reported 20% to,30% of trade union members among their em- ployees, and 22 reported less than 10%. Eight reported that they had no union members among their employees. Of the 26 establishments in which 50% or more of the workers were union members, 22 were engaged either in shipbuilding or in some branch of the metal trades. Of the 10 establishments unionized 90% or more, all but two were in these industries. Digitized by’ Microsoft® IV ORGANIZATION In one fundamental feature of their organization, all Works Councils are alike; each is a representative body chosen by and from among the employees of an individual establishment. They differ greatly, however, with respect to their form, constitution, procedure, elections, meetings, and various other specific features of organization. In some instances, especially in small establishments, the plan of organization is simple and informal; in other cases, notably in large and complex establishments, a formal constitution describing the smallest details of operation is adopted. Many of the variations in organiza- tion represent adjustments to meet the specific needs of different establishments. Others apparently are mere accidental developments. The greatest uniformity of organization is found in the shipbuilding yards, where the Shipbuilding Labor Adjust- ment Board plan has been generally adopted. Similarly, considerable uniformity is to be found in the “shop committee” plans set up by the National War Labor Board. The greatest variety in organization, on the other hand, has developed in the case of plans voluntarily introduced by employers. Two Principat Types oF Works CouNcIL Among the various plans of employee representation, two general types may be distinguished: (1) The “governmental” type. (2) The “committee” type. The Governmental Type. This type of Works Council, following the pattern of the United States Government, provides for a Cabinet, Senate, and House of Represen- tatives, or sometimes for the latter two bodies only. It is often referred to as the “Industrial Democracy” plan. Under this plan the Cabinet comprises in its membership the higher executives of the plant, the Senate is made up of foremen, and the House of Representatives consists of 19 Digitized by Microsoft® elected representatives of the employees. However, in one case the Senate and Cabinet have been combined into a single body, a “Planning Board.” Most plans of the “governmental” type have as an auxiliary feature a “Collective Economy Dividend.” This is a form of bonus paid periodically to the employees of any depart- ment which exceeds in production the standard prevailing at the time the plan was introduced. Fifty per cent of any such increase is distributed among the employees, the employer retaining the other 50 per cent. In one “governmental” plan, that of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, the Senate as well as the House of Representatives is composed of representatives elected by the employees. Moreover, provision is made for joint conferences, consisting of three members of the Senate, three members of the House, and six represen- tatives of the factory management, ‘‘to consider matters of joint interest to men and management.” The Committee Type. This type follows the ordinary committee form of organization, sometimes being a single committee and sometimes comprising a hierarchy of committees. The committee or committees may con- sist of employees alone, who confer with representatives of the management, or they may be joint committees em- bracing in their membership representatives of both employees and employer. There is further to be distinguished the Works Council which is based upon a “‘company union,” that is, one sub- sidiary to an association embracing in its membership part or all of the employees of the establishment. This may be of the “governmental” type or of the ‘‘com- mittee” type. CONSTITUTION With respect to their constitution, the various forms of Works Councils fall into two main classes. In the first group are those which represent, and are elected by, all the employees of an establishment; in this report these are termed “Single Works Councils.” One Council deals with all pertinent questions that may arise, whether these affect the entire establishment and all classes of workers, or merely some small division of the plant and a particular section or group of workers. In other words, there is but one functional unit in the establishment. The Digitized byMicrosoft® second class of Works Councils comprises not only a central or general committee, but also smaller repre- sentative units such as departmental ‘committees, divi- sional committees, shop committees, or craft committees, which function in the various natural subdivisions of the plant, each representing only part of the workers. Although Single Works Councils are found in a number of strikingly large establishments, they are mainly char- acteristic of small plants. Works Councils based upon divisional committees are characteristic, by contrast, of relatively large establishments. SInGLE Works CouncIits Of the 225 Works Councils surveyed in this report 85 are Single Works Councils. The basis of representation for these Councils is determined in a variety of ways. The employees in choosing their representatives may vote at large, by departments, floors, shops, or other natural or artificial sections of the plant, or according to crafts or occupation. Elected at Large. Relatively few Single Works Councils are elected at large. Among those which are so chosen are a few “National War Labor Board Committees,” several Works Councils based upon ‘‘company unions,” and a num- ber of Councils of the “governmental” type. The Single Works Councils of this sort instituted by the National War Labor Board were mainly in small establishments where a single committee of a few members was regarded as sufficient to represent the interests of the workers. There are qualifications of the method of election at large in several other establishments in this group. Thus in one plant having a “company union” the General Labor Adjustment Committee, as the Works Council is called, is chosen by the directors of the Employees’ Mutual Benefit Association, who, in turn, are elected by and from the employee members of the association. In another estab- lishment with a ‘‘company union,” one representative is elected for every 25 employee members of the Co-operative Association. In two establishments having plans of the “sovernmental” type the number of members of the House of Representatives is apparently fixed arbitrarily. In one of these establishments, moreover, the American Multigraph Company, only 12 of the 24 members of the House of Representatives are elected by direct vote, 21 Digitized by Microsoft® the remaining 12 being chosen jointly by the three “congressmen” receiving the highest number of votes, and the president of the company. It is to be noted also that, in this case, each department is given a special representative who can present matters for consideration but who does not serve or vote as a member of the House. Single Works Councils Elected by Departments or Voting Divisions. A more common method of election, however, is by departments or other divisions of the plant. This basis of representation is particularly common in the larger establishments where distinct groups of workers are employed in independent departments, often in separate buildings or plants. This method of constituting the Single Works Council, moreover, is frequently employed with the distinct purpose of making representation pro- portional in order to give due consideration to minority opinions and interests. It is also used as a means of giving representation to specific occupations or crafts. One of the usual forms of this type of organization is that in which the Works Council is made up of one mem- ber from each department; this method is followed in nine establishments studied in this investigation. The size of Works Councils elected by departments naturally varies from establishment to establishment. In two cases, both small plants, the number of members is three; in five other establishments, the numbers are 2, 7, 10, 14, and 16, respectively. The numerical ratio of represen- tatives to employees likewise varies. Thus the Council of 10 members represents a working force of 3,500 em- ployees; that of 14 members represents 450 employees; while that of 16 members represents 400 employees. The plan of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company provides for the division of the plant into 40 voting pre- cincts, each of which elects a member of the House of Representatives; and into 20 voting districts, each of which elects a member of the Senate. The constitution and by-laws of the Nunn-Bush Co- operative Association also provides for a Single Works Council, in this instance called a Shop Committee elected on a departmental basis with one representative from each of 11 departments. In order to make Works Councils more adequately representative, some plans provide for more than a single representative from each department or voting division, Digitized by jificrosoft® usually on a numerical basis. Since this arrangement in a large establishment would necessarily create a Council of unwieldy size, sometimes several small departments are grouped into a single voting division; in other instances, an executive committee or sets of sub-committees are pro- vided to expedite the transaction of business. The Sprague Electric Works, which employs 3,600 workers, has grouped the various departments of the plant into 12 voting divisions, each of which elects from one to four representatives. The total number of employee members of the Council is 36; there are 18 representatives of the management, making a body of 54 members. Representation of employees in plants of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation is on the following basis: Plants employing under 1,500 employees: One repre- sentative for each 100 employees. Plants employing 1,500 to 10,000 employees: One repre- sentative for each 200 employees. Plants employing over 10,000 employees: One represent- ative for each 800 employees, provided, however, that in no case shall there be less than 10 representatives. The basis of representation is “departments and natural subdivisions,” and it is provided that ‘wherever it is necessary to group a number of small departments in order to complete a unit of representation, regard shall be had to logical groupings and location.” Such adjustments in units of representation are made in ac- cordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Rules. Whereas the Bethlehem Steel Corporation plan pre- scribes plants as the basis of representation, the Inland Steel Company employs departments. Representation in the departments of this establishment is on the following basis: Departments employing under 500 employees: One repre- sentative for each 100 employees. Departments employing over 500 employees: One repre- sentative for each 150 employees but not less than five. For the purpose of applying units of representation, based upon the departments of the company’s works, 17 voting divisions are created. 23 Digitized by Microsoft® Under the plan of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, representation is similarly “‘based upon natural subdivisions of the company’s works and made with regard to logical. groupings and location,” there being 17 such divisions. The proportion of representatives to the electorate is determined as follows: There shall be one representative for each 300 employees; provided, however, that the Joint General Committee may from time to time make such adjustments as it may deem ad- visable to meet special cases; and provided, further, that any division having less than 300 employees shall be entitled to one representative; any division having between 300 and 600 employees shall be entitled to two representatives. Where the number of employees in any division exceeds 600, or any multiple of 800, but 150 or more, the employees of such division shall be entitled to elect an additional representative. Under the “Industrial Representation Plan” of the Lukens Steel Company, the plant is divided into eight voting groups. This plan provides that the groups may be changed, increased, or decreased from time to time by the Board of Representatives, due regard always being had to similarity of working conditions and to securing equalization in number of employees in each group. Each such group is entitled to elect at least two repre- sentatives, but any group having more than 300 members 35 entitled to one additional representative for each addi- tional 300 members or fraction thereof. This Board of Representatives forms from its own number a Plant Committee, consisting of the chairman of the Board and two others. As in the case of the American Multigraph Company’s plan, which has already been described, pro- vision is made for special representatives of the employees in each department, who serve essentially as spokesmen. The plan provides: Each separate department may elect by a viva voce vote, or by the holding up of hands, or by a rising vote, a representa- tive whose duty it will be to transmit any grievance directly to the foreman of the department or directly to the Board of Representatives, as the department may prefer. Shop representatives shall have the privilege of accompanying the Plant Committee in its conference with the Company’s Com- mittee. The “Harvester Industrial Councils,” set up in 19 of the 20 establishments of the International Harvester Com- pany, are likewise Single Works Councils elected upon a Digitized by Mitrosoft® departmental basis. The article of their constitution governing the election of employee members of the Works Councils provides: The basis of representation shall generally be one employee representative for each 200 to 300 employees, but in no case shall there be less than five employee representatives in the Works Council. In order that the different departments and crafts may be fairly represented each works shall be divided into voting divisions and each division shall be assigned its proper number of representatives, based upon the average number of persons employed therein during the month of December preceding the election. The Works Council may change the voting division when- ever necessary to secure complete and fair representation. Under the International Harvester plan the president of the company may call a General Council, embracing representatives of two or more of the plants, to pro- ceed in the following manner: The president shall issue a notice designating the several works which he deems jointly interested. Thereupon the employee representatives in the Works Council at each of the works designated shall select two or more of their own number to act as members of the General Council. There shall be one such member of the General Council for each 1,000 employees, or major fraction thereof, except that no works shall have less than two representatives in the General Council. The management representatives in the General Council shall be appointed by the president and shall not exceed the number of employee representatives. Under the plan of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company each of the five districts into which the properties of the company are divided has District Conferences at regular intervals. The District Conference is made up of representatives from each camp in the district, the representation of employees being on the basis of one representative to every 150 wage-earners, but each camp, whatever its number of employees, shall be entitled to at least two representatives. Where the namber of employees in any one camp exceeds 150, or any multiple thereof, by 75 or more, an additional representative shall be elected, 25 Digitized by Microsoft® A general conference of all representatives of the several districts is held once a year. The ‘Employees’ Representation Plan” of the Willys- Overland Company provides, with respect to representa- tion: The plant shall be divided into voting sections, fol- lowing natural department subdivisions so far as possible. Where necessary, small departments will be grouped to gain representation. Representation will be on the basis of one representative for approximately each 200 to 300 employees for every designated section. The employee representatives and a smaller or equal number of representatives of the management constitute the Joint Shop Committee. One of the employees’ representatives serves as chairman and one of the manage- ment’s representatives as secretary. Sub-committees may be selected to apportion the work of investigation and to act on special subjects. One of the sub- committees is known as the General Board of Adjust- ment, regarding which the constitution provides that: From the ranks of the Joint Shop Committee may be chosen five representatives for the employees and five for the management, who will constitute the General Board of Adjust- ment, to handle all matters on appeal or with the works manager or vice president. No two representatives on the General Board of Adjustment shall be from the same depart- ment or section. The executive industrial representative or his appointee shall act as chairman of the General Board of Adjustment, but shall have no vote. Under the “Employees’ Conference Plan” of the Procter & Gamble Company those departments having 50 or less employees who receive pay on the first payday after April 1st elect one representative only. Those departments having more than 50 employees who receive pay on the first payday after April 1st may elect one representative for each 50 such employees. Since this Employees’ Conference Committee is a large body, embracing altogether 28 departments, the constitu- tion provides that the three officers of the committee,— chairman, vice chairman, and secretary—‘“‘together with four other members selected by the chairman, shall constitute the Executive Council.” Digitized by Microsoft® In three establishments having plans of the “govern- mental” type the plants are divided into voting districts which may comprise one or more departments. Repre- sentatives are apportioned to each division in the three plants on the basis of one for every 20, 30, or 40 employees, respectively. The Works Council of a Middle Western steel company consists of 18 employees elected by voting divisions representing one or more departments and electing one representative to every 100 workers. In two cases, trade union employees are given represen- tation as such. In one of these instances, that of a small machine-building establishment, there is a Joint Works Council of six members, consisting of two representatives of the management, two of the non-union workers, and two of the union men, who constitute 20 per cent of the small working force of 70. In the other case, a committee to adjust grievances is set up whenever occasion arises. One member of the committee represents the department in which the complaint originates and one member the trade union to which the complaining worker or workers belong. Two representatives of the management, the works manager and the employment manager, meet with the representatives of the employees. Works Councits Basep upon Divis1onaL CoMMITTEES The number of Works Councils of the divisional type described above! is practically equal to that of Single Works Councils. However, the number of distinct plans is considerably smaller, since this group includes the “Bridgeport Plan,” which is in effect in over 40 establish- ments, and the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board plan, which forms the basis of organization in 29 estab- lishments. For the purpose of setting up the divisional committees upon which the general Works Council is based, the workers are grouped into departments, or other natural divisions of the plant, or according to their craft or occupa- tion, each group choosing a divisional committee. But, in contrast with Single Works Councils, where this manner of grouping is employed simply for purposes of voting, under the divisional scheme the representatives in each group also form a unit of function. 1See p. 20. 27 Digitized by Microsoft® The Works Council itself is constituted in one of several ways. It may be formed by the aggregate membership of the several divisional committees; by the chairmen of the latter; or it may be elected by the divisional committees either from the employees at large or from among their -own number. ' Works Councils Constituted by the Aggregate Membership of the Divisional Commitiees. The only known examples of a Works Council constituted by the aggregate member- ship of the divisional committees are those of the Bridge- port Brass Company and the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. With regard to the divisional committees, the “Industrial Co-operative Relation Plan” of the Bridge- port Brass Company provides: Representation will be on the general basis of one em- ployees’ representative for every 100 wage-earners, with at least one representative from every department containing 25 or more wage-earners. As a considerable number of the departments in these works are small, some of them numbering less than 25 employees, such departments are thrown together into groups for the purpose of constituting voting divisions. The employees’ representatives elected by these groups, meeting with an equal number of employer’s represen- tatives, constitute Group Committees. All the duly elected employee representatives for each division of each works, meeting with an equal number of employer repre- sentatives, constitute the Division Committees, while the members of Division Committees of each works, in turn, constitute Plant Committees. Similarly, the General Committee for all three plants of the company is composed of the 45 employee representatives and an equal number of employer representatives appointed by the management from among the salaried employees of the company. The General Committee of this company meets at regular.but long intervals. The three Plant Committees are the highest representative bodies which have regular and routine duties. Since two of these Plant Committees are rather large bodies, of 19 and 23 members respectively, the constitution provides for an Executive Council for each works consisting of five employee members of the Plant Committee, together with an equal number of representatives of the management. Digitized b¥Microsoft® If the Plant Committee for any works should not con- tain more than five employees’ representatives, the Plant Committee itself acts as a body and no Executive Council is appointed. In the words of the booklet setting forth the plan, “‘the purpose in forming an Executive Council for each works is to insure a committee small enough to act with reasonable promptness and thoroughness on any matter referred to it.” ‘The number of Group Committees varies from one to seven in the different plants. There are one, two, and three Division Committees, respectively. Broadly similar principles of organization are employed under the “Co-operative Plan” of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. This plan provides for (1) Branch Committees; (2) Department Committees; (8) General Committees; and (4) a Board of Arbitration. The Branch Committee consists of two employees’ representatives and two representatives of the manage- ment. The Department Committee consists of all the Branch Committeemen elected by the employees and an equal number of representatives of the management. In constituting the General Committee, however, a different principle is employed, resulting in a smaller and more compact unit. The members of each Department Committee for employees annually elect two of their number, who constitute a General Committee for em- ployees. The president of the company appoints a General Committee for employers, consisting of an equal number of representatives of the management. The secretary for the General Committees meeting jointly is appointed by the president of the company and has no vote. He, or an authorized representative, also serves as secretary of the respective Department Committees when they meet in joint session. Works Councils Constituted by the Chairmen of the Divisional Committees. Since Works Councils constituted by the aggregate membership of all the divisional com- mittees are likely to be too large for efficient functioning, some principle of selection is applied in most of the estab- lishments here surveyed. One method of selection con- sists in constituting the general committee or Works Council from the chairmen of the divisional committees. This method is followed in the case of the “Collective Bargaining Committees” instituted in Bridgeport, Conn., 29 Digitized by Microsoft® by the National War Labor Board. Under this plan the employees of each department, regardless of its size, elect three representatives to serve on an Employees’ Depart- ment Committee. The employee receiving the highest number of votes in each election is declared the chairman of the committee. These chairmen constitute the Em- ployees’ General Committee except that ‘“‘any plant in which the number of employees is such that only one Department Committee is chosen shall have no general or executive committee.” Under the actual operation of the plan in Bridgeport, however, it seems to have been. the practice, when a factory had less than 10 departments and thus less than 10 departmental chairmen or representatives, that the entire group of these chairmen or representatives served as the employees’ representatives on the General Com- mittee or Works Council.? Section 11 of the “Bridgeport Plan” provides that: If the number of any General Committee as originally constituted is too large for efficient working, said Committee shall meet as soon as practical after the election of the Depart- ment Committees and proceed to elect from their own number an Executive Committee, to be technically known as the Em- ployees’ Executive Committee, which shall be vested with the duties and powers of said General Committee, except those reserved for the committee as a whole. The same plan of organization also underlies the shop committees set up by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board in the shipyards of the country. According to the decision of the Board ratifying an agreement entered into between employers and employees in the Portland, Ore., shipyards, the employees of each craft or calling in a shop or yard shall have the right to select three of their number to represent them as members of aShop Committee. Each member of this. committee shall be chosen for a term of six months by majority vote through secret ballot, in such manner as the employees may direct... . The chairman of each Shop Committee shall be a member of a Joint? Shop Committee. 1 Aborn, W. G., and Shafer, W. L.: Representative Shop C ittees. Industrial Management, July, 1919. eae 2 Joint Shop Committee, in the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board’s terminology, means, not a joint committee of representatives of the employees and representatives of the management, but a joint committee of representatives of the craft committees. Digitized by Microsoft® The Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board plan was later expanded in two decisions,! providing among other things for an Executive Committee in each plant. The Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, in an agree- ment recently entered into with the Metal Trades Depart- ment of the American Federation of Labor, not only continues in existence the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board committees in its five yards, but provides for a committee of five representing the unions in all of the yards and for a company’s committee of five. These two committees are to jointly hear or consider all grievances or other questions affecting wages, hours of labor, or working conditions which have failed of adjustment, and any other matters as to which joint consideration will tend to avoid musinderstandings, or will improve the condition of the industry and of its employees. The American Shipbuilding Company, under a some- what similar agreement with the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor, perpetuates the “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees” in its eight yards and sets up a Joint Labor Adjustment Com- mittee comprising five members appointed by the unions and five members appointed by the company. In addi- tion, a Secretaries’ Committee is created consisting of two secretaries, one appointed by the unions and one appointed by the company. Works Councils Elected by Divisional Committees. The membership of the Works Councils described in the two preceding subsections is in effect determined by direct vote of the employees. A number of employee representa- tion plans, on the other hand, provide for the election of the Works Council by the members of the divisional’ com- mittees. In such cases the election may be either from among their own number or from the employees at large. 1These decisions were issued October 24, 1918, and applied, one to the Pacific Coast shipyards, the other to the yards along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast and on the Great Lakes. The Committee system in the Sparrows Point, Md., plant of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation — a system which was tentatively accepted by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board as “substantially similar” to the system prescribed in its decisions —is based upon _departmental and not on craft lines (footnote in A. B. Wolfe’s ‘“‘Works Committees and Joint Industrial Councils,” p. 119). In a Pacific Coast shipyard which started its yard com- mittees in 1917, the general committee “is created by vote of all workmen” instead of being constituted by the chairmen of the various craft committees. 31 Digitized by Microsoft® The most conspicuous example of the election of a Works Council by divisional committees is furnished by the plan of the General Electric Company at Lynn. This plan provides for a General Joint Committee on Adjust- ment (as the Works Council is called) selected by the employees’ representatives at the respective works. The constitution provides: Members of the General Committee may be selected from the employees at large, or from duly elected representatives of sections. If an elected representative be chosen to serve on the General Committee, his office as representative shall be declared vacant and a new election shall be held to choose his successor.! A similar plan was introduced in the plant of the Walworth Manufacturing Company under an award of the National War Labor Board. In this case a department working more than one shift in a day is considered as two or more departments for voting purposes. The worker receiving the highest number of votes in the departmental election becomes the chairman of the respective Shop. Committee and each Shop Committee elects its own secretary. The General Plant Committee at this establishment is formed as follows: The same procedure as that outlined for the election of shop committees shall be followed, except that not more than one worker from any department can be elected to membership on the General Plant Committee, but there may be one alternate elected from the same department as that represented by a regular member of the General Plant Com- mittee or another alternate. Under this plan a worker need not be a member of any shop committee in order to be eligible to membership in the General Committee. 1 The following reason for this arrangement is given by the National War Labor Board’s examiner stationed at the time in the district: : “It was thought at Lynn that the general committee should be considered as a judicial body, passing in review cases which the shop committees could not adjust, and that therefore no employee who had had to do with any case either as a representative or as a committeeman should sit on that committee.” —Stoddard, William Leavitt: “Shop Committees as Lubricants in Manage- ment.” Factory, 23: 39. July, 1919. Digitized by #icrosoft® An instance of the election of a Works Council by divisional committees from theit own members is found in the case of the Corn Products Refining Company. One of the five works of this company has six Departmental Committees, each having three members. These 18 representatives elect from among their own number a General Committee or Works Council of five members. The plan of representation in operation at the works of the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company similarly provides: Within a week from the date on which the Division Election Committee announce the names of the elected Division representatives, all of these representatives shall meet and elect from among their number a Plant Conference Com- mittee, consisting of one representative for each three thou- sand (3,000) employees at the plant; “with the proviso that if, at any plant, the number of employees in excess of three thousand (3,000) (or any multiple thereof) is fifteen hundred (1,500), there shall be a representative elected for this frac- tion, and if the fraction is less than fifteen hundred (1,500) it shall not be counted; with the further proviso that no two members of the Plant Conference Committee shall be elected from the same department of the plant. PROCEDURE AND EXTENT OF AUTHORITY The various types of Works Councils prescribe, in varied ways and in different degrees of detail, the pro- cedure to be followed in handling matters coming within their jurisdiction. Works Councils of a “limited”! character, which deal mainly with welfare matters, make little provision as to procedure, since they ordinarily confine themselves to mere recommendations submitted to the management. In the case of Works Councils of the ‘‘governmental” type, formal parliamentary rules ordinarily governing the procedure of legislative bodies are observed, and the House of Representatives and the Senate function through passage of bills. In the case of most Works Councils of the “committee” type, which serve primarily as agencies for the adjustment of differences between employer and employees, dis- tinctive methods of procedure have been developed. The following discussion is concerned with this group, 1See p. 58. 33 Digitized by Microsoft® which includes, in addition to the National War Labor Board and Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board plans, most of the “committee” plans voluntarily instituted by employers. The methods of procedure prescribed may apply to the advance determination of general matters of mutual interest to employer and employees, as well as to the adjustment of difficulties that have already arisen. The matters in question may involve a single employee only, a group of employees, or all of the employees of the plant, and may pertain to any subject within the scope of the Works Council’s activities. In part, the differences in methods of procedure pro- vided for under the various ‘‘committee” plans of em- ployee representation grow out of variations in the form of organization and in the degree of authority possessed by individual Works Councils. They also often represent adjustments to conditions peculiar to the individual establishment. In some cases the procedure amounts to nothing more than a. simple process of negotiation between representa- tives of the employees and officials of the company. In other instances detailed provisions are prescribed to govern a final determination of matters by the repre- sentatives of both parties acting as a joint body. In such cases the required vote of the joint conference necessary to a decision is specified. In many cases specific provision is made for further action in case a Works Council fails to arrive at a settlement. Final decision may be vested in officials of the company, in an umpire, or in a board of arbitrators set up for the purpose. Obviously, the particular provision or pro- visions which govern a final settlement measure the authority which the Works Council possesses. It should be noted that under a Works Council plan the management is not deprived of an opportunity to make adjustments. In the first place, practically all plans provide that an adjustment must first be at- tempted with the foreman in the department concerned before a matter can be considered by the Works Council. It is sometimes further provided that certain company officials shall have an opportunity to use their good offices in bringing about a settlement where the Works Council fails to reach an agreement. Digitized by Microsoft® SETTLEMENT BY NEGOTIATION There are a few plans in which no procedure is prescribed for joint action by representatives of the management with the representatives of the employees. In such cases the employees’ committee simply confers with one or more of the executives of the company, as in the case of Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Plans. Under the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Plan, the craft committee first seeks an adjustment with the fore- man. Failing in this, the committee may then take up the matter with the superintendent. If the grievance concerns more than one craft, it is handled through the Joint Shop Committee, first with the superintendent, and then, failing a settlement, with the higher officials of the company. It is specially provided that, in any conference, the craft committee or Joint Shop Committee may call in the assistance of an out- side representative. In case the conference fails to result in a satisfactory adjustment, it is provided that the grievance be submitted to the district examiner of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board. Similarly, the plan of the United Railways Company of Baltimore merely provides that matters shall be adjusted by the employees’ General Committee with “the officers of the company.” The additional provision is made in this case that, in case the General Committee and the officers are unable to settle a matter, it shall be submitted to a Board of Arbitration. The committee and the company each select one arbitrator and these two choose a third. In case of failure to agree upon the third member he is chosen by a local judge. The decision of a majority of this Board is binding. The ‘Plan of Industrial Representation” of the Davis Coal and Coke Company likewise provides for final adjustment under a form of arbitration after attempts at satisfactory settlement with officials and executives of the company have failed. According to this plan, employees, after first having taken their case up with the foreman, may present the case to their Industrial Committee. The Industrial Committee investi- gates and reports to the superintendent, who attempts an adjustment. Failing to reach a settlement in this manner, an appeal may be taken to the general manager and from him, in turn, to the president of the company. In the event of failure to reach an agreement with the president, the Indus- 35 Digitized by Microsoft® trial Committee presents the case to a Special Board of Adjustment, composed of three persons appointed by the president, three by the Industrial Committee, and an umpire to be agreed upon by these six. In the event of failure to agree upon an umpire in five days, the presiding judge of the court in the district in which the mine is located is to appoint an umpire. In all cases the decision of the Special Board of Adjustment is final. Where settlement is by negotiation, no detailed pro cedure as to action by the conferees is prescribed, sinc the only action possible is by mutual agreement. SETTLEMENT BY JOINT COUNCILS On the other hand, where the Works Council is jointl: composed of representatives of the employer and repre sentatives of the employees, specific methods are pre scribed for the consideration and determination of matter by the joint body. Thus the following detailed pro visions are made in the plan of the International Har vester Company: After a matter has been presented through the regular channels to the superintendent and has not been satisfactorily disposed of, it may be brought before the Works Council. The employee or group of employees thus referring a matter to the Works Council are given an opportunity to present their case. After complete investigation and full discussion of the matter, a vote of the Works Council is taken, the employee representatives and the management representatives voting separately. The vote of a majority of each set of represen- tatives is recorded as their unit vote. In case of a tie vote, further consideration of the matter is in order, another vote then being taken. If the vote remains a tie, the matter shall, at the request of either the employee representatives or the management representatives, be referred to the president of the company. When the Works Council reaches an agreement on any matter, its recommendation is referred to the superintendent for execution. However, the superintendent may then refer the recommendation to the president of the company, who may either approve it and order its immediate execution; or, he may, within ten days, propose an alternative settlement or refer the matter to a General Council. The procedure and manner of voting in the General Council is the same as that prescribed for the Works Council. If the president decides not to refer the matter to a General Council, or if the vote of the General ili i iit te is be eres Soupcil is a tie, then the matter may, by mutual agreement of the president and a majority of the employee representatives, be submitted to arbitration. All decisions of any General Council or of any arbitrator or arbitrators shall be binding upon al] the works originally designated by the president as being jointly interested. Any such decision may be retroactive. Under the ‘‘Employees’ Representation Plan” of the Willys-Overland Company final reference of unsettled matters is made to an executive of the company. The various steps in the procedure are in substance as follows: 1. Any employee may in person or through a section representative, take up a question with the foreman. 2. If satisfaction is not secured, the section representative on the Joint Shop Committee may then take an appeal to the division superintendent, and, if necessary, to the executive industrial representative. 3. If the matter is still not satisfactorily settled, it can be referred to the General Board of Adjustment. 4, Should this Board fail to reach an agreement, the matter shall be referred to the works manager or vice president of the company. The course of procedure under the plan of the Pittsfield Machine & Tool Company parallels that prescribed in the Willys-Overland plan, except that final reference is here made to an umpire instead of to a company executive, The umpire is chosen by unanimous vote of the Joint Shop Committee and sits and votes with the committee. The plan of the Bridgeport Brass Company, which provides for a number of committees, prescribes the procedure to be followed in the case of each. Final authority rests with the board of directors of the company. The plan provides in substance: 1. All matters affecting a particular department or group of departments are first referred to the foreman of the depart- ment in question. 2. If not satisfactorily adjusted, the employee or employees in question shall refer it through their representatives to the Group Committee which presides over that section of the plant. The decision of a Group Committee, to be effective, must be unanimous. 3. If the decision is not unanimous, the matter shall be referred promptly to a Division Committee. A decision of a Division Committee, to be effective, must be unanimous, 37 Digitized by Microsoft® 4. If the decision is not unanimous, the matter in question must be referred to the Executive Council of the plant. A simple majority decision of the Executive Council is effective, subject to the decision of the board of directors. SETTLEMENT BY JoINT MEETINGS Under many plans the employees’ representatives while forming a separate committee, meet in joint sessio: with the representatives of the management. In suc] cases, a course of procedure for the consideration ani adjustment of matters by the Works Council generall; is prescribed, as in the case of Joint Councils. In fac there is little practical difference between a Joint Counci made up of an equal number of representatives of thi employer and of the employees and a committee o employees’ representatives who meet in joint sessio1 with representatives of the management of equal numbe or equal voting strength. The plan of the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company provides that the employee representatives and thi Management representatives while meeting in join: conference shall vote separately and as a unit. Ultimat reference under this plan is made to an arbitrator o} Board of Arbitration. The following, in substance is the procedure prescribed: 1. Any employee having a grievance on which he desires to have a decision, shall first present the subject to his immediate foreman or superintendent, in person or through his division representatives. 2. If unable to secure satisfactory adjustment, the aggrieved person, through his division representatives, shall present the matter in writing for the consideration of the Plant Conference Committee. The committee may present the matter to the general superintendent, who shall confer with the committee. The superintendent may call into this conference all of the division representatives. 3. If this means fails of adjustment, the matter shall be referred to a committee consisting of the general super- intendents of all of the plants of the company and all of the members of the Plant Conference Committees of all the plants. On all propositions submitted to a vote of this General Committee, the superintendents shall jointly cast one vote for the company and the representatives of the em- ployees shall jointly cast one vote for the employees. Digitized by #icrosoft® 4. If this committee is unable to reach an agreement the matter shall be referred to arbitration. One person shall be elected as arbitrator if the parties can agree upon his election. Otherwise, there shall be a board of three arbitrators, one member selected by the president of the company or his representative, and one member selected by the employee members of the General Committee; these two, if unable to agree, select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbi- trator or arbitrators shall be final. Similarly, the “Co-operative Plan” of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company provides that the representatives of the employees and the representatives of the manage- ment each shall vote as separate units. This plan provides that questions shall be taken up by the following com- mittees in turn: (1) Branch Committees, (2) Department Committees, (3) General Committees. The Department Committees and General Committees of the employees are to seek an adjustment with corresponding committees representing the company. According to this plan, the controversy shall be settled only when “the minds of the majorities of any committees meet.”’ When a griev- ance cannot be settled through the General Committees, it shall then be finally settled by arbitration. Action taken by the Conference Board of the Procter & Gamble Company, in order to be effective, requires a three-fourths vote of the members and the concurrence of all representatives of the management present at the meeting. Failing in this, the matter is reconsidered at a special meeting two weeks later. If the recommendation is not then agreed upon it is referred to the board of directors of the company for final decision.} The plan of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey lodges ultimate authority in the company. This plan provides substantially that an employee, having first attempted, in person or through his regularly elected representative, to have a matter adjusted by conference with the foreman or with the employment department, may appeal to the general superintendent and the higher officials of the company. But before such appeal shall be taken to any offi- cial noi located at the plant, it shall first be considered in a joint conference composed of the employees’ representatives in the division affected, and an equal number of represen- tatives of the company. In case such conference fails to agree unanimously as to a fair adjustment, an appeal may be 1'The plan has since been revised in this and other particulars. 39 Digitized by Microsoft® made to the Executive Council at the works, or in case such a Council has not been organized, to a conference composed of all of the employees’ representatives at the works, together with an equal number of representatives of the company, Under the Fayette R. Plumb plan, where the company in a joint conference has but four representatives to the twelve representatives of the employees, the voting strength is equalized by giving to each of the company’s representatives three votes. If an adjustment cannot be reached through the foreman and the factory manager, the matter is referred to the Employees’ Representative Committee in joint conference with the company’s representatives. A two-thirds vote of the conferees is final. If such a joint conference fails to reach a decision, the Employees’ Representative Committee is to appoint four members from its number, who meet in conference with the president, secretary, factory manager, and comptroller of the company. A simple majority vote of this conference is final. Under the ‘Bridgeport Plan” a majority of two votes of the employee representatives and the employer repre- sentatives meeting jointly is decisive. Like practically all of the other plans, the “Bridgeport Plan” provides that employees must first make an effort to adjust a matter through negotiation with the foreman. Under this plan if adjustment is not reached with the fore- man the matter may be referred to a Department Committee meeting with an equal! or lesser number of the management’s representatives. Two votes for or against any proposition shall decide and no further reference or appeal can thereafter be made. When no agreement is reached, unless the case is withdrawn by the party proposing the action, the matter shall immediately be referred in written form to the em- ployees’ General Committee meeting in conference with an equal or lesser number of management’s representatives. A majority of two votes of the entire membership of the Joint Committee decides, without appeal. In case the General or Executive Committee in joint conference fails to reach an agreement, the question shall be referred to the highest executives of the plant management for consideration and recommendation. The plan in effect in the Lynn works of the General Electric Company makes a double provision as to voting. A simple majority vote of the employees’ representatives meeting with a like number of company’s representatives Digitized byaflicrosoft® is sufficient, if the decision is satisfactory to the employee or employees originating the matter. Otherwise, a unanimous vote is necessary. The various steps in the procedure, which is necessarily complex because of the large size of the establishment, are substantially as follows: 1. Any matter requiring adjustment may, in the first instance, be referred by the employee affected, either per- sonally or with one or both of the representatives of his sec- tion, to the foreman of the work upon which the employee is engaged. 2. If the foreman fails to adjust satisfactorily, the matter shall then be reduced to writing and taken up by the Joint Shop Committee. Should this committee reach a decision satisfactory to the employee originating the matter, or should the committee reach a unanimous decision on the subject, such decision shall be regarded as terminating the matter. 3. Should the committee fail to adjust the matter, a written report, together with recommendations of the committee, if any, shall be submitted to the department head or manufac- turing engineer for action. 4. Should the manufacturing engineer fail to adjust the matter satisfactorily, the question may then be referred to the Works Council for action. Should this committee reach a decision on any matter referred to it satisfactory to the em- ployee or employees originating the matter, or should the decision of the committee on the question be unanimous, such decision shall terminate the matter, 5. In case the General Joint Committee on Adjustment fails to reach a decision, the question shall be referred to the manager for further consideration. In the plants of the Corn Products Refining Company grievances must first be presented for adjustment to the head of the department by the Departmental Committee concerned. If within five days thereafter the dispute is not adjusted, the Departmental Committee may refer the matter in dispute to a General Plant Committee, to con- sist of five employees elected by the members of the Departmental Committees, to be taken up with a like committee of the company or other of the company’s representatives. In the event that the General Plant Committee fails to bring about an agreement, the matter in dispute may be referred to such agency as the company 41 ’ Digitized by Microsoft® or its representatives and the General Plant Committee may agree upon." Under the plan of the Lukens Steel Company, the employees’ Board of Representatives first attempts the adjustment of a matter arising for consideration. If the Board fails to effect a, settlement, the Plant Committee endeavors to secure an adjustment through conference with a committee of equal number representing the company. The plan does not specify, however, by what sort of vote this joint body may take action. Under the plan in effect in the plant of the Nunn, Bush & Weldon Shoe Company, the “shop committee” having first so determined, a matter is taken up with the Joint Council, comprising four representatives each of employees and management. A majority decision of this Council is decisive. If its members are equally divided upon a question, the matter shall thereupon be submitted to a Board of Arbitration. This plan further makes provision for a paid representative of the employees, who devotes all of his time to the adjustment of matters in- volving the interest of the employees; he is paid from the funds of the association, of which all employees are members. The procedure prescribed in the agreement of the American Shipbuilding Company with the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor, under which the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board com- mittees are continued in existence, differs from that of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board plan in that a matter failing of adjustment between the craft committees and the company’s executives is next sub- mitted to the Joint Shop Committee. The Joint Shop Committee, having secured full evidence, is to vote on the question and submit the result to the operating head of the plant for his action. In case the claim is still unsettled, it is submitted to the Secretaries Committee. If the Secretaries Committee is unable to reach a decision and settlement, the case shall be appealed to the Joint Labor Adjustment Committee, comprising an equal number of representatives of the employees and of the management. *Under both the General Electric and the Corn Products Refining Compa- nies’ plans, an appeal could be taken to the National War Labor Board while that agency was in session. Digitized by &4icrosoft® SETTLEMENT BY SPECIAL CoMMITTEES A number of plans of employee representation provide for the reference of matters requiring consideration to one or more of the regular sub-committees of the Works Council. As in the cases where matters are considered by the Works Councils themselves, the ultimate settle- ment in these instances may rest with the company, may take the form of arbitration, or may be unprovided for. The “Co-operative Plan” of the Sprague Electric Works provides for consideration and adjustment of matters by the various joint sub-committees, each matter being referred to the particular sub-committee which deals with the subject in question. The final power to act rests with the manager of the plant. The various steps pre- scribed in the procedure are as described below: 1. Any matter arising shall be referred by the employees affected either personally or with one of the representatives of his section to the foremen. 2. In case a decision is not promptly rendered, it is to be referred to the general foreman, or in sections where there are no general foremen, to the general superintendent. 8. In case the general foreman fails to adjust the matter satisfactorily, it is to be referred to the Joint Committee in- volved. A unanimous decision of this committee terminates the matter. 4. If the committee fails to reach a unanimous decision, the matter is then submitted in writing by the committee, together with recommendations, to the manager for his action. The plan of representation in effect in the plants of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation provides for consideration by the General Joint Committee on Appeals of a matter which has failed of satisfactory settlement with the superintendent of the department, the management’s representative, and one of the superior officers of the company consecutively. The General Joint Committee on Appeals, comprising five representatives each of the em- ployees and of the management, is to consider such a matter at a regular or special meeting and may adopt such means as are necessary to ascertain the facts and effect a settlement. If the General Joint Committee on Appeals fails to effect a satisfactory settlement, the president of the company shall be notified and the matter may be referred, if the president and a majority of the employees’ repre- 43 Digitized by Microsoft® sentatives agree, to an arbitrator or arbitrators. Since this latter provision is merely suggestive, the plan in effect makes no provision for final settlement in the event that the General Joint Committee on Appeals fails to reach an agreement. Identical provisions as to procedure are included in the plans of the Timken-Detroit Axle Company and the Inland Steel Company. The plan of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company also makes the same provisions except that final reference of matters to arbitration is made obligatory. The “Industrial Representation Plan” of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company also provides for a sub-committee for the adjustment of matters. Under the Colorado plan, where a matter has failed of satis- factory settlement after having been taken up in consecutive order with the mine superintendent, president’s industrial representative, division superintendent, the assistant manager or manager, and the general manager or president of the company, it may be referred to the Joint Committee on In- dustrial Co-operation and Conciliation. Such a sub-com- mittee of the Works Council is provided in each of the districts into which the company divides its properties. Representa- tion and voting power of employer and employees in this sub- committee is equal and a majority vote determines action. Should the Joint Committee on Industrial Co-operation and Conciliation fail to reach a majority decision in the matter, it may select an umpire who shall sit in conference with the committee and whose decision shall be binding upon all parties. As an alternative the Joint Committee may, if the parties agree, refer the difference either to arbitration or request an investigation by the State of Colorado Indus- trial Commission. Where the difference is referred to arbi- tration, one person shall be selected as arbitrator if the parties can agree upon his selection. Otherwise there shall be a board of three arbitrators, the employees’ representatives and the company’s representatives on the Joint Committee on Industrial Co-operation and Conciliation in the district in which the dispute has arisen, each selecting one arbitrator and the two arbitrators thus selected choosing a third, By consent of the members of the Joint Committee on In- dustrial Co-operation and Conciliation, the Industrial Com- mission of the State may be asked to appoint all of the arbi- trators or itself arbitrate the difference. The decision of the sole arbitrator or of the majority of the Board of Arbitration Digitized by Microsoft® or of the members of the State of Colorado Industrial Com- mission when acting as arbitrators, as the case may be, shall be final and shall be binding upon the parties. Summary It appears from the foregoing discussion that of the 23 plans examined, eight, effective in 14 establishments, pro- vide for ultimate settlement through some form of com- pulsory arbitration. Under the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board plan, moreover, the examiner of the Board virtually serves as an arbitrator. In addition, three plans which are operative in a total of 30 establish- ments provide for final submission to arbitration if the parties at the time agree thereto. Five plans which are in effect in nine establishments provide that the power of ultimate settlement shall reside with certain company officials or with the board of directors. A similar number of plans make no provision for further reference after the Works Council has failed to effect an adjustment. In these cases, embracing over 50 establishments, a matter failing of settlement then has the same status as it would have in an establishment with no Works Council. ELECTIONS QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS Comparatively few plans of employee representation prescribe any qualifications as prerequisite to the right of employees to vote for representatives. In most cases, any worker in the employ of the company at the time of the election is privileged to vote. A few establishments, however, require a specified period of service in the employ of the company as a qualification for voting. The shortest period named is one month and the longest one year. In six establish- ments the attainment of 18 years of age is also prescribed as a qualification. One establishment requires American citizenship or possession of the first papers of naturaliza- tion. One month’s service in the employ of the company is required in two establishments. ‘Two months’ service is required by the constitutions of the Bethlehem Steel Cor- poration, the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, the Inland Steel Company, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube 45 “-« Digitized by Microsoft® Company, the Timken-Detroit Axle Company, and the Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Company. ‘These plans further stipulate that employees must be 18 years of age in order to vote. The constitutions of the ‘Employees’ Conference Plan” at the Procter & Gamble Company’s plant and of the American Multigraph Company’s plan require two months’ service in the employ of the company, but make no requirements as to voting age. The Plans of the Bridgeport Brass Company, the General Electric Company, the Lukens Steel Company, the Willys-Overland Company, the Sprague Electric Works, S. F. Bowser & Company, Inc., the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, and Fayette R. Plumb, Inc., require three months’ service in the employ of the com- pany. Six months’ service is required under the ‘“govern- mental” plan of employee representation in force at the Printz-Biederman Company’s plant. The ‘‘Co-operative Plan” of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company also requires the same period. One year of service is required at the Leeds and North- rup Company’s plant before an employee is entitled to vote. Eighteen plans, effective in over 50 establishments, specifically provide that those in authority such as “foremen,” ‘‘persons having the power of hire and discharge,” and “salaried officials,” shall not have the right to vote for employees’ representatives. A number of other plans by clear implication exclude all but wage- earning employees from voting. Where the Works Council is responsible or subsidiary to a “company union,” membership in the “company union” is, of course, prerequisite to the right to vote for employees’ representatives. QUALIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES’ REPRESENTATIVES The three requirements for eligibility to election as employees’ representatives on Works Councils most often specified are a definite term of service in the com- pany’s employ, an age limit, and certain provisions as to American citizenship. . Digitized by Microsoft® The length of service in the company’s employ requisite to representation of fellow-employees on the Works Council varies among the different plans from sixty days in the case of the American Shipbuilding Company to five years for “Senators” in the “governmental” plan of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. A period o one year’s employment is the provision most often adopted, having been reported in 20 cases, including the ‘‘Repre- sentatives” in the Goodyear plant. Six months on the companies’ payrolls are prerequisite to membership in employees’ councils in 12 plants, but one exception should be noted in the plan of the Garner Print Works, which provides for one year’s employment if shop committee- men are to be eligible to sit upon the Joint Council. The “shop committee” plans set up by the National War Labor Board in more than 40 plants in Bridgeport, Conn., call for only three months’ employment in the respective plants before an employee is eligible to stand for election to the committee. The same term of em- ployment is provided in the plans reported by two other establishments. In two other plans the length of service must be at least two years; and in two others, three years’ service is stipulated. ' It is generally specified that the required service must be continuous up to the time of election to the council, and also that employment with the company must continue while holding office on the council. In the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company’s plan, however, one year’s ser- vice any time during the 18 months immediately preceding the nominations is sufficient. There are instances where no provisions are made for a definite term of employment preceding election, others where no such provisions have been reported, and still others where all limitations upon qualifications of em- ployees’ representatives are left to the employees. Many plans also stipulate a minimum age, generally 21 years. Exceptions to this rule are a minimum of 20 years in the plant of the Joseph & Feiss Company, and of 25 years in the case of “Senators” in the Industrial Council representing the employees of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Instances of partial application of the 21 years age requirement are found in the plan in the Lynn Works of the General Electric Company, where apprentices are eligible at the age of 18 years, and in 47 Digitized by Microsoft® the plan of Sidney Blumenthal & Company, which pro- vides that the minimum age limit for women representa- tives on the council be placed at 18 years. Almost as many plans of Works Councils provide for citizenship requirements as for age requirements; where a plan applies limitations in the one respect, it generally applies limitations in the other also. Seven plans specifi- cally provide that representatives of employees on the Works Councils shall be American citizens. Nine others extend this limitation to include any employee, otherwise eligible, who has taken out first citizenship papers. Another notable qualification sometimes supplementing the citizenship requirement is the ability to read and write English. This provision has been noted in four plans of Works Councils, and in another has been modified to apply to ability to speak English. A common qualification in the case of Works Councils constituted upon the principle of departmental repre- sentation is that the employee representatives must be employed in the departments which they are elected to represent. Eleven Works Councils plans prohibit the election of foremen or other persons having the power of hire and discharge. Presumably, moreover, under many other plans this restriction is observed. Mertuops oF ELEcTION Two general methods of election are employed under the various plans of employee representation: first, direct election and, second, the double process of nomina- tion and election. : The method of direct election is used in the Sprague Electric Works and in the group of concerns operating under the “Bridgeport Plan.” The Sprague Works “Co-operative Plan” merely provides that elections shall be held on certain fixed days, notices of the elections to be posted four regular working-days in advance. Similarly, the “Bridgeport Plan” provides that an election notice shall be posted one week before the date of election, calling upon the employees to properly consider available candidates. Digitized by Picrosoft® The nomination method may, in turn, take any of four forms. _ Nomination may be (1) by primary election, (2) by petition, (3) by special nominating committee, (4) by , the employees gathered in open meeting. In the Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s plants and the other steel plants having similar forms of Works Councils, the primary election method is employed. The candidates for office are nominated by means of a secret ballot in the see way that the representatives are subsequently chosen. Where the primary method is employed, several candi- dates for each position are nominated from those who receive the highest number of primary votes. In a few plants, namely, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Com- pany, the Inland Steel Company, and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the voters at the primary cast ballots for twice the number of names which are called for to fill the positions of representatives. In other instances, the voters signify their preference for only the number which are ultimately to be elected. That is to say, in the three plants mentioned, the voters give a first and second choice in nominating candidates, while in other instances only one choice is indicated. After the nomination, and before the election takes place, names of candidates are posted in the various shops so that the voters will have adequate oppor- tunity to consider the various nominees. The usual machinery for carrying out preliminary nominations is illustrated by the provisions of the Bethlehem Steel plan. The governing rules provide that “on the day of nominations, each duly qualified voter shall be furnished with a ballot stating the number of persons for whom he is entitled to vote, on which he shall write the names of the persons in his department whom he desires to nominate as representatives. These ballots are counted either by a special committee or by tellers appointed by the chairman or chosen by the voters. The first two, three, four candidates, and so on, receiving the largest number of votes are then declared nominated by the posting of their names in conspicuous places within their respective shops or departments. The machinery for the final election is very similar. Ballots containing the names of those who have been nominated are distributed. Each voter votes for the number of representatives allotted to his department, 49 DBROP EY orbs PARY plant, or mill, whatever the basis of representation may be. In most instances, ballots on which more names are voted for than are allowed are void. The method of nomination by petition is provided in the conference plan of the United Railways Company of Baltimore. Under this plan, prospective candidates are required to file nomination petitions, each subscribed to by at least 10 fellow-employees. The “‘Employees’ Conference Plan” of the Procter & Gamble Company provides for nomination through a special committee of employees chosen by the voters. The fourth method of nomination in open meeting is prescribed in the representation plan of the Davis Coal and Coke Company. At a meeting, notice of which is required to be posted at least three days in advance, the employees of each mine are allowed to nominate twice as many candidates as are to be chosen. After nomina- tions are closed, the meeting proceeds immediately to the election of the representatives by secret ballot. In the majority of plants from which information was received regarding methods of election, the conduct of the elections is entrusted to a committee, or to a set of judges provided for the purpose. The committee may be one of the regular standing committees of the Works Council, asin the case of the Committee on Rules of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, or it may be a special committee named for the occasion, as in the case of the election committee appointed by the Employees’ Repre- sentative Committee of the Fayette R. Plumb Company. Where “judges of election” have charge of the election, these may be chosen exclusively by the employees, as under the ‘‘Bridgeport Plan,” or they may be in part representative of the management and in part repre- sentative of the employees, as in the case of the plan of the Bridgeport Brass Company. Elections having taken place, it is possible under most of the plans of employee representation to require a recount if a specified number or percentage of voters demand it. In some instances the ballots are preserved by the election committee or judges of election for a fixed period, pending a possible appeal. In most plans the date of election is specified. It is fixed more often during the months of December and January than during any other months of the year. Digitized byoVicrosoft® In order to fill vacancies when representatives leave the employ of the company, provision is commonly made for special elections. TERM OF OFFICE Practically all Works Council plans provide that “representatives shall be eligible for a term of one year.” There are, however, a few exceptions to this rule. Thus employee representatives in the eight plants of the American Shipbuilding Company, and in six other ship- building concerns, hold office for six months. This is also the case in the Bridgeport Brass Company, Industrial Works, Joseph & Feiss Company, Virginia Bridge & Iron Company, and Fayette R. Plumb, Inc. In the Procter & Gamble Company’s plant members of the committee are elected to serve for two years. REFERENDUM AND RECALL In some plans, including those of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Com- pany, the Inland Steel Company, a representative may be recalled upon the approval of the Committee on Rules of a petition signed by two-thirds of the voters in the depart- ment in question. A two-thirds vote is usually required for the recall of a representative, but in a few cases some other specific majority is mentioned. Any representative of the Lukens Steel Company’s “Industrial Represen- tative Plan” can, for instance, be “‘removed by a majority of 25 votes” cast at a meeting called for the purpose of deciding this question. Under the “Bridgeport Plan” and the plans in effect in the Sprague Electric Works and the plants of the Inter- national Harvester Company, provision is made for a special election to determine whether or not a repre- sentative shall be recalled. In the first two instances a two-thirds vote is required to recall a committee member; in the latter case a simple majority vote is sufficient. According to the “Bridgeport Plan” a special election may be called upon petition of 20 per cent of the em- ployees in any department; in the International Har- vester Company works such an election is held upon petition of one-third of the employees in the voting division from which a representative was elected. 51 Digitized by Microsoft® MEETINGS There is no uniform practice in respect to the holding of meetings of Works Councils. They may be held regularly or irregularly, and on the company’s or on the employees’ time. The information received shows that of a total of 64 plans, exclusive of the plans in establishments having divisional committees, 40 provide for meetings at regular intervals. The remaining 24 reported that meetings are provided for at irregular intervals, or failed to specify the frequency of meetings. Of the 40 plans providing for regular meetings, a monthly interval obtains in 24. The frequency of meetings in the whole group, however, ranges from two or more per month, in the case of several estab- lishments, to annual meetings, in the case of the Western Union and the Davis Coal and Coke Companies. Other intervals prescribed are weekly periods in five plans, bi- weekly in five others, and two-month, three-month, and four-month periods in one instance each. The Packard Piano Company’s plan provides for either bi-weekly or monthly council meetings. Sixteen plans in this group state specifically that, in addition, special meetings shall be held as occasion demands. Presumably many others which do not so specify allow the calling of special meet- ings. Among the 24 plans in which the council meets at irregular intervals, the meetings are generally called as often as necessity requires, usually by the chairmen, sometimes at the option of the members. In one instance meetings are held only when complaints arise. In several instances where special joint committees representing both employers and employees are provided, meetings at irregular as well as regular intervals are pre- scribed. The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company’s plan makes the joint committees available for consultation at any time, while the plans of the Inland Steel Company, the Timken-Detroit Axle Company, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, and the Bethlehem Steel Cor- poration provide for a meeting of the committees in joint session on alternate months. By the plan of S. F. Bowser & Company, Inc., the Joint Assembly of Represen- tatives meets every month and the Joint Committee on Industrial Conditions meets at least once every six months. Annual conferences of employees’ representa- Digitized by Microsoft® tives from all the Standard Oil Company’s plants having employee representation plans supplement the quarterly joint conferences held in the individual plants. A great variety of arrangements exists among the establishments having divisional committees. The Bridge- port Brass Company, as well as the 40 or more plants in which the “Bridgeport Plan” is in effect, provides for divisional committee meetings as occasion demands. The General Committee of the Bridgeport Brass Com- pany meets regularly twice a year, as well as upon occasion. In the case of the “Bridgeport Plan” no pro- vision is made for regular meetings of the General Com- mittee. The Departmental Committees in the General Electric plant at Lynn, Mass., meet upon occasion only, but a regular meeting of all of the representatives is held monthly. Monthly meetings of all representatives are held also at the Dutchess Manufacturing Company and _ in three shipbuilding yards operating under the Shipbuild- ing Labor Adjustment Board plan. Under the latter plan, also, two other concerns report weekly council meetings, while the eight plants of the American Shipbuilding Com- pany and the shipbuilding yard of the Atlantic Corpora- tion indicate bi-weekly meetings. The Joint Labor Ad- justment Committee of the American Shipbuilding Com- pany holds meetings twice a year. In the case of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, General Com- mittees meet monthly, and more often if necessary, De- partmental Committees on alternate months, and Branch Committees once every three months. Works Council meetings are held during working hours in 35 establishments, and outside of working hours in 17 as well as in the Bridgeport plants under the National War Labor Board plan. In nine instances meetings are held either during or outside of working hours. In the case of the Sprague Electric Works, meetings are held on the company’s time, whether within or outside of working hours. The Works Council of the New Eng- land Wire Machinery Company meets outside of working hours but on the company’s time. Under the plan of the General Electric Company the Board of Appeal meets on the company’s time, while the Department Committees meet on the employees’ time. 53 Digitized by Microsoft® PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES’ REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DiscRIMINATION In a few plans of employee representation provision is made for the protection of employees’ representatives against discrimination. Thus, the plan of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company provides that “there shall be no discrimination against any ‘Representative’ or ‘Senator’ for action taken by him in performance of his duties as outlined in this plan.” Similarly, it is provided in the representation plan of the Willys-Overland Com- pany that ‘‘employees’ representatives shall have the same right to appeal as is accorded other employees.” Repre- sentatives in the Timken-Detroit Axle Company have the right to appeal to any of the superior officers, to the General Joint Committee, and to the general manager of the company. The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company’s plan provides that any employees’ representative has “the same right of appeal to the officers of the company or to the Joint Committee on Industrial Co-operation and Conciliation in his district as is accorded every other employee of the company. Having exercised this right in the consecutive order indicated without obtaining satis- faction, for thirty days thereafter he shall have the further right of appeal to the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado.” ‘The Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s plan states that each representative “‘shall have the right to take the question of an alleged personal discrimination against him, on account of his acts in his representative capacity, to any of the superior officers, to the General Joint Committee and to the president of the company.” Failing a satisfactory remedy within thirty days, a representative may appeal to the State Department of Labor or to the Secretary of Labor of the United States. Similar provisions are included in the plans of the Inland Steel Company and the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company. GUARANTY OF INDEPENDENCE In some plans no provision is made concerning the worker’s independence in maintaining affiliations with outside organizations. Others, however, contain a definite statement covering this point. The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company’s plan provides that “there shall be no discrimination by the company or by any of its employees on account of membership or nonmembership in any Digitized by Sicrosoft® society, fraternity or union.”” The Willys-Overland Com- pany has also announced to its workers that “there shall be no discrimination by the company or by any of its employees on account of membership or nonmembership in any lawful union, society or fraternity, nor in respect to race, creed or political belief.” The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company plan states that ‘“‘there shall be no discrimination against any Goodyearite on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization.” Under the plans of the International Harvester Company also ‘“‘there shall be no discrimination against any em- ployee, because of race, sex, political or religious affiliation or membership in any labor or other organization.” CoMPENSATION oF CounciL MEMBERS The majority of plans include a general statement that the company will ‘defray such expenses as are necessarily incident”? to the Works Council. When the meetings are held “‘on company time” the workers are of course paid as though they were at their regular work. In a few cases this is specifically stipulated. ‘Thus employee representa- tives of the Bethlehem Steel plant “‘shall receive from the company payment commensurate with their average earnings. The Davis Coal and Coke Company, on the other hand, provides that ‘‘all expenses of the Industrial Committee shall be paid by the men unless they are acting in special cases at the request of the company.” Members of the Harvester Industrial Councils receive their regular pay from the company during such absence from work as this service actually requires, but in this case if the employee representatives so desire “they shall be at liberty to arrange for compensation to be paid by pro rata assessment among the employees.” All com- panies, such as the Colorado. Fuel and Iron Company, whose form of employees’ committees naturally necessi- tates traveling of the representatives, pay “traveling ex- penses of employees’ representatives when attending joint conferences and annual joint meetings.” The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company adds, however, that this arrange- ment shall not prevent “employees of the company from making such payment to their representatives in con- sideration of services rendered on their behalf as they themselves may voluntarily desire and agree to make.” In the Nunn-Bush plan, on the other hand, “no officer or member of any committee shall receive any compensation : 55 Digitized by Microsoft® for his or her services” except that the chairman of the Shop Committee receives a weekly compensation not less than the weekly wage he was receiving at the time of his election, to be paid out of the treasury of the employees’ association, and that members of the Shop Committee and Joint Council receive the sum of 25 cents for each meeting attended by them. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENTS To aid in carrying out the Works Council plan some employers have established departments of Industrial Relations, while others have appointed Industrial Representatives. In the International Harvester Com- pany such a department is “charged with the duty of giving special attention to all matters pertaining to labor policies and the well-being of the employees.” ‘The Willys-Overland Company appointed an executive in- dustrial representative to whom any employee may ap- peal individually in event of failure to secure a satisfactory adjustment of grievances through the employees’ repre- sentatives. "These appeals may be in person or by letter, ‘“‘and there shall be no criticism of any employee by any officer, foreman or fellow employer for making such appeal in a proper manner.” The representative appointed by the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company to facilitate close relationship between the management and the em- ployees’ representatives is to “respond promptly to any request from representatives, and shall interview all representatives from time to time, but not less frequently than once every month, with reference to matters of con- cern to employees, and report the result of such interviews to the management.” ‘The Sprague Electric Works, the Timken-Detroit Axle Company, and the Youngstown, Bethlehem and Inland Steel Companies include the same provision in their plan of organization. The industrial representative of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company is to “respond promptly to any request from the employees’ representatives for his presence at any of the camps and to visit all of them as often as possible, but not less frequently than once every three months, to confer with the employees or their representa- tives and the superintendents respecting working and living conditions, the observance of federal and state laws, the carrying out of company regulations, and to report the result of such conferences to the president.” 6, Digitized by Microsoft® Vv FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF WORKS COUNCILS The activities of Works Councils cover a wide range. They may include (1) the social and recreational life of the workers, (2) their living and working conditions, (3) the terms of employment, (4) such subjects as labor turnover, continuity of employment, and measures for increasing productive efficiency. These several activities, as has been indicated else- where,! are undertaken by Works Councils under varying degrees of authority. With certain activities, the Councils are concerned in an advisory capacity only; in some cases they exercise the function of review; in other instances they have power of initiative and action. Similarly, different emphasis upon the various activities characterizes the several forms of Works Councils dis- tinguished in this report. Where Works Councils have been instituted upon the initiative of employers, much emphasis has naturally been placed upon activities which tend to establish and maintain harmonious relations between employers and employees and to increase pro- duction. Such Works Councils accordingly have given much attention to activities which hitherto have been the concern either of employees’ beneficiary associations and mutual and co-operative undertakings or of indus- trial service, welfare or industrial betterment departments maintained by the employer. The prevention of accidents, the maintenance of proper sanitary conditions in the factory, and the protection of the health of workers have come to be more and more recognized by employers not only as a part of their responsibility but as essential to the highest working efficiency. It is only to be expected, therefore, that Works Councils organized through efforts of employers should give a prominent place to these matters. Bargaining over working conditions, hours of labor and wages, has been a chief feature of the activities of most 1See Chapter IV, “Organization of Works Councils,” pp. 33-45. 57 Digitized by Microsoft® Works Councils. “Bargaining” questions are, in fact, so commonly included among the activities of Works Councils of every class that those organizations which do not include them have been designated in this report as “limited” plans. Co-operative and constructive activities looking to the elimination of waste of material and equipment, to the reduction of labor turnover, and to measures which would provide for continuous employment and increasing efficiency of production have also been undertaken by some Works Councils organized by employers. This has been the case, notably, with councils of the “govern- mental” type. Works Councils having an organic relation with an employees’ association or “‘company union,” have likewise given special attention to such questions. Works Councils with an elaborate structure of sub-committees, such as are found in the plants of a number of the large corporations of the country, also deal with these questions. In the present chapter the functions and activities of Works Councils are described. SociaL AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES As pointed out in Chapter II, the social activities of em- ployees were among the first interests in the administra- tion of which the workers acquired a share. Several establishments specifically mention social activities as one of the concerns of the Works Council, or of one of its sub-committees, or as the sole concern of a committee specifically designated therefor. In several cases organizations originally designed for the regulation of social activities have expanded their interests so as to include the living and working conditions of the employees. While there are few clear instances in which an organization concerned solely with the social activities of the employees has developed into what may properly be called a Works Council, there are a number of instances on record where the activities of such organi- zations have proved a stimulative and educational influence which has helped to prepare the workers for a share in greater responsibilities. In a few instances Works Councils undertook social activities after they had already assumed the responsibilities involved in partici- pation in the handling of “industrial matters.” Digitized by licrosoft® In the case of the large corporations which have estab- lished Works Councils under plans elaborated in great detail, the social activities of the employees commonly form the concern of sub-committees of the Works Council. This is true under the plans of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the Inland Steel Company, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, the Timken-Detroit Axle Company and the Sprague Electric Works, as well as in some smaller establishments. Sometimes an “‘Employees’ Association,” a ‘Mutual Benefit Association,” a ‘‘Relief Association,” or similar plant organization has, in the course of time, extended its activities to “industrial matters” and has originated and maintained supervision over a Works Council, which then, among other duties, has undertaken the direction of social affairs. In a considerable proportion of estab- lishments having welfare associations, an organization for the social activities of the employees exists along with a Works Council but independently of it. In some cases, where the former organization was the earlier of the two, it has continued to maintain its independent organization. Livinc anp WorkING CoNDITIONS The subjects embraced under the heading of “Living and Working Conditions”? concern those interests, apart from hours of work and wages, which affect the welfare and life of the employees of an individual establishment, and may be grouped, broadly, as follows: Social Welfare of Employees, such as housing, co-operative stores, medical aid, insurance, education and Americanization. Industrial Betterment in the Plant, such as first-aid service, rest rooms, lunch rooms, and prizes. Working Conditions in the Plant, such as accident preven- tion, factory sanitation and hygiene, and overtime work. It is to be noted that of the Works Councils established upon initiative of the employer no less than three-fourths concern themselves with one or more of these matters. This group includes practically all of those plans which, in the list of Works Councils given in the appendix, are designated as “limited.” Of the “Shipbuilding Labor Ad- justment Board Committees” two-thirds deal with these matters. More than half of these are in the five yards of 59 Digitized by Microsoft® the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation and the eight yards of the American Shipbuilding Company. The National War Labor Board entrusted “shop committees” with the provision of measures for the pre- vention of accidents in 11 awards and the enforcement of factory sanitation and hygiene in 16 instances. Of about 70 active committees in this group, reported upon in this study, only about one-seventh concern themselves with these questions. However, a great majority of establish- ments having such committees failed to report as to this particular. It may be noted, in passing, that trade union “‘shop committees” ordinarily pay little attention to these questions. On the other hand, these matters, particularly that of accident prevention, form the chief interest of committees appointed by the management. Comparatively few Works Councils single out any one of this group of activities as their exclusive field. Where this happens, an explanation can sometimes be found in the existence of a special, and frequently older, com- mittee for a particular function, such as “safety-first” work. Social Welfare of Employees. In many establishments which have maintained so-called ‘‘welfare work,’’! the management of such enterprises has rested with the employer. In some cases, however, the employees have participated, being granted direct control, either com- plete or partial. A Middle Western machine building establishment, for instance, reports an employees’ Welfare Committee which governs the following undertakings: employees’ building and loan association, bakery, dairy farm, newspaper, co-operative store, and a number of other interests. Housing is a concern of the Joint Com- mittee on Sanitation, Health, and Housing under the “Industrial Representation Plan” of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company,and of the sub-committees on Housing, *For a description of such activities see: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Welfare Work for Employees in Industrial Estab- lishments in the United States. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1919, 139 pp. (Bulletin No. 250.) : This bulletin describes “welfare” activities covered by the following de- finition: “Anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of the industry nor required by law.” This definition therefore covers the activities here distinguished as “social welfare of employees” and “industrial betterment in the plant.” With respect to at least some of the activities here considered, information is there given on the participation of loyees jn their admini ion. . Digitized by Microsore Domestic. Economy and Living Conditions of the Bethle- hem Steel Corporation, the Inland Steel Company and the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company. The Works Council at the Irving-Pitt Company’s works is active in the management of a co-operative grocery which was established subsequent to the institu- tion of the Works Council. The Works Council at one of the three plants of a large steel company has been in- strumental in inaugurating a co-operative store.! Flour is purchased and sold co-operatively through the Mutual Benefit Committee of a large New York State clothing factory. Co-operative buying forms a feature also with the Participation Board of the Employees of the Miller Lock Company. In so far as employees have a share in the control of such matters as medical aid, measures of relief and all forms of social insurance, they exercise participation chiefly through the administration of “Benefit Societies” and ‘Mutual Aid Associations.”? There is at least one instance, however, in a Middle Western brass-goods fac- tory, where medical welfare service has, since the institu- tion of a Works Council, developed independently of any such organization. Much welfare work is also done under the authority of “company unions,” where such exist. Thus a Middle Western public service corporation, having organized an “Association of Employees,” described by the manage- ment as an “industrial union,” gives mutual benefit pay, sick and death benefits, medical and surgical care to members and their families. This work is largely sup- ported by the company but placed under the government of the association. Group insurance is provided under the direction of the Works Council of William Demuth & Company. Education in the sense of formal instruction is a concern of Works Councils in a few establishments. The Joint Committees on Recreation and Education under the ‘‘In- dustrial Representation Plan” of the Colorado Fuel and 1¥For similar undertakings governed by employees see the above-named study of “Welfare Work for Employees in Industrial Establishments in the United States,” pp. 116-117. 2 Chandler, William Leason: The Employees’ Benefit Association. Industrial Management, 55: 34-39, 109-15, 219-24, 293-97, 465-70; 56: 12-16. Jan- uary — April, June — July, 1918. 61 Digitized by Microsoft® Iron Company, for instance, may consider any matter pertaining to schools, libraries, classes for those who speak only foreign languages, technical education, manual training, health lectures, classes in first aid, religious exercises, churches and Sunday schools, Y. M. C. A. organizations, etc., etc. The Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the Inland Steel Company, and the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company have sub-committees on Education and Publications. The Works Council of the Timken-Detroit Axle Company has a sub-committee on Education which considers schools, Americanization and upgrading of employees. At one of the larger companies manufacturing electrical supplies, there is a sub-committee on Education which conducts classes in English for the non-English speaking employees in addition to classes in technical studies. Eng- lish classes are also conducted under the supervision of the Works Council at the plant of William Demuth & Company. It is to be noted that most of the examples here referred to are works of relatively large corporations, in a number of cases one or more of these being located in company or single-industry towns. In such towns, the population being practically limited to employees of the company and their families, the employer has sometimes undertaken to provide for needs of the community. Industrial Betterment in the Plant. Of the 225 Works Councils reported upon in this study, 90 concern them- selves with some kind of “welfare work’! in the plant. The majority of those replying did not furnish details as to the particular form of undertaking. The Timken-Detroit Axle Company, the Irving-Pitt Company, a Middle Western machine-building company, and a large steel mill have lunch rooms or restaurants which are under the management of Joint Works ‘Councils. There may be other instances, most of the returns not being specific as to this. Some Works Councils have a share in the management of clubhouses and gymnasiums. This is true in particular of those which have some organic relation with a mutual benefit or athletic associa- tion. 1 This being the term used in the questionnaire. Digitized byMicrosoft® A complaint over the method of distribution of a punctuality and attendance bonus was adjusted by the Works Council in a large establishment. A number of Works Councils concern themselves with prizes and bonuses given for suggestions and ideas toward the im- provement of manufacturing processes and the elimina- tion of waste. One Works Council organized upon the “governmental” plan enacted a measure establishing vacations with pay. One of the expressed purposes was to reduce, by this measure, the irregularity of employment in the industry. One question suggested by the above survey is whether the same workshop organization can profitably give attention to such different matters as social welfare and industrial betterment in the plant, on the one hand, and “industrial matters,” like working conditions, hours of work and wages, on the other. The organization of existing Works Councils and of their sub-committees, however, more commonly than not provides for the allocation of both groups of activities to a single Council.! Industrial betterment in the plant, being conducted upon the premises and touching the employees during working hours, is more directly a concern of the employer, as employer, than the activities covered by the term “‘social welfare.” On the other hand, industrial betterment concerns him less directly than working conditions and 1In Great Britain there are more commonly two or even three distinct organizations. There is, in some cases, a committee on social and recreational activities and welfare and an “industrial committee.” There are other es- tablishments in which there is a committee for the government of the “social union” and of recreational activities, a “welfare committee,” with or without representatives from the “industrial committee,” and, third, an “industrial committee.” The “industrial committee” itself may be elected by the em- ployees at large, may be elected by, or consist wholly of, trade unionists, or may be a “shop stewards’ committee” representative of the employees at large or of trade union groups. Reference may be made to the opinion, on this matter, of a representative of a British firm, Messrs. Hans Renolds, Ltd., Burnage Works, Didsbury, Manchester, which has often been cited for having developed a model form of organization in its works committees. A member of this firm, in his memoran- dum, to the Section of Economics, Science, and Statistics of the British Associa- tion, on “Workshop Committees: Suggested Lines of Development,” published in the symposium on “Industry and Finance. War Expedients and Recon- struction,” edited by Prof. Adam W. Kirkaldy, took the position that it would be better to have separate committees for social activities and employees’ welfare on the one hand and for the more “industrial matters” which become subjects of collective bargaining on the other hand. In a later expression of his opinion, published in The Survey, Vol. XLI, pp. 761-763, March 1, 1919, Mr. Renolds, in the light of further experience, takes a different position and states that he has “come to the conclusion that there should be only one committee,” an “industrial” or “shop stewards’ committee.” 63 Digitized by Microsoft® other “industrial matters.” Proper working conditions being closely connected with efficient production are considered a “necessity of the industry.” They are, moreover, in all states and in varying degrees, required by law. Working Conditions in the Plant. While the term “working conditions” may have a very broad meaning, as herein employed it is taken to cover such matters as accident prevention, sanitation, and hygiene. Of Works Councils instituted upon the initiative of the employer, 57 concern themselves with one or all of these matters. Of the “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” 15 do so. Only four of the “National War Labor Board Committees” reported such activities; many of these did not furnish specific information on this point. Comparatively few Works Councils in these three groups confine themselves to but one of these matters. Where they do, the prevention of accidents more fre- quently than factory sanitation and hygiene is the function selected. The prevention of accidents is the sole function in the case of six of the first class of Works Councils and of one “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committee.” Factory sanitation and hygiene are singled out for consideration by three Councils instituted by employers, by three “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” and by one ‘National War Labor Board Committee.” Both the prevention of accidents and factory sanitation and hygiene receive the attention of 48 Councils initiated by employers, 12 “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” and three “National War Labor Board Committees.” Where the activities of Works Councils are circum- scribed, frequently the management had, before the Works Council was instituted, provided some other form of organization to handle “safety-first” work. This appears to be the case at two plants of the General Electric Company and at the “Cloth Craft Shops” of the Joseph & Feiss Company of Cleveland. In two of the “Shipbuild- ing Labor Adjustment Board Committees” set up in ship- building yards, the reason for this exclusion of safety work may similarly be found in the existence of other and special provisions therefor. In one instance, that of a yard em- ploying 3,200 persons, the organization provided is that of Digitized byMicrosoft® a Safety-First Committee of foremen.! In the other yard, employing 1,900 persons, there is an appointive committee of two men from each department ‘for the purpose of safety and suggestion work.” This committee “is in no way connected with the employees’ committee on grievances.” One company, operating three plants, re- ports having in contemplation the allocation of safety work to the Works Councils. Since most Works Councils are of recent origin, their functions have as yet not become differentiated; nor has their organization in most cases assumed its presump- tively final form. The questions of safety and the pre- vention of accidents, however, lend themselves readily to such specialized consideration, so that in this field special or functional committees have begun to appear. In establishments in which these matters are not allocated to an appointive committee, a special or sub-committee of a Works Council is, therefore, often provided to look after them. This is the case in 16 establishments, among them being highly organized works of large corporations. For 46 out of the 70 establishments reported to have Works Councils dealing with both the prevention of accidents and factory sanitation and hygiene, the informa- tion given is confined to a simple enumeration of these matters as among those taken up by the Works Council. In the remaining establishments some sort of special committee is provided for either or both of the activities in question, safety committees predominating. In some cases these committees are regular sub-committees of the Works Council, so-called “functional”? sub-com- mittees. There may be a difference with respect to the authority of these “‘functional” committees. For example, in a large establishment making men’s clothing there are a Mutual Benefit Committee, an Americanization Com- 1 There is a similar committee for welfare work; but factory sanitation and hygiene are under the Works Council. 2There are two types of sub-committees. One represents the relation of an executive committee to a superior body. In this case all the powers and activities delegated are assigned to a single committee. The end sought is a committee not too large for executive work. The other type represents a division of labor. Instead of all activities being delegated to a single committee each of a number of committees performs a function differentiated from the others by its content. Thus there may be a welfare committee, a safety com- mittee, a piece-rate committee. 65 Digitized by Microsoft® mittee and a Safety Committee. The authority of the respective committees in this case is final in social matters and in matters of welfare and service work, while the committees dealing with “industrial matters” act in an advisory capacity only. Apart from their relation to the question of remunera- tion, the questions of a Saturday half-holiday and other holidays, overtime and Sunday or night work relate to the welfare of the workers. Special issues, moreover, enter into consideration of these matters in this country by reason of the fact that the foreign-born of various nationalities desire to observe their national and religious holidays. In the Bethlehem Steel Corporation case the National War Labor Board held, in its findings, that “the definition of what shall constitute holidays and the division of the weekly work periods can, in the opinion of the Board, be settled best by conference between committees hereinafter provided and the manage- ment of the plant.” A similar recommendation was made in the Bridgeport Munitions case. A New York dry-dock and ship repair yard specifically reports that the question of holidays was adjusted by the Works Council during the course of the last year. With William Demuth & Company the celebration of the national holidays of the various nationalities employed by the company has also been adjusted by the Works Council. Terms OF EMPLOYMENT Such matters as hours of work, wages and piece rates, vital to both employer and employees, constitute an important concern of most Works Councils. Subjects such as shop discipline, hiring, promotion and discharge, dilution and apprenticeship, all relating to the direction of the working force, while also forming part of the terms of employment, appear less frequently among their activities. The explanation is perhaps to be found in a difference between the two interests. The former, being economic, naturally tend to become the subject of bargain- ing between employer and employee. The latter, being determined on the basis of personal qualities and qualifica- tions, are more likely to be regarded as within the scope of the management’s function. Digitized b¥’Microsoft® REMUNERATION AND HOURS OF WORK Of the total of 225 Works Councils covered in this survey, 145, as Table 4 shows, are expressly reported as concerning themselves with one or the other of these two questions. TABLE 4: NUMBERS OF WORKS COUNCILS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THEIR ORIGIN, AND TO QUESTIONS OF HOURS OF WORK AND REMUNERATION DEALT WITH, SINGLY OR IN GROUPS, BY EACH CLASS OF WORKS COUNCIL Works Councils, instituted upon the initiative of Subjects Dealt With Shipbuilding National Employers Labor Adjust- | War Labor Total ment Board Board Hours of Work .... . 5 0 1 6 Wage Schedules ed tg 1 1 1 3 Piece Rates ... 2... 2 0 5 7 Hours of Work and Wage Schedules . aoe ae 36 6 3 45 Wage Schedules and Piece! Rates oe eae & abe S 4 0 1 5 Hours of Work, Wage Schedules and Piece Rates 24 10 4 38 Total number of Councils dealing with one or more of the three subjects named 72 Vv ae - The additional 41 Works Councils are in establishments in Bridgeport, Conn., in which the “Bridgeport Plan”’ is in effect. These Councils are known to deal with bargain- ing matters but the specific phases of the question have not been ascertained in each case. Of these Councils, 72 represent organizations instituted through the initiative of employers; 17 represent “Ship- building Labor Adjustment Board Committees”; and 56 represent ‘National War Labor Board Committees.” Inthe case of 15 Works Councils set up at the instance of em- ployers, hours and wages were not designated as among their activities. In 20 establishments in the same group no activities were specifically mentioned. Of the Works Councils instituted upon the initiative of employers on which detailed information was received, three-quarters are therefore active as “bargaining committees.” “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees” dur- ing the war were not so frequently called upon to deal with these matters, because under war contracts the Emergency Fleet Corporation of the United States Shipping Board 67 Digitized by Microsoft® determined hours of work and wages in the shipbuilding yards. Since the authority of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board lapsed, on the first of April, a number of committees in shipyards have been reorganized. In the five yards of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation and in the eight yards of the American Shipbuilding Corn- pany this reorganization, as shown in Chapter IV, has been effected under a written trade agreement with the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor. The reorganized committees are expressly reported as bargaining collectively with the employing companies with respect to hours and wages. Where the National War Labor Board defined the jurisdiction of the “shop committees” beyond simply directing that there should be conferences upon the questions at issue or the matters in dispute, the specified functions assigned in by far the majority of cases included the determination of hours of work and wage schedules. In 115 cases disposed of before the Board took its recess (April 11, 1919), the question of wage schedules was assigned to “shop committees.” In 59 cases the question of hours of work was also assigned and in 28 cases the question of hours of work alone. In 16 cases adjudicated by the Board, the wages to be paid for overtime work were also specifically referred to joint committees for settlement. In six cases piece rates were to be settled by joint conferences. In the case of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation the Board referred the determination of piece rates to “an expert in co-operation with the Ordnance Department, the plant management, and a committee from the shops, such expert to be selected by the National War Labor Board and with the approval of the Secretary of War.” In one instance it left the question as to whether piece rates should be abolished in the handsof acommittee. Hence, this group of ‘economic questions,” that is, those of hours of work, wage schedules, overtime pay and piece rates, rank first among the questions considered by “National War Labor Board Committees.” These “shop committees,” therefore, were designed to be essentially “bargaining committees.” Of the “National War Labor Board Committees” reported upon in this study, 15 specifically stated that they deal with hours of work or wages. There are, besides, over 40 Works Councils organized under the “Bridgeport Plan” Digitized by #icrosoft® which provides for essentially “bargaining committees.” A considerable number of establishments in which “ shop committees” were called for under an award or a recom- mendation by the National War Labor Board failed to reply or furnished only partial information as to activities. It is to be noted that a considerable number of Works Councils take up either all or at least two of the three questions here considered as a group, that is hours of work, wage schedules, and piece rates. Upon reference to Table 4 it will be observed that the number of Works Councils of any of the three classes which give attention to the three questions here considered is negligible; the majority of Works Councils deal with at least two of the questions. The following summary, which is readily derived from Table 4, shows for each of the three questions the number of Works Councils which deal with that question alone or in combination with others in the group. Number of Works Councils dealing with Hours of work, alone or in combination ....... 89 Wage schedules, alone or in combination ...... 91 Piece rates, alone or in combination ........ 50 It may safely be said, therefore, that the majority of Works Councils serve as “bargaining committees.” On the other hand, as this summary shows, they are by no means exclusively “‘bargaining committees.” By this breadth of interest and scope of functions and activities Works Councils are distinguished on the one hand from appointive committees, which but rarely undertake “‘col- lective bargaining,” and, on the other hand, from trade- union shop committees, which more commonly than not are exclusively ‘‘ bargaining committees.” DireEcTION oF THE WorRKING ForcrE Matters included under the broad term “direction of the working force” relate to the selection and supervision of the working force and the training and maintenance of a body of skilled workers and include: (1) shop dis- cipline; (2) hiring, promotion and discharge; (3) dilution of labor; (4) regulation of apprenticeship; (5) selection of foremen. 69 Digitized by Microsoft® SHOP DISCIPLINE, HIRING, PROMOTION AND DISCHARGE Of the Works Councils which gave specific information on this matter, 73 deal with shop discipline or with hiring, promotion and discharge, or with both. Of these, 48 are Councils instituted by employers, 13 are “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees” and 12 are “Na- tional War Labor Board Committees.” Of these 73 Works Councils, 30 deal with both matters, while 17 deal with hiring, promotion and discharge, and 26 with shop dis- cipline alone. Hiring, promotion and discharge is, there- fore, taken up by 47 Works Councils and shop discipline by 56. Field investigation disclosed that in many cases in which thesé matters were mentioned among the activities of Works Councils, the function was exercised as one of review and recommendation only. On the other hand, this group of questions is in many cases specifically excluded from consideration by Works Councils. ‘Thus the plan of “Representation of Em- ployees” of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company expressly stipulates that ' The management of the works and the direction of the working forces, including the right to hire, suspend, dis- charge, or transfer, and the right to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work, or for other legitimate reasons, is vested exclusively in the management, and, except as ex- pressly restricted herein, these rights shall not be abridged by anything contained herein. The same reservation is made in the plan of the Inland Steel Company. The plan of the Bethlehem Steel Cor- poration, which the two plans just named follow closely in other particulars, does not make this specific limitation. In over 40 Bridgeport concerns having Works Councils organized under the “Bridgeport Plan,” the Works Councils are subject to the limitation that Departmental committees shall not have executive or veto power, such as the right to decide who shall, or shall not, be employed; who shall, or shall not, be discharged; who shall, or shall not, receive an increase in wage; how a certain operation shall, or shall not, be performed, etc. A street railway company qualified the powers of the Council to the effect that, while all other grievances are brought to discussion and, if not settled, referred to arbi- tration, matters of discipline and efficiency are not subject ’ Digitized by-fficrosot® ” ame to arbitration. In an establishment engaged in the manufacture of men’s clothing, on the other hand, supreme” authority is conceded, in dealing with these same matters, to the “Quality Club,” an organization of employees and foremen. A Middle Western machine building concern specifies that the Council is ‘to have no power in classifying or rating men in any department,” while “matters of discipline also must remain at present with the executive force and cannot be subjects of dis- cussions with this committee.” The “Industrial Representation Plan” of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company similarly provides that The right to hire and discharge, the management of the properties, and the direction of the working forces, shall be vested exclusively in the company, and, except as expressly restricted, this right shall not be abridged by anything con- tained herein. The Davis Coal and Coke Company includes among its statements of the general principles and policies which shall govern the operation of the Works Councils estab- lished at its mines the following: The management of the mine, the right to hire and dis- charge, and the direction of its working forces, is vested in the operator and his representatives. . . . It is of interest to note that a structural steel company which introduced a Works Council for an experimental period of six months subsequent to an award by the National War Labor Board, during the period of trial ex- tended the function of the Council to include shop dis- cipline and promotion. A concern having a “‘company union” agrees to dis- charge any worker whom after three months in the em- ploy of the company, the employees’ Shop Committee refuses to accept for membership in the employees’ association. Again, while one concern, in which the authority of the Council is generally limited by the form of its organiza- tion, excludes “the rating of men in any department” from the prerogatives and functions of the Council, an- other company specifically enumerates the rating of men among the activities of the Works Council. 71 Digitized by Microsoft® ‘ DILUTION Mass production by repetitive processes having already become common in this country, and the place of the unskilled worker, often of alien birth and speech, as machine tender at automatic machines having long been established, the question of so-called “dilution” has not here, even during the war, assumed serious proportions. Among the establishments investigated in this study there are, nevertheless, 11 in which Works Councils have dealt with this question. REGULATION OF APPRENTICESHIP In the past, the training of apprentices to the trade has been the concern of both the workers’ trade union and of the employers, the trade union being interested with a view to maintaining the craft, the employers with a view to maintaining efficiency of production. As dis- tinct from these, unskilled workers were interested in free- dom of admission to skilled occupations. Within recent years several large and well-organized establishments have on their own account undertaken the training of apprentices. Having these circumstances in mind, it is interesting to note that there are 21 establishments in which Works Councils have participated in the regulation of apprentice- ship. SELECTION OF FOREMEN There are only nine establishments which report that the Works Council is permitted to share in the selection of foremen. One qualifies this participation as “‘indirect only.” In one instance the Works Council is consulted on the qualifications, generally, of fellow workers and of their immediate superiors. In another establishment the employees, through the Works Council, exercise a veto upon the selection of foremen made by the manage- ment. In most establishments, however, the appointment of foremen remains with the management. Though not explicitly named in any of the formulated plans, among the functions reserved as a prerogative of the management, the appointment of foremen is, no doubt, meant to be in- cluded by the reservation made in these plans in such‘ phrases as “the direction of the working forces” or “management of” the plant or mine. Digitized b¥*Microsoft® Co-OPERATIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES The participation of Works Councils in the elimination of wasteful methods and in the improvement of industrial equipment and processes has been relatively infrequent. In the organization of the sub-committees of the Works Councils in the works of a number of large corporations, however, provisions are made for the consideration of these matters. Thus, at the works of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation there is a sub-committee on Practice, Methods and Economy. Similar sub-committees are found at the works of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company and of the Inland Steel Company. At the works of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation there is also a sub- committee on Continuous Employment and Condition of Industry. There are similar committees on Continuous Employment and Reconstruction Problems at the works of the Inland Steel Company and the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company. Under the “‘Employees’ Representa- tion Plan” of the Timken-Detroit Axle Company there is a sub-committee on Production Methods which deals with “improving product, improving quality, improving de- sign, reducing scrap.” Under the “Sprague Works Co-operative Plan” of the Sprague Electric Works there is a committee on Efficiency, Economy and Suggestions whose duties are to “review all matters presented to them in the form of suggestions” and to “investigate all matters relative to efficiency and economy throughout the plant.” ' Co-operative and constructive activities stand out with some prominence in the case of a number of Works Councils organized on the lines of the Federal Govern- ment of the United States. Thus, at the works of William Demuth & Company there is an Inspection Committee which inspects the quality of products and adjusts matters between inspectors and foremen. There is also a Mechani- cal Equipment Committee. So also at the plants of the Packard Piano Company, Sidney Blumenthal & Com- pany and the Printz-Biederman Company the Works Councils have concerned themselves with methods of production. The Works Council at one of the works of a steel mill has dealt with such matters as modifications in the system of laying off and the extension of the street railway facili- ties to the plant. Similarly at the Miller Lock Company, 73 Digitized by Microsoft® & Ph, the Works Council was called upon since the close of the war to adjust the distribution of work on the basis of a shorter workday to avoid a large lay-off of men. TIME-KEEPING Returns by questionnaire show that the Works Councils in 15 establishments deal with “‘time-keeping,” presum- ably from the point of view of regularizing production. In all but one, which was a ‘‘ Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committee,” all the Works Councils in question had been instituted upon the initiative of employers. Not in- cluded in this count are a number of so-called “‘Govern- ment Committees” which were formed during the war in the interest of maintaining the production of war supplies. These are virtually time-keeping and production com- mittees.! Such committees are said to have been organized in over 12,000 plants during the war.’ In one instance it has been reported that the employees of a piano company, through the “House of Represen- tatives” speaking in their behalf, had called for measures to improve time-keeping. Epitome. It appears from the foregoing that practically all Works Councils deal with such subjects of bargaining as hours of work, wages, and piece rates. In addition, many such organizations concern themselves with the social and recreational life of the workers and with their living and working conditions. In some cases, Works Councils deal with shop discipline, or with hiring, promotion and dis- charge, but usually by way of review and recommenda- tion only. Relatively few Works Councils concern them- selves with the improvement of production methods or with general management problems. 1In Great Britain, on account of the acuteness of the problem, a number of time-keeping committees appeared which functioned as or were ultimately enlarged into general “production committees.” These committees were instituted in the coal-mining industry, at the ironworks in Cleveland and Dur- ham, and in a number of engineering and munitions factories. Most of these were joint committees of employers and employed, exercising their authority through the imposition of fines or deductions made from bonus because of lost time, negligence, damage, or other cause. (Forrecommendation of such action by works tribunals representative of employers and employed see the Report of the Truck Committee, 1900. Cd. paper 4442, pp.37 and 81.) See Great Britain. Ministry of Labor. Works Committees. Report of an Inquiry. ae States. Department of Labor. Annual Report of the Secretary. p. 182. Digitized by Mitrosoft® Vi EXPERIENCE WITH WORKS COUNCILS Works Councils are influenced in their operation by a large number of factors which need to be considered in an account of their experience. The individual circumstances under which they were formed, differences in type of organization, the character of relations between employer and employees, the per- sonality of the management, the type of employees, the size of establishment, and industrial conditions prevailing at the time of their introduction, all have in varying degree influenced results. Thus, experience with “National War Labor Board Com- mittees” has differed in many particulars from that with “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” and with plans of employee representation voluntarily in- stituted by employers. Again, results following the intro- duction of “committee” plans have differed from those following the institution of ‘“‘governmental” plans. Likewise, differences in the attitude of management and employees explain the success or failure of a number of Works Councils. Still again, Works Councils established at a time of labor difficulties often have had very different results from those introduced when relations between management and workers were amicable. In some instances Works Councils have lapsed com- pletely; in others they have had only a perfunctory existence. Some have been active to only a limited degree. In many cases, however, they have functioned actively. The type of employees elected to serve on Works Councils has varied from the “finest” to the “most un- desirable.” The effect of the operation of Works Councils with respect to the spirit of the workers, to output, to labor turnover, and to labor difficulties, has varied from “highly satisfactory” to “unfavorable.” The influence upon the extent of unionization and upon relations with organized labor has likewise differed. ‘The attitude of employers towards the Works Council idea has ranged all the way from opposition to enthusiastic approval. 75 Digitized by Microsoft® EXPERIENCE ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF PLAN War Lasor Boarp CoMMITTEES The “shop committees”? recommended or ordered to be established by the National War Labor Board were set up while unusual wartime conditions prevailed. Practi- cally all of these committees, moreover, were instituted at times when relations between employer and employees were more or less strained. Many of these committees were formed in industries in which one or more crafts or all of the workers were highly organized. As has been indi- cated, they were primarily “bargaining committees,” dealing with such matters as wages and hours. The National War Labor Board in some of its awards merely specified that the management should deal with committees of their employees; in other cases it prescribed in more or less detail the character of organization, method of holding elections, and other features; in some cases, through examiners detailed for the purpose, it aided in the actual installation of the plans. It is also to be noted that the earliest of these com- mittees dates back only to the summer of 1918 and that the majority were established in the early months of 1919. Experience with most of these “shop committees”’ has, therefore, been extremely brief. Of a total of 74 estab- lishments reported upon in this study in which “shop committees” were instituted by the National War Labor Board, information as to their actual operation was secured in the case of 40. According to the information available, the committees in 16 establishments were inactive; 13 of these lapsed entirely and three had only a perfunctory existence. Of the 24 committees reported as active, 15 evidently were active to a limited extent only. Nine served actively with favorable results. Inactive Committees. The “shop committees” estab- lished by the National War Labor Board were primarily intended to aid in carrying out awards concerning wages and hours of work; the cancelation of war contracts and the consequent reduction in work forces frequently caused their discontinuance. Thus, an Eastern manufacturing concern reported that while during the war they had a “shop committee” representing the toolmakers, Digitized b{’Microsoft® now that the war has come to an end and our war orders have been canceled we employ but a very few toolmakers and at the present time we have no committee representing them. ‘Two Bridgeport concerns also reported that the com- mittees were abandoned owing to the cancelation of war contracts. An official of one of the companies stated: During the war period we found our committee very useful both in maintaining organization and looking after the patriot- ism of the men. In a small Eastern machine shop the “shop committee,” which later lapsed, met several times during the first few months of its existence. Also, individual committee mem- bers took up with the management a number of matters. The rating of the individual workers was discussed with the committee, as was also the provision for laying off men made necessary by the stoppage of work on war contracts. According to the general manager, the members of the committee at first brought up some absurd subjects for consideration but were soon made to see the folly of this. The members of the committee were said to be of a good type. Apparently the management was throughout in sympathy with the committee plan and favored its con- tinuance. When the plant was visited by a: field investi- gator, however, all but six or seven men had been laid off on account of lack of work and the committee was, of course, inactive. _ Still another establishment reported that at the time of writing it had only 25 men in its employ, owing to the cancelation of war orders, so that matters of mutual interest were taken up with the employees as a whole. A frequent cause of the lapse of “‘shop committees” soon after their installation is found in the unsympathetic atti- tude of the management towards them. In one Bridgeport establishment employing 400 workers there is an instance of this. The works manager, frankly unsympathetic to the representation idea, declared that he could see no use for such a committee in any plant where the spirit of the workers was already good. The committee was active in only a single instance, merely calling attention to a matter of sanitation in connection with lockers used by the men. The general manager of a small establishment who stated that he was forced to accept a “‘shop committee” 77 Digitized by Microsoft® of three members, reported that its work was very limited and that it existed but a short time. The visit of a field investigator to a small Middle Western plant developed the fact that the committees were then nonexistent. No regular plan of organization had been drawn up, and no formal election had been held. The members had, in fact, been chosen by the superin- tendent of the plant, the employees merely accepting the representatives selected. The management evidently assumed the position that the National War Labor Board had forced the committees upon them and therefore undertook merely a formal compliance with the require- ment. A few meetings were held with reference to carrying out the terms of the award, but no others. While the ““shop committees”? nominally were still in existence, the foundrymen in this plant went out on a sympathetic strike with members of their union employed in another estab- lishment in this locality. The president of another establishment in which a single small committee was provided to represent about 600 employees stated: We would not have started the employees committee had we not been forced to do so by the War Labor Board, as we did not feel that there was any necessity for it. We have a committee, but they have never had occasion to come to us with any matter for adjustment, although we have had several meetings to discuss general conditions and to make clear our aims and policies. He expressed the belief, that while little had actually been accomplished in his plant, the plan might con- ceivably be useful. The relations between employer and ie in this establishment were already said to be good. “Shop committees” in a large Eastern manufacturing establishment were instituted after a strike which had greatly aggravated the bad feeling already existing between employees and management. An atmosphere of utter suspicion and distrust prevailed when the National War Labor Board ordered the introduction of a system of “shop committees.” Difficulties were encountered in working out a proper division of the plant as a basis for choosing representatives. It appears, moreover, that the management put many petty obstacles in the way of holding elections, so that these had to be held 78 Digitized by Microsoft® outside of the plant and after workhours, with a conse- quently small vote. As far as it was possible to ascertain, all of the committeemen elected were union members. Some months later, despite the existence of the “shop committees,” most of the employees went out on a sympathetic strike with workers in another locality. In the process of reinstating employees after the strike and through lay-offs occasioned by the stoppage of war work, a number of the committee members were dropped from the employ of the company. At the time of a field in- vestigator’s visit, two out of three members of the most important committee, as well as a number of other com- mittee members, when reinstated were given employment in different parts of the plant than those in which they had previously worked. The committee system had thereby become disorganized and inactive. The management ex- pressed itself as indifferent toward its reorganization at the time, whereas some of the leaders among the men appeared to be anxious that the committees again become active. Equally fatal to the success of the “shop committees” were the obstructive activities on the part of employees in some plants. In one small plant in the Middle West, the National War Labor Board, upon a complaint by the machinists’ union, had made a recommendation that the company deal with a committee of its employees. According to the president of the company, the union men refused to have a non- union man on the committee and the plan could not be put into effect. The general superintendent of another Middle Western company, writing early in 1919, stated: As the employees, in some way, knew about the award before we did, they had the election all fixed up according to the way the union dictated to them and the consequence was that the committee was picked from the strictest union agitators. The inevitable result was a clash with the manage- ment which culminated in a strike lasting over three weeks. However, the result of this strike was very gratifying to us and the men realized that the committee they had elected was not the one from whom they could expect harmony or construc- tive work; they denounced the men who had been placed on the committee and abandoned them, coming back to work on our terms, without this committee. As far as we are aware, we have at the present time no shop committee. 79 Digitized by Microsoft® Other cases might be cited where neither employers nor employees took active interest in the committees, as in one establishment which later adopted the “Bridgeport Plan.” A small committee had been formed in September, ‘1918, in a single division of the plant. It failed to function, as neither the management nor the workers supported it. In another concern no interest was taken in a committee which was composed of only two men. The “shop committees” in one Eastern establishment with about 900 employees were found by a field investi- gator to be wholly inactive at the time the plant was visited about eight months after the formation of the committees. Feeling that the committees were dominated by outside labor interests and having little confidence in them, the management had made no effort to co-operate. Evidently the radical spirits among the workers, who had been most active in the strike which led to the National War Labor Board’s award, were elected to the committees and unionization greatly increased after the committees were formed. Despite an unsatisfactory experience, the vice-president of the company expressed his belief that much good would come out of a shop committee selected by the employees at a time when no labor diffi- culties existed, and added that he believed that his com- pany would take steps in the near future to arrange for a plan of representation. An earlier ‘shop committee” in one of the largest estab- lishments in Bridgeport, which later held elections under the ‘‘Bridgeport Plan,” was wholly inactive. Committees of Limited Activity. While most “shop committees” introduced by the National War Labor Board functioned to some extent, their activities were often restricted. In seven instances the committees were mainly active in connection with the interpretation of the Board’s awards. In one of these cases the works manager reported: Having only 200 men in the machine shop, we have always held that a committee was not necessary and so have had as little as possible to do with them. The only activity this year was a request that the machinists wished to observe Washing- ton’s birthday. We were pleased to agree with them. In another plant, to which a Board examiner was sent to assist the men in the election of committees, the general 80 Digitized by Microsoft® manager reported that little interest was taken and that the only work was an unsatisfactory attempt to interpret an award made by the Board concerning retroactive pay. _ On the other hand, the management of a plant employ- ing 850 workers during the war, but which shut down upon cancelation of war contracts, reported that the “shop committees” “had a number of meetings and settled a lot of questions satisfactorily.” The ‘‘shop committee” in another establishment limited its activity to a single occasion when a com- mittee of two employees was selected to confer with a committee of two representing the company, for the purpose of classifying shop employees according to a notice posted in the shop. “Our experience has not been satisfactory,” writes the manager. One Middle Western firm in this group declared: On receipt of the award of the War Labor Board in regard to our difficulty with the International Association of Machin- ists, a committee of two was elected by our employees by secret ballot. This committee and the management came to an agreeable understanding and worked out the detail of the application of the award, which went into effect at once. Since that time there has been no conference between this committee and the management. Another Bridgeport concern employing less than 50 workers reported: Owing to the sudden stoppage of nearly all war work in our factory, we have been obliged to lay off a large number of our employees, but we believe from the short experience we have had with a “shop committee,” that it will be the best thing that has happened in our plant, as we believe that, by careful management, nearly all the troubles that arise in connection with our business can be settled under our own roof, thereby eliminating the necessity of outside concerns of the men whether union or non-union. The limited activity of committees in a number of establishments was evidently attributable to the existence of ill feeling between employer and employees. This is instanced in one establishment where the committees held vety few meetings, and these generally for the pur- pose of finding out why some worker had been dismissed. The secretary of the company stated that the committees 81 Digitized by Microsoft® were run by the unions and were of no particular benefit. “With a committee composed of our best employees we think a great deal of good might come of it,” he declared. The president of another company reported: We have in our plant a committee of two of the workmen, who would like to represent all of the 150 employees in our plant. He instanced an agreement reached with the committee as tothe number of work hours and noted that within less than a week after its acceptance two departments threat- ened to strike unless they were permitted to work longer hours. ... Hence, we are convinced that a “shop committee” can only be useful to the employees and to the employer when it can without hindrance of outside influences make rules and regulations for the employees in the plant where they are directly employed. If such conditions should be brought about, we believe both the employee and the employer would become closer allied, with better working conditions for the employee and better results for the employer. The management of another concern reported that although the committee elections were held in the plant, the membership of the committees was in fact determined at union headquarters. Immediately after the Board’s award, several meetings were held with the manager of the plant. Only one meeting has been held since. The man- agement reported that a radical element was elected to the committees, that the majority of the older em- ployees took no interest in the elections, that the majority of their employees have joined the union since the award, and that the spirit of the men was not as good as formerly. The manager expressed the belief that if committees could be elected “which really represented the employees and were not dominated by the unions, much good could be accomplished.” An official of another concern stated at about the same time: Our employees chose or elected a committee of two to confer with our Mr. ———————- to learn when and how we were to give the back pay awarded them. They also under- took to tell us about the hours to be operated . . . and the fixing of wages, neither of which we considered. We told our help at a conference after the signing of the armistice 82 Digitized by Microsoft® that those were matters that would be handled from the office with the assistance of our foremen of the different departments, but if at any time the committee had any sugges- tions to make whereby our plant could be brought back to the production that we were getting before the help were organized we would be glad to meet with them, and they would have our assistance and co-operation. We have not, we are sorry to say, heard anything from them since. The ‘“‘shop committees” in two establishments con- fined their activities to welfare and patriotic work. In one of these in which a single committee of 42 members, one from each department, was formed, the management stated that a high type of men had been elected to serve on the committee and that a good spirit had been shown in the meetings. The vice president of this company, which carries on extensive industrial betterment activities, stated that he believed in only such committees as did not deal with “bargaining” matters. The manager of the other company wrote: We are a small concern and as a result come in close contact with all of our men. It is always possible for our men to approach our executives on any subject. Thus our employees do not look with favor upon the “shop committee,” as outlined by the National War Labor Board. They prefer individual bargaining rather than collective. In two other establishments, where the original com- mittees were active to a limited degree only, they were later succeeded by committees organized under the “Bridgeport Plan.” The “shop committee” of three members, representing about 50 employees, of a Bridge- port establishment, considered only two matters during the first four months of its existence. The first was an arrangement concerning a 50-hour week; the second was an agreement covering a reduction of working hours from 50 to 44 per week. A representative of the company stated: As to whether or not the establishment of this committee has made an improvement in the relations between the management and the workers, the three employees on our “shop committee” happened to be employees who had been a long time with the company and men who are inclined to be, we think, considerate of our company’s interests. We can, however, readily imagine that in case undesirable men were elected to this committee considerable trouble and 83 Digitized by Microsoft® discontent could be aroused among our employees. . If we had our choice, we think that we would be glad to eliminate this committee, although so far the arrangement has worked out satisfactorily. In another large plant a committee composed of one representative from each department, and organized in September, 1918, held only three meetings up to the middle of March, 1919, when the “Bridgeport Plan” was introduced. One meeting was held for the purpose of organization, a second to call attention to the National War Labor Board plan for Bridgeport, and a third to announce the decision to introduce the new plan. An official of the company felt that the earlier committee had been of some value, but that it was not adequate. Active Committees. A substantial number of the “shop committees” set up by the National War Labor Board, regarding which reports as to experience have been secured, have functioned actively with a reported im- provement in relations between employer and em- ployees. In a Middle Western establishment, employing about 400 workers, a “shop committee” had been formed at the suggestion of the War Labor Board, and before any labor difficulties had arisen in the plant. The committee functioned actively, and it was found upon field investiga- tion that meetings had been held weekly, that special committees on Safety and First Aid had been developed, and that the feeling between employees and management was excellent. The employees’ committee on one occasion backed up the management in the discharge of about 50 employees who were the leaders in threatened labor trouble, the discharge taking effect on the cancelation of war contracts. ‘The general superintendent of the plant, who has an excellent personality for dealing with the men, stated that although he was more or less skeptical about the shop committee system when it was first installed, he now believed that it had come to stay. A Bridgeport establishment reported as to its experience. with a “shop committee”: - . . the results altogether have been very satisfactory. We feel that it tends to a better feeling between the employees and the management, from the fact that they feel that they have something to do with the shop management and are to a certain extent taken into the confidence of the general business management. Digitized by Bicrosoft® One of the concerns which in the spring of 1919 intro- duced “shop committees” in accordance with the “Bridgeport Plan” had as early as 1916 established a shop committee in its plant. Regarding experience with the earlier plan, the president of the company stated that “no case has arisen when the management and com- mittee could not agree.” He further stated that he believed the shop committee system had exerted a benefi- cial effect on all phases of relations between the company and the workers. Another Bridgeport company which developed a com- prehensive plan of its own, later investigated and ap- proved by the National War Labor Board, reported, after six months experience, that the plan has in every way proved extremely satisfactory. We have had a number of cases before the combined committees of considerable importance, and in no case has the final decision of the Executive Council been other than unanimous and satisfactory to the company. We believe this is the greatest step ever taken to solve the problems between capital and labor, as it provides a method for each to present the problems for consideration. In a small Middle Western establishment, where the committees were selected by the members of the union, an official of the company stated: the committees have functioned in the past year at various intervals to discuss the issues at stake. This has always been done in a dignified way and without any unpleasant- ness. As far as the spirit of the workers is concerned, it is good. The members of their committees have been reason- ably fair and have been courteous, and their recommendations have been as a rule followed by the body of workers. If such committees are constituted of fair-minded men, the method is to be recommended. If not, much good cannot result. Another small Middle Western establishment in which a “shop committee” was formed in February, 1919, re- ported that “‘the only difference we note is that the men seem a little better satisfied.” The vice president stated that he favored such committees, remarking that “our policy is to make conditions and wages as satisfactory as possible and we believe that if we can get together with the men and explain changes that we get better co- operation.” 85 Digitized by Microsoft® A “shop committee” instituted in the fall of 1918 in another Middle Western establishment was found upon field investigation to have functioned actively. The committee, formed as a result of the men’s unionizing and walking out, is said to have stabilized conditions, and a number of the men are reported to have since dropped membership in their union. The management stated that the committee had upheld it in the lay-off of a large number of men on account of lack of work, among them several who had been leaders in an effort at unionization. It was found that practically every member of the ““shop committee” in a large machine works was a union man and that the unions, claiming credit for the institu- tion of the plan, had increased their membership. The general superintendent, who believes in the committee idea, stated that it has resulted in a better spirit among the men, that good ideas have frequently been suggested by employees and that the committee members have been much in demand for ‘‘real and fancied grievances.” ‘The type of men elected on the committees was characterized as “‘generally good.” In a very large establishment in the East, “shop committees” were introduced under most adverse con- ditions, National War Labor Board representatives. having about abandoned efforts to get management and employees to agree. About this time a new manager assumed charge of the plant. After two weeks of con- tinuous daily sessions between the management, repre- sentatives of the employees and an examiner of the National War Labor Board, a carefully prepared plan of shop representation was agreed upon. The “shop com- mittees” set up under the plan have functioned actively in the six months since, disposing among other things of several hundred cases of individual grievances. The General Committee has also worked out with the manage- ment the difficult ratings of the men in connection with back pay under the Board’s award. At last report the General Committee was working upon a new piece-rate schedule for the plant. The volume of the committee’s work has become so great that an arrangement has been made whereby two members of the General Committee give their entire time to it, the company paying them their ordinary earnings. When the employees of this establish- ment were called out on a sympathetic strike they refused to go. The attitude of local union officials is frankly Digitized by ggicrosoft® favorable to the plan. They found that instead of injuring unionism the introduction of the committee system made it easier for them to organize the employees, with the result that the plant is now said to be 90% unionized. Practi- cally all of the committeemen are union members; several officials of local unions are committee members. A num- ber of employees who are members of committees ex- pressed enthusiasm for the committee plan and entire satisfaction over their dealings with the management. The management has throughout been disposed to give the plan a fair trial and reported that the plan so far has been successful and has produced a remarkable change for the better in the spirit of the men. On the whole, able men are said to have been elected as committee members. The extent of the committee’s activity is shown by the fact that from December 9, 1918, to February 5, 1919, a total of 170 cases were handled by them, of which 144, or 85%, were settled by representatives without reference to the full committee, 26 were referred to Shop Committees, three to divisional heads, and three were not settled at the time of the report. Altogether only eight cases had come before the General Committee for the entire plant. Of these eight, five were thrown out; two of the remainder were decided in favor and one against the employees; 71.7% of all cases were settled on the first day; 11.7% on the second day; 7.6% on the third day; only 7.38% required more than three days for settlement. SuipBuILDING Laspor ADJUSTMENT Boarp CoMMITTEES Like the “shop committees” prescribed by the National War Labor Board, the “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees”’ were authorized at a time when labor conditions were abnormal. The war had created an extraordinary demand for labor in the shipbuilding industry, and had at the same time made imperative the avoidance of costly disputes. Workers in the industry were being paid exceptionally high wages and labor organizations were gaining in strength. It was under these circumstances that the Shipbuilding Labor Adjust- ment Board authorized the election of committees in. the yards of the several shipbuilding districts of the country, with the exception of Seattle and San Francisco. Since the decisions of the Board were, for a number of reasons, made to apply to districts as a whole, the provision for 87 Digitized by Microsoft® committees in each took the form of a general authoriza- tion merely and did not enter into the details of organiza- tion in the individual. yards. The Board in most cases apparently did little else than to authorize the organiza- tion of the committees. Only one of the Board’s ex- aminers is definitely known to have aided actively in their organization. Moreover, matters of wages, hours and other working conditions were so completely covered in various agree- ments and decisions applying to the several districts and the industry as a whole as to practically remove these subjects from the consideration of the committees. Again, it appears that, in some localities at least, there was a constant disposition for the business agents of the unions, or for the interested parties themselves, to take up matters with the examiner for the district directly instead of through the committees. It is to be noted also that cases failing of satisfactory adjustment through com- mittee channels could be appealed to the district ex- aminers. The length of life of the “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” while brief, averages somewhat more than that of the “shop committees” introduced by the National War Labor Board. Among the 19 cases reported, five had at the time of the inquiry either lapsed into inactivity or had a nominal existence only. In the remaining 14 cases, according to the information secured, the Shipbuilding Labor Adjust- ment Board plan met with varying degrees of success. In seven of these instances the experiences reported indi- cate highly satisfactory results. In three of the five shipbuilding yards in which the com- mittees are no longer active, the unfavorable results may be attributed, according to the information at hand, to an acute state of bad feeling existing between the employers and organized labor. One of these yards is located in a Middle Western town, in which field investigation dis- closed the existence of such a state of feeling to a marked degree. A Southern shipbuilding concern in which committees were established early in 1918 reported in April, 1919, that the authority of the committees had extended “a little beyond the decisions of the wage board or published rules of A. F. of L., due to labor organizers and unwarranted Digitized by ®icrosoft® zeal on the part of agitators,” and that the “trade unions control the situation, though the plant is an ‘open shop.’” The general manager stated that he favored employees’ committees “to treat with the management on subjects of mutual interest only.” The superintendent of a shipbuilding yard in the Atlantic district, seven months after the committees had been organized, declared that the selection of members of the committees was “probably dictated by the union.” He wrote further: This committee was elected last fall on demand by the examiner in this district of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, who probably acted as agent of the organizer of the Machinists’ Union. The first committee elected tried to force unwilling men to join the union and tried to make trouble for the management. Before succeeding in either effort they quarreled with the examiner of the Adjustment Board, the quarrel resulting in a strike. After the strike was settled, a new committee was elected which has never taken any action so far as we know. In another of the yards in which the committees were reported as inactive they were never fully organized. A field investigator, upon a visit to the plant in April, 1919, was informed by both the vice president and the general manager that in their belief the committees would lapse at the end of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board’s activity. The manager of a shipbuilding company operating two yards in the South Atlantic and Gulf district, in which the committees accomplished but slight results and have ceased to be active, wrote that the management ‘‘ would favor a committee of employees appointed by our em- ployees themselves.” Inseven instances, the experience reported indicated that despite some drawbacks the committees have on the whole rendered satisfactory service. ‘The general manager of one of these shipbuilding yards, in which the Joint Shop Committee has held regular meetings twice a month, writing after nearly a year’s experience, reported that some difficulties had been encountered by reason of the activity of labor organizers. He stated: Committees are supposedly made up of employees of this company, irrespective of union affiliation. Very few of the committees have non-union members. An attempt has 89 Digitized by Microsoft® been made by labor organizers to dominate both the election of the committees and the activities thereof. This manage- ment has declined to deal with matters of specific interest to the labor union — not at all because of any prejudice against organized labor, because this yard is over 80% union. This view of the situation is prompted solely by a desire to secure a representation of this company’s employees, independently of any exterior influences. The executive committee fre- quently brings to the attention of the general manager matters referred to above, and, in our opinion, this form of interrelationship between craftsmen and management is a step in the right direction. Committees tend to stabilize the personnel. Labor misunderstandings, which might lead to difficulties, are handled more efficiently and quickly through craft committees than otherwise. Practically no effect noted on turnover. Committees are probably 90% union and we make no discrimination, either for or against organized labor, believing that the committee form of relation will eventually lead to a proper condition of co-ordination. Usually the type of employee elected on a committee is one of two very pronounced and widely differing characteristics, — either the committeeman is a sober-minded, industrious, thinking man, who has inspired his fellow craftsmen with confidence, through his common sense, or the committeeman is of a type diametrically opposed to the conservative type referred to, and is the loudest and most vociferous talker against the management. We believe that the committee organization has a tendency to create a good spirit among the workers. After an experience of over a year and a half, the president of a Pacific coast shipbuilding company wrote that he favored committees of the character which had been set up in this yard. He stated further: The activity of the committees during times of labor scarc- ity and unrest was quite marked. Since the signing of the armistice their activity is quite diminished. We have generally found the committees disposed to be fair but lacking in broad vision in promoting co-operation and good will between employer and employees. An Eastern shipbuilding concern reported: There were cases where it appeared to the management that the shop committee was overzealous for their interests, but on the whole a very fair spirit was displayed. A limited experience with committees is described in the following statement by the works manager of another shipbuilding yard on the Atlantic coast. Digitized by Microsoft® The chief committee to date has only held two meetings with the management, and the details are not sufficiently worked up at the present time to enable us to make any statement of what might develop. We have had an “open shop” in this plant for seventeen years and are endeavoring to maintain it as such, although the sentiment among the committees is for a “closed shop.” This matter has been discussed considerably, but no conclusion has as yet been reached. A shipbuilding yard on the Great Lakes reported that since they employed only 200 to 250 workers, “‘we only established one committee of three men, selected from our employees, to report any case which comes up relative to the increase in pay. This committee acted on and settled matters with our yard superintendent, and in case of dis- agreement, the matter was taken up with the head of the company.” Two shipbuilding yards, an Eastern and a Southern, merely reported that the committees have been “‘satis- factory” and that they were still in active existence. In seven instances the experience of shipbuilding com- panies with Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board com- mittees was evidently highly satisfactory. An absence of serious labor difficulties and an improved spirit of co- operation between employers and employees are frequently attributed, in greater or less degree, to the institution of these committees. The vice president and general manager of a large shipbuilding yard on the Atlantic coast, after nearly a year’s experience, wrote: We have had no labor difficulties with our men since the shop committee came into existence, and although we are not prepared to state that the shop committee was the means of preventing this, we do admit that through the shop committee the management is kept in closer touch with the workmen than would be the case if no shop committee was in existence. The management of this concern has made special effort to give a constructive character to the work of the com- mittees, instead of restricting them to the handling of grievances only. Thus, such subjects as factory sanitation and hygiene, shop discipline and the exchange of sugges- tions and ideas were added to the activities of the com- mittees after they had been organized. 91 Digitized by Microsoft® The employment manager of a shipbuilding yard in the Southern district stated: The men have always felt that they have had a medium through which all grievances as well as suggestions could be expressed. In the matter of promotions the committee has insisted that a man must show efficiency and worth in order to be advanced. Another company, through its general manager, reported: In the eight months we have had this system in effect we have had no serious labor difficulties of any kind and the matters which have come up requiring action of the committees have been minor questions affecting the comfort or health of employees, sanitation, etc., all of which have been handled satisfactorily. In certain cases we have utilized the committees for the purpose of communicating to the em- ployees generally, in a more personal manner than could be accomplished by bulletins, the company’s attitude on ques- tions affecting all employees. As an instance of this we would state that it had been the custom for many years to permit smoking in the plant outside of certain fire risk departments, such as woodworking shops. On account of insurance under- writers’ requirements, it was necessary to entirely prohibit smoking in the plant in January of this year, and before the orders were issued the chairmen of the various shop com- mittees were called into conference and the reason for the forthcoming orders were explained. No difficulty was ex- perienced in enforcing the order and we believe that the action of explaining the situation to the men in advance through the committees contributed materially to the carrying out of the order without friction. A number of shipbuilding companies, including the two largest which have had experience with “Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committees,” contemplate, or have already provided for, the continuance of the com- mittees after the termination of the Board’s authority. In one of these yards, located in the Gulf district, all of the committeemen are union men and the unions have exercised considerable influence over the committee, according to the company’s director of industrial relations. He wrote further: We wish to advise that every labor difficulty which we have encountered since the organization of our shop com- mittee has been promptly settled by a frank consideration of the trouble with the committee. Generally speaking Digitized $y Microsoft® we find the type of employee selected for these committees are usually strong union men, although they are picked from the most intelligent employees of the company and very few radicals have ever secured membership on any of these committees. Our willingness to co-operate with the men through their committees has developed a fine spirit of harmony. For some time past we have contemplated the organization of an additional committee which would probably be called —————— -~—__—._ Conference Committee, to be composed equally of representatives of the employees and of the company, which would meet regularly and decide the company’s policy with regard to its relations with employ- ees. However, our Joint Shop Committee is now taking over the functions of the proposed committee and it is quite likely that its powers will be extended to include the functions of a conference committee. An official of a company on the Great Lakes expresses a similar intention on the part of its management. He stated: Anticipating the withdrawal of the “Macy Board’s” award on April Ist, we have had in mind disposing of all matters in which the employees and company were mutually interested through a Judiciary Committee to be composed of a number of employees elected by the employees, and a similar number of representatives to be appointees of the company. A plan of employee representation similar to that in effect in the Bethlehem Steel Corporation had been sub- mitted to a vote of the employees of the Bethlehem Ship- building Corporation in June, 1918, but was rejected, the workers preferring to deal with the company through their craft committees. By October, 1918, committees had been established under the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board plan, except at the Sparrows Point plant, where a “substantially similar” system was already in effect. These committees were active in the handling of minor grievances until April, 1919. Similar committees were then formed under an agreement which the company had entered into with the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor in January. Under this arrangement the committee system is continued by voluntary agreement after the termination of the Ship- building Labor Adjustment Board’s authority. The larger questions of wages, hours of labor, or other working conditions, are left to be settled under this agreement by representatives of the company and of the national and international unions. A field investigator found that there 93 Digitized by Microsoft® was, on this account, considerable dissatisfaction among members and officials of the local unions in the vicinity of the plants. The new committees had been so recently chosen at the time of inquiry that no information as to experience with these was available. A similar agreement with the Metal Trades Depart- ment of the American Federation of Labor was concluded by the American Shipbuilding Company in May of this year under which the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board committees are continued in existence in its eight yards on the Great Lakes. The employment manager of one of the large yards of this company, after an experience of eight months with the committees, wrote: The committees met regularly once a month with the district examiner during the full term of their service up to date. A great many subjects regarding safety, proper classifying of mechanics, and in general any grievance justly made in the regular manner by any employee, were handled. We believe in the feasibility of fair and impartial committees as the means of handling important questions of mutual interest to both the company and the men. Works Councits INITIATED BY EMPLOYERS Works Councils voluntarily instituted by employers have been set up under varied conditions. In a few instances they were established at a time of labor trouble. More frequently, however, they were introduced when relations between management and workers were amicable. Most of them have been installed in plants in which the proportion of unionized workers was small. In some instances profit sharing or dividend arrangements have been introduced. simultaneously with employee representation plans. Different methods have been employed in introducing the Works Councils included in this group. In some cases the adoption of the plan has simply been announced to employees; in others the workers have been given an opportunity to vote upon the question of its introduction; while, in still other cases, representatives of the em- ployees have participated in the formulation of the plan. In some establishments, notably those in which the “governmental” type of plan has been adopted, the services of an outsider have been called in to aid in its installation. 94 Digitized by Microsoft® A number of Works Councils in this group have had experience extending over several years. A larger number, however, were established since January, 1918. In the past few months especially there has been a considerable increase in plans voluntarily established by employers. Four subdivisions of this group may be distinguished in analyzing experience with them. 1, “Limited” Works Councils. 2. ‘Company union” plans. 3. So-called “Industrial Democracy” plans. 4. Other types of employer plans. “Limited”! Works Councils. Since experience with “limited”? Works Councils may not be indicative of the results likely to follow the institution of true Works Councils, only brief space is given to the report of their operation. Moreover, since these “limited” Councils were either in an undeveloped state of organization or were restricted in their sphere of activities, they had relatively little experience to report. No statement was secured from seven establishments having such plans. The experience of the 10 plants from which reports were obtained was favorable in all cases. Thus the president of a large Middle Western establish- ment in which informal meetings of the employees are held and in which there are various committees to deal with such matters as accident prevention and the adjust- ment of complaints, stated: “Thus far the plan has worked very satisfactorily and I believe that the plan is fundamentally sound.” In a plant employing 600 workers, which for over three years has had a small grievance committee, the personnel director stated that “the shop committee has had a tendency to lessen labor difficulties.” This committee is reported to have held informal meetings “whenever necessary.” A union representative serves on the com- mittee, this being part of an agreement under which the plan was accepted by the union stewards. The president of a large machine-building company, who since 1917 has met informally twice a month with elected representatives of the company’s employees, attributed a considerable increase in production and other improvements to the representation plan together with a profit-sharing provision that went in effect simultaneously. He held that the “meetings would be worthless unless 1See page 58. 95 Digitized by Microsoft® coupled with the profit-sharing dividend plan, because the executives must be in a position to talk something more than company loyalty.” In an establishment employing 5,000 workers, where committees chosen upon a plan of departmental repre- sentation have since 1915 met regularly twice a month to consider questions affecting the general welfare of the plant and the employees, a field investigator of the Board found evidences that intelligent employees had been elected as representatives, that output had increased, and that labor turnover had decreased by reason of the plan. The management was emphatic in stating that the committee had prevented labor troubles in the plant. The president of another large concern wrote that he was impressed with the desirability of enlarging, so as to take in other departments of the establishment, a com- mittee which had heretofore been confined to one depart- ment. The committee, which was composed of six mem- bers, confined itself almost exclusively to the consideration of improvements of methods and machinery in its own department. In another establishment having a “limited” Works Council a general committee, which inspects the mill and meets monthly to make recommendations to be submitted to the engineering department, has “handled all matters coming under their jurisdiction to our entire approval,” according to the management. A large steel company maintains a committee of workers which ‘“‘meets each week to discuss ways of joining up the different activities so as to bear directly on the production problem, and so as to gain a basis of effectiveness and permanency.” This plan is said to have resulted in “‘numberless improvements which represent the meeting point of the interests of the men and the interests of the company.” Three establishments which, at the suggestion of the Department of Labor, set up “Government Committees” during the war, reported upon their experience. While these committees were primarily organized for patriotic purposes, all of the establishments reported other bene- ficial results, particularly in the direction of increased output. 96 Digitized by Microsoft® _ Company Unions.! Nothing distinctive has developed in the experience of Works Councils based upon “company unions.” In three of the nine establishments in this group a notable lack of confidence in the plans on the part of the employees was evident. In six, satisfactory experience was reported. Several of these Works Councils are concerned primarily with welfare activities. Among the three instances characterized by a lack of confidence on the part of employees is a plant in which the president of the union, a foreman, declared that “‘the rank and file of employees did not have much confidence in the plan on account of the representatives being practically all foremen or management representatives.” He said further, that “there was considerable division of opinion in the committee itself, as foremen were much inclined to resent anything that was brought up in their par- ticular department which reflected in any way on their competency.” The management of the company did not feel that it was “‘in a position to offer an opinion as to whether the present form of employee representation has worked for the benefit of the company in all ways or not,” but the president stated that he would “‘no doubt change the present form of committee to one which would be more representative of the employees.” In one of two public service companies in which a similar situation appeared to exist, the management ex- pressed themselves as “being well satisfied with the plan.” However, interviews with over 30 employees indicated that the workers had little confidence in the plan and did not believe that the committee accurately represented the men. In the case of the other company, field investigation indicated that the plan is to a large extent dominated by the management, both as to selection of representatives and otherwise. This apparently was accomplished through the creation of sentiment by “‘inside people” engaged for that purpose. Employees interviewed did not seem to have much confidence or interest in the plan. The man- agement apparently approved of it primarily as a means of deterring employees from joining unions. Recent field investigation of a factory in the Middle West, where a committee chosen from an employees’ as- sociation has existed since 1915, showed a successful ex- perience. It appears to have averted labor difficulties in 1 See page 20. 97 Digitized by Microsoft® this plant when trouble was prevalent in other nearby establishments manufacturing the same product. The vice president of the company stated that he regarded the plan as having been highly successful. The chairman of the employees’ committee also expressed emphatic approval. Unionization among the employees has greatly diminished since the introduction of the Works Council. Another successful experience was reported by an establishment where an operatives’ association has also been represented by a Council since 1915. The general manager expressed the belief that ‘‘many valuable sugges- tions are received which would otherwise be lost.” ‘The same Official stated that the “‘experience in general is quite satisfactory,” that the ‘‘operatives’ council is an increasing success,” but that “by nature of things it takes time to develop such Councils, especially in an organization where practically every other means for individual and group development and contact has been so systematically developed.” In a plant in the Middle West in which a committee appointed by the directors of a Mutual Benefit Associa- tion has been in existence for about six months, the management “‘believes that the effect has been good.” In another Middle Western plant in which a number of committees for social and educational purposes are ap- pointed by the president of the Mutual Benefit Society, the employment manager reported an increase in ‘‘the spirit of organization and co-operation.” In a concern in which the Works Council is subsidiary to a club comprising department heads and employees, the employment manager reported that the employees elected to the committee “have been some of the best in the shop” and that the spirit of the workers since the introduction of the plan has been “sometimes critical, sometimes disbelieving or scornful, sometimes apprecia- tive and approving.” A public service company having a “company union” reported a “good” experience and expressed belief in the plan “‘for the purpose of dealing with employees of each principal group collectively.” “Industrial Democracy” Plans.) Experience with “In- dustrial Democracy” plans in seven establishments was generally favorable. The establishments vary in size from 1 See page 19. Digitized bP Microsoft® one employing less than 200 workers to one with over 1,800, but are on the whole relatively small. Four establishments have had experience with the plan for a year or more; in three the plan has been introduced more recently. It appears from facts ascertained by field investigation that the interest of employees was originally stimulated and has since been kept alive in large measure through the personal enthusiasm of the originator of the plan, who directly supervised its introduction in the four establish- ments above referred to. It appears, further, that the favorable effects on output which were reported are to be attributed to the collective economy dividend rather than to the employee representation feature of the plan. The president of one of these companies, who intro- duced the plan several years ago following a strike, re- ports that there have been no labor difficulties in the plant . since. While the plant was about 90% unionized when the plan was introduced, the president stated recently that none of the men as far as is known then belonged to labor unions. He further stated that a reduction of hours of work from ten to nine and then from nine to eight hours a day was effected, with an increase in output. Following the change, the men earned as high as 8% in “dividends,” representing a 16% increase in production. In another of these establishments, also, hours of work were twice reduced, first from 53 to 50 hours a week and then to 48 hours, with no loss in production, according to officials of the company. At the outset, some difficulty was encountered in this plant, owing to the large propor- tion of non-English-speaking employees. The employees’ representatives, with the co-operation of the management, instituted classes in English to correct this difficulty. During the labor shortage in the war period this establish- ment is said to have experienced little trouble in keeping its employees. A serious strike recently occurred, how- ever, at.this plant. The president of another establishment, which has had considerable experience with this type of plan, reported that it had been helpful in keeping up the labor supply during the shortage occasioned by wartime demands and that a “quality bonus,” introduced under the _plan, effected a saving for the company and an increase in the earnings of the employees. He stated also that the em- 99 Digitized by Microsoft® ployees withdrew a demand for increased wages when an investigating committee of the ‘““House” reported that their wages had increased at a slightly faster rate than had the cost of living. The fourth plant, with several years’ experience with this type of plan, reported greatly increased production and greatly reduced labor turnover. A field investigator, who attended a session of the House of Representatives, found that the class of employees elected as represen- tatives and the spirit shown by the workers were excellent. The employees a few years ago refused to go out on strike during a general strike in their trade. The president of a company which introduced such a plan only eight months ago wrote recently: We find it does as much good to the workers, and helps their sense of co-operation and their duty, as it does on our side. The management of another establishment, reporting after three months’ experience, stated: It has proven very satisfactory; we have had no labor difficulties; labor turnover is almost nothing; the representa- tives are of the highest type of our workers; and the entire plant shows a very fine spirit and interest in the work. In another of the establishments in which this type of plan has been installed only recently, it has started with evidences of keen interest on the part of employees. In this instance, employees elected two foremen as members of the “House.” Other Forms of Employer Plans. Of the Works Councils voluntarily instituted by employers exclusive of the “limited,” ‘company union,” and “Industrial De- mocracy” plans just discussed, all but one reported favorable experiences. Two Works Councils in this group ceased to exist fol- lowing changes in the control of the companies. Four others, organized somewhat later but before the war, are still in active existence. The management of one of these establishments, where a Works Council has been in operation for three years, told a field investigator that he had had a “splendid experience Digitized bYMicrosof® in\regard to output.” He further stated that the Works Council was very effective in holding men on the job and that at no time since the plan went into effect had it been nécessary to advertise for men, even during the acute wartime shortage of labor. Another very large concern, employing 12,000 workers, reported that the ‘“‘experience of almost four years has convinced the management that its “Industrial Repre- sentation Plan” is a success. The Works Council was reported as “‘a revelation to the management and the workers.” Serious labor difficulties had been frequent previous to the introduction of this plan but none had occurred since, In the case of another of the pre-war Works Councils installed in a large ‘“‘preferential” shop, the belief was expressed “that the prime source of difficulty was a lack of contact and understanding between the employees and the management. The failure to adjust petty grievances and abuses became a cause of irritation entirely dis- proportionate to their importance when taken singly, but which in accumulation became the main ground for com- plaint.”” The management of this plant stated further that ““favorable results did not appear at once, but were the natural and legitimate effects of various devices intro- duced to meet difficult situations as they arose.” The company, in the same statement, described the Works Council as “the natural and healthy relation which usually exists between the small employer and his half dozen workmen, artificially restored, as far as possible, where the real employer is a considerable group of executives managing thousands of workers according to certain established principles and policies.” The fourth Works Council in this group, established prior to 1918, operates in a plant with 200 workers. The president stated his belief that the plan has been “bene- ficial both to the company and to the workers,” and that the type of representatives chosen was “generally good.” All other Works Councils in this group originated during or since the war. Only one employer who voluntarily installed a Works Council during this period reported an unsatisfactory experience. He attempted to establish a form of employees committee in each department, but his men “did not show any enthusiasm or interest, therefore the efforts were fruitless.”” This employer declared that, 101 Digitized by Microsoft® as the employees were not interested, a shop committee would not be “‘advantageous to either side.” ' Other employers reported distinctly favorable experi- ences. Some made only a general statement to the effect that the Works Council “has demonstrated its usefulness,” that they “are pleased with the plan,” or that it is “a step in the right direction,” that the employer “cannot see how a large body of labor can be effectively handled on any other basis at the present time,” or that the Council “‘has in every way proved extremely satisfactory.” A number, however, gave a detailed statement as to their experience. In one plant, where there are depart- mental committees and no central committee, the plan has had a distinct tendency to lessen labor difficulties. The general manager wrote: In one department the output has been greatly increased owing to reduction of friction. The early airing of grievances has prevented more serious labor complaints. On the whole very good representatives have been chosen by the depart- ments and the department workers are holding their repre- sentatives more strictly to account. In one or two cases some powers of leadership have been developed that we had not suspected. The management of this establishment stated its in- tention to form a central committee as soon as circum- stances permitted. In one plant visited by a field investigator, a feeling was found to exist among employees that the plan was directed against unionism. However, considerable interest was manifested in the Works Council, as evidenced by the fact that 90% of the employees voted at the last election. The successful introduction of the plan in this instance was facilitated by a change in the plant superintendent preceding its institution. The experience of five steel plants, whose employees include 80,000 workers, has, on the whole, been successful. The vice-president of one of these companies, where 30,000 workers are employed, is “‘pleased with the operation of the plan and thinks the employees are also.” Ata meeting several months ago the employee chairman of the Works Council in one of the plants stated that the plan had eliminated major disputes between the employees and the management because 102 Digitized by Microsoft® in former times if a man in the company wanted a raise \in wages or wanted anything taken up, or if he thought he wasn’t getting fair treatment, or his locker had been! broken open and something stolen, he had to go to his foreman about it. If his foreman saw fit he would refer it higher up. If he didn’t he would let it drop and there was no more to it, and the man would be the loser. Now if anything goes wrong, . . . the committee is on record to place it before the general superintendent, and there is an immediate dis- charge for anybody who is caught. This has created a good feeling. There are no more disputes. Recently the employees’ representatives in this estab- lishment issued a statement opposing further demands on the part of labor for wage increases as “unwise and uneconomic.” Part of a resolution passed by the Works Council reads as follows: It is, therefore, resolved: that persistent and unceasing demand of workmen employed in all classes and kinds of industries for a shorter day’s work and an increased wage in order to meet the present high cost of living is uneco- nomic and unwise and should not be encouraged. In another steel plant, in which the employees had been given no share in the formulation of the representation plan, a field investigator found that at the first election only about 50% of the employees cast their ballots. The executives of the company, however, believe that the plan is working out well. The principal cases which have been brought up by this committee have concerned a reduction in overtime pay. Owing to a misunderstanding a con- siderable number of the employees went out on strike after a majority of employees had approved the new arrangement. The difficulty was soon adjusted, how- ever. It is felt by the management that had it not been for the Works Council the trouble would have been more serious. Another steel plant has had no labor troubles since the plan was put into effect, although there were signs of trouble before the plan was adopted. Unionization, it is believed by the production manager, is decreasing. A good class of men is reported to have been chosen for the Works Council. Field investigation indicated that one of the largest steel plants, employing 30,000 workers, has also had a satisfactory experience. There has been a decided change 103 Digitized by Microsoft® for the better in the spirit of the workers. An ereepeprayy high type of employees’ representatives is reportec) to have been elected. The management of a steel plant employing 12,000 workers reported that an intelligent class of employees had been elected to committees, that the organization had helped general conditions, and that it was their opinion that the committee system is the proper method of afford- ing a means for discussion and settlement of questions relating to the welfare of employees. This plant had very few activities along social and recreational lines before the plan was instituted, but the Works Council is actively promoting these interests. In another plant, on the other hand, the first action taken by the Works Council was to vote for the elimina- tion of a large amount of welfare work, on the ground that the money thus spent by the company reduced the profits, in which the employees were to receive a share. In this same plant, a strike occurred shortly after the introduction of the representation plan. A representative of the com- pany stated that this incident had not altered the manage- ment’s judgment as to the value of the Works Council. A concern operating a number of establishments re- ported that its experience with Works Councils has thus far been favorable. The plan of representation, when submitted to a vote of the company’s employees, was re- jected by the workers in three plants. Later the em- ployees of two of these works asked that another vote be taken and approved the plan. An official of the company stated that the Works Councils probably would have been accepted at once by these plants, in which the majority of workers are foreigners, had the plan been presented to them in their own language. There is now only one plant in which employee representation has not been intro- duced. A strike occurred recently in this plant. The striking employees attempted to influence the workers of two other plants to join them in strike. Acting through their Works Councils, the employees of these plants took a stand with the company. In another plant reporting, the Works Councils has “helped some to reduce labor turnover and consequently to increase output.” In the experience of this employer Digitized by Microsoft® “the type of employees elected on committees is the best in the factory” and the “‘spirit of the workers is excep- tionally good.” Field investigation in this plant indicated that the success of the plan was due in large part to the personality and interest of the management and the sin- cere effort on the part of the employer to co-operate with his workers. In another large establishment the ‘Industrial Repre- sentation Plan” had been in operation only a short time when a city-wide strike was projected by the Machinists’ Local. An executive of the company described their experience with the strike as follows: The Industrial Assembly, inexperienced as they were, worked diligently to handle the matter properly and did all and more than could be expected of them and passed good legislation, which was approved by the management and was exceedingly fair, not only to the machinists but to the entire machine shops involved. It made improvements in wage ratings and rating methods. Apparently every possible method was used by the Works Council to prevent the strike; mass meetings were called and a great deal of “individual man-to-man work was done.” When the strike finally came, only 50% of the machinists went out. Despite this trouble the labor manager stated that the “company is by no means altering its opinion of the value of industrial representation” and that it was “going straight ahead with their plans and all machinists returning will be referred to the Industrial Assembly before being rehired.” According to the experience of one employer who operates several mills, the Works Council is not a “ne- cessity”” in the smaller plants of his establishment. The general manager, however, is confident that in the larger mills the Works Councils ‘‘can be productive of much good.” A number of employers with relatively small plants reported successful experiences with Works Councils. In one such plant the experience has been “highly gratify- ing.” The employees elected on the committee “have been conservative and have carried the employees along with them in their judgment.” In another plant employing 450 workers, a Works Council which has been maintained for over a year has been extremely successful. Field investigation indicated 105 Digitized by Microsoft® that the men elected on the committees are a conservative type, and take the attitude that in representing the workers they must take into consideration also the condi- tions of the business as a whole. The president stated that the plan “has a tendency to increase loyalty and confidence in the firm, that it helps to reduce labor turnover and consequently to increase output.” No case brought before this Works Council has necessitated resort to the ultimate method of settlement. In a number of establishments in this group, Works Councils have been introduced so recently that the em- ployers hesitated to make any conclusive report concerning their experience. Several, in fact, held that their plan was too new to warrant any definite statement concerning their actual experience. Thus a plant employing 15,000 workers, which had maintained a Works Council for four months, regarded the plan too ‘‘new to measure results” but stated that the type of men elected to the committee was “‘excellent” and “‘the spirit of co-operation good.” All of these plants, in fact, report a successful experience to date. One stated: “So far the results have been ex- tremely satisfactory’; another was confident that the “plan is going to be very helpful in the solution of the problem of industrial relations.” This belief was very strongly shared by another employer, who stated that employee representation is a proposition which must be approached without prejudice and without mental reservations. An employer who tries this scheme without believing in it himself will certainly fail. Any doubt or lack of sincerity upon the part of the manager will be recognized at once by the employees. The employer must be on the square with his employees in the strongest and most emphatic sense of the term to make any such plan successful. SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE It appears from the foregoing account of experience with Works Councils that of a total of about 150 reported upon, 16 have lapsed entirely and several others have had only aperfunctory existence. Aside from one“Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Committee” and three Councils voluntarily introduced by employers, all of those which lapsed were “National War Labor Board Committees.” In six cases the lapse of the committees may be attri- buted to a disinterested or unsympathetic attitude on the Digitized by’Microsoft® part of the management. In a nearly equal number of Instances, on the other hand, obstructive tactics on the part of organized labor evidently account for the failure of the committees. In one case a lack of interest on the part of employees is reported as the cause. The lay-off of workers following the cancelation of war contracts explains the lapse of committees in several other establishments. As previously noted, two plans instituted by employers passed out of existence with changes in the control of the companies. Of those Works Councils herein classed as active, about 50 have functioned to a limited extent only. A number of “National War Labor Board Committees” ceased their activity with the completion of adjustments under the Board’s awards. In other instances only a few meetings were held or a few matters handled. In many plants, Works Councils have been established so recently that they have had little opportunity to become active. This is true notably of those plants in which the “Bridgeport Plan” has been introduced and of a con- siderable number of establishments in which employers have instituted plans upon their own initiative. ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS Approximately three-fourths of the employers having Works Councils, from whom statements were secured, either declared specifically that they favored these or- ganizations or reported having had favorable experience with them. Favorable statements were furnished by practically all of the establishments in which plans of employee repre- sentation have been voluntarily instituted by employers. In addition, about half of the employers who have had experience with “National War Labor Board Committees” and two-thirds of those having experience with “Ship- building Labor Adjustment Board Committees” reported favorably. The statement was frequently made that the Works Council “has demonstrated its usefulness.’ A large con- cern, in which a Works Council was voluntarily instituted by the employer, wrote that the “experience of almost four years has convinced the management that the ‘In- dustrial Representation Plan’ is a success.” The president of a small plant also expressed the belief that the plan has 107 Digitized by Microsoft® been “beneficial both to the company and to the workers.” One company reported that “‘so far the results have been extremely satisfactory,” and another was confident that “the plan is going to be very helpful in the solution of the problem of industrial relations.” An establishment in which a “company union” plan has been effective for four years reports that the “experience in general is quite satisfactory; the operatives’ council is an increasing success.” A large shipbuilding company declared: “The result so far has been an unqualified success in our yard.”