An "independent union" is a group of employees of a single company, who are independent of the company and of other unions. They may be composed of all factory employees (only very occasionally are office employees members) or only of employees in a single department or craft.

How do they differ from employee representation plans-sometimes called "company unions"? That is a difficult question to answer, because there were so many different forms of "employee representation" plans. In general, however, it may be said that the principal points of difference are:

1 The independent unions receive no direct or indirect financial assistance from the company management; in most employee representation plans the managements provided meeting rooms, stationery, secretarial services, etc. Managements of most-but not all-companies which have employee representation plans have completely discontinued this form of support. The following observations are pertinent

(a) The National Labor Relations Act forbids such support. But this part of the act was not passed upon by the Supreme Court, and it is for this reason that a few companies in which employee representation plans existed have made no change in their support.

(b) Since the stress of the Wagner Act is upon collective bargaining it is somewhat inconsistent in any event to deny to employees the right to secure such management concessions and aid as a result of collective bargaining negotiations.

NO FINANCIAL HELP ALLOWED

2 In independent unions, moreover, their representatives receive no management financial remuneration for the time spent by them in promoting the interests of the union members-except that they may, under the Wagner Act, be reimbursed by the company for time spent during working hours in actual conferences with management. But the time spent in such conference is actually, of course, in many cases a minor part of the time such representatives must take to intelligently represent their constituents, and, obviously, much of this time must be during working hours. In most employee representation plans management, again as a result of collective bargaining, customarily reimbursed the employee representatives for all working time used by them in representing their constituents.

3 As a natural result of the two preceding factors it is now almost universal for the Independent Unions to collect regular dues; this has not been customary in employee representation plans, although it was not unknown and there was some increase prior to the Supreme Court's Wagner Act decision in the number of plans providing for dues.

The dues in regular outside labor unions average $2.00 monthly (subject, of course, to wide variations); at the present time the dues in independent unions range from $1.00 per year to $6.00 per year (one very small union has dues of $12.00).

4 In most employee representation plans the plan itself provided as a basic part of its set-up for regular joint meetings of employee representatives and management representatives, although there was some tendency after 1930 to discontinue the regular joint meetings and have the employee representatives meet separately. In the independent unions the delegates meet separately, with no management representatives present; when they have ideas to propose or requests to make they ask the management for an appointent.

5 In the earlier employee representation plans the plant elections to choose representatives were conducted under joint management-employee supervision; following 1930 there was an extensive movement in the direction of having such elections called and conducted exclusively by the employees. In the independent unions the elections are, of course, entirely independent of company manage

ments.

SOME PRACTICAL QUESTIONS

Now let us review some practical questions which have arisen in connection with independent unions.

May an independent union be a recognized bargaining agency?

There is apparently no doubt as to this. The Wagner Act defines the term "labor organization" as including "any agency or employee representation com

mittee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work". (Section 2-5.) 2 How can an employee representation plan group of employees transform itself into an independent union?

Many such plans already are independent, and therefore, entirely free under the Wagner Act prohibitions against company "domination", "interference", or "financial or other support" (Section 8-2). To fully safeguard themselves against such forbidden employer activities many employee representation plans have, where necessary, changed their constitution and by-laws to insure

(a) Complete financial support by the independent union of its own activities, except, possibly, as previously noted, for the employer "permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay". (Section 8-2.) This has usually necessitated the establishment of a definite dues basis. (b) Elimination of provision for joint meetings with management representatives. (c) Elimination of any provisions for management supplying of secretarial assistance, etc.

(d) Elections conducted exclusively by representatives of the independent union.

(e) Elimination of provisions for definite arbitration appeal to specifically named persons; such arbitration provisions should be incorporated in the agree ments which might be entered into with management.

3 If a group of employees seeks information from an employer as to the nature of employee representation plans is it a violation of law for the employer to give such information?

(Continued on Page 16) 1

[4] GREEN AND LEWIS STATE UNION POLICIES-OTHER SIGNIFICANT LABOR NEWS

HEADS OF A. F. OF L. AND C. I. O. BOTH URGE SIGNED LABOR CONTRACTS; EXPRESS NO HOPE OF RECONCILIATION

William Green, President of the American Federation of Labor, and Chairman John L. Lewis of the Committee for Industrial Organization of last week made statements of policy on three matters of vital importance to the labor movement. Both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Green reemphasized their stand for signed agreements in labor relations contracts, and evidenced their willingness to support each other's organizations in strike movements. However, they indicated that they had no hope of any immediate reunion with each other.

Regarding signed agreements Lewis claimed that the check-off and the closed shops are not necessarily essential but are rather "matters of convenience."

Mr. Green stated that the individual workmen in A. F. of L. unions were not discouraged in their sympathetic attempts to help C. I. O. workers on strike but that "ordinarily unions affiliated with C. I. O. have no claim for support or assistance from the American Federation of Labor. They ought to become a part of the American Federation of Labor before calling for support and assistance." On the same subject Mr. Lewis stated, "the C. I. O. has never approached any strike on the part of the American Federation of Labor. It has cooperated everywhere."

Mr. Green spoke out strongly against a general strike. He pointed out that the innocent victims of a general strike in a community will not long tolerate such actions; consequently public opinion turns against strikers when they engage in a general strike. For these reasons the American Federation of Labor cannot extend approval to general strikes.

Both leaders were very outspoken about the conflict between the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. Mr. Green stated that, "there is a grave danger that an increase in the membership of organized labor will be offset because of the bitter division which occurred in the ranks of labor. The C. I. O. movement, set up as a dual, rival organization to the American Federation of Labor, has created division, discord and hate within the ranks of labor."

Mr Lewis was, if possible, even more outspoken. "Any talk of peace must om the American Federation of Labor," he said, "and any such talk of must be predicted upon the acceptance of the principles laid down in the tonation on pg 45 .

minority report to the Federation convention in 1935 demanding the recognition of industrial unions in certain industries.

"That is our position. Any talk without this basis is merely futile-waste of time.

Of course, if the American Federation of Labor should desire to join the Committee for Industrial Organization, we would be glad to make known to them the Terms upon which they could enter."

OTIS PLANT ADOPTS 40-HOUR WEEK

The employees of the Yonkers, New York, plant of the Otis Elevator Company will work a forty-hour week instead of their present forty-four hour week, starting the week of August 2nd, it was announced there last week, by Robert Goodwillie, general manager. Most of the 1,200 workers in the plant will be affected by the new order. The plant will operate five days a week, eight hours a day.

CHARGES THAT COMMUNISTS RULE W. P. A. WRITERS; 79% OF AUTHORS

HAVE NEVER PUBLISHED A LINE

Charging that members of the Communist party and the Workers Alliance control the personnel and supervision on the Federal Writers and Theatres Projects, Ralph M. Easley, Chairman of the Executive Council of the National Civic Federation, asked President Roosevelt to have an investigation made of existing conditions.

Mr. Easley also charged that both projects have been characterized by gross inefficiency, waste and that employment was controlled by the Workers Alliance which exacted one week's pay from employees dismissed from their jobs as the price of reinstatement.

"People who have never made a living through writing and have no record of ever publishing a line fill 79 per cent. of the jobs. Ninety per cent of the supervisors are Communists or avowed supporters of the Communist movement," Mr. Easley charged.

GENERAL MOTORS PROTESTS OUTLAW STRIKES; KNUDSEN DEMANDS UNION

RESPONSIBILITY

William S. Knudsen, President of General Motors Corporation, reaffirmed his position that "outlaw strikes" must be stopped if the corporation is to consider renewing its agreement with the union.

In a letter to Mr. Knudsen, Homer Martin, President of the United Automobile Workers of America, had claimed that the reason that the union had violated provisions of the existing agreement which prohibited stoppages until the grievance procedure had been exhausted was that the grievance procedure was not satisfactory. In answer to this Mr. Knudsen stated:

"In none of the over 200 cases in which a strike occurred, did your organization follow the grievance procedure to a conclusion. In many cases the strikes were called before the management was aware of any claim that a grievance had arisen. "It is obvious that it is not the grievance procedure which is responsible for the failure of the union to keep its agreement.

"Our position stated in my letter of June 23, 1937, is unchanged. We there suggested as a necessary stipulation covering the responsibility for interruptions to production the following:

'Until after all the steps set forth in the grievance procedure set up in this agreement have been complied with, no strike shall be called, and there shall be no refusal to work or stoppage of production in whole or in part due to the union, its officials or members, and for a violation of this provision, the company shall forthwith discharge the employee or employees guilty thereof, and the union shall take suitable disciplinary action against the parties responsible.

""For failure on the part of the union to take such action, or to prevent strikes and stoppages to production, as herein provided for, the company shall have the right to terminate the agreement.'"

[5]

BROUN'S ACTIVITIES ASSAILED BY GREEN

William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, sharply assailed Heywood Broun, president of the American Newspaper Guild, in a statement recently in which he said that Mr. Broun had "sold down the river" the newspaper

men of the country and, in taking the Guild into the C. I. O. had been "inspired by some very astute Moscow-trained revolutionaries."

Referring to referenda now being taken by various units of the Guild on actions of the recent national convention of the Guild in St. Louis, and particularly the action Friday night of the Washington Guild in repudiating the convention, suggested that Mr. Broun resign the presidency of the Guild pending the outcome d the referenda.

SIT-DOWN STRIKE BARRED BY PHILADELPHIA COURT

Declaring a sit-down strike of leather goods workers "un-American and communistic," Judge Harry S. McDevitt of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphis issued a preliminary injunction today, ordering the ejection of 204 sit-downers from the plant of the McNeely & Price Company.

Judge McDevitt gave the strikers an hour to vacate the property. Without waiting for formal service of the court's order, they left before the hour was up. The injunction, directed against the National Leather Workers Union, a C. I. Ô. affiliate, was opposed by Norman Griffin, attorney for the union. The court was without jurisdiction, he contended, because the company was engaged in interstate

commerce.

"Do you mean that an American citizen has to come to terms with people who are occupying his plant?" asked Judge McDevitt. "That's communistic. If my cook did that I'd throw her out."

PAINTERS STRIKE AT FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION IN WASHINGTON

A score of painters started a strike which may spread to the 5,000 building trades workers now employed on federal construction in Washington. The trouble started this week when the painters went on strike charging that the contractor gave preference to non-union painters in picking men.

Union spokesmen threatened a general strike on all federal projects unless the contractors on the Internal Revenue and City Post Office jobs were required to use union labor.

"SIT-DOWN BOSS" WINS IN NEW STRIKE

One hundred and fifty employees of Fry Products, Inc., of Detroit. the plant of which was closed by their boss after they had voted to stand by their union, changed their minds later and voted to return to work. Walter L. Fry, the original "sit-down boss," told the workers in his automobile seat cover plant that he would quit business rather than deal with the United Automobile Workers of America, which he called "irresponsible.'

He closed the plant, leaving 250 workers idle. The 150 held a mass meeting then and decided to return to work.

Mr. Fry gained nation-wide attention in February by staging his own sit-down in his office when his employees went on a sit-down strike in the plant.

OFFER TO LET LABOR RUN MAINE SHOE FIRM

Proprietors of the Lenox Shoe Company at Freeport, Maine, scene of the labor conflict since June 28th, have offered with reservations, to turn over the plant for operation by employees on a cooperative basis.

Hyman Merskey of Portland, spokesman for Merskey Brothers, the owners, said they would reserve the right to study the books of the new management every three months and if a loss resulted take over the plant again. The mill normally employes 800 men.

The offer, made to Arthur W. Goodwin, president of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor, was accompanied by a declaration that the proprietors would provide capital to further the cooperative venture. They added that a portion of the profits could be paid proportionately to Merskey Brothers.

C. I. O. RIOTERS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN MEMORIAL DAY RIOT IN CHICAGO; POLICE EXONERATED

As a result of evidence produced at the inquest investigating the Memorial Day riot at the Republic Steel Plant in South Chicago charges of criminal conspiracy against more than two score of the rioters and their leaders will be pressed by the state attorney's office.

[6]

The corner's jury returned a verdict of “justifiable homicide” in the case of each of the ten men killed.

Coroner Frank J. Walsh said that he believed that the transcript of evidence presented a full and fair story of the strike riot. Contrasting the local hearing with the one staged at Washington by the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee he said, "We must have called nearly ten times as many witnesses as the La Follette committee did. Those witnesses represented both the police and the strikers, and an especial effort was made to obtain impartial witnesses who have no leanings toward either side."

SURVEY OF VACATION PLANS

In the past vacation privileges were regarded as the criteria which distinguished the office worker from the factory worker. Office workers, of course, have been generally paid on a salary basis and whenever required to work overtime, they did not receive any increased compensation. On the other hand, hourly and piece rate workers have been customarily only paid for time actually worked, in fact they were rarely even paid for general holidays. When it became necessary for them to work overtime they were paid at least their regular rate and, in most cases, at a higher rate ranging from time and a quarter to double time.

THEORIES OF VACATIONS

However, during the last decade many industrial plants have adopted a policy of giving paid vacations to hourly and piece rate workers. According to a study made in 1929 of 6,163 industrial plants, employing two and a half million people, it was found that 1,057 establishments gave vacations with pay. Of course, during the depression, due to the necessity of the times, a great many companies were forced to abandon or seriously modify vacation plans. Since the upswing of business in 1934, there has been a marked increase in the policy of giving vacations with pay to wage earners. Many new plans have been installed by industrial concerns and many of the older plans have been made more liberal, or re-established after having been discontinued during the depression.

Employers generally premise their vacation policy upon two theories: First, that vacations are usually a reward for long service, regular attendance and punctuality, and second, that vacations are considered primarily as an investment in health from which the company receives dividends in the form of more and better work.

The majority of vacation plans undoubtedly are based on both theories since the length of service and the up-building of health (mental and physical) are important considerations in almost every plan.

FORD PLAN YIELDS $400,000 TO EMPLOYEES

Approximately $400,000 will be paid to 20,000 Ford employees in the next few days as a semi-annual return on savings in the Ford investment plan.

Employee savings now total $13,300,000 and are at the largest total since 1932. Savings and returns increased by about 20 per cent last year. The Ford plan permits employees to pay into the Investment Fund as savings up to one-third of their salaries. Returns are paid semi-annually at a rate guaranteed to be not less than 41⁄2 per cent annually. Currently the rate is 7 per cent.

TYPES OF VACATION PLANS

In the consideration of any vacation program, it is important that careful study and analysis be made of the kind of plan which is best suited for an individual organization. The choice of any plan rests between two types-the successive and the shut-down. The adoption of the successive plan requires that vacations be scheduled over several months, or possibly the entire year, without any interruption of operations in the meantime. On the other hand, the shut-down plan provides vacations for all employees simultaneously during a temporary cessation of production. An analysis of many plans in operation, indicates that approximately 70% schedule vacations over an extended period of time and the remaining 30% operate under a shut-down plan.