Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/610

586 position created by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (a union in name only) was a menace to all trade organi- zations, and had become intolerable "; and pledging themselves not to employ members of that Union, or any persons refusing to carry out his employer's lawful and reasonable instructions. A large number of employers endeavoured to require their work- people to sign an undertaking in the following terms:

" I hereby undertake to carry out all instructions given to me by or on behalf of my employers, and, further, I agree to immediately resign my membership of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (if a member), and I further undertake that I will not join or in any way support this Union."

On Sept. 26 it was announced that a Court of Enquiry had been appointed, consisting of Sir George Askwith, Sir Thomas Ratcliffe Ellis, and Mr. J. R. Clynes, to inquire into the dispute, and to take such steps as might seem desirable with the view of arriving at a settlement. The Court of Enquiry heard evidence at Dublin on Sept. 29 and on Oct. 1-4, and issued their report on Oct. 6. The report (i) regretted that no steps had been taken to set up Conciliation Boards, as had been several times suggested; (2) reported that there were indications that substantial griev- ances existed in the various industries; (3) condemned the policy of the sympathetic strike; " no community," it declared, "could exist if resort to the sympathetic strike became the general policy of Trade Unionism "; and (4) condemned the undertaking which the employers had endeavoured to impose on the workpeople, as contrary to individual liberty, and such as no workman or body of workmen could reasonably be expected to accept. The report also made proposals for the settlement of the dispute, based on the establishment of a series of conciliation committees. These proposals were accepted by the workers but rejected by the em- ployers, who declared that they could not recognize the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, until it was reorganized on proper lines, with new officials approved by the British Joint Labour Board.

Various other efforts were made to settle the dispute, notably by the Joint Board (the " British Joint Labour Board," already referred to). This was a composite body representing the par- liamentary committee pf the Trades Union Congress, the Exec- utive Committee of the General Federation of Trade Unions, and the Executive of the Labour party. These overtures came very near to success, the parties being brought together in joint conference; but the negotiations broke down, on Dec. 20 1913, on the question of reinstatement. All this time the employers had been gradually replacing the men on strike or locked out; and a few of the men who had struck (or been locked out) had returned to work. During Jan. and the early part of Feb., the majority of the remaining strikers whose places were still open returned to work, most of them agreeing to handle all goods and to obey orders. In some cases the men also undertook not to belong to the Transport Union.

The principal dispute of 1914 was in the London building trade. Numerous strikes had occurred against the employment of non- unionists, although most of the trade unions were bound by agreements which contained (inter alia) a stipulation that there should be no discrimination between union and non-union labour. At a conference with eight of these trade unions, held on Dec. 23 1913, the employers put forward certain proposals for enforcing these agreements by means of penalties; these proposals were rejected by the trade unions, and on Jan. 7 1914, the London Master Builders' association gave notice that they regarded the working-rule agreements as no longer in force. The employers next endeavoured to impose on the workpeople an individual undertaking to work peacefully with non-unionists, on pain of a penalty of twenty shillings. Most of the men refused to sign the undertaking, and the strike began on Jan. .26 1914. Various efforts were made to settle the dispute; but proposals which had been agreed to by the men's representatives were twice rejected by the trade unions on a ballot vote. One of the smaller unions, however, accepted the terms at the second vote, and came to a sectional agreement; and sectional agreements were afterwards made with two other trades. At this point the National Federa- tion of Building Trade Employers resolved on a : 4ock-out of all

their employees throughout the country, if the dispute were not settled by Aug. 15. Before the threat could be carried out, how- ever, the World War had begun; and a settlement was hastily reached, on the basis of the acceptance by the men of the terms last offered by the employers, with certain modifications. The chief points in the settlement were:

_ Employers to be at liberty to employ any man, but unions to have right of appeal against any operative who has made himself specially objectionable to his fellows. Ticket inspection granted, but not during working hours. National executives of unions to guarantee observance of rules. Six months' notice to be given for termina- tion or modification of rules.

There was a strike of coal miners in Yorkshire, lasting from the middle of Feb. to nearly the end of April 1914, in which about 150,000 workpeople were at one time involved. The employers at certain collieries had refused to add the usual percentages to the newly established district minimum rates; and it was finally decided that a lower minimum should be fixed for certain collier- ies, and the percentages above standard calculated on these reduced minima.

The outbreak of the World War brought all the important cur- rent disputes to an end; and, though there were a large number of disputes in the remaining months of 1914, and indeed during the whole period of the war, most of them were quite unimpor- tant, and were brought to a very speedy conclusion. After the passing of the first Munitions Act in 1915 many of these strikes were illegal; and, even when they were not illegal, they were sometimes unauthorized by the central executives of the respec- tive trade unions. The fact that the dispute was illegal or unau- thorized; the swift intervention of the Government, armed with emergency powers; and perhaps more important than all these the severe reprobation of strikes by public opinion, tended to restrict their scope and above all to shorten their duration. Hence the aggregate duration even of some of the disputes that excited most public feeling, such as the Clyde Engineering dispute of Feb. and March 1915 (about 110,000 working days) was quite trivial by comparison with the great disputes before the war.

On Feb. 4 1915, the Government appointed Sir George Askwith, Sir Francis Hepwood, and Sir George Gibb, as a " Committee on Production in Engineering and Shipbuilding Establishments," to enquire and report as to the best means of insuring that the productive power of the employees in engineering and shipbuild- ing establishments for Government purposes should be made fully available. The Committee recommended (inter alia) that industrial disputes should never be allowed to result in a stoppage of work; and that disputes which could not be settled by the ordinary means should be referred to an impartial tribunal for immediate investigation and report with a view to a settlement. The Government accepted the recommendation, and appointed the Committee on Production as the tribunal indicated.

Hence in 1915, though there were over 700 disputes, there was only one with an aggregate duration of over a million days, a coal strike in South Wales, arising out of a deadlock over a wages agreement.

There was also only one large dispute in 1916, a strike of 30,000 jute workers at Dundee, which lasted from March 24 to June 8. The workpeople claimed an advance of 15% on piece-rates of wages, but ultimately returned to work on the old terms. This year was particularly free from disputes in the coal industry, which is generally the most affected by disputes.

Several unauthorized strikes, on a fairly large scale, occurred in the engineering trades in 1917. These excited a great deal of public attention, both because of the vital importance of main- tenance of the fullest possible engineering output during the war, and also because the strikes were openly outbreaks of revolt, not only against the restrictions imposed on industrial freedom by various statutes and regulations, but also (what was felt to be even more serious) against the authority of the trade union executives. Measured, however, by the test of aggregate dura- tion, only one of these disputes the engineering strike of May 1917 was of very serious importance; and, as all the disputes had many features in common, it will suffice here to give an account of the dispute in May and of another in November.