CONSTRUCTION OF THE LABOR LAW

During 1917 the rapid transit construction work was practically free from labor disputes and difficulties. The Commission was obliged to take official cognizance of only a few situations involving labor difficulties. A few strikes occurred, for the most part local in character.

In July, compressed air workers employed on Section No. 3 of Route No. 8, the under-river tunnel portion of the 14th Street-Eastern line, went on strike, with demands for increases in pay. These men claimed that they were not bound by the agreement made following a strike by compressed air workers in the down-town East River tunnels on March 1, 1916, in which it was provided that the scale of wages then established should continue for the life of the down-town under-river contracts. The strike on the 14th Street-Eastern line lasted about a month — work being practically suspended for part of the time—and was ended by the grant of a pay increase, which gave to men in the class known as "muckers" an advance from three to four dollars per day, and to all other compressed air men on the work an increase of 25 cents for each five pounds of increase in air pressure above 22 pounds per square inch. It was also set forth in the agreement, which was extended to cover the work of construction on the 60th Street tunnel between Manhattan and Queens where there had been no strike, that it should continue for the life of the contracts.

Early in November, about 160 workmen employed in the Old Slip-Clark Street tunnel work went on strike. Concrete workers and carpenters and carpenters' helpers were the classes of labor mostly involved in this dispute. They demanded increases in pay. Several caulkers also quit work, but claimed they had no grievance, having been intimidated from continuing at their tasks. The Flinn-O'Rourke Company, the contractor for the work, declined to grant any increases in pay and shortly afterward the men returned to work.

The Commission in October received a communication from its Chief Engineer, stating that he had received advices that contractors holding contracts from the Commission on City-owned subway lines were working some of their employes ten hours,

instead of the legal eight hours, a day. The Engineer stated that he had no specific instances to present, but was confident enough of the truth of the reports which had reached him to call them to the attention of the Commission. He also pointed out that labor conditions from the standpoint of the contractors were exceedingly unsatisfactory, due to the fact that both common and skilled labor had been drafted into Government work in such large numbers as to make it almost impossible for some of the subway contractors to maintain forces sufficient to carry forward the work. Contractors had, so far as possible, he stated, made advances in the wage scale, but that, in view of the large increase in expense, some of the contractors had doubtless resorted to the expedient of working their men ten hours a day rather than eight hours in order to permit them to earn more money, thus retaining their services and at the same time not increasing the losses incident to the work, which would ensue if men were paid higher wages for the shorter and legal day. The matter was drawn to the attention of Chairman Oscar S. Straus, who is deeply interested in the settlement of all labor disputes and who at once called conferences between representatives of the Commission and of the various classes of labor represented in the subway work. The several aspects of the case were thoroughly considered and the legal questions involved were referred to the Chief of Rapid Transit, who reported as to the provisions of law and who recommended that some further action be taken either by or on behalf of the Commission. At the instance of the Chairman, it was decided to bring the situation to the attention of the State Industrial Commission and a copy of the Chief Engineer's report was forwarded to that body with a communication stating that no complaints had been made to the Public Service Commission in regard to the conditions set forth in the report and that the Commission had no such information in its possession as would furnish a basis upon which it could submit a complaint.

The letter also stated that the Commission desired to call the attention of the Industrial Commission to the matter, for investigation or for such other disposition as that Commission might choose to make of it. On October 31 a conference was held

between members of the State Industrial Commission and representatives of the Public Service Commission, the labor unions. and the contractors, at which spokesmen for the latter stated that upon the Public Service Commission's calling the matter to the attention of the State Industrial Commission violations of the State Labor Law had ceased and the law was then being lived up to. This statement was concurred in by representatives of the labor unions, and the conference was discontinued.

In the Annual Report for 1916 an account was given of the serious strikes among laborers and other workmen on subway construction strikes which for a time threatened to tie up the work and result in delay, menacing early completion of some of the new lines. Through the good offices of Chairman Straus these strikes were brought to a conclusion and an agreement was entered into between the men and the contractors, by which some increases in wages and some improvements in working conditions and hours were made, with the understanding that this agreement should continue until the subway contracts were completed.

Late in 1916 and early in 1917 representatives of the Tunnel and Subway Contractors' International Union of North America contended that this agreement between the men and the contractors held only in so far as it affected contracts in existence and under which work was being carried on at the time that the agreement was made. The contractors, on the contrary, contended that such was not the case and that the agreement should be interpreted as affecting all contracts then let and to be let for the Dual System.

The workmen, however, including timbermen, timbermen's helpers, concrete form makers, concrete laborers, drill runners, etc., held out for their contention, and representations were made to the Chairman that unless some modification of the agreement could be made a strike would be called. Desirous of preventing such a stoppage in the work, Chairman Straus again tendered his services to the contractors and to the men as a possible arbitrator of the differences. The union in the meantime had broadened its demands to cover workers on other contracts, save compressed air workers, stating in a memorandum filed in behalf

of the union with Chairman Straus that the cost of living had materially advanced and that the men found it impossible to live decently at the rate of wage then being received by them.

Numerous conferences were held in the Chairman's office, as a result of which, on May 2, 1917, a new agreement was signed for the contractors by representatives of Smith, Hauser and MacIsaac, the Flinn-O'Rourke Company, Inc., the Cranford Company, and the Holbrook, Cabot and Rollins Corporation and for the union by Tito Pacelli, First Vice-President, and Michael Carraher, Secretary and Treasurer, and witnessed by Chairman Straus. In this agreement a new scale of wages, ranging from 25 to 50 cents increase per eight-hour day, was promulgated for the classes of labor above enumerated. It was further stipulated that this new agreement should last for the life of the contracts.

However, in November last Mr. Pacelli and other representatives of the union called upon Chairman Straus and stated that complaint was again being made by the union, consisting of a membership of about 6,000 men, that the cost of living had continued to rise to such an extent that the scale of wages then prevailing was inadequate for their normal needs and less than a living wage. The Chairman was informed that the men were becoming impatient and that action must be had, else a strike seemed imminent. The Chairman reviewed the efforts that had been made in order to obtain an increase in wages for the men, as incorporated in the agreement above referred to. He directed the attention of the union representatives to and asked them in turn to call the attention of the workers to the fact that if these agreements were broken by the union, confidence in the union would be destroyed and the strength of the union impaired for any future dealing with the contractors. He pointed out that the Commission had no power to increase payments to contractors and no power to raise the amounts of their contracts above their bid prices and hence was in no position to provide relief for the men indirectly by providing direct relief to the contractors, many of whom were already losing large sums owing to the tremendous advance in costs of materials, labor, etc. The Chairman informed the men that he appreciated their situation and

that he would do his utmost, utilizing his long experience gained in the settlement of many labor difficulties, to help them in any way possible, but that no way other than through legislation existed by which the desired relief could be had.

The Chairman later took up the matter with the contractors and with the legal department of the Commission in the hope that a solution might be found. At the end of the year the matter was still under consideration.

On several other occasions during the year Chairman Straus conferred informally with representatives of the contractors and of various organizations of men employed on the rapid transit work and was successful in obtaining satisfactory settlement of a number of local disputes between the employers and their men.

UTICA AVENUE ROUTE

In February, 1915, the Commission received a petition from Wood, Harmon and Company et al., requesting the Commission to take such steps as would permit of the construction of a rapid transit railroad on the so-called Utica Avenue route from Eastern parkway to Flatbush avenue, the funds to be provided by assessments levied upon the property benefited. The route had been adopted in April, 1914. At the time of the presentation of the petition to the Commission, an opinion was received from Counsel to the effect that it would be necessary to obtain amendments to the Rapid Transit Law before the Commission could act, because of a technical defect in the legislation permitting construction of rapid transit lines by assessment upon the area of property benefited. The necessary legislation was obtained. Various steps in the preparation of plans, etc., were taken and on January 17, 1917, the Commission adopted the detailed plans and specifications for the Utica Avenue line, together with a proposed petition to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment with a draft of a resolution to be adopted by that body, fixing a time and place for a joint hearing before that Board and the Commission at which the area of assessment and the amount of assessment to be levied should be considered and for the taking of other and necessary proceedings to provide for the levying and collection of the assessments. Owing to a discrepancy in the description of one