SAWYERS.

WEST VALLEY.

On the 25th of March about 25 men who were employed in a saw mill at West Valley, Cattaraugus county, went on strike because their wages had not been paid for several weeks. After they had been out a few days they received the amounts due to them, and the employer made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of wages in the future.

SHIRTMAKERS.

NEW YORK.

On November 14, 1894, the shirtmakers employed in three shops in New York city were locked out because they refused to submit to a reduction in wages of 10 per cent. The lockout afterward extended to six other shops, and about 400 hands were deprived of employment. On the 20th of November over 100 contractors who were engaged in the shirt-making industry, held a meeting and decided to reduce the wages of their employes 10 per cent. and to close their shops if the reduction were not accepted. At a meeting of the Shirtmakers' Union, held on the 23d of November, the proposition of the contractors was unanimously rejected. Subsequently the executive committee of the Shirtmakers' Union consented to the reduction until the 1st of January, and the employes returned to work at the reduced rates of wages. The contractors objected to any time limit.

In September, 1894, the contractors had entered into agreements with the Shirtmakers' Union, but they claimed that it was impossible to successfully conduct their business under the terms of these contracts.

}

In the early part of January, 1895, the contractors attempted to make another reduction in the wages of their employes. The shirtmakers protested against it, and on the 7th of January a large number of them went on strike in five shops in Madison, Suffolk, Cherry and Rutgers streets. On the 30th of January one of the contractors acceded to the demands of his employes, and about one week later a similar settlement was effected in the other shops.

About the 1st of August 28 union shirtmakers, employed in a shop in Market street, went on strike on account of a reduction in wages and the employment of nonunion men. The contractor ignored their demands and secured a sufficient number of hands to continue his business. On the 29th of August he made another reduction of 6 per cent. and discharged his employes because they would not accept the reduced rate of wages. He insisted upon the reduction, and announced his intention of employing only nonunion workmen.

1

On the 28th of August 25 men and 7 women, employed in a shop in Bayard street, struck against a reduction in wages. Two days later the contractor agreed to pay the union scale of wages and his employes returned to work.

On the 3d of September 30 men and women who were employed in a shirt factory in Gouverneur street left the shop in a body. They claimed that they were locked out because they had joined the union. The contractor denied that he had locked them out, and claimed that the Shirtmakers' Union was trying to force him to retain some employes whom he did not want. He refused to recognize the union or employ any of its members, and at the date of closing this report the trouble had not been settled.

On the 3d of September the shirtmakers employed in a large shop at 94 Monroe street struck for an increase in wages of 15 per cent. Their demands were granted within a few hours after the strike commenced, and they returned to work the next morning. On the 3d and 4th of September.similar strikes took place in four other shops in New York city, and about 150 men and women stopped work. On the 5th of September officers of the Shirtmakers' Union reported that these troubles had been settled by the contractors granting the demands of their employes and signing an agreement with the union.

On the 5th of September about 50 shirtmakers went on strike in a shop at 300 and 302 Monroe street. In this case the contractor attempted to compel his employes to sign an agreement to work only for him during the next two months; not to strike during that period; and to sever their connection with the Shirt

makers' Union. A large number of nonunion hands remained in the shop, and the contractor refused to treat with the union or its representatives. Most of the strikers obtained employment in other shops.

During the year a few other small strikes were reported in this industry in New York and Brooklyn.

SHOEMAKERS.

BROOKLYN.

On the 29th of January a dispute arose between Joseph Wichert, a shoe manufacturer in Brooklyn, and Charles Rothkopf, an apprentice in his shop, in reference to the price to be paid for certain work. Three apprentices stopped work, and two hours later 40 cutters struck in sympathy with them. President Brower, of the Shoemakers' Council, called on Mr. Wichert and secured an agreement to submit the questions in dispute to a board of arbitration composed of two persons to be chosen by the employer, two to be chosen by the Shoemakers' Council, and a fifth arbitrator to be selected by the other four. Commissioner Feeney was requested to act as the fifth member of the board of arbitration, and it was agreed that his decision would be final as to all questions upon which the other arbitrators, or a majority of them, failed to agree.

On the 1st of February the arbitrators met and heard the statements of both parties. The controversy narrowed down to the question of the re-employment of the apprentice Charles Rothkopf, and upon that question Commissioner Feeney rendered the following decision:

BROOKLYN, February 4, 1895.

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF SHOEMAKERS AND MR. JOSEPH WICHERT, SHOE MANUFACTURER, OF BROOKLYN.

In accordance with the joint request of the employer and the representative of workmen in his factory that I should act as final arbitrator in a dispute pending between them, I met the four other arbitrators selected (two from each side) at the establishment of

The employer was repre

Mr. Weichert on Feruary 1, at 4 p. m. sented by Joseph Wichert and Russell Foland and the workmen by William L. Brower and George Horn.

It appeared that on January 29 apprentice Charles Rothkopf, a "trimming cutter" was ordered to cut a certain "special order" of shoes. He refused, claiming that, as he worked by the piece, there was a certain deviation from the price set for such work. A contention occurred between Mr. Wichert and the apprentice. The young man and three other apprentices after consultation, stopped work, they said, to go outside to secure advice in the matter. Two hours later 40" outside cutters " quit work in sympathy with the apprentices. There are 250 persons employed in the fac tory. After six hours absence President Brower of the General Shoemakers' Council, ordered the men and boys back to work, pending arbitration agreed to by both parties. All returned to work except Charles Rothkopf, who understood that he was discharged, but was anxious to be taken back.

The original disagreement was rectified by the employer conforming to the custom of the shop in disposing of the objectionable "special order," and the question to be decided was the return of the apprentice Rothkopf. Both sides made statements and the young man Rothkopf was questioned.

Mr. Wichert charged Rothkopf with insolence that justified his discharge. The young man strenuously denied any intention to be insolent toward his employer. Ruthkopf claimed that he was discharged by Mr. Wichert, which the employer did not deny. Superintendent Foland denied that the apprentice was discharged. The asseverations made were somewhat contradictory.

My opinion is that the apprentice Rothkopf should be taken back to work for the reasons:

First. That said Rothkopf promises to observe all reasonable shop rules and refrain from insolence toward those in charge.

Second. Three other apprentices who were restored to their places were involved with Rothkopf in the dispute. He being secretary of the New York Shoemakers' Union seemed to have suffered as the central figure in the revolt.

Third. As there seems to be no other cause for discord in the factory at this time, to prevent a further breach of harmony among the returned workmen, who await this decision, I advise that Rothkopf also be returned to his place.

I recommend this course while still recognizing the right of the employer to discharge for cause.

EDWARD FEENEY,

Commissioner of Mediation and Arbitration, State of New York.

In the early part of February Commissioner Feeney was again called upon to act as arbitrator in the settlement of a dispute between Mr. Wichert and his employes. The rates of wages and other conditions of employment in this factory were regulated by a written agreement between Mr. Wichert and the General Council of Shoemakers, which agreement expired on the 15th of February. A disagreement as to the terms of employment after that date threatened to result in a strike of all the employes, nearly three hundred in number, but both parties finally agreed to submit their differences to Commissioner Feeney, as sole arbitrator, and abide by his decision.

Conferences were held on February 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23 and 25, at which Mr. Wichert and the superintendent of his factory were present, and the employes were representd by William L. Brower, president of the General Council of Shoemakers, and committees of workmen from the various departments of the factory. The scale of wages was discussed in detail, mutual concessions were made, and both parties agreed upon terms of settlement which were embodied in the following agreement, to which the list of prices was appended:

Agreement entered into between Joseph Wichert, shoe manufacturer, No. 24 Boerum street, Brooklyn, party of the first part, and General Council of Shoemakers, for the employes, party of the second part.

First. The party of the first part agrees to pay the attached schedule of wages for the term beginning February 15, 1895, and ending May 1, 1896.