JOINT PROCEDURE

Changes in work and in methods of work vary greatly as to the circumstances under which they are introduced and as to the manner and degree in which they affect the interests of the workers concerned. As a consequence, it is not practicable to define once for all the powers of management and the procedure to be followed in giving effect to such changes. Hard and fast rules or principles laid down in advance cannot but fail to meet complex situations that were not to be foreseen. For this reason, if for no other, it is of the essence of justice to leave wide room for joint discussion and negotiation between the representatives of both sides. Whenever a dispute arises in relation to any particular change proposed by the management, the mere fact of the dispute, whether or not the grievance be a real one, calls for conference and an understanding. It is the danger signal indicating that the workers' interests are menaced or at least in need of safeguarding against the administrative initiative of the management. And the facts of whether those interests are actually endangered and how they are to be protected, have to be determined in each particular situation anew. Hence the need of a continuously functioning joint machinery, like the price committee, to deal concretely with every case of disputed authority as it arises.

The encroachment of workers' control upon the sphere of management takes two general forms. On one side is the restrictive or negative type of control, which is aimed at limiting the freedom of administrative action of management at those points where it comes into open conflict with the rights and interests of workers. On the other side, there is the positive or constructive tendency in the movement for workers' control. This is marked by the intervention of the workers' representatives in the counsels of management before the conflict of interests reaches the point of open breach. In other words, the initiation of a change in the conditions of work or pay is in this case not effected by executive action subject to review and reversal. Rather, it is the result of

joint discussion or collective bargaining and agreement between the parties or, failing this, of adjudication by the impartial machinery. The terms and conditions under which the intended change is to take effect are stipulated beforehand and are such as to safeguard all the essential interests involved. Furthermore, they have legal status under the agreement and are enforcible under its authority.

By way of illustration, the decision by Mr. Williams in the following case18 throws light upon the conditions under which even so relatively innocent a device as the substitution of hour-work for piece-work may be resorted to by executive action of the management when a change in work is enacted, and under what other conditions such a change must first be authorized by the price committee or the Trade Board. In this case a question arose over the division by the company of the payment of a button-hole operation, which involved the paying of part of it on hour-work, and part on piece-work. The union complained that the more lucrative part of the operation was put on hour-work, while the less lucrative was kept on piece-work, thus reducing the average earning power on the whole operation. It also contended that the company was not entitled to change a price fixed by the price committee, by administrative action, but was required to resubmit it to the price committee if it desired a change. The company explained that in this case the price committee was otherwise occupied when the change was sought, and it had recourse to hour-work as the fairest way to dispose of the matter while the committee was busy elsewhere. It held, further, that it had of right the option of substituting hourwork for piece-work whenever, in its judgment, it seemed advisable, and, accordingly, it was justified in making the change in question.

The Board of Arbitration observed that the point in dispute was not specifically covered either in the agreement or in previous decisions. And in order to avoid future disputes it gave out the following interpretation of the rights of management under the agreement:

"1. The right of the company to substitute hour work for piece work is intended to apply to periods of change before the price committee has had opportunity to fix a legal price.

"2. After the price committee has fixed a price it cannot be changed by executive action of the company, but must be resubmitted to the price committee or Trade Board, except as follows:

"3. In case of a substantial change in the conditions which calls for a readjustment of the price, the company shall give notice to the chairman of the Trade Board that it intends to ask for a readjustment of the price, and desires to introduce hour-work.

66

4. The chairman of the Trade Board shall proceed promptly to take suitable action, and shall in his discretion be authorized to put in hour work or institute a temporary piece work price if the regular price committee is unable to act with sufficient expedition.

"5. After a price has been made by the Committee, it shall go into effect on the morning of the second day following."

A more drastic use of administrative power by the employer, where joint or co-operative procedure was indicated by the agreement is exhibited in the following notable decision by the Trade Board.19 The union in this case complained that the people were kept waiting in the shop when there was no work, and the manager refused to grant them passes; also that hour-work had been withdrawn and the manager was attempting to compel the people to work at piece-work rates on operations not in their section.

The company admitted that orders had been issued requiring individuals who are in one-man sections to remain in the shop, as the operation of the shop depended on their attendance; but the company claimed that offers had been made to these one-man sections to combine them and so provide work sufficient for these individuals. The company objected to hour-work, asserting that it is only a bonus system, involving allowances to piece-workers which they do not earn. company was seeking to reduce hour-work to a minimum. The union contended that these orders violated the agreement in two ways: (1) In respect to the provision regarding "detention in the shop," which reads:

The

"Workers shall not be detained in the shops when there is insufficient work for them. The company or its agent shall exercise due foresight in calculating the work available, and as far as practicable shall call only enough workers into the factory to do the work in sight. And if a greater number report for work than there is work for, those in excess of the number required shall be promptly notified and permitted to leave the shop. The work on hand shall be divided as equally as may be between the remaining workers. The company and the deputies have agreed to cooperate together to abolish all unnecessary waiting in the shops."

And (2) a change of work was ordered contrary to the ruling of the Board of Arbitration: "Automatic reductions or reductions by direct or executive action, are to be discouraged, etc."

The question in this case turned on whether the company was within its rights under the agreement when it sent out the order to reduce hour-work to a minimum; to grant no passes to workers in one-man sections; and to order sections to be combined. In ruling on the question, Chairman Mullenbach held as follows:

"The order to refuse passes to workers who have no work and require them either to sit in the shops idle or accept work on terms fixed solely by the company's officials is contrary to both provisions cited above. The provision as to 'Detention in the shop' clearly intends to reduce waiting in the shop to a minimum, and this was to be done by cooperation between the company and the deputies. But in the present instance no cooperation was attempted. An executive order requiring waiting in the shop without work was sent out. The ruling of the Board of Arbitration (cited above), states that 'It is clearly the intention of the agreement that no change of price or change of work equivalent to a change of price should be made without being submitted to the Price Committee.' There is no question that there was a change of work equivalent to a change of price in respect to these one-man sections, and that such a change should not have been made until the Rate Committee had taken the matter up.

"Under the circumstances the Trade Board rules that the status quo prior to the order be restored and that the matter of any readjustment be referred to the Rate Committee for consideration."

The line between the proper spheres of the employer's executive jurisdiction and of workers' rights and interests is often a narrow and indefinite one. It is, therefore, all the more essential that in matters likely to affect these rights and interests the management should proceed with caution and restraint. This means, practically speaking, some form of joint or constitutional procedure. Joint procedure not only defines the workers' rights and interests in a given situation in the light of the agreement; it also protects those interests against invasion, and consequently prevents a sense of wrong and resentment such as resulted from direct action by management in the case reported above. Nor is the reaction of the workers always limited to rebellious feeling, held in check, as in this case, by union discipline. Often enough it finds expression in stoppages, which merely complicate the difficulty. Such was the result in the following case20 where an official of the management exceeded his authority and thereby provoked a stoppage.

The union in this case complained that the management (examiner) changed the stitch of the Wilson machines and caused the workers to lose time. The union asked for pay for lost time and a fine on the management for violation of the agreement. The company admitted that the change of stitch was improperly made, but denied that the people had any valid claim for redress, as they stopped work and tried to secure redress through direct action. The union also contended that the company violated the agreement in adjusting the machines and requiring a finer stitch without calling on the Rate Committee to revise the specification. The company admitted that the examiner had no right under the agreement to alter the stitch, nor did he have any authority from his ranking officers to make the change. It was done on his own initiative. The Trade Board ordered a week's lay-off for the examiner as penalty for the unauthorized alteration of the stitch and as a warning against similar action by agents of the company.

In this case, it appears, the action of the official in changing the work of the machine operators was doubly arbitrary. On