arguments. The motives impelling the employer to give preference in lay-offs to non-union workers, thereby running counter to the interests and rights of the union under the agreement, are various. Frequently, non-union workers are lower paid, as, for example, apprentices and other helpers who are not members of the union. Their retention at work while union men were laid off would constitute a violation of the preference provision, and in case the employer was guilty of bad faith, would warrant his discipline at the hands of the Trade Board.

The situation is exemplified in a complaint172 brought by the union against a firm on the ground of having laid off two trimmers, members of the union, while a non-union boy in the canvas section of the trimming room remained at work. The firm contended that the " preference in lay-off" provision applied to the section and not to the shop as a whole; that canvas trimming was a distinct section at this house. The Trade Board in its opinion overruled the firm. It held that "the canvas section is to be regarded as a part of the trimming room in applying the principle of preference in lay-off. The non-union worker should have been laid off before union trimmers were laid off. The Board directs the discharge of the non-union worker. If his place is filled the firm is first to file requisition with the union."

Preference to union workers in lay-off does not, of course, protect such workers against lay-off in the event of a necessary reduction of force greater than the number of nonunion workers employed in the section. In that event, however, preference must be shown to those union workers who have been longest employed; those most recently taken on are the first to become subject to lay-off. This elaboration of the principle is embodied in a provision of the agreement entitled "Preference of Seniority," which reads as follows:

"If in order to properly balance sections, a reduction of force be required greater than can be secured by the laying off of a non-union worker as provided for herein, then there may be laid off those who are members of the union in the order of their seniority who have been in the employ of the company

for a period of six months or less, provided that any exceptionally efficient worker, or any especially valuable member of the union may be exempted from the rule of seniority. Provided, also, the company shall give notice to the chief deputy of its intention to discharge under this clause, and if he fails to agree the matter shall be referred to the Trade Board."

It follows from this provision that the effective initiative which belongs to the management in the matter of lay-offs affecting non-union workers only, is materially curtailed when union workers are to be dismissed or when an exception is to be made in favor of some particular individual. The union must be consulted in such cases and its consent obtained. That failing, the Trade Board has to decide the issue. In effect, the laying off of union workers under the seniority rule is a matter for joint determination in every case. The principle was decisive in a certain case,178 in which the company appealed from a decision of the Trade Board holding with the union that four men had been improperly laid off and ordering their reinstatement with back pay.

In this case the company, needing to reduce the force to a point that required the displacement of union men, had proceeded to lay off four union trimmers. The union had protested on the ground that a number of non-union men were retained, contrary to the provisions of the agreement, while the union men were let out. The company contended that the retained men were virtually union members, having filed their applications for membership, and by reason of that fact had acquired the right to be treated as members by virtue of the clause on Union Membership": "The provisions for preference made herein require that the door of the union be kept open for the reception of non-union workers, etc." The company claimed under this clause that "such application automatically becomes a membership,' and that therefore it was justified in assuming they were members of the union.

In deciding the contention in favor of the union, Mr. Williams relied upon the explicit language of the "Preference of Seniority" clause. He ruled as follows:

"The chairman cannot agree to this interpretation (of the company), which would enable one side to dispose of a case in dispute without any judicial process whatever. The makers of the agreement apparently foresaw difficulties of this sort and provided a method of dealing with them, for the agreement states thatThe company shall give notice to the chief deputy of its intention to discharge under this clause, and if he fails to agree the matter shall be referred to the Trade Board.' * The chairman cannot accept any automatic' interpretation of the open union clause, which would prevent a disputed case being passed on by the Trade Board before action is taken.

"The four men who were laid off should be reinstated with back pay as directed by the Trade Board."

Among the necessary powers of management—necessary in the interest of efficient administration of the factory-is that of reorganizing sections and, if need be, abolishing them. Such changes are usually the result of important innovations in the character of the product, and sometimes in the methods of production. Under such circumstances, the problem of reconciling the conflicting interests of efficient production and of the workers' claim to fair treatment has to be met. It is recognized in the agreement under the heading: "Abolishment of Section.-When sections are abolished, the company and its agents shall use every effort to give the displaced workers employment as much as possible like the work from which they were displaced, within a reasonable time." This provision, with the relatively free hand it leaves to management, does not, however, apply unless the section is entirely discontinued. Where merely a reduction of section is involved, the freedom of management is further limited by the principle of union preference, as has been already shown. The application of this principle to an entire shop is not specifically provided by the agreement, but it seems to be implicit in the general clause relating to preference in discharge. At any rate, this has been the construction placed upon the clause by the Board of Arbitration in the following case.174

Factory "J" was discontinued by action of the company and a dispute arose over the disposition of the workers in

that factory. It was understood that shop "X" would occupy the premises vacated by Factory "J,” and that it would be enlarged, and thereby would take care of about two-thirds of the Factory "J" workers, leaving the other third without their usual place of work. The company proposed to dispose of these workers according to the principle of the "abolishment of sections," under which it would try to put the displaced workers in other positions to the best of its ability. The union held that under the principle of preference the non-union workers should be first laid off and the union people be given their places. The Trade Board having authorized this preferential procedure, the company protested against the decision and asked for a review by the Board of Arbitration. Against the decision it urged that the "Seniority" clause invoked by the Trade Board had reference solely to the reduction of sections; that it did not apply to a shop as a whole; that such an application would be wrong and harmful and work injustice to the organization (of the shop).

In deciding that the situation presented in this case properly came within the scope of the preferential principle, Mr. Williams ruled as follows:

"The chairman feels that in the present case we are facing practically a new situation. We have not before dealt with the shutting down of a large factory and the displacement of workers on a considerable scale. It is possible such a contingency was not in mind when the 'Preference of Seniority' clause was adopted, and it may have been more specially designed, as stated, for the reduction and balancing of sections. But the situation is upon us. If it be contended that the clause is not in point, then it is the business of the Board to provide means adequate to deal with the situation in the spirit of the agree

ment.

"As indicating the principle to follow we have a clear and unmistakable guide in the language of the agreement itself It states: Should it at any time become necessary to reduce the force in conformity with the provisions of this agreement, the first ones to be dismissed shall be those who are not members of the union in good regular standing.' This statement is made without reservation or qualification, without re

gard to section, shop, or place of employment. It is clearly applicable whenever it may become necessary' to reduce the force. The chairman cannot escape the conviction that there is a reduction of force at the present time and that the union is within its rights under the agreement in its claim for the dismissal of non-union people.

"With respect to the method of putting this principle into practice, the chairman is not able to conceive any better order for laying off people than that provided by the clause 'Preference in Seniority.' Whether or not it was intended for such an occasion as the present, it has the advantage of the sanction of both parties for something very similar, and if we want to resort to so disagreeable a thing as a dismissal, we can probably find no way that is fairer or more acceptable."

The operation of the seniority principle as a method of preference as between union workers on a basis of length of employment, is not defeated by previous transfers of such workers within the establishment. In other words, a worker is entitled to preference in lay-off under this principle according to the total length of his employment with the firm in question. This point is illustrated175 by the case of Eva S, who had been laid off, as the union complained, in disregard of her rights under the "Seniority provision. This girl had been employed by the firm as a label sewer for several months after which she was transferred twice to other sections. When it became apparent that her section was permanently over-manned and had to be reduced, the labor manager searched for other work that Miss S. might do, but finding none, he informed the deputy of his intention to lay the girl off. Under these conditions a layoff was within the rights of the firm. But after hearing the evidence, the Trade Board found that the firm had not applied properly the senority rule in laying off Miss S., for two of the three girls retained in the section had been employed more recently than she. It appeared that the selection had been made on the length of service in the section rather than on the length of time employed by the firm, as the rule clearly requires. The Trade Board, therefore, directed that Miss S. be reinstated.

The principle of preference according to seniority in em