"In facing the possibility of unsettled questions being submitted to arbitration, I find my present state of mind to be this: "That, in addition to maintaining what has been gained in the present agreement, the chief interest of the employees centers around the question of an increased efficiency of organization, which requires a recognition of the need for such a substantial degree of preference as will tend to improve that efficiency, while the chief interest of the employers centers around the question of efficiency in business competition, which necessarily includes a recognition and consideration of cost and quality of production, with the shop cooperation and discipline necessary to secure it.

"I find my mind still open and ready to receive and be influenced by any light that may be offered by either side, and this statement is given to show, so far as I understand myself, what my present attitude is on the questions which most need to be considered and reconciled."

On March 29, 1913, the agreement was adopted and signed by representatives of the firm, of the Joint Board of the Hart, Schaffner and Marx local unions, the Central Federation of Labor and the Women's Trade Union League. The signing of this agreement was unquestionably one of the most important gains won so far by the organized clothing workers of Chicago.

Under the terms of this agreement, known as the Preferential Shop Agreement, all matters in dispute, except the question of preference, were left to the Board of Arbitration. The rest of the 1913 agreement was really issued therefore in the form of a Ruling of the Board of Arbitration, effective from May 1, 1913, to May 1, 1916. The Ruling incorporated the agreement for preference of March 29th; provided an opportunity for renewal of the agreement before the time of expiration in 1916; provided for the continuation of the Trade and Arbitration Boards; enlarged the powers of the latter by the so-called emergency clause; reduced hours of work in the tailor shops from 54 to 52; retained the minimum wage scale with certain exceptions; provided for pay at the rate of time and a half for overtime work and no overtime on Sundays or legal holidays; left the power of discharge and discipline with the company, subject to review; ordered

the maintenance as far as possible of a balance of workmen in the sections in order to keep different departments at work, complaints in regard to this being subject to review by the Trade Board; provided for the replacement of workers displaced by abolished sections in work as nearly as possible like their old work; and retained in full force those parts of the old agreement not in conflict with this, or obsolete.

The first decision prescribing the manner of applying the principle of preference was made on August 30, 1913. This application of the principle of preference is an excellent example of the building up of a code or body of practical law by the decisions of the Boards which interpret and apply general principles. The gist of the decision was as follows:

*

"The test of preference is that it must strengthen the organization, while at the same time it must extend a reasonable preference' to old employes, and maintain the efficiency of shop *. The Board discipline * offers the following experimental interpretation: The application of the principle of preference made herein is based on the degree of unionization at present existing in the shops and is designed to prevent union membership from falling below its present status, and by its continued operation to strengthen the organization as contemplated by the agreement."

The decision then proceeds to establish classes for degrees of unionization, rules for preference in each class and for promotion of sections from one class to another, for slack season reduction in working force, and for preference in hiring. Special rules were made later for the cutters and trimmers to the effect that workers in cutting and trimming rooms shall be union members in good standing, except that the company may employ 20 non-union cutters and 9 non-union trimmers, this being less than 5 per cent. of the number employed in each case. In conclusion, Mr. Williams noted certain general rules in regard to the punishment of wilful stoppages or any other violation of the spirit and intention of the agreement. This decision became the guide for future applications of the preferential clause of the agreement. The strides forward that the union had made since 1911 and the

acceptance of the position that the organization should continue to gain and not lose strength, are clearly recognized in the above decision. The preferential shop did in practice soon come to mean the union shop, for with the increasing degree of unionization, the union saw to it that its members were available for preference when jobs were open. The degree of unionization under this agreement was naturally of the utmost importance, for it determined the class of the sections for purposes of preference, and in March, 1914, the Labor Department directed the foremen to take a census of unionization. Three months later, the union took a census of its members through the shop chairmen. The union figures, compiled in May, show a considerably larger proportion of union men than were shown by the March census. The percentage of union members in the pants shop (the lowest percentage of all the shops), according to March figures, was 51, and in May, 77.6. In the vest makers' section, the percentage of union members was 89 according to the March figures and 96 in May, and in the coat makers 82 and 91.6 respectively. The degree of unionization of cutters and trimmers was 95% at both dates. The total membership of the union calculated from the dues collected in the four months from January to May, shows an increase of from 2,592 in May, 1913, to 8,906 in May, 1914, or 344 per cent.

After January, 1914, new groups of workers (including ticket sewers, inspector tailors, and apprentices) who were not unionized at the time of signing the agreement in March, 1913, were brought under the agreement, due to their subsequent organization by the union.

Another provision in the 1913 agreement that was of great importance in the development of the strength of the union was the clause limiting the power of discharge by requiring that a sufficient reason be shown for discharge and by providing for appeal in the case of those believing themselves unjustly discharged.

The development of the position and function of the shop chairman, as a recognized officer of the Union, came largely during the life of this agreement. In the original agreement

there was no mention of a shop chairman. In fact, it was specifically provided that any employe-may present a grievance in person or by an individual fellow worker." The progress and status of the Union were later recognized in a ruling to the effect that the Joint Board might designate any fellow employe of the company to represent them before the Arbitration Board. The institution was thus officially recognized and one representative was selected by the cutters, one each by coat, vest and pants tailors, and one each by the Polish and Lithuanian workers. Later, the Board interpreted "fellow worker" to be the official representative of the Union, the shop chairman, and still later the rights and powers of the shop chairman were defined in the Trade Board decisions of January 8, 1913, and September 5, 1914:

JANUARY 8, 1913.

"Inasmuch as the agreement is silent on the matter at issue a decision must rest on the most reasonable interpretation of the intention of the agreement and of the circumstances of shop operation.

"It is clearly intended and declared by the agreement that an employee may elect to present a grievance by a fellow worker rather than by himself. It will not be denied that an employe may bring a complaint to the representative of the firm during working hours. But under the agreement he may choose to make such complaint by a fellow worker rather than by himself. In this case the agreement confers upon the fellow worker all of the rights of making and adjusting the complaint that it lodged in the employe. The employe is entitled to place his representative the individual fellow-worker-in full possession of the facts of his complaint."

SEPTEMBER 5, 1914.

"In the present case the question centers on whether, when an employe presents a complaint to an individual fellow worker (shop chairman) the individual fellow worker has the right to go to the place of work of the complainant and investigate the complaint.

"On this point the board rules that the individual worker (shop chairman) has the right to go to the place of work of the employe, where it is necessary for him to get full possession