Jurisdiction in American building-trades unions

Front matter

UC-NRLF

B 2 aa? 5TS of k II

BY

Preface

This monograph had its origin in an investigation carried on by the author while a member of the Economic Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University. The chief sources of information have been the trade-union publications contained in the Johns Hopkins library. Documentary study, however, has been supplemented by personal interviews with trade-union officials and with employers of labor and by immediate study of labor conditions.

The author wishes to express his appreciation of the helpful criticism received from Professor J. H. Hollander and Professor G. E. Barnett.

N. R. W.

vu

Introduction

Just as one cannot imagine the existence of a government without an area over which it exercises control, so one cannot think of a trade union without assuming at the same time that there is a territory over which it claims jurisdiction. To continue this political analogy, just as a government presupposes subjects or citizens under its dominion, so a labor organization is rendered actual and existent by members subject to its control. This membership is not made up from persons chosen at random, nor is it conferred upon all who apply, but is restricted to those engaged in a specified occupation. In the formative period of trade unions this idea of jurisdiction over persons is predominant. The union exercises control over certain men, as men ; they are usually, of course, all working at the same trade or craft because a community of interest in their work is likely to draw them together, but outside of the union are many men engaged in the same work over whom the organization claims no authority. At such a stage, jurisdiction is purely personal, and the idea of trade jurisdiction has not emerged.

Gradually, however, as the association becomes more thoroughly organized, by a subtle transition this claim to control over certain persons working at a particular trade passes over into a claim to the trade itself, in which stage the union asserts jurisdiction not only over those persons within its ranks, but over all those who work at its trade.^

^ The attempt of a union to enforce the closed shop, for instance, is an attempt to impose its jurisdiction beyond the bounds of the union — to take control over other than its actual members. The ground for this is found in the claim of the union to the trade.

lO JURISDICTION IN AMERICAN BUILDING-TRADES UNIONS

Similarly, in the early days of trade unionism the idea of territorial jurisdiction was entirely undeveloped. The jurisdiction of the local union was merely over certain persons. In describing the development of the idea of jurisdiction among the Printers, Professor Barnett says: "In at least one of the early societies it was for a time, indeed, a question whether the jurisdiction of the union was personal or territorial. On April 21, 1810, the board of directors of the New York Society declared, in a series of resolutions, that the * jurisdiction of the society' extended only to the city and county of New York. Any member of the society employed outside this territory was not required to obey the ' regulations of work.' The considerations which led to this decision have been controUing with the local unions organized since that time. No useful purpose could be subserved by requiring a member to obey in every place rules framed with reference to local conditions."2

Three forms of trade-union jurisdiction, therefore, may be distinguished: (i) territorial jurisdiction, (2) personal jurisdiction, and (3) trade jurisdiction. Since the second type, personal jurisdiction, is rudimentary or transitional, attention will be confined in the present study to territorial jurisdiction and trade jurisdiction. Where it seems necessary to speak of what appears on the surface to be personal jurisdiction, it will be dealt with under one of the other two types, into one or the other of which all problems of control over persons must ultimately be resolved. Accordingly, the first and second chapters will be devoted to determining the territory and the trades over which the unions claim control, and the following chapters will deal with the disputes arising from these claims. It will appear that one great class of disputes^dual union disputes — ^may arise from conflict in either of these two forms of jurisdiction claims,

2 G. E. Barnett, " The Printers : A Study in American Trade Unionism/' in American Economic Association Quarterly, third series, vol. X, no. 3.

INTRODUCTION 1 1

while demarcation disputes grow only out of conflict in the latter form.

In general the term " jurisdiction " means the right to say, l"^ to dictate, and it implies the possession of authority or control. Specifically, as used by the unions, it means when applied to territory the district or country within which the union claims the exclusive right to organize and control.® When applied to trade, jurisdiction means the right to control the conditions of employment in a certain class of work. These ideas are obviously complementary. Trade jurisdiction implies that the authority over certain work extends within the territorial limits of the union, and territorial jurisdiction similarly carries the implication that the authority over a certain territory extends only so far as a specified class of work is concerned. This complementary relation between the two forms of jurisdiction is absolutely necessary under the present trade-union form of organization in which autonomy is preserved to each craft and unions are limited in territory. If a union should claim jurisdiction over the United States and Canada without any specification as to trade, all other unions established within that territory would be trespassing. The same condition would arise if only trade jurisdiction were claimed without any limitation as to territory. If all laboring men were to join a national industrial union, only territorial jurisdiction would need to be recorded. But since there are probably one hundred and fifty or more national unions in the United States, it is essential that each union shall enumerate clearly the district and the trades over which it claims authority.*

3 A full definition of territorial jurisdiction will be found on p. 40.

*The term "national union" has been used in the present studyas a convenient designation for the central power, or what might be called the federal authority among trade unions. To make use in each case of the title actually adopted by the union would necessitate varying the term from national union to international union, or to general union, according to the title of the association under consideration. To avoid indefiniteness and confusion, the single expression "national union" has been used throughout.

From what has thus far been said it will be seen that a definite jurisdiction is of fundamental importance to a labor organization. In fact, unionists frequently refer to their "property right" or "vested interest" in the jurisdiction claimed by their union. Just as the extent and the boundaries of private property are not explicitly stated or carefully described in an unsettled country, where each can have almost as much land as he may desire, so in the early days of each national union its jurisdiction is not well defined; but as the union increases its membership and its branches, and as the field is more thoroughly covered, it becomes necessary that the boundaries of each be defined and stated.

The building-trades unions have been chosen for this study in jurisdiction because, in the first place, the unions in the building industry form a group more or less distinct. "The men engaged in the building industry are a family within themselves."*' In the second place, conflicts over jurisdiction are much more numerous among the unions of building workmen than among other organizations of labor. This is due partly to the fact that in the building industry the division of labor is very minute and many distinct groups are simultaneously employed on the same product, partly to the rapid changes in materials and methods, which are characteristic of the building industry, and partly because the control of the central union over its local unions is as a rule weaker than in organizations outside of the building trades. Finally, the evil effects of jurisdictional disputes are probably greater in the building trades than among any other group, for the sympathetic strike may be more advantageously employed in these trades than elsewhere, and it is because of the use of sympathetic strikes that the evils involved in jurisdictional conflicts are so widespread and costly.

5 Pamphlet of Building Trades Council, p. 12.

CHAPTER I Territorial Jurisdiction

From an a priori point of view it might be expected that the territorial jurisdiction of a central union would be the country in which the union is established, just as we should expect the territorial unit of the local union to be the town in which the local union is situated. This expectation is not uniformly fulfilled in either case. Obviously, a labor organization cannot extend over districts or countries in which living conditions, the standard of life, the extent of the division of labor, and the conditions of industry are widely different, for unless all these factors are, in general, similar in all parts of a union's jurisdiction, it can establish no real central control, certainly no uniformity of wages and hours of work, and only an imperfect system of collective bargaining, for all of which purposes the association exists. From these considerations it may be expected that the unit of jurisdiction will tend to be all that territory in which the conditions enumerated above are approximately the same, unless such districts are separated by physical barriers which make intercommunication a matter of considerable expense and delay. We shall, therefore, not be surprised to find that nearly all the building-trades unions are international in jurisdiction, claiming control over their trades in the United States and Canada, and many of them claiming a potential jurisdiction over the whole continent of North America. But because of the reasons given above which tend to determine jurisdiction, nearly all these unions have local branches in Canada, where industrial conditions are very similar to our own, while comparatively few have branches in Mexico and Central America. Some account of the development of the territorial jurisdiction of the more important building-trades unions will illustrate the conditions which fix the extent of jurisdiction.

The Granite Cutters' International Association of America, as its name indicates, claims exclusive jurisdiction over the United States and Canada. The number of its branches, districts, and members is limited only by the will of the association.^ Until 1880 it was known as the Granite Cutters' International Union of the United States and British Provinces of America. In that year its name was changed to the Granite Cutters' National Union of the United States of America. From then until 1905 its territorial jurisdiction was limited to the United States, and it was actually, as well as in name, a national union.^ Even in the period before 1880, while jurisdiction was claimed over the British Provinces as well as over the United States, it was felt that the real territory of the union was the United States, while the territory in Canada was a mere appendage. Thus, the constitution of 1877 provided for the shifting of the central office or seat of government from one State to another, but did not permit it to be moved outside of the United States.^

During recent years the continent of North America has come to be considered the territory over which the association has control.* The manner in which this extension has come about was suggested by Secretary Duncan when, at the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the association, in commenting on its growth, he said that the original plan was that the organization should extend only over New England; when, however, granite cutters employed in Granite, Virginia, and in New York asked for charters, their requests were granted, and thus began the extension of jurisdiction.^ In 1882, just two years after the territory of the national union had been limited to the United States, there was published in the organ of the union a letter from the granite cutters of Toronto, Canada, in which they

1 Constitution, 1909, sec. i.

2 Constitution, 1880, art. i. s Constitution, 1877, art. ii.

* Granite Cutters' Journal, March, 1907, p, 2. 5 Ibid.

said that they had seventy men at work, and desired the national union to extend its jurisdiction to take them in, so that they might exchange cards and pass back and forth freely without being compelled to pay two initiation fees.* This extension of jurisdiction was not made, however, and in 1903 Secretary Duncan said: "A visit to Toronto and correspondence with Hamilton, Montreal, St. Johns, Victoria and Vancouver indicate that the time is ripe for our union to consider again the propriety of changing our title from national to international. In each of the places named, the active members of the granite cutters' unions are members of our union . . . who are trying to make conditions such that if they had a charter from our union they would not handicap their sister branches on this side of the line."^ The award of a large granite contract in Vancouver brought about the establishment of a branch there in 1905, which the Granite Cutters' Journal said was expected to be permanent.® About the same time the committee on the revision of the constitution suggested that the title be again changed to " international," in order to take the whole territory of North America under its jurisdiction, and this was done.®

A similar extension of its territorial jurisdiction may be traced in the history of the Bricklayers' and Masons' International Union of America. Organized by the union of a few independent local associations in 1865, it was known at first as the International Union of Bricklayers of the United States of North America. This contradictory title was corrected in 1868, and the union then became the Bricklayers' National Union of the United States of America. In his report to the convention of 1873 the secretary said that when the bricklayers of Ottawa, Canada, applied for a charter it was granted by the president and himself because they felt that national boundaries should not prevent the affiliation of laboring men who lived so near each other

^ Granite Cutters' Journal, October, 1882, p. 4.

8 Ibid., November, 1905, p. 2.

8 Ibid., February, 1905, p. 2; Constitution, 1905.

and worked under almost the same conditions, although there was no power given them by the constitution to do this and the territory of the union was limited to the United States. The president recommended a change of name to " international union,"^" but this suggestion was not adopted until 1883. Local unions were, however, chartered only in the United States and Canada for many years. In 1904 the secretary of the American Federation of Labor advised the Bricklayers that since they had waived jurisdiction over the bricklayers of Porto Rico, the American Federation of Labor would grant charters directly, to be valid until such time as the International Union might wish to assert control.^^ The following year this control was asserted by the Bricklayers upon Secretary Dobson's recommendation to the convention that these local unions in Porto Rico be chartered, and an application from Honolulu for a charter was also granted.^^

An examination of the territorial jurisdiction of the International Association of Steam Fitters involves also a study of the jurisdiction of the United Association of Plumbers, for jurisdiction implies the exclusive right to organize and affiliate local unions within a given territory, and each of these organizations disputes the claim of the other in this fundamental particular. The Plumbers and the Steam Fitters both claim jurisdiction over the same territory and, to a certain extent, over the same trade. If each controlled the same territory and different trades, or the same trades in different territories, there would be no dispute between them, but the American Federation of Labor has paradoxically recognized at various times each of these associations as having jurisdiction in the same line of work in the same territory.

When in 1898 the Steam and Hot Water Fitters applied for membership in the American Federation of Labor, the

application was opposed by the Plumbers, who were already members of the Federation, on the ground that their union had been given jurisdiction over the territory and the trade claimed by the Steam Fitters and that they had steam fitters as members of their association. A committee was appointed to consider the matter, and it recommended that the charter be granted to the Steam Fitters with the proviso that the Plumbers' Association be allowed to keep such steam-fitter members as it already had under its jurisdiction and to admit others to its local unions in towns where they were not sufficiently numerous to form branches under the Steam Fitters.^^ This was, in effect, limiting the territorial jurisdiction of each union by that of the other so far as the steam-fitting trade was concerned, and it was to be expected that difficulties would arise, since jurisdiction, to be effective, involves exclusive control.

At each convention of the American Federation of Labor efforts were made, on the one hand by the Plumbers to have the provisional charter which had been granted to the Steam Fitters revoked, and on the other hand by the latter to have their provisional charter made unconditional. The problem was referred by successive conventions to special committees and by these back again to the conventions. In 1905 the provisional charter, which had been suspended, was restored to the Steam Fitters, and in the following year an attempt to revoke this charter failed in the convention.^* In 19 ID the executive board of the Building Trades Department of the Federation set aside the decision of 1905 and referred the whole matter to the Federation convention. In the convention of 191 1 the charter was recalled, and the Steam Fitters were refused membership in the Federation and were ordered to amalgamate with the Plumbers. This they have refused to do, and they now maintain an independent existence, claiming international jurisdiction with local unions in the United States and Canada. The

13 The Steam Fitter, March, 1903, p. 5.

14 Ibid., December, 1906, p. i. 2

United Association of Plumbers also claims jurisdiction over the United States and Canada."

The International Hod Carriers and Building Laborers* Union of America is, as its title indicates, international in jurisdiction. In its early years it claimed jurisdiction over all unskilled laborers in the building trades in the United States and Canada, regardless of sex, color, or nationality.^® This territory was extended by the constitution of 1907*, which declared that the International Union grants charters to local unions throughout America.^^

The International Slate and Tile Roofers' Union of America, according to its title, embraces all America in its territorial jurisdiction.^® The requirement that "every member of the International shall declare his intention to become an American citizen," as found in the constitution for 1906,^® seems to limit its territory to the United States, though in fact it has one or more branches in Canada. The Composition Roofers' Union also claims international territorial jurisdiction.^^ The Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers' International Union claims control of the territory included in the United States and Canada, and this is subdivided for organization purposes into five districts — northern, eastern, southern, western, and Canadian.^^

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Alliance was organized in 1888, with branches in Omaha, Peoria, Toledo,

15 Constitutions, 1897-1906. During the fall of 1913, after the above had been written, the Plumbers' Union announced that, in compliance with the order of the Federation, the Steam Fitters' Union had amalgamated with the Plumbers. While admitting that some of their local unions have gone over to the Plumbers, the Steam Fitters insist that their association is still maintaining a separate existence with about twenty-five local branches enrolled.

1® Constitution, Laborers* International Protective Union, art. ii, sec. I.

1^ Constitution, 1907, art. i, sec. 49.

18 Constitution, Chicago (n. d.), arts, i, ii.

i» Constitution, 1906, By-laws, art. iii, sec. 3.

20 Constitution, 1906, art. ii.

21 Constitution, 1902, art. viii, sec. i.

Memphis, Kansas City, and one or two other cities ;^^ but the territory over which the union has jurisdiction has extended so far that in 1903 President Gompers could write^^ that "the American Federation of Labor declares in the strongest terms that all work in North America . . . under the heading of sheet metal work . . . comes under the jurisdiction of the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' International Association."

The Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association of North America illustrates in an interesting manner the extension of territorial jurisdiction on the part of national trade unions. Its constitution of 1854 provided for jurisdiction only over the District of Columbia, but by 1859 we find branches in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Hamilton (Ontario), Cincinnati, Baltimore, Albany, Detroit, St. Louis, and Buflfalo.^* These branches covered a wide area, and already in 1858 jurisdiction was claimed over the United States and Canada.^'' A further extension was indicated in 1 89 1. At this time some members of the San Francisco branch went to Guatemala to work; when they tried afterwards to obtain clear cards from San Francisco, that local union attempted to charge them a foreign initiation fee. The executive board of the national union denied their right to do this, saying that " Guatemala is in North America, and this is in the jurisdiction of the General Union."^*

It will be seen from the preceding description of the extent of territorial jurisdiction that the field of nearly all so-called national unions has gradually been extended beyond the national boundaries. That is, starting as organizations which claim jurisdiction only in the United States, the unions have very early established local branches in Canada, and then later in Central America, Porto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands, and other adjacent areas. In 191 1 six-

22 Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers* Journal, July, 1905, p. 241.

2* Stone Cutters' Journal, April, 1896, p. 2.

25 Stone Cutters' Circular, June, 1858.

26 Ibid., Supplement, November, 1891, p. 2.

teen of the national building- trades unions out of a total of twenty-three had local unions in Canada, with a membership of thirty thousand — about one twentieth of their total membership.2^ The foreign membership in districts other than Canada is much smaller than this.

We must now consider more carefully what is implied ^ when it is said that a national or central union has jurisdiction over a certain territory. There are two implications here : ( i ) that the union has the exclusive right to charter and affiHate local unions within this territory; and (2) that, besides having indirect control over its members through its control over its local unions, the national union has direct authority over them when they are outside of the jurisdiction of any of the branches and are yet within the territory of the national union.

All national unions have been created by the amalgamation or federation of independent local unions, but after a central organization has been effected the process is reversed, and local unions are then organized and chartered by the national union. The whole matter of affiliating local unions is in the hands of the national union, and it may revoke as well as grant charters.

The constitution of the United Association of Plumbers asserts the authority of the organization to make, amend, or repeal general laws and regulations, to decide finally all controversies arising within its jurisdiction, and to issue all charters to local unions. The rules of the Stone Cutters provide that seven members may form a local branch, and where seven are working together and holding cards of the national union they must organize a branch. Where there is no branch in existence, the first member who goes to work on the job must notify the central office, giving the names of all stone cutters in the town.^^ When trouble arose in 1891 between the independent stone cutters* union

27 Report on Labor Organization in Canada, 191 1, published in 1912 by the Department of Labor, Ottawa, p. 10.

28 Constitution, 1900, art. ix.

in Pittsburgh and the Uniontown branch of the national union over the question of establishing this local branch within the territory claimed by the Pittsburgh union, the national union asserted its right to organize branches anywhere within its jurisdiction, and denied the right of the Pittsburgh union to charter other local unions.^^

The claim to the exclusive right to organize local unions within its territorial jurisdiction is illustrated by certain rules of the Granite Cutters. When members of that union secure work from an employer who has not previously maintained a union shop or in a locality in which no local union exists, they apply to the national secretary for a commission as shop steward for one of their number. The district or shop is then under his supervision as the representative of the national union. When a sufficient number of members is secured, a branch is formed and a charter is issued by the national union.^^ Sometimes a job employing a number of union granite cutters is located in a place where there is no union and where there will not be work for granite cutters except for a short time. On such occasions a shop steward is appointed for the job, and he is the direct representative of the national union.^^ Besides being the sole authority in granting charters, the national union has power to revoke them if the local union is delinquent in paying its dues or violates other national rules.^^ When a forfeiture of charter occurs, all the books and property of the branch revert to the national union.^^

29 Stone Cutters' Circular, January, 1891, p. i.

80 Granite Cutters' Journal, September, 1902, p. 4.

31 Ibid., August, 1902, p. 4. The progression of a locality or of a non-union shop from an unorganized section of the jurisdiction of the national union to a definite and permanent part of the national union is shown in the following comment in the Journal by the secretary: "The Lebanon, N. H., job bids fair to be a permanent feature of that town, for the National Union Shop Steward District has developed into a branch, and a charter has been issued accordingly" (ibid., November, 1902, p. 4).

38 Constitution, 1877, art, xxxiv.

The second phase of national territorial jurisdiction, that is to say, direct control over members in districts where no local unions exist, is developed chiefly through the recognition of members-at-large and by direct initiation into the national union. Primarily, national unions have jurisdiction over persons only indirectly; they have control over their local unions, and these in turn have direct jurisdiction over members. The national unions had originally no members except the persons who had been elected by the local unions as delegates to the national conventions.^* The gradual development of the idea that the individual workman is a member of the national union has profoundly influenced the concept of national territorial jurisdiction. The national union is the only federated form of labor organization in the United States in which the members are the individual workmen. In the city federations, for instance, the members are only those persons who have been chosen as delegates by their respective unions.

In the convention of the Bricklayers in 1904 the matter of direct control over members in unorganized territory was discussed, and it was said that very often a local union suffers by reason of the competition of fellow-craftsmen in adjacent places in which there are not enough workmen to establish a subordinate union. The executive board was therefore authorized to initiate such men directly into the national union and to enroll them as members of the nearest local union.^° The Hod Carriers also provide for membership-at-large under certain conditions. If a local union surrenders its charter, such of its members as wish to remain in good standing may get cards from the national secretary and may pay dues directly to the national office; if, however, they are working within ten miles of another local

3* The Hod Carriers and Building Laborers, even as late as 1911, regarded the International Union as composed only of the members of the branches who have been chosen as delegates to the national convention (Constitution, 1911, sec. 9, p. 9).

85 The Bricklayer and Mason, March, 1904, p. 2; see also Proceedings, 1904, p. 161.

union, they must deposit their cards and work under its jurisdiction.^* The constitution of the Slate and Tile Roofers declares that "any slate and tile roofer located in any locality where the requisite five men for the formation of a local union cannot be found, shall be eligible to a direct affiliation with this association."^^ The rules of the Sheet Metal Workers provide for membership-at-large " in localities where there is no local union, or where the jurisdiction of the nearest local union does not extend, or where there is one and not more than six sheet metal workers."^®

Direct national jurisdiction over members appears in various forms in the Stone Cutters' Association. All members, even those at work outside of the jurisdiction of a local branch, must pay dues to the national union.^** It has also been decided that in an election for officers of the national union a member who has a clear travelling card is entitled to a vote,*" whether he is a member of the branch in whose jurisdiction he is working or not. Various methods of extension of direct control over members have been agitated. In 1897 a member of the executive board submitted to referendum a proposition to make a national rule covering all members at work in towns not in the jurisdiction of any branch;*^ a little later the suggestion was made that state conventions should be held which should make a scale of wages and hours to prevail all over the State, so that when a member of the union should work at any place in the State, whether in a branch or not, he would be compelled to work at the state scale.*^