Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

List of companies with union-shop provisions-Continued

[graphic]

350 315 170 900 53 25 5

982

25 100 513

24 250

75 50 45

99 61 500 165 160

1 Modified union shop.

250 310 125 P & M 31 P&M 27 P & M 31 P & M 34 P & M

List of companies with union-shop provisions—Continued

[graphic]

35

17 2, 109 555 40 18 400 45 65

1 P & M 19 P&M 23 P & M 38 P & M 38 P & M 38 P & M 30 P & M

7 P & M
32 P&M

1 P&M
23 P & M.
15 P & M
33 P & M.
23 P&M
29 P&M
29 P & M.

3 P & M
26 P & M.
7 P& M.
9 P & M.
26 P & M.
4 P & M
9 P & M
1 P & M
34 P&M
38 P & M.
30 P & M
17 P & M.
19 P & M
1 P & M.
38 P & M

P & M
2 P & M
1 P & M
20 P & M
11 P & M
26 P & M
26 P & M
21 P & M.
21 P&M

17 120 100 49 45 25 32 125 10 14 475

24 130 12 30 130 24 14 35 38 30 75 550 180 950

85 332 40

97 1,000

44 85 10 50 400 347 140 18

70 1,074 2, 200

21 400

33 300

11 400 10

1 Modified union shop.

(Reference to the following will be found on p. 2164.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD

Case No. D-18-C

In the Matter of Basic Steel Industry and United Steelworkers of America (CIO) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

MARCH 20, 1952 The PRESIDENT,

The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On December 22, 1951, in accordance with the terms of Executive Order 10233, you referred to the Wage Stabilization Board the disputes between the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and various companies in the steel industry. The list of companies was supplemented on December 24, 1951, and included steel producing, fabricating and iron ore companies.

In accordance with your request, I submit herewith the report of the Board with respect to the steel producing companies, together with its recommendations to the parties as to fair and equitable terms of settlement.

The Board takes this occasion to thank the members of the tripartite Special Steel Panel consisting of Dr. Harry Shulman, Chairman and Public Member: Ralph Seward, Esq., Public Member; John C. Bane, Jr., Esq., and Admiral Earle W. Mills, Industry Members; and Mr. Arnold Campo and Mr. Eli Oliver, Labor Members, for their invaluable advice and assistance in this important case, from beginning to end. The Board also expresses its appreciation for the efficient services of the special panel assistants: Mr. John T. Dargin, Administrative Assistant; Mr. Joseph P. Goldberg, Economic Assistant; and Herman Sternstein, Esq., Legal Assistant. Respectfully submitted.

/s/ NATHAN P. FEINSINGER, Chairman.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS OF PUBLIC MEMBERS

INTRODUCTION

On December 22, 1951, the President of the United States referred the disputes between the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and various steel and iron ore companies to the Wage Stabilization Board. The Board immediately requested the parties to maintain normal work and production schedules. (Copies of the telegrams exchanged between the Board and the parties are included in an Appendix I.)

The parties appeared before the Board at an initial hearing on January 7. A special tripartite panel appointed by the Board held further hearings in Washington, D. C., on January 10, 11, and 12, and in New York City on February 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 1952. The parties were afforded opportunity to present evidence and arguments on all of the issues in dispute. Evidence and arguments on behalf of a large number of companies were presented in consolidated statements through a coordinating committee (see Appendix II). A list of the parties who participated in the proceedings is attached in Appendix III.

In accordance with instructions from the Board the Panel prepared a report dated March 13, 1952, outlining the issues in dispute (except the issues as to the Union's request for a union shop and a guaranteed annual wage) and summarizing the positions of the parties. This outline report was submitted to the parties for comment. In view of the comprehensive nature of the panel's report, the Board is not here undertaking to reiterate in detail the positions and arguments of the parties.

On March 15, 1952, the Board again requested the parties to continue work and production for a period to permit consideration of these recommendations and for negotiation. Copies of the telegrams exchanged between the Board and the parties are included in Appendix IV.

THE ISSUES

The issues in these disputes are numerous and complex. Provisions of the recently expired contracts with the various steel companies differ, in some cases substantially. The Union's requests were originally set forth in 22 demands

which applied generally to all of the steel companies in this proceeding. Because of the variations in the contracts the Union's demands had different effects. The Union submitted in evidence the language changes which would be required in its basic agreement with U. S. Steel to give effect to all of its demands. Some of the other companies submitted similar documents indicating the changes which would be required in their contracts if all the Union's demands were to be given effect. During the course of the hearing, it was suggested that 22 demands of the Union probably included more than 100 issues.

Neither the panel report nor this report deals with six issues which the parties believe may be settled among themselves. These isses are: purpose and intent of the parties, adjustment of grievances, arbitration, suspension and discharge cases, safety and health, and military service.

WAGE IN OREASE

The Union's request is for a general wage increase averaging eighteen and onehalf (1842) cents per hour. Of this amount, three and one-half (342) cents would represent an increase of one-half (12) cent in the present five (5) cent increment between job classes. The result would be that employees in Class 1 would receive fifteen (15) cents; those in Class 2, fifteen and one-half (1542) cents; those in Class 3, sixteen (16) cents; and so on to thirty and one-half (3042) cents in the top class 32. The increment increase is requested in order to avoid compression in the wage structure that would result from the addition of a uniform cents per hour to the standard hourly rates.

The companies oppose any wage increase and suggest that the best solution is no wage increase and no price increase. Established wage stabilization policy permits increase in wages to keep pace with increased costs of living; such increases, conforming to the general provisions of the Board's regulations, may be instituted without prior Board approval. Increases for other reasons, including interplant comparisons and intraplant realignments, may be approved, on petition to the Board, under established policies and regulations. Millions of American workers have received and are receiving such increases. The steelworkers can hardly be required to accept a status of inferiority.

The Union points out that the rise in the cost of living between October 15, 1950 (the date of the last available BLS Consumers' Price Index at the time of the steelworkers' most recent wage increase) and January 15, 1952, is 8.8 percent. Applied to the current average straight-time hourly earnings of $1.81, this is equivalent to sixteen (16) cents. The Union contends that under Section 5 of the General Wage Regulation 8, a base date of cost-of-living changes prior to January 15, 1951, is appropriate on the ground that there were no freely negotiated increases subsequent to the April 1947 adjustment. The companies dispute this contention. The recommended wage adjustment, averaged over the year 1952, is less than equivalent to the cost-of-living change between October 15, 1950, and December 15, 1951.

While not requesting an annual improvement factor adjustment, the Union argues that the rise in man-hour productivity in steel production is further justification for the general increase requested. The parties differ in their estimates as to the rate of productivity growth but agree that it has been substantial. The Board has considered the Union's claim based on productivity in arriving at the amount of the recommended wage increase.

The parties have supplied a great deal of material comparing wage rates and wage increases in the steel industry with those in other industries. Wage rate comparisons between industries are inevitably contentious because they involve judgments as to significance; there is no prescribed standard for evaluating the similarities and differences which can always be found. Comparison of wage increases in recent years indicates that while some workers have not fared as well as the steelworkers, many others have received adjustments in excess of those enjoyed by the steelworkers, including the increase recommended below.

Under the circumstances of this case, and taking into account all the equities urged by both sides, the Board recommends that the parties make the following wage-rate adjustment: (1) a general wage rate increase totaling twelve and one-half (1242) cents per hour, effective as of the expiration of the contract, or the appropriate reopening date for the particular company; (2) an additional wage-rate adjustment of two and one-half (242) cents per hour, effective six months after the effective date of the above adjustment; and (3) an additional wage-rate adjustment of two and one-half (242) cents per hour, effective six

96315-52-pt. 4—27

months after the effective date of the above two and one-half (24) cent adjustment.

It is further recommended that the above adjustment be the only general wage-rate adjustment allowed for a period of 18 months commencing as of the expiration of the contract or the appropriate reopening date for the particular company. It is further recommended that the question of whether to use any part of these general-wage rate increases for additions to the increment between job classes be left to the parties for a decision.

Equitable distribution of the wage increase is a matter for negotiation; it should not increase the amount determined to be appropriate under stabilization policy. It may well be that in accordance with past practice, the parties will wish to use a portion of this total wage increase for increment adjustments be tween job classes. The wage recommendation leaves to the parties the decision whether to use any part of the amount recommended for that purpose.

This wage recommendation covers a period of 18 months. It is desirable, therefore, that the length of the contracts be co-extensive. Accordingly, the Board recommends that, in the absence of a contrary agreement between the parties as to duration, the term of these contracts be for 18 months.

GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENTIALS

The Union's request for elimination of all differentials between plants and companies can neither be considered nor granted in the omnibus fashion in which it is presented. Existing differentials are not all geographical; they are of a variety of kinds and are negotiated to meet a variety of conditions. The incidence of their elimination would vary widely between the companies, imposing little or no burden on some and very heavy burden on others.

The strictly geographical differential between plants of the same company or divisions of a company is a separate and more specific matter. The leading differential involved in the dispute is the ten (10) cent differential which now exists for southern subidiaries of U. S. Steel and Republic Steel. This differential was decreased from seventeen and one-half (1712) cents as the result of 1947– 1950 negotiations. There is reason to believe that further narrowing by negotia. tion could have been expected at this time. We recommend that the ten (10) cents per hour geographical differential now existing in the southern plants of certain companies or divisions be reduced by five (5) cents per hour, in accordance with their prior experience. The cost averaged over the amployees in basic steel operations is a small fraction of a cent. With respect to the other differentials involved in the Union's demand, the Board recommends that the parties settle the matter in further negotiations.

SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS; HOLIDAY PAY; VACATIONS Most of the contracts in the companies involved in this case provide shift differentials of four (4) cents for the afternoon and six (6) cents for the night shift. These shift differentials were established pursuant to a directive order of the War Labor Board in 1944, and have remained unchanged since then. Meanwhile wage levels in the steel industry have risen more than 50 percent and other industries, including those with continuous operations, have subsantially higher shift premiums. We recommend that the differentials be increased to six (6) cents for the afternoon shift, and nine (9) cents for the night shift, effective as of the first payroll period following the issuance of these recommendations or as otherwise agreed upon among the parties.

The contracts in the basic steel industry provide payment of time and one-half for work on six named holidays; no pay is provided for holidays not worked. Holidays with pay have become a prevalent practice in American industry. We recommend that two times the applicable hourly rate for average hourly earnings be paid for six named holidays worked, and that eight hours pay on the same basis be given for the same holidays not worked, effective as of the first payroll period following the issuance of these recommendations. The parties should incorporate eligibility rules, of which there are many examples in other industries, which would deter unwarranted extension of holidays. The companies should avoid, so far as practicable, the scheduling of work on these holidays.

With respect to vacations, we recommend that the requirement of 25 years for three weeks' vacation with pay be reduced to 15 years and that the Union's other demands for increase in vacation benefits (as distinguished from provisions with respect to application) be withdrawn. The issues with respect to application should be negotiated.

« AnteriorContinuar »