 |
 |
 |
| Return to Index | Go back to Page 1 | Continue
on to page 3 of 5 |
Conflict at Coal
River Collieries:
The UMWA verses the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers...
Page 2 of 5
These now-famous events were only the most colorful threads in the pattern of capital-labor conflict which prevailed in the West Virginia coalfields in 1920 when John L. Lewis became president of the UMWA. Such warfare must have exerted considerable influence in shaping, or at least confirming, Lewis's conviction that the miners must unify along lines of strict occupational solidarity to confront the allied forces of non-union companies and a hostile government.
The major uprising of the union miners in 1920-21, which led to the dramatic March on Logan and the Battle of Blair Mountain, occurred only months before the CRC mines opened. With the state and federal governments firmly aligned with the operators, the union miners were defeated. A series of injunctions and the widespread use of "yellow- dog" contracts frustrated the organizing efforts of the UMWA in the coalfields of southern West Virginia.(16) Success against the miners in 1920-21 emboldened the operators to persist in their assault against the UMWA, therefore the miners initially viewed the establishment of the CRC as a boon to the union cause. But in the spring of 1923, that optimism faded into deep concern.
On March 21, 1923, Percy Tetlow, President of UMWA District 17, informed Philip Murray, acting president of the UMWA while Lewis was in Europe, that the CRC did not plan to abide by an earlier agreement to operate the mines on a union basis. Tetlow believed the "understanding" reached between UMWA President John L. Lewis and BLE President Warren Stone called for the UMWA and the Brotherhood to negotiate a contract based on the union wage scale once construction work in the mines had been completed. (17) With this understanding, the UMWA had given permission for miners on strike at other mines to work at the Coal River site. (18)
On the morning of March 21, 1923, just as the mines were opened for construction, general manager of the CRC Harry Leaberry wrote to Tetlow that the company in fact did not intend to negotiate with the UMWA. Leaberry suggested that if John L. Lewis and Warren Stone had entered such an agreement, then Lewis should take up the matter with Stone. Tetlow had "notified the miners that by reason of the company's attitude we cannot permit these men to continue to work with the flat declaration from the company that they are going to run the mine non-union." (19) Philip Murray agreed with Tetlow's decision and apprised Stone that Tetlow intended to "call the men out, providing a sincere effort . . . is not made to negotiate a contract at an early date." (20)
Four days later, Warren S. Stone wrote the first in a series of letters to UMWA officials concerning the Coal River Collieries. With regard to Tetlow's intention to call a strike, Stone explained to Murray that he had "been in the game too long to be scared by any threat like that," and in any event the mines were still under the control of the contractor, not CRC. The general manager of the company had been instructed to pay the union scale of wages once operations began. (21)
Stone discussed how miners working for the CRC would "live under better conditions than any miners in West Virginia have lived before."The Coal River camp was to be a "model camp," with "lathed and plastered"houses having "electric lights, sewers, running water, and in the near future . . . natural gas." Nevertheless, Stone refused to instruct the manager to institute the check-off system, declaring that he fully intended "to have a say as to who can and who cannot work in these mines." The UMWA would not "keep a man in our employ who either uses booze or dope and who does not behave himself and act like an American citizen should act," Stone vowed, and "the boast of some agitators in some parts of the country that they will tell us who we can work and who cannot work,' is a mistake." Stone concluded this letter to Murray by reiterating that the CRC would pay union scale "or better," and "give the miners better treatment than any other mine in the country."(22)
In his response, Philip Murray heatedly refuted "the inferences . . . that the members of the United Mine Workers of America are un-American," denouncing them as "the common, everyday expressions of the non-union coal operators in the Logan, McDowell and Mingo County fields of West Virginia." Stone's refusal to sign a check-off agreement with the UMWA was tantamount to refusing union recognition, Murray charged. Having come to the conclusion that Stone and the CRC had decided not to negotiate a contract with the UMWA, Murray instructed Percy Tetlow "to exercise his best judgement" as circumstances demanded.(23)
Throughout April 1923, relations between the two unions became increasingly strained and the correspondence between them increasingly shrill. On April 7, 1923, Stone wrote to Murray suggesting that if he would "sit down and deliberately and quietly read my letter without any excitement, you will, I think, look at it in a different light." Stone claimed he had not meant to cast aspersions on the UMWA or its officers, for whom he held the utmost respect, but he took issue "with some of the threats made by the field men" and with the union's check-off system. "I have been handling a labor organization for over twenty years, and if you will pardon the ego, I think I have handled it successfully," Stone declared, "but if I handled the Brotherhood of Railroad Engineers along the lines that you insist your organization shall be handled, the railroads would not do business with us for a single day." The Grand Chief Engineer's principle objection to signing "an iron-clad agreement with the United Mine Workers is once this is done we have no control over our own camp. " Stone reiterated that representatives of the CRC would meet with representatives of the UMWA, but admitted that an agreement was unlikely if the UMWA insisted on the check-off system.(24) Nevertheless, Stone argued, the miners should trust the CRC because the leadership of the BLE had always supported the UMWA and "the wonderful fight they have made in West Virginia."Stone reminded Murray that during the 1919-21 miners' strikes the Brotherhood "helped feed and clothe the miners for several months and " While Stone reminded Murray of the BLE's support of striking miners in 1919-21, he failed to mention the Brotherhood's reluctance to assist the UMWA during the strike of 1922-23. (25)
Percy Tetlow was not impressed with Stone's intonations, and on May 29, 1923, he called the Coal River Collieries miners out on strike. Several days later, R. W. Shumway, Chief Engineer of the company's "Warren S." mine, reported to Harry Leaberry that the mine had become "the mecca of a bunch of radicals" many of whom had "been living for the last year or two in tent colonies on rations from the UMWA on Cabin Creek and Paint Creek." Shumway admitted that the radicals and agitators were disruptive, but he observed the attitude of county and state officials, and even the general public, was "very strongly opposed to the UMWA's organization." For that reason, he did not believe that the UMWA could successfully "pull off a real strike at our properties."(26)Despite Shumway's prediction, the strike continued.
---------- BIBLIOGRAPHY ----------
16. For more on the anti-union tactics of the operators, "see" Lunt, "Law and Order vs. The Miners". Evelyn L. K. Harris and Frank J. Krebs, "From Humble Beginnings: West Virginia State Federation of Labor, 1903-1957" (Charleston: West Virginia Labor History Publishing Fund, 1960), also provides additional background to legal tactics of West Virginia coal operators in chapters IV and V. back to text
17. Percy Tetlow to Phillip Murray, 21 March 1923, "Official Records of the United Mine Workers of America", "Containing Correspondence Between the President's Office and Warren Stone," (Indianapolis, n.p., 1924), 4, hereafter cited as "Correspondence"; "United Mine Workers Journal", 1 October 1924. back to text
18. Tetlow to Murray, 3 March 1923, "Correspondence, "5; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924, also, "New York Times", 30 May 30 1923. According to a delegate of the West Virginia State Federation of Labor, the construction of houses and other buildings on the CRC property were completed by non-union contractors. West Virginia State Federation of Labor, "Proceedings" (September 1924): 153-54.back to text
19. Tetlow to Murray, 21 March 1923, "Correspondence," 5; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924.back to text
20. Murray to Stone, 26 March 1923, "Correspondence," 6; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924. back to text
21. Warren Stone to Philip Murray, "Correspondence," 7; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924. back to text
22. Stone to Murray, 30 March 1923, "Correspondence," 7-8; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924. back to text
23. Philip Murray to Warren Stone, 5 April 1923, " Correspondence,"8-9; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924. back to text
24. Stone to Murray, 7 April 1923, "Correspondence," 12; "UMWJ", 1 October 1923. back to text
25. Stone to Murray, 7 April 1923, "Correspondence," 10-11; "UMWJ", 1 October 1924. Stone had raised the same issue in his 30 March 1923 letter to Murray. "Correspondence," 7; " UMWJ", 1 October 1924. In a letter to John L. Lewis, 1 June 1922, Stone informed Lewis that the UMWA's request for assistance from the BLE during the 1922-23 strike could not be entertained because there was "no fund at our disposal from which to make this loan, and, much as we would like to do so, it will be impossible for us to comply with your request at this time." "UMWJ", 1 October 1924. In a listing of the organizations which gave financial support to the UMWA during the 1922-23 strike, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is absent. "UMWJ", 1 February 1924. back to text
26. R. W. Shumway to Harry Leaberry, 8 June 1923, "Correspondence," 17-20. back to text