might arise. They considered, moreover, that the market could never be free from unrest as long as the men who declined to join the Union were reaping the benefit of the improved conditions which had been obtained as a result of organised effort. 39. The Employers quoted from the Shorthand Notes of the Conference on 29th July to show that the Union representatives themselves at that Conference did not regard the question of membership or non-membership of a Union as prejudicing or even affecting the question of registration. The Employers also gave assurances that it was not and had never been their intention to prevent the Union from approaching the man with a view to membership and they pointed to the terms of the Clause as confirmation of such an attitude. In any event at the Conferences on 12th and 14th August the Union representatives declared that the insistence on such a Clause would be an insurmountable obstacle to any settlement. 40. Clause Two.-The second clause of the Employers' counter proposals provides for a maintenance of the 1921 Schedule, but concedes the claim that there should be no deductions from the porterage actually paid for the services of the porters except in the cases of losses from wrong delivery. The Union stated that the acceptance of the Employers' proposal would, in fact, mean a reduction on the rates for certain classes of produce, and, in any event, in view of their agreement with the Floral Hall brokers, they regarded insistence on the 1921 Schedule as a further insurmountable obstacle to any settlement. The Employers did not admit that the 1921 Schedule was not operative in the market, or that it would involve a reduction of the rates for certain classes of produce. They contended that the 1921 Schedule provided fair and equitable rates, and that they could not take the responsibility of raising them unless the buyers in the market were brought into the consultations and agreed. 41. The remainder of the Employers' counter proposals has not been the subject of careful investigation, as it had only been considered at two short meetings before the strike took place. The Union protest that the Employers presented their counter proposals as an ultimatum, and were not prepared to take the Union's proposals and their own proposals side by side or negotiate an agreement in the ordinary way. The Employers, on the other hand, contend that it was only lack of time which prevented their doing so. THE MEETINGS OF 12TH AND 14TH AUGUST. 42. So far as the meeting of 12th August is concerned, it appears that this meeting was arranged as a result of corre.spondence between the two sides, and, unfortunately, the room booked for the meeting, which was to take place at 10 o'clock, was otherwise engaged after 11 o'clock. In addition to this, the Union representatives were 20 minutes late in arriving, with the result that only 40 minutes' discussion of the opposing claims was possible. The fact that the room was only available for 40 minutes appears to have been due to some misunderstanding, but the incident is unfortunate, inasmuch as it gave rise to a certain amount of suspicion on the part of the Union representatives that the Employers were not bent upon serious negotiations. 43. At the conclusion of the meeting on the 12th August a further meeting was arranged for Thursday, 14th August. The evidence shows that no blame attaches to either side for the failure to meet on the afternoon of the 12th or on the 13th. The parties again met on the 14th and the discussion revolved almost entirely around the first and second clauses of the Employers' proposals, i.e., the question of the right of the Employers to employ any men they choose and the right of the employees to belong to any Union which they elect to join and the question of the 1921 schedule. These clauses were, as already stated, regarded by the Union representatives as insurmountable obstacles to any settlement. During the hearing before us it was suggested by both Mr. Hansen and Mr. Bevin that it might have been possible to find some other form of words which would be acceptable to both parties but it does not appear that any attempt along these lines was in fact made at the meeting. It appears to be established that when the Union representatives learned that the Employers were not prepared to alter their attitude on clauses one and two they stated that no useful purpose could be served by continuing the discussion and that they would have to report to their Executive. With regard to this the Employers say that they had booked the room for the whole day and this statement was not challenged by the Union. They stated further that the Union representatives left them on the best of terms to report to their Executive and that they had no idea that the strike was going to follow immediately. This meeting began at 10 o'clock and lasted until ten minutes to 12, i.e., one hour and fifty minutes. It was attended by Mr. Hansen, the Group Secretary of the General Workers' Department of the Union, and Mr. Richard Greenwood, one of the Union's National Organisers. There were present in addition two local officials and two lay members, i.e., working porters, elected by their fellow porters to act as liaison officers with the Union officials and to be called in for consultation as and when necessary. 44. The chain of events immediately following the close of this meeting appears to be as follows:- The Union representatives, viz., the Group Secretary and one of the National Organisers, two local officials and two lay members, left the room and held a conversation in the street outside. The chief officials. denied that they made any suggestion or gave any instruction with regard to the stoppage of work and evidence was given by one of the lay members that no official had made any such suggestion. The position was that the porters were waiting to hear the result of the meeting, and after a few minutes' conversation in the street the two lay members and the local officials left the others and went to report the result of the meeting to the men. The Employers believed on the other hand that either the Union officials or lay members did in fact call the men out and state that they definitely saw one of the local officers going round the market. It is admitted that the lay members told the men that negotiations had broken down. Whatever they may have said the fact remains that immediately after the men learned the result of the meeting they ceased work. 45. The strike was immediately brought to the notice of the Ministry of Labour and tentative arrangements were made by the Department's Chief Concilation Officer in London for a meeting between Mr. Bevin and Major Monro. Mr. Bevin indicated his readiness to meet the Employers, but the latter, after considering the matter, decided that no good purpose could be served by such a meeting. The Union thereupon decided to declare the strike official, and this was done on the following day, viz., Friday, 15th August. When it became apparent that the Employers were not prepared to meet the Union, the Department invited them to meet Sir David Shackleton, the Chief Labour Adviser of the Ministry of Labour. After giving this matter prolonged consideration the Employers decided that no useful purpose could be served by such a meeting. In the meantime the Union had indicated that it would attempt to place an embargo upon fruit and vegetables coming into the country. In view of the possibility of such an extension of the stoppage, the Ministry of Labour appointed us as a Court of Inquiry on 1st September. 46. Such is the position at the present time, and it remains to comment upon the salient features of the dispute. CONCLUSIONS. 47. Among the many factors which tend to create industrial unrest in Covent Garden is the fact that although the porter is employed by the broker or salesmen, the cost of his porterage is borne as a specific addition to the selling price of the produce which he carries. For this reason it is contended by the employers, i.e., the brokers and salesmen, that they are not in a position to settle the wages of their porters without bringing into consultation the buyers, wholesale and retail, who bear the charge. The evidence showed clearly, for example, in the case. of Floral Hall, that some of the buyers had refused to pay the Floral Hall rates and paid only those obtaining in the outside market. In the same way, the wholesale buyers in certain cases re-sell the produce in the market and again pass on the porterage charges. It was contended by the Union, and not challenged by the other side, that their difficulty in obtaining a full and free discussion of conditions of work and rates of payment was greatly complicated by the fact that none of the employers was prepared to accept the responsibility for negotiating upon the claims of the porters. The Union claimed, however, that such matters were the domestic concern of the employers who actually paid the porters. It is true that the charges are passed on to the buyer, but they are ultimately paid by the consumer, and it would be equally logical to suggest that the consumer, in this and other industries, should invariably be called into consultation when any wage question came up for discussion. Such a course, however desirable, is not always practicable and, while it does not appear to be beyond the bounds of possibility to make an arrangement whereby the wholesale and retail buyers in the market could take part in the discussions, we feel that if the difficulty of making such an arrangement proves to be insuperable, the ultimate responsibility for settling with the men's representatives the conditions of their employment should rest with the brokers and salesmen. Always remembering, of course, that in their negotiations the employers must bear the interests of the purchaser and consumer well in mind. The suggestion made by the Employers that the Union themselves should get in touch with the buyers does not appear likely to make for settled conditions. Separate conferences between Union and buyers and Union and salesmen are not likely to lead to any settlement. 48. Of the other factors alleged to make for industrial unrest, the principal one was that the porters were not being paid the full porterage to which they are entitled. The leading instance of this, given by Mr. Bevin, was subsequently withdrawn by him. It was alleged, also, that some firms charge the Floral Hall rates but only pay the porters the outside market rate. Reference was also made to the question of the various deductions which have become customary. We are pleased to note that the Employers are prepared to remove these causes of grievance, if they exist. 49. With regard to the differences of opinion as to which side is in fact responsible for the strike, we are driven to the conclusion that the combination of circumstances which preceded the stoppage practically prevented the possibility of immediate agreement. The Employers contend that before the strike the intensive organised campaign of the Union, accompanied in certain cases by picketing had tended to foster discontent. In this view we concur. With regard to the further contention of the Employers, that the strike was deliberately contemplated by the Union as indicated by the threatening attitude of the Union's representatives at the meetings preceding the stoppage, we take the view that, although the possibility of a stoppage must always have been present in the minds of both parties, the actual stoppage at the time when it did take place was not the deliberate act of the Union. There is little doubt that some of the words used by the Union representatives at the Conference of July 29th constituted a definite threat of strike action. They were indiscreet and provocative, but did not necessarily imply that such action would be taken without reference to their Executive or without further negotiations by their Executive. The actual stoppage was, in fact, unofficial and had the Executive insisted upon a return to work, pending their going into the question with the Employers, much of what it now transpires was a misunderstanding of the actual position, would easily have been cleared up. 50. The Union argued, on the other hand, that the Employers deliberately engineered the strike and that they had been preparing for it even before the Conference of 29th July. We consider that the evidence shows conclusively that the Employers did not in fact make any preparation for the contingency of a strike until after that Conference. In view of the interpretation which they placed upon the words used by the Union's representatives they appear to have been justified in taking such action alike in the interests of producers and consumers of perishable food. On the other hand it may well be that the fact that they had succeeded in preparing a counter organisation in some degree influenced their minds and strengthened them in their attitude towards the proposals of the Union. 51. With regard to the first clause put forward in the Employers' counter proposals, i.e., that dealing with the right of the employer to employ such men as he chooses to employ, and the right of the men to belong to such Unions as they elect to join, we refer to paragraphs 37 to 39 above. We consider that the suggestions put forward by Mr. Bevin at the hearing should provide the means of reaching some agreement on this point. He indicated that this clause might be acceptable if words were added to show that the Union was not to be debarred from approaching non-Union men with a view to their becoming members. Provided that there is a clear understanding that a man is not to be debarred from taking employment as 'a porter simply on the ground that he is not a member of the Union we consider that some such arrangement ought to be workable, and we commend the suggestion to the consideration of the parties. 52. With regard to registration, decasualisation of labour is no doubt as desirable in Covent Garden as it is elsewhere, and we would suggest to the employers and the workmen that they should consider together the practicability of some such scheme. It would, however, be useless to attempt to establish such a scheme unless the Union is prepared to recognise the fact that it would not be possible to give employment to as many porters as would be engaged at the market under present conditions. It would inevitably mean that the work which is at present spread over a |