Canada.— The Conciliation Act, passed by the Canadian Parliament in 1900, followed closely the phraseology of the British Act of 1896, which sought to encourage voluntary arbitration of labor disputes. The Railway Labor Disputes Act, passed in 1903, introduced the principle of compulsory investigation of railway disputes and recognized "the influence of an informed public opinion upon matters of vital concern to the public In 1907, following a serious and protracted strike of coal miners in one of the Western provinces, the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was passed, which provided for the compulsory investigation of all disputes involving 10 or more persons employed in mining, or in con nection with public service utilities. This act has since been amended so as to include all controversies arising in connection with the manufacture of military supplies. Employers and workmen are required to give at least 30 days' notice of an intended change affecting the conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours, and a strike or lockout is pro hibited while the matters in dispute are being considered by an official board to which they shall have been referred for investigation. Heavy penalties may be imposed for failure to observe the provisions of the law. It is the duty of such boards to endeavor to effect a settlement by means of conciliation and media tion, and, if unable to do so, they are required to investigate the questions at issue, to prepare a report and to render an award which shall be made public, but they are not empowered to enforce the provisions of their awards. Al though strikes in the industries covered by the act have not been altogether prevented, never theless the operation of the act has been re markably successful, and it has been found that the weight of public opinion, based on authoritative facts determined after thorough investigation by such official boards, has been sufficient in most instances to induce the par ties to the disputes to accept the awards of such boards without resorting to strike or lockout.
Norway.— During the year 1915 industrial unrest in Norway assumed alarming propor tions and early in 1916 a lockout affecting ap proximately 20,000 employees in the metallurgi cal industries was declared by the mine operat ors and a general sympathetic strike in all branches of industry was imminent. This sit uation made it necessary for the government to take extraordinary action and Storting therefore passed, on 9 June that year, an act providing for compulsory arbitration of indus trial disputes by an impartial commission, con sisting of an equal number of representatives of employers and workmen. Provision is made for compulsory investigation and for a cessa tion of hostilities pending investigation and the rendering of an award. In this respect the act is similar to the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907, discussed above.
In accordance with the provi sions of a law passed in 1907, Sweden is divided into seven districts, in each of which a appointed by the Crown, shall endeavor to promote the settlement of indus trial disputes and to advise and assist in the framing of agreements designed to preserve amicable relations between employers and workmen.
United At least 29 of the 48 States have statutory provision for conciliation, mediation or arbitration in the case of indus trial disputes. New York State and Massachu setts each created such a board as early as 1886. In 15 States a special board has been created for this purpose; in 11 States these functions are performed by boards, commissions or de partments having other duties, and in three States provision is made for the appointment of special boards when deemed advisable. In no case are the awards of such boards binding, but in several States the boards may initiate action and have powers similar to those of the lower courts as respects the summoning of witnesses, compelling testimony, production of records, etc.
A Federal statute passed in 1888, applicable only to disputes between railroads and other transportation companies engaged in interstate commerce, created machinery for voluntary arbitration of railway disputes at the request of either party and for public investigation of such disputes upon the initiative of the gov ernment. This act remained practically a dead letter, and it was superseded in 1898 by the °Erdman Act° which provided for mediation and voluntary arbitration in the case of con troversies arising between railroad companies and those employees directly engaged in the movement of trains, namely, engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen, switchmen and telegra phers. By this act the chairman of the Inter state Commerce Commission and the Commis sioner of Labor were designated °Federal Mediators," who, upon the request of either party, should first seek to bring about an ami cable adjustment of controversies through mediation and, if unsuccessful, they should endeavor to have such controversies submitted to boards of arbitration to be established as provided for in the act. The Act,° passed in 1913 and now in effect, established the United States Board, of Mediation and Conciliation consisting of a commissioner, an assistant commissioner and two other officials of the government, all of whom are appointed by the President. In general the provisions of
the Erdman Law were re-enacted and provision was made for the appointment of six-member boards of arbitration composed of two repre sentatives of each party to a controversy and two members representing the public, instead of the former three-member boards on which the neutral member alone held the deciding vote. Since the organization of the board in July 1913 and up to 18 Oct. 1916, the services of the board were requested in 61 controversies between railroad companies and their em ployees. Of this number 46 were settled by mediation, 11 by arbitration and four by media tion and arbitration. Two of these contro versies were of unusual importance — one. in .1913 involving over 92,000 conductors and trainmen in the eastern section of the country, and another in 1914-15 affecting about 55,000 locomotive engineers and firemen employed on railroads west of the Mississippi River. In each of several other controversies over 25,000 railway employees were involved. It has been authoritatively stated that in railway contro versies the results which have been accom plished under the Newlands Law have been without a parallel abroad.° In only one case has the board failed to effect a peaceful set tlement of a controversy referred to it. The recent refusal of the four large railway broth erhoods (Locomotive Engineers, Locomotive Firemen and Engineers, Railroad Conductors and Railroad Trainmen, together representing nearly 400,000 employees) to refer to arbitra tion the so-called °eight-hour° controversy, re sulted in a deadlock, and in August 1916, a gen eral railroad strike appeared to be imminent. In order to prevent such a public calamity President Wilson urged the immediate passage of legislation by Congress, then in session and early in September the Adamson bill was passed by a large majority in both Houses. The act provided that, beginning 1 Jan. 1917, eight hours should, in contracts for labor and service, be deemed a day's work and the measure or standard of a day's work for the purpose of reckoning the compensation for services of all employees engaged in the operation of (with certain specified exceptions), and further provided for the appointment of a commission which should observe the operation and effects of the institution of such eight-hour standard work day for a period of not less than six months, nor more than nine months, and within 30 days thereafter should report its findings to the President and Congress. It was also provided that, pending the report of the com mission and for a period of 30 days thereafter, the compensation of railway employees covered by this act should not be reduced below the present standard day's wage, and, for all neces sary time in excess of eight hours, such em ployees should be paid at a rate not less than the pro rata for such standard eight hours of work. Penalties for violation of the provisions of the act were also provided. This law not only regulated the hours of labor of railway employees but also determined wage standards. As a measure fixing wages, its constitutionality has been questioned, and pending a determina tion of its constitutionalty several railway com panies declined to observe the provisions of the act. Accordingly the chiefs of the four rail road brotherhoods called a strike to begin on 17 March 1917 on certain eastern railroads and to extend successively to other railroads until a general strike on all important railroads should result. Conferences between the rail road managers and the brotherhood chiefs were held, but without resulting in concessions by either party. Thereupon the President, through a special committee of mediation, urged that in view of the gravity of the inter national situation at the time, the two parties to the dispute, as a patriotic duty, should reach an immediate settlement of the controversy. Through the efforts of the mediators a post ponement of the strike for 48 hours was se cured, and on 19 March the railroad managers agreed to establish the basic eight-hour day and the threatened strike was averted. On the same day a decision of the Supreme Court up holding the constitutionality of the eight-hour law was announced. This decision established the principle that Congress has authority not only to regulate the hours of labor of em ployees engaged in interstate commerce, but also to determine wage standards. It was fur ther established by the decision that: "The public right to have interstate commerce unin terrupted is a basic principle paramount to the interests of the railroads or of their employers, both in public service, and subject to the su preme, unrestricted power of Congress to take any action necessary to maintain freedom and uninterruption of interstate commerce." A pre cedent having thus been established, it remains to be determined whether or not the settlement, by special legislation, of controversies which seriously endanger the public welfare shall prove as satisfactory or effective as adjust ments through mediation and voluntary arbi tration. See EIGHT-HOUR• LAW ; LABOR LEGIS LATION ; LABOR MOVEMENT IN AMERICA ; LABOR UNIONS.