4. What point of view will the Division of Conciliation be apt to take in its attempt to adjust labor difficulties?

5. Would it be better to let the "forces of supply and demand" settle labor difficulties unaided by governmental interference?

6. In what recent cases has the Secretary of Labor or the President participated directly in an attempt to settle labor disputes?

7. Does such action indicate that the Division of Conciliation is useless?

2. COMPULSORY

(a) Investigation

A 18

Section 29. The industrial commission shall have jurisdiction of every dispute between employer and employee affecting conditions of employment, or with respect to wages or hours, and such jurisdiction shall continue until after final hearing of such dispute and the entry of final award therein, or until said commission shall enter an order disposing of or terminating such jurisdiction. The relation of the employer and employee shall continue uninterrupted by the dispute or anything arising out of the dispute until the final determination thereof by said commission, and neither the employer nor any of the employees affected by any such dispute shall alter the conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours or any other condition of said employment; neither shall they nor any of them on account of such dispute do or be concerned in doing directly or indirectly anything in the nature of a lockout or strike or suspension or discontinuance of work or employment.

Employers and employees shall give to the industrial commission and the one to the other at least thirty days' prior written notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment or with respect to wages or hours.

18 The sections here quoted form a part of the Industrial Commission Act of the State of Colorado (Compiled Laws of Colorado, 1921, chap. 79, pp. 12251227). The remaining sections of the act provide for the appointment and organization of an industrial commission, prescribe its duties and powers, and authorize the appointment of voluntary arbitration boards to function in a manner generally similar to those described in the Massachusetts law quoted in the preceding section.

It is important to recall that the Colorado act is to a considerable extent patterned after the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of Canada enacted originally in 1907. In 1925 this act was declared invalid by the Imperial Privy Council by reason of the fact that the Federal Parliament of Canada in enacting it invaded a field of legislation which the British North America Act reserved for the provinces exclusively. A full description of the Canadian act and its administration, written by Benjamin M. Squires, appeared in Bulletin 233 of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Notice by the employer to his employees shall be given by posting and keeping posted copies of such written notice in and about the several places of employment in conspicuous places and in a sufficient number of places frequented by employees as to reasonably notify such employees. Notice from employees to employer shall be given by serving a copy of such notice upon said employer in the same manner as summons is served in a civil action in a court of record or by mailing a copy thereof by prepaid mail to such employer at his business address in this state.

Such notice by an employer shall be signed by said employer or some officer of such employer, if a corporation, and notice by said employees shall be signed by said employees or members of a committee of said employees authorized for such purpose.

Notice on said commission may be served by delivering a copy of such notice personally to the secretary or any member of said commssion, or by prepaid mail delivered to the office of said commission in Denver, Colorado.

Such notice shall set forth the facts, issues, or demands involved in the controversy or dispute, and each party to such dispute shall from time to time furnish the commission such information within the time and as may be requested by said commission.

If either party uses this or any other provision of this act for the purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through delay, such parties shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100.

The commission shall proceed with reasonable diligence in hearing all disputes and shall render a final award or decision therein without unnecessary delay.

Sec. 30. It shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lockout or for any employee to go on strike, on account of any dispute prior to or during an investigation of such dispute by the commission or the board under the provisions of this act: Provided, That nothing in this act shall prohibit any employee or employees from quitting work for any reason not in violation of law if such action is not in the nature of or does not constitute a strike; and Provided further, That nothing herein shall prohibit any employer from discharging any employee or employees for any reason not in violation of law if such action is not in the nature of or does not constitute a lockout; and Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall prohibit the sus

pension or discontinuance of any industry or any part of the activities of an industry for any cause not constituting a lockout.

Sec. 31. Nothing in sections 29 and 30 of this act shall be construed to make any findings, determination of the rights of the parties, decision or award of said commission or of any board of arbitration appointed thereby upon the facts of any such industrial dispute, binding, conclusive, or enforceable upon any of the parties thereto, or affected thereby, nor be held to restrain any employer from declaring a lockout, nor any employee from going on strike, in respect to any dispute, after the same has been duly investigated and the findings, order, or award of the commission made thereon under the provisions of this act, unless such parties have in writing agreed to accept and be bound by the terms of such findings, decision, or award.

No petition for a hearing on the reasonableness of any such finding, order, or award, nor for the rehearing or review of such findings or award shall be filed or entertained, nor shall any suit or proceeding be brought or commenced to review any such findings, order, or award unless such parties have agreed to be bound by such findings, order, or award as in this section provided.

Sec. 32. The people of the state of Colorado, ex rel. the industrial commission of Colorado, as petitioners, may file in the district court of the city and county of Denver, or of any county in which the place of employment or any part thereof is situated, a verified petition against any employer or employers or any employee or employees, or both employer and employees, as respondents, and setting forth any violation or threatened or attempted violation of any provision of section 29 or 30 of this act and thereupon, without bond and without notice, such district court shall issue its mandatory writ enjoining the alleged violations, or attempted or threatened violations of this act and ordering and requiring such respondent or respondents to maintain all the conditions of employment in statu quo and without change until after the dispute or controversy between said employer or employers and said employees has been investigated and heard by said commission and the final findings, decision, order, or award of said commission made and entered therein. Any respondent may move such court to dissolve such mandatory writ as to such respondent and upon at least five days' previous notice to the commission such motion shall be set down for hearing, but such mandatory writ shall not be dissolved. without proof of full compliance by such respondent with all the provisions of this act and orders of the commission, and that the continu

ance in effect of such mandatory writ is causing or will cause such respondent great and irreparable injury, and the court may require such security of said respondent as the court shall determine adequate to enforce obedience to the provisions of this act on the part of such respondent before such mandatory writ shall be dissolved.

Sec. 33. Any employer declaring or causing a lockout contrary to the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than six months or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, and each day or part of a day that such lockout exists shall constitute a separate offense hereunder.

Any employee who goes on strike contrary to the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $50, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, and each day or part of a day that the employee is on strike shall constitute a separate offense hereunder.

Any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare or continue a lockout, or any employee to go or continue on strike, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

B19

The increase in the work of this department in the handling of the Industrial Relations Law is clearly shown by the number of applica tions made to this Commission thereunder.

From the commencement of the law in 1915 until December 1, 1920, there were filed with this Commission 456 cases. For the year from December 1, 1920, to December 1, 1921, there were 286 cases filed, and from the first of December, 1921, to the first of December, 1922, there were 265 cases filed, making a total of 551 cases filed with this Commission in the two years, as against 456 cases filed during the entire period prior to December 1, 1920.

19

19 Sixth Report of the Industrial Commission of Colorado, 1921-1922, pp. 149-151.

The beneficial operation of the Industrial Law cannot better be illustrated as a benefit to the people of this state generally than in the recent national coal miners' controversy. In the winter of 19211922, by agreement between the coal mine operators and the coal miners of this state, a wage scale was fixed as between said coal operators and their employes. Under the Industrial Law of this state, this wage scale could not be changed without the consent of the parties unless thirty days' notice of such proposed change was given by the parties desiring such change to the other parties thereto and to this Commission. As a result of this salutary provision of the law the coal mines of this state operated at practically full capacity during the entire time of the disastrous coal strike throughout all the other states of the Union. When a settlement was reached between the coal operators and their employes in the other states the coal operators within this state, after thoroughly considering the situation as it was presented to them, made an agreement with their employes to fix a wage scale in this state to correspond with the scale put into effect in the other states, thus automatically the entire coal mine controversy was handled in this state without serious loss of production.

Probably seventy-five per cent. of the industrial cases are settled without the necessity of the Commission holding a formal hearing. In the handling of industrial disputes, one of the first moves of the Commission is to suggest and urge an amicable settlement between the employers and employes, inasmuch as the Commission finds that if the parties are able, through conferences or otherwise, to reach an agreement between themselves, such procedure tends to create a much better feeling between the parties, and the settlements so reached are liable to be more permanent than where the controversy drags out through long investigations or hearings. Such procedure also tends to make it easier for the parties to reach future agreements. There is also the saving of the expense of a hearing. In a large number of the cases where formal hearings were held by the Commission and an award entered, the parties accepted the award as rendered by the Commission, or settled upon the basis of the award with few minor changes.

The large amount of preliminary work done by the Commission in securing amicable settlements necessarily does not appear in the records or in the reports, such settlements often being the result of personal conferences, and many such conferences, of which it would be impractical to make permanent records.

As an example of one phase of this work, the Commission will men