Control of Women Workers Under the Munitions Act
The munitions act set up an unprecedented degree of governmental
control over the workers through three different methods—the
prohibition of strikes, a restriction of the right of the individual
to leave work and the establishment of special “Munition Tribunals”
to regulate the leaving of work and to punish breaches of workshop
discipline.
_Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts_
The prohibition of strikes and lockouts was the most inclusive of
the three. It applied not only to all “munitions work” as defined by
the act,[104] but also to all work done “in or in connection with”
munitions work, and to any other work to which the act should be
applied by proclamation on the ground that stoppage of work would be
“directly or indirectly prejudicial” to “the manufacture, transport or
supply of munitions of war.”[105] Strikes or lockouts were forbidden
unless a dispute had been referred to the Board of Trade, which for
twenty-one days had taken no action toward settling it. Further
provisions for a more prompt settlement of disputes were included in
the second amending act, in August, 1917. The penalty for violations
by either employer or employe was a fine which might be as high as £5
(about $24) per man per day. Disputes might be referred by the Board
of Trade for settlement to any one of several subordinate bodies.
Ordinarily the one used for men’s work was the “Committee on Production
in Engineering and Shipbuilding.”[106] After the passage of the first
amending act[107] in January, 1916, the “Special Arbitration Tribunal”
authorized by it to advise regarding conditions of women’s work was
the body generally chosen by the Minister of Munitions to settle
disputes involving women.
[104] _Vide_ p. 55.
[105] Munitions of War Act. 5 and 6 Geo. 5, Ch. 54. Part I. 2 (1).
[106] _Vide_ p. 51.
[107] 5 and 6 Geo. 5, Ch. 99.
The clause prohibiting strikes was adopted undoubtedly as the result
of the strikes of “engineers” on the Clyde early in 1915, and other
disturbances on war work, which followed after the “industrial truce”
of the first few months of the war had once been broken. This in
turn apparently occurred on account of the rising cost of living
and the failure at the time to increase wages proportionately or to
limit profits. The prohibition was roundly denounced by the labor
and radical groups as having “given rise to more strikes than it has
prevented,”[108] and strikes did, indeed, increase proportionately
faster after the passage of the act. For several months beginning
with May, 1917, the unrest was so serious that official committees of
inquiry were appointed.
No figures are at hand to show the extent of the strikes in which women
participated. Though comparatively infrequent among women workers, yet
even there they occurred in defiance of the law. _The Woman Worker_
recorded a case at a shell filling factory, where because a canteen
attendant was, as they thought, unjustly dismissed, the girls refused
to go back to work after the noon hour, and began to throw the china
and food about in the canteen.[109]
[108] _Women’s Trade Union Review_, July, 1917, p. 1.
[109] _The Woman Worker_, February, 1917, p. 11.
There was some feeling among women as well as men war workers that
following a strike government officials quickly adjusted grievances
which had previously gone unremedied for months. Yet, even if the
strike prohibition was not a complete success, officials believed that
it operated to reduce the number of minor disputes.
_“Leaving Certificates”_
After the keen demand for labor arose in the industry, the “labor
turnover” of experienced workers in munition factories reached abnormal
proportions, causing loss of time and often of skill. The frequent
changes and the resulting interruption to production became the subject
of serious complaints from employers.
To diminish this “labor turnover” a system of “leaving certificates”
or “clearance cards” was put into effect. No person leaving munitions
work could be given work by another employer for six weeks unless he
or she had a “leaving certificate.” The certificate was required to be
granted by the employer on discharging the worker, and might be granted
by a Munitions Tribunal if “unreasonably” withheld. This was the
only condition inserted in the original act to prevent a certificate
from being wrongfully withheld. The giving of employment contrary
to these provisions, or the falsifying of a “leaving certificate,”
were serious offenses under the act, punishable by a maximum fine of
£50 (about $240). “Leaving certificates” might be required “in or in
connection with munitions work” in any kind of establishments to which
the regulations were applied by order of the Ministry of Munitions.
In July, 1915, an order was issued requiring them in all engineering,
shipbuilding, ammunition, arms and explosive establishments and
establishments producing substances required for such production. In
May, 1916, all “controlled establishments” not previously included, and
certain places providing electric light or power for munitions work,
were added to the list.
The leaving certificate requirements were said to be the only feature
of the munitions acts approved by employers, but no part was more
unpopular with the workers. It was charged that skilled workers were
tied to unskilled jobs and thus rendered powerless to move to better
wages and working conditions. The following quotation from _The Woman
Worker_[110] illustrates the labor point of view:
The first Munitions Act came quietly—on tip-toe, like a
thief in the night, and not one woman worker in a thousand
knew of its coming.
Their shackles were riveted while they slept....
The foreman’s reply to the complaining one is no longer: “If
you don’t like it you can leave it.” She can’t.
If she tries, she will find that no other employer will
be allowed to engage her, and unless she can persuade a
Munitions Court to grant a leaving certificate, six weeks’
idleness must be her portion. And we know what that means to
many a woman worker. Long before the six weeks are up, her
little treasures, if she has any, are gone and God help her
then.
... One great danger of the new conditions is that sweating
and bad conditions may be stereotyped.
The other day a munition worker, who was being paid 12s.
weekly, had a chance of doing the same work for another
employer at 1 pound weekly, but the Court refused her
permission to make the change. And thus we have a concrete
case of the State turning the lock in the door of the
sweaters’ den.
Some people hold very strongly that these leaving
certificate clauses of the Munitions Act are altogether
unnecessary. They hamper and irritate men and women alike,
and so far from accelerating output, may actually diminish
it. Under the Defence of the Realm Act, it is already
illegal for employers to incite munition workers to change
their employment, and that should have been sufficient.
[110] January, 1916, pp. 5-7.
The stringency of the leaving certificate clauses in their original
form was indicated by the fact that in the munitions act amendment of
January, 1916, several conditions were added making them more favorable
to the workers. If an employer refused a certificate when a worker
was dismissed, or failed to give a week’s notice or a week’s pay in
lieu of notice, except on temporary work, the tribunal could now make
him pay as much at £5 (about $24) for the loss of time, unless it
appeared that the worker was guilty of misconduct to secure dismissal.
A number of other conditions under which a certificate must be granted
were laid down by the amending act. They included failure to provide
employment for three or more days, failure to pay standard wage rates,
behavior of the employer or his agent toward the worker in a way to
justify his leaving, end of apprenticeship and existence of another
opening where the worker could be used “with greater advantage to the
national interest.” Even _The Woman Worker_ admitted of the amendment
act: “Certainly in many ways it is an improvement over the old one.
The workers have new rights; and if they are strong enough and clever
enough to take advantage of them much can be done.”
Difficulties still arose, however. Though on some government contracts,
such as clothing, the system was not in force, it was often believed
that the cards were required on every form of government work. They
were indeed necessary in so many factories that employers hesitated
to take workers without them, which made it hard to secure work in a
munitions plant for the first time. Often the workers did not know
their rights under the act to secure certificates or damages from
the tribunals under certain conditions. It was finally decided that
dismissal because of trade union membership was illegal, “tending to
restrict output.” By the help of the Federation of Women Workers three
girls dismissed for joining the federation secured compensation for
their dismissal from the local Munitions Tribunal, and the firm was
finally fined for the act by the central court.
Nevertheless, in spite of all concessions, which officials of the
Ministry believed had removed the admitted injustices of the act in
its original form, the certificate system continued to cause much
irritation among the workers. The official commissions to investigate
the industrial unrest prevailing in the summer of 1917 named the
operation of the system among its chief causes. It was because of
the workers’ protests that the second amendment to the munitions
act, passed August 21, 1917, gave the Ministry of Munitions power to
abolish the “leaving certificate” system if it thought it could be done
“consistently with the national interest.” Trade union leaders informed
the government that they could not keep their members in line unless
the system was given up. The Ministry issued an order abolishing the
certificate after October 15, 1917.[111] Workers were merely required
to remain on some kind of war work, except by permission of the
Ministry, and at least a week’s notice or a week’s wages was necessary
before leaving. No report was made as to how the change worked. It
remained in force until two days before the armistice, when an order
allowed employes to shift from munitions to nonwar work.
[111] _Labour Gazette_, September, 1917, p. 314.
_Munitions Tribunals_
In addition to appeals for leaving certificates, the Munitions
Tribunals dealt with breaches of workshop discipline, and with cases
of disobedience to the instructions of the Ministry of Munitions.
These courts were set up throughout the country. Each consisted of
a chairman, chosen by the Ministry of Munitions, and four or more
“assessors,” taken from a panel, half of whom represented employers
and half employes. The “assessors” served in rotation, a session at a
time. There were two classes of tribunals, “general,” dealing with all
offenses, and “local,” with those for which the penalty was less than
£5 (about $24). The latter handled the great majority of the cases,
settling 3,732 between July and December, 1916, whereas the general
tribunals took up only 182. Under the original munitions act the
general tribunals had the power to imprison for nonpayment of fines,
but this aroused such resentment among the workers that it was taken
away by the first amendment act.
The Munitions Tribunals, like leaving certificates, were a source
of much annoyance to working women. Complaints were made that the
representatives of the Ministry of Munitions had no understanding of
the labor point of view, so that there was always a majority against
the employes. Instances were given in which the tribunals refused
certificates to a woman receiving 10s. ($2.40) a week, though she had
a chance to double her wages, and to girls working seventy to eighty
hours weekly several miles from home, while a factory having eight
hour shifts had opened close at hand. Fines, unlike those imposed
by employers, did not have to be “reasonable” in the legal sense of
the word, and their size was not known to the workers beforehand. An
employe summoned before a tribunal lost at least a half day’s and
sometimes a full day’s work, or several hours of sleep if a night
worker. Previous to January, 1916, women workers might be obliged to
appear before a tribunal composed entirely of men. But by the amending
act, as the “direct outcome of a scandalous case” in which three girls
who had left their jobs because of “gross insult” were obliged to
explain the circumstances with no woman present,[112] it was required
that at least one of the assessors representing the employes should be
a woman in every case in which women were involved.
Whatever the justice of the employes’ contentions, certainly the
decisions rendered by the tribunals during their first few months
of activity, for which alone figures are available, were generally
unfavorable to the workers. From the beginning of their work to
November 27, 1916, 814 cases involving 3,672 persons were heard against
employes. Convictions against 2,423 of these were secured, and fines
amounting to £2,235 were imposed. Against employers there were but
eighty-six cases involving ninety-four persons, fifty-six persons
convicted, and a total in fines of £290. Out of 3,014 requests for
leaving certificates, only 782 were granted.
[112] _The Woman Worker_, January, 1916, p. 7.