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.

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]

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 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.

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.