On May 27, 1952, upon request from District 65, Distributive, Processing and Office Workers Union, The American Arbitration Association appointed David L. Cole to arbitrate the wage dispute between Distrlc 65 and Gimbel Brothers. The hearings began in New York City on July 17, 1952.
The issues in the dispute are concerned with wages (minima, progression, automatics) classifications, and changes in vacations and holidays. From February 1, 1952, when the contract came up for negotiation, until May, when Mr. Cole was called in, no agreement could be reached on the issues. Throughout this period, however, the employees remained at work.
The union maintains that the wages paid at Gimbels are far below the wages paid at comparable department stores, and that these wages are insufficient in terms of the present cost of living. Basically, the union is concerned with cutting down the wage differential which exists between Gimbels and the other large department stores in the city, by attempting to force Gimbels participate in industry-wide bargaining. The union is seeking a wage increase commensurate with increases in other department stores. The company claims that its financial condition prohibits a wage increase at the present time. The company also claims that it is impossible to make wage adjustments comparable to other stores; there are too many factors which must be taken into consideration - there is no simple relationship between the various stores.
On May 27, 1952, upon request from District 65, Distributive, Processing and Office Workers Union, the American Arbitration Association appointed David L. Cole to arbitrate the wage dispute between District 65 and Gimbel Brothers. The hearings began in New York City on July 17, 1952.
The issues in the dispute are concerned with wages (minima, progression, automatics) classifications, and changes in vacations and holidays. From February 1, 1952, when the contract came up for negotiation, until May, when Mr. Cole was called in, no agreement could be reached on the issues. Throughout this period, however, the employees remained at work. The union maintained that the wages paid at Gimbels were far below the wages paid at comparable department stores, and that these wages were insufficient in terms of the present cost of living. The union was concerned with cutting down the wage differential which existed between Gimbels and the other large department stores in the city, by attempting to force Gimbels to participate in industry- wide bargaining. The union sought a wage increase commensurate with increases in other department stores. The company claimed that its financial condition prohibited a wage increase at that time. The company also claimed that it was impossible to make wage adjustments comparable to other stores; there were too many factors which must be taken into consideration - there was no simple relationship between the various stores.
Access to the collections in the Kheel Center is restricted. Please contact a reference archivist for access to these materials.
This collection must be used in keeping with the Kheel Center Information Sheet and Procedures for Document Use.
Distributive Office and Processing Workers'' Union Arbitration #5124. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University Library.
Related Collections: