Columbia, in Throes of Labor Battle, Denies Collective Bargaining Rights

Spectacular in contrast to the drawing-room bargaining of union leaders here is the deep-scated labor war now waging on the Columbia campus.

Six weeks brewing, the contest between the maintenance workers and the Director of Buildings and Grounds, Henry L. Norris, is an outgrowth of dissatisfaction on the part of the employees with a company union which claims 337 out of 385 workers.

Workers Rebuffed

Because there is no state law which sanctions compulsory collective bargaining, workers have met with rebuffs from Columbia heads. At the instigation of the A.F. of L., which has come to the rescue, the group is launching a campaign to appeal first to the trustees, finally to the state labor arbitration board.

Indignant editorials in the Columbia Spectator have criticized Norris' action, staunchly suported students and faculty members who demand collective bargaining instead of ineffective, disorganized conferences with individual protestors.

"The Columbia University Employees Organization of Buildings and Grounds" has proved to be a dismal failure. Charging that officials had refused to deal directly with their representatives, levied unfair wage scales, and inaugurated an unfair benefit system, employees turned to outside sources for aid.

Unionization Demanded

By November 18 the concessions offered by the university were not felt adequate. The Spectator at the same time urged full unionization for all workers, arbitration by a New York State commission.

Still refusing to arbitrate on December 6 the workers demanded an intra-university bargaining committee, later ignored by Norris and the building supervisors. Betrayal of sentiments expressed last June was expressed as Columbia's policy by the maintenance men, now whipped into a ferocious mood by national labor organizations.

Meanwhile the Student Board requested Norris to arbitrate as the only just means of settling the dispute and the Spectator challenged the university's sincerity toward those it employed.

Anxious to break the deadlock before the labor lapse during the Christmas holidays, the Student Council appointed five students to investigate the relations between the University and its employees.

Last week with no speedy conclusion yet in sight, it became evident that a major battle was on between the two groups with opinion sharply divided between undergraduates. Disinterested observers believed that the influence of the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O. would become stronger and that settlement would not be reached until the organization was allowed full rights.