Beginning in the mid-1930s, organized labor workers throughout the country were bringing attention to their work grievances by employing a new tactic called the “sit-down strike.” This strike method entailed workers ceasing work and refusing to leave the worksite.

The philosophy behind this (unauthorized) occupation of worksite was the belief it would restrict the company from hiring replacement workers, referred to as strike-breakers, and it would also inhibit the company from moving equipment to transfer production to another work location.

The Electric Boat Company in Groton was the first company in Connecticut to have been the subject of a “sit-down strike” and certainly was the subject of a great deal of attention because of the company’s contracts for building submarines for the United States government.

Over a period of a week and a half in January 1937, workers at the Electric Boat Company, represented by a labor organization named the Employees’ Association, negotiated a new working agreement with the company. In balloting to either accept or reject the agreement, a total of 1,294 of the 1,961 company employees eligible voted. By an almost two to one margin, 824 to 418, workers voted to accept the new agreement.

Just prior to the beginning of the negotiations between the Employees’ Association and the company, representatives of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, an affiliate of the Committee for Industrial Organization based in Camden, N.J., came to Groton with intentions of organizing workers to be represented by the IUMSWA. Although there was some interest by about 150 company workers in joining the IUMSWA, the vote of Jan. 29 by the members of the Employees’ Association to accept the new working agreement also was regarded as the official establishment of the Association as the sole collective bargaining agency for the non-supervisory workforce at the company.

Officials of the IUMSWA and workers at the Groton plant who had desired to have the IUMSWA represent them, continued their organizing efforts. Representatives of the IUMSWA who met with officials of the company were told in no uncertain terms that the company recognized the Employees’ Association as the bargaining unit for the workers and that they would not negotiate with the IUMSWA.

One shipyard worker, (reportedly) conducting union activities while at work by encouraging employees to join the IUMSWA organization, was discharged by the company for “loafing.”

The combination of the two events described above caused the leaders of the IUMSWA to call for a “sit-down” strike by the workers who were supportive of joining that organization.

On Jan. 23, a group of approximately 110 workers stopped work and refused to leave the shipyard. Company officials advised the employees that they were discharged from their jobs and told to depart company property.

“Striking” employees refused to leave the shipyard until the company permitted shipyard workers to vote on accepting the IUMSWA as their recognized bargaining unit and also demanded the reinstatement of the employee who had engaged in union activities.

The company subsequently contacted the state police and filed a complaint against the “sit-down” strikers for trespassing.

State police immediately began the process of obtaining arrest warrants for the “trespassing” workers.

In the interim, IUMSWA officials and other workers, sympathetic to the strikers, were providing the “sit-downers” with food and cigarettes, passing them over the company’s security fencing.

In the early morning hours on Feb. 24, after obtaining arrest warrants, state police entered the shipyard and arrested 107 strikers for trespassing. The strikers were brought to the barracks in Groton, where they were photographed and fingerprinted. They were then taken to the Groton district court where they were released without bond by Groton Town Court Judge Charles F. Willard.

Interestingly, Judge Willard was also an employee of the Electric Boat Company. He subsequently recused himself to participate in the trials of the strikers.

After release from court, the “sit-downers” and other union sympathizers established picket lines at the company. A large contingency of state police officers was assigned to monitor and control the strikers.

IUMSWA officials pursued various avenues in an attempt to pressure company officials to negotiate with them; however, the company was steadfast in its stance that there was nothing to negotiate as the workers were already represented by the Employees’ Association and the “sit-downers” were no longer employees of the company.

Union officials met with Gov. Wilbur Cross to protest the fact that state police, and not local police, had evicted the strikers from company property and were being assigned to strike duty at the company. To the surprise of the union officials, Gov. Cross jumped to his feet and, while pointing his finger at the spokesmen for the strikers, declared with great emphasis, “there will be no sit-down strikes in Connecticut.”

The union subsequently filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

In June 1938, more than 17 months after the “sit-down” strike had begun, the NLRB ruled against the company and ordered the reinstatement of and back pay for all of the workers who had engaged in the “sit-down” strike. The NLRB also ordered reinstatement and back pay for the employee whose employment had been terminated after engaging in union activities on company property.

Most of the strikers who had been terminated for the “sit-down” strike had either already been reemployed by the company or had found other employment prior to the NLRB ruling.

The NLRB ruling also ordered the company to disestablish the Employees’ Association, the collective bargaining agency for the workers, on the grounds that the company had dominated the association. The company complied with the orders of the NLRB and workers subsequently affiliated with another labor organization.

In the late 1960s through the late 1980s, Electric Boat was no stranger to labor union actions, including several lengthy strikes, lasting well over one year. Most of the strikes revolved around issues relating to salary, work conditions and union contract language. One interesting labor action occurred in June 1968 when trade union employees participated in a two-week “wildcat” strike (a strike held without union authorization or approval) to express their displeasure with the company’s suspending an officer of union locals for (reportedly) encouraging several workers to refuse to work in protest of the company’s hiring workers at its facility in Quincy, Mass.

As is the case in many labor related disputes ending in strike actions, results often end in hurting either or both the workers and the company. During lengthy strikes, workers lose earnings and benefits that would have been available while they were on strike and the company experiences reductions in production affecting their profit margins.

Oftentimes, strikes result in long term friction between the workers and company.

In today’s world, most unions use strike actions as a last resort in settling disagreements with companies. Peter E. Baker, president of the Metal Trades Council of New London County, recent expressed the new philosophy in this way: “A strike is the last resort when all reasonable efforts have failed. The biggest problem with a strike is if it can be sustained and if you will be better off when, and how, the strike ends, either by reaching an agreement or through arbitration.”

Jim Streeter is the Groton town historian.