The Butcher's List: Working Conditions in Late 19th Century Guelph

On Monday, February 3, 1879, Alfred Hallet arrived for work at Raymond’s Sewing Machine Factory and took his position at a gear cutting machine. That day, he had to place a belt on the pulley of the main shaft, a job he had done many times before. He stood up on the bench that held the gear cutter – the proper position to perform the task, quickly put the belt in place and began adjusting it. Then, he made a mistake. He turned around to see if the belt was correctly positioned. His fingers shifting slightly, were caught beneath the pulley. His left hand and apron followed, caught by the pull. Within seconds, his arm disappeared from view. Alfred’s screams brought several workmen, who quickly freed him. His body slumped to one side of the machine; his arm, torn off at the elbow, dropped to the floor on the other side. Alfred, son of William Hallet, was just 14 years old.

Workplace Reality

This was the reality of the workplace in 19^th-century Canada. In Ontario, no factory legislation dictated protective measures for the workers until the Factory Act of 1884. There was no Ministry of Labour or department expressly focused on ensuring that workers could go to work every day secure in the knowledge that their environment was a healthy and safe one. In fact, holding a job in the 19^th century was often like playing Russian Roulette. Farm toil, construction work and factory labour presented dangers of various kinds leading to health problems, loss of limbs and death. The least dangerous jobs were to be found in mills, such as Guelph’s Goldie’s and Allan’s, and breweries such as Sleeman’s and Holliday’s. The more dangerous work could be found in moulding shops and those factories that used saws and cutting equipment.

Blaming the Victim

The wood-cutting machinery of the time was dangerous. Workers lost fingers, hands, thumbs and even arms to a variety of cutting tools including:

• • • • • Gear-cutters
        • Shapers
        • Buzz saws
        • Circular saws

These and other similar machinery or tools were responsible for cutting short the working lives of many.

This was not, as employers and, later, factory inspectors would have it believed, the fault of the worker.  They were not all careless. The lack of protection was at fault. There was, at first, no guard between the blade and the operator. Even when protection was made law under the Factory Act of 1884, only the barest form was required. Protection, at that time, meant “as far as practicable, securely guarded.” This allowed leeway for owners and foremen alike to define sufficient protection. Combining this with the employment of green hands with little or no training, the result was predictable. In Guelph, over half of the accidents in factories were the product of buzz saws, planers, shapers and other sharp tools.

The Factory Act of 1884

The Factory Act, put into place in 1884, although intended to help reduce the accident rate, was ineffective in several ways. The definition of “Factory” precluded several types of work including:

• • • • Home-based sweatshops
      • Family businesses
      • Factories with less than 20 people
      • Shops, offices and other types of workplaces.

Enforcement was also complicated by the process. If a Factory Inspector desired to assess the safety of a home acting as a factory, he had to obtain a warrant or permission from the province’s Lieutenant Governor. Moreover, accidents in factories need only be reported if the worker were either killed or kept off work for more than six days. Technically, a worker could lose his arm on a Monday and be reassigned to another job on Thursday without the Inspectors hearing anything about it.

Another problem concerned the Inspectors themselves. During the first three years of the Factory Act – from 1883 to 1885, the matter was moot; there were no inspectors. The Ontario government then engaged a total of three for the entire Province, therefore, ensuring the examination and enforcement process would be inefficient and insufficient.

Other crucial areas were initially ignored. A boiler inspector was not hired at first. This allowed any problems in that area to be overlooked by harried inspectors, concerned with scaffolds, unprotected machinery, unsanitary and unsafe conditions, child labour and female workers.

The inspectors’ and courts’ attitudes were also a problem. The 12^th Annual Report of the Inspector of Factories for 1899 stated the following regarding proposed changes to the Act:

If an employee in a factory slips or falls on the floor of his work room or place and is laid off work as a result for six days, it is a reportable accident. I can see no object in having such reported. Whoever suggested that change did not comprehend the Act as it was?…No Inspector would think it necessary to visit a factory because he received a report that a worker was hurt by falling on the floor, when probably the cause of the worker’s falling lay in the fact that his boots were so worn down as to be dangerous . .. 

Workers and the Law

This short-sighted and narrow-minded attitude was incorporated into the legal system. When the Factory Act was used to call employers to task, little or nothing was done. In cases where employees or their widows took the company to court, the judge, more often than not, found in favour of the employer. For example, when John Rudd of Guelph took Bell Organ & Piano to court for an injury done to him by a jointer (two fingers were removed), the decision said it was his own fault and the case was dismissed. 

This ruling suggested  Some sort of protection had been in place. In 19^th-century parlance, this meant two things:The safeguard was minimal and existed only so far as it did not interfere with production 

1. Mr. Rudd knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
2. The risks incurred were in the nature of the work itself.               

In his case and many others, the workplace was a dangerous place to be. It was no wonder that the British referred to the accident lists as the “Butcher List.”

Women at Risk

Although women in the 19^th century did not work in foundries or carriage works, or any of the factories mentioned above, they had to contend with dangers in the knitting and woollen mills. Here, both men and women were faced with needles that went through fingers and heavy looms that produced back strain. In addition, particles of cotton, wool and other fabrics floated in the air. They were breathed in, later producing a variety of lung problems. The McCrae & Armstrong Woolen Mills, the Guelph Carpet and Worsted Mills, and Mr. M. Quinn’s Macdonnell St. Shirt Factory offer multiple examples of what happened in these workplaces.

The End of the Butcher’s List?

Danger was all pervasive in the 19^th-century workplace. The Factory Act attempted to address several issues, but its early forms did not go far enough. It was not until the 20^th century, as the militancy of workers and labour organizations increased, that working conditions improved and the butcher’s bill was shortened.