and the Commercial Telegraphers Union, entered the room against my will and gave me the ultimatum: "Join up with the C. T. U. or get off the ship." I informed Mr. Martin that I was a member of the American Radio Telegraphists' Association. He then stated that the longshoremen in Chelsea, Boston, would not unload the ship or take the passengers' suitcases ashore. I told him to do as he saw fit. After the ship had docked, the master of the vessel, Captain Broun, stopped me on the boat deck. He inquired as to my union affiliation. At this very same time he was talking with Mr. Martin. I replied to the master that he represented the company and should not enter into the trouble. The master stated that, "the ship was an A. F. of L. ship and that all members of the crew had to be members of A. F. of L. unions if they wanted to remain." The master also inquired if I was an American or a Russian. I stated that I was an American. He also stated that he did not want any C. I. O. men aboard the ship; and that I had C. I. O. ideas. After about 2 hours of wrangling I was compelled to pay $5 in order to hold my job.

Sworn before me this 28th day of July, 1937.
[SEAL]

Commission expires March 30, 1938.
No. 1

(Signed) EDGAR S. JOHNSON.

ROBERT A. SHONTS, Notary.

Received from Edgar S. Johnson, $5 account of second quarter-paid.

Per GEO. Martin, Secretary-Treasurer,

Mr. BOROW. The maritime unions have found that leading shipowners are not only not complying with the provisions of the Wagner Act but also that the provisions of Public Law No. 25, Seventy-fifth Congress, with respect to the optional provisions concerning acceptance of a seamen's identification certificate, instead of what is commonly referred to as the [a pause]

The CHAIRMAN. As the "Copeland fink book"?

Mr. BOROW. That is correct.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome.

Mr. BOROW. In other words, the continuous discharge book. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any case where the unions have prohibited a man from using the "fink book," instead of the certificate, to put it the other way around?

Mr. BOROW. I do not know of any case where the unions have actually prohibited it. I believe the Senator knows the position of the maritime unions with respect to the acceptance of this book.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I know the agreement was made that there should be free interchange and no discrimination against a man, whether he carried one form of book or the other. And I have affidavits, which I shall show the committee later, to show that has not been lived up to by the unions.

Now you are bringing in affidavits to show the action of the steamship lines. But remember, it works both ways.

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; it does.

The CHAIRMAN. You have had the advantage, in your group, of using "beef squads." And that certainly is an advantage.

Mr. BOROW. Well, that is not so. You prove it by the affidavits, please.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; I will prove it by the affidavits.

Mr. BOROW. I should like to state it seems that all the affidavits you have are things that are presented as detrimental to the position of labor. Don't you receive any affidavits that are of any benefit to labor, in your opinion?

The CHAIRMAN. Are those affidavits beneficial? I would think they were to the contrary. There ought to be no occasion for those disturbances on the part either of the shipowners or of the unions. We had a definite understanding, did we not, about those identification certificates-that they should be interchangeable?

Mr. BOROW. When you say "we," whom do you mean?

The CHAIRMAN. I mean the representatives of your unions and the officials of the Government.

Mr. BOROW. I believe that was the agreement, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the agreement.

Mr. BOROW. But here we have cases where it was violated on the part of the steamship companies.

I should like to submit two affidavits in proof thereof. I shall not take up the time of the committee in reading them.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; they will be received.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

To whom it may concern:

AMERICAN RADIO TELEGRAPHISTS ASSOCIATION,

New York, N. Y., April 8, 1937.

This is to certify that statements made below are true.

This morning Mr. Villandre, of the Radiomarine Corporation of America, assigned me to the steamship American Importer. He told me to report to Mr. Gilbert at the I. M. M. office. Mr. Gilbert O.K.'d the assignment slip and told me to report to the chief officer on board the vessel.

Not being able to find the chief officer at the moment I reported to Mr. Finch, chief radio officer. After talking to him a while I showed him my certificate of identification and certificate of service. Mr. Finch told me that these certificates. alone would not be enough and I would have to take out the continuous discharge book; that this is the company's requirement.

I went back to Mr. Gilbert to check up. I showed him, also, the above-mentioned certificates and he too told me that I would be required to take out the continuous discharge book. Then he asked me if I had the photographs. I told

him I had one.

Mr. Gilbert also said that I would not be the only one to take out the continous discharge book and that the book would be issued to me on the ship. (Signed) ANTHONY PAUL GOLUBINSKI.

A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THOMAS P. HENDERSON, RADIO OPERATOR DISCHARGED FROM THE STEAMSHIP "DIRIGO," OPERATED BY THE TEXAS CO., FOR REFUSING TO TAKE OUT THE COPELAND CONTINUOUS DISCHARGE BOOK

On January 9, 1937, Thos. P. Henderson secured employment as radio operator on the steamship Dirigo, a vessel operated by the Texas Co. in the coastwise

oil trade.

Upon the vessel's return to New York, approximately January 25, the company started preparations to facilitate the issuance of the Copeland continuous discharge books. Photographers were sent aboard and the application blanks for the books issued. Henderson notified the master that he was unable to take out the book due to his union affiliation and stated that he thought the books were not required until June 1937 in the coastwise service. A conference between Henderson, the master, Captain Svensson at that time, and a member of the company's office force followed during which Henderson was told that he could continue to sail without the book until such time as it was legally required.

In February and in March these preparations by the company continued and as a result there were other conferences between Henderson, the master, by this time Captain Rasmussen, and the Port Arthur, Tex., marine superintendent, Mr. C. L. Hand. At each conference Henderson was assured that he could continue without the book as long as it was legal to do so.

Finally by the end of March all members of the ships company had the books except Henderson. And at the end of March, exact date unknown, Mr. Hand

in conversation with Henderson told him that he could continue and, said he, "In fact, you may never have to take out the book."

On April 16, the vessel docked in Port Arthur, Tex., in the forenoon. At about 10 o'clock, the superintendent, Mr. Hand, entered the master's room and shortly afterward left. The captain then called Henderson into his room and informed him that they were letting him go.

He said, "Mr. Hand tells me that he has a man with the book to take your place. He says that orders have come through from the New York office to let you go, if you have not taken out the book. However, you are not "in bad" with the company. Your services were satisfactory, and Mr. Hand informs me that he will instruct the Radiomarine Corporation to give you preference for the next Texas Co. radio job that is open, provided you have the book."

The vessel was posted to sail at 6 a. m., April 17. The nearest port at which Henderson could secure the temporary certificate of identification to be used, as was his legal right under House Resolution 143, instead of the continuous discharge book, was Galveston. In the time left him before sailing Henderson was unable to secure this temporary certificate. Therefore he left the ship, having been relieved by the new operator, and reported to the Radiomarine Corporation offices. There he was informed that Mr. Hand, Texas Co. superintendent had already placed his request for preferential employment, of Henderson, such treatment to be accorded him when he secured the continuous discharge book. [Signed] THOS. P. HENDERSON.

Witnessed: EUGENE DUPREE.

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,

County of Philadelphia, ss.:

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of April 1937.

My commission expires March 25, 1941.

ELLEN E. DEADY, Notary Public.

Mr. BOROW. One, in the case of the International Mercantile. Marine, that compelled a radio officer to accept a continuous discharge book in place of a seaman's identification certificate, contrary to the agreement which the Senator spoke of.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; not contrary. The agreement was that the seamen might present either one, either the "fink book" or the certificate. The law is so written; and the law carried out the agreement which the witness has already stated exists.

Mr. BOROW. Do you think the steamship companies are carrying out that understanding?

The CHAIRMAN. You say not, and you are presenting proof to that effect.

Mr. BOROW. Naturally.

The CHAIRMAN. That is quite all right.

Mr. BOROW. I should like to point out here that a particular violator in this respect has been the oil companies, particularly the Sun Oil Co., controlled by the "Liberty Lengue" Pews; the Atlantic Refining Co.; the Socony-Vacuum Co.; and the Texas Oil Co. And this affidavit that I submit in evidence will confirm that position.

Senator VANDENBERG. You were pleading, yesterday, for a better understanding and relationship between employers and employees. Don't you think this would be a good place to start to quit calling names?

Mr. BOROW. Well, that should work both ways.

Senator VANDENBERG. I agree with that. But somebody has to start it.

Mr. BOROW. Well, we have quite a broad aspect on that, already. The CHAIRMAN. You mean you have started it?

Mr. BOROW. A long time ago; sure.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you are promoting it this morning. Proceed.

Mr. BOROW. The committee is interested in the facts, aren't they, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, of course.

And we are asking you to submit the facts, and we shall receive all you have to say about it, and all your affidavits.

Senator VANDENBERG. Yes; we are very much interested.

Mr. BOROW. On the question of compulsory arbitration amendments, the A. R. T. A. is definitely opposed to proposed amendments under title X, in S. 3078, and even more so to S. 1710, in its entirety. The CHAIRMAN. What is S. 1710?

Mr. BOROW. That is the one that you submitted yesterday, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. That is Senator Guffey's bill?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say the union is opposed to this bill in its entirety-S. 1710?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that unsatisfactory, from start to finish?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it more unsatisfactory than the Maritime Commission proposal?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; definitely so.

On the question, primarily, of S. 3078, we are opposed to it because it attempts to set up in the shipping industry a comparable arrangement of compulsory arbitration in all labor disputes, as was set up in the railroad-

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I want to be sure: Are you referring to Senator Guffey's bill, with the amendments? You are speaking of this bill which you were given yesterday?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the perfected bill?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BOROW. I am referring, in this particular section, primarily to S. 3078, however.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BOROW. I shall make more specific reference to S. 1710 just a little later, and conclude my testimony.

We are opposed to it, on the attempts to set up in the shipping industry a comparable arrangement of compulsory arbitration, in maritime labor disputes, as was set up in the rail transportation industry in 1926, the general reasons being that the situations facing the maritime employees differ greatly from those facing railroad labor in 1926.

On the question of seniority, the acceptance of the principle of seniority settled many of the problems facing the railway industry in 1926, while seniority in the merchant marine, for the unlicensed personnel, would solve no problem and settle nothing, so far as labor issues are concerned. No one can deny that the basic conditions of employment are different and require a different approach, and therefore require totally different solutions.

And finally, the enactment of such amendments would have a tendency to stabilize unfair conditions in the maritime industry in 1937, according to the present proposed amendments, whereas the Railway Labor Act stabilized fair conditions in 1926.

May I state just a few figures on this point? In the railroads, in 1920, the average wage of railway trainmen, according to the figures, was $48 per week; in 1926 it was $45. Now, in the case of seamen, in 1920 A. B.'s were receiving $90 per month; in 1937-today they are receiving only $72.50. That is the Maritime Commission scale. On the question of S. 1710

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). In that connection, may I ask a question? When you speak as you do about S. 1710, are you speaking for all your unions? Is your position that of all the C. I. O. group? Mr. BOROW. On the question of S. 1710, let me say this: the first time we have seen that was yesterday, when the chairman submitted that amendment. We took this up with the representatives of the maritime unions who are here in Washington. And after giving it some study, we do not see how any of the progressive maritime labor groups could go for such a thing.

The CHAIRMAN. So when you express your personal opposition to S. 1710, apparently you suggest the opposition of all the unions, so far as you have had contact with them?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir. I suggest it; I cannot speak for them. I believe other witnesses, following me, will take a definite position on it.

S. 1710 would deny to the seamen the protection and offices of the National Labor Relations Board-a Government agency with a singular record of fairness and impartiality-and replace, in its stead, what would be known as ship labor boards and mediation boards. Maritime labor, in particular, has been plagued by unfair labor practices on the part of its employers; and the abridgement of such tried and proven protection against the malpractices of many shipowners certainly would not contribute to stabilization, peace, and harmony in the industry. We submit that the power to protect maritime labor's rights against shipowners who would brazenly continue unfair labor practices, engage in industrial espionage, and refuse to recognize the duly certified representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, is proposed to be transferred to the two new boards. However, we fail to see the wisdom of substituting untried and untested agencies, when there is already set up a satisfactory working machinery for such purposes.

Likewise, this is true of the voluntary arbitration clauses contained in the agreements signed by the various maritime labor organizations and the shipowners, particularly in the case of the National Maritime Union. And, of particular reference at this time, we point to agreements long in effect between the American Radio Telegraphists' Association and various shipping companies, containing similar clauses that have operated so satisfactorily in the past. Now that the industry is being stabilized on a national basis, through such voluntary arbitration machinery, mutually agreed to by labor and capital, we feel with good reason that a change at this time would succeed only in militating against stabilization.

Though the following should not be interpreted as criticism, at least, not without due cause, the seamen would look with grave suspicion upon the extension of the power of the United States Maritime Commission to deal with labor disputes. Mr. Joseph P. Kennedy, Chairman of the Commission, has already set up the principle that employees of Government-owned freight ships do not have the right