other industries, the exception is made, however, in the case of the maritime industry as provided in this bill.

Now, it may be contended by some that labor's most effective weapon, the right to strike, will not be wholly taken away from us by these proposals. It is true that it is not being taken away from us directly, but it is being crippled to such an extent, through the process which will be involved in the mediation proposals, that its effectiveness would be completely destroyed.

Now, it may also be the opinion of some that these proposals do not constitute "compulsory arbitration or mediation." In regard to this I would like to quite for the record an extract from the statement submitted by Madam Perkins, the very capable Secretary of Labor, to the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee during hearings on the bill H. R. 5193 at the last session of this present Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking of the Guffey Act? Mr. EMERSON. It was also known as the Bland bill.

This bill was commonly known as the maritime labor bill and suggested that boards of mediation and arbitration be set up for the maritime industry similar to those proposed in the bill now before us. Madam Perkins' statement reads as follows [reading]:

I am also constrained to question the wisdom of establishing a fixed arbitra procedure looking forward to awards having the force and effect of law, for the reasons which I have already suggested, and in spite of the expressed provision of the bill that failure or refusal of either party to submit to arbitration shall not be construed as a violation of any legal obligation. I anticipate that public opinion would so crystallize about the idea of arbitration as virtually to compel the parties to accept it. Such a result is not at this time, at least, to be desired since harmonious industrial relations in an industry which is not sustained by a long tradition of open negotiation are largely dependent upon flexibility in methods of approach. Compulsory arbitration is at least a device for an industry which is ready for a mature labor policy; labor relations in shipping are still in their infancy.

It is curious to note also that the Maritime Commission, through its chairman, Mr. Joseph P. Kennedy, sent in a report on this bill in opposition to its passage and stated that in the opinion of the Commission that there were enough Government bodies functioning to handle all the problems affecting us. It seems that the Commission must have changed its views somewhat in the past few months, but for what specific reason we cannot determine. It is quite evident to everyone that better industrial relations now prevail between the employers and the employees in the maritime industry than those which were in existence when the Maritime Commission took this stand. At that time we had just emerged from a long strike period and industrial relations were chaotic, to say the least.

At the present time, however, we have already negotiated contracts with some 11 steamship companies and are in process of negotiation with several more. More negotiations will be carried on from time to time with other companies as soon as the elections, which are now taking place, have been completed under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore in comparing the situation as it was at the time of the hearings on H. R. 5193 and as it now exists, we cannot see the reason for the change of policy in regard to this situation as is being expressed by the Maritime Commission.

We therefore are 100 percent opposed to that part of the bill, S. 3078, known as title X, at this time, as being not only superfluous, but also being detrimental to labor as a whole and we request that title X be stricken from the bill.

In lieu thereof, we would submit a new title X.

Both the Copeland and the Bland bills and the Guffey bill, S. 1710, purport to set up a complicated machinery for mediation and arbitration of labor disputes in the maritime industry. We are absolutely opposed to such legislation. The precedent that would be established under such legislation would be extremely dangerous for all organized labor throughout the country. Furthermore, such proposed legislation is now being used and will always be used by the shipowners as a pretext for not entering into collective bargaining agreements with the maritime unions. If such legislation were now dropped the unions would have an opportunity to press the shipowners to consummate the collective bargaining agreements that should have been consummated a long time ago. Under the National Labor Relations Act the National Maritime Union has been certified as the collective bargaining agency for practically every shipowning company in which an election has been held. Such collective bargaining agreements would establish the machinery for adjustment of disputes, including arbitration which would be binding upon both parties to the contract. We therefore see no need for any such mediation and arbitration legislation.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we believe it is necessary to add an amendment to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, certain sections which would assure the continuance of jurisdiction in the National Labor Relations Board over employees in the maritime industry. To this end the amendments are suggested in regard to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 pertaining to the National Labor Relations Board.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to amend that act?

Mr. EMERSON. No, sir; we are amending the Merchant Marine Act. We are giving the Board more jurisdiction.

The CHAIRMAN. The National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. EMERSON. Yes. Our proposed new title 10 would read as follows:

SEC. 1001. Questions concerning the representation of employees of a maritime employer, including the Maritime Commission in regard to the ships owned by such Commission, shall be considered and determined by the National Labor Relations Board in accordance with the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act for the designation or selection of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board shall certify to the parties and to the maritime employer in writing the name or names of the individuals or organizations which have been so designated or selected. Upon receipt of such certification the maritime employer shall treat the representatives so certified as the representatives of such employees.

Nothing herein shall in any manner affect or be construed to limit the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act governing the prevention, under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, of the unfair labor practices set forth in section 8 thereof.

Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend any provision of the National Labor Relations Act or to restrict the powers and duties conferred upon the National Labor Relations Board by said act.

SEC. 1002. Any shipowner filing an application for or receiving a construction or operating subsidy under the provisions of this Act, which is certified to the Maritime Commission by the National Labor Relations Board as not complying with the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act shall not be entitled to receive or continue to receive or to make any subsequent application for any construction or operating subsidy until it has been certified to the Maritime Commission by the National Labor Relations Board as complying with the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

SEC. 1003. If any provision of this title or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the title and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Senator VANDENBERG. You have provided a penalty, and a very effective one, for the ship operator who violates the order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. EMERSON. Yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Is there any penalty for a union which might fail to abide by the findings?

Mr. EMERSON. Sir?

Senator VANDENBERG. Is there any penalty for a union which might fail to abide by the findings?

Mr. EMERSON. Naturally, the unions are going to live up to the agreement, of course. We always have.

Senator VANDENBERG. They always have?

Mr. EMERSON. We are not the ones who break agreements.

The CHAIRMAN. You have never broken any agreements on the west coast?

Mr. EMERSON. The west coast representatives will have to answer for themselves regarding that.

Senator VANDENBERG. We have had many evidences of broken agreements under labor relations in the last 12 months.

Mr. EMERSON. Why do you wish to impose the penalty on the

unions?

Senator VANDENBERG. I want to make it reciprocal.

Mr. EMERSON. In other words, you would like to have the unions incorporated?

Senator VANDENBERG. On the contrary, I have always said I did not go that far at all. That is just a fair sample of your dealing with my opinions.

Mr. EMERSON. No, sir. I understood that somebody, if not yourself, had stated in this committee that he would like to have unions incorporated.

Senator VANDENBERG. On the contrary, I said the opposite.

Mr. EMERSON. I beg your pardon. I did not mean to bring you into it. I never cite people as saying anything when they have not said so.

Senator VANDENBERG. But I am frank in telling you that I think the unions should be under some compulsion about living up to their agreements with the employers, and I am wondering how it could be done fairly. Could you make any suggestion?

Mr. EMERSON. I do not see why we have not taken on plenty of responsibility. I do not see where it is that we are breaking all these agreements, why this subject should be brought up.

It has been proved time and time again here in Washington in the Black investigation, in the Shipping Board scandal, and in the hearings held that it was not the seamen who were getting graft; it was the shipowners.

Senator VANDENBERG. Let us for the sake of argument admit that, but we are supposed to be writing a law which deals fairly with all concerned. We are not entitled to assume that one party to a contract is the only one who may break it. If it is broken by the unionI say again, if it is broken by the union-should there not be some responsibility upon the union for breaking it?

Mr. EMERSON. There should.

Senator VANDENBERG. What would be a reasonable provision? Mr. EMERSON. A reasonable provision to be added there? Senator VANDENBERG. Yes; to equalize the question of responsibility. You just agreed that if the union breaks an agreement, it ought to have some responsibility.

Mr. EMERSON. The union has no money involved here; these shipowners are going to get the money from the Commission to operate the ships.

Senator VANDENBERG. I am not complaining about the responsibility placed upon an employer; I am referrring to your statement that if the union breaks an agreement it should have some responsibility.

Mr. EMERSON. You cannot take our money away from us, because we haven't got anything. I am trying to think of what you could take.

Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose you think that over. I am serious. Mr. EMERSON. No; you are right. I will think it over. It is a question that should be taken into consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you through?

Mr. EMERSON. I have one more statement, a short statement. As I said before, I was sorry to see Senator Guffey's name attached to this. However, I am not going to attempt to analyze this proposed amendment in detail for the simple reason that it is simply a "dressedup" edition of the maritime labor bill, H. R. 5193, upon which 205 pages of testimony were given before the House Merchant Marine Committee at hearings held at the last session of this present Congress. I think that maritime labor proved clearly after several days of hearings at that time that it did not want any part of this type of legislation and that it would be highly detrimental to the best interests of not only maritime labor but to the American labor movement as a whole.

It is peculiar to note that although the words "voluntary agreement and arbitration" are used on page 2 of this amendment, in an effort to lull labor into a false security, on page 27 the amendment reads as follows, lines 3 to 6:

The Maritime Commission may offer to create such a mediation board without request from either of the disputing parties at any time it shall determine that a labor emergency has arisen.

Although soft and subtle words are used in the formation of the language of this amendment, in order that it may be injected into the maritime industry, painlessly, nevertheless we realize fully that this bill is loaded with dynamite and we are going to face the facts squarely and call a spade a spade.

Senator VANDENBERG. This all relates to the Guffey bill?

Mr. EMERSON. Yes, sir.

This bill, regardless of its harmless appearance to the layman, is nothing more or less than compulsory mediation and arbitration wrapped up in a different kind of package.

It has always been my experience with bills of this type, and where many clauses are worded vaguely and where the words "shall" and "may" are generously interspersed, and other words that can be interpreted in various ways, that the minute such bills are enacted into law, rules and regulations are promulgated which destroy in many cases the original intent of such acts and give them an entirely different interpretation. Labor has been the sufferer and victim of such tactics

in the past. But today, labor is not being lulled into any false security-nor is it being lulled by soft words and vague promises. Labor is wide awake and intends to profit by its past mistakes and it also intends to protect those few gains that it has already made. The wording of this bill is "tricky" to say the least. But being rather blunt, in our speech, and to make a long story short, we see just one thing facing us here endless boards of mediation and arbitration, special boards created by the President, a form of dictatorship under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Commission, and finally the impairment of the jurisdiction and powers granted to the National Labor Relations Board. That is on page 12.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emerson, do you think Mr. Guffey was dictated to by these large interests?

Mr. EMERSON. No, sir. As I stated before, it was my personal opinion that Senator Guffey, being a busy man, and thinking this was a good bill along general lines, did not take time to digest it. I am sure if he had the time to digest it, he would withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN. He must have known of its origin and known who did the work on the bill.

Mr. EMERSON. I don't know; I couldn't say. You will have to ask Senator Guffey. However, I am surprised to see that Senator Guffey was in any way connected with it.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill as you read it is thoroughly in the interests of the rich shipowners; is that right?

Mr. EMERSON. You see, I have found from experience that even though a Senator's name is on a bill-your name is on a great many bills, and you are not responsible.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not hesitate to make me responsible. You know I did not write the "fink book" bill; Andrew Fureseth did that.

Mr. EMERSON. I could not swear who is responsible for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know that Andrew Fureseth for a generation tried to get that book?

Mr. EMERSON. Perhaps he thought at that time it was a good thing; I am sure today he would not; he was too honest.

The CHAIRMAN. He has testified within 2 years.

Mr. EMERSON. Andrew Fureseth when I last met him was going on the Manhattan to Geneva. He would have sane moments, and at other moments, he would not know whom he was talking to.

was 2 or 3 years ago.

That

The CHAIRMAN. Do you happen to know whether labor did want

to have a continuous service book or not?

Mr. EMERSON. We have found out that they do not now.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they want it?

Mr. EMERSON. They did not want it.

The CHAIRMAN. In the past did they want it?

Mr. EMERSON. Labor was never really consulted. Mr. Fureseth was down here fighting a fight which he thought was best.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fureseth was certainly in possession of his faculties 10 years ago.

Mr. EMERSON. No doubt at that time he thought it was best, but today before we do anything we consult with our membership. We just do not take it upon ouselves to come here and make a statement. This is all approved before we come here. That is the way a democratic organization should be run.