INVALIDITY OF AWARDS

SEC. 503. No provision of any award by the Ship Labor Board or by any Board of Arbitration created under authority of this Act, shall be valid which is in conflict with any standards as to wages, hours, manning scales, employment conditions, or other regulations or rules promulgated by the Maritime Commission under authority of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

NO CONFLICT WITH RAILWAY LABOR ACT JURISDICTION

SEC. 504. No provision of this Act shall be construed to modify, curtail, or restrict the jurisdiction conferred upon the National Railroad Adjustment Board and the National Mediation Board by the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

AMENDMENTS TO JUDICIAL CODE

SEC. [503] 505. (a) Section 24 of chapter 2 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sec. 41), definiing the jurisdiction of district courts of the United States is hereby amended by adding thereto, after paragraph 28 thereof, a new paragraph numbered 29, as follows:

"(29) Of all suits, proceedings or prosecutions brought or filed as authorized in sections 215, 407, or 502 of the Ship Labor Act, 1937."

(b) Paragraph "Second" of subdivision (b) of section 128 of the Judicial Code (U. S. C., title 28, sec. 225), as amended, is amended to read as follows: "Third. To review decisions of the district courts, under sections 215, 407, and 502 of the Ship Labor Act, 1937."

(c) Section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code, and to further define the jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals and of the Supreme Court, and for other purposes", approved February 13, 1925, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 2. That cases in a circuit court of appeals under sections 215, 407, and 502 of the Ship Labor Act, 1937; under section 9 of the Railway Labor Act, 1937; under section 5 of 'An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes', approved September 26, 1914; and under section 11 of 'An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes', approved October 15, 1914; are included among the cases to which sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code shall apply."

APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED

SEC. [504] 506. There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for expenditure by the [Mediation Board] Maritime Commission in carrying out the provisions of this Act.

SEVERABILITY; TITLE OF ACT

SEC. [505] 507. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. This Act may be cited as "Ship Labor Act, 1937.".

Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to promote industrial peace in the maritime industry, to provide means for the amicable settlement of all disputes between employers and employees that affect the service of carriers engaged in transportation of passengers and property in the water-borne interstate and foreign commerce of the United States, and for other purposes."

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; Mr. Mullen, please take the stand.

STATEMENT OF JAMES MULLEN, NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mullen, I assume that in general you are in agreement with Mr. Curran?

Mr. MULLEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it will not be necessary for you to cover the same territory that he did.

Mr. MULLEN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have something new and different to present to us?

Mr. MULLEN. Yes, sir. It is dealing more or less with mediations. The CHAIRMAN. Very well; please go ahead.

Mr. MULLEN. Senate bill 3078 proposes to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, in several respects. This discussion will deal in a general way only with those amendments which relate to the adjustment of labor disputes.

Briefly, the bill proposes to extend to the maritime industry the principles and practices established under the Railway Labor Act. We are opposed to the bill not because we do not believe that the act has been successful, but because it is inapplicable to the maritime industry. The proponents of the bill are relying upon certain easy but erroneous analogies in their support of S. 3078. The fact that both the railroads and the maritime industry are in the field of transportation is no reason why the experience on the railroads should be applied bodily to water transportation. As a matter of fact, there are many manufacturing industries where a proposal of this kind would be far more likely to be practicable and just than in the maritime field.

A false impression is created by the use of the word "mediation" in this bill. As the bill is drawn, there are four distinct types of intervention by the Government which are contemplated.

In the first place, the Mediation Board is instructed to "mediate," in the accurate sense of the word. This means nothing more than that the Board may use its good offices in an attempt to bring together the parties to an industrial dispute. The power to take such steps has always been located in the Department of Labor's Division of Conciliation, and has been used in such strikes as the 1934 west coast strike, the 1935 Gulf strike, the tankers' strike, and many others.

But the bill contemplates other steps. In the event that the Mediation Board is unable to "mediate" the dispute successfully, it may urge the adoption of arbitration. Compulsion to accept arbitration is placed upon both parties in respect to grievances outside of agreements, so that the Maritime Union would, under this bill's provisions, be forced to arbitrate all issues with every line with which it has no agreement. Such arbitration would, in effect, be a union-breaking device. The railway unions agreed to it only after they had become well-established and had agreements with the railroads and, then, only on petty grievances not covered by the agreements.

An even more drastic provision is contained in the section which gives the United States Maritime Commission the authority, upon receipt of a notification from the Mediation Board, to appoint an emergency board to investigate and report concerning the dispute in question. Until 30 days after the Board has reported, both sides are prohibited from making any changes "in the conditions out of which the dispute arose." Thus, a total waiting period of more than 60 days may be required of the parties to the dispute. Since the emergency board is permitted 30 days in which to make its report, both sides may be legally prohibited from taking action outside the machinery of the Government for 90 days.

The National Maritime Union is opposed to the adoption of procedures such as these for several reasons which we regard as of great importance.

In the first place, the machinery and pressures established will certainly have a tendency to "freeze" conditions in the maritime industry. By increasing the difficulties of making changes, by partially prohibiting strikes, Senate bill 3078 will slow down the National Maritime Union in its drive for a decent standard of living for maritime personnel. This statement is borne out by the experi ences of the railroads and of the British seamen under the National Maritime Board according to the Yearbooks of the Board. Both British and American seamen's wages fell very sharply after the World War. In 1924, able seamen on American vessels were receiving $55 per month; in the same year, British seamen were receiving £9. At the present time, American able seamen are paid $72.50 per month, while British able seamen are still receiving £9. We submit that no lasting industrial peace is possible in the American maritime industry unless the seamen are first given the opportunity to achieve an American standard of living.

In the second place, this legislation would weaken the bargaining position of the maritime unions. We have only one source of strength, and that is our right to refuse to work when our grievances have become too heavy. We do not want to strike; the income which we receive is too small and too uncertain to give any of it up. But we have found from long experience that only when we organize and can demonstrate our collective strength, are we able to improve the conditions under which we work.

Therefore, when we bargain with the employers, we must be able to act freely. The employer can afford to wait; the seamen cannot wait. This bill would stack the cards against the seamen by enforcing a waiting period.

Finally, as I have already pointed out, this bill comes close to being compulsory arbitration generally and in certain instances is, in fact, compulsory arbitration. The power to force a waiting period gives the Mediation Board a club with which to force the union to accept arbitration. If the union still wishes to refuse arbitration, another club is available in the provision that the United States Maritime Commission can appoint an emergency board. The attitude of the Maritime Commission has been such that the National Maritime Union would be reluctant to place its fate in the hands of a board appointed in such a manner.

Much of the argument for this and similar bills has been based upon the success attributed to the National Mediation Board and to the British National Maritime Board. Such arguments are fallacious because they assume without question that the board is responsible for the industrial peace in the industry. In neither case is this true. It is very difficult to find any parallels between the railroads and water transportation in the United States. Labor relations on the railroads are characterized by the elimination of unfair labor practices, by the development of skilled negotiators, by a long-standing respect of each party for the other, and by a persistent will to agree. The matters discussed concern wages, hours, and working conditions.

There is no argument about the right of the unions to speak for the employees. Spies, strikebreakers, and thugs have disappeared from the industry. In brief, labor relations on the railroads have reached maturity.

None of these conditions prevails in the maritime field. The National Maritime Union itself is in its infancy. The right of the unions to bargain for employees is still being hotly contested between the National Maritime Union and the employers. Constant change is characteristic of industrial relations in water transportation. No attempt to "freeze" conditions as they are can or should be successful. It is worth noting that in the infancy of labor relations in the railroad industry, the same conditions prevailed as now prevail in the maritime industry. According to the reports of the Commissioner of Labor, there were 639 strikes and lock-outs in the transportation industry from January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. Of the 283,023 employees thrown out of work, 195,004 were railroad employees. These disputes were marked by violence, thuggery, and the use of Federal troops. Peace was reached in the railroad operating groups during the nineteenth century. But among the shop and maintenance groups, huge and costly strikes occurred as late as 1922.

The maritime industry is now passing through a phase of labor relations which is long since completed on the railroads. It is absurd to apply identical legislation to both industries as though mere legislation would effect the same result in altogether diverse scenes. The important element is the "will to agree" and the other elements of railway labor relations which I have already pointed out.

The parallel between the Board proposed by S. 3078 and the British National Maritime Board is even less accurate. British seamen are poorly organized and the Union has been maintained for years by a closed shop device. In practice, the National Maritime Board plays a minor role in maritime labor relations. For example, the Monthly Labor Review for November, 1937, tells of an agreement recently reached in England after 7 years of study, greatly improving living conditions on board ship. The National Maritime Board played no part in reaching the agreement. Other evidence indicates that it is not an influential organization.

We submit that any legislation intended to achieve industrial peace in the maritime industry must be examined in the light of conditions in our industry, and not approved simply because of a false parallel with other industries and other legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with Senator Guffey's bill?

Mr. MULLEN. I am in some respects; yes, sir. I do not recall it right to memory. I remember there was one in the last seassion of Congress, some time last spring.

The CHAIRMAN. Had you seen the bill with the amendments which the Senator has proposed?

Mr. MULLEN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Guffey has very kindly permitted us to place that bill, with the amendments, in the first part of today's record; and I wish your group would examine Senator Guffey's bill very carefully.

Senator GUFFEY. Is that the committee print?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes; the committee print, July 13, 1937.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the one that is corrected, Senator.

Are there any questions from the members of the committee?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; thank you, sir.

Mr. Patrick Whelan, please. Is Mr. Whelan here?

Mr. VAN GELDER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Whelan is not here. But I, Mr. Van Gelder, will testify.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. VAN GELDER, SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CAMDEN, N. J.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Gelder, what is your relationship to the industry?

Mr. VAN GELDER. I am national secretary of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to address yourself to the foreign building section?

Mr. VAN GELDER. Chiefly; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. VAN GELDER. I should like to say first that we are in accord with the statement of Mr. Joseph Curran, and support the points that he made before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, you will not need to repeat those points, will you?

Mr. VAN GELDER. Correct.

I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the shipyard workers for a couple of years have been promised a large construction program in the shipping industry and, as you know, it has been delayed by one reason or another and has never got started.

The CHAIRMAN. Why hasn't it? Why has there been the delay? Mr. VAN GELDER. Well, there have been a great many reasons advanced, chief of which I suppose is the financial inability of the shipping lines to finance construction, or their part of it.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that perhaps that inability to finance might be founded on the labor troubles on the ocean?

Mr. VAN GELDER. No; I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. VAN GELDER. Now, I want to express the general indignation of the shipyard workers at the suggestion that the subsidized lines may build their ships in foreign countries. In the first place we believe there is no question as to the capacity of the American shipyards to handle the work. I do not know whether anybody has raised the question, but certainly the Commission itself has said that they believe the American shipyards have the capacity to do any work the Commission envisions. And we believe that during the war and immediately after the war the shipbuilding industry was expanded to such tremendous proportions that we delivered as many as 689 vessels in 1 year 1919. Consequently, we maintain that the industry is elastic enough and has capacity enough to do any amount of construction that the Commission can finance or even imagine.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Gelder, do you seriously have the thought that there will actually be built in foreign yards ships for us, under the American flag, under this law?

Mr. VAN GELDER. I think the way is certainly opened for it.