STATEMENT OF HOYT S. HADDOCK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, MARITIME COMMITTEE

Mr. HADDOCK. My name is Hoyt S. Haddock, legislative representative, C. I. O. maritime committee.

Mr. Chairman, in this testimony, do you want us to testify on the bill as originally written or as proposed by the War Shipping Administration?

The CHAIRMAN. I would be very glad to have you comment on both or have you make any other suggestion.

Mr. HADDOCK. With respect to H. R. 7744 as written we are in favor of it, but if it is to retain that form we would suggest that the last sentence of subsection 2 of section (c) lacks clarity, and that beginning on line 6 of page 3 following "amended"

Mr. WELCH (interposing). To which bill are you referring?

The CHAIRMAN. He is discussing now the bill that was introduced. Mr. WELCH. The printed bill?

The CHAIRMAN. The bill that was introduced; yes.

Mr. HADDOCK. On line 6, page 3, following the word "amended" the sentence should read, "or any other merchant or cargo vessel which although under foreign registry is owned or operated by or in behalf of the United States. The term "vessel of the United States" should not include any fishing or whaling vessel or yacht.

The CHAIRMAN. If you were to do that, Mr. Haddock, would you not eliminate some part of what you want to include, if I caught the reading of that proposed amendment? "Any other merchant or cargo vessel, though under foreign registry." Do you not want that in addition to what is already there? "Any other merchant or cargo vessel which is not of foreign registry owned or operated by or in behalf of the United States," and right at that point is a period after "United States." Change the period to a comma, and then bring in your amendment. If you do not do that, won't you exclude from the operation of the bill a class of vessels you want to get in there?

Mr. HADDOCK. No. As it is worded now, those vessels that are under foreign registry are not included. We do include those vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but you do want to get in any other foreign vessel and have it read "any other merchant or cargo vessel which is not of foreign registry"?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right. I thought I took care of that.

The CHAIRMAN. "Owned or operated by or on behalf of the United States." And also then you bring in certain foreign vessels, do you

not?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Or also any foreign vessel.

What is the rest of your amendment to meet?

Mr. HADDOCK. The rest is simply to clarify that to bring in foreign vessels. That is all it actually means.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you catch the idea?

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Give some thought to your amendment so that you are not striking out something you want to include.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right. That is what we want.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. HADDOCK. With respect to the proposed language submitted by the War Shipping Administration, we think the new language is much better than the original bill.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be found, gentlemen, on page

Mr. HADDOCK (interposing). Seven hundred and six.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; 706 of the copy.

Mr. HADDOCK. Now, in the draft down 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and in line 14

The CHAIRMAN. What is the first word of that line?

Mr. HADDOCK. It is "tion."

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. HADDOCK. It is the end of "Administration."

The CHAIRMAN."War Shipping Administration." The fourteenth line as it now reads is "tion, satisfactorily completes a period of substantially continuous"

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right. We would amend that by striking out "satisfactorily" and the words "substantially continuous," so that it would read, "completes a period of service in the merchant marine." Then at the bottom of the page, the last line, the last three words in that line, through the rest of the paragraph, we would delete those words, "and shall not be discharged from such position without cause within 1 year after such restoration."

Now, the reasons for that are, first, the uncertainty. We do not want to get back into this old position which we have had so much fight over of having seamen rated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory so that they may be discriminated against, and this would raise that old issue, and we feel that it should not be raised.

With respect to the last, a seaman may be discharged for a number of reasons, which should not preclude him from returning to his employment. And I can think of a number of reasons, such as sickness, which might make him unsatisfactory for the service because he gets sick aboard ship, or something like that, and that would militate against his returning to his job if it were in there.

Otherwise I think the language is far more appropriate than the bill as it is written.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement?
Mr. HADDOCK. Yes; it does.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask this: There is one question in my mind after a very hurried reading of this draft by the War Shipping Administration that gives me some concern. Suppose a man serves as a merchant seaman and all of the other conditions apply, but he comes out of that service in a physical condition which wholly incapacitates him for the former service for which the employer is being required to take him back, when he, in order to be fit for the service, let us say, is required to have two legs, and one leg is gone, which is a physical condition that prevents him from rendering the service that he rendered in his former position.

Mr. HADDOCK. It would be nice if he could go back, but if he was unable to, because of physical handicaps, perform the function he

previously performed, I do not see how in the world an employer could take him back.

The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you. But under this law I state that because the draftsmen and the representatives of the departments are here and they have that in mind and I wish them to do so in their statements and let us know whether that takes care of that situation. Mr. HADDOCK. I assume it will be taken care of, but I also assume that it requires some clarification.

Mr. WELCH. How about a certificate of health from a reputable physician?

The CHAIRMAN. I was not thinking so much about a certificate of health as I was to the physical conditions. I think that is in reference to the thought.

Mr. WELCH. I mean a certificate of health in reference to the physical condition.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. In other words, I do not know that it would be fair to leave it to the employer to pass upon a man's physical condition. The CHAIRMAN. Such as his physical ability to discharge his duties. I think there is some merit in that.

All right, if there are no further questions.

Mr. WELCH. May I suggest to Mr. Haddock that he give his suggested amendments to the clerk of the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to have you do that. Of course, those suggestions are incorporated already in the record. Mr. HADDOCK. I do not have them written out. I have them just

marked off in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Get them up and the clerk will receive them after the hearing.

Mr. Knight is not present.

Mr. James Pimper, attorney, Legal Division, Maritime Commission.

STATEMENT OF JAMES PIMPER, ATTORNEY, LEGAL DIVISION, MARITIME COMMISSION, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any opposition to this bill in either form, or certainly in the amended form? All right, let us address ourselves to the two bills.

Mr. PIMPER. I do not think we can add anything to the report we have filed.

However, with reference to your question as to the individual who comes out of service in a physical condition which wholly incapacitates him for his former position, section 2, subparagraph 2, requires that he be qualified to perform the duties of such position to which he seeks reinstatement.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. PIMPER. I think that would take care of the physical condition. The CHAIRMAN. I see. I overlooked that.

Now, the question there raised by Mr. Welch is important. How would you determine that qualification? You feel if the employer were unfair in that event and ruled that he was not qualified, that he would still have his rights under section 3 to go into court?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand he would be protected in his rights and could produce a certificate or anything else?

Mr. PIMPER. I might say that this is taken, or follows very closely the Selective Service Act provisions, together with certain other acts that have extended benefits to boys who have entered the armed forces of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, this goes to private employment as well as to the Government. Do those other acts do the same thing?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes, sir; they do. It also goes to State employment by declaring that it being the sense of Congress that such persons be restored to their State positions.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the suggestions of Mr. Haddock, did you?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you prepared to comment on them?

Mr. PIMPER. I would like to comment on his statement with reference to section 2 (b) where he suggested that the phrase, "and shall not be discharged from such position without cause within 1 year after such restoration" be omitted. That provision only applies to the position to which the individual is restored. It has nothing to do with the discharge of the seaman while he is a seaman. It insures that a person may keep his position for at least 1 year after it has been restored to him.

The CHAIRMAN. It protects him in his old job?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. For 1 year?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So they have to comply with the act. So they cannot take him on and then fire him immediately?

Mr. PIMPER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That would seem to be satisfactory.

Mr. HADDOCK. I misunderstood that provision. I thought it stated it just the other way. I just read it hurriedly.

The CHAIRMAN. This construction seems to be salutary; do you not think so?

Mr. PIMPER. It is intended to create a preference for the people who leave to join the merchant marine service and after completion of their service are restored to their former jobs.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; what about the other suggestion? Do you want to comment on his other suggestion?

Mr. PIMPER. I can only say as to the phrase "satisfactorily completes a period of substantial continuous service in the merchant marine" that it is intended to discourage an individual from leaving a job, we will say, for 2 or 3 months' service in the merchant marine and then quitting. As you know, the boys that are inducted have no choice as to when they leave.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you leave "continuous" in there, Mr. Haddock? Mr. HADDOCK. No. I struck out "satisfactorily" and "substantially continuous."

With respect to that, Mr. Chairman, it is expected that merchant seamen will be required to remain in employment by the War Manpower Commission as of Friday of this week, and there was no reason for that being in there at all under those circumstances.

The CHAIRMAN. I see the pertinency of your objection, but suppose you strike out "substantially continuous" and suppose you strike out "satisfactorily," so that it must apply to a person who completes a period of continuous service.

Mr. HADDOCK. You will raise that whole question of interpretation of "substantially continuous."

The CHAIRMAN. No. I said strike out the word "substantially.” Mr. HADDOCK. Completes a period of continuous service in the merchant marine? There you raise almost any possibility because no person

The CHAIRMAN. I catch that. Strike out the word "satisfactorily."

Mr. HADDOCK. If he completes a period of service in the merchant marine, that period will be as continuous as the employment can provide.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. It seems to me-I can catch the force of your objection to "satisfactorily"-and it strikes me if you strike out "satisfactorily" and let it remain "completes a period of substantially continuous service" it might be satisfactory.

Mr. HADDOCK. My only reason for striking out "substantially continuous" is that it raises a question of interpretation, and in view of the fact that this industry is going to be stabilized insofar as manpower is concerned you can eliminate that section, which would raise these questions, and still be covered.

You may consider this to mean if a man comes in and gets off of a ship, then ships out after his period ashore after every trip, that that is not substantially continuous service. Under the War Manpower stabilization clauses, it would be approved by them, and under this bill it may not be approved, and you are raising some question.

The CHAIRMAN. You would still have the court for construction and not the employer.

Mr. HADDOCK. I would personally like to see it left out because it raises these questions. I do not think they will be raised after Friday at any rate.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pimper.

Mr. PIMPER. Section 8 of the Selective Service Act has the words, "satisfactorily completes a period of training service."

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to ask you, Mr. Pimper, as to how "substantially continuous" conforms with the language of other similar acts.

Mr. PIMPER. The word "satisfactorily" is taken from the other

acts.

The words "substantially continuous service" is the best term we felt we could use to get across the idea, that the service should be for the duration of the war.

Of course, under the Selective Service Act you have no choice as to when you leave. You are in until your term of service is over. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Any questions?

Mr. CANFIELD. Did we have like legislation during the last war? Mr. PIMPER. I do not think we did for the merchant marine. Mr. CANFIELD. In the selective service?