One of the large shippers from Baltimore, Latex & Rubber, Inc., through Mr. George Richards, made the following observation concerning the problem of obtaining qualified carriers:

"The Commission has failed to recognize or accept the evaluation of the shippers in this industry presented to them through their witnesses, who have presented testimony to the Interstate Commerce Commission examiner concerning this industry and the future needs for tank-truck transportation. It has become our experience that each new customer outside of the limited area of this carrier's authority requires a new application for either temporary authority or permanent authority. The Commission has failed to recognize a comparatively new development in an old, huge industry, the rubber industry, in which the advent of liquid latex, which offers many advantages in production, has made a recent appearance. Industries throughout the country are potential users of this product. Many of these industries have been introduced to this product first in quart or gallon cans for research, later in 5 or 6 drum quantities, later in drums in truckloads, and finally developed into users in tank-truck quantities.

"A big factor controlling the requirement for tank-truck transportation is the supply. This product originates in Africa and in Malaya, where it is collected by natives and through a system of transportation finally arrives in this country by ship. Many things are involved which may affect timely arrival, whereby the large industries who have developed through the pattern previously explained to rail tank-car shipments are unable to receive their product and thus continue in operation. Reoccurring emergency situations have become pretty much a standard operation. Supplies which are available must be divided between customers so as to maintain all of these companies in operation. Shipment of a 10,000-gallon tank car can be divided by the use of tank trucks between three receivers, and thus tide all over until larger supplies are available. Reluctance of the Commission to recognize the need for a special truck carrier has forced many receivers to private carriage. I can think of five immediately who have purchased their own tank trucks rather than depend upon the whim and fancy of the Commission: American Foam Rubber Co., Testworth Laboratories, Southern Latex, International Latex and Industrial Latex.

"It is our opinion that if the time of all persons involved to acquire this authority were computed, the value of such time would exceed the cost of freight involved. The shipper, the receiver, the carrier, and the Commission's personnel are all involved in obtaining temporary authority to continue this type operation. Even under this system, the tank-truck carrier has been an instrument in the development of this industry as well as in the development of rail shipments, because it encourages growth.

"Most shippers cannot afford to employ a special staff to accumulate data and supply information to the Commission for the proof of these reoccurring applications, and so the employees must accumulate and write the voluminous letters and reports, make expensive telephone calls to shipping and receiving points, at the expense of their other duties. This shipper has consistently brought the foregoing stand to the attention of the Commission, by letter, through testimony at hearings since 1949, and as of this date we do not have a permanently certified common carrier to handle the needs of this industry out of Baltimore. As an example of the evasiveness of the Commission to recognize our problems, I cite a reply to a letter we directed to Chairman Hugh Cross, September 9, 1955, which had reference to the Maxwell Case, No. MC 50404 Sub 15, with specific reference to a Sub 37 application of Shipley Transfer. In part, Commissioner Mitchell states "The record of this proceeding shows the T. I. McCormack Trucking Co., Inc., of Hoboken, N. J., is authorized to transport natural latex from Baltimore to points in Ohio.' In testimony in this same proceedings and in other cases involved in movement of liquid latex, responsible witnesses of the McCormack Co. indicated how such service could be performed, that through originating at Hoboken or Woodbridge, N. J., this carrier would send a tank vehicle to Baltimore, where it would be loaded with latex, then the vehicle would be required under its authority to travel northeastward to a point someplace in New Jersey opposite King of Prussia, Pa., thence westward across the State of Pennsylvania to Ohio. Without any consideration given to the general unsuitability of McCormack's equipment, which has been well-documented in cases before the Commission, transportation by such a route through such a system is obviously asinine.

"This is not a healthy situation for American business, and such action earns for the Government disrespect for itself and its methods, particularly when such problems are approached and presented to the administrative bodies of the Government in good faith, then after waiting years for some decision, we find

that the Commission has failed to recognize the problem as it was presented.” The remarks of Mr. Richards are typical of those expressed over delays of the Interstate Commerce Commission by shippers and receivers in this industry, particularly those who depend upon supplies from Baltimore. Md.

We have had an experience where one of our authority applications covered the same general territory as one presented by Chemical Tank Lines, Inc. (one of the Nation's largest tank-truck operations). The hearings were held a few weeks apart, and the witnesses in both cases were substantially the same, except that Shipley Transfer had several additional shipper and receiver witnesses supporting its application. The carriers participated in each other's hearing. Chemical Tank Lines' hearing lasted 1 day and Shipley Transfer's hearing lasted 3 days. The results were: Chemical Tank Lines received a recommended grant of authority on a territory basis; Shipley Transfer, Inc., was recommended a limited point-to-point grant which is still pending after 3 years. The words "fair" and "impartial" in the national transportation policy seem somewhat hollow in light of this treatment.

We don't want to make a blanket indictment of the Interstate Commerce Commission. We are conscious of the great need and importance of this quasijudicial quasi-legislative body to this industry and to American commerce. There seems to us to be no other means to come upon a proper understanding. Has it become the express desire of Congress that the big be favored at the expense of the small? We don't think so-it's just that there is something in the slow determination of the Interstate Commerce Commission which tends to work to the disadvantage of the small carrier and to the advantage of the large one. The unnecessary delays cause great dilemma among the small carriers, who do not have the money or the special staff to pursue applications over extended periods of indecision.

Where there is a legitimate demand for service of a particular or specialized nature and where no present carrier is authorized, the immediate future demand is usually in terms of days, weeks, or months, not in years, and service must be instituted within a relatively short period of time. The Commission has the instrument with which to meet this demand in section 210-A, temporary authority, but expensive equipment cannot be purchased on the strength of a piece of paper which says in effect that no presumption of a permanent grant is to be inferred.

The delays and evident leaning toward a large carrier force the "small fry" to give up prior to completing this process for authority, and thus allow the large carriers to take over what he has developed, in effect by default.

SHIPLEY TRANSFER, INC.,
DONALD E. FREEMAN, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE CONNER, AKRON, OHIO

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. James Lee Conner: Mr. Conner will you please come around?

Mr. Conner, I am sorry we did not get to you this morning, but you saw that our time was pretty well taken up.

Mr. CONNER. I enjoyed it very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your waiting, and if you will just proceed in your own way.

Let me suggest to all those present that naturally we do have a time limitation. Now, we have several witnesses who are supposed to appear this afternoon, so if you will keep that in mind and economize on the time just as much as you can, and still get across what you want to get across, we will appreciate it very much

You may read your statement, Mr. Conner, or you may file it and it will be printed in full, or you can summarize it-you may proceed in your own way, as you wish.

Mr. CONNER. I am James L. Conner, 50 years old, and I live at 386 Wyant Road, Akron, Ohio. I own and drive a tractor and trailer leased to the A. C. E. Transportation Co., the holder of an ICC permit to haul freight in interstate commerce.

Since February 1931, I have owned and driven my own equipment and have never been arrested for any violation of law or regulation. I am presently operating my equipment under a lease with the carrier. This lease provides in chief that I shall furnish transportation service between points and over routes designated by the carrier; that I shall maintain the equipment in first-class repair at my own expense and pay all costs of operation, including license plates and required registration certificates; that I or an employee of mine shall operate the equipment and pick up, transport, and deliver freight received by the carrier and shall obtain proper delivery receipts, signed and dated covering all freight; I am required to comply with all laws, rules, and regulations of the ICC and report all accidents or loss of freight; provide workmen's compensation for any driver I hire, and pay all State and Federal taxes for unemployment, old-age pensions and social security.

In short, I am an independent contractor or small-business man according to the lease as stated on page 2:

Operator is a contractor only and not the employee of the carrier.

I am lessor of my own equipment, required by my contract to pay for it, keep it repaired, buy its tires, gasoline, and oil; pick up, haul, and deliver freight furnished by the lessee, pay all taxes and operate under ICC regulations. Now in return, I am paid a percentage rate per ton of freight hauled.

However, as a condition of leasing my equipment and furnishing personal services to the equipment, I am required to join the Teamsters Union, because the carrier has signed a union shop collective bargaining contract with the teamsters, and I must pay dues and tribute to the union if I lease my personal property to the carrier.

The contract to which I refer is known as the Central States area over-the-road motor freight agreement which covers Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisville, Ky., and provides in article II, section (b) that

all present employees-shall remain members in good standing as a condition of employment. All present employees who are not members-and all employees who are hired hereafter shall become members in good standing as a condition of employment on or after the 31st day following the beginning of their employment * * *

This union shop clause has been written into the agreement without a single owner-operator, comprising 70 to 80 percent of the drivers in the central area, having a single word to say about it, or of even being given the opportunity to discuss, since the contract is negotiated in Chicago by a teamsters' committee made up wholly of officers of the unions and not by the rank and file. See Hoffa's testimony, January 8, 1954, in Labor Board hearing 8-RC02131 at page 280 where he says, "only elected officers have been part of the central committee in Chicago." To this very day, owner-operators like myself are only duespayers to the teamsters, since none of us hold office or are permitted to have local unions consisting of owner-operators only.

Otherwise, I cannot stay in the trucking business because in the Central States consisting of 11 States, including Ohio, Michigan,

See exhibit 3 (a), p. 69, for motor freight transport agreement.

See exhibit 3 (b), p. 71.

A copy of this transcript is in the committee's files.

Indiana, Illinois, and so forth, this union contract is standard for all carriers and no carrier dare lease from a person not a member of the teamsters. Reasons for this are obvious.

Now this contract between the union and carrier provides for many things that contradict and affect the clauses in my lease. Of particular interest to the union is their celebrated, if you may call it, welfare fund. Under the contract between union and carrier, the carrier must pay for this; the carrier must pay for pickup and delivery of freight by special members of this union; this costs in excess of 21 percent of the carrier's revenue dollar and is a job I am supposed to do, but which I am prevented by the union.

The numerous fringe benefits which the union forces the carrier to agree to pay makes it impossible for the carrier to comply. The result is he cancels my lease and I am out of business. To aid and assist in this nefarious scheme, the ICC made an order known as MC-43, with which the members of this committee are no doubt familiar. This order has been used by carriers everywhere as a basis or reason for the cancellation of owner-operator's leases. (See letters of All-States, Inc., dated October 20, 1955; Dixie-Ohio, dated January 18, 1954, exhibits 10).

That the union advocates the complete elimination of small-business men in the trucking industry is not a creature of my imagination, but are the words of former Senator Wheeler, the father of the Motor Carrier Act, but now counsel and attorney for the teamsters.

11

As early as November 1, 1949, in his brief before the ICC, on Ex parte MC-43, in behalf of the Teamsters' Union, whom he represented in that proceeding, he said "unlicensed individual equipment owners must be eliminated." "These sources of motor-freight transportation (owner-operators) must be eliminated". In this as counsel for the teamsters, he was placing before the ICC the policy of the teamsters to destroy small business, in this case, the owner-operator. This position has been repeated not only in words but by force of arms and violence as I will point out later.

Mr. Wheeler refers in the same brief to Director Blanning of the Commission who took the position that carriers cannot have the same degree of control over employees from whom they lease vehicles that they have over other employees. Apparently, Director Blanning has been brainwashed by the Teamsters Union as shown by his picture in the Teamster, the official organ for the union and the remarks that went along with the picture.12

This threat that small-business men must be eliminated would not be so tragic were just a few men like me eliminated by the process. But James Hoffa, boss of the teamsters in the Central States area, said in a Labor Board hearing in Cleveland, Ohio, January 6, 1954, in Case No. 8-RC-2131 under oath, on pages 287 and 288 of the record, that between 70 and 80 percent of the equipment used by 4,000 employers in the Central States area was owner-operated or owner-equipment drivers. He said further:

Many people disagree and say it is around 50 to 60 percent, but it is rapidly becoming less.

10 See exhibit 3 (c) and 3 (d), p. 73.

11 See exhibit 3 (e), p. 74, brief of Teamsters Union.

12 See exhibit 3 (f), p. 84, reprint of article from October 1948 issue of Teamster.

This very statement should be received with great scrutiny by this committee.

Consequently, you can readily see that for the protection of us little fellows, the Federal Government must intervene. We have no protection from and through the union supposed to be our representative. They not only refuse to protect us but their leadership has adopted the avowed policy to eliminate us from the industry we founded, as I shall show you later.

Prior to 1952 the constitution of the teamsters permitted only a qualified membership to an owner-operator. We had to join and pay dues, but could not vote or hold office, or engage in any manner in the negotiations of contracts.

This limited membership in 1952 was changed to read:

Persons who own, lease or operate a vehicle may be eligible for membership— but was further limited as follows:

An owner-equipment driver is a person who, in connection with his employment, uses equipment sold or leased to him by his employer or equipment which he has purchased independently but which he uses in whole or in part in the service of his employer. When such person apply for membership in the international the local and international shall have the right and authority as a condition precedent to membership to approve or disapprove of any contract pertaining to such form or similar form of employment.

And so I am still required to obtain the union's approval of my lease with the carrier on the basis of any employee before I become a member in order that the union may represent me to eliminate me. Now, in practice, the carrier does not change the lease to meet union requirements. Rather than fight with the union on other subjects, he just "eliminates" the owner-operator, although the "owner" and "carrier" has no dispute between them and both desire to continue their relationship and would do so but for the union pressure put upon them.

I urge you in behalf of the hundreds of thousands of owneroperators throughout the Nation and those thousands of small carriers hauling produce, farm products and coal from the farm and mine to the dealer or consumer, be authorized by proper rules to engage in their constitutional rights to pursue their business, buy their equipment and lease it without union pressure and involuntary submission to the tyrannical orders of the teamsters and their business agents.

This appeal would not be made had not I and many others sincerely attempted to find a remedy and relief in our courts and even on the picket lines. A strong example of this latter procedure is found in Akron, Ohio, in the case of Motor Cargo, Inc. This company has its main office in Akron, Ohio, but maintains terminals at and hauls freight between Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Davenport, Chicago, Cleveland, Dayton, Scranton, Allentown, New York, Philadelphia, and

Baltimore.

In April of 1954, 80 owner-operators at the Akron terminal protested the action of the carrier pooling their trailers by setting up an orderly picket line. This picket line was driven from their legal positions on the public sidewalks by a raiding party of 200 State officers of the teamsters, their business agents and thugs from all over Ohio.