Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is recommended that:

1. The Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, should be authorized to consider and determine questions concerning representation of employees of maritime employers.

In making this recommendation no reflection whatever is intended upon the work of the National Labor Relations Board in the conduct of the elections it has held in the maritime industry. On the contrary, the studies of the Maritime Labor Board show that the National Labor Relations Board has been most effective in peacefully settling questions of representation in the maritime industry. Between January 15, 1936, and July 15, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board conducted more than 300 elections (or equivalent "ascertainments") involving more than 54,000 maritime employees. The Board's recommendation that this section should be amended so that questions concerning representation should be considered and determined by the Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, instead of by the National Labor Relations Board, is based upon two considerations.

First, the Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, would be in a better position to expedite the determination of questions of representation than the National Labor Relations Board.

In many cases, the conduct of these elections has been protracted because of the large number of representation disputes which are handled by the National Labor Relations Board in many industries, and because of the special difficulties involved in elections among seafaring men and longshoremen. These special difficulties arise out of the nature of the employment of seamen and longshoremen. The former are usually at sea, signed on for short or long voyages, when elections are begun; so that the seamen employed by the same company are seldom in the same port at the same time. Longshoremen often work for several employers during 1 week, or 2 or more successive weeks. Many longshoremen are casual workers employed on an hourly basis by several employers during the same day or the same week. Because these employment conditions tend to prolong elections involving the determination of questions of representation and because the National Labor Relations Board is preoccupied with numerous disputes concerning representation in other industries, the Board is of the opinion that it, or its successor, would be able to handle these questions for the maritime industry more expeditiously. Prompt handling of all disputes, including those relating to questions of representation, is essential in the interest of maintaining peaceful labor relations.

Second, the handling of disputes relating to questions of representation, by the Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, would strengthen its effectiveness as a mediatory agency.

At present the Maritime Labor Board has no jurisdiction in disputes involving questions of representation, not even in cases when such disputes threaten to interrupt the free flow of water-borne commerce. Since such disputes are referred to the National Labor Relations Board, the Maritime Labor Board is frequently unaware of their existence. When the existence of such disputes comes to the attention of the Board, it is unable to act in order to prevent their development into work stoppages.

Jurisdictional disputes between maritime unions have, in the experience of the Maritime Labor Board, given rise to situations which resulted in stoppages of work. Often such disputes can best be resolved by an election to determine by whom the affected maritime employees wish to be represented. But, because the Maritime Labor Board is prevented by section 1002 of title X from handling disputes involving questions of representation, it is also prevented from dealing with jurisdictional disputes which could only be settled by determining the collective bargaining agencies. The Board, or its successor, would be in a much better position to function. effectively in the interest of the continuous flow of water-borne commerce if it were given jurisdiction over labor disputes arising out of questions of representation.

2. The navigation laws of the United States or any other laws relating to seamen should not be so construed as to abrogate the right of seamen to strike in domestic harbors.

The language of section 1002 pertaining to the National Labor Relations Act was obviously intended to protect seamen against unfair labor practices as they are defined in that act and to safeguard the right of seamen to organize and bargain collectively through their chosen representatives. But the provision of this section which reads, "That nothing in this title shall constitute a repeal or otherwise affect the enforcement of any of the navigation laws of the United States or any other laws relating to seamen," has cast some doubt upon the right of seamen to strike in domestic harbors when the vessel affected by the strike is safely moored to the dock. This doubt has arisen principally because of administration of the law relating to the creation of marine boards to investigate acts of incompetency or misconduct not committed in connection with a marine casualty or accident. This law reads in part as follows:

(b) The Secretary of Commerce shall establish rules and regulations for the investigation of marine casualties and accidents not involving loss of life, any act in violation of any of the provisions of this title or of any of the regulations issued thereunder, and all cases of acts of incompetency or misconduct committed by any licensed officer or holder of a certificate of service while acting under the authority of his license or certificate of service, whether or not any of such acts are committed in connection with any marine casualty or accident *

* 1 *

Investigations of acts of incompetency and misconduct not committed in connection with marine casualties and accidents are made by boards, known as C boards, which are composed of representatives of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, and appointed by the Director of that Bureau.

The law does not define "acts of incompetency or misconduct," but a survey of the charges preferred by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in a number of C board cases seems to indicate that the Bureau construes the term as encompassing any behavior legally reprehensible under the navigation laws. This connotation brings within the purview of the C boards actions ranging from drunkenness and fighting among crew members to refusal in violation of articles, to obey a command issued by the master during a strike in a safe harbor.

The significance of these investigations for maritime labor arises from the fact that actions characterized as misconduct may occur in

1 R. S. 4450, U. S. C. 239.

connection with strikes or other union activity directed toward establishing or enforcing the collective-bargaining rights guaranteed to labor.

* *

*

This

The articles which all crew members in the foreign and intercoastal trade must sign provide, in part: "* the said crew agree to conduct themselves in an orderly, faithful, honest, and sober manner, and to be at all times diligent in their respective duties, and to be obedient to the lawful commands of the said Master, * provision can be interpreted to make any refusal to obey a command while under articles an act of misconduct, even when such refusal takes place in connection with a lawful strike in a domestic harbor when the vessel is safely moored.

The Board is of the opinion that none of our navigation laws or other laws affecting seamen should be so construed as to make possible the suspension or revocation of certificates or licenses for engaging in lawful strikes.

66* * *

It is the declared policy of the United States, as expressed in section 1001 of title X, to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of water-borne commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred * * *" but it is not a part of this policy to prohibit lawful strikes by seafaring men. Thus, the purpose of title X is to eliminate, as nearly as is possible, the causes which may lead to strikes in the maritime industry, but not to penalize seafaring men for exercising their right to engage in lawful strikes when in their judgment such strikes are unavoidable as a means of protecting their economic interests. The recommendation of the Board that certificates and licenses of seafaring men should not be revoked for engaging in lawful strikes is fully in keeping with the declared policy of the United States, which seeks to establish peaceful labor relations in the maritime industry by means of advancing the principles and practices of collective bargaining, rather than by imposing legal restrictions upon the rights of maritime employees which are not applicable to other workers.

3. The receipt of Federal construction or operating subsidies should also be made conditional upon compliance with the provisions of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act.

The amendments to section 1002, recommended by the Board, would leave maritime employees, not covered by the Railway Labor Act, under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act with respect to the unfair labor practices listed in that act.

It is the judgment of the Board that the observance of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act with respect to unfair labor practices should be made a condition for receiving federal subsidies. To achieve this end section 1002 should be further amended to provide that persons or corporations, found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction of any of the unfair labor practices prohibited by section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, should become ineligible to receive, or to continue to receive, federal construction or operating subsidies for a specified period of time.

This recommendation is intended as a special inducement to those who are the direct beneficiaries of governmental aid to obey the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. In the interests of orderly labor relations in the maritime industry, the Board believes it is im

305951-41-28

L

perative to stop effectively any attempt by unfair maritime employers to engage in practices inimical to the rights of maritime employees. Since many maritime employers are receiving governmental subsidies and others are likely to apply for such subsidies, it would be an added inducement to them to abide by the provisions of law as regards the fundamental rights of labor, if the law made maritime employers who are guilty of unfair labor practices ineligible for subsidies for a specified period. This additional penalty would do no harm to fair employers and could only be objectionable to those who have not as yet fully recognized the rights of their employees to self-organization.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1003

Section 1003 now reads:

When used in this title

(a) The term "water-borne commerce" means commerce by water between any State, the District of Columbia, or any Territory or possession of the United States and any foreign country, or commerce by water on the high seas or the Great Lakes between any State, the District of Columbia, or any Territory or possession of the United States and any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States.

(b) The term "maritime employer" means any person not included in the term “carrier” in title I of the Railway Labor Act, approved May 20, 1926, as amended, who (1) is engaged in the transportation by water of passengers or property in water-borne commerce; (2) is engaged in towboat, barge, or lighterage service in connection with the transportation of passengers or property in water-borne commerce; (3) operates or manages or controls the operation or management of any wharf, pier, dock, or water space, for the accommodation of vessels engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in water-borne commerce; (4) is engaged in the business of loading or unloading vessels engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in water-borne commerce; or (5) operates any equipment or facility connected with the services set forth in clauses (1), (2), (3), and (4) hereof, which is necessary for the continuity of flow of passengers and property in such water-borne commerce.

(c) The term "employee" means any person who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of any maritime employer, subject to its authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of service, when the duties assigned to or services rendered by such person directly or indirectly in any manner affect, relate to, or are concerned with the transportation of passengers or property in water-borne commerce, or the furnishing of equipment or facilities therefor, or service in connection therewith, as set forth in clauses (2), (3), (4), and (5) of subsection (b) of this section; it being intended that this title should apply not only to those persons whose work may be exclusively in connection with the movement by water of passengers and property in the interstate and foreign commerce of the United States but also to those persons whose work may have such a close relation to the movement of such interstate and foreign commerce that the provisions of this title are essential and appropriate to secure the freedom of that commerce from interference and interruption. The provisions of this title shall not apply to the master or members of the crew of any vessel not documented, registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States.

It is recommended that:

1. The jurisdiction of the Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, should be extended to personnel on all documented vessels upon navigable waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, except vessels covered by the Railway Labor Act.

One of the Board's recommendations with regard to this section is that it should be so amended as to include clearly within the Board's jurisdiction all persons employed upon vessels and craft engaged in water-borne commerce upon all navigable waters within the jurisdic

tion of the United States, except the personnel of such vessels as come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act.

The Board's reason for this recommendation is that it believes the effectiveness of the Board, or its successor, would be enhanced if it were in a position to handle all labor disputes in which maritime employers and employees are involved, irrespective of the kind of waterborne trade involved in the dispute. The jurisdiction of the Maritime Labor Board, or of its successor, should be coextensive with that of the maritime labor unions where such jurisdiction covers employees on vessels upon navigable waters within the jurisdiction of the United States. The jurisdictions of these unions are not confined to vessels on the high seas and on the Great Lakes, but extend to inland waterways and to harbor craft. Thus, during a strike of employees on the inland waterways in 1939, the services of the Board were requested by the Inlandboatmen's Union and by the National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. Because it was not clear whether section 1003 gives the Board jurisdiction in cases of strikes on inland waterways, the Board was unable to respond. On the other hand, in a strike of inland boatmen on Puget Sound in 1939, the Board did offer its services and was helpful in terminating the strike by securing the consent of the parties to arbitration. But in all such cases the mediatory efforts of the Board have been hampered by uncertainty as to its jurisdiction. Strikes of Alaska fishermen and Alaska cannery hands in the salmon industry in 1938 and 1939 have had deleterious effects upon water-borne commerce between the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. While the Board may now have jurisdiction in disputes affecting these workers, section 1003 should be clarified to make such jurisdiction clear.

Strikes of ferryboatmen, tugboatmen, and of employees on towboats seriously interfere with water-borne commerce. Since section 1003 clearly gives the Board jurisdiction over mercantile commerce on the Great Lakes and on the high seas, its jurisdiction should also extend to other water-borne commerce not covered by the Railway Labor Act which is closely related to off-shore and coastwise com

merce.

2. The jurisdiction of the Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, should be extended to include employees engaged in ship repairing. "Ship repairing," according to the United States Maritime Commission, "is quite as essential to the maintenance of a merchant marine as the building of the ships. During the lifetime of a ship an average expenditure equal to at least three-fourths of its original cost is required for upkeep, surveys, modernization, and repair. Delays to ship repairing, as distinguished from delays to shipbuilding, directly interfere with water-borne commerce in the same manner as do strikes of seafaring personnel.

[ocr errors]

Subsection (b) of section 1003 might perhaps be construed to inlude employees in ship-repair yards, but such construction would be subject to grave doubt because of the present wording of this subsection and of the entire section discussed.

3. The jurisdiction of the Maritime Labor Board, or its successor, in matters relating to labor disputes in the maritime industry as defined by this section, should be made exclusive.

2 U. S. Maritime Commission, Statement prepared by the United States Maritime Commission at the request of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee on H. J. Res. 306 (Neutrality bill), p. 16.

« PreviousContinue »