Mrs. HERRICK. Senator, we have been talking a little bit without fully understanding what was in each other's mind.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Then let us begin over again.

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Has the National Labor Relations Act ended sit-down strikes so that we are not going to have any more trouble in the future?

Mrs. HERRICK. I cannot answer that question in that way; it is like the well-known question of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It means, then, that neither that law nor any other law will stop lawlessness, when it gets in the minds of either employees or employers to be lawless?

Mrs. HERRICK. I do not say any particular law, Senator. I say that acceptance by employers of the rights of workers to be organized and to be represented by representatives of their own choosing, and subsequently the working out of mutually acceptable agreements wherein the conditions of work are defined and wherein the terms are settled for the adjusting of any disputes or misunderstandings arising under any form of contract, will tend to reduce the causes of industrial strife in the maritime industry, or in any other industry. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Certainly; and that is why I helped to draft the law and helped to pass it through the Senate. And I think it has been a contributing factor.

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. But I thought your statement was leading us to believe that the passage of that law would result and did result in ending sit-down strikes.

Mrs. HERRICK. I say that insofar as sit-down strikes were caused by violations of the basic principles of the National Labor Relations Act-and I think I qualified that, all along-in that respect, the acceptance of the principles of the act and the application of the administration of the act have, to that extent, ended those sit-down strikes that arose over violations of the law. I think that is a fair statement.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Has any analysis been made of the causes of these sit-down strikes, so that we Members of Congress could turn to some department of the Government and get definite information as to who the officials of our Government felt were responsible, and as to what were the questions and the issues in each case?

Mrs. HERRICK. From my office records in New York, I could give you an analysis of the cases that have arisen in the second region. However, I have not prepared that for this morning. In addition, I am sure the United States Department of Labor Conciliation Service has kept records which also would be available to the Members of the Senate; and I should be glad to supply that information, if you wish.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you.

Senator JOHNSON of California. If it would not be too much trouble, could you, after you finish here, send that report to the chairman of the committee?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes; I am making a note for myself, right now, on

that.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose your information would be limited to American ports, would it?

Mrs. HERRICK. Well, all that I have in my office. And that would be New York Harbor and boats sailing from New York Harbor. The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mrs. HERRICK. Now, going back again to the time when the election within the union itself had almost been agreed upon, and then apparently fell through: Since the American Federation of Labor took the position that the National Labor Relations Board should not intervene in an internal union dispute-a position which the National Labor Relations Board has consistently taken in all such factional struggles-and since the elections promised by the American Federation of Labor, through Mr. Ogburn's committee, never materialized, the rank and file committee finally decided to separate from the International Seamen's Union, and they established what is now known as the National Maritime Union.

On May 13, 1937, the National Maritime Union filed in Washington petitions for elections on three lines, the International Mercantile Marine, Black Diamond, and Luckenbach Lines. Hearings were held by the National Labor Relations Board on May 27 and 28, at which the International Seamen's Union was also represented as an interested party. On June 11 the N. L. R. B. handed down its decision and order of election. These elections were completed with the following results:

Name of company: International Mercantile Marine; date ballots counted, August 31, 1937. Result: For N. M. U., 2,563; for I. S. U., 170.

Name of company: Luckenbach Steamship Co.; date ballots counted, August 13, 1937. Result: For N. M. U., 436; for I. S. U., 8. Name of company: Black Diamond Steamship Co.; date ballots counted, July 26, 1937. Result: For N. M. U., 197; for I. S. U., 1. On June 11 the International Seamen's Union similarly filed petitions with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, asking for elections in some 60 lines. On June 21, hearings were held. Meanwhile there was considerable disturbance in the maritime industry, with all groups jockeying for position. The leaders of the International Seamen's Union virtually retired at about this time. Joseph P. Ryan, president of the powerful International Longshoremen's Association, attempted to reorganize the American Federation of Labor seamen's group; and this resulted in sporadic violent conflicts among the men on the piers and boats. On July 12 a truce was signed between the International Longshoremen's Association, National Maritime Union, United Licensed Officers, International Union of Operating Engineers, Commercial Telegraphers' Union, and Masters, Mates and Pilots, whereby all parties agreed to preserve peace and to refrain from interfering in any interunion controversies pending the elections which the Board ordered on July 16. Thereafter, there were several amendments to the election order, as a result of further petitions for amendment and exceptions filed by the various parties. The ballot, as finally determined, provided three spaces, for the men to choose either the International Seamen's Union or the National Maritime Union, and a space in which they could state that they wished to be represented by neither union.

These elections were again delayed because of the situation within the International Seamen's Union. The American Federation of Labor frankly conceded that the old leaders must leave the picture; and as Joseph P. Ryan, president of the International Longshoremen's Association, stated on August 20 [reading]:

The I. S. U. is defunct, and a movement is under way which might give me the authority to take over the organization work of the I. S. U. The I. L. A. is now organizing seamen and desires to participate in the pending elections. But no formal request was served on the National Labor Relations Board by the International Longshoremen's Association to have its name on the ballot. Issuance of passes to I. L. A. delegates to visit men on the boats was advised by the Board, following its similar policy with respect to passes to be issued to the National Maritime Union-the International Seamen's Union already having passes.

In other words, the position of the Board is that the shipowner must not be in the position of appearing to favor one group as against another group, and that the same treatment for the purpose of an election must be accorded by the shipowners to all groups involved.

Finally, the American Federation of Labor having failed to notify the Board of any new name for the International Seamen's Union, it was decided by the National Labor Relations Board that, in the interest of the entire industry, further delay could not be tolerated, and ordered the ballot to say:

I desire to be represented by the International Seamen's Union of America or its successor affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

On August 31, the attorneys for the International Seamen's Union, and a representative of the National Maritime Union, came to my office to toss a coin for the purpose of determining the position of each union on the ballot. The National Maritime Union won, and chose the left-hand side. The International Seamen's Union then chose the center position. We thought we were then ready to proceed with the printing of ballots and election notices and the organization of election staffs in the other regional offices of the National Labor Relations Board which were to cooperate in the conduct of the election.

But on September 8 Mr. Ogburn, on behalf of the American Federation of Labor, filed a "motion for further hearing and stay of elections pending such further hearing." This petition stated:

The terms of reorganization (of the International Seamen's Union) have not been fully and finally settled, but will be settled within the next few days. The reorganization contemplates a new executive board and perhaps a change in the name of the organization.

Mr. Ogburn also objected to elections being held under the supervision of the regional director of the second region, saying: "The companies covered have ships operating out of many ports other than the port of New York, and this regional director does not have knowledge of special conditions prevailing in other ports and cannot take the necessary steps in all instances so as to provide for fair and impartial elections on ships at ports, in some instances, many miles from New York."

The contemplated plan was that the work was to be carried out by the National Labor Relations Board offices in Boston, Philadelphia,

32437-38-pt. 10

Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland, Oreg., the work of all being coordinated by the New York office so that procedure would be uniform and a maximum of speed in completing the elections be attained. Actually the vast majority of the shipping lines have their central office in New York, and the actual majority of vessels covered in the election either start at or enter the New York Harbor at some period of their sailing

route.

On September 11, after oral argument in Washington, the Board denied the motion for further delay; but the Board granted the American Federation of Labor an additional 7 days in which to notify it of final selection of a name for the new organization. On September 18, I wired Mr. Ogburn for notice of any such name, but received no reply. When no such notification was received, we proceeded with the elections.

As of January 31, 1938, voting has been completed and ballots counted on 36 lines. A total of 13,762 unlicensed personnel was eligible to vote on the 359 vessels of these 36 lines; 12,982 ballots were cast, or 93 percent of those eligible to vote, which I submit is a very high percentage of participation in the elections; 10,053 votes were for the National Maritime Union; 1,704 votes for the International Seamen's Union; 921 votes for neither organization; 42 blank ballots cast; 171 void ballots; 91 challenged ballots. The International Seamen's Union won three elections as follows:

Colonial Navigation, 88 to 23.

Eastern Steamship, 541 to 432.

South Atlantic Steamship Co., 105 to 24.

On the Baltimore Steam Packet Line and the Atlantic Refining Co. a majority voted that they did not wish to be represented by either union.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. That line has a separate organization, or are all these seamen in one organization?

Mrs. HERRICK. They are all in the International Maritime Union, but subdivided into local groups; and on each line there is what I suppose you would call a factory shop foreman for the deck department, and so forth.

Senator WALSH. Suppose a man on one line voted to belong to one organization, and suppose that the men on another line voted that they wanted to belong to another organization: Does the total vote govern?

Mrs. HERRICK. It is the principle of majority rule.

Senator WALSH. I understand. But they are entirely different organizations?

Mrs. HERRICK. You mean if the men who are now employed by the Colonial Navigation Co., which has voted for the International Seamen's Union, later became divided so that some of them quit and went to work for the International Mercantile Marine Co., where the majority have voted for the National Maritime Union?

Senator WALSH. No; I mean if the majority of the men on A Line desired to belong to one union, and the majority of the men on B Y line preferred to belong to another union, would the total vote govern?

Mrs. HERRICK. No; because we are voting by lines.

Senator WALSH. That is what I am trying to find out. In other words, if the majority of the men on A line desire to be represented

by the American Federation of Labor, the employer of that line must deal with the American Federation of Labor?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes; it is line by line.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. So the total figures are not of much consequence, except in showing that most of the men in all lines favor the National Maritime Union?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes. And also I wanted to give you a conception of the work that has been done: 359 vessels, going up and down the coast, and to South America, and to catch those boats-an election. which we contemplated would take 8 months to complete, and where we are 75 percent completed in 4 months-and all in the interests of peace in the steamship companies.

In the South Atlantic Steamship Co., the International Seamen's Union won by a vote of 105 to 24; and those men in that line will separately deal with the International Seamen's Union.

Senator WALSH. Those men all voted for that union because they thought they could get the jobs by voting that way?

Mrs. HERRICK. Senator, if you cannot get the accurate picture by such voting, with the curtain drawn, then there is nothing to our American system.

Senator WALSH. But is it not a fact that many men belong to both unions; and if they want a job on one line, they vote one way; and if they want a job on another line, where the majority of the men prefer another union, then they vote for that union?

Mrs. HERRICK. That will be less true in the future; because under the agreements, the men on one line will be sent to another line that has a similar agreement, I believe.

Senator DAVIS. What percentage of the employees are American citizens?

Mrs. HERRICK. That I do not know: I have no idea. We take the crew lists which are made up by the United States shipping commissioners. I do not know that; we do not inquire into that. We are concerned only with the employees of the particular lines.

The National Maritime Union has won the elections on 31 lines by a total vote of 10,053 to International Seamen's Union's 1,704. A total of 921 ballots was cast for neither organization. The petitions for elections on these lines were filed by the International Seamen's Union.

Only 19 lines remain to be completed under the Board's order, and in most instances we await the return from a foreign port of only one vessel in each of the remaining lines. We have practically completed them. As I have said, elections which we had expected would require 6 to 8 months to complete have been virtually completed in 4 months-since September 22, when we began.

What have been the difficulties encountered in running these elections?

The International Seamen's Union, which except for the first three elections held had petitioned for these elections, has been notified by telephone and telegram as to time and place of balloting each boat; they have on the vast majority of occasions failed to have any representative present in New York. The experience differs from region to region; I understand that in Baltimore there has been considerable balloting attendance. In other regions they have suffered, as we have in New York, from not having representatives of both sides present, thus putting the Government agency in the em