Page images
PDF
EPUB

United States. This participation is spoken of by both courts, as you will note, if you come to read the opinions.

When, in 1935, the Congress enacted the Federal Power Act, you included similar provisions in that act, and they have been used in the same way: The accounting system prescribed by the Federal Power Commission was not prepared by that Commission alone. The standing Committee on Utility Accounts of the National Association, composed of leading accountants from different State commissions, for many months really for a period of more than 2 years—worked with the Federal Commission in preparing the accounting system which was finally promulgated by the Federal Power Commission.

Then, at its annual convention at Atlantic City this last fall, the National Association recommended to all State commissions that they adopt the system which the Federal commission has prescribed.

In the Motor Carrier Act, of course, you not only included the cooperative provisions which were in the Transportation Act of 1920, but you included a mandatory joint board provision. Under that Commissioner Caskie was telling me last night that they are getting a tremendous amount of work out of the State commission representatives on the joint boards. He was also kind enough to speak in a most complimentary way of the character of work that is being done by those representatives.

Mr. COLE. May I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. How many States now have laws vesting in the commissions forming the association you represent any jurisdiction over aviation?

Mr. BENTON. I regret that I cannot tell you accurately, for I do not have the information in my office, but I understand that in the States of Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming air carriers are classed as common carriers if they engage in general transportation, and the commissions have the same jurisdiction that they exercise over other classes of common carriers.

Other State commissions—and I cannot name them at this timehave some jurisdiction over certificates and licenses.

Mr. COLE. Do you know whether or not most of the State laws today set up aviation commissions independent of the public service commissions of the State? Some of the States do and I was wondering if that was the general practice throughout the country.

Mr. BENTON. In some States that has been done. I think that the more common practice has been to vest the jurisdiction in the public service commission or other regulatory board.

Mr. COLE. You think that is the general practice?

Mr. BENTON. I think that has been the more general practice, although, let me say, Mr. Congressman, that I think the vesting of jurisdiction anywhere actually to regulate air carriers, as utilities or as common carriers, has not been carried very

far. The purpose, as I have sought to make clear, of our recommendations to the committee at that time, is that the congressional act, whenever you pass any, shall be so drawn that the States may accommodate themselves to the situation in the future, and provide for active State regulation, whenever need may arise for the exercise of their regulatory functions, without any impediment, and may be able to correlate what they do, with what is then being done by the Federal commission.

I want now to present the three amendments which I have already submitted for the record. I will read them, if I may, and comment on them as I go along.

We ask to amend section 302, page 3, by adding thereto, following line 4, a new paragraph to read as follows:

(c) Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the powers of taxation of the several States, or to authorize any air carrier to engage in the transportation of persons or property in interstate commerce in any State in contravention of the laws of such State, nor to give to the Commission any jurisdiction to control such transportation, or the rates applicable thereto.

A substantial part of that paragraph is taken from section 202 of the Motor Carrier Act, paragraph (c). The purpose of that, of course, is to make it clear that Congress is not attempting to encroach upon what has always been regarded as the constitutional right of the States to control their own intrastate commerce. Mr. HALLECK. May I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Halleck.

Mr. HALLECK. In view of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is limited to control over interstate commerce why is it necessary, in your opinion, that we should have some such a provision as this? In other words, we could not control intrastate commerce or exercise intrastate jurisdiction if we wanted to.

Mr. BENTON. No; I assume you could not; but the suggestion has been made that Congress, for the purpose of enabling the State carrier to live, might authorize it to operate also for the carriage of intrastate commerce. It is to negative any such possible claim; that Congress has intended to disregard the State power; that we ask to have the same sort of provision in this act that has been put into all other acts, since the act to regulate commerce was passed in 1887. In that Congress made it clear that it was not attempting to regulate what took place within the States; and in every regulatory act since then, I think I am correct in saying, Congress has made a similar provision.

Mr. REECE. Will you please point out wherein the language in this proposed amendment is dissimilar to the provision in the Motor Carrier Act?

Mr. BENTON. The Motor Carrier Act provides: Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the powers of taxation of the several States or to authorize a motor carrier to do an intrastate business on the highways of any State or to interfere with the exclusive exercise by each State of the power of regulation of intrastate commerce by motor carriers on the highways thereof.

The latter part of this amendment does not follow that language. I mention that so that if anybody wants to compare the two they can see the similarity between this language and that contained in section 202 (e) of the Motor Carrier Act.

The second amendment which we ask to have made is to section 304, at page 9, by adding thereto, following line 20, a new paragraph, as follows:

(f) The Commission is authorized to confer with or to hold joint hearings with any authorities

and I call the attention of Congressman Cole to this particular wordingof any State in connection with any matter arising in any proceedings under this part. The Commission is also authorized to avail itself of the cooperation, services, records, and facilities of such State authorities as fully as may be practicable, in the enforcement or administration of any provision of this part.

So that in any State where the State has given jurisdiction to regulate the aviation industry to an aviation commission, as distinguished from a commission which regulates other utilities, this language will apply to that Commission. I would say also that the language which I have just read is taken without change from section 205 (g) of the Motor Carrier Act.

The next amendment which we suggest is to section 309 (a), page 26, by inserting after the word “effective” in line 5 the following proviso:

Provided, however, That nothing in this part shall empower the Commission to prescribe, or in any manner regulate, the rate, fare, or charge for intrastate transportation, or for any service connected therewith, for the purpose of removing discrimination against interstate commerce or for any other purpose whatever.

This language is taken without change from section 216 (e) of the motor carrier act of 1935.

Mr. CROSSER (presiding). Mr. Benton, we have two or three other witnesses scheduled to be heard. I wonder if it would be agreeable to you to submit the other amendments for the record.

Mr. BENTON. Mr. Chairman, the other amendments relate merely to renumbering of paragraphs. Amend paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 309, on pages 26 and 27 by renumbering the same paragraphs as (c) and (d).

Mr. CROSSER. I see.

Mr. BENTON. That completes all I wish to say, unless there are some questions.

Mr. CROSSER. Thank you.
Mr. BENTON. Thank you.

Mr. CROSSER. The next witness scheduled to be heard is Mr. David L. Behncke, president of the Air Line Pilots' Association.

Mr. Behncke, I believe, wants to make a complete statement without interruption, as he thinks his remarks will be more logically presented, after which he will answer any questions which the committee may desire to ask.

Nr. Behncke, we will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENTS OF DAVID L. BEHNCKE, PRESIDENT OF THE AIR

LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL., AND EDWARD G. HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BEHNCKE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is David L. Behncke. I am president of the Air Line Pilots Association, and I represent the air-line pilots flying in North America and South America. The association that I speak for represents 90 percent of the air-line pilots flying on the air lines. The Air Line Pilots' Association is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

I have had, myself, approximately 20 years' flying experience as a pilot in all branches of American aviation, principally the Air Corps of the Army, and some 81/2 years on the air lines. I have had in the neighborhood of 10,000 hours in the air.

We would like to discuss this morning two bills, and our discussion will ave to do not so much with rates and economics as it does with the question of air-line safety.

With your permission, I would like to have our executive representative, Mr. Hamilton, continue the discussion on H. R. 5234, commonly referred to as the Lea bill. We are not going to discuss this bill to any great length, but we would like to touch lightly upon certain parts of it. If it is agreeable, Mr. Chairman, I will have Mr. Hamilton proceed.

Mr. CROSSER. Very well.

Mr. HAMILTON. My name is Edward G. Hamilton; my address is the National Press Building, Washington, D. C.

In regard to the Lea bill, we favor it in principle, but there is a serious omission which we think should be corrected by amendment.

By the terms of this bill, the Air Mail Act of 1934 is repealed; and in the Air Mail Act there is a section-section 13, to be exact—which has done more to bring about peaceful relations between the pilots and their employers than any other one thing. To repeal this provision at this time, or at any time, would be to leave the doors wide open so that anything might happen from here on out.

Section 13 of the Air Mail Act establishes minimum rates of pay and maximum flying hours for pilots; and it should, by all means, be retained in any new law that may hereafter replace the Air Mail Act.

Accordingly, we have two amendments to offer: First, on page 6, after line 8, include the following definition: “(m) The term 'air pilot includes copilot.”

Second, on page 14, line 9, after the word "condition”, insert a dash, drop down one line, and insert “(1)” followed by the remainder of subsection (g) as written. At the end thereof, insert the following:

(2) (a) That the rates of compensation, maximum flying hours, and other working conditions and relations for air pilots of air carriers engaged in interstate commerce shall conform to decision no. 83 rendered by the National Labor Board on May 10, 1934, notwithstanding any limitation as to the period of its effectiveness included in said decision ;

(b) That the compensation for air pilots of air carriers engaged in overseas and foreign commerce shall be at least comparable to and not less than the compensation of air pilots engaged in interstate commerce; and

(c) That nothing herein shall be construed as restricting the right of any such air pilots by collective bargaining through their lawful representatives to obtain higher rates of compensation and more favorable conditions of employment and relations.

(3) That the holder of such certificate shall comply with all the provisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act and any future amendments thereto.

This is the same protection which is now included in the Air Mail Act and which we are asking be transferred to this bill.

To illustrate what this provision means to the pilots, we recite briefly some of the disputes which have been peacefully settled since the enactment of this section.

Following the enactment of the air-mail law, none of the new contractors who came into being after the cancelation of the old airmail contracts attempted to comply with the labor provisions of the air-mail law. We filed with the Post Office Department a complaint against the worst offender. Following a hearing on October 25, 1934, a decision was rendered in our favor, and starting January 1, 1935, all air lines, with the exception of one, complied. This one remaining air line finally complied on February 1, after being requested to do so by the Post Office Department.

By the terms of the Labor Board decision, which was incorporated in the Air Mail Act by reference, the decision was good for but 1 year. Accordingly, on May 10, 1935, 1 year from the rendering of the decision, one air line took advantage of this technicality by announcing a 40-percent cut in pilots' wages. It became necessary to amend the Air Mail Act to clarify this section in order to protect the pilots from further unfair atempts to break down their working conditions. This is a very good example of what will happen the minute this section is repealed.

In the fall of 1935 it was discovered that the same air line was still cheating the pilots out of some measure of the pay which was rightly theirs by means of juggling the seniority of their pilots. By way of explanation, the pilots' pay, under the Labor Board decisions, is increased from year to year according to length of service. This matter was brought to a hearing before the Post Office Department on January 8, 1936, with the result that the company was ordered to reimburse their pilots for all the pay which had been withheld from them back to the date of the granting of the air-mail contract.

During the summer of 1936 it was found that one air line was deliberately flying its pilots far in excess of the maximum flying hours permitted by the Labor Board decision. Again a complaint was filed with the Post Office Department, and again the matter was settled peacefully:

Further, on this same point we quote from the testimony of the Honorable Karl Crowley, Solicitor for the Post Office Department, given before the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee on August 6, 1935, when a similar bill, the McCarran bill of that time, was being considered. On page 121 of the hearings, Mr. Crowley said:

Section 13 of the present law is to be repealed by this bill. It is a provision which recites that it shall be a condition upon the awarding or extending and the holding of any air-mail contract that the rate of compensation and the working conditions and relations for all pilots, mechanics, and laborers employed by the holder of such contract shall conform to decisions of the National Labor Board. This section shall not be construed as restricting the right of collective bargaining on the part of any such employees.

And Mr. Crowley continues : I cannot find anything in this bill that will give any protection whatsoever or provide any means by which pilots and mechanics may be protected.

We have been having considerable difficulty in some places in enforcing it. There have been strikes threatened, but we have succeeded in settling several strikes because of that provision.

That ends Mr. Crowley's remarks. As the bill was finally approved by the Senate committee it carried the amendment suggested by Mr. Crowley and us.

It is self-evident that had not the pilots had some protection in the air-mail law, the disputes referred to probably would not have been settled without a strike. It is also self-evident that if this re

« PreviousContinue »