The CHAIRMAN. It is feasible? Mr. GOTT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Well, sir, we are much obliged to you, and appreciate your coming this great distance to give us your views. Unless there is an urgent appeal, and a definite reason for it, there will be no further public hearings this week. Does anyone here protest against this suggestion? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Very well; then you will see, by the aid of the press, when we are to meet again. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., an adjournment was taken, subject to call.) (The chairman directed that the following communication be inserted at the end of the testimony:) Hon. ROYAL S. COPELAND, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your request of December 7 the National Mediation Board submits the following statement with respect to title X of S. 3078, referring to the mediation of labor disputes in the maritime industry. This title X appears as an amendment to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, but it really proposes to amend the Railway Labor Act, although there is no direct statement in any of the sections included under title X stating that the Railway Labor Act shall be amended. If it is the purpose of title X to establish a system of regulation of labor relations in the maritime industry similar to that of the Railway Labor Act with respect to the railway labor relations, that purpose is not likely to be accomplished by the provisions of this title. Whereas the Railway Labor Act operates independently of the Interstate Commerce Act under which railroads are otherwise regulated, this bill makes the labor relations of the maritime industry subject to the provisions of three different acts (1) the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, (2) the National Labor Relations Act, and (3) the Railway Labor Act. It divides the responsibility for labor relations among three separate authorities, the National Mediation Board, the National Labor Relations Board, and the United States Maritime Commission. Such a division of responsibility will prevent the development of a consistent labor policy for the maritime industry. Section 1001 (a) of title X defines the term "maritime employer" and proposes in cases of dispute that the Maritime Commission shall, upon request of the Mediation Board, determine whether an employer is a maritime employer within the meaning of this subsection. In subsection (b) of the same section there is a similar provision with respect to determining who are employees. This authority of the Maritime Commission is likely to conflict in certain respects with the authority of the National Labor Relations Board. The definitions in this section 1001 are not coterminous with the jurisdiction of the United States Maritime Commission. They include longshore industries, stevedoring, trucking, ship repairing, warehouses, and the like. With respect to any of these that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Maritime Commission, conflicts of authority are likely to arise, because the definitions include portions of a number of industries while the labor relations of the other portions of the same industries will be subject to other authorities. Section 1002 attempts to extend all the provisions of title I of the Railway Labor Act to maritime employers and employees, except paragraphs fourth, fifth, and ninth, section 3, and section 10. Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act is composed of 11 paragraphs in which the general purposes, policies, procedures, and duties of employers, employees, and the Mediation Board are developed as a consistent whole. By taking out the fourth, fifth, and ninth paragraphs, as this bill proposes to do, the consistent policy of the Railway Labor Act is broken up, and it will be difficult to determine what the real policy of this proposed title X is, because some of it will have to be determined by the National Labor Relations Board, some by the United States Maritime Commission, and some by the National Mediation Board. Section 1003 leaves the responsibility for the settlement of representation disputes among employees in the National Labor Relations Board, but nothing is said about the unfair labor practices which are defined in the National Labor Relations Act and closely connected with the procedures for handling representation disputes under the act. In the Railway Labor Act both representation disputes and mediation disputes are entrusted to the administration of the Mediation Board. Section 1003 also amends the Nationla Labor Relations Act by providing (line 24, p. 35) that the Labor Relations Board must hold elections at the request of "the maritime employer" as well as at the request of employees. This is not only contrary to the policy of the present National Labor Relations Act but also to the policy of the Railway Labor Act. The amendment would make representation disputes among the employees of the maritime employers subject to an entirely new labor policy not applicable to railway employees or to the employees of any other interstate industry; and this very questionable although exceedingly important change is made without expressly stating that the National Labor Relations Act is amended in this respect. It would seem to invite confusion to apply to the maritime employees parts of the labor policies of the Railway Labor Act, of the National Labor Relations Act, and of the Merchant Marine Act, and then to add an entirely new policy of changing the procedures under the existing labor relations laws. Consider, for example, what would happen in the matter of choosing representatives by craft or by industries or some other bargaining unit. The Railway Labor Act makes it obligatory that the National Mediation Board shall certify representatives by craft, and elections among the marine department employees of the railroads are held on this basis. The National Labor Relations Board, however, is authorized to determine the bargaining unit that it considers most appropriate in a particular case. It may decide against craft representation and for a combination of crafts or for some other unit. By placing maritime employers and employees under the jurisdiction of both the National Mediation Board and the National Labor Relations Board the conflict between craft and industrial unionism may well be translated into a conflict between the two Government boards. Section 1004 is evidently intended as a substitute for Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. It makes it the duty of every maritime employer and its employees to establish a board of adjustment. Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act, however, does not make the creation of such local adjustment boards obligatory. It is permissive only. Section 1005 authorizes the National Mediation Board to establish a National Maritime Adjustment Board when in its judgment such a permanent national board of adjustment is necessary. It is doubtful whether either section 1004 or section 1005 can accomplish the purposes that are achieved by section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. No act of Congress can compel an employer to make a written agreement with a labor organization unless he desires to do so. The adjustment boards are necessary only when there are written agreements in effect in order that they may settle disputes with respect to interpretation or application of such agreements. Where there are no agreements, such adjustment boards cannot function. In the railway industry the employers are willing to make written agreements with labor organizations, and their representatives assured congressional committees that they wanted to make agreements. The railroad labor organizations have taken a similar position. It is questionable, however, whether the employers in the shipping industry, longshore industry and trucking industry and others whose employees may be covered by this bill, desire to make such written agreements with labor unions and whether some of the unions in these industries want written agreements. Under these circumstances sections 1004 and 1005 are not likely to accomplish their purposes. Section 1006 appears to be a substitute for section 10 of the Railway Labor Act. It differs, however, in very important respects. It provides for the appointment of emergency boards not by the President, as does the Railway Labor Act, but by the United States Maritime Commission, if a labor dispute is not adjusted under the provisions of the proposed bill, but it does not require the National Labor Relations Board or the adjustment boards to make any such report. The representation disputes which are by this bill entrusted to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, and the disputes which are by the bill referable to adjustment boards, are likely to cause as many strikes and threats of interruptions to commerce as the disputes which are made subject to the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. But the Mediation Board will have no knowledge whatever of the facts of such disputes. Yet the bill requires the Mediation Board to report about them to the Maritime Commission. Moreover, the provisions of section 10 of the Railway Labor Act with respect to emergency boards represent the culmination of a series of orderly steps for the adjustment of railway labor disputes, and emergency boards cannot function properly unless the steps have been properly taken in their order. This bill, however, breaks up the ordered steps of the Railway Labor Act and distributes them under different acts to different boards. Under such circumstances there cannot but be confusion with respect to the emergency action that is to be taken by the United States Maritime Commission, and the chances are that the Commission will be handling, through so-called emergency boards, as many labor disputes as the Mediation Board. If the intention of this bill is to have the Maritime Commission handle labor relations in the maritime industry, it would seem wiser to declare the policy and assign this to be administered as a unit by the Commission. In any case the experience in the railroad industry makes it clear that the maintenance of peace and order in labor relations cannot be achieved by three different labor policies administered by three separate government agencies. Unity of policy and unity of administration are both essential. Respectfully submitted by order of the National Mediation Board. MARINE ACT OF 1936 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 3078 A BILL TO AMEND THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 32437 PART 5 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF DECEMBER 16, 1937 Printed for the use of the Committee on UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1938 |