the employees in the craft or class shall have the right to designate their representatives. Fourth. Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class. No water carrier, its officers or agents, shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor organization of their choice Mr. HOFFMAN (interposing). Right there-do you believe that any outside labor organization should have the right to come in and attempt to influence the members of any particular crew or company as to what agency or which agency they should join? Mr. DELANEY. No. I believe that the men have a right to join any organization they see fit. Mr. HOFFMAN. And they should not be influenced by the owners? Mr. DELANEY. By the owners. Mr. HOFFMAN. Nor should they be influenced by any national organization? Mr. DELANEY. No. Mr. HOFFMAN. Either of labor or capital? Mr. DELANEY. No. Without interference from either side. "It shall be unlawful for any water carrier to interfere in any way "I might say that this is nothing but your own law, Mr. Congressman, that you have already passed for the railroad labor employees. Mr. HOFFMAN. You see, I come from Michigan, and we have more or less trouble in the automobile industry up there as to who is to tell them how to vote. That is what I am thinking of. Mr. DELANEY. That is a long story. I do not want to go into that. Mr. HOFFMAN. I was just wondering when I was listening to that whether this was just half of the story, or whether the other half was coming in pretty soon. Mr. DELANEY. But the fact is that this is working on the railroads. It is accomplishing what Congress intended it should. Mr. HOFFMAN. Surely, that is fine, and the automobile industries have gotten along some way, and are still solvent and still paying wages. Mr. DELANEY. Congress has been trying to find since 1920 to find means of eliminating the stopping of work and of settling disputes in the railroad industry. First, they created the Transportation Act of 1920, and then the Railroad Labor Act of 1926, then the Emergency Transportation Act of 1933, and finally amended the Railroad Labor Act of 1926 to June 21, 1934, and apparently The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Are you familiar with the National Maritime Authority in Great Britain? Mr. DELANEY. No; I am not, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Is there an organization of that kind that undertakes to handle disputes? Mr. DELANEY. Well, I have reviewed. You are talking about their maritime board, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I am not speaking of the Board of Trade. Mr. DELANEY. No; a maritime board. The CHAIRMAN. It may be. I am not sure. Mr. DELANEY. A maritime board for the handling of their disputes. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; something of that kind? Mr. DELANEY. Yes; as you have on the railroads today; you have the National Railroad Adjustment Board for handling their disputes. Had the general Shipping Code gone through, that provided for the National Shipping Labor Board. The CHAIRMAN. Something like the National Maritime Board of Great Britain, then, would settle disputes? Mr. DELANEY. Well, with some corrections into it, I believe it could be set up very nearly along the same lines as your National Railroad Adjustment Board. You could almost follow the letter of the Railroad Labor Act and make a National Maritime Labor Act out of it, and it would be a fine solution of it. Fifth. No water carrier, its officers, or agents shall require any person seeking employment to sign any contract or agreement promising to join or not to join a labor organization; and if such contract has been enforced prior te the effective date of this Act, then such water carrier shall notify the employees by appropriate order that such contract has been discarded and is no longer binding on them in any way. Sixth. In case of a dispute between a water carrier or carriers and its or their employees, arising out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions it shall be the duty of the designated representative or representatives of such water carrier or carriers and of such employees, within ten days after the receipt of notice of a desire on the part of either party to confer in respect to such dispute, to specify a time and place at which such conference shall be held: Provided, First, that the place so specified shall be situated upon the line of the water carrier involved or as otherwise mutually agreed upon; and, second, that the time so specified shall allow the designated conference reasonable opportunity to reach such place of conference, but shall not exceed 20 days from the receipt of such notice; And provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the smaller carrier from granting free transportation to the employees for settling disputes. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, you can follow the Railroad Labor Act in regard to penalty, because we all know that it was necessary to make it workable that there be a penalty put into it. The CHAIRMAN. What is the public law? Look at the front page there; what is the public law? Mr. DELANEY (reading): Public 442, Seventy-third Congress. Seventh. Every water carrier shall notify its employees by printed notices conspicuously posted at places easily accessible to its employees, notifying its employees that all disputes between the water carrier and its employees will be handled in accordance with the requirements of this Act, and in such notices there shall be printed verbatim, in large type, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of this section. The provisions of said paragraphs are hereby made a part of the contract of employment between the water carrier and each employee, and shall be held bind ng upon the parties regardless of any other express or implied agreement between them. Eighth. The willful failure or refusal of any carrier, its officer or agent, to comply with the terms of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs of this section shall be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, the carrier, its officer or agent, shall be subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $20,000 or imprisonment for six months or both fine and imprisonment for each offense and each day during which such carrier, officer, or agent shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with the terms of the said paragraph this section shall be construed as a separate offense. Mr. CULKIN. Are you reading from the Railroad Labor Act now? Mr. DELANEY. Yes. It shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States to whom any duly designated representative of the carrier's employees may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this section and for the punishment of all violations thereof, and the cost and expense of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expense of the courts of the United States; provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual employee an illegal act, nor shall any court issue a process to compel the performance by any individual employee of such labor or service without his consent. Mr. CULKIN. Now, right there, that paragraph you read would not, of course, apply to a ship at sea, would it? Mr. DELANEY. Not at sea, but it would at land. Mr. CULKIN. The ship is an entity, and it is at the mercy of the elements unless properly handled. Mr. DELANEY. That is right. Mr. CULKIN. And you have got to bear in mind, of course, basic essential of discipline aboard a ship. Mr. DELANEY. I agree with you there. the Mr. CULKIN. You have had experience enough to know that? Mr. DELANEY. I will agree with you there; that that is the first essential aboard ship. Mr. CULKIN. You cannot submit questions of the handling of a boat to a jury of seamen, because the boat is liable to sink while they are weighing the evidence. Mr. DELANEY. Yes; that is very true. But there is nothing in the Railroad Labor Act Mr. CULKIN (interposing). But there is really more or less a distinction between the two propositions. When a man is at sea he is under a supreme commander. The captain is the boss of that works. You would not modify that old document? Mr. DELANEY. No, it could not be modified. Mr. CULKIN. That is essential? Mr. DELANEY. It could not be modified, because who can give them the orders? Well, they might say, with wireless, give them orders, but outside of that it is impossible to give them orders. And the man aboard the ship has to assume that responsibility. The CHAIRMAN. The master of the ship has got to be boss, then? Mr. DELANEY. He surely does. Mr. CULKIN. No modification of that is possible under any scheme? Mr. DELANEY. None whatever. Mr. CULKIN. You agree with that? Mr. DELANEY. I do. But I do believe that it is necessary for us to have such a law in a maritime industry so as to keep peace in the industry, to build up efficiency in the industry; and I believe that it would not be in operation very long when it would be working just as effectively and that the organizations would be working just as close with the operators as is being carried on today in the railroad labor organizations. Mr. CULKIN. Of course, you have got to keep the "reds" out, haven't you? Mr. DELANEY. Well, that is essential from labor's standpoint at all times. Mr. CULKIN. That is part of your fight? Mr. DELANEY. That has been our fight. And I do not hesitate to say that if it had not been for the fight that we have made there would be a great many more than there are at the present time. Mr. CULKIN. I have often said that your affiliated organizations keep in the front-line trenches fighting them when no one else was paying any attention to the battle. Mr. DELANEY. I will agree with you, Mr. Congressman. Mr. CULKIN. That is true. Mr. DELANEY. I believe, gentlemen, that it is absolutely essential that such a law be passed for the protection of our men and the merchant marine, and it will build up the morale of our men in the merchant marine, because we have a condition today right in our country, as deplorable as it might seem, where if you hope to meet the ship operators, why, you either must call a strike or threaten to call one. That has been proven very conclusively by the seamen's organization. They tried to get conferences. They failed, and they did call a strike, and the Government brought pressure to bear, brought both sides together, and the ship operator has negotiated agreements with the unlicensed personnel. Although I have been engineer and have given the best that has been in me to try and bring about goodwill between the operators in our organization, and have endeavored to negotiate an agreement covering the wages and the working conditions for the licensed personnel. Up to now we have been unsuccessful. The CHAIRMAN. Do you represent the seamen at all? Mr. DELANEY. No, sir; just the licensed personnel. So that apparently it is proven conclusively that if you want to get an agreement today, why, you must either call a strike or threaten it. Mr. CULKIN. Or write it into law? Mr. DELANEY. Write it into law, and I believe that that is the proper method, to write it into law. Mr. CULKIN. What do you mean by "unlicensed personnel "? Mr. DELANEY. Sailors, cooks. The CHAIRMAN. Steward's department, deck department. Mr. DELANEY. Yes: that is all unlicensed personnel. They come under the International Seamen's Union. Mr. CULKIN. They are affiliated with that International Seamen's Union? Mr. DELANEY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. You are the Masters, Mates, and Pilots? Mr. DELANEY. Yes. That is the licensed deck personnel. Then there is the marine engineers. Mr. CULKIN. Is that a distinct organization, the engineers? Mr. CULKIN. They are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor? Mr. DELANEY. Our organization is. I don't know about the engi neers. The CHAIRMAN. Is the International Seamen's Union an international organization, or is it an American organization? Mr. DELANEY. It is an international organization. Their name itself shows that. It is the International Seamen's Union of America. The CHAIRMAN. I know the name implies that, but I have some faint recollection that in some of the testimony that has been before this committee in years past Mr. Andrew Furuseth, who has been active on that Mr. DELANEY. Yes; he is the president of it. The CHAIRMAN. Indicated that it is really American or American and Canadian. Mr. DELANEY. There is no question about that, Mr. Chairman. I suppose where they get their "international" end of it is that they have some men in Canada, I suppose. The CHAIRMAN. That is my recollection, that it did not deal with anything abroad. Mr. DELANEY. Oh, no; it does not. Mr. CULKIN. It does not imply international in the "red" sense; it applies it like the "International bricklayers", and that sort of thing? Mr. DELANEY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. International machinists? Mr. DELANEY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. They are simply affiliated with these other groups? Mr. DELANEY. Well, some of them have groups up in Canada. That is what brings that about. Mr. CULKIN. It is a trade relation and in no sense political or propaganda? Mr. DELANEY. No. Mr. CULKIN. It has no propaganda aspect? Mr. DELANEY. No, sir; none whatever. The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Furuseth brought that out very clearly in a former hearing. Mr. DELANEY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. But in view of the name "International" I want to bring that out. Mr. DELANEY. I believe they take that from the fact that they have men up in Canada. The CHAIRMAN. That is my recollection. Mr. DELANEY. And that goes for many of our labor organizations like the machinists and so on. They have locals up in Canada which brings them into the international end of it. The CHAIRMAN. That is my recollection. Mr. HOFFMAN. Do I understand that it is your contention that if a Federal law be enacted under it a seaman or anyone connected with the service who signs on for a stated period and then a dispute arises over some question, the court should not have power to compel him to render service? Mr. DELANEY. Why, certainly. Mr. HOFFMAN. Certainly what? Mr. DELANEY. Certainly he would have to render service. Mr. HOFFMAN. I gathered from that little section you were reading from, the railroad act, that it was to be construed in there so that no man "could be required "-didn't you so read? Mr. DELANEY. No. |