built under a real subsidy, or help from the Government, and, despite the fact that the Government is practically financing all the big shipyards at the present time, there is no protection for men, outside of their own attempt to organize. Now, the "big three ", the Bethlehem Co., the New York Shipbuilding Co., and the Newport News Co., have maintained a consistent antilabor policy. The Bethlehem Co. fought us in a case to get recognition for the union last year before the old Labor Board, and threatened to carry the thing to court if the decision was given against them. They simply refused to recognize section 7 (a), and stated in their brief that they believed it was unconstitutional, and that they would not abide by any decision of the Board against them. The Board decided in their favor. The fact is that they maintained a flagrant antiunion and anticollective bargaining attitude. That is patent and obvious.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You can hardly complain of that, because the Supreme Court also decided that it was not constitutional.

Mr. VAN GELDY. That has been the public policy of the administration, to guarantee collective bargaining. The Wagner bill, now being the law of the land, it seems to us there should be some pressure brought on those companies to abide by those principles.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I agree with that, if there is any way to make them abide by the principle of collective bargaining, but, so far as the obligation of the law is concerned, under the N. I. R. A. decision, it must be that they are correct.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. It seems to me that the problem could be solved every time a contract is given to any shipbuilding company by putting in a qualifying clause, or a collective-bargaining clause in the

contract.

Mr. VAN GELDY. Of course, section 7 (a) was included in the code, and these contracts provided that the companies should live up to the code, but they had some legal arguments.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Can you tell us this: How do they negotiate these contracts where they have a union, as at Camden?

Mr. VAN GELDY. In Camden, the contract was negotiated following the strike last year.

Mr. GRISWOLD. When last year?

Mr. VAN GELDY. May 11.

Mr. GRISWOLD. 1934?

Mr. VAN GELDY. Yes, sir; 1934. That was at the end of a 7-week strike.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You negotiated a contract with them, signing as officers of your organization, and they signing as officers of the shipbuilding company?

Mr. VAN GELDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Did this contract provide for a scale of wages?
Mr. VAN GELDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRISWOLD. When did that contract expire?

Mr. VAN GELDY. On May 13 last.

Mr. GRISWOLD. When this contract expired, you endeavored to negotiate a new contract?

Mr. VAN GELDY. Yes, sir; that is true.

Mr. GRISWOLD. So that what you were trying to do was to reenact the old contract, or make a new contract, providing for a different scale of wages and working conditions?

Mr. VAN GELDY. The union asked for increased wages and for other provisions to be added to the contract. There were 15, including the wage increase, elimination of piecework, the preferential shop clause, and certain other minor improvements in labor conditions that we wanted embodied in the contract.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You refer to a preferential shop clause. By that I presume you mean a closed-shop provision.

Mr. VAN GELDY. It is a little different from the closed shop, because it would allow the company to hire men who did not belong to the union in the event union men were not available for the job.

Mr.GRISWOLD. Was that an absolutely straight 100-percent clause, or did you have it on the basis that many of the railroad unions have, or 75 percent, or something like that?

Mr. VAN GELDY. No, sir; it was a straight 100-percent provision. Mr. EVANS. If you do not have enough competent men in your organization, they can hire anybody else?

Mr. VAN GELDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRISWOLD. What are the qualifications, or for what period must they have served in a shipyard?

Mr. VAN GELDY. Was there any particular requirement there?

Mr. GREEN. It was 6 weeks, according to the old contract. It was 6 weeks, because the union would take the responsibility.

Mr. VAN GELDY. There is no qualification period for the union other than that the man shall be a shipyard worker.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is the thing I am trying to get at; what constitutes a shipyard worker?

Mr. GREEN. He must have had experience.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I suggest that we hear one witness at the time. I believe that some labor organizations have a requirement as to that. Do you mean to say that a man who had worked only 1 day on a ship would be made a member of your union? Would you pick up a man who had worked 1 day on a ship and make him a member of the union, and, by that act, declare him to be competent to work in a shipyard?

Mr. VAN GELDY. No, sir; we do not pass upon the competency of the men. That is passed upon by the employers.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Under this preferential clause, if a worker were a member of the union, he would have the first preference.

Mr. VAN GELDY. If there is a member of the union competent to do the work required.

Mr. GRISWOLD. If he was a member of your union, immediately your grievance man, or your adjustment board, or whatever you call it in the union, would be in controversy with the employer as to whether or not this man was qualified; and if you did not protect him, I would not think much of your union.

Mr. GREEN. I think there is some confusion here.

In the procedure we have followed, under our contract, a man must have 6 weeks' work in the yard; and if he is fired before the end of 6 weeks, the union cannot do anything. After 6 weeks he would come under a clause in the contract.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Your idea is this: Under your contract, as I get it-and that is my idea of it, too-that if a man is employed there to work, the company has a right to act within 6 weeks to get rid of that man. If they do not get rid of him in 6 weeks he becomes an

employee of the company, subject to all of the conditions of the contract, and it is the duty of the union to protect him.

There is a 6-week probationary period, during which they can drop him from their employment without any opposition from the union. Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. VAN GELDY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know just how much you want me to go into. We can give you some of these figures from the hearings by the Nye committee; but if you do not want them, we can give you our general opinion.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Can you tell us what the wage scales are in the Camden shipyards?

Mr. VAN GELDY. The first-class mechanics' rate is 83 cents an hour. There are some few departments where the first-class rate is 88 cents. But the great majority is 83 cents.

The specialists' rate is 88 cents. Then, the second-class rate is 75

cents.

Mr. GREEN. There are three in each class; that is, three rates-the unskilled, the semiskilled, and the specialist class. They run from 45 cents to 51 and 55 cents in the unskilled class; the semiskilled rates are 58, 62, and 67 cents; the skilled rates are 70, 76, and 83 cents.

In the specialist class the rates and the working lists run from 88 to 94 cents and $1.06.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have a copy of the old agreement and the company's proposed agreement and our proposed agreement.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I think you gentlemen had better testify as to your own knowledge of these things. If one of you does not know, then one of the others can testify.

Mr. VAN GELDY. These other two men can testify best about Camden.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Maybe we had better hear them first.

Mr. VAN GELDY. Mr. Green is the secretary of the Camden local.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GREEN, PHILADELPHIA, PA., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CAMDEN LOCAL, NO 1

Mr. GRISWOLD. What is your full name?

Mr. GREEN. John Green.

Mr. GRISWOLD. What is your position?

Mr. GREEN. Executive secretary of Camden Local, No. 1.

Mr. GRISWOLD. What is your address, Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. 3445 North Phillips Street, Philadelphia.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You may state to the committee what you know about this condition at Camden, with special reference to the cause of the trouble.

Mr. GREEN. I think it would be necessary, in order to get a complete picture of the situation, to go back to 1932, when there was absolutely no organization whatsoever in the New York shipyard or any other shipyards along the coast.

Most of the yards had a little work; it was all contracted for in 1928, 1929, and 1930.

Along in 1932 the New York shipyard had on their stocks the Washington, the sister ship of the Manhattan, which had been completed, and the cruiser Tuscaloosa; and in the dock there was the Indianapolis.

25507-35- -2

Mr. EVANS. Are these all Government contracts?

Mr. GREEN. One had a Government subsidy, the merchant ship, and the others were Government contracts.

These ships were all contracted for at the time of the high cost of living, when prices were good, and when we did not know anything about the depression.

Then, along in 1932, out of a clear sky the New York Shipyard, along with two other shipyards, posted on the bulletin board a notice that there would go into effect a 15-percent reduction in rates and wages, and then things just dragged along like that, and the men were being paid an amount which was not equivalent to what they were used to.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. What were they being paid?

Mr. GREEN. At that time the average wages for a mechanic were between twenty-eight dollars and twenty-nine dollars, and they were reduced to $23.20, and the other groups were being paid much less, with an average of about $16.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. How many hours did they have to work?

Mr. GREEN. They worked an average of 40 hours at that time. Mr. MARCANTONIO. What kind of work did the lowest-paid labor do?

Mr. GREEN. They were going around the yards moving material. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Doing heavy work?

Mr. GREEN. Practically all heavy work. They were being paid from 30 cents to 38 cents prior to the strike last year.

Mr. EVANS. For an 8-hour day? Mr. GREEN. For an 8-hour day. With the inception of the code, just prior to the letting of the bids for 1933, the shipbuilders themselves had committed themselves to that provision, which was incorporated in the Shipbuilding Code. They said, "We have the naval program of the President ", and that they would be able to put 60,000 men to work in the shipyards, more than at any time since the war.

As you know, the code, so far as private shipbuilding yards were concerned, had the working hours reduced to 32, and in one way or another-I do not know how it came around-the wages were stabilized as they existed prior to June 1, 1933. That meant that with 32 hours a skilled man, or any other man who was getting what he had prior to June 1, and $23.20 were the wages for 32 hours.

Things went from bad to worse. We had an employees' association, and it was contacting different people in Washington, but not getting anywhere.

A few of us got together and decided to start an organization. The organization grew by leaps and bounds, and in the latter part of 1933 and at the beginning of 1934 we were growing, and we took a vote, and the result of the vote was 5 to 1 in favor of the union. Shortly after the turn of the year the men decided they would submit certain demands to the New York Shipbuilding Corporation. We submitted those demands to the people in charge of the yard, and there was a hearing held, I think, between the management and the committee, but they could not get together. They took it back to the men, and we called a strike. That strike was 100 percent, the same as it is today, and the yard was completely closed.

There were 3,300 men on strike at that time, and at the completion of the strike an agreement was drawn up between the committee of

the union, or the union representing union members and all these employees of the yard and the company. All of the employees of the yard were covered under this agreement.

Certain wage scales are provided for in that agreement.

There was a preferential clause of 9 months in the agreement. The classification of jobs was in the agreement, with redress if any man had a grievance. And there was an arbitration clause there. During the period of the operation of the agreement some things did not work out the way they ought to have worked out.

As to the matter of classification, the trouble in connection with classification was that they wanted to classify the men and we say no, they should be classified by the job, and if several men are put on the same job they ought to be paid the same money.

We fought that and won out. Notwithstanding that the firm wants it taken out of any contract, and they will not listen to arbitration. A negotiating committee was chosen, and there were 15 demands drawn up, with 15 substitutes, and we put in the old contract as a basis on which to form a new contract, and 30 days before the expiration of the agreement the negotiating committee presented these 15 additional points.

Two days later we receivd a letter from the New York Shipbuilding Corporation stating that they wished certain things withdrawn from the old contract.

They wanted the right to classify taken out; they wanted the right to hire and fire taken out, and the arbitration provision. The three points that meant anything to us in the old agreement they wished to have thrown out.

The negotiations continued over a period of 30 days, but we got nowhere.

They just took an arbitrary stand on the preferential provision. They wished to have an open shop so that they could say any American citizen has the right to a job in their plant.

As to the elimination of piecework, they felt they had the right to give the men more money on that work, but as to increasing wages they said they could not give that, because over a period of years they had lost $400,000.

These were the main arguments that were made. Despite the fact that we had submitted to them very definite information and good reasons why we should have these things, that was their answer.

On Thursday prior to the 11th of May the negotiating committee decided that we were a young organization, and a rather loose organization, and that we would go in there and try to prevent a strike.

On the morning previous we had called a meeting in Convention Hall, with 3,500 men in attendance, and they decided to vote on the question of a strike. So a strike vote was taken and there was a large majority in favor of the strike.

But the committee felt that, despite that result, we believed we could get certain things, if we could put it over with the men.

So on one night, on Thursday, the committee went in there and made an offer to the New York Shipbuilding Corporation to work under the old agreement and submit the other points to arbitration by the National Industrial Relations Board.