They turned that down, and stated as their reason for doing so that they felt that the committee set up under the code authority were the proper people to negotiate these things.

But we felt that this committee had absolutely no powers and that it was only a mediation body, rather than an arbitration body, and we did not feel that we should use them.

We also felt that that Board was composed of 3 members of labor and 3 members of industry, and the 3 members of labor did not represent us one way or another. So we positively turned that proposition down.

We made another offer; we offered them the old agreement with a slight change in wording here and there. They turned that down. Before getting out we determined to try to find a way to prevent the strike, and we offered them the old agreement in toto and said we would take that for another year. But they turned that down. So we had no other alternative but to strike as a matter of selfpreservation, which, as you know, is the first law of nature. So we decided there was no other alternative but to go through with the strike.

The strike was announced, and in the meantime we contacted the Labor Department in Washington, and they sent Mr. Chappelle as a mediator; and he came with a proposition that the men would be willing to work under the old agreement and submit the whole thing to a board to be set up by Secretary Perkins.

We agreed to that, but the firm turned it down.

So there was no other alternative but to go through with the strike. So on the 13th of May the strike went into effect, and there were 3,700 men on the street.

Up to the present time we have been unable to move that firm from its original position.

We feel that the New York company has got to be moved, and if that is done it will have to come from Washington.

There ought to be some provision in the contract to cover that. As you will see in the contract-and this gentleman here has a copy of the contract-you can read the clause there where if the shipbuilding company cannot justify the strike the Labor Department has the right to go in there and operate that yard and finish their contracts.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Are they at this time employing strike breakers? Mr. GREEN. No, sir; none whatever; nobody is being employed. Mr. GRISWOLD. The yard is at a standstill, with no work at all? Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. How long have these ships been held up?

Mr. GREEN. The whole program from the beginning has been held up. I think that can be proven from the testimony in the hearing of the Nye committee, and also by letters we have sent to the Navy Department. As far back as September last year the whole Navy program has been held up, and as far as the strike is concerned, we are now in the tenth week.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Coming back to the question of the holdup; what do you mean when you say it was held up?

Mr. GREEN. I will give you both sides of the story.

The negotiating committee was instructed to contact the management and find out the reasons why the work on the cruisers was not going ahead.

The negotiating committee went in and contacted the management, and the management said the reason for the delay was because they had to draw up the specifications and drawings and send them to Washington and have them O. K.'d by the Navy Department, and that they were delayed sometimes from 6 weeks to 2 months in Washington.

I have made statements in the newspapers and I wrote letters to the Navy Department pointing out that there was collusion between the New York Shipbuilding Co. and the Navy Department, and I was ordered then to contact the Navy Department in Washington, and I saw

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Just what do you mean by collusion between the New York Shipbuilding Co. and the Navy Department?

Mr. GREEN. Let me finish my story and I can bring that out.

I went to Washington and contacted Henry L. Roosevelt, and pointed out our story, and what the shipbuilding people had said, that the reason for the delay was the fact that the Navy Department was holding up the specifications and plans, and the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Roosevelt, sent for Captain Dubois, the chief of construction, and also for the chief of engineering, whose name I do not now remember.

The main line of attack was on Captain Dubois.

Captain Dubois submitted records of the progress of work to Roosevelt, and readily admitted that the progress on these ships was far behind the schedule.

There was also the question, Is it a fact that specifications for these ships are sent to Washington for O. K. and are held up for 6 weeks or 2 months?

I learned from the Navy Department that there is very little of the work from the New York yard that is sent to Washington, unless they have a very big change in the original specifications.

In other words, they led me to believe that the Navy Department had their own personnel right on the spot in Camden, and it is only a matter of walking across the street from the specification office of the New York Shipbuilding Co. to the Navy personnel office on the other side of the street, and any O. K. can be done inside of an hour. There was another alternative. I came back to the New York Corporation people and told them what I got in Washington, and I am left in the center of a long letter sent to us saying they would look

into the matter.

And soon after that Henry L. Roosevelt made his first visit to the New York Shipbuilding Corporation. At this time I am not working in the yard.

Then at that time there were about 28 plates set up in that cruiser in 4 hours on 1 day, and then Henry L. Roosevelt came to the yard and saw this progress. There was not another hand turned on that ship for 2 months. They came back again and the same procedure was followed out.

We had no other alternative but to think that there was collusion. They were leading us around with a string. Does that answer your question?

I do not know whether you want us to go into this whole thing in reference to our argument pro and con.

Mr. GRISWOLD. We do not care so much about the argument, except that we want the facts.

Mr. EVANS. Have you a brief?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. EVANS. You might let us have that.

(Mr. Green submitted the following statement:)

ACCOUNT OF NEGOTIATIONS AND STRIKE, INVOLVING INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CAMDEN LOCAL No. 1, AND NEW YORK SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, CAMDEN, N. J.

Six weeks before the expiration of the old agreement the negotiating committee of the union opened negotiations with the management of the corporation for the purpose of drawing up a new agreement. On April 8 the union submitted a list of 15 demands to be incorporated in the new agreement, including a 15-percent wage increase, elimination of piecework, and the preferential shop. After about a month of conferences with the management, no progress was made in coming to terms, the company refusing to grant any one of the union's demands. On the contrary, it submitted an alternative agreement that was wholly unacceptable to the union, as it would have destroyed the organization and wiped out all the gains made last year.

In refusing a wage increase the corporation claimed that in the past year and 3 months it has lost approximately $400,000, and that it has paid no dividends to its stockholders; but this is just the opposite of a true picture of the corporation's financial position. Clinton L. Bardo, in a letter to the board of directors on October 27, 1934, stated that in the preceding 7 years the corporation had made profits of over $6,500,000, reduced its funded debt $1,500,000 and its preferred stock $2,000,000, and paid an annual dividend of 40 cents on its $1 par common stock since March 1933. Present naval contracts held by the corporation aggregate approximately $50,000,000, and Senator Nye has estimated that it will make a profit of at least $3,000,000 more on the three cruisers now under construction than it made on previous cruiser contracts. The union's calculations, conservatively made, would place the total profits to be made on these three cruisers at $10,000,000. This apart from the four destroyers also under construction at the present time.

On the question of recognition and the preferential shop, the corporation obtained a statement from the deputy administrator of the code to the effect that the union's demand was illegal and that the corporation's contracts would be in jeopardy if it granted the demand for a preferential shop. After being given much publicity by the management, this decision of the deputy administrator was revoked by the National Industrial Recovery Board. But the corporation still refused to meet the request of the union and even refused to recognize the industrial union as the sole collective-bargaining agency for the men, despite its tremendous majority in the yard.

When negotiations between the corporation and the union reached a deadlock, the union committee called for a strike vote of the members. The men voted by a majority of 5 to 1 to support the committee by a strike if their demands were not met by the corporation. However, the committee, in an effort to prevent the strike, offered to submit the whole matter to arbitration by the National Labor Relations Board. The corporation turned down this offer and insisted upon arbitration by the industrial relations committee of the shipbuilding industry, an agency that had proved its unanimous hostility to this union over the course of the previous year. The union had no representation on this committee, it being composed of 3 industry members and 3 officials of American Federation of Labor unions, which are most antagonistic to this organization.

This offer of arbitration having failed, the union committee then offered to continue unde: the old contract in a desperate attempt to prevent the strike. But the corporation even refused this offer. At this point the Department of Labor intervened and suggested that it be left to Secretary Perkins to pick an arbitration board. The union was agreeable to this arrangement, but the corporation again refusd, making the strike inevitable.

The strike took effect Monday morning, May 13, and completely closed down the plant, not a single man out of the 4,000 or more production workers entering the gates. Construction is at a standstill with seven naval vessels on the ways in various stages of completion.

Up until the present time the corporation has shown no disposition to attempt to settle the strike. On the contrary, its stubborn and unreasonable attitude makes it plain that it is determined to break the union at all costs, whether these costs are borne by the community, the workingmen, or the Government. Not only has it refused to meet any of the demands of the strikers or even to discuss them, but it has even flouted the efforts of the mayor of Camden and the city commissioners to bring about an adjustment of the difficulties, ignoring the requests of these officials to present its side of the case as the union had done previously.

There is ample evidence that the New York Shipbuilding Corporation is in league with the American Shipbuilders Council to destroy this union, so as to leave the way open for general wage cutting and increasing hours throughout the industry. This union started the wage rise in the industry last year, and now that the National Recovery Administration code has been invalidated, there is nothing except the union to maintain labor standards in the shipyards. Several hundred million dollars of Public Works Administration funds are being spent by the Navy Department for construction, but instead of operating to put men to work and increase purchasing power, this money is finding its way into the coffers of the great corporations in the form of profits.

We contend that it is the duty of the United States Congress and of the national administration to thoroughly investigate the situation in Camden, and to compel the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, which is living off public funds, to fulfill its obligations to its employees, to the community, and to the Federal Government.

DEMANDS OF THE UNION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW AGREEMENT

1. Elimination of piecework, bonus work, and incentive systems. All men to be paid by the hour, with the exception of salaried employees.

2. A general 15-percent wage increase, with the elimination of the second and third grades of pay from each classification listed in the old agreement.

3. Minor demands, including: Extra pay for night work, dangerous work, and dirty work, similar to provisions in navy yard schedules; week's notice for lay-offs; 36-hour week; transfer of men, etc.

4. In the filling of vacancies or new positions members of the union shall be given preference over all other applicants when said members are available for and willing and competent to fill the said positions. Other things being equal, the order of selection will be married men with children first, married men without children second, and single men third. Likewise, in any reduction of the force not inconsistent with the provisions of paragraph (5) (of new agreement), the employees in the department shall be laid off in inverse order to that in which they first joined the corporation's pay roll.

(a) Should no union men be competent or available for, or willing to accept a vacancy or new position, the corporation may engage nonunion men, and thereafter retain them on the pay roll, provided the said employees become members of the union before the termination of the probationary period.

(b) No employee shall be transferred from one craft, trade, or department to another so long as union members formerly employed in that craft, trade, or department are out of work and available for the position.

(c) Any employee transferred from one craft, trade, department, or job to another at his own request shall be paid the rate provided for that job by the wage schedule; if transferred upon the corporation's order, he shall be paid the higher rate, whether of the job originally held or of the job to which transferred,

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE UNION'S DEMANDS

1. Preferential shop.-Out of approximately 4,000 employees in the New York Shipyard, 96 percent are members of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Camden Local No. 1; approximately 1 percent belong to the American Federation of Labor; and 3 percent have no affiliations whatsoever. In view of this situation the union contends that it should be recognized as the only agency for collective bargaining, and that since the corporation is dependent upon the union for the bulk of its labor supply the members of the union should be given preference in hiring. This provision will also carry out the equitable requirement that those who benefit from the union's collective bargaining shall bear their share of the responsibility of maintaining

the organization. It would not be compulsory for a member of another union to resign from that in order to belong to the Industrial Union.

2. Elimination of piecework and incentive systems.-These speed-up systems encourage poor workmanship, promote petty graft and favoritism, stir up bad feeling and dissention amongst the men, and drive the men at such a pace as to endanger their health and age them prematurely. These systems were eliminated from the navy yards years ago for these reasons. Under such incentive systems the men rarely know what they are going to be paid at the end of the week, and no two men get the same pay.

3. General 15-percent wage increase.-Food prices and general cost of living in this area have risen 10 to 15 percent in the last year. In comparison with the Philadelphia Navy Yard, our rates would still be more than 10 percent lower, even with the 15-percent increase that we are demanding. (See comparison of rates at New York Shipyard with those at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.)

COMPARISON OF TYPICAL RATES AT NEW YORK SHIPYARD WITH THOSE AT PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD

The New York Shipyard rates are those prevailing on May 10, 1935, immediately preceding the strike. The Philadelphia Navy Yard rates are according to the present schedule, plus 20 percent to provide for the condition that all navy-yard employees are paid for 48 hours per week, although they work only 40 hours per week.

Mr. GREEN. I would like, for your benefit, to read a letter which is not in the record of the Nye committee and which we got from the New York files after the strike last year. This tends to show that there is collusion between these big shipbuilding yards on labor rela

tions.

This is a photostatic copy of a letter sent to their directors by Mr. Bardo after the strike last year. It says [reading]:

MAY 14, 1934. Messrs. E. L. CORD, L. B. MANNING, R. S. PRUITT, H. J. LEIBENDERFER, W. H. BEALE, J. E. SLATER, and J. J. TUNNEY.

GENTLEMEN: The strike of the hourly workers in the plant, approximately 3,000, which took effect on March 27, was settled by an agreement with the committee on Friday last, settlement being unanimously ratified by the men on Saturday. Work was resumed this morning with full force.

The demands were for closed shop, preferential employment, elimination of incentive and piecework, and an increase of approximately 35 percent in wages. Settlement was made on the same basis as proposed to the committee and the Federal mediator at a meeting on April 7 of the committee, namely, 10-percent increase in pay and reclassification of rates.

We should also bring that point out. Prior to the strike last year there were 77 classifications of rates in the yard, and after the strike they were cut to 12, with the understanding that during the period of operation of the contract there would be a still further reduction of classifications. The letter goes on to say: