Captain DUBOSE. Perhaps. In answer to a categorical question I propounded to Mr. Goldstein, whether that or the matter of wages and working conditions was of first importance, he said that the question of money was as important as the other consideration. That is one of the points at issue, but I do not think one can say it is the basic or principal one.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do you know anything about wages and working conditions in the plant with reference to whether the company is getting its work done cheaper than when the job was started?

Captain DUBOSE. I do not know. I have seen the published statements of the company.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I understand that company has a piece-price plan and a speed-up and sweat systems that they offer to the pace setters to make more money, but which the men generally bitterly oppose. Captain DUBOSE. That is one of the points at issue in the contro

versy.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The workers claim that is causing work to be done cheaper than it would be done under a daily rate and the company is getting out more work per man per hour than they did under a daily or hourly rate of pay.

Captain DUBOSE. The piece-work method of accomplishing work is in general use in shipyards throughout the country. It is not used to a large extent in navy yards, but it is used some there. Naturally, the piece-work method does have advantages for the employers and the employees. In one case the employee gets more money for his work and in another case the employer gets more work for his money. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Usually the employers get more work for less money and the employees do more work for less money under that system.

Mr. LESINSKI. Does the Public Works Administration make allotment for construction of the vessels in question?

Captain DUBOSE. No; the Congress appropriated certain money for relief purposes and included in that sum was $238,000,000 which was made available by Executive order to the Navy Department for construction of these ships; so that while the money originally came from the same source as the Public Works money, and was in fact Public Works money, it was given to the Navy Department by Executive order and not directly by Administrator Ickes, as is the case with other allotments from that Public Works appropriation. For all practical purposes the $238,000,000 given to the Navy is exactly the same as any money we were getting from the Congress for "Increase of the Navy."

Mr. LESINSKI. This money was really given to the Navy Department to construct its own ships and was to relieve unemployment? Captain DUBOSE. Yes.

Mr. LESINSKI. In the contracts covering ship construction was there any stipulated price that the companies should pay for labor? Captain DuBOSE. No.

Mr. LESINSKI. Was there anything said about wages?

Captain DUBOSE. I believe I can furnish what you want to know. Administrator Ickes put out Public Works Bulletin 51 containing a schedule of wages to be paid, but it was provided that the Navy Department would not be bound by the provisions of that bulletin. The contracts entered into by the Navy Department and contractors

25507-35-5

did not contain any requirement that the Navy Department comply with that schedule of wages.

Mr. LESINSKI. There is no schedule of wages attached to the contract of a shipbuilding company?

Captain DUBOSE. Not in connection with building naval vessels. Mr. LESINSKI. Such a contractor can pay any wage he wants to pay?

Captain DUBOSE. So far as the Navy Department is concerned it has a contract for the construction of a vessel at a certain cost. What the contractor pays his workers is not a concern of the Navy Depart

ment.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. This [indicating] contract provides for compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act, does it not? Captain DUBOSE. Yes.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. The fact that the Supreme Court has nullified that act does not affect this situation because there was a voluntary agreement between the two parties to comply with the terms of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Captain DUBOSE. Are you stating that the provisions of the contract require compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act when the Act is no longer operative?

Mr. MARCANTONIO. It is operative.

Captain DUBOSE. If it is, they would have to comply with the requirements of it as to hours of labor and

Mr. MARCANTONIO. And with section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which section is the labor clause.

Captain DUBOSE. Nothing in this [indicating] contract says anything about section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Article 21, page 11, particular clause (a), which requires compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act, provides that

The contractor expressly agrees that in carrying out the terms and conditions of this contract, he will be governed by the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act approved June 16, 1933, and such rules and regulations as may be promulgated thereunder by the President or his duly authorized representative, and he will upon request of the Department furnish such evidence as may, in the opinion of the Department, be necessary to show compliance with this requirement.

Has the Department, if you know, been furnished any such evidence?

Captain DUBOSE. There has not been any occasion to make any such request.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Despite the fact there is a strike on you do not feel that there is any occasion to make such a request?

Captain DUBOSE. To see whether a contractor is complying with a defunct code, no.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. That code is defunct insofar as we seek to enforce it upon persons who have no agreement among themselves; but in this case the two parties have entered into an agreement to follow the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Captain DUBOSE. In what respect?

Mr. MARCANTONIO. In every respect.

Captain DUBOSE. Specifically, you are talking about the provision referring to collective bargaining?

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Specifically as provided in clause (a), which says that the contractor shall furnish such evidence as may, in the opinion of the Navy Department, be necessary to show compliance with the requirements of the N. I. R. A.

Captain DUBOSE. The contractor has not refused, so far as the Navy Department is concerned, to bargain with his men.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. We shall come to that presently. Let me understand. Is it the position of the Navy Department that the clauses in its contracts for construction of vessels and referring to the National Industrial Recovery Act are null and void due to the decision of the Supreme Court?

Captain DUBOSE. I cannot answer that question.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. A moment ago you stated that is a defunct act, the N. I. R. A.

Captain DUBOSE. I had a question mark after that.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Of course, I cannot see the question mark. Captain DUBOSE. The statement was made with a question mark. I asked whether you intended to assume something.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Specifically, does your Department intend to enforce those terms in its contracts which require conformity with the terms and provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act? Captain DUBOSE. The Navy Department certainly intends to enforce the provisions of its contracts.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. This [indicating] contract specifically states "National Industrial Recovery Act."

Captain DuBOSE. Yes.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Therefore the Department intends to enforce those provisions relating to the National Industrial Recovery Act? Captain DUBOSE. The applicable provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. What, if anything, has your Department done with reference to enforcement of the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act with reference to this situation?

Captain DUBOSE. What has the National Industrial Recovery Act to do with that Camden strike?

Mr. MARCANTONIO. That is just it. A moment ago you said the question was one of dealing with the union, union recognition.

Captain DUBOSE. I said that one of the points at issue was whether or not the union would be dealt with. I stated that so far as the Navy Department is concerned the contractor had not refused to deal with the union.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Section 7 (a) of the National Iudustrial Recovery Act specifically requires that employers deal with unions, does it not?

Captain DuBOSE. No.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. It provides for collective bargaining.

Captain DUBOSE. That act does not say that a company shall deal solely with the union.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. It provides that the employers shall deal with the employees.

Captain DUBOSE. The company has not declined to deal with its employees.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Is it the opinion of the Department that this company is willing to deal with its employees?

Captain DUBOSE. My personal opinion is

Mr. MARCANTONIO. That is still your personal opinion despite the signed advertisement of the company holding the Navy contract? Captain DUBOSE. What the company in question said is that it would not arbitrate a certain particular matter.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. How would it deal with the workers without arbitration? Can you conceive of any other means?

Captain DuBOSE. Yes.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. For instance?

Captain DUBOSE. I have had considerable industrial experience in navy yards, and I have dealt very much with employees in connection with various questions. I have found that some questions can be arbitrated and some cannot. The employers and the employees have different points of view; and they lock horns on those.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. The statement that there will be no arbitration has been put out. It is not a question of arbitration in one case and not in another.

Captain DUBOSE. There was a certain proposal by the employees that the company said and says cannot be arbitrated. There are four main issues in this strike of the present time, as I understand. The four points at issue have been definitely stated by the company in a paid advertisement. Those four main issues are, first, preferential shop; second, increased wages; third, no incentive system; and, fourth, arbitration of certain questions connected with the discharge of workers.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. The employees are willing to arbitrate those questions, according to the testimony of the representative of the Department of Labor Conciliation Service, which, I think, is very vital. One cannot settle a strike or a dispute without sitting around a table and talking about it.

Captain DUBOSE. They have talked about their differences ad infinitum or ad nauseam, and yet they have not settled anything. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The Department of Labor has settled the matter of trying to get the employees to arbitrate the differences. Captain DUBOSE. The employer has sat down on certain occasions with the workers. There have been meetings between employer and the union negotiating committee, but I do not know how many such meetings. But I do know that there have been several meetings of that kind.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. You feel, to be perfectly frank, that the continuance of this strike is due to the stubbornness and unreasonableness of the workers.

Captain DUBOSE. I have not made that statement. I have not said anything that warrants that conclusion.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. You would say it is a fair conclusion to draw from your statement?

Captain DuBOSE. You can draw your own conclusion.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. I am asking you whether such a conclusion would be a fair one.

Captain DUBOSE. I am not prepared to answer what would be a fair conclusion for a man whose mind works along a certain channel. The strike exists and there are two parties to it and four main issues involved.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. The fact that your Department has failed to ascertain whether or not this strike is due to the fault and negligence of the employer leads one to a fair presumption that the Department feels that it is not due to the fault or negligence of the employer, does it not?

Captain DUBOSE. If you want to draw that conclusion you are at liberty so to do; but I have not said that.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Can you explain why the Navy Department has not ascertained whether or not this strike is due to the fault or negligence of the employer?

Captain DUBOSE. You would better ask the Secretary of the Navy to answer that question.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Has the Secretary of the Navy been apprised of this strike situation?

Captain DUBOSE. Yes; of course he has. The Secretary of the Navy personally knows the strike situation and the details of the strike are known to a greater extent by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, because that is the job of the Assistant Secretary.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. A report has been furnished to him by your particular Bureau, has it not?

Captain DUBOSE. Not a written report. I have talked to the Secretary of the Navy about this matter. Also, Admiral Land, Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, has talked to the Secretary; and both of us have repeatedly talked to Colonel Roosevelt about the matter. I have been in Colonel Roosevelt's office in connection with this subject when members of the union negotiating committee and officials of the Department of Labor were there.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Have you ever talked to the Secretary of the Navy as to whether or not there has been a violation of the terms of this contract by the contractor?

Captain DUBOSE. I do not know whether anybody has mentioned that particular thing to the Secretary. I know that the lawyer for the negotiating committee, while in Colonel Roosevelt's office, offered to submit a brief to prove that the situation there at Camden was a lockout rather than a strike.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. What happened in connection with that offer? Captain DuBOSE. The Assistant Secretary stated that he was not prepared to ask for any such thing and he did not want to be bothered by it.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. I think this is very important. You say that the lawyer for the negotiating committee

Captain DuBOSE. Yes; Mr. Goldstein.

Mr. MARCANTONIO (continuing). Offered to submit a brief to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and

Captain DUBOSE. To the Navy Department.

Mr. MARCANTONIO (continuing). Showing that this difficulty is a lock-out rather than a strike.

Captain DUBOSE. That is right.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. And the answer which he received from the Assistant Secretary

Captain DUBOSE. From the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Roosevelt-

Captain DuBOSE. Colonel Roosevelt.