In the settlement, closed shop was withdrawn, preferential employment of former employees agreed to following our usual practice. We declined preferential employment on the basis of union members only.

That was a compromise, but it really covered our point. The letter goes on to say:

The hourly wage structure, as existed prior to the strike applying particularly to the hourly rated force, was a patchwork of compromises, being all told a total of 77 different rates. These have now been reduced to 12; namely, 3 unskilled, 3 semiskilled, 3 skilled, and 3 covering specialists, working leaders, and leaders. This reclassification involved an increase in pay roll of approximately 4.6 percent.

The three rates applying to the skilled crafts are now 70, 76, and 83 cents per hour. This top rate is 2 cents below the hourly rate of the Sun Shipbuilding, our only competitor on the Delaware River; is 1 cent per hour below the going rate for similar crafts of New York Harbor; and will not embarrass in any way our competitors who will probably adjust their rates, for similar classes of help, on a basis not to exceed 85 cents per hour. Making this settlement we gave preferential consideration to the skilled crafts as to percentages of increase, the unskilled receiving 13 percent total, the semiskilled approximately 11 percent, the skilled 16 percent, the specialists, working leaders, and leaders 10 percent flat.

This adjustment still leaves us with a reasonable margin in our labor estimates covering existing Navy contracts.

The rest of the letter is not necessary, but I want you to get that point to show you that he is telling his board of directors that he believes his competitor would fall in line and would not go over 85 cents an hour.

After the strike of last year the other two yards gave the men a 10-percent increase in wages.

That letter is Mr. Bardo's own letter to his board of directors. Mr. GRISWOLD. Who is the official of the New York Shipbuilding Co. with whom you have had negotiations in connection with your labor conditions?

Mr. GREEN. The general manager, Mr. Roy Campbell.

Mr. GRISWOLD. He is general manager of the New York Shipbuilding Co.; is that his official title?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I think the committee will adjourn at this time. Mr. VAN GELDY. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Ferguson, of the Newport News Shipbuilding Co., testified to this effect before the Nye committee:

We would ordinarily figure that we would build a ship for about 30 percent less on labor cost than could be built in the navy yard.

That is probably a good estimate for all private shipyards. (Thereupon, the subcommittee adjourned, to meet again, subject to the call of the chairman.)

RELATING TO LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR IN THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1935

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee this day met, Hon. Glenn Griswold (chairman) presiding.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Kerwin, the Director of Conciliation of the Department of Labor, is here this morning to testify in reference to House Joint Resolution 331, introduced by Mr. Kenney, of New Jersey:

To authorize the Secretary of Labor to appoint a board of inquiry to ascertain the facts relating to labor practices of employers of labor in the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Kerwin has another engagement this morning and has asked to be allowed to be the first witness. If there is no objection, we will hear him at this time.

Mr. Kerwin, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HUGH L. KERWIN, DIRECTOR OF CONCILIATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. KERWIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, because of the fact that the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor is at the present time engaged in an effort to bring about a conclusion of this difficulty in Camden, in the New York Shipbuilding Corporation yard, I would like to be permitted to make a brief general statement and not enter into the controversial issues, because of the effect it might possibly have on the efforts of our representatives in the field.

This strike was voted on the 11th of May 1935, and became effective the following Monday, the 13th of May.

Prior to that time a committee of workers visited Washington, visited the Department of Labor, and met in our office with the representatives of the Navy Department and the Department of Labor, and we made an earnest effort to avoid the strike and thought we were going to be successful.

But when they returned to Philadelphia, Mr. Chappelle, of the Department of Labor, was assigned there and continued the efforts that began in the Department here to prevent the strike. But because of the situations that arose after they left here, the strike was voted and went into effect on the following Monday morning.

From that time on we have been in continuous touch with this situation. We have had conferences with the representatives of the workers and the representatives of the shipbuilding corporation, and with citizens' groups and public officials, with the mayor of the city and the solicitor and commissioners in Camden, both through our representatives in the field and also when they have been in Washington on numerous occasions. But so far these negotiations and conferences have been fruitless. We have been unable to bring about a meeting of minds that would result in a plan that might be utilized for ending the fight.

So that on July 19, the Secretary of Labor, after conferences with other Government officials and with the commissioner in the field, made this proposition, that [reading]—

both parties agree that the men shall be returned to work without discrimination. That the agreement dated May 11, 1934, be renewed for a period of 1 year, and that all other matters in dispute will be immediately submitted to arbitration by an impartial board selected by the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor and the Secretary of the United States Navy Department, all decisions of such board to be retroactive to the date the men return to work.

She submitted that plan to the representatives of the workers and to the officials of the New York Shipbuilding Corporation at their offices in Camden, N. J.

The shipbuilding officials, through their president, said that they could not accept the proposition in substance.

They said:

The Secretary of Labor has been advised that the company could not accept her proposal, because it would spell ruination for the yard. To resume operations under the conditions of her proposal would be to restore conditions which caused this distressing strike. It undoubtedly would result in more strikes, more delay, more losses, and eventually would close the yard for good.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Whom was that letter from?

Mr. KERWIN. That was from J. F. Metten, the president of the corporation. That was in a statement issued to the employees of the corporation on July 21, 1935. That gives the substance of his refusal; that is the statement as to why the company could not agree to the proposal of the Secretary of Labor.

On July 19, 1935, the mayor of Camden, N. J., made the following suggestion:

Since it seems impossible to get any place on the old agreement or on any of the new ones suggested, I recommend that they be scrapped-all of them. Let the men return to work and within 10 days ballot to select the men who are to represent them in collective bargaining.

Then let these representatives of the employees confer with the officials of the plant and reach a new agreement.

It is simply a recommendation on my part and it is my final one.

This proposition was also rejected by the men.

Mr. LESINSKI. Do you mean by the company or by the men?

Mr. KERWIN. By the men. The company accepted the mayor's proposition.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The first proposition to which you referred, made by the Secretary of Labor, was rejected by the company. Was that accepted by the men?

Mr. KERWIN. I will come to that in a moment.

Here is the acceptance by Mr. Metten of the proposition submitted by the mayor on July 19, 1935, in which he said:

We think this is a fair and equitable solution to the problem.
The same wages and hours as before the strike will prevail.

At the end of the third day of employment the company will advance to its employees who desire it a certain percentage of their anticipated earnings for the purpose of meeting emergencies, such advances to be deducted over a certain period of their employment.

That was followed by a statement from the president of the company saying:

The whistle that has called many thousands of men to honorable work will be blown at 7:40 o'clock daylight saving time, Tuesday morning, July 23. The gates will be opened at 6:30 o'clock. All shifts are requested to report at 7:40 o'clock in the morning. If you work on second or third shift, report with the first shift.

Over 75 percent of our hourly rated employees have advised us that they want to return to work.

We have worked earnestly to make this possible and to bring about permanent employment.

That was issued by Mr. Metten.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Is that a statement by the company?

Mr. KERWIN. Yes; on last Friday.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. They do not agree to reinstate old employees. Mr. KERWIN. They asked all of them to return to work under the mayor's proposal.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. But a fair interpretation of that statement would be that the company would determine to put to work such old employees as they saw fit, and leave the others out on the street.

Mr. KERWIN. I would not say that. I imagine they would take them all back.

Mr. LESINSKI. Do you say they said they would?

Mr. KERWIN. I think they would.

Mr. LESINSKI. Would you believe that statement?

Mr. KERWIN. They say:

The whistle that has called many thousands of men to honorable work will be blown at 7: 40 o'clock daylight saving time, Tuesday morning, July 23. They tell them all to come; they invited them all to come. was not accepted by the men.

That

They opened the yards on Tuesday morning. Of course, you have conflicting reports. I think the company states that 300, possibly, went in, in addition to those who had already been in the plant, called "sanctioned men ", or "privileged men ", like checkers, subforemen, draftsmen, and others.

Yesterday the company claimed that they increased the number who went in the day previous by a few. The men state that a lesser number went in yesterday.

This morning, I understand, about the same number reported who reported yesterday.

On the 23d of July we received this telegram:

H. L. KERWIN,

PHILADELPHIA, PA., July 23, 1935.

Director of Conciliation, Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.: Meeting of 2,200 members of union in Camden tonight unanimously turned down mayor's and companies' proposals. Later accepted secretary's proposal modified as follows: "Both parties agree that the men shall be returned to