Mr. JOHANSEN. Yes. It is all on a per pound basis.

Mr. Dow. Is the share of the owner and the share of the crew always the same percentage or does the crew have the ability to go to the owner and say, "We want 90 percent and you take 10 percent," or is it always a set amount which has been in existence in the trade?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Through long negotiations on this subject we have come to a point where we have figured out what the correct share should be. There is broad agreement by boatowners and crewmembers. For example, in the dragging operations on the Puget Sound we have a certain share, 40, 41, and 43 percent. This depends on the kind of vessel you have. If the vessel is well equipped you get 43 percent. If it does not have all the electronic equipment it is usually 40 percent. However, it is pretty much of a standard.

For example, we have had no negotiation on shares for the past 5 or 6 years. It is that standardized that the question seldom comes up. Mr. Dow. Thank you.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Pelly indicated the possibility of a shipowner having some sort of under-the-table arrangement with the buyer. Mr. JOHANSEN. I said that in my testimony.

Mr. LENNON. Which would deny the rightful participation by the crewmembers whose compensation was based on the catch. Are there instances of that which you have been able to document, or is that just what you believe?

Mr. JOHANSEN. No; we can document hundreds of cases of this sort in southeastern Alaska where the boatowners, owners of the vessel, received a bonus from the packers, from the various canneries that bought the fish. This bonus runs from $1,000 to $10,000 or $15,000.

Mr. LENNON. When you say that the people you represent, the fishermen themselves, and the crewmembers, do not participate in that bonus and they are denied their rightful part of the contract which they have with the owner for a certain percentage of a share of the catch. Is that right?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I would correct part of that statement. Our jurisdiction was not in that field, but it is correct that the crewmembers did not share in the bonus that was given to the boatowners.

However, the boatowners did negotiate for a fish price with the packers, but I say there was no incentive on the part of the boatowner to negotiate a realistic fish price when he already was taken care of through a bonus.

Mr. LENNON. In the crewmembers' contract with the owner, do they not specify in the contract that they will participate in any remuneration, in whatever form or shape it comes to the boatowner for the catch of that fish?

Mr. JOHANSEN. In this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, another union had these people, or were supposed to represent them, and I don't believe they had that type of language in their contract because they did not share in the bonus.

Mr. LENNON. That criticism of the existing law would not be cured by this legislation. If you have a group of crewmembers who participate in the catch, if they do not have a contract with their employer, the boatowner, which would permit them to share in a bonus, then this bill would not help them, would it?

Mr. JOHANSEN. This bill would permit the union to deal directly with the canner and would not have to deal with the boatowner if he didn't want to. I think that this bill, then, would permit the union to negotiate a realistic price directly with the canner.

I don't believe in the bonus in the first place. I think that is a device and it should not be there.

Mr. LENNON. I cannot altogether agree with you. There may be some instances but that catch, whether on a monthly basis or a seasonal basis, the crewmembers whose wages are based on the catch should participate in the bonus. That is what I am trying to arrive

at.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I will agree 100 percent on that.

Mr. LENNON. Couldn't your contract with the boatowner provide that any bonus which would accrue to the boatowners through the catch would be divided on the same percentage as the original calculation was made on the catch?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Right now, due to all of these various actions taken by the Federal Trade Commission, in this particular field I don't know if there are any contracts existing for the crewmembers at all, not that I know of right now.

I think if this legislation were passed, certainly if a contract were established, that the procedure you are talking about could be followed.

Mr. LENNON. In the seamen's contract with the owner of the ship, could it not stipulate that any bonus that might come to the shipowner by reason of the catch from a buyer should be distributed on whatever percentage basis was agreed to in the contract with the crewmembers? Could that be done?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I think it could.

Mr. LENNON. And provide a penalty in the contract if it could be determined that the boatowner had not honestly passed on that bonus on the percentage agreed upon with the crewmember?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I think it could.

Mr. LENNON. Why wouldn't that be an answer to the very question that you are raising here?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Well, that is just one of the abuses that is happening. I don't think that would be the answer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Why not?

Mr. JOHANSEN. It is all right now. There are no contracts so far as I know in this particular field, and this perhaps has led to the abuses we see so much of. But even when there was a contract it seems the union was not able to overcome the boatowner on some of these matters because when a crewmember said to the boatowner, "We don't like this," he wouldn't hire him. Therefore, he got somebody else. Under the law they did not have to belong to the union if they did not want to, so they put on a nonunion crew and got their way.

This would not happen if a union could negotiate for the price with the canners.

Mr. LENNON. Would this bill permit union members, a crew, to negotiate independent of the boatowner with the cannery and with the fishhouses, permit them to negotiate independently on price? Mr. JOHANSEN. Yes; I think it would.

Mr. REINECKE. Does this indicate that the fish actually belong to the crewmen and not the boatowner?

Mr. JOHANSEN. No; a certain percentage of the fish belong to the boat and a certain percentage to the crewmembers.

Mr. REINECKE. This is quite a point. Obviously if they do not own the fish they cannot bargain to sell it. The 40, 41, or 42 percent is their compensation. That does not represent an equity in the ownership of the cargo vessel.

I would think from a legal point of view the catch would belong to the owner of the vessel and not to the crew, but that his compensation was based on how good the catch was on that particular voyage.

Mr. JOHANSEN. The catch probably belonged to the owner of the vessel until that catch is sold.

Mr. REINECKE. Then how can the union sell it if they do not own it? Mr. JOHANSEN. The union is not selling it. These people are under contract to a company. They bring their fish in to the company. In other words, the company will take all the fish that is caught. They are not selling at auction but they are selling it for a certain price to a cannery. I am talking about conditions as they are in Alaska.

Therefore, to start with, all the fish they catch go into one company where they have a contract to sell, and they are selling it for whatever price they agreed upon. This comes a little different from when you deal with an open auction on the sale of the fish.

Mr. REINECKE. What if the union agrees on one price and the shipowner thinks perhaps a different price is correct, either higher or lower? Let us say the union says 20 cents a pound and the boatowner says 18 cents is a fair price. What happens?

Mr. JOHANSEN. We never had any difficulty in the past when we negotiated for these prices to come to a common agreement with the boatowner on a realistic price. We never came up with two different

answers.

Mr. REINECKE. Then why do you think you need legislation to give you more strength and better bargaining position if you have had no difficulty?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Because after all of this union bargaining was broken up we now have a mass of small marketing associations that have sprung into existence to replace union bargaining, and these marketing associations cannot talk together about a price under the present law because that would be illegal and they would be in violation of antitrust provisions, so each one has its own price. The packers cannot discuss the price because that would be illegal, so each individual packer has to deal with these individual groups, and the individual groups cannot agree on anything. Consequently we have found we have been held up in small strikes during the fishing season, which has been difficult for the packer and the others.

Mr. DINGELL. As I understand the situation, under the law which now obtains, under the Marketing Act, there is no size limit which is imposed upon fishermen's marketing cooperatives. They may be as broad as the number of vessels that are out?

Mr. JOHANSEN. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. To catch a particular type of fish or to catch all types of fish. Is that right?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. The last point you have been raising really is not a major problem to the fishermen. The fishing cooperatives can fully protect the vessel owners in terms of dealing with the operators, with the fishhouse operators, in negotiating prices between the vessel operators and the fishhouse operators. Am I not correct?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I think they could if they could agree to get together.

Mr. DINGELL. But this legislation is not needed to cure that particular problem, this legislation is to afford, as I understand it, the crewmen on these vessels a voice in the price of fish?

Mr. JOHANSEN. That is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. And its purpose is really to accomplish this by upsetting some antitrust decisions which have precluded this type of voice in the marketing of the catch. Am I correct?

Mr. JOHANSEN. That is correct. I do not think you could do it under the present interpretation of the antitrust act. We are not agreeable that that might be the correct interpretation, but we cannot do anything about it without having additional legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. I want to say I have the highest regard for the author of this legislation. He he one of the most valuable members of this committee, and I certainly hope he will not take any affront to any questions I have to ask on this legislation because I have affection and high regard for the author.

Mr. PELLY. Will the gentleman yield?

I might say I am looking to the gentleman to make the record so clear that there will be no doubt in the members' minds, and I do not know of anyone who is more competent, through questioning, to give us that type of transcript than the gentleman so that we can explain this bill to the House.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say this to Mr. Dingell, that if it seems to the gentleman that I tried to evade some of your questions, this was not the case. I was only trying to fully undersand and answer them in such a way so that it would be a factual answer instead of a guess.

Mr. DINGELL. I am satisfied that is right.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Johansen.

The next witness is from the west coast, Mr. J. Duane Vance, an attorney in the firm of Vance, Davies, Roberts & Bettis, 1411 Fourth Avenue Building, Seattle, Wash., who appears on behalf of the Seafarers International Union.

Mr. Vance, I understand you were formerly associated with the Justice Department and it would be helpful if you would put in the record your association in connection with the Department of Justice and any other background you would like.

STATEMENT OF J. DUANE VANCE, ATTORNEY, SEATTLE, WASH., APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. VANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for hearing me here on this matter.

I was associated with the Department of Justice and in the particular division that is concerned with these matters, the Antitrust Division, and in fact in the Seattle office, from June 1, I believe, of 1941

until approximately the 1st of November 1946, with some time out for service in World War II. I have been practicing privately in Seattle since that time.

We had some fisheries problems before us in the office of the Antitrust Division in Seattle when I was connected with that office. Ever since I have been in private practice I went into private practice in November 1946-ever since that time I have been practicing labor law and have been active in the fisheries field more or less on a local basis, although I am now serving as attorney for the fisheries conference of the Seafarers International Union, and through these conferences have become more or less familiar with the problems in other areas besides the Pacific Northwest.

I have prepared a short statement which I have filed with the committee, and with the permission of the committee I would not read it because there are some very interesting questions here and I would like to have an opportunity to answer those questions too. So, with the permission of thec chairman, I would just follow in substance my statement until we reach a point of inquiry and then answer them at that point.

Mr. LENNON. Without objection, your prepared statement will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. DUANE VANCE, ON BEHALF OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO

Fishermen's wages have since before the time of Christ, been determined or fixed by the method of "lay" or "share." Thus, to negotiate wages, singly or collectively, the fishermen must negotiate concerning the price at which the fish are sold. As a result of civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission, fishermen's unions have been denied the right to negotiate wages for their members by the negotiation of the price of the sale of the fish by the boat to the processor.

Columbia River Packers Association v. Hinton, 315 U.S. 143.
Local 36, ILWU v. United States, 177 Fed. (2d) 320.

Gulf Shrimpers and Oystermen's Association v. United States, 236 Fed. (2d) 658.
Hawaiian Tuna Packers Ltd. v. ILWU, D.C. Hawaii, 72 F. Supp. 562.

The Federal Trade Commission has set forth its various proceedings in its report.

In these cases it has been construed that such negotiation is "price fixing" under the antitrust laws.

At the same time it has always been held and never denied that the fishermens "lay" or "share" was but a means of determining his wage.

35 CYC., 1241

Wilkinson v. Frasier, (1802) 170 Eng. Rep. 684

The Crusader, (1837) 6 Fed. Case No. 3,456, Fed. Cas. pg. 927.
United States v. Laflin, (CA 9 1928), 24 Feb. (2d) 683.

Coffin v. Jenkins, C.C.D. Mass., 1844, 5 Fed Cas. pg. 1189, Fed. Cas. No. 2,948.
Justice Story said:

"This lay or share does not not, according to law, create any partnership in the profits of the voyage, as has been sometimes erroneously supposed; but it is in the nature of wages for seamen in the common merchants service, and is governed by the same rules. This opinion was adopted by Lord Alvanley in Wilkinson v. Frasier, 4 Esp. 182; and more recently in the court of exchequer, in Perrott v. Bryant, 2 Younge & Co. Exch. 61; in Mair v. Glennie, 4 Maule & S. 240; by the court of kings bench, and by the supreme court of Massachusetts in Boston, in Baxter v. Redman, 3 Pick. 435, in Rice v. Austin, 17 Mass. 197, 203, 206, and in Grozier v. Attwood, 4 Pick. 234. The same doctrine was held by Lord

69-04966-3