do so consistent with considerations such as the basic principle of supply and demand and an admitted concern over the continuing overhead without compensation during prolonged negotiations over price. If S. 1135 were enacted, the unions would be permitted to bargain with the buyer for the price to be paid for fish. This they could do with or without the presence and participation of the boatowner. Because the unions, by virtue of existing collective bargaining agreements, under unionshop provisions represent all of the crewmen of the vessels, and thus a broader group, and sometimes even the cannery workers themselves, the canner-buyer would likely be inclined to negotiate with the union. In the event of a conflict of desires, on considerations of expediency between the boatowner and his employee-fishermen through their union representatives-it is fair to inquire with whom the canner is most likely to deal. Certainly, it is not inconceivable that he will deal with the union and so, as a direct result of S. 1135, what has forever been historically a management decision-the right to determine what price his product is to be sold at-has become a decision to be decided or controlled by the producer's employees. If the boatowner and canner should agree on a price, and the union disagrees while acting as a "marketing association," it is presumed that the boat's employee-fishermen would be entitled to receive unemployment insurance until such time as their price has been met. During, of course, the boatowner is sustaining mounting overhead losses. Nor does it need to follow that the canner-buyer would ultimately be deciding with whom to bargain as between boatowner and his employee-fishermen. This decision very likely would be made between the boatowner and his employees through their representative union at the collective bargaining table. And since it is admitted as true that "the union does possess in a general way more muscle" than an association of boatowners or an independent boatowner may have in dealing with the canner-buyer, the decision which would be reached is not entirely conjectural. In view of the foregoing, it is our view that the enactment of S. 1135 would result in a boatowner losing his most important last remaining management right-that of deciding what is a fair price, under all circumstances, for his catch. In addition to our concurrence with the statements and positions taken by the American Tuna Boat Association, we also agree with the view of Mr. Seth Morrision, attorney for the Association of Pacific Fisheries in his statement before this honorable subcommittee dated May 3, 1963, to the extent that in its present wording, S. 1135 does not make sufficiently clear that when they are to be permitted to bargain with buyers, unions can function only as an association may lawfully so do. However, our basic objection goes beyond this point. It is that even if the bill were to clearly so state, any such distinction in reality and practice would be a mere illusion. I am appreciative, on behalf of National Marine Terminals, Inc., for this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and respectfully regret that shortness of notice prevented me from preparing a more formal statement. However, Mr. Kovelchek or I will answer any questions that you may care to propose. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Friedman. You expressed the belief that enactment of this bill would be to deprive the boatowner of his last important remaining management right, the inference being, of course, that other rights have been lost heretofore. What are those rights that will be lost? Mr. FRIEDMAN. This might be slightly inflammatory due to the rush in which it was prepared. What I am trying to convey, Senator, is that the right determining under considerations of expediency to which I have referred, namely, the cost of keeping a vessel idle while negotiations continue, considerations that a boatowner must make concerning supply and demand, his awareness of the fact that there are other boatowners who will supply cheaper elsewhere. There are some other extending rights as to where to fish. Senator BARTLETT. Do you want to name any of these other rights that he may have had but that he has lost for any reason? I am kind of interested in knowing what they are. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Oh, there are a number of Senator BARTLETT. Important rights, that is. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Important rights. I suppose items such as the right the boatowner previously enjoyed to negotiate with the cannery concerning the weigh-in of fish. Abuses did apparently develop. Senator BARTLETT. That is a loss the boatowners have suffered which is an important Mr. FRIEDMAN. To some extent. Senator BARTLETT. Management right. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes; because the boatowners, for example, who were delivering largely to canneries where these abuses were, it was felt did not exist, are nevertheless put in a position through bargaining and it is true they have agreed Senator BARTLETT. They participated. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Have participated in finding inspection elsewhere. Senator BARTLETT. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Friedman: How long has the National Marine Terminals been in existence? Mr. FRIEDMAN. I honestly do not know, Senator. Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Kovelchek? Mr. KOVELCHEK. It was organized in 1949. Senator BARTLETT. How did you arrive at the selling price of tuna in the year of organization? Mr. KOVELCHEK. At the time National Marine Terminals was organized there was a prevailing price for fish that had existed for some time. In fact, I believe it was still under the control of the price controls during the war. I believe it was still under price control. Senator BARTLETT. 1949? Mr. KOVELCHEK. I believe so, sir. Senator BARTLETT. How about 1950? Mr. KOVELCHEK. I believe it was over 1949. At that time the price of fish suddenly took a jump of about $60. Senator BARTLETT. Who established that price in 1950? Did you, through direct negotiations with the canners involved? Mr. KOVELCHEK. No; I couldn't say that, sir. Senator BARTLETT. Did the unions have anything to do with it then? Mr. KOVELCHEK. I am not in a position to say. I don't know. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. LEVIN. Just one question as to something Mr. Felando brought up, and I didn't go into it. Possibly the question should be addressed to him. It seems that you are dealing with just four or five or six canneries, and no matter where you turn they pop up. They have been made the villains by the union witnesses we have heretofore heard. Is there any possibility that there will be future canneries or additional independent canneries established in southern California? Mr. KOVELCHEK. Recently, within the past 12 months, I understand that another organization has been exploring the possibility of establishing another cannery in San Diego. I don't think it has borne any fruit. Mr. LEVIN. Has an attempt ever been made by your association or any other group that you know of to enter into what we have known in New England for some time as co-ops, where possibly you would go the association would go into the packing business? Mr. KOVELCHEк. I have heard that that has been discussed and considered by an association. I do not know for a fact. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Felando? Mr. FELANDO. Yes. We have discussed that possibility. A group of the members of our association formed a cannery called the American Tuna Cannery. It was not strictly a co-op. After that cannery was sold to Van Camp, we considered the possibility of either establishing a cannery or working out arrangements with existing canneries that could not utilize all the facilities; but it did not proceed. Mr. LEVIN. This is not said facetiously. Would there be a benefit to the boatowners and the fishermen if there were additional competitive independent canneries in southern California? Mr. FELANDO. Are you asking me? Mr. LEVIN. Start with the witness on the stand. Mr. KOVELCHEK. I think that is probably a question that an economist could answer much better than I. I believe that the few instances where they have tried to pack for their own account or for a group of producers, boatowners who have attempted to pack their own production and to market it in competition with the well-known advertised brands, I believe that they have failed. Mr. LEVIN. That is all I have, sir. Mr. FELANDO. Do you want my answer? Mr. LEVIN. I will be glad to hear your answer. Mr. FELANDO. My answer is an unqualified "yes." Mr. LEVIN. The more competition gives you better bidding and higher prices? Mr. FELANDO. Yes; that is right. Mr. LEVIN. That is what I thought it might be. STATEMENT OF JOHN P. GILCHRIST, CALIFORNIA SEAFOOD INSTITUTE Mr. GILCHRIST. Senator Bartlett and Mr. Counsel, my name is John P. Gilchrist. I am the general manager of the California Seafood Institute. That is an organization on a statewide basis representing approximately 90 companies. These companies includes producers of fresh fish who also at times. act as wholesalers, brokers, and importers. Senator, I am somewhat at a disadvantage at this hearing in that I have had no opportunity to prepare a prepared statement for you inasmuch as from my telegram I only learned of this meeting recently. Generally, my duties fall under three categories, generally as an administration regulator in that I handle regulatory legislation problems of the association and some public relations. I have been general manager of this institute for approximately 11 years, and at no time other than at this meeting have I ever engaged in either price or labor negotiations. So, despite the fact that I am somewhat familiar with the as a matter of fact quite familiar with legislative processes, I am not too familiar with this type of a proceeding. We are somewhat alarmed that Senate bill 1135 could result in a chaotic condition as far as our industry is concerned, and on that basis we are offering opposition to this legislation. In the first place our time of fishing is very highly regulated, primarily by the State of California. We have three different types of fisheries. We have a trough fishing, which is your bottom fishery. We have the trolling fishery which is generally your salmon and small albacore, and we have crab or another type of bottom fishery. When I say that we are highly regulated, we are regulated in many instances by seasons, by areas in which we may fish, by bag limits, and at times by regulatory control of the California Fish and Game Commissioner aside from the legislative laws that are now in existence. We also have a rather interesting problem that we are faced with in that we also have competition directly from something that the fortunate tuna people are not concerned with, and that is sportsmen. Unfortunately, the sportsmen of the State of California are constantly trying to put us out of business by maintaining that the fishes of the waters of the State of California are rightfully theirs and not ours. This is one problem that we are constantly faced with. Now, I would ask for your consideration in that I have had so little time to prepare my testimony that I read certain statements to you that I made, that I would ask be read into the record, which are taken from the records of the National Labor Relations Board of February 23, 1963, with regard to a petition by the unions to represent certain of our fishermen, in order that my statements be absolutely accurate. Senator BARTLETT. Does it relate, does it materially relate to this bill? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes, sir. I believe it does, because I believe it has to deal with employer-fishermen. I believe it has to do with so-called employer-fishermen. Senator BARTLETT. How voluminous is it, Mr. Gilchrist? Senator BARTLETT. Go to it. Mr. GILCHRIST. I will be as brief as possible. I am reading this only as a matter of clarification in order that I can get my thoughts entirely Senator BARTLETT. All right. Mr. GILCHRIST. I am now referring to the type of negotiations which take place with regard to the price to be paid for fish taken by the boats before the season opens, and I am now quoting: The companies engaged the men Senator BARTLETT. May I interrupt you? Senator BARTLETT. What was that case? Senator BARTLETT. What is the case from which you are reading? Mr. GILCHRIST. This is a case-well, in the first place it was between three companies and the Marine Staff Officers & Allied Personnel, affiliated with the Seafarers International Union of North America, who petitioned to represent the employees of these various boats. Senator BARTLETT. Can you identify this by docket number? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes, sir, I can. Docket 20-RC-406; CR-4848, 4074, 4064, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4070. I beg your pardon, 4047, 4048, 4064, 4061, 4062, and 4063. As a matter of fact, Senator, I can speak with authority as far as the sportsmen-much more as a sportsman, much more than I can as a commercial fisherman. Mr. LEVIN. Are you citing from a case before a National Labor Relations Board hearing examiner? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes, sir. Mr. LEVIN. You are going to read from an examiner's decision? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes, sir. Mr. LEVIN. Not the final decision; you don't know if it was appealed or not? Mr. GILCHRIST. I know what the final decision is. I am not reading that final decision. I am only reading a statement made Mr. LEVIN. Just one moment. So we have the record very clear, was the final decision the same or a reversal of the examiner's decision? Mr. GILCHRIST. The final decision as I have it here was a rejection of the appeal of the union. They rejected the petition. Mr. LEVIN. In other words, it agreed with the examiner ? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes, sir. Senator BARTLETT. This is a Board decision from which you are reading? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes, sir. Mr. LEVIN. And this is a representation matter? It was not a matter of Mr. GILCHRIST. This is the testimony here, and I am reading from a transcript of the testimony. I have the testimony with me on that, and as I stated, the only reason I am reading this is so I can get my thinking absolutely clear in order that when you ask the questions I can refer to my notes. That is the only reason. Senator BARTLETT. All right. |