FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ACT WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1963 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1114, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable E. L. Bartlett, presiding. Senator BARTLETT. The subcommittee will be in order. We meet today to take testimony relating to S. 1135 and we are going to have to complete the hearing this morning. We have important business on the floor this afternoon. I think we can do it because we have eight witnesses and if they do not testify at too great length and if I don't ask too many questions, we ought to be through in a couple of hours. The bill S. 1135 was introduced by Senator Magnuson, chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and is cosponsored by me. The bill would permit fishermen and buyers of fish to bargain collectively on the price of fish, exempt from the present antitrust laws. This legislation is similar to S. 3093, introduced in the 2d session of the 87th Congress. At the direction of the chairman of the committee I conducted hearings in Seattle, Wash., and in Ketchikan, Petersburg, Anchorage, Dillingham, and Kodiak, Alaska, on S. 3093 in October and November of last year. At the beginning of this session Senator Magnuson reintroduced the legislation with several changes. All administrative departments and agencies have not had an opportunity to report on this legislation or alternatively, have not reported. However, Senator Magnuson has requested that I conduct these hearings for the convenience of those representatives from the fishing industry who are here in Washington at this time, and there are several. The committee anticipates holding further hearings in various parts of the United States and later here in Washington again for the purpose of hearing from other interested parties, including Government witnesses. The committee's next hearing on this legislation is scheduled for San Pedro, Calif., on the 24th of this month, and San Diego on the 25th. I will place in the record at this point a copy of the public law which is proposed to be amended by this legislation, the text of S. 1135, together with a historical record of the legislation which I presented during the hearings held last year. Professional staff members assigned to this hearing: Morris J. Levin and Harry C. Huse. The act referred to is the act of June 25, 1934, Public Law 464. It will be placed in the record at this point. (The documents follow :) [S. 1135, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To make clear that fishermen's organizations, regardless of their technical legal status, have a voice in the ex-vessel sale of fish or other aquatic products on which the livelihood of their members depends Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Public Law Numbered 464, Seventy-third Congress, entitled "An Act authorizing asociations of producers of aquatic products" (48 Stat. 1213; 15 U.S.C. 521), is amended by adding at the end of section 1 the following new paragraph: "Associations authorized by this section (notwithstanding any State or local law) shall include, but not be limited to, unions or other organizations of active fishermen whose income is dependent on the ex-vessel price of fish or other aquatic products, although the membership of such an organization is composed of fishermen who are either masters or crewmembers of fishing vessels. Such an organization or organizations may bargain, severally or jointly with one or more buyers of the fish or other aquatic products produced by its members, or one or more associations of buyers, including area or industrywide associations, regarding the terms and conditions of ex-vessel sales of such fish or acquatic products, or take such other action with reference to such ex-vessel sales or factors affecting such ex-vessel sales, as an association may lawfully take, whether or not such fish or other aquatic products are sold through the organization and whether the organization acts as a selling agent or only as a bargaining agent: Provided, That nothing in this Act or in any State or local law shall limit the rights of employee fishermen given by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, the Clayton Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and other Acts, including the rights of employee fishermen whose compensation is determined by the proceeds of the catch, to bargain collectively, or take other collective action regarding the ex-vessel price per pound or per piece of fish or other aquatic products to be used as a basis for computing their compensation: And provided further, That the making of any such agreement or agreements between such an organization or organizations and one or more buyers or one or more associations of buyers concerning the terms, conditions, and prices of the exvessel sales of such fish or other aquatic products shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust or trade laws of the United States, and any such agreement or agreements shall be deemed to be lawful." [CHAPTER 742.] AN ACT Authorizing associations of producers of aquatic products Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That persons engaged in the fishery industry, as fishermen, catching, collecting, or cultivating aquatic products, or as planters of aquatic products on public or private beds, may act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively catching, producing, preparing for market, processing, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of said persons so engaged. The term "aquatic products" includes all commercial products of aquatic life in both fresh and salt water, as carried on in the several States, the District of Columbia, the several Territories of the United States, the insular possessions, or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common, and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes: Provided, however, That such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, and conform to one or both of the following requirements: First. That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein; or Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per annum. and in any case to the following: Third. That the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to an amount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members. SEC. 2. That if the Secretary of Commerce shall have reason to believe that any such association monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any aquatic product is unduly enhanced by reason thereof, he shall serve upon such association a complaint stating his charge in that respect, to which complaint shall be attached, or contained therein, a notice of hearing, specifying a day and place not less than thirty days after the service thereof, requiring the association to show cause why an order should not be made directing it to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. An association so complained of may at the time and place so fixed show cause why such order should not be entered. The evidence given on such a hearing shall be taken under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Commerce may prescribe, reduced to writing, and made a part of the record therein. If upon such hearing the Secretary of Commerce shall be of the opinion that such association monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any aquatic product is unduly enhanced thereby, he shall issue and cause to be served upon the association an order reciting the facts found by him, directing such association to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. On the request of such association or if such association fails or neglects for thirty days to obey such order, the Secretary of Commerce shall file in the district court in the judicial district in which such association has its principal place of business a certified copy of the order and of all the records in the proceedings together with a petition asking that the order be enforced and shall give notice to the Attorney General and to said association of such filing. Such district court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside said order, or enter such other decree as the court may deem equitable, and may make rules as to pleadings and proceedings to be had in considering such order. The place of trial may, for cause or by consent of parties, be changed as in other causes. The facts found by the Secretary of Commerce and recited or set forth in said order shall be prima facie evidence of such facts, but either party may adduce additional evidence. The Department of Justice shall have charge of the enforcement of such order. After the order is so filed in such district court and while pending for review therein, the court may issue a temporary writ of injunction forbidding such association from violating such order or any part thereof. The court shall, upon conclusion of its hearing, enforce its decree by a permanent injunction or other appropriate remedy. Service of such complaint and of all notices may be made upon such association by service upon any officer, or agent thereof, engaged in carrying on its business, or on any attorney authorized to appear in such proceeding for such association and such service shall be binding upon such association, the officers and members thereof. Approved, June 25, 1934. [From 1961 Alaska hearings] NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES PROBLEMS I want to read a history of legislation to permit collective bargaining by fishermen. I had my office go back to 1946. We found out that between 1946 and 1950 the Congressional Record index contains no references to bills of this nature. However, in the 82d Congress, 1st session, 1951, S. 2176 was introduced by Senator Magnuson. It would have amended the Fishermen's Cooperative Marketing Act, June 25, 1934, chapter 742, 48 Stat. 1213, 15 U.S.C. 521-522, to make clear that fishermen's organizations, regardless of their technical legal status, have a voice in the ex-vessel sale of fish or other aquatic products on which the livelihood of their members depends. Reports were requested from General Accounting Office, Interior, and Justice. GAO had no comment to make, while Interior and Justice did not report. No hearings were held and no action was taken on S. 2176. In the same session of the same Congress, H.R. 5667 was introduced by Representative Pelly, and it was identical with S. 2176. Reports were requested from Labor, Interior, and Justice. The Department of Labor's report was generally favorable, while no reports were received from Interior and Justice. No hearings were held and no action was taken on H.R. 5667. From 1951 to 1957 the Congressional Record index contains no references to bills concerning collective bargaining rights for fishermen. However, I should put this in as an addendum. In 1952, 82d Congress, a letter from the Department of Labor dated January 5, 1952, to Representative Edward J. Hart, chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, concerning H.R. 5667, generally favored the bill but stated that the Department of Labor did not desire to comment specifically on the provisions of H.R. 5667. In the 1958, 85th Congress, 2d session, S. 3530 was introduced by Senators Payne and Smith of Maine. It also would have limited the Fishermen's Cooperative Marketing Act and would have exempted fishermen from the provisions of antitrust acts in order to allow fishermen to engage in collective bargaining. This bill was referred to the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Reports were requested from Interior, Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and the Comptroller General. Interior did not recommend enactment. Justice and Federal Trade Commission were opposed to the bill and the Comptroller General made no recommendation. Hearings were held on June 15 and 16, 1958, and were printed. The bill was not reported and no action was taken. Like bills were introduced in the House. No action was taken. H.R. 12329, introduced by Representative Coffin and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, would have amended section 6 of the Clayton Act to include within its terms organizations of persons engaged in the fishery industry. Reports were requested from Federal Trade Commission and Interior. No report was received from Interior. The Federal Trade Commission opposed H.R. 12329 in a letter to Representative Celler on August 15, 1958. No hearings were held and no action was taken on H.R. 12329. In 1959, 86th Congress, 1st session, S. 23, introduced by Senator Smith of Maine, referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, was identical to the bill she had introduced in the previous Congress. Hearings were held on April 3, 1959, and printed with the hearings on S. 502, "Salmon High Seas Conservation." No action was taken on S. 23. H.R. 3348 was introduced by Representative Pelly and referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. It also would have amended the Fishermen's Cooperative Marketing Act to permit collective bargaining by fishermen. No action. H.R. 2777, introduced by Representative McCormack and referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, was identical. It was considered in executive session but no action was taken. In 1961, 87th Congress, S. 1265, was introduced by me and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, would have extended the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act so as to include members of the crews of certain fishing vessels. Reports were requested from the National Dabor Relations Board, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Labor Department. To the best of my knowledge no reports have yet been received. The bill introduced by Representative Rivers, and the bill introduced by Representative Pelly, were, I believe, identical. Senator BARTLETT. We also have a letter addressed to the chairman, Chairman Magnuson, from Max N. Edwards, Assistant to the Secretary and Legislative Council, Department of Interior, which reads in part: We do plan, however, to submit our report to the committee prior to the commencement of the hearing. The hearing has commenced and no report. This will be placed in the record, along with a letter from Samuel V. Merrick, Special Assistant for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, who says among other things that the Department probably will not testify, which rather concerns and surprises me, but they will submit a statement. Perhaps we will want to the Department to testify. (The letters follow :) Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This responds to your letter of April 9, 1963, concerning the scheduling of a public hearing on May 8, 1963, on S. 1135 by the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the Senate Committee on Commerce. Your letter has been referred to this Office for reply. It is not planned that the Department will have witnesses at this hearing unless requested by the committee. We do plan, however, to submit our report to the committee prior to the commencement of the hearing. Sincerely yours, MAX N. EDWARDS, Assistant to the Secretary and Legislative Counsel. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This is in reply to your letter dated April 9 regarding hearings on S. 1135. As of the moment it is our thought that the Department will not want to testify. However, it is my present expectation that the Department will desire to file a statement with the committee, which I note should be submitted in 35 copies. I appreciate very much your thoughtfulness in extending us the opportunity to testify. Sincerely yours, SAMUEL V. MERRICK, Special Assistant for Legislative Affairs. Senator BARTLETT. Finally there is a letter from Mr. Seth W. Morrison of the legal firm of Allen, De Garmo & Leedy, Seattle, Wash., which will be placed in the record and it says in part and I quote: *** the association does not oppose the bill provided it contains language which permits fish purchasers to jointly negotiate and provided it is clear, for the reasons outlined in our statement, that unions in negotiating fish prices with buyers must act like associations and not like labor unions. If either of these two conditions are not fulfilled in the text and legislative history of the bill, then the association must vigorously oppose it. It is our understanding that these conditions are fully acceptable to the principal proponents of the bill, including Mr. George Johansen of the Alaska Fishermens Union. There will also be placed in the record at this point a statement on this bill from the Association of Pacific Fisheries prepared by Mr. Morrison. (The documents follow :) Prepared by Seth W. Morrison of Allen, De Garmo & Leedy, Seattle, Wash., Attorneys for the Association of Pacific Fisheries Re S. 1135. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, ALLEN, DE GARMO & LEEDY, Seattle, May 1, 1963. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am enclosing for your information a copy of the statement of position of the Association of Pacific Fisheries, representing the position of most of the Pacific Northwest salmon canners, relating to S. 1135, the bill to permit unions to serve as fish marketing associations. |