"•'^-••iil
Illlllf-Se '«^.MA^.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
HISTORY OF THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
for the
SHIPBUILDING AND SHIPREPAIRING INDUSTRY
WORK MATERIALS NO. 70
Administrative Section
March. 1936
H I S T 0 11 Y
01 the
CODE 02 pai:r co;;p2iTiTioii
for the
s:nP3uiLDiiiCr Aim sHiprL:::PAiHiiTG iwdustey
Ap^3roved Code ITo. 2
Author:
J. Ilevrton Faittelsey
Robert C. Ayers
Chief, Histories Unit
J732
This histoiy of the Code of Pair Conpetition for the ShiplDuil cling
and Sliiprepairing industr^^ is raineographod in order to nalce available
a snn-ole of the code histories prepared "by the Division of Revie'7.
A sinilar service uill be rendered in connection vfith certain other
code histories.
lu order to get a conplete picture of national "."lecover;- Acriinis-
tration iiaterials applicable to a ,;iven indv.stry, one nust visualize
such 8. documented code history as this sujrported b^r the three voliunes
of evidence vhich were sent to the President at the time the code was
reconnended for his approval, plus any studies in this field either
bj' the Division of Research and Planniiag or by the Division of Revievr
of the rational Secoverjr Adjninis traction, plus the vast anount of ma-
terial in ITationcJ. Zecovery Adninictration files which was developed
in connection \7ith the formation and administration of the code. These
constitute a veritable treasurj' of infonnation concerning the opera-
tions and probloms of indxistrj-.
Txiis Listor;- contains a documented acco-unt of the formation and
administra-tion of the code; the definition of the industry and the
principal products thereof; the classes of members in the industr;'-; an
account of the sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations
aJid hearings which were held, and the activities in connection with
obtaining approval of the code; the organization and operation of the
code authority, the difficulties enco-ontered in the acb.-; in i strati on,
the extent of compliance and non-compliance, a^id the general success
or lacl: of success of the code; and an analysis of the operation of the
code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade practices, and other
provisions. These and other matters are canvasned, not only in the
terms of materials to be found in the files, but also in terms of ex-
periences of the Division Ad:,iinistrators, Deputy Administrators, Assis-
tant Deputy Administrators aiid others connected with the code formation
and administration.
At the bach of this historj'- will be found a brief statement of the
studies and work undertalcen by the Division of Review.
L. C. Karshall
Director, Division of Review
Ilarch 6, IS 36
3752 -i-
HI S T 0 R. Y
of the
Code of Pair Coi:iijstition
for the /
SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP ESP AIRING INDUSTRY
Approved Code No. 2
Registry No. 140e/l/0l
Approved July 25, 1933
Effective August 5, 1933
Compiled "by H. Kewton 'JThittelsey
Assistant Deputy Section Director
Reviewed ty
_ 0 „
A. Heath Cnthank, Director
liaustry Section No. 2
9732 -11-^
-ip.'^r
TO: A. Eaath Cnthank
director, Industry Section 2
PEOi:: H. llev-rton Ti^iittelsey
Assistant Deputy Section Director
SUBJECT: History of the Code of ?air Competition for the
Slaipliuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Herewith original and five copies of tne
above history prepared in accordance T,7ith the revised
model outline dated July 10, 1935.
In my opinion this history adequately
reflects the history of the code.
H. NETTiop WHITTELSSY ( Signed)
H. Ke;.'ton T^iittelsey ~~
Assistant Deputy Section Director
Hevierred "by:
E. H. SCKAJ]ITBR (Signed)
E. H. Schaeffer
j^p roved:
A. Heath Gntl^nk
9732 -iii~
riSFACE
This rristor;- of the Couc of iVir Coi:netioion foi' the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairiiiti Industry certains to en Industr-'- Irwgely outside the
tariff wall. The principal business of the rna.jor and mediuia size plants
is ^he buildin^ and repair of Cormnorcial Ve;'.sels for dee;o sea trade,
which uiust be sold to operators who are in direct competition with 'che
raerchant fleets of the world. In this Goir;oetiti on, construction cost
must be .-^nortized durin.j; the life of the vessels and at the sarae time
there r.iust oe c;:rried the increased costs of o^'^emtion of American
vessels. A lev of the majox' com-oa::.ies also build for the Fav^/.
The History of this Code :'o. 2 and the Industry subject to it was
predeter..iined 'oy two early events, i. e.; (l) There was substantirlly
im"50sed on t'oe Industry uneconomic weekly houxs of 33 -oer wee'!: for
i'aval \:orl: and c6 -oer vee]'. for CoLimerci:;l vrnrlz at the -nost-hearinc-, con-
ferences, after reasonrble \/er-":ly hours of 40 per week had been de-
termined in three days of he rinjs, {?.) a.-.d there r--re not submitted
to the Administration, o;- the De'outy, the. Industry's Rules Pnd Rc-
i-ulftions cjr;taining its Fair Trade Practice ••rrovisions, for ap-oroval
and necessary modifications to make them enforceable, and consequently
its Trade Practice -provisions failed of enforcement.
Shipbuilding is not a continuoj.s "orocess, and it cannot be
ori^anized cora-oletely on a fa.ctory production basis. Prior to July 1,
19C" , the Industry worj'jecl on a 44 to 48 hour basis and t-^-ve the men
a payroll on 37-Jy hours per week avera^ e. A 40 hour maximum average
week would .;ive them about Z3 hcn-s • ler week try, but che Code 36 hours
per week f-,ave them only j9 to 31 hour? lay. Due to the restricted
weekly h'^iirs labor became restive, and v;a._ve scs.les were increased
20.' to 40'^j and, t'nerefore, far beyon;! Code require-.ionts, until the
scale as reported Hay 1935 by tlie Department of Labor was 75 cents
avera-e oer hour for Shiy/ouildinj^, whereas General : '^mufacturing
Industries averf>_,ed 57 cents -T.-r hou", a difference of 30,3. Even then,
the jaens' average -parj of April 1935 was only 323.60, and in conseq^uence
a major strike dcvelone'l.
Peak em'ilornienc on ITaval contrr cts was seriously aelayed by the
Code hours and eyamloyment on ne'j deep sea coimaercial contracts was
substc-ntially barred lar^^ely <iue to the increased cost incident to the
restricted hdrs. The Code acted to spread errrjolo^rment for a few months,
but defe£ited the real increase of employment hoped for. The Government
operated the '.■av^.'- yards on a 40 hour ner week basis because it would
have required an increase of aooronriation to reduce to 36 hourrj per
week, and drev? skilled raevi from the private ytirds.
The Code ori,^inally ;:)rovided 32 hours for ITaval shinbuilding and
36 houjcs for Commercial shi-fouildin^- with -)ermit to w irl; up to 40 hours
on Shi'tirepairing, but the latter to be averai^ed over a six months' neriod
at 36 hours. April ■?., 1934, Amendm-nt Vo. 3, I'pvpI Shi'^buildinc; was
chan^'^d to 36 ho.-a-s. The Shi-ibuilders an'^lied to the Administrator
for further relief of 40 hours p -r week, a conference was held on
9732 -iv-
May 7, 19c4, where all nr.rties of interest v/ere renresented, but no
uocision v.as evtr leaiiered 'oy che Administrator, cilthou^.h over 90' • of
N. H. A. Codes and Supplftment.-. -provided for 40 hours per week or "better.
The TTashi}-! -ton viev o:," this Indus^Ty has boen lart-ely in error,
whether judf.ed from open hefrin^^s, conferences, or conversations. Build-
int; of Naval vessels is spoken of usually as the princi''->al and only
business of the Industry. In fact, only 7 of the ?34 shi-ohuilding end
repair comoanies h.a.ve contracts to build for the I'avy. The Industry
in" 1919 employed L;87,44G, y-nd in 1927' err-)loyed 6?, 387, and in 1929 emr-
ployed 55,069, mostly on conmercial phi:-ibuildine; and repair. The cm-
■oloyment d-;rini-:; A-nril 1^.'?5 was 40,582 and included hardly more tlian
one-ihird actuall;^'- ■.^orkinji on ITaval contr-'xts.
The Fair Trade Practice Tirovisions incorporated in the Eules and
Hee-uli ti ns were- seriou'^ly desired oy the Industry to correct certain
bad -.iractices. Coj;3id--'rable effort was made at three meetin^-s of the
Code Authority and tv/o hearin 'js (one an o^ien liearin^) to v^eriect these
under the e,uida.nce of the Deouty, and they wer'^ finally a r^roved by the
Code Authority October .?., 193r. They contained sorae provisions that
should have been submitted as amendiiients and others that needed niodi-
ficaticn to make them enforceable. Unfortunately, the Dcniuty did nob
submit them to the Adi:..ni3tr^tion and the entire lot wont into discard,
leaving the Industry without ar.;,'' adoqua.te "orovisicns.
In Llarch 1934 wor]- on an Ainended Code to include suitable Labor
and Fair Trr^de Practice provisions v/as be^-.un by the Shipbuilders, but
it v.'as held up pending the decision on the aoplication for the 40 hour
week. Every effort was made by those in chart,e of the Code to hxive the
Amended Code suo.dtted, but without success in viev; of the indefinite
situation x-e.,c.-.rdin_- the 40 hour weel: and the 30 hour lav; T)endint, in
Consress. definite plans, however, v;ere under v/ay for a revised Code
under the nronosed new T. ... a. la?/, ths.t was ex-pected to rectify the
situation.
The author's ey-oerience with the A'drainis uration of this Code was
characterized by continuou.s iro.jlemr. of stays and exemptions which were
for the most "oart the outcome of restricted hours, fui'ther, the unrest-
ful labor situation made a.n Indu-^trial Relations Committee most nec-
essary, which war; difficult to set un, but finally -irovea hi^ihly efficient
as the Industry and Labor h'embers ^'orked exceedingly well together.
The author jointed II. R. A. in April 1934 for work of administcr-
ir.£, the Shipbuildinti and Shioreimirin.-; Code, :3oatbuildin^ and 3oatre-
pairin^ Code, a;ia other Llarine Codes, under ;;r. J. B. Weaver, Deputy
administrator, Division I. August 1, 1934, the Code was transferred
to Division II, V.v. Barton W. ilurray, Division Ad^TJinistrator, with
Colonel \i, W. Hote, Deputy of the Section, and the author was trans-
ferred with the Code at the same tine. Both Mr. i.forray and Colonel
Rose took considerable int'=-rest in this Code and its -u-oblcms. The
author's )revioas trainin^:, was University of Hin- esota, and then Univ-
ersity of Glasgow, C-las5,.ow, Scotland, for Faval Architecture, Bath Iron
works, Bath, Maine, for 'oractical shipbuilding in the yard; Consolidated
Shipbuildin,^' Company, Maryland Steel Comiany (Bethlehem Shipbuilding
9732
-V-
Coh.panj,-), lMe'7 Yorl: Shi-obuildiiii' Gom;^an,y ir. ■.icsi^aii:;^;; follov/ed by a
lon^ pei'iod in Hew Yorl: ar- the head of IToittolsey and r.-hittelsey, Faval
ii-rcnitects and l.Irrine Fnt^ineors, rho act--^a for shinbuilders, owners,
and financial inutitutions,
la.
Coirpiilnd by:
H. ^^WHQ-J T;EIT?LLSZY (SJCTed)
H. rev^ton V'hittelse:''
Ar,sistant Do-outy Section Director
9732 -vi-
(
HISTORY
of the
Code of Fair Competition
for the
SHIPBUILDIH& MB SHIPEEPAIHIIIG Ii:]DUSTRY
-VI 1-
9732
TASLE 0? COlITT^l^S
PAGE
Title
Letter of Transmittal
Preface
Code History
Contents
I . Genere.1 Information
A, Definition of Industry
E. Definition of Industrj'^ L'ember
C. Statistics of the Industry
II. History of Code PorTflula,tion
A. Sponsoring Orgn.nization
B. From Submission of Pirst Draft
Code to Public H:ea.ring
C. Public Hearin^'^s on Code
D. Prom Public Hearing to Aporoval
III. Code Administration
A. Definitions.
B, 1. Organization
2. Personnel of Code Authority
3. I.ieetings of Code Authoritj'-
Au~ust 22, 1933 to Farch 5, 1934
".larch 5, 1934 to August 20, 1935
4. Agency of the Code Authority
-viii-
9732
11
111
IV
VI 1
Vlll
1
4
5
6
13
16
16
56
61
64
72
74
166
PAGE
C, Ijudgets and Basis of Assessment 189
D. Administration of the Code 217
1. Amend'nents 217
2-3 Interpretptions, Sxerritions end Stays 252
4 a Otlier Administrative Agencies 300
4 b L'Voor Complaints Co'nmittees
Industrial Relations Committee 308
4 11-2 Industrial Relations Activities 370
4 c By-Laws - Rules and Regulations 395
IV. Operation of Code Provisions 424
A. Definitions 424
B. Uages 427
C . Hours 438
" Economic Effect 468
D. Other Labor Provisions 482
- 6. StriVe - NeT? York Shipbuilding Corooration 482
E. Administrative Provisions 495
P. Price and Accoionting Provisions 497
G. Trade Pract ices 501
H. Other Provisions 503
V, Recommendations 504
A. Undesirable or Unenforceable Provisions 504
-iz-
?732
f
PACrE
3. Compliance rith Code. 507
C. Limitai-ions on Prorl-uction 507
D. Possible Code Consolida.tion3 507
E^ Relations of Covern.'^.ent vith. Industry 507
VI. A, Personnel 513
B. Administration Member' s Report. 511
Appendix - Bound in Separate Voliirae
Index
"X-
9732
INDEX
-XI-
3732
il
IIISEX
PAGES
Accounting and Price ?x"ovisions kSf
Accoiintin,'; System 5OO
Administration of Code 217
Adniini stration LierVoGr ( s) 513
Chan.<;es in 73
Report 511
Administrative Code Provisions U95
Administrative Order '.'^jo, 209
Termination of Parr^J-'P-pl^ 3 • 209
Administrative Orders, List of Pa^e 3 of Contents - Appendix
Administrative Orders, "Otliers" 209
Effect of 209
Administrative Price Policy' 5^0
Ad-mini st rat ive Provisions ^95
Advisory Boards 5^3
Personnel 513
Reports Set forth in III J) 2-3 252
Agencies of Code Autliorit" I66
Aides 513
Amendments 217
Apprentices and Learners 4S2
Approval
of Ly-La^s. 395
of Code 59
of Code Authorit" 73
Appendix - Contents See Appendix
-XI 1-
9732
IIUEX
PAGES
xissessinents 189-215
ilethods of Collectio:i Igg
Proportion Collected 209
S'j.ccess or failure 2l6
Voluntary or ilanclctory IS9
Assist?jit Deputy Actiinictrators 513
Association I3
Officers of lU
(See also "S:oonsorin{; Organization")
Budgets
As SalDnitted and Approved 189-200
Periods Covered 3y 197-20S
Budgets and Bases of Assessnent 1S9
By-Laws (l^les a^nd Ee/p.il'tions) 395
Approval Date 397
Approval, Steps in Ootaining 397
Capital, Agfiregate Invented 6
Child Labor Provision kZ2
Class A Trade Practices. 502
Class 3 Trade Practices 502
Classes of I ndustry Ilenoers 3^
Classification of Castoners 5^0
Code Administration. 6U
Ad.'aini strati on of the Code. 217
Amendment s , 217
-Xlll-
9732
IMSSX
FAOES
Code Aiilmini strati on (Continued)
Budgets and Basis of Assessment IS9
C-enerrl Preliuiiicry Discussion 6I
Q-enerrJ. Success or Lr.ck of Saccess 62
Organization. bU
Heetings, ■bcf:i:min^' .'ai-gust 22, 1933 7^+
" " :.sxch j, 1S3U
Code Approval 59
Conditions in OvCor of 59
Date of 59
Code Authority 65
Agencies I66
As Industry-Croverninj; Body ISS
Assessi.ient Collection ilotnods IS9
By-la".7s, or Rules r,nd Regulp.tions 395
Changes in 6S
Date of Selection, end llethcd 6U
Jield Orgcinizr.tion I66
Financial Operrtions 2l6
Personnel 65
Protest 300
PLecognition., d4
Code Connittee 14
Code Foriralstion 13
Early Conferences r,nd Negotiations lU
Hearings Id
Officers, Code Co::::ittees, Interested Groups lU
Code, Printed ( approved) Appendix A
Code Provisions
Changes IXiring Pinal Drafting 5^
Operation '^2h
Undesirahle or Unonforceahle 50^
(See also "Operr.tion of Code Provisions")
Code Revision (proposed) ■ 2U9
-:civ-
9732
PA&HS
Collection of Strtictics, U96
Compli:->jicc
Definitions ^4?^
Hours ^38
Recoinr.endationc 5^7
Trade Prr.ctices 5*^1
Wages ^27
Coraf)liance Eivisio.:, lle^^orts cf
Ccncerns, ITumoer of o
Conditions in Oruer of ^'.^proval 59
Conf identipl Agency 4-9b
Consolidations, Possiole Code 5^7
Consuicers' Advi sory Ijoard 51^+
Reports Set forth III D 2-3 252
Coopera.tives 5^1
Cost System 500
Definition of Incaistiv* ^
Adnendnents. . . . • 217
Evolution ^
Operation ^2U
Definition of Industry lleiYoer 5
Deputy Administrators 5^3
Differentials
Price 501
Wage ^27
-XV-
S732
INDEX ;-
PAGES
Division Aaninistr-^tors 513
Economic Effect of Hours U6g
Emergency Price Basis 5OO
Employees, A^:gregate ITui^iber of 6
Executive Order 6205-3, Protests Piled Under 59
Exemptions 263
Explanations US2
Factory 1i7age-Earners, ITanter of. 6
Field Organization of Code Authority I66
Final-Draft Code Appendix A
Financial Operations of Code Authority 212-216
" " Closing of 216
First-Draft Code to Riljlic Hearing Appendix B
General Information 1
Handicapped Persons US2
Hedge Clause 5^3
Home Uorkers U22
-XVI-
9732
IITDEX
PAGES
Hours Provisions U3S
Compliance ,
Effect U39
Economic effect on Comj.:ercial and Kaval Contrc?.cts U68
Industrial Advisoiv Board 51^
Reports Set forth in III D 2-3 252
Industrial Relations Conattee 3O8
" " " Activities 370
Industry'-
Compliance 5^7
Definition of, U
Reaction to Code A;;^proval 59
Statistics of 6
Industry Member, Definition of 5
Industry Members, Clr.sses of 6
Insignia U3U
Interpretations 252
'• of Code A-ithority 25U
Investigation of Records. ^95
Labels 210
Labor Advi sory Board 5^3
Reports Set fortli in III D 2-3 252
Labor Compla.int s Co-r-ittee ( s) 3^3
Labor Conplaints 3S2-3S7 USO
-XVI 1-
3732
o
IIUBX
PAGES
Labor Provisions
:.Ii scellaneoi^s. US2
Posting U3U-U2I
(See also "Hours" end "'Jages")
Learners and Apprentices. US2
Legal Divi si on 513
Reports Set ."orth in III D 2-3 252
Limitation on Proc.-action, Kachinery, Shifts, etc 5^^?
Liquidated Damages. U96
Iliscellaneous Labor Provisions US2
Operation of Code Frovicions U2U
Accounting rr.d Price U97
Ad'"dnistrative ^95
Definitions U2U
Hours U3S
Labor, other thrn Hoiirs p.nd Uages U22
Trade Practices. 501
T7ages H27
Uneconomic effect of hour provisions U68
Order of Ap:oroval 59
Overlapping Definitions. ^425
Overtime Pay U3U
Peak Periods ^480
Pablic Works Adiiinistrr.tion Contracts ^37
-XVlll-
3732
PAGES
Personnel
Adjnini strati on. 513
Code Authority 72
Post-Hearing Conferences 5^
Posting cf Later Provisions ^3^
Pre-Hearing Conferences and negotiations l6
Price and Accounting Provisions U57
Price Basis, Eriergencj/. 5^0
Price Differentials 501
Price-Filing Ugg
Price Policy, Adi.:inxstrative 500
Primary Material Sources 3
Principal Products t 5
Printed Code and A:enc>.:ents .Appendix A
Production Capacit;-, ^Iggregate 6
Production, Linit.- tion On 50?
Products Under Other Cof.es 5
Proportion of Assess: .cnts Collected i . . . . i 209
Protests Under E::ecutive Order 62O5-B 4 59
" Of Code Authority. 300
Putlic Hearing ( s) on Code I6
Dates "... 16
Personnel I6
Results 56
-XIX-
5732
INDEX
PAGES
Palilic Hearing ( s) to Ap;.orova.l 56
Activities I>arin;^' Pinal Drafting of Code 56
Assent of Ir.dustr;" to Code 59
Changes in Code Provisions during Pinal Drrftin/; 57
Fost~Hea.ring Conferences 5^+
Recommendations 50^+
Compliance \7ith Code 50?
Limitation on Production, Machinery.', Sliifts, etc 5^7
Possible Code Consolidations 5^7
Undersirable or Unenforceable Provisions 50^
Relation of the Governr.ient to Industry 5^7
References 3
Reports of Advisory 3orrds...Set forth in III D 2-3 252
Research and Planning Divi si on 513
Reports 252 and 462
Sale s 6
Ships - Navy Contracts ^71
Skilled Wages U29
Sponsoring Organization ( s) 13
Na.me , Age and Ob j active U20
Officers, Code Coriuittees, Interested Groups..... lU
Representativeness. iH
Statistics of Industry 6
Capital, Aggregate Invested 6
Concerns, Eomber of _ 6
Employees, AgCjrey.te Number of 6
Sales 6
-XX-
3732
Q
ICTEX
PA&ES
Stays 263
Stop~loGs Provisions. 5^0
Strikes - New York Shipbuilding Corporation US2
Termination of Paragrr-ph 3j Administrative Order X-35... 209
Terms of Payment 500
Tolerances USO
Trade Association ( s) hZO
Trade Practice CorrplrAnts Committee ( s) and Plan 300
Trade Practices
Class A 502
Class B 502
Undesirable or Unenforceable Provisions 504-
Wage Differentials ^+32
Wage s ^27
Adjustment poove i;inir.Tam 432
Industry Conplicuice H-2S
Maladjustment Titli Other Industries ^3^+
Skilled >+29
" Also Appendix
Waiting Period ^+99
-XXI-
9732
COlJTEhlS
CI?
APHSliDIX
A - Code and Anondments 1, 3 nnd 3
- 1 I'lotice of (>:) ■J0rtunit3'' to Pile OlDJoctions
B ~ Revised Pro,:)Osed Code es submitted at close of oncn
Hcra'irifj July 1 , IS 33
- 1 Proposed Code na ori,;^i>inlly submitted July 10, 19,S3
C - The Merchant M-rine by Honornble i.Iillrrd V. Cald'jell
D - Letter July ,''■0, 1933, to ArtkLU' D. TJniteside from
C. L, 3r.rdo, president of Ho" York Shipbuilding
Corooratiou
E - Letter June 24, 1935, to K, irev:ton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrr.tor, from H. Gerrish
Smith, President Iiational Co-'oncil of Ai:ierican
ShiiDbuilders
P - Letter July 12, 1935, to ri» ile'.-ton IThittelsoy,
Assistant De,7ut7 Adrainistrr tor, ProM Joseph S.
IIcDonagh, Intern.-^ tional Brotherhood of Electrical
Uori-cers
- 1 Letter J^xL.y 11, 1935, to Joseph S, ilcDonagh, International
Brotherhoou of Electrical Uorkers, fron John P.
Prey, President I/Ietal Trades Department, American
Pedera.tion of Labor
G- - Ferguson Charts - 'Snroloyuent
- 1 " " - Avera.'je Hates
- 2 " " - TJeeliy TTage
H - Members of the Indiistry
I - Letter July 14, 1933, to Honoraaile Hu;":h S. Johnson,
Administrator, from H. G-errish Smith and Jose;oh
Haa,^', the Shipbuilders Committee rnd B-y-La-r-s for
Administering the Shr:/D"'xilding Division as
submitted with the Code
9732
-XXI 1-
I - 1 :3y-Lna for Administering," the Shloljuildinc Division
as revised kJ-gazt 14, 1S33, rad rntcr--)retr.tion
llo, 1 - " Shi olmil dors"
- 2 Intorprot-^.tion ITo. 2 - "Ship-ouildcrs"
- 3 " :io. 3 - "
- 4 " ITo. 4 - "
- 5 " no. 5 - "
- 6 " "-To. 6 - "
- 7 » lie. 7 - "
- $ n :Io. 3 - "
- 9 " :io. 9 - "
-10 " ITo. 10 - "
-11 " llo. 11 - "
-12 " 110.12 - "
•13 " lIo,l-3 - "
-14 " 110.14 - "
-15 " IIo.lo - "
J - B7-L; rs for Adninistering the Sliipre-oairins'? DiviEion as
orisinall" suomitted '7ith the Code
- 1 Bj-Lpjrs for Adiiincterinr; the Shiprepairin^j Division as
revised Au£^st 14, 1933
K - 1 Execvctive Order 2-1 - Aooroving Code
- 1 A " " 2-lA- A-riOintin:;:; 4 nem'jer-, of Industr-/
CoLiriittee
- 1 3 Administrative 2-13- Authorizing-; Code Authorit7
- 2 Executive 2-2 - A;.-orovini,- Ai-iendnent Ijo, 1
9732 -x::iii-
K - 3 Administrative Order 2-3 - Sxtansion of 5 a of Code
_ 4 » " 2-4 - Resignation of Administration
Ileraber
- 5 " " 3-5 - Ajpcintraeut Administration Member
-6 " " 2-6 - Exemption - Jutton-Kolly
- 7 II " 2-7 - " Uerrport ITe'vs Shiptu ilding
and Dry Dock Company
- 8 " " 2-8 - Ap-oointrnent Industry Ilembers t o
Industrial Helations Committee
-9 " " 2-9 - Approval of Amendment No, 2
- 9A " " 2-9A- Authorization handle Labor
CoiTijDlaints
-10 " " 2-lC- A^provrl of Amendment No, 3
-11 II " 2-11- ITotice of Opportunity to Pile
Objections
-12 " " 2-12- Arpointmont Labor Iferabers to
Indiistrial Rclatiop.s Committee
-12A " " 2-12A-Ai3:iointment Kembers Trade Practice
Committee
-13 " " 2-13 -Appointment Member to Industrial
Relations Committee
-14 " " 2-14 -Stay Part 3 (a) and (b) of Code
for Trials
-15 "• "• 2-15 -Danial of A.j lication of General
Engineering ci Dry Dock Co,
and others
-16 " " 2-16 -Exemption IlanitoTroc Shipbuilding
Corporation
-17 " " 2-17 - Sxtonsion 3 (c) of Code
-17A " " 2-17A- Authorizing Industrial Relations
Committee
9732 -x:civ-
K - 17B Adminiytrrtive Orler 2-17B- A'athori-^in^ Industrial Helations
Conraittee
- IS " " 2-18 - Stry Z (r) r.nd (b) for Tri,",ls
- 19 " " 2-19 - Exemption St, Louis Cnr Company
- 20 " " 2-20 - E:ceTn,ition 4 (a) General
Engineeriu;; and Dry Dock Co,
pjid others
- 21 " " 2-21 - A"athorizinj Industrial Relrtions
Committee Independent of Code
Authority, etc,
- 21X " " 2-21X- Resignation of Adninistrntion
Llemlier
- 22 " " P'^32 - Authorizin,^ Industrial Relations
Committee
- 23 " I' 2-23 - Aoprovr.l Plan for Adjustment,
Industrial Rels.tions Committee
- 24 " " 2-24 - Extension 3 (c) of Code
- 25 " " 2-25 - Exemption I.Iarictta. ila,nufacturing
Company
- 26 " " 2-26 - Appointment Adninistrrtion
Hemher
- 27 " " 2-27 - Interpretation 3 (c) of Code
- 28 " " 2-28 - Exemption Ile^i^ort Hews Ship-
building; and Dry Dock Co.,
Bethlehem Shiptuildirg Co.,
IIe\7 York S^iip'ouilding Corp.
- 29 " " 2-29 - Exemption for Trials
- 30 " " 2-30 - Resignation Janes Sx7an, Apn oint-
ment Joseph ¥, Hart, Industrial
Relvations Committee
- 31 I' " 2-31 - Stay 3 (a) ajid (h) Emergency
Tfork
9732 -XXV-
K - ?.? Ac'j-iiiis ur.-^.tive Order 2-52 - Dei;--i.v' reqinst for deleticn
Timr; pnd one-hplf ^orovision
fro>! E:;em;tior.s r.rLd Stn.ys
i: - 33 " " 2-33 - E:-oinption 3 (r) l'e\' York Ship-
"baildin,-- Cor'^. Electric 5on,t
Co, , pjid Iicthlehe!!! Shipbuild-
inj Corp,
K - 54 " " 2-34 - St-jy 5 (a) anU ("b) Emergency Work
L - Oi";r?;.iizr,tian Ch?a't
M - Rules r;K'. Regulations
II - Letter Aug-ast 14, 1955, to H. lle^.-.'tou Fnittelsey, Assistcnt
Deputy Adn:ini3tr-jtor, from H. terriah Snith, Prer.ident
Kationpl Council of American ShiolnaildGrs.
K - 1 Letter August 20, 1955, to H. He ^ ton TJliittelsey, Assistmt
De ..ut;/' Adrainistr^^tor, frora H» Gerriai S.iita, president
llrtion^.l Council of Ax.iericrn Shiobuildors
II - 2 YSov.e
11 - Z Letter August 13, 1933, tc Arthur D, TTniteside, De-nuty
Administrator, frci Ship"building Connittee
:t - A
0
-
1
0
-
2
0
-
3
0
, ,
4
Letter Av.guKt 22, 1935,. to Eugh S. Johnson, Administrator,
froii Shinbuilding Con:-nittee
N - 5 Letter Se;otenbar 23, 1'j33, to Hugh 3, Johnson, Acijiinistrr.tor,
frora Shi-ehuilO.ing Corimittee
0 - Letter Pehruery 23, 1955, tc H. Helton Uliittelsey, Assistant
De;rity Adriinistrr.tor, from C. C. luierr. Secretary -
Treasurer of Code Authority
Bill fDPm of Code Authority
Budget " "
Bill frori " "
Bond 01 Treasiirer of Code Authority
9732 -:onri-
0-5 Letter Se-oter.iber 0, 19o5, to Ii» I'evton iniittolsoy,
Assictrnt De-out','' Ac'uiinistrptor, fron .0. C.
Knerr, Secretai"'" of Coue Aiitliorit:/
P - plan for Adjustment of Co nlr.iut:; Indu''-.tri;\l Helr.tions
Corniaittee
Q, - Annupl Re.TOrt A:iril 1935, llc.tion;,! Council of A.ierican
Shi fuuildors
q- 1
3'alleti;i 317,
I'atio
iirl
Council 0
Q- 2
" 3;:0,
It
Q- 3
" 338,
II
q- 4
" 339 ,
II
Q- 5
" 351 ,
It
q- 5
" 353,
It
q- 7
" 5o5,
II
Q- 8
" 385,
11
Q- 9
" 38S ,
II
Q, -10
" 392,
II
Q-11
" 410,
II
P. -
" Protc
,St3 -
List of
S -
Address 07 H,
Gerri
sh
Snith, Pre
Anerican Shiptuildera, before the Americ-^n h'er-
choJit, il&rine Conference
S - 1 Letter Pehruaiy 12, 1934, to Alfred K« Eaag, Chief Division
of Hesearch, U. S. Ship'oiiig Board Uureau, from
P. C. G-renin.;, Director for I^urooe
S - 2 Letter December 2, 1935, to H. Ilc'-ton ^Tliittelsej, Assintent
De-jlty Directory, fro;.i E, Gerrish Snith, Presi-
dent ITctional Council of A^nericrn Shipbuilders
9732
--—•rvii-
T - Deir.indG o" the Industrial Union of I'arine p.nd Shipbuilding
TTorkors of iL~,ci-ica, Local lio, 1, Cfjnden, N. J.,
April ISi'sS,
T - 1 Letter April 9, 1935, to ilegoti- .tiur; Cor.TUttee, Industrij-.l
Union of i.'p.rino rind Shijhuildin^ Uorkers of
ATicricr., Locr.l ITo. 1, Canden, IT, J., fror. the
Hot? York Shipouildi;v; Cor ■or-.tioni
U - Letter Juiie 15, 1934, to J. 3. I7ea,ver, Deputy Adninistr-'^t or,
from II. Gerrish Snith, President llrtional
Council of American Shiol)uilders.
V - Btilletin 415, national Cox\r).cil of Aaerican Shi':)'builders
V - 1 Chart lio. 1, " " " " "
V - 2 Chart IIo. 2, " " " " "
V - 3 Chart lio, 3, " " " " "
V - 4 Vfegc Rates in the Hamnton Roads District,
V - 5 Statement Uarch 7, 1934, of ilatinnal Comicil of American
Shi^ibuilders,
V - 5 Letter liprch 9, 1934, of national Council of Ar.iericrn
Shipbuilders,
V - 7 Wage Rntcs -oaid on ?, U. A. Contracts,
9732
-XVI 11-
-1-
CHAPTTSP. I gqiSRAL I iJPQHI.'LATI OH
HISTORY
CODE or FAI11 COMPETITICU
POP TKS
SHIPBUILDING ASD SHIF3EPAi:JN5 ILDUSTPY
I . General Infornption
The Shi -;puilding and Shiprepairing Industry bailds E,nd repairs
all types of metal Cornmercia.1 and Navs-1 vessels for deep sea. service and .
for tays, harbors and rivers. The orincionl occupation of the Industry
is Commercial T7orlc, but at times Uaval programs become an important item
with certain of the major shipbuilding plants.
The Industr;^/ enjoyed a voliime of $251,y48,000 in 1929 and in
1931 $186,993,000, orincipally commercial ship-building and shiprepairing.
In 1933 Comm,ercial shipbuilding almost ceased and the principal business
was repair work. The total volume for that year was $92,596,000. For
the year 1935, because of the large amount of work placed with the major
shipyards for llaval programs let in August 1933 and August 1934, the
volume is estimated to be $172,473,000.
Employment for 1929 of wage earners was 55,089; in 1931
45,262; in 1933 30,.885 and in 1935 40,582. The wages paid were
$83,274,000; $62,023, CC'O; $33,890,000 and $49,368,000 estimated.
The values added by the manufacturers for 1929 was
$145,451,000, about 70^; for 1931 $114,671,000, about 61.5>S; for
1933 $61,524,000, about 56. Sf^ and for 1935 $122,473,000, estimated about
71Jo. The foregoing figures are taken from page 9 hereof.
. While certain major shipbuilding plants, seven in all of the
234 members of the Industry, have been benefited by the Naval shipbuilding
programs, it is ouite evident that the Industry/ as a whole is suffering
from lack of new. Cor-mercial shipbuildin.;^, and that there is a lack of
employment of 20,000 men that were used in Commercial shipbuilding in
the year 1929 and the years before. In f."ct in 1919 the Industry em-
ployed 337,446, which was the high point of employment and 1921 106,445
and 1923 62,287. Under healthy conditions the Industry should employ
from 75,000 to 100,000 men, if the American Merchant Marine is to be
adequately maintained for the benefit of our foreign commerce. The
foregoing figures are found on page 6 hereof.
In 1930 and 1931 there was 300,000 gross tons of ne-.7 Com-
mercial shipbuilding construction in American ship-yards, whereas in
1934 this type of construction dnpped to 20,103 gross tons, which
would mean only two fair size cargo boats. Piarther while the ^''orld
Commercial shipbuilding from 1930 to 1934 shra:i]-: 60vo, that of the
United St-tes shrank 91,fc. (See p£..ge 11 hereof)
The average life of a dee-i sea shi-o ir 20 vears. The pre-
sent American merchaxit marine fleet is made up for tne most part of
vessels built at the latter prrt of the Tiorld T7a.r period or shortly
thereafter, and consequently about ZO^'o will be obsolete b^^ 1939; ^/S
by 1940; 30-;^ by 1941 and SOf^j b- 1942.
9732
-2-
If the average fleet required to maintain our present position is taken
to consist of 5,000,000 gr. tons for foreign trade and 3,000,000 gr. tons
for coast-'^ise trade, it would make a total of 5,000,000 gr. tons. To
maintain the replacement of tais fleet over a period of 20 years, it
would he necessar^'' to build 300,000 gr. tons per year. This figure has
been put forvrard as a mininiim that should be biiilt. However, under such
a scnedule the fleet would not be thoroughly modernized ^Jintil about
1950. The author eptim-ter> from 450,000 to 500,000 gr. tons would have
to be built per yerr v/ithin the next 6 -"-e. rs and then the regular main-
tenance of 5fj or 300,000 gr. tons per jeav built thereafter. The cost of
300,000 gr. tons "oer yerr is estimated to be $50,000,000 and 450,000 gr.
tons per year v;ould cost approximately $75,000,000. The maintanence of
a deep sea ship over its 20 vear life may be tahen to represent one-half
the cost of the vessel. (See Exh. S, App:K.)
The National Council of American Shipbuilders made a consid-
erable stud.-"' of the distribiition of v/ages in shipbuilding. They found
that approximately 40^ of the cost' of a ship '.rent to -.va-ge .earners and
sa].arled employees v/ithin the shipyards and tha.t a further 40^^ went into
the material processed for and used b.y the shipi^ard t'efore the shipyard {
received it. Translating this percentage into practical figures, and invest-
ment of $75,000,000 per year in new construction v/ould provide pay of
$50,000,000 and employment for approximately 44,000 men; one-half within
the shipjrards and one-half on the materials being processed for the ship-
yards. Reference is made to address of H. G-erris Smith, President Nation-
al Council of American Shipbuilders before the American Merchant Marine
Conference, Fovembcr 18, 1935, Exh. S, Appx.
American shipjr,. rds must pay reasonable American scale of
wages to permit the scale of living usual in this country. The based
skilled rate may be taken as S5f' per hour, which is much higher than
the average of American manufacturers. At present the plants are work-
ing on the uneconomic weeklj'' maximum hour of 35 hours per week, 'fhe x...
British skilled rate is 60 shillings for 47 hours or the rouivalent of
about 31^ per hour as of 1934, the lasb data available. (Ref. Exh.Q,-
11). The German skilled rate basis as of 1934 was 72 pfennings or the /|
equivalSnt of a.bout 18^ nev hour. The hours wcr:ed are from 48 to 56 in ^i
German yards. (ref. U.S. Shipping Board E"di.' S-l)
Translating the effect of the foregoing weekly hours and wage
scales to an actual figure for cons ti'ij.ct ion, the author was reliably
informed November 1935 as follows: On offers for a 13,500 D. 17. ton
Diesel ta,nker the American figure was $125 per D. TY. ton, the German
figure $52 D. ',7. ton and the English figure $52 per D'. ^. ton. far-
ther or^ a $2,000,000 combination cargo ajid passenger vessel to be
built in Am.erica,n ya.rds the figures to build in Germany were 'J:Q,'a and
in English yards 4:2% cf the American figure. A ship usuallv measures
less in 'gross tons than in Deadweight ton.
In the oninion of the author t/.e foregoing figures of the
American yards are 10;^ to 20> above I'hpt the-i- would be -ander normal
working hours of 40 hours "osr -Tsek. further, this Industry needs the
most elastic form of viee'xly hours in order to operate at the most
economical point obtainable in iknerican shipyards T^hich must pay for
American materials and American labor.
9732
As the Nav;"- is .the first line of defense so the Merchant Marine
fleet is the necessary auxiliar-'-. In the v;a.r period we spent something
over $3,000,000,000 to build tip the merchant fleet. It reqmred 420 ship
nays for steel ships. There are in the Coastal shipjT.rds of the United
States, which do not include the Great Lakes, 9o sliipbuilding "ays suit-
able for the constraction of steel deep sea tonnage. Even v/ith the pre-
sent Kaval program approaching its- peal: production, ha.TdJ.y half of these
Ship r;a3''s are in use. The imoccupied v/ays should be filled i.Tith comm-
ercial deep sea tonnage if the merchant fleet is to be maintained and not
drop back to the dangerous por-ition of IS) 14. (See Exh. S-2, Appx)
This History is compiled; from the records located as follo\7s:
Printed Code and Amendments. Exhibit A
Volumes I-II-III, Code Record Section.
Volumes A and B, Code Hecord Section.
Administrative Orders. Code Record Section, and
Exhibit K.
Deputy's files, T. R. A., Section 2.
General Piles, I'. R. A. (Central Record Section)
Research and Planning files, II. R. A.
Legal Division andCompliance files, K. R. A.
Advisory Boards' files, K. R. A.
Government Agency reports. Deputy's Piles.
Code Authority. lu'inutes - Deputy's files.
Trade Association reportg. Deputy's files.
national Labor Board. Deputy' s files
Files of Industrial Relations Committee of the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry-, now
located in Section 2, Assistant Deputj''' s
office, /
Vol-omes I-II in the Code Record Section Safe,
are bound together. ;
Volume III, the open hearings of July 19, 20, and
21, 1S35, are marked respectively Volumes I_II-III
and the pages are consecutively numbered. However,
the file in the Cod.e Record .Librar:/ is composed of
the releases, and the page numbers do not coincide
with the originals. in the Code Record Section Safe.
The references in this liistor;^ refer to the file
of the Code Record Library as these may be taken
out and are open to all. - There is set forth here-
after a table as a guide for comiDarative page
n"arabers.
9732
„4-
Voltune in - Hearings on July 19, 20, 21, 1933, Hearini^s
______^____ on Propo';ed Code
Code Record Li'brar,'-
Code Record
Srfe
Deputy' s Files
J'oly 19
Morning
'Sec.
I
Sec.
5
Session
t
To
IPa^e
1
1
Page
78
Afternoon
'S3C.
5
Sec.
3
Session
!
To
'Page
■79
Page
120
Jtdy 20
Morning
Session
Afternoon
Session
July 21
Morning
Session
Pages 1 to lie
Pages ill to 226
Sec. 12
To
Page 121
Sec. 15
To
Page 174
Sec. 14
Page 173
Sec. 19
I
Page 244
Pages 227 to 309
Pages 310 to 411
The Deputy' s
files are the
same as the Code
Record Library,
except for
Sec. 1, which was
tj-pev^ritten on 8
pages instead of
"being Sec. 1,
which contains
17 -rjT'ges.
Sec. 101 Sec. 104
To
Pc.g-e 1000 Far:e 1057
Pages 412 to 502
The general siabjects of the Code s,s printed were not named as
"sections" or "parts'', or in cxiy other way. As a result some amend-
ments, exemptions, and official docioinents termed these subjects as
"Sections" and others as "Parts". For instance, this difference is
noted as between Amendment Ko. 1 and Amendment No. 3. and in many
other official docaiaents. (Ref. Ei-diibit A, Appx.)
A. Definition of the Industry
The definition as of May 25, 1935, was as provided in Amendment
No. 2, ap-oroved March 29, 1934, Administrative Order 2-9, signed by Hugh
S. Johnson, which reads as follows: .(Ref. Code Record Secti6n and Exh.
A, Appx.)
"A. The term 'Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry' means:
1. Th,? building, fabricating, repairing, reconstructing, re-
modeling and assembling of all vessels and floating marine
equipment except:
(a) Wooden boa.ts and ves£;els and v/ooden floating marine
ecuipment.
(b) Pleasure boats and yachts, both wooden and/or metal
up to and including one hundred and fifty (150) feet
in length over all.
9732
— 5—
2. The building TTi thin shipbuildinfi; ind shiprepairing plant? of
mEcninery, eq-cipnent and other chip's parts."
The definition originally subiaitted in the proposed Code of July
10, 1933, paragraph 2 reads as follc's: (Ref. Volume A, Code Record
Section and 3yJi. B 1, A^.-py.,)
"The terras 'Shipbiulder' and ' Shiprepa.irer' , when used in thic
Code, includes a person, partnership or coroorstion enga,:^ed in
the business of building, fabricating, repairing, reconstruct-
ing, remodeling, and a.ss'embling oceemgoing, harbor and inland
water-wav vessels and floating marine eouiiiraent of every type
above ten tons, including the biiilding r'ithin their plants of
machinery, equipment and other ship's parts."
The definition as submitted in the revised Code the la,^.t day of
the open hearing, July 21, 1933, part 1 read the same as when original-
ly siibmitted July 10, 1933. (Hef. Vol. Ill, Code Hecord Librarj'-, Page
1022)
The definition as provided in the Code a.pproved July 26, 1933,
read the same as originally submitted July 10, 1933. (Ref. Vol. I
Code Record Safe and Exii. A, ApTDx.)
.The definition of tae Industr;,'- and the Members of the Industrj'-
was contained in the one paragraph auoted from the Code as submitted
July 10, 1S33, and as approved July 23, 1933. The definition of the
Industry in this Provision '.7as by inference on!-"-. Horever, the
situation v/as corrected in Amendment No. 2, heretofore quoted.
1. Princi-pal "products .
Naval vessels of t/ar, Atlantic liners suitable to convert to
auxiliar]'' criisers in time of war, commercial passenger ships, com-
mercial, cargo and passenger ships, commercial cargo ships (including
tanhers) , steel bay, river, and hrrbor steamers and motor vessels,
steel yachts above 150 feet, steel barges, steel car floats, steel
lighters and steel dredges.
2. Products also under other Codes
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing companies generallj'' confine
their operations to vessel work, but occasionally take contracts that
reauire the use of some of the large tools of the shipyards.
B. Definition of the Industr"/ Member
The definition as of Use-'- 26, 1935, '.vas as provided in Amendment
No. 2, approved March 29, 1934, Administrative Order 2-9, signed by
Hugh S. Jolinson, v;hich reads as follov/s: C^lef. Code Record Section
and Exh. A, Aiapx-)
/
9732
-6-
"B. The terra 'Member of the Industrj'-' means any person,
partnership, corporation, association, trust, trustee,
or receiver engr?.ged in the Shipbuilding and Shipre-
pairing Industry,' either as an em-plojer or on his or its own
behalf.
The definition originell:,'' submitted in the proposed Code of July 10,
1933, paragraph 2 reads as follous: (Ref . Volume A, Code Record Section
and Exii. B 1, Apnx.)'
"The terras 'Shipbuilder' and ' ShiprepairerJ ,T;h.en used in this Code,
includes a person, partnership or corporation engaged in the bus-
iness of building, fabricating, repairing, reconstructing, re-
modeling, and assembling, oceangoing, harbor and inland water-way
vessels and floating ma,rine equipment of every type above ten tons,
including the building within their plants of machinery, eauipment,
and other ship's parts."
The definition as submitted in the revised Code the last day of
the open hearing, July 21, 1933, part 1 read the same as when originally
submitted July 10, 1933. (Ref. Vol. Ill, Code Record Librarjr, Page
1022)
The definition as provided in the Code approved July 26, 1933, read
the same as originally submitted July 10, 1933. (Ref. Vol. I, Code
Record Safe and Sxh. A, Appx.)
The definition of the Industry and the Members of the Industry was
contained in the one paragraph quoted from the Code as submitted July 10,
1933, and as approved July 26, 1933. However, the situation was corrected
in Amendment F.o. 2, heretofore quoted.
1. Classes of Members
The Code, Part 3 (a) and (b) and as amended April 2, 1934, Amend-
ment No. 3, ('^ef. Exh. A, Appx.) differentiated as between Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing, in the Regulations of Hours of TTor'c. The Code Com-
mittee also drew the same line in establishing their National, District,
and Local Committees. Substantially all shiobmlding yards do both
building and repair and many outright repair yards taice an occar.ional
new vessel to build. Therefore, there was no definite line of demarca-
tion.
r , Statistics of the Industry
(a) Total annual sales - $172,473,000
(See page 9 )
("6) No. of concerns - 234 (Ref. letter of
June 11, 1935, from C.C. I-Inerr, Secy.,
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry Committee, to 11. Newton
Vhittelsey, Asst. Dep. Adnr. , in
Deputy's I'^iles)
9732
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Year Month
1933 - July
1934 - January
July
1935 - January
April
July
August
September
October
-7~
Aggregate invented capital over $200,000,000
(ief. Exh. S-2, Appx.)
Aggregate production capacity est.
$500,000,000 (See page 8 )
Aggregate number of employees and weekly
payrolls are set forth belov?. ^
Net sales - $172,473,00 (See page 9 )
List of liembers of the Industry
(See Exii. H, Appx.)
Ivlumber of Employees
28,432
35,034
37,645
57., 155
40,582
38,787
39,385
41,398
43,411
Weekly Pay Rolls
$ 560v340
745,654
860,132
869,414
959,140
918,918
951,405
1,014,832
1,089,088
(Ref. letters of June 11 and December 3, 1935, from Isador Uibin,
Commissioner of Labor Statistics to H. Nevton TThlttelsey, Assistant
Deputy Adrainistrator, Deouty's Files)
.'Juabsr of Employees (continued)
Year
Number
1914
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
44, 481
387,4-16
106,445
62,287
50,224
55,014
55,089
45,100
Reference formal statement of Joseph S. McDonpgh, Page 4
Volume B, Coie Record Section (from census of manufacturers).
9732
-8-
Erapioyment and Pay Rolls of Employees Engaged in the Construction of
Ifeval Vessels in Federal Kav}/ Yards
Year
Kuraber of
Monthly
and
j'age Earners
Pay Rolls
i.i'onth
1932 - July 255 $25,770
1934 - January 2,593 278,434
July 8,992 1,173,992
1935 - January 11,691 1,815,099
April 13,432 1,994,336
July 19,988' 2,583,142
August 21,953 2,939,253
September 22,345 2,825,561
October 24,590 3,571,806
(Ref. letters of June 11 and December 3, 1935, from Isador Lubin,
Commissioner of Labor St'tistics to H. Newton "iThittelsey, Assistant
Deouty Administrator, Deputy's Files)
This estimate bv the stithor of $500,000,000 aggregate capacity
shown on pege 3 c is brsed on the following: 85,000 employment for
the 93 steel coastal ways no;.' available is taken from the proportion
of employment to the ways used in 1919, this is multiplied by the
value of products ;oer employee ($4200.00), which gives $360,000,000
(value of product). To this is sdded $90,000,000 current repair
value (based on the 1933 figures), plus the G-reat Lakes capacity taken
at $50,000,000 for the present equipment. .See page 9 hereof and
exliibit S-2, and the remarks of the Chairman of the National Council
of American Shipbuilders in Exhibit S-2. Under more normal conditions
than held in 1919 there would be a larger proportion of passenger-
freight tonnage built which would tend to substantially increase em-
ployment per shipbuilding wpys used and therebjr tend to increase the
foregoing estimate.
9732
-9-
S
CD
P'
0
:P'.
P
P
P r
E
CD
.^"^ •
"^
* «
h-J
\->
(-'
M
P
4
^ ^
^
1—1
w
0
w
^
W
V£)
VX)
\D
U3
3
en
P
CD
CD
CD
>^^
'^
Vj~l
ro
hj i-i
>i
0
c+
H
Hj
H)
Hj
01
o-i
H
VD
H- H-
H-
M
H-
g
CD
<D
CD
a 3
3
p;
a
i-i
4
hi
C^ 0*5
CP?
p-
CD
p
P
2
CD
3
CD
3
5? ■
M M
c+
en
C
c+
0
0
0
■P'
VjJ
4:^
>J1
^
VO VO
&"'
P-
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
0
U"l
VJ1
CD
•^ VjJ ItD V_v| hj
CD
a*
pj
M
CD
M
0) VJT 4 >-^J O
0
0'
M
n
0
VJ1
OQ
ro
0
c+
H, H- f-d
<!
c+
^
U'
U CD
en
CD
01
aj
en
(^
H
^
M c+ 3 <rh M
CD
3^
■^^
CD ©
P
3
ro
ui
r\j
U)
P ..
P
CD :r o :3' h-
V>
c+
'^ P^
g-
• S
hj
O
O CP H- O i-i
1^ •
C/5 •
3
fi- •
*»-v ■
3
^
c+ tx:) Hj
en
3-
CD
3'
<rhS
4
en
0-'
CD
(^
CI> 3 fU (D -!
H-
CD
^
►i
H-
P^ CD M O
M
•ri
92
-'rl
b-i
0
en
3
^ ,^ ^ ':!
^0
0'
p!
?•',
w ^
P
H3
P
H- ^ '=J f; :v
,AJ
p:
c+
p
0'
-£«-
c-^
3 !^ to -
V-O
H-
3'
ch
hrj hi
H-
ta*
4^
v^
a\
oa
r.i M)
M
0
3'
H- 0
3
P*
V£)
>^
i\3
oa
ct- <! O M -^
a .
p^
^■i
c
H h^
««
ti
»•
w
8?
P
H-
•
^i
CD H
P
05
QlI
"b
i\j
H- c+ M.
JT'j
3
«
i53 J
0
■' "')
0-^ •
Ch
ro •
-^
■ ^
9
w 'd ►-; ci- r:
0
"1
CH
0
0?.
,pi'
c^ ■
/—J
>i CD M r
H
T'lc;'
^J
b
M
w
\a
f-J
N- O 'Ci O
'-O
P
h-J
c+
0
0
0
0
CD
c+
c+ (.'; p I-""
'^
»-;
H-
H-
p
0
0
c
0
en
O hi H- P 03
M
'^j
M
en
>-i
0
0
0
0
O
r. p "i o
en
CD
Hj
,;- ■-• 4
c-t-
in
M
H-
4
0
CD £■ O
3'
3
UD
0
en
-Cfl
c1-
en H- o o !-+>
CD
H-
OJ
3
H
'.Jl
OJ
—J
OCl
Ct)
c+ CO "-J p; M
*i
'cJ
»oi
CD
0
h--
rv)
U1
S 0
o
H- pr H- o
CD
>i
•-J
u
p 0
^
3 O - MO
CD
CD
0
M
VjJ
oa
ct en
3
SU 3 p. .+
^
W
-e^)-
0
'■d
0
—J
ro
-F^
CD c-l-
H-
c+ ^ H- CD
P
P
VD
H)
ci-
0
r\j
OQ
oa
>->
^
O
CD c+ 3^' 3 pi
en
H-
VJ1
•
*•
•*
H- 0
>?
P
Q. t^ }-•■ jq
►-S
VJD
t-<
0
0
0
0
P H3
6
M
CD O • H-
0
H-
»•
P
0
0
0
0
0
M
w
<:j' &■ o 3
0
3
M
0"
Hj
0
p
p .
p
tn
CO
^pj
'^ ^. ti •
3
0>3
• -FT
0
a
.P^l '^" £i
en
•
0
'-i
0
0
I
p^
d- *=<; cfl c+ sj'
ts- en t:.^ H-
-Mj
CO
0
3
^-^
-eft-
<!
to
CD i-i CD W
03 CD
CD
0
P
3
CD
M
—J
'^O
rv)
^
H-
?3 3 Hj ^ H-
P3
U
<rt-
»i
ro
ro
0■^
M
hj <1
a
H"
fi pj M fs <n-
0'
H-
0
**
w
«•
hi p
M
<:+• CD ^i O
M
n
CO
CD
r— '
CTi
>^
oa
0 M
ro
t-" c+ o tn ::!
CD
en
trh
»*
-J
<.£)
V.O
-P'
& p;
0
.-^
o U'' '^ •
;j
H-
'^
CTi
VjnI
qa
p; CD
*=d
i-j o o ca ■
•d
.-^j
ri
' CO
v'
m'
*•'
w'
0
^
• pj o
P
6
en
c+
0
0
0
0
c+ 0
hd
o
I'S
en
i-j
**
p
0
0
C
0
en H,
tij
i-i
O H- iri-
en
cl-
0
0
0
0
0
fr
CD
3
^
P
CI
CD
^
H-
O H- cl- c-^
cr<3
0-'
0'
rt-
0
W
CD
7
3
0
0
-M-
h3
CO
! ^
^' -^ " ^
tn
M
M
M
S'<!
t CD
05 o o
P 4 H-
0
3
•^J
l\)
CT^
M
-p-
P P
■ O
p
pi
0
^
fV)
(-'
-pr
Ol
3 h-i
W
CD
•-s ?r c+ <
■-J
M
h-'
0
p: p:
h3
W
C CD J-
0^
t-1-
p.
M
V
VJl
o-^
-Pr-
hij CD
0
cn
0 3 M
0
H-
CD
p.
--J
ru
-J
Ol
p
•
■. P
£ 0 • p;
>Ti
i-i
CD
V^
-(=■
M
M
0 IP-
•-i
^3- 0
en
M
hi
*•
*•
«*
<r^ Clj
■=<
^ c+
3'
H-
M
8
0
0
(3
pi p-
H- O- '
h^
• CD
a
0
0
(^
l-i CD
•-b-ri ti H, ■
*t:)
P^
CD
U
0
0
0
Q
CD pb
o
•i P
g'
'd
CD
>-i
i-S
00 ^d
p;
^
CD
^=^
^
C - 0
h- '
■^
c+
hb
0)
&
P'
VJl
■^
<!
cf 1 0
H-
rv)
en
03
0 ;:- 0
3
en
M
0 w- c^
0 . en
7*3
CD
^=J
■eft-
W hd -=5
cn
M 3"
CD
M
H-
-tf
. '^
4f
-p"
B CD p
!3'
0 ;::•
P
'
• - ;^
CD
. |_a
••
n ►1 M
H-
^ H- 33
en
en
en
CD
ro
0
M
m
t-" ^ "^
'd
cn- en
•
tn
on
0
ro
0
0 C] CD
...'> m
P
:^
•-^fc
•
0
0
■on
0
■^ P
CD (h 0
•
CT
TO
t-*
M
P
^^ — ^
•— ».
^-%
>— ^
pb CD Hj
§
01
g'
0
M
Qi
CD
1
0
-£•
fi-
fi-
^ H hd
)^ p *-i
■-^ hi 0
5 ^
CD p:
►^ 0
d-
en
)752
-10-
O fei O M t- tH c^ t; ti^
CO o o CD pi P fi ED ^:i
O <1 ci- tl Cf^ M ti ■■<! i-j
...C+-»"<!CD •
Jan.
Fee.
Liar.
CD O
o <!
• •
M
OCDIlipii^iphciEU CDfU
• c+«'^CD«f»««
VX)
O
d-
(D
4
CD
o
^^.
tri
03 '.
CT",
o
4 ■
Cfl
pj .
d-
H-
cn
ch
o
CO
O
CD
ju
4 .
c+:
3
CD
c+
O
o
4
OOOOH-'h-'h-'IAJMMOO
h-'UDOUDOV^t-'r\3l-'OUj<X>
vji 4r M ui v-^j cTv*-^ rv) ro O -t:" M
ro'oi'oi— jvji cni\j— jui mvji— J
v^ v,^ VaI V>J »^ -rr 4=" ^rrv^ Vjj v_m V-nJ
-pr 4-rui fjA o'?. IX) rvi c oa cTi 01 ^J
no M 'oi v^ v-O -p'vo -1=- ro "^ 0:1 —j
ro Ji'-J H cri>^ CTv 03 o VJ1 rv) vji
o
(T\ M M 01 VX) 1-' ro (3>'01 no UD CTi
CTv a> cr\ cTi cnvji ui >ai ^Ji oi cr\^Ji
vji — 4 a^ CTii-' cTivji cr\ cr> OQ M vD
M o> c?a Vjj lyjvi -p-vji vjj ro v-M ru 01
■m-
o
^ji 01 vji UTOi vol 0"i utji >jn ^n vjn
■ CTiVJi on vjl on >■ Ji VJi >-_■ 1 -fr-V/j v,.g \jj
O -P" -prvjD -^ CPi O M M M (-"-^sl
U1 vn Vjl vji ^ -p- .fr- 4=- 4:r ^ .p- ^r-
ropoMi-'OirvJi-'runj'^^^-Niro
O^*^ —J CTvVjJ -~J 01 O UD K) — J --I
^
CD <1
C/2 CD CD
CD CD
>Ti
T>
p
H
B^
fcd o
(D t^j l-J
,r'. ti M CO
Hj CD O
CD
H- CD
•ri -i
M
O
CD CD
ti CD
CD
<
CD
g
g
cn
a)
cn
njrororvironj[\)rvitY)iAjroro
vjjrviv^JroV/J^^rovjJMi-'MO
rOI-'rOI-'MH-'Ml-'t-'Hh-'l-'
OVJDOVDO<J05-J0a-^— JOQ-^
o ^i r>o CQ M -p" cTi— J cPi-J ro vjd
ctv'^-ni m m vjj ro o o 01 cr\>oi >ji
MMMMMMMMMMMI-'
VD OQ VD 03 Oq Oq vn VX) U) '-.O V"> -^
^-^ ^X> V-NJ CTv-J VX) ^->J -P^-J CT> O -J
--J -J
M M M M M M (-'
03 OQ 00 03 -J -J
o■^vJ^
CPi cn
~J CXI
cnCQVji rovjivji ro oud
MOi— JOl-'OJ--aocJ^
vx)>x) -p•c^^c7^oc«^-'OJ~~J cr\0
^
f^ H- to
J^ CD
<-i
CD M =<!
CD
CD
£1
CD
CD.
•-i
9732
2?.L6
fi
03
CD
-tJ
OJ
O
>
■H
-P
CJ
o
p<
w
o
EH
o
B
o
EH
CO
W
n
EH
C-H
H
Ph
Pi
PU
n
O
n
EH
o
p
El
to
O
O
CO
CO
EH
o
EH
f-i
O
•r-(
PL,
■iH
C
0)
o
pq
>^
W
rH
C
rH
o
trt
r-i
?S
4J
m
C)
m
<4
o
!h
CD
r^
>
r,i
C
W
HH
r-<
CD
C)
U
•H
<
t^
W
(U
«H
Jh
o
^
w
■H
i-H
(=q
CD
~-^
EH
O
E<
O
O
a
>:
^1
(D
>
o
o
EH
m
<n
o
;h
cb
o
o
rH
<1H
o
•H
(1)
^1
(is
n
CO
M
1-1
f-i
M
»— 1
<i!
FH
tn
to
m. r<~\ r^ CO
C3^ r~— o O
vD ui a! Cl^
CO C'"a r-H I —
H o r- oj
iH iS~-, (^ r—
UD LOvVD CM
CM O LfM^-^
KM-O oj c\:
ir\ I — o o
O MD CM O
cr- ir'\ rH r'^
o"^. CM ro o
cj-> to \c^.^
r-t H H H
O Cj^O O
O '^ CM to
CM CM VD OJ
a; H o^ r-
rH H
O 0■^ iH L^^
I — U) ,-± r^,
• o CM u.> r—
1^- I — : — I —
o o o o
0^>vD rH rH
r~- M rH ir^
O CM t^ CM
ct Vt ■> *\
H H rH rH
o o o o
LO CO I — UD
r— rH ^ UD
VX) OJ O to
r-\ r-\ r-\
to r— -^ t~-
Lr> o to I —
I — VD CM r^
CM to r— r—
ir> lr^,^" to
J- MD rH CM
rH LPi CTv r^
(\i\DyD r-{
to LC^ CJ^ rH
LTNtO to O
tO>>D VD O
CTN r— ^- O
O O O CM
OJ t-- CA J-
CM r'A^ O
H rH rH rH
O O O O
I~— ^- I^ O
UD ^-D cn O
^ J- tc. r--
o O r— ir\
K^UD O rH
en cr\ K\ CM
to to O 1 —
rH rH Ol rH
^ O Cj^tO
t — r-- Lr^ I —
rH H rH rH
ino O O
rH^t CM J-
rH CTN I^^-
cu T-\ cr-^
ai OJ rH rH
rH o r— cta
to to CM Lr>
r^ r-{ r-\
O to Lf^Lr^
>,£) cvi to r^
r— rH ru U3
lr^ CJ o o
r^ r-\ r-{ r-\
L^^ CM CO rH
cr\U3 tou)
to O r^ Lf^
^ J- to Ui
r-— OJ ix^ O
cT\ ci^ cTv cr.
^OtOOLC^ HHtOrH- LT^OOO. LOLn OO
yo^T) O r^ \sr\ LOv>^ to bo o r^ rH uj ir^ o rH
rH ^ CM Ol C3^>--0 -=}■ C.^ to LO I— K^ UT, tO t^ L^
t — t — r~- 1 —
^ ^i- r^ 1-^
tb O to CM
to O <-D LP
rH Lc. to a>
K< J- O' O
O O CM CM
r-i r-\ r^ x-^
L^^^ r-i rH
VO rH U)*-0
rH I^^- to
r--^ ro O^ rH
CM CM rH OJ
r*^ t -^ r-i O
H rH H r-i
O O VXD to
rH rH
CJ O^ O CV!
IC^^- K^ CM
rj rH O CTv
to 0"\ CM t^
rH H
K\ r^U3 OJ j-r^LTMO r^cji^r-- rHOJCMrH QOJ ^.^
o^c>l^a\ to'^i^LTN cn'^.r)-^ J-trM^-ir-, J-HCtltO
J- OJ '^ to
rH tj> rH O
VJD r^. rH CTi
r-\ r-i r-\
r^ m i^- O
crMr> rH o
CVI O to Lf>
I — to r^. OJ
r^ OJ OJ OJ
CM r— h*^ rH
m to o r^
CM OJ r<~- 1^
to to o cr>
r— 1^3 t — r--^
O^ rH c^^ o
h-^o^^ I —
O V o U3 ^'^
ro r^ i-^N to
O O O CJ
[-- CM t^VJD
tOtO^^r^ ^rHLTM^
c\' ro \r\ T~- K". to CJ o
r-i O ^-^ ^''^ r-^ u \ cm r-\
CJ 00 OJ CJ
OJ 1-^ rH r^
OJ OJ OJ CO
cu
+2
nJ
O (D O O
(A
1^ r^, r^ K>
Cr^C^^ 0> CTi
rH rH rH rH
rH rH rH r—
t--> O VD O
OJ r<-\ a! OJ
rH rH rH rH
r^ r'~\ r^\ r<^
rH r-t rH rH
i^D CJ ,:t CTv
O VD CM U^
OJ rH r-i
CJ CJ CJ CM
f > r<^ h<-> r*^
en 0-\ CnC3^
r^ r-i r-i r-^
rH r^J- CJ
K' , K~-. r-^ tc\
0"i CTi cr-, O".
r-i r-i- r-i r-i
r— h- OJ o
OJ OJ CVJ cj
^<~, r<~\ r-^. r<~\
rH r-l rH rH
Cu
M
•H
a)
CO
rH Ei:;
X -H
•H P,
to ft
•H
CD ^
.■^ to
Ch
O O
-P
Jh
C! CD
O -P
•H cn
•H W
rd CD
•d Pi
cO
P! »•
■H rcJ
M O
CD r-l
•H V^
g
CD
O
o
u CO
CD •-^
to
CD
ri
rH
o
■H
7j
■p
o
EH
t:!
r-i
^H
O
t2
ID
01
to
CD
rH O O rH
i-^ r^. K^ r^
•
. CD -P •
fn C Pi O
cS pi ca 0)
S >-3 to o
rH O O rH
r^ r^ K> r-^
•
• (D +2 •
fn SH Pi O
CC pi O CD
y 1-3 W O
rH O O rH
t^ r^ ro r<n
•
• 0 -p •
^H 5 Pi O
ri p O CD
g 1-3 w n
rH O O rH-
r'-\ t-O K^, l-^\
•
. CD -P .
f-i !=! p, O
cS pi (D Q)
t, ^-3 t« O
.r-).Q,0 r-i
•
• CD -P •
^H d Pi o
c: pi a) CD
s 1-3 CO n
-IT-
to
irn 'H
1
Q)
•P
cri
Pi
Ss
tiD
•H
Vl
G)
o u
^^
Tb
Q)
t/1
(1)
•H
iH
J«
U
(J
p
U
C/J
rH
erf
w
O
o
>
>
o
rl
[,.
u
tj
fcH
•H
S
G)
t,f>
0)
■H
■=>!
Pl
(1)
nH
fH
r:
£■3
O
n
>
I'H
(U 0) o
f-i u rj
O O in Q)
PL, rQ EH ;:i
r-l
rj ^o >
o a)
O EH iH
p! >
t;D
•rH
O
o
en
'Td
O ^
o
t1 PL,
c
O O
EH^^
CM
OJ
+3
o
i^O -p
•H o
p; X
o I
n)
tH
tv,
?-<
CO
r-H
Cl
fu
rt
iH
y
O
•rH
i^
(1)
fn
O
I'l
111
s
!-H
C.)
O
pi
^'■j
rH
fn
G
0
+-'
^
in
O p!
O
W p^
O O
EH.^
C\J
CVI
bH 4^
EH
c\;
tJ
4J
fl
^
O
fa,r-i
EH -H
p,
O
O
rH n
if; A
c P"
•H O
pi
I
CD
^4
c
d
Q)
(1)
H
^^
c:
o
22,ic
^J- OJVDtOO LTvKlMKD rM ir\0>
rH r-* C\j (^ CTr^ O O en O t-- LOCO
LO ti^ J- J- ro r<^jrf J- T'^ J r<^ r^ t-r^
• ••••••••••••
tx^u? Lr^ LTi r^i CM ^ ro t^^ jt ir . lc^
l^o, t^r-N KVi r-r-, r^ hOi [v-y h^ r-^ |-<-\ K^, K^ P^
O LT. r-t O t'" rH 1^, r^ O rH O CPv r-i
«•■••«•••■»••
rHrHOrH to tOCTibOtO cr. OOrH
^^K^K^l^cuc^JC^JCMC^JOJ^■^^-^^^
ir\ LOVD rH 60 Ln^ ir\^D &0 CO 60 rH
c^^ J- LO o^ rH r^ rH ii-N r— LT. LO CO r—
cv! O '^ !rM~^, c\J CM ^- J- rH ^ r^ r^
cm" k'j cm" CA rH I — t^.^- OJ \n CM rH CM
r-\ to r— o f^ Cii Lo r— LTN r^ to r— I —
O r~- O^U5 0~\ CM rH ^ rH r~- t~l ,^- K^
cm ^ to o '-o to O K> ^'~^ O"^ to rH o~\
^ ^ t^jit t^\ r^^i- ^- J- r^ OJ OJ r-l
t~-l^t0^jd-VX) CJMr\(\),^ r-l r~-UD
vo to Q-^JT OJ Cj^^ O C^^ rH LC~\ O I —
rH rH 1^ LOVjD LO.MD K.O ^O O f^ 0> O^
CMoTcMOJOJOJCMOJCMOJrH
jd" vx> OJ to l-^VX) CM VX> r-t'^ OJ VO I-~-
1^ LPi LT^ rH m Lf'N r^ Ol to to f-^ J" rH
to I — vjD J- v>D r— ^ to LTi CM Lc^ bo ^r^
,-t 1^ ir! o H lr^ to J- o r^ t^^ oj
CM ro r^-U3 OCMrHCMVD^T^rHL^^L^^
torHroHtotOrHC^-:d-cucr\Lr>cri
rH t-^ OJ K^ CM ai cr\v£) CO r— Lf^ o to
to to CT^ Cr\ 0"> rH CTi O O CTM — >-D LO
H r-l rH
ICMC^ O ir\ O r-i tJM — CA ^^^ rH ca b;;
r— to LTMO JXJ- ^|- UA OJ OJ O r~,rj- LC-\
o o^ to r-{ CT^ o^ r— to rH to to uA r--
vo Lr^vD I — t^- r-- 1^ r— to m h<"^ oj cvj
■0,9-
^lr^Or^t— oocr>rH,zr^LrMr\
o^^ <D O r^v^ Lr> rH ,rt O rH 1^ OJ
<y\ <y•^ cr\ c\i rH oj o oj'^ crMr^cJ^rH
^cTvxT r-^ CO cr\ CA CTi 0■^ cavjd ^- oj r<^,
■fO-
rH CM t-^jt L^^V.O r~-^ CO 'TV O rH CM r^
rvi oi c\i cvj ai OJ CM o I OJ r^i 1^-, r^ ^~\
CA 0"^ CJ^ CA 0"^ CA (3^ CA CA CA a~\ .'.A O^
r-\r-\r-\r-irHr-ir-\r-i<-\r^r^rHr-t
fj
u
a
s
o
o
o
+3
E!
(D
+3
p,
p^
R
w
-p
Co
•p
to
ca
■p
•H
o
Pi
pi
o
to
-gl-
-15-
1 1 . History of code forrn'olFtion .
A. The snon<=oring organizations '7ere as follo'/s:
1. Tlie national Coxticil of American Sl'iipbuilders , com-oosed of
the najor shipl)mlding and shiprepairin^; yards of the co-antry, forned
1921. A list of reoresentative nenbers included in the membership is
contained in Volume A, pa^^e 1, filed in the Code Record Section. Ihe
National Covjicil of American Shirjbailders claimed to include in its
membership not less thaai 90^ of the productive shipbuilding capacitj'- of
the shipyards situated on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coasts and ovm.
a substantial percentage of the capacity of the shipropairing yards on
those coasts; (Ref. Vol. Ill of Hearing July 19, 1933, page 12, filed in
Code Record Library) and
New York and New Jersey Dry Dock Association, formed 1906. A list
■of representative members included in the membership is given on page 2,
Volu.ie A, filed in Code Record Section; ajid
Pacific Dry Dock Association, forned 1923, a list of whose represen-
tative members is contained on pa.ge 2, Volume A, filed in Code Record Sec-
tion. Pacific Coast Dry Doc): Association claimed to include in its members-
ship companies that owned not less than 90^1 of the productive shipbuilding
and shiprepairing capacity of the shipj'TTds situa.ted on the Pacific Coast.
(Ref. page" 12, Vol. Ill of the Hearing July 19, 1933, filed in Code Record
Library.) (Certain large shiiVoailding corporations are members of the
National Covjicil of American Shipbuilders, such as the Pethlehem Shipbii.ild-
ing Com-oany, Todd Shipb-oilding and Dry Dock Company, have plants on the
Pacific Coast and are members of the Pacific Coast Dry Dock Association);
and
Tlie representative shipyards of the Gulf Coast, v/hich are likewise
set forth on page 2, Volume A; and
The shipbuilding and shiprepairing companies on the Great Lakes
were represented during the drafting of the Code and e^ressed themselves
as se^ g no objection to it; (Ref. page 3, Vol. A on file in Code Record
Sec tic a) and.
The shipbuilding and shiprepairing companies on the Mississippi
River and its tributaries were represented during the preparation of the
Code and the Code was submitted to their entire group June 29, 1933, at a
meeting in Pittsburgh. Mr. H. G. Smith, was assured tlia.t the Code was
in general satisfactory to them. (Ref. page 3, Vol. A on file in Code
Record Section)
The sponsoring authorities represented 80fo of the emplojTnent of the
Industry over the past five years. (Ref, page 3, Vol, A on file in Code
Record Svigtion) (it is pointed out that the 90^ productive capacity
claimed by the National Council of Anerican Shipbuilders and also the
Pacific Dry Dock Association had special reference to shipbuilding capa-
city and its substantial percentage of shiprepairing capacity. However,
there are large numbers of small shiprepairing yards, not members of any
trade association, that it was impractical, in the time available, to
bring into this matter. Therefore, representation of only 80fo of the
Industrj^ as a whole was claimed.
9732
-14-
ForimxLation code meetings - No definite information can be found in
files, exce-ot for the meetinf, heretofore cited, n.t Pittsburgh on June 29,
as to date, time and place of meetin.5 of the respective trade associations.
It is Icnorm that r\,'cii meetings \r;ere held by the National Comcil of American
Shipbuilders: the Uov? Yor:.i and li'ew Jersey Dry Dock Association, the Pacific
Coast Dry Dock Association and others of interesto However, the authoriza-
tion to present the Code consisted of individual letters from the major
shipbuilding and shiprep:d ring companies of the country and, therefore,
formal resolutions of authorization from these associations were not neces-
sary,
2. Officers, code committees, interested grourps.
Tlie Code Committee consisted of H, C-errish Smith, President of the
National Coioncil of ..\mf-'ic?n Shipbuilders, ?.oom 651, 11 Broadway, lien York;
Joseph Hagg, Jr., President, Todd Dry Dock Engineering and Repairing Corp.,
Room 1100, 25 BroadvTay, K-nj Ycrr-k; Janes E. Barnes, Southern Building,
Washington, D. C.
Ihis Committee was duly authorised and submitted "oroof of authority
by individual le-ctors frnm the ,..ajor shipbuilding and shiprerjairing com-
panies, v.iiich are listel as fo'.l'.wsJ (Hef, Vol. II, Code Record Safe
and page 1, Volo A.- Code P.ecord Section)
Proofs of authority
B. F. Campbdll, Assistant to the President,
Alabama, Dry Dock 8c Shipbidlding Company
W. S. llev/ell. President,
Bath Iron Works Corporation
S. V;. YJakeman, Vice-President,
Bethlohem Shipbuilding Corporation, Ltd.
L. Y, Spear, Vice-President,
Electric Loo.t Company
¥arren Johrcon, President,
Johnson J.rcn Works, Dry. Dock and Shipbuilding Co.
J. ¥att, Vi ce-?re.fdde:-.t & General Manager,
KcnsingiGon Shipyard & Drydock Corporation
H. F. Brow., President i Gereral Manager,
Maryland D::y D^ck Corny any, Inc.
Roger Willi ;ams. Vice-f resident ,
Kev.Yiort Hews Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co,
C. L. Bardo,' Preside?''!, ■ •
The Hew York Shipbuilding Company
C. S. Roger's, Vi^-'.c-Presic'entj
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Coriooration
C. Stewart Lee, '/ice-President,
The Pusey Cc Jones Corporation .'
Robert Haig. V'-O-President ,
Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company
John P. lucDonough,, V-ce Pre ;^i dent,
Galvbston Dry Dock and Construction Company
9732
-15-
Proofs of authority (Cont'd)
Francis S. Bushey, President,
New York and aTow Jersey Dry Dock Association
John D. Heill^^, President,
Todd Shipyards Corporation
*J. H. Orndoff, President
Federal Shipb^ailding and Dry Doclc Conpany
, John T. Greajiy, Secretary,
Pacific Coast Dry Dock Association
Angus Marshall, President,
Pennsylvania Shipyards, Inc.
Jojnes C. Merrill, Vice-President L General Manager,
Merrill, Stevens Dry Dock & Repair Corr:iany
* Tliis letter is found in Volume II, Code Record Safe, but
the name V7as omitted in the list given in Volume A.
9732
-16-
B. Fron submission of first draft code to public h^pring.
The Code was submitted "by the Codft Committ:e, July 10th, 1933,
by letter addressed to Hon. H-'jgh S. Johnson, Administrator. (Ref. Vol.
II, Code liecord Safe, and pages 1 to 6, Vol, A, filed in Code Record
Section)
1. Brief summaiy of conferences and negotiations.
Uhile conferences were held no definite record can
be found in the files.
C. Pxiblic he rings on Code.
r» Dates, major personnel; results.
Public herrings on the Code began July 19, 1933
and continued through the second and third day, July 20, 21. Deputy
Administrator A. D. Tf/liiteside, rdth G-enera,l Hiigh S. Johnson, Adminis-
trator, present, opened the he- rings at 10:30 a.m., July IS, 1833, in
the Auditorium of the Department of Coaaerce Building, 'Ja-shington, D. C.
(Ref. Vol. Ill, Code Record Spfe, numbered I, II and^III, and Vol. Ill,
Code Record Librar]'- consisting of tiie releases on the hearing. Ref.
hereinafter to these hearings are by page numbers from the Code Record
Library file. Comparison table is hereinbefore set forth on page 2 of
this History e^s bet\7een the file in the Code Record Safe and the Code
Record Library)
Spea;kers at the Hearings. (Ref. Vol. I, Code Record
Safe)
H. G. Smith, President of National Council of American Shipbuilders
Homer T. Perguson, President of the ller.'port ¥.ers Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
Lawrence Y. Spear, Vice President, Electrical Loat Company
W. H. G-erha-aser, President of the American Shipbuilding Co. representing
the G-reat Lakes District
Clinton L. Lardo, President of the ]<re\7 York Shipbuilding Co.
Joseph A, Franklin, lietal Trades
J. E. Davis, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders
and Helpers of America
Charles 17. Uilkerson, International Holders Union of North America
James S. lie Donough (See Joseph S. He Donagli) International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers
M. F. Garrett, United Association of Journeymen, Plumbers & Steam-
fitters of the United States &. Canada
John P. Coyne, Vice-President, International Union of Operations
Engineers
Harry J. Carr, International Association of Machinists.
John P. Frey, iletal Trades
Thomas A. "ood, International Association of Bridge, Structural &
Orna.nental Iron Workers
Rear Admiral E. S. Land, (CC) U. S. 11., Chief Constructor of the Navy
Captain H. L. Wynan, (CC) U. S. IT., From the Office d)f the Assistant
Secretary of Navy
9732
-17-
George E, PoT,'ers, Steel & Metal Workers Industrial Hnion
Joseph V, '..."orosclii, President, Intern?,tional Hod C':.rriers Eldg. &
Connon Laborers Union of North Ar.ierica
T. F. Belincy, Acting President Pattern Makers League of North America
J, W. Mullin, Rep. Labor, N.'Y. Shipbuilding Co., Camden
W, G-. Mc Dcrnott, Chairman TTorkers Fore River Plant of Bethlehem
Shipbuilding Corporation, Quincy, i.assachusetts
Josiah T. llev/comb, Gulf Industries, Inc.
Robert W. UcJ-o:ie, Galveston iry Doc;: & Construction Co.
Hon. Millard P. Ccldv/ell, ?L':;"oresentr.tive in Congress from State of Florida
John E. Croj-g, First Vice President, Clj'"de-i;allory Lines
Roger B» Siox.all, A'.ierica.n Stez-unship Owners Association
Joseph S. :"c Dona:~h, International Brotherhood of Electricrl Workers
John A. lie I'pi-iara, Firemen £: Oilers
Captain '.Tillir:;!--, (CC) U. S. IT., Navy Department
Admiral Cone, I[. S. Shipping Board
John ¥. Gr-jvy, Interno.tional Hod Carriers Bldg. c?-. Conmon Laborers Union
of North Ij.'.erica
Mr, TTnitesidc r, marked that there va.s one peculiar characteristic
that he noted in the group covmected with shipbuilding in the prepara-
tion of thr, Cot.e f..nd tht.t \7as, men who had been in industry all their
lives and confined to a certain vie^.Tpoint have a difficult time in
getting away from thos- conditions and seeing the- future and the rela-
tionship v.dth c.\ch other and'vith related industries and the related
standpoint. F-c^-ther, the Shiobuilciug ano. Shiprepairing Industry is o
peculia.r in that it does not lend it^^elf to mass production.
General Jomison remarked this he- ring has b-,corae something of sn
emergency because of the sitoation created by the Naval program which
is being dumped into the laps of the Shipbuilding Industry and which
will result in activity very much gr^^ater than vras to be anticipated
two or three noaths ajo, ,
Deputy TTniteside: First in order is to have a statement of the
m^th'^d of procedure, which is directly following the lines which Mr.
Donalc .ichoerg read at the Textile hearing. Mr, Ludlum read the
stateiTjnt, Reference Volume III, n-ges 4-7 inclusive.
Mr. H. Gerrish Smith, President, National Council of American
Shipbuilders, presented and read the revised code and in the presentation
made a general statement on American shipbuilding and shiprepairing of
which the following is sji excerpt, :-.efcrences. Volume III, pages 8 to 22
inclusive .
"In the first place, shipbuil'ing is not a manufacturing industry
within the usu'l definition of that term. Ships are not ;:ept in stock by
shipbuildiU:'; cor.rarnies and, therefore, are not conmodities thrt are sold
over the counter. The construction of a ship is alv?ays the subject of
contract, .-ii". usuc-.lly it is designed for the specific se::^ice. The
shipbuilding yaa-ds construct both raerchrnt vessels, n3,val vessels and
other governL:ent vessels — the first for the transportation of persons
and -commodities in domestic and foreign com;:ierce, and the others as one
of the chief means of National defense. The construction of a ship is
always, as I said, the subject of a contract, and usT.ially it is designed
for a specific p^jjroose, and it is rare that a ship of BJiy size can be
9732
"13-
constructed in less than a ye-.r, and if it is a complicated design and
for passengers, it may take t\/o ye-.rs — if it is a Nax'al vessel, it '
will take tlu-ee or three and a half ye^.rs.
"The tr::ai3po-i-taticn of passengers and comixodities in our foreign
and domestic trade "by cur merchant snips is a public service upon which,
in a large n3c,sv-.r3, the com lerce of the entire nation depends, and such
ships are therefore charged irith a puhlic interest.
"Americo,n shipyards eoulpped to huild merchant vessels are necessairy
to estahlich and naintain a self-contained, adequate a.nd efficient mer-
chant mari;ie, and their operation enables oior country to keep abreast of
the develop;-.:ents of marine engineer:.-.:^ that is continuously in progress
throughout the --ro^rld. Tioas, in the performance of this service, otir
shipyards, li]:e o^ir mercii'~nt Bhips, perform a public service and are
therefore charged with a public interest.
. "Congress has recog;-'.ized the interest of the public in merchant
ships and shipyards, Ly enacting 1b.\iZ under which compensation is paid
to American ship o-,,ners for th.e carri ':?,'e of mail, and p. fiond has been
created from v;hich loans are irade to such owners at a Io't rate of in-
terest f or t he cons tn-.ct ion of ships. This legislation enables an Amer-
ican ship owner to have his ships built in Ainerican -Shipyards, and to
operate them in foreign trade in competiti"n with owners of ships con-
structed at a far less cost in fonign shipyards,
"I might sa,y that it is only by such means that they could build
any Americrn. shipyards. (ships)
"The ship reoairing industry performs a, function as essential in the
shipping v:orld as that required of shipbuilding. It represents in the
United States a capital investment in plnnt and equipment about eqi:ial in
value to the ccpital expenditure to esi^ablish the shipbuilding industry, and
requires, on an average, substantially the naiae r/jjnber of workmen as are
employed in building merchant ^hips. Ship repairing yards ?.re equipped
with dry docks cjid modern machinery manned with staffs of technical en-
gineers ano. forces of experienced mechanics that raalce possible, the repair-
ing or reconditioning of ships of all types with expedition and skill.
These ship repairing yards sell only i- service', a service tha.t enables
ships to sp.il on their schedrde time in the world •eommerce, and thereby
these yards form an essential unit of our merchant marine. Substantially
all of the work perfonned lij ship repairing ya.rds is emergency work, the
time of performance of wjiich cannot be determined with the sajne percision
as that of shipbuilding, and, as a consequence, the hours of work and the
number of employees are not as stable in repairing ships as in building
them.
"Thus it a;ppears that shipbuilding, ship operating and ship repairing
constitute the three units that make a complete... and self-sustained merchant
marine and the operation of each unit is interde-oendent upon the others,
"The United States by means of legislation has laid the foundation on
9732
-13-
which our mcrchaiit marine has 'been cre':'.ted and it must te jealously-
guarded against aiiy conditions that \7ill prevent its future development.
Having this thcu-^ht in mind, fraaners of the code approached its propar-
ation with a sincere desire to cooperate with yon in accomplishing the
purposes of the Ifetional Industrial P.ecovery Act, but at the same time,
they were apprehensive of the effect that any increase in the cost of
building or repe.iring merchc.nt ships may have on our merchant marine.
"A nei-chrjit ship has a life of ppproxiraately 20 years and the cost
of its construction is a capital charge against the company that oper^.tes
it. Consequently, its operation during the entire period of its service
carries cha,rges for insurance, depreciation and interest on investment,
which are determined by its first cost, and therefore any increase in
such cost est3,blishes a permanent additional and continuing charge for
operation cl-oring the period of its service.
"Then rxi American-built ship engages in domestic trade, any addi-
tional e:.p)ense of operation due to its cost of construction can only be
absorbed Toy an increase in prssenger and freight rates which must be con-
tinued thro-'jghout its entire life in order to preserve its earning capaxity.
"And the methods of transportation are so numerous that a raise in
these rates may seriously affect its competitive situation.
"When an American-built ship engages in foreign trade, however, it
competes with the vessels of foreign nations constructed and operated at
less cost. It cannot increase its passenger fi,nd freight rates beyond those
charged by foreign liner, without losing business, so that an increase in the
.cost of construction of a nhin imposes a handic-p upon the ship owner in
foreign tsade over which he has no control, and which continues for the
life of the ship,
"There are at the present time several hundred American vessels which
were built in Ajnerican yards and are noT/ engaged in the foreign trade of
the United States,
'• .ose are la.rgely vessels built diiring the v.'ar time and some of them
since.
"Any increase in the cost of repairing them imposes an additional
handicap on them while competing v.'ith foreign vessels.
"If, during its operation, the National Industrial Recovery Act
should impose e.ny substantial incret-ise in the cost of constructing merchant
ships in domestic shipyards for our foreign trade, or substantially in-
crease the cost of repairing them, it might result in a complete suspension
of construction of ships for this trade and defer the making of necessary
major repairs to or the reconditioning of, ships now in service.
"All of these subjects involve seriously the maintena,nce and operation
' cf our merclia.nt marine and, a.s I have already stated, they have been constant-
ly before those who participated in the prepaxj. tion of the code.
9732
-20-
"The "tonne^j^e of merchant ships in the course of construction is
lower no'j th-ji at any other ti^ae duri?ig the past tun ye-.rs.
"The industry is at an erctremely low ehh, "both in ship txiilding and
in repair, Cn tlif repair sidru - it is affected "b^- the general conditions
in shipping "hich have heen affected h]- the generally depressing con-
ditions of 'bu.sinef53. And on the merchcnt side, the volume under v/ay
is 'thorofore small »
"The indu.stry fee].s that the vrage provisions in the code to increase
minim-'Jiii VTa;-;6S rdll accon-plish the punoose of the Act vithout causing any
substantial increas-.e in the cost oF co-.-^ctri-.cting a.nd repairing mercnant
ships to a dngree that will work a hc^ii-'dshlp on AQ:erican owners.
"Other conditions oi the code will not interfere with increasing
employment, HoiTeveTj if ■'ra.-^fir. are increased beyond the provisions of the
code, the t^iidency will be to decrea^.e th3 voluTe of merchant ship work,
p.nd, thereby decrecvse rab'ier tha.n increase employ.nent.
"The Code provides for a basic '.rorking week of 40 hours determined
on an avera^ije tine of employment over a period of six months. The industry,
5;iqT repairing in particular, is of a chara'-tsr i;7here there is a considerable
amount of work of an e:r.;- :. genc;> or special type, on which only one shift caji
work, and it is necessar;-,- either to i:o3:-k o-jdasionally for longer hours or
to seriou-sly dela"' che progress of the \70rk as a whole. Tiile in general
the hours per week \7ill not exceed 40, the code guarantees that over a
period of six iionths the average employment per week per employee shall not
exceed 40,
"The proposed naval construction progrpB, as authorized by the Public
Works Section of the National Industrial Recovery Act, \7ill provide at the
peak of such construction (on the basis of forty hours a week) a volume of
vrork for th3 ship-building yards that will require employment of worlnnen
in private yards and navy yprds combined about fifteen (15) per cent in
excess of that which ha.s prevailed at any time during the last ten (10) yerxs.
"Tl:iis prograa of naval construction, hoi-ever, while benefiting the shipbiiilding
yards will not be of any advantage to those yards engaged wholly in ship
repairing,
"The Dropedition with which -work on this naval program will be carried
on depends upon the ability to prepare plans, order materials and carry
out work in the mold loft and completion of this preliminary work determines
the time when worlnnen can start upon the actual construction of the ship.
We have, therefore, provided in the code tliat the limitation as to working
hours on such preliminary work be waived for a period of six (6) months
after the 3.\;-ard of a naval contract.
"As affecting employment there is proba.bly no industry more general
in its demands on other industries than shipbuilding. Approximate Ij"- one-
half of the total cost of a ship is involved in the cost of the materials
and equipment \xsed in its construction. 'Si^^Tf state and almost every
industry contributes, directly or indirectly, to the prodTictibn of ma-
terials used in shipbuilding. It gives, tlierefore, an extremely broad
distribution of -..ork.
97S2
"And raay CTrtrllinent woulo. likewise broadly affect the i^.dustries of
the entire ooujitry,
"It is esti-..L-.ted that in the cost of a ship at least 85 per cent of
it is exoended ~o\- lahor.
"They do "oota shiphuilding and ship repairing in the same yard.
Different shrcV.-.ilding ana ship repeiring yards aj-e located in the same
commtinity. Thejr are located in the same community as naval yards and
therefore are in competition with them in securiag labor, and all of
those matters hrve to he taken into accoimt in establishing tne wages of
the employment, ciid because of this vr-riety of work in the same yard, it
is of course ii.voiacticable to have more than one scale of wages. It
cannot be different for merchant wor^- than it is for government work, or
for repairing a merchant ship without very seriously disturbing the or-
ganization of the 7ard or affecting the cost of construction.
"In determining the. minimum wage rates to be fixed by the Code,
consideration has been given to the fact that substantial differences
now exist in the minimum vjage rates paid in different districts of the
United States, although the wage rates of skilled and semi-skilled labor
in the various sections are reasonably uniform.
"In establishing the miniratun wage for merchant shipbuilding, naval
shipbuilding aiid for repair work in the same localities, your attention
is directed to the fact that shipbuilding plants do both commercial and
government work; they do both shipbuilding and ship repairing while sev-
eral of the plants are essentially ship repairing also do some in ship-
building; that shi'obuilding for naval and commercial v;ork and ship re-
pairing are carried on in the same plant and that where this is not done
shipbuilding and ship repairing plants exist in the same comra\inity; that
there are in the scj^e communities government yards that do shipbuilding
and ship repair!-'':; and that in establishing a minimua wage, therefore,
it is very esseitiaj. that the rate of wages and the hours of labor in
any shipyard nust be the same for both coraiiiercial and government work,
and fnr" shipouilding and ship repairing; otherwise confusion, dissatis-
factic .nd disintegration will prise among their working forces.
"The code fi::es a minimum wage rate of 35 cents an hour in the
South and 40 cents pn hour in the l^orth for labor, except for appren-
tices, learners and casual ^nd incidental employees. The code provides
that no minors shall be employed in the industry aftar the acceptance of
this code, and provides that apprentices and learners siia.ll receive no
less than the ;ainimuin wage after two years of employment. Casual and
incidental enplo-ees in a shipyard osrforra a considera.ble amount of work
of varied character and, in order that the code may fix definitely the
number of s-^.ch employees and their cora^-iensation, it lorovides that they
shall be -oaid not less than 80 per cent of the minimum wage of unskilled
workmen with the understanding that the total number of them in any one
calendar month shall not exceed eight per cent of the number of skilled
and semi-skilled -.Torkmen during the same month.
"Unskilled labor in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries
is almost wholl:" of the common labor type and is utilized only to a very
9732
— T'~
limited degree or. productive Fork.
"The actuc.l -'orl: of nakiii;^ the repairs on ships and of building
ships is carried or "by a great nuniher of trades Trhich exceed forty in
well defined trr.des, and in vhich you might employ a fev? men in one and
a great many in otlie-.s, f,nd they vary through various classes of skilled
and semi-skilled trades.
"In connection \7ith the code, your e.ttention is invited to the fact
that there are long term contracts now hein^? performed in five of the
shipyards of the United States for the construction of naval vessels.
The unexpended "bplance of the estimated cost of these contracts a.mounted
to approximately OlS.OOO.GOO on July 1st cf this year. Any increase in
wages or increase in matprial prices resulting from the o'oeration of the
National Industrial P.ecoverj'- Act will i-npcL e upon the "builders of these
vessels a consider-hle ir.cvee.se in cost, for which some method of pro-
tection for then should Le provided, cthe:"Tr/ise they will sustain a sub-
stantial loss. 7e tirge the adrjinistrati.on to protect us against loss
on these contracts and for this pxirpose have inserted a protective
clause in the code similar to that included in the Textile Code covering
the saiBe subject.
"Some of these shi"os ^-'ere' contracted for last year and I think one
or t?ro of then, as ■: ar back as 1931, may be a little farther back. They
are long tiue contracts extending from beginning to end over a period of
three years . I tld?ik one of the^i is three and a half and some of the
others tvro and a half.
"YJe have, therefore, '-written into the code \,'hich I h:,ve read, to the
effect of a '.king far protection on those contracts, and we urge the ad-
ministration to protect us against losses on them, and it is for that
purpose ^'e have inserted the clause in the code.
"The code also contains a paragraph stating tha.t it nill be con-
sidered a violation of the code to make any mpterial increase in the
plant capaxit"" of the induntrj- duri-g the life of the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act. The reason for this is due t6 the excessive f ac- '
ilities no^'f e::istir.g in both the shipbuilding and ship repairing in-
dustries, kr. C. L. Bardo, "oresident of the !:ew York Shipbuilding
Company will present to yov. a statement upon this subject.
"Mr. Ho:.ier L. Ferguson, "oresident of the UeFroort i'ev/s Shipbuilding
and Dry Doc': Compcaay will discuss the sxibject of wages as provided in
the code.
"Mr. La'n-ence Y. Spear, vice president of the Electric Boat Com-
pany will discu-ss the hours of em.ployment as provided in the code.
"Mr. 17. H. Gerhauser, president of the Great Lakes Shipbuilding
Company will rise discuss the question of hours as applicable to Great
Lakes shipbtiilding and ship repairing yards.
"Mr. John E. Craig, First Vice President of the Clyde-Mallory Lines,
will speak on behalf of the American Steamship Owners Association."
9732
-23-
i:r. Honer L. Terguson on iDehalf of. the HewDort Hews Shipbuilding
and TJ^TD^F^^iJi^^^'R^erence, pa.,es 28 to 45. Hearing July 19, 193o,
?iled in Coc-.e Zecord Section. Eriefs from his statenent.
I Der to o-esent three cho,rts wnich have hean prepared froin data
suhmitted^y ner.bers of the Industry who are grouped together under this
proposed code. (See Exhibit G)
The first chart shows that the e.plo^-ment in the ShiT^huilding and
Shiiirenairing I-^dustry is approximately 50 to 52 per cent skilled, about
30 'er-ceni^e>ni-s^.:illed and the balance unskilled -^-\20 per cent)
The" employment cha^t irdicates that the peak of employment m the Ship-
building Industry vo.s in 1S30.
The second chart contains information regarding ^'^^^^^^ °^/^2f "
ment and ave::..,e rrtes in ship yards. Chart ^^^f^ fe'd labor earned
rate from 1928 to 1931 approximately 70 cents, skilled labor earned
rate about 77 or 70 cents, falling off at the present time to c„ base
rate of abo^ot 55 cents and earned rate of about 67 or b8 cents. ine
base rate is the hourly rate, the earned rate is the rate the employee
ifact^njpir, as a Jesuit of some form of piece work or its eauiva-
lent..
. semi-skilled la^or base rate for the period ^^^^Hf^f^^^ "^^
a^T^roximatei^.- 48-^ cents and the earned rrte approximately 54 cents.
Sreas tl' base \-at3 for the semi-skilled labor for tne six nonths just
ended dropped to 44 cents and the earned rate to 47 cents.
UnskiHec- Irhor 1928 to K31 base ratas slightly under 40 cents and
the eS^f "ie ;bout 42^ cents. At the present time the ^skilled base
rate is 36 cents rnd the earned rate is 38-3; cents.
The last c:.art covers total earned weges. In 1926 f ^^^ff gj^^^.
wa^e for rl^ ren v:-,s $29.65 per week; in 1927, $30. 8d. l^J'^f' |30-85.
Ini929! $30.55; in 1930. $30.55; in 1931, $30.30. In 1932. .1,26.70,
in 1935, $23.90.
Tt shi^D yr-ds worked 45 rnd 44 hours a week and some ^^ses 48
until Lst yeci .^len the ho.rs were cut by the leading ^^^J f ^f J^^
45 to 40 in order to spread emolojmient . Repair plants worked 48 hours
per week.
The minimum com^.;n labor rate of 30 cents per hour and th^ ^^0^°-:
p^r week would be better for southern yards. Vage rates m tnis Indus
try have only been cut 15 per cent .
Kr. Lawrence Y. Spear, Vice President of the Electric Boat Company
MHours of enplo-:eut". Reference, hearing July 19, Page 46-56 inclusive
Briefs from his statement.
Em.lo^nnent in the Kavy yards aoid orivate ^^JP ^^il'^^iSf n '"''vnlS • '
ulants ^s. follows: In 1929, 69,589; in 1930, 75 182; ^ f 2^J;/°;^f,:
in 1932 61 627. The "orivate yard figures are based upon average em
iVy^^nt in steady employment. The Havy yard figures include every
9732
-24-
name on the payrolls during the year. Consequently, these figm-es have
to he adjusted when you come to comparin^^ who.t has happened with what
will happen. For 1930 the adjusted figure is 69,830 vrhich is the neak
year of peace time employment.
Under the Act, operating on the 40 hour week "basis, employment will
reach 80,700 for a peak year ^ch as the 1930 year of 69,830 (adjusted).
The estimated spread of employment under the Act on a 40 hour has is will
."be ahout 15 per cent.
Ships are hiiilt and repaired hy individual efforts of the vrarlanen
employed and not hy a mechanical manufa,cturing process. Men who name
one trade can only "be employed economically in proportion to the joh and
yard faqilities siid s pace on the ship available and strict relation to
the progress made hy related trade. The greater part of the work must
be carried on in open daylight hours and the v/hole Industry now operates
8 to 9 hours a day.
Returning to the matter as v/hat viould happen in the Industry if vre
endeavor to operate it on less than a 40 hour week, such as a 30 hour
week and use a, single shift of men, it v.'Ould increase the time to com-
plete the contracts about one-third a'3 com-oa,red ?/ith the 40 hour week.
Cost would be xmnecessarily increased since the grea,ter "oart of the over-
head expense which constitutes 20 to 25 per cent of the total cost is
proportionate to tim-e. We wo\ild then not be employing any more men.
Therefore, v:hat I have to sayabo\it the 30 hour week is based upon the
assumption that it must be a two shift operation insofar as practical in
this Industry''.
While theoretically a 30-hour v/eek might be based on six days of
5 hours per da.y, it is believed that to attempt such operation would
give rise to labor difficulties in shipbuilding, wnich is now operating
on a 5-day I'eek. The 5-day operation would also run counter to the
modern tendency which looks towards two days of rest per week. In pra.c-
tice then, the 30-hour week would probably ha.ve to be based on a 6-ho\ir
day for five days. A rest period must be lorovided for, assuming one-half
hour rest 'oeriod in each shift, the plants woul'd be required to operate
13 hours per day. These hours will be too long for the supervisory and
other forces, therefore, these forces would have to be doubled. The
supply of trained and experienced superintendents, foremen, etc. would
be quite inadeo^uate.
Again a certain amount of time in shipbuilding is necessarily lost
in starting and stopping work. On an 8-hour day, this amounts to from
8 to 12 per cent of the paid time and on a 6-hour day it would rise to 11
to 17 per cent of the paid time.
During eight months daylight would be insufficient for efficient op-
eration on a 13-hour day. Shop work could be carried on by artificial
light. However, in case of work on a ship proper, the use of artificia.l
light is strictly limited.
Many ixlividux.l operations in the industry cannot be completed with-
in a 6-hour period. Normal efficiency requires that e.-.ch o-oera,tion should
9732
-25-
"be carried thro^u:'!! to conclasion "by the individ'ual or gang starting it.
'.Then v7or'c is txu'ned over to a new individiaal or gr.ng much time is lost
on account oi clieclrin/^ required, which will invariable increase cost on
account of increr.sed aiuo\mt of raid hi ura rcouired and the inevitable
addition to spoiled work.
There vail he an inadequate suooly of skilled and experienced Ituhor
in ma.ny tildes :,nd the rusultinf dilution of labor, will necessarily
again increase the number of hours recaiired. In the r/ar dilution of
labor increp,sed the labor hours requi;.-ed by 50 to 100 per cent and it
also increased the percentage of spoiled work. It is iinjjossible ,to for-
see exactly rliat the combined effect of the pbove factors will be upon
the number of productive labor hOTxrs req\iired. Estimates by competent
and e xperie'iced :-en run from 20 to 50 per cent. For the purpose of this
paper the r.i.ii":'.ui: figure of 20 per cent has been taken. Of the total
labor involved, ahor.t &0 per cent is prodiK:tive and 20 per cent nonpro-
ductive. In c. t'.o shift operation, the nonproductive labor \70\\ld have
to be increased by at least 70 per cent. The total mininum increase in
labor hours then becomes 30 per cent made up of 16 per cent "oroductive
labor and 14- per cent nonproductive labor.
A reduction in the nresent hours to 30 hours per week without re-
duction in bryiiit;; -o-.^er of the labor involved, would necestiitate the
following intcrer-ses in hourly wages:
Priva.te shipbuilding, 35-1/3 per cent.
Navy Ya-rds, 46— 2/ 3 oer cont.
Private repair work, 60 per cent.
Taking into accoiont both the increased pay hours reauired and the
increase i:i hovxly rages, tae mininujn overall increase in the labor
would be as follows:
Private shipbv-ilding, 73.3 per cent.
Navy YcA-ds, 90.6 per cent.
Private repairs, 108.0 per cent.
Ii order to determine the effect of increased labor costs on the
total costs, it is first necessary to break: do'-n the costs into mater-
ial, labor and other charges. The weighted average f or naval vessels
will r-ur about 45 per cent material, 44 per cent labor and 10 per cent
other charges. The other charges i-eferred to are depreciation, local
taxes, plant insi^xaiace, rental, interest, etc.
Eef erring to the Ilavy Department, the corresponding navy yard fig-
ures are appr-'orriLia^tely 40 per cent material, 55 per cent labor and 4
percent other charges. The weighted average cost brealidown is material
43.8 per cent, labor 48.5 per cent, other charges 7.7 "oer cent. On this
basis, the total labor cost involved by the naval work in question at
present hoiu's and ■'.^ages '■ould be approximately $103,155,000 and the
weighted a.verage increase cost would be 79.7 per cent or $86,199,035.
As the appro:-i_-r,te total cost of the '^^ork at present wa^es a nd hours is
$223,000,000, the 30-hour wec:"- would result in an increase in total
cost of at loast 3G.7 per cent.
9732
-26-
Analysis of the reports of the Paynaster General of the Navy for
the fiscal yecjrz 1929 to 1932 indicates an areraje expendittire for Navy
Yard lahor, exclv.sive of nev/ covistrr-ction, of $44,231,902, which includes
all llavy Yarc.s except the %-an. i'.'ctory at ^«'a!--ihingtQn. Increasing this
ty 90.6 per cent v-oii].d increase the annual cost vita the same vfork load
hy $40,119,400, r-oioting in three years to $120,353,200.
AvQra£:e nercha.nt shipoLiilc'ing costs hreal'dorn to 4-5 per cent mater-
ial, 45 per cent lahor and 10 per cent other charges. Increasing the
labor cost Dy 73.3 per cent, therefore, increases the total cost by
33 per cent.
Available data for the yep.rs 1931 end. 1332 indicate the folloi^ing
approximate brea':do^n of rrivate rsoaii' costs, material 43 per cent,
labor 47 per cent, other char.=:;es 10 per cent. On this basis, increasing
the ls,bor cost c/ 108 per cent would increa.se the total cost of repairs
by 50.4 per cent. It is the object of this "osper to set forth as briefly
as possible the frets StipiDortin?^- the follof/inf?; statements.
1. That the p^irposes of the IJational Recovery Act can and will be
accomplished -oiader the Code.
2. That a 30-hcur trenk is not "practical ?iid feasible".
3. That the reduction in hours below 40 per week would not be in
the public interest.
While exact eiployment statistics are not available, the figures
given belovf represent a close aoproxiraation to the truth:
Private yards
direct em-oloynent
Navy Yards direct
enrployment
Total direct ein-
ployment
Allied Industry
enployment
Totals
-27-
TABLE I
1928 1959 1930 1951 1952
23550 3^250 34000 29250 21500
41455 43339 :lll.82 41589 4-0127
1^5003 n9589 75182 70839 <^1"^27
.55253 .59151 .^902 .50213 52417
120225 128740 139087 131052 114084
American Shipbuilders estimate that one man is employed in the
allied industries for each ;.ian cmploj/ed at the site.
Haval construction, excluding all vessels more than ^O/o completed
on June 1, 1933, the follov/ing men will "be required:
2 Airplane carriers (nev/)
8 Cruisers (5 ne;;)
32 Leaders and destroyers (24 nevi)
4 Submarines (nev.-)
2 Gun 3oa,ts (nev;)
Total 31,700
800
11
P,00
14
700
2
000
1
^000
9732
-28"
Mr. W.. H..,JjerhauGer, President of the rireat Lalces Shiptuildiiv?-
and Repair Association and President of the American Shipbuilding
Company. S-abject, hours as a,r)t)li cable to Great Laices Shipbuilding
and Shiprepair Yards. Reference, hearin^i July 19, 19S5, pa.-es R^ to
73 inclusive. Briefs from his statement.
The Code as submitted provides for a uniform 40-hour v/eek appli-
cable to all T/orl: with minimum v/ages of 35rf per hour in the South and
45^ in the North. The purpose of this statement is to show the
effect of these regulations on employment in the shipvards on the
Great Lakes.
There am but four shipyards of consequence on the Great Lakes
and these four yards also are equipped with drydocks and extensive
repair facilities. In addition, there are five large repair yards
equipped with drydocks, and about twenty smaller repair plants having
no drydocks, but equipped to execute various classes of minor ship
repairs. Due to severe winters, the navi;;atin,'-- season on the
Great Lakes is limited to about 7 months in the su-caer. Delays are
costly and shipowners are obliged to limit repairs durint:; the operat-
ing season to absolute emer; encies.
In order that the time a daraac;ed vessel is in drydock may be
reduced to the minimum, it has long been the practice on the Great
Lakes to work 9 or 9-g hours a day, and up to a total of 52 hours a
week. Daylight hours must be utilised and it is essential in many
cases that the same man complete the particular job on wnich he is
working. It is evident, therefore, that a reduction to 40 hours per
week on emer.^-ency repairs will work a decided hardship on the customer,
the ship owner, and will necessarily increase the cost of repairs and
will not increase total employment, since employment results pri-
marily from accident. Any reduction in the number of working, hours
below 40 -oor week will still further a; gravate these conditions.
Any large emploj'ment in the Industry on tne Great Lelces imist
come from ne-;; construction. I believe it is conceded that a reduction
in working hoxxrs to 40 per week will increase costs materially. The
Lake Bulk Freight fleet now consists of 322 vessels of an average age
of 24 years. 3y far the largest proportion of these ships v;ere built
at prices very mach below even present da-^ costs. To increase costs
by the fixing of a 40-hour work week will reduce the p:.ssibility of
any new construction to a minimui-n and and reduction below the 40 hours
will preclude all possibility of any construction i/hatever of LaJce
vessels. Thus the very punoose of the Act, to incre-.se employment,
is automaticallv^ defeated.
The average employaent in the four ma/jor shipbuilding companies
and five strictly repair yards was as follows:
1923 2,r^S0
1929 3,f^21
1950 3,275
1931 1,577
1932 8B«
1933 70fi
9732
_r>q_
ne would he perfectly v/illin.;; to work not in excess ox eigiit hours
in the winter months with the privilege "f working 9 hours without
llvTelt of overtine on repair -.vork in the ^n..er. 'ie .vxll worl: nine
hours a day, a ^0-hour week, sca:vering our e.:inlo3n.-ent.
Mr. John 3. Cr^aii,, First Vice-President of the Clyde-llallory Lines.
qutie7t'~l^-'^r^^Stea.iiship 0^':ners Association. Reference, hearing
July ll; f953, pages 74 to>L inclusive. Briefs from his statement.
The American Steair.ship Association represents the owners of the
.reater T)ortion of ocean-going .hips flying the A^aerican flag, ^oth in
the domestic and in the foreign trades. Tne Association believes that
the provision of Section 5 of the Code, reducing the honors of emplo -
lent in Araerican shiwards to -.0 hours a week, constitutes as great a
reduction from the present basis of employ-.ent as can wisely he made .
and that a reduction to less than 40 hours a wee.c 'l^^^^ /f^'^'l'' .^^
decreasing emolo:,-:nent, rather than increasing it. tnus defeating the
purpose of the National Industrial --.ecovery Act.
It is widely recognized that one of the f^andamental causes of
the depression has heen that in many lines of industry there nasheen
durin/the last decade an unt^arallelled technological development,
wSc^has tremendously increased the productivity of h-a:nan aW so
that today many articles in general use, produced ^'V^^f ,,°i^f '.f. *
can be made with only a small fraction of tne human labor ^mich wa^
necessary to make the saae articles in 1320. This development neces-
sarilrinvolves a:.ong the workers employed in malcing these articles a
cJiS in habits of occupation, and the obvious remedy at the moment
is to shorten the hours of the wor-:ers.
There has been no parallel in technological development in the
.hiT)buildir.^ industry. "Zach ship is specially designed and specially
coist^icted"^ aiid tnere is no such thing as quantity production of ships.
I" rSrr;.airing of ships is an indivicoial problem in -en case.
seldom repeated in identically the sa^me way. ^?5y-^^^^?;;^;tlt odav sub^
of the cost of a ship goes to pay labor, and a snip built today sub
stantiallv the same n-omber of hours as one built m 19^0. There has
therefore; in the course of the progress of ^V^l^^^^^^ ^"^'
been no Problem of .iea being throvm out ox worK by tne use of new
machines, as there has in nany oth^^r industries.
The problem in the shipbuilding industry is to increase the
number o/ships built and repaired. This can not be ^^^^^f ^^^jj "^;..
les= the shipping business itself is in a healthy condition, f^^^^^-
in ;il its Phased is an cxtrei.ely competitive business, probably the
most competitive in the world. The ship owner ^^^ ^f ^^^^ °" °^
shippers or passengers increased cost of construction or o^^rati^n,
because any increase in freight or passenger raes ^^nas to divert
traffic to other channels. This is especially ti-ae m tne forei,,n trade.
At present in the American foreign trade approximately one- third
of liie clr.o is carried by Araerican flag vessels and two-thirds is
carried by foreign flag vessels. .4.ueri can flag ^^^f^^VelarJff of
paired in the United States because there is a protective tariff of
50 per cent, on ship repairs of American vessels maae abroaa. Foreign
9732
-30~
competitors, on the other hand, do tueir repairing abroad, where the
costs are much cheaper. Any substantial increase in the American
owners' cost of renairs simply means that American vessels will find it
increasin^^ly difficult to compete in the foreign trade. This would
not only result in mailing less work for the repair-yards in the United
States, "but it would also result in decreasing emplojTnent of American
seamen and of al] the multitude of American worlcr-.en in allied in-
dustries which furrish siipolies and necessaries to American vessels,
T/hich forelji;n vessels huy ahrcad. Aid the American exporter would
have more and more to rely on foreigji tonnage to carry his goods to
foreign markets, and the importer on foreign tonnage to bring his goods
here.
The importance of American flag vessels to our foreign trade has
been em-ohasized by prominent statesmen from the earliest times, and the
far-reaching consequences of a decline in American flag ships can not
be denied.
It is true that American flag ships engaged in foreign trade may
bo constructed abroad, but surely it -would not serve the purposes of
recovery to drive the American ^hip owners abroad for new construction.
The whole raacter may, vie thir£:, be sumiTied up by saying that, in
our judgment, the best method of increasing eiuployment is to encourage
the construction and repair of many ships, rather tha.n to try to make
work for many people out of the consti'uction and repair of a few ships.
liLv..Q.:..Au^§il^i) Pi'esident, Kdw York Shipbuilding Company. Sub-
ject, restriction of plant ca;nacity. ^.eference, hearing July 19, 1933,
pa;Pes 83 to 85 inclucive. Briefs from his statement.
"At the outbreal: of the war in April, 1917, there were in the
United States 57 shipyards v/ith 1(^2 ship ways capable of building steel
ships, and 24 yards v/ith ship v/ays capable of cousti-ucting wooden ships,
both of 3500 tons dc?d weight, and over," ma'^ing fil shipyards 7/ith 234
shiiobuilding v/ays. According to Mr. Pioz, on March 31, 1919, there
were in existence '^7 steel shipyards with ^-20 ways, and 33 shii^yards
for wooden or concrete ships, with 357 ways, or 150 shipyards with 777
v/ays.
There arc at the present time in the United States, in accordance
with the figures of the IJational Council of American Shipbuilders, on
the Atlantic, on the Pacific, and in the Great LaJ.ces 27 commercial
plants, with lOo v/avs, capable of building steel ships.
These shipbuilding facilities are com,-.i.ercial and do not include the
Federal shipbuilding facilities in Navy Yards, which are equipped at the
present time with lo building ways. This is important because these
yards are in the nature of competitors with the commercial yards in the
building of Federal ships, and to that extent add to the available com-
mercial facilities.
Reference is herev/ith made to Fxliibit 4, which enumerates ships of
over 2400 gross tons built in American shipyards since 1923 for a ten
year period, during v/hich time these Ariierican yards constructed ships to
9732
-31-
the extent of 1,198,105 gross tons, an a.verage of 119,810 gross tons
TDBT year. In thin period, 151 ships --lere "built rrith an average gross
tonnage of 8,000.
Shipljuildin ; ca'opcity will oe estimated on the "basis of the
number of shipbuilding ways in existence at the present time, capable
of being used for building ships of 3500 dead weight tons, or over.
Nine months will be allotted to the period of the ship on the ways,
and the average size of the ship will be assumed at 8,000 gross tons,
the average of the 151 American seagoing ships built in the last ten
years.
On this basis, the shipbuilding capacity of existing shipyards for
commercial ships is 15055,500 gross tons per annum, or ap;oroximately
one hundred and thirty-five 8^000 gross ton ships, the average gross
tons per ship for the past ten years.
For the past ten yep.vs, including the .~reat stimulation in ship-
building incident to the Jones-'Thite Act, there ^Ttas an a.verage annual
building of comnercial ships of 120,000 gross tons, or less than one-
eighth of the shipbuilding capacity of the country.
It is impossible to foreca.st the future policy of the United
States in connection vith an e:qpansion of its Merchant Marine, but irre-
spective of this, it is at once seen that the shipbuilding capacity of
existing facilities on the Atlantic Coast alone is far -greater than
the demands upon them for shi"o'Laiilding in any one of the last ten
years.
Rear Admiral Z. S. Land. Chief, Bureau of Construction and Repair,
U. S, iJavy, Subject, llavy Dep'\rtment. Reference, hearing July 19,
1933,paies 97 to 102 inclusive. Briefs from his statement.
The code as submitted by the shipbuilders, so far as it affects
shipbuilding activities for the Navy Leoartment, is generally satis-
factory. In connection ^.7ith the question of the 40-hour week
as proposed by the Code, the Ifevy Department is of the opinion that
this is required by the industry and that any re'duction in the working
hours below this would interfere unduly with tlie proper prosecution of
the naval building program, as veil as with the normal ship-repairing
activities of the navy yards aiid urivate ship yards. At the present
time the navy yards are on a, 44r-hour work week with 48 hours pay.-
The Ila.vy Department feels, however, that it would be fair to reduce
this to 40 hours work.
There are a n^oiaber of vessels no^ under construction in govern-
ment navy yards under s'oecific , appropriations, and the substitution
of the 30-hour week for the -oresent 44-43 hour week would seriously
increase the cost and delay the completion of these ships. The loss
of four hours work per week involved' in Ihe reduction from 44 hours
to 40 hours would not affect seriously the output and can be accepted.
There are also --■ number of vessels under contract in private ship-
yards which would be affected by the proposed code.
9732
-32-
Studien hc.ve \ieen nade as to the effect on la"bor in the ship-
"building industry of tne 40-hcur ^leek as conparod to the SO-hour week,
and it is the conclusioii of the IIptj Departnant that the adoption of the
30-hour week nould not Le in the interest of laoor and in view of the
size end content of the nave.l shiptuildin./?; program, thrt the 40-hour
week would not lead to unenplovincnt in shiijliuildin" trades.
In other rrordsj practically all skilled artisans availahle in the
shipbuilding trades ?70uld. l)e ahle to find employment on the 40-hour
week basis.
The National Industrial Recovery Act under the provisions of
which this Code has "been formulated, provides, as a part of the policy,
"to promote the fullest possible utilization of the present production
capacity of industries," The existin.'^ shipbuilding facilities of the
co-ontry no^v in opera.ting status are in excess of the requirements for
new construction and projects contonpla.ted under the National Recovery
Act, or for R.ny other prospective nev; construction. Sstablishraent
of nevr facilities or reopening of those that have been closed over a per-
iod of years will result in excess capacity and creating of new and very
temporary labor markers le'adiog to later uneinployment a.nd unsatisfac-
tory conditions. ■ The "lav/ DGnnrtmert is of the opinion that some pro-
vision should be inolud--" J. in the Code such that it will a.void establish-
ment of new shipbuildir^- yaxdr: , reopening of those long since inoipera-
tive, or expansion of small yrrds and repair plants for shipbuilding pur-
poses. This opinion is in direct accord with the Declaration of Policy
of the national Industrial Recovery Act.
Under the provisions of the Code the hours of work for draftsmen
would not be limited to forty hours "oer week for the first six months.
The program of new naval vessels caJ.ls for a very large amount of draft-
ing work in the prepara.tion of designs and working plans and to permit
preparation of lists of materials to be purchased, also to allow construc-
tion work to proceed and emploj/Taent of labor to start. The mamber of
trained draftsmen qualified for the preparation ofplans and designs for
naval ships is very limited, and there is no scuvco of supply from which
to recruit additional ones* It will -probably develop that limiting the
hours of work of draftsmen to forty hours may le.ad to delays in start-
ing actual shii3building operr^tions, , The IJavj'' Department is of the opin-
ion that if pra.cticable to do so, the hours of eriployraent of draftsmen and
other technicista should' be eicempted, at least tsnporarily, from the
limitation.
The total money ap )ropriated for the Ilavy Department for the fiscal
year 1934 is in round ntuabers $3^9,000,000,
This anount has been limited by the bureau of the Budget to a cash
withdrawal during the fiscal year 1934 of $276,600,000. The difference
between those two sums is $53,400,000,
In vie" of the above drastic curtailments, it will be possible
for the llavy Department to function during the fiscal year 1934 if our
navy yard and naval station work is done on a 5-day 40-hour week, and
it is on this basis that the actual anpropriations mo.de by the Congress
were reduced by the Bureau of the Budget. Should the Na,vy Department
9732
be conroelled to '.7ork on mother "orsis, suoh as the 44-hour week (48
hoiirs pay), or on a 3C-hour week "baais, it -^/ould be absolutely necessary
to run a.' deficit or else seriously criT5"Dle the efficiency of the Navy.
Attention is invited to the fact thrt navy yrrds are primarily
repair yards for the na.intenaiace of the fleet. Any prguments presented
by the shipbuilders operrtin;- repair yards are equally potent with re-
gard to nav^/ yords in so far as rei^airin.':- vessels is concerned.
The capacity of the shipbuilding industry in this country, includ-
ing the IJav;'-- Yards, is acre aiaple to take ca.re of any existing or pros-
pective ■'oro-crans. The llo.vy shi-obuilding, in my judgment, is the most
difficult, intricate, conplicated tj''oe of shipbuilding th.at there is in
the world. It requires aore erc^Derience, more technical engineering
strffs and nore skill in design and construction than any other type of
shipbaildinj in the world. :xherefore, the urogram upon which we base
this is wha,t I caJ.1 the fourth -ooint -orograra of economy and efficiency.
Pron the T,b.vj Department's "loint of view it is mach r.iore satisfactory
to have these contracts -jlaced with frcilities that are far.iilia-r with the
Navy Department work, ITa.vy De^^arty.ient classifications and so on. TTe
think it is more strict aiid r.ore dif:?icult of accompli shnent than any
other tjrpe of shi75building in the T-orld. On that basis I have no
hesitancy is saying tha,t the present existing, growing shipbuilding
facilities of the couiatry are -lore than am^Dle to take care of the llavy
program, any prosiDCctive llav:/ )rogra;i and, so far as my own laiowledge
goes, any Merchant I'arine pro';ran.
Caotain PI. L. T7y]:ian. U. S. llavy, from Assistant Secretary Roosevelt's
office. Subject, statement for the Assistant Secretr^ry of the Havy,
Reference, hearing July IS, 1935, 'X' :;e 102 to 105 inclusive. Briefs of
his sta^tement.
There has oeen allotted to the ITar/ Deoaa'tment from the Na.tiona.l
Industrial Recovery Act the sum of $238,000,000 for the construction of
ships.
The building program under this allotment "orovides for the con-
struction of 32 ships, 16 of which are tenatively alloca-ted to govern-
ment navy yards aJid 15 to oriva.te shiobuilding "olants.
9732
-54"
There is a provision in the Recovery Act reading as follows;
"TITLE II - PU_.LIC WOPJ^S Al^D COIISTITJCTIOK PROJECTS.
"Sec^ 205. All contrcicts let for construction projects
and all loariti and grants parsunnt to this title shall contain
such nrovisaons as are necessary to insure (1) that no convict
labor shall "be employed on any each project; (2) that (except
in execritive, adir^in.latrpj'ive aiid supervisory positions) , so
far as practicahle and fee.sihle no individual directly employed
on any such project shall he permittsd to v.orlc more than thirty
hours in any one wopk; tha.t all t^npl.oj'-es shall he paid just aaid
reasonable v;af:es which shoil he conpenoaticn sufficient to pro-
vide, for the hoi:"^R cf labor as limited, a standard of living in
decency and coafort, * * "'".
At the present time the \7ork-v7eek in navy yards provides for 5-|- days,
with 44 hours work and 43 houi s pay„ The proposal now has been made that
this be altered to 30 hoars w-rk vath 30 hours pay; or in other words a
reduction of 14 hours work szid 18 hours pa^'' per week.
There are noi'f nav?J vessels under construction at government navy yards
under specific appropriations jia.de by Congress* The estimates for these
ships ojid the ccii.seqaer.t appro-oriations therefor, were based on a work
week of 5-y- days wl bh 44 ho'ors work and 48 hours pay.
It is certain that the substitation of the 30 hour week for the present
44-48 hour week in navy yards v;ould very seriously increase the cost and
delay the completion of all shi'os built in navy yards.
According to the best information obtainable by the Navy Department,
the building program of the Uavy, which includes 22 ships under the Re-
covery Act J plus .'3 under the existing ITaval Appropriation Acts, or a total
of 37 new vessels to be laid down dr-ring the fiscal year 1934, will absorb
the normal ejioimt of labor employed xn the shipbuilding ind\istry (both
government and iDrivate} . on the 44 hour week basis, and there may be an
actual shortage of labor in certain trades.
Thus, in so fax as the shi'Dbuilding industrj^ is concerned, the above
mentioned objectives '<7ill be attained without application of the 30-hour
week,
Tlie Department does feel, hov;ever, that it \70uld be fair to reducn
the present work week from 44 hours work with 48 hours pay, to 40 hours
v7ork with 40 hours pay. In so far as the navy yards are concerned this v/ould
cause a loss to labor of weekly pay amounting approximately to 16-2/3 per
cent and would cause a loss of nominally 4 hours work per week to the
government.
As to the loss of 4 hours per week, this is not as serious as it
might seem on its face, for as a matter of fact, the 4 hours put in on
Saturday mornings actually results :n much less than that amount of
really valuable labor, and it has even been estimated that on a basis of
real value, only about 2 hours — or less — should be counted.
9732
-P5~
As to the loss in lioney to Ip'oor in the weekly pay envelopes, it is
believed that a certain ^no^^nt of the loss of 8 hours pay, throxigh adopt-
ing the 40 ho"ur week, could be absorbed by rerjrangeraent of vrage schedules,
but if the 30 hour week sho'uld be adopted, it would be impossible to
absorb the loss cf 18 honors vot week pay and keep .anyrrhere near within
the aTiOunts authorized by Acts of Congress and allotments from the national
Recovery Act, all of which siuas v/ere estimated on the basis of the longer
week.
Several ships are now under construction in navy ya.rds under naval
aTj-croTDriations on the 44'-48 ho^jr week basis. If the work to be added
under the Recovery Act should be on a 30 hour ?7eek basis, administrative
difficulties and confu-picn would be bound to result, with attending in-
crea:;ed costs and sericjs dela^rs; in other words, an impossible situation,
which could only be net by:
(a) Authorizing all v/ork both nresent and futiure on a 40 hour
per week basis, or
(b) By obtaining; increases in both aporonria.tions and allotments
to talce care of additional costs so as to permit, of the adoption of
the 30 ho"ar \7eek.
Even if we co\J.d obtain the pdc'dtional fujids necessary we would be
confronted with the- el^jmeat cf delay. Ihis might be met by working addi-
tional shifts but the ^Department feels that it is not desirable to employ
more than one shift in the construction of naval ships owing to the in-
sufficient number of men available in certain of the skilled shipbuilding
trades and to the character of the vorlz involved.
In the opinion of the Havj' Department the adoption of the 30 houjr
week wo"a].d aiot be to the best interests of labor engaged in the shipbuild-
ing industry, in which there will be practically no unemployment after
the "orograra gets under v;ay, as it would result in greatly reduced weekly
wages for these men and women owing to the fact that it would be mani-
festly impossible to absorb the loss of 13 hours pay per weeJc into the
30 hour week, whereas the absorption of 8 hours into the 40 hour week
would not present the same difficulties.
To meet the situp.tion on a fair basis — fair to the taxpayerl^: fair
to the laborer, fair to the Kavy which feels that the ships should be
built as economically and as e::peditiouslj'' as possible, — it is believed
that for the shipbuilding industry (including government yards) a five
da.:/ week of 8 hours per day, or in other v/ords,. a 40 hour week with 40
hours pay, be adopted.
l.Ir» J. A. Franklin, In Behalf of the Metal Trades Department of the
American Federation of Labor. Subject, Wage and Ho-or Provisions. Refer-
ence, Hearing July 19, 1S35. Briefs from his statement. Pages 122 to
133 inclusive.
Ite Code of Fair Competition submitted July 12, 1935 by the Trade Asso«
aiations in the Shipbuilding aiid Ship Repair Industry', and the revised code
submitted yesterda.y, do not represent in ajiy v/ay the viev/s of the employees
9732
-36"
as to what is fair labor conroetition and what are nonfair labor practices.
The employees in the industry were entirely ignored by the framers of
these codes. This, vie submit, is a violation of both the spirit and the
letter of the National Industrial H^covery Act, ?nd I ap'oeaj? here as the
representative of the org^jiizGd emploj'-ees :n the industry to present a
code of fair labor corape tition \7hich properly represents the views of
the workers in the industry.
Tlie organizations which I represent are the followingJ
Intei-national brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forges,
lielpers of A;aerica
International Brotherhood of Eoilermpkers, Iron Ship
Builders and Helpers of i\inerica.
International Ped-ra-icn of Technical Engineers,
Architects and Eraftsmeno
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America.
International Union of Operating Fngineersc
Internationg.l Broth ?rnood of Icu'tdry ilj.ployees.
International Association of Bridge, Structural, and
Grnanental Iron Workers-
International Association of Machinists.
Interna,tions.j. Union jf iuotal Polishers.
International iwolda.s Unl ui of A'orth America.
Union of Fire,nen & Ciler's.
Pattern Maimers League of Ilorth America.
United Associatioi'. cf JcifTneynen Plimbers and Steam
.^'ittcrs of the United Sto,tes and Canada.
Sheet lietal Workers Inteu-national Association.
We submit the following labor code, end we ask that it be siibstituted
for the entirely ixiadeq':i;,te, aiid in ncuy respects unfair and unjust labor
provisions in the oro'oosed codes submitted b;/- the trade associations of
the employers in the ship bmlding indiistry.
1. ITo employee, except members of the supervisory staff shall be
enroloyed in excess of thirty (30) hours or more than five (5) days in
any one caJendar v/eek; nor more than six (6) hours in a,ny one day.
2. No overtime shall be -oermittcd, except the maintenance and re-
pair personnel, and then only in casas of extreme emergency. All time
worked in excess of scheduled number of hours shall be paid for at not
less than doable time.
3. The minimum rate of pay for employees covered by this code shall
be twenty-five (25) dollars per vveek. This minimum wage is to be guaranteed
regardless of whether the employee's compensation is otherwise based on a
time rate or upon a piece^vork performance. This i's to avoid frustration of
the purpose of the code, by changing from hour or day rates to piece ¥;ork,
premium or bonus systems of wage payment. The existing amoxmts by which
wages in the higher-priced cla-^?es of workers exceed wages in the lowest
paid classes shall be maintained; and the wage rates xmder the thirtj''-
hour week shall be less than those paid for the regular full time weekly
hours previously worked.
9732
-?7-
4. Aiiy system of subcontracting work "b)/ vv'hich an employee "undertakes
to do a piece of work at a specified price and engages other emploj'-ees to
work for hin is considered an unfair practice and -orohibited by this code,
5. Ko new apprentices sliall be employed in the industry until the
existing surplus of unemployed labor has been absorbed in reasonable
steady emploj^ento
First as to the hours of labor. Our proposal for a thirty hour week
is made necessarj'- and justified by both Title II and Title III of the
Recoverjr Act. The construction of naval vessels authorized as part of
the public works "orogran under Title II is vrork that will have to be done
by tile shipbuilde-j's who are governed by this code. Section 206 of Title
II, restricts the hours of labor on any sLich project to not :iiore than
thirty hours in any one week. This thirt;'" hoior provision was enacted by
Congress, and it is obviously impossible as well as "ondersirable for a
code to ch.inge an act of Congress, The emplo^yers' proposal for a week
of forty hours, if adopted would have the effect of repealing Section 206
as enacted by Congress, so far as it applies to the hoiirs of labor in the
construction of naval vessels.
In addition to this compelling reason for a thirty hour week, there
is the need for absorbing the lai-ge numbers of unemployed when, a forty
hour w6ek, as the en-olO"'ers recomviend, wou].d leave without the employment
and without the purchasing power which it is the object of Title I to pro~
vide. This is made evident by the sts.tistics of employment, pajrfolls aJid
hours of labor in the shipbuilding industry which are available at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau, Apparently the employers
gave little consideration to these facts, but merely proposed forty hours
because this would malce but a slifht change in the working hours as they
existed in 1929,
TJe are not in accord with that view expressed by the employer, and
as set forth in the code. We take it more or less as the stock argument
that has been used in all of the history when the q'o.estion of reducing
hours has been considered, and, in this case, the primary purpose of
this act was to reduce the hours, increase employment and increase the
purchasing i^ower"^ and, if that csmnot be accomplished, v.'e submit, Mr.
Chairman, that the purpose of the act has failed and that is why we pro-
pose the restrictions of the hours of labor to 30 hours, sJii we believe
it is feasible ajid practical. We believe it is in accordance with the
spirit of the act. In fact, it is a charge uoon the employers and
employees to establish a 30-hour week, particularly in the construction of
naval vessels. If it can be sho\7n that it is practical ajid feasible, and
we maintain that it is practical end feasible, and it is for that reason
we have set forth the statements we have contained in our submission in
behalf of the 30-hour week.
We propose a minimum wage of $25 a week because this is the least
amount th^at meets the requirement of Section 206 of the Recovery Act,
which stipulates "that all en:plo;'-ees shall be paid just and reasonable
wages which shall be sufficient to provide for the hours as limited, a stan-
dard of living in decency and comfort."
9732
-^58-
OvL'r code provides next for ths prohioition of contracting "by em-
ployees within the shipbuildin,^ pls.nts. Ttiis is an evil vfhich besets
the shipbuilding industry cijac. '/hich is essentially a method of sweating
later, The contracting worker ()ecoaes a sub-eniployer and therehy may
avoid the wage provisions of any cede. He hecomes a profit maker "by
sweating profits out cf the r.'j,gos of the employees whom he engages to
Carry out his ccnT.ractn Every emploj-ee in a shipyard should he employed
hy sjid receive his wages from the one employer who owns the yard. The
failure of the employers to prohihit this unfair system of subcontract-
ing in- their proposed code, illustrates v/ell the danger of accepting a
code devised hy the buyers of le.bor v/ithout consulting the sellers.
It is the avowed p-^rpose of these company union plans to deal only
with such representati\es of the wa;5e-eai'ners as are the emplo3rees of
the conpaxiy that sets iip the plpji. In oth(?r words the employers will
not recognize or deal wi ih any representative chosen by the employees
unless that representative is dependent on the employer for his living.
And that, we submit, Mr. Chairm.an, is a strict violation of the Recovery
Act,
I.h-» John Br Frey, Socretcry-Treastirer . Metal Trades Department,
American Pederaticn of L',.tor» Wage and hour provisions. Reference,
hearing July 20, 1933, ;oHges 159 to 161 inclusive. Briefs from his
statement.
The lavf of 1C52 provided that wages in Wavy yards should be based
upon wages paid in the immediate vicinitj^ of the yard.
Since 1920 the Ne-vy yard v/a^je schedules have been prepared by a
Naval Wage Reviev/ Board, consisting of two representatives of the Navy
and one nominated by the iUierican Federation of Labor before approval
by the Secretary of the Navy.
Some three months previous to the meeting of Sc?id board, the Navy
Department authorizes the setting up in each ITayy yard, a yard wage board
consisting exclusively cf commissioned officers of the Navy. Tlieir
dxit-j is to make an inveatigaiion of establis'^iments employing mechaJiics
such as are required in Navy yards, and to;:cTther the wage rates paid to
such mechanics in private in'V:,?try whose skill, and the character of
whose work is comparable to tiiat required of mechanics in navy j^ards.
In each yard committees representing the employees, cooperate with
the No.vy yard wage board.
The result is that the data which the Navy yard wage board forwards
to the Navy Department in Washington, is as representative wage data
for comparable work in private industrj?-, which can be secured.
It has never been the policy of the Navy Department to fix its
wage schedule upon the highest rates paid for comparable work in private
industry, but instead to take a,ll such rates and approximate what seems
to be a reasonable average.
9732
-39-
It is ho'.vever, a natter of official record in the files of the Havy
De-Dartr.:ent that official representatives of the private shipyards lio.ve
vir^orouslj'' opoosed aiiy advance in the navy yard wage schedules, holcinc
that such ail increase would miike it more difficult for thera to retain
conipetent nechanics at lower rates.
At the last neeting of the Naw Wage Review Board, official repre-
sentatives of the National Cormcil of American Shipbuilders appeared
before the ITavy ?Jage Review Board with the assertion that to protect
their own interests it '..-as necosspry for the Navy Department to reduce
existing wa^^e schedules instead of increasing them, the argument presented
beinc; that ^onless the n^val wage schedule was reduced it would \7orl: to
the disadvantage of nri^ate shi oysjrds hy nt'Jking it more difficult for
then to -orevent their existing wage rates from "being incrersed.
Lr, Jo si ah To NewcoTih, General Counsel, Gulf Industries, Incorporated.
Subject, wage and hour orovisions. Reference, hearing July 20, 1933, p
pages 174 and 175 inclu.;lve. Briefs from his statei-^.ent.
On reflection it seems to me best to su.bstitute this letter for a
formal brief in regard to the proposed Clause 7 in the Shipbuilding and
Repair Code,
C-ulf Industries.. Inc. is the owner of valuable properties and water
frontages in Pensacola; Florida, vjhich it intends to develop into modern
shipyards of lowest production costso In furtherance of this purpose
Gulf Industries, Inc. h?.s exocnded considerable smns of money and entered
into ira-Qortpjit contracts, the terms of v.diich it must perform within a
certain fixed Tsriod. If prevented from performing these contracts and
raalcing the development the moneys already e::oended vfould be sacrificed
and the properties of the Compan;- rendered substantially valueless; yet
the Code contains in Clause 7 a provision sufojecting the Company to
measiixes of a Tsenal character should it "oroceed with the development.
Gulf Industries, Inc. cannot legally be der rived of its property rights
by any such method; moreover we believe tnct the insertion of the proposed
clause is contrary to the Nati onnl Recover:, Act itself , both as originally
drawn ojid specifically as aiaended oy Congress in respect to monopolistic
pra^ctices.
Further, if this Clause 7 is permitted to remain in the Code, the
South will be de jrived of its legitimate share of present and futiore
shipb-cllding aaid this in defirnce of the fact that ships can be produced
more economically, more exoeditiouslj'' and at less cost on the Giilf ths.n
elsewhere in this country.
The Birmingham, district is now in a desperate state of imemployment
and is almost entirely dependent uoon the iron and steel industry. Hie
building of a portion of the Navy program at Pensacola will greatly
relieve the unemplo:>ment situa.tion in the contiguous districts, but this
also the proposed Code •.•ould apparently prevent.
Ue wish to add that we are in entire syiipathy with the efforts now
being made by the Administration, b"- industry and labor to enter into
agreement which will avoid unfair competitive practices in the future.
On the other hand we do not believe tha,t the National Recovery Act
sanctions or that any emergency requires this violation of o ur oroperty
rights,
3732
-40"
Clause 7 wa.s reintrocVuced ii^to the rhipbuildin":^ coc'.e after vi'e
had "been inforneC. "by the Code's "iro^cnents that it had been elirninated.
You kinaly informed us of this on T''iesday, the loth, but we did not
secure a copy of the prcposed Code luitil yesterday.
We ^.gain su,;,-;est withdrawal of Clause 7. Unless it is withdravm
we request further o'o ortunity to be heard either tomori'ow or later if
the hearin.j is to be recessed.
Lr . J . U . Davi s , AsGistc.nt President, International Brotherhood
of Boilerrnahers, Iron Shi-pbuilders ;.uid Eelv)ers of Aiierica. Sxibject,
wage and hour provisions. Reference, hearing July 30, 1933, parses 177
to 132 inclusive. Briefs from his s catement .
The Code bein._, considered does not orcviue for such untied action
as uetwecn labor and mrna^^'smant . So far as we can learn, labor had
no voice in its formation.
V/e su^,.';est the Reco"v-err Administration provio.e in the code
ap'proved for s':\ch conferences to assure united action as betv/een labor
and iiianaf;ement, to estal^lish uviifor;a wa:,es and conditions for each
employee classification en,e;a.2;ed in sl.ipouilc in;^ and ship repairs.
Our experience teaches us, urleus such a provision is established
in tliis code nobhin . v/ill havp been Con? to eliminate unfair con"oetitiTre
practices. As those cir^ierences hrust first be eliminated before fair
practices can prevail.
Under the irovisions of t]-.e National Industrial Recovery Act, many
shios are to be biiilt for the ^"nited States ifevy, bids are now being
asked for b^^ the Nav^r Department. It is essential that action be taken
to establish these uniform rates before the bids an-e submitted and the
contracts let or awarded.
The m-inivaii?. rate as sufM'ested in this code, is insufficient. As
it would not provide adecuate "lurchanin" power nor permit of decent
living standards. Presui.iin^ uhat the 30 hcur week will be established
as provided under the act on ships to be built, the eai'nin^^;s would be
only $10.50 per v;eek. T/e believe a weekly ninimura should be established"
at.ip2j.00. Unless such a miniiaum weekly earnin , is provided for, the
very purposes of the Act v/ill be destroyed. Any mininium wage less than
$2j.00 will simply mean you have established a. share the work program.
The rate suggested here is basec. on the average 1929 v/age .
The provisions of this proposed code, intend to establish a dif-
ferential as between the Korthern anu Sourthern section of the United
States. This v;e feel is Uiicalled for and is not justified. Surely
men employed in a southern State and required to perform the identical
work are entitled to as much corn'oensation for their labor.
I.'ian-y of the ship repair yards .now v/orl: what is called, the "Chain
Gang System" v/hereby each employee is hii-ed anc. fired dail^-, requiring
every man to form in line for each chift for ea^ch day's v/ork sectired.
This has liad a tendency to ^^reatly lov/er the -ourchasin,, power of these
workers, and has been the cause of much of the "Cu.t Throat Competition"
mentioned.
07^0
-41-
Under the pre sump^iion . this Bor.rd will ostablish v;ays and ineans to
■provide a irdniimua for all clc.ssif ications we are listing and attachin/^
the cla-ssificatior?^ couiin,; "Oiic'er the oasic trades we represent in the
shiphuilding industrv.
Classifications :
Shipfitter, boilei-iralxr , welder, (elecL.ric), welder ( ~as) , burner,
loftsmen, larerout, riveter, chipoer and caalker, flange turner, driller,
rig;;^-er, frejr.e bender, packer, ^^uncher, and shet.rer, erector, bolter-up,
rc.jalator, helper, holder-on, heater, ax^prentices, drill press operators.
Wo su£;3cst a weekly i.iinimuin rate for laechonic classifications of
;43. per week.
We su5,-:-,est a ininii.iu:.! of 33. -oer week for semi-skilled woi-kers and
^30. for helpers and heaters.
We further Eu-2.;;,est tccause of the many systems of piece work, pre-
ni\im, bonus, and contrtict, that a guarantee of a.t least the v/eekly and/or
daily rate be provided, and further that ell sach systems and rates be
fixed to provide the avera£,e work.ian with a least 30 per cent over the
basic wage. We believe further that all contracting or subletting of
work in yards be diecor.tii-.ued. .
Llr . Jose-vh C ■ laCDcna; ,h, on Selialf of International Brotherhood of
Electrical Y/orkers. Subject, v/a;_.e aut. hour provisions. Reference,
hearing July 20, 1333, pi/jes 138 to 133 inclu.sive. Briefs to Ms state-
ment .
This code has been quickly drawn by a self-elected group of power
companies, mostly subsidiaries of steel and power corporations.
The shi jbuilding and shiij repair industry is rightly regarded, how-
ever, as a separate and individ^'oal industiy not only because of functional
difference, but bec.usc, we Eniohatically coitend, this industry is
touched with public si ,nif iccjice . This industry is not only an adjunct
of copper and steel inc.ustries, but it is an iuportant arm of the federal
governi-ient, either potential or actual with ouasi-public functions. This
is sho'-.Ti by the output of the yards during the last 15 years. The output
of 1919, the' year lollov/ing the world war, (it is plain that 1319, not
1318, shows the lift in tonnage built inasnr.ich as the industry could not
get underway for a full year follo'-.'ing entrance into the v/ar) is nearly
10 times that of normal "/ears.
Year Outlay
to
1919 $710,522,676
1927 78,526,391
1323 31,744,283
(Census of lian-ofacturers 1929, page 1233)
9732
Due to the character of this inL.usi,ry, thereforp, it shoiild "be re;3;arded
as forr.rin^, with the Unitec' States Tavy YErdn, rca integrated whole.
Unf ortunp.tely the shipbn.il-'.in anc. shi-T re"oa,ir industry has had all
the advantages of being a public utility with none of the disadvantages.
Uniortunatel3r it has never felt the disciplining infl\ience of govei^nment
':;uidance, and it has never set up standards of v;a;ges and v/orking condi-
tions vrtiich the government yards erected.
The proposed code spea^;s of only one type of lahor in its minimum
wage section (Section 6), presui^iably i:uisl:illed or comiiion labor. V/e ask
that the skilled ciaftsmen be disenga,,ed from this vague categoi-y. The
skilled craftsman is ahr.'ilutely necessary to shipouilc'.ing — indeed in
the case of the electrical craftsman, he is f imdamental . The modern
ship is a floating 'oower house. It is inconceivahle that a worlanan of
size and im;)ortance should he at.ked to consider a minimum wage, which
would return v:por. a 30-hour v.-eek basis, the sum of ;10.50 per week.
vTe believe that a just approach to these questions of proper
classification, nar.immn hours, wa je scales, and kindred ma,tters, should
be regarded to standards set,, up in the 'pvernment branch of the ship-
building and ship re^Dair indiistry as those proper for the entire in-
dustry, w'e therefore renuest that;
1. MininTur.i wage for electricic«.ns be i^l.OO an hours, v;ith 65 cents
for electrica,l hel-iers.
2. That this scale become a flat rate for ship electricians
throughout the entire industry.
3. Then v;hen the v/oxk-wee]; is ciurtainled ouite properly to 30
hours, that the vifaje rate become ;^1.G0 ,in. hour in order that the same
pay for 30 hours as for -i-S hours be granted: This of course in keeping
with the objectives of the Ht.ticnal Recoverj Act.
4. In order to avoid abuse of the SO hour week principle, we
request that the six-hour day of continous btrvice for .5 days be main-
tained as basic, and that all overtime be abolished except in cases of
emergencies. Fnen v/orked as emergency double pay shall be paid.
Mr. John P. Coyne, Vice President, International Union of Operating
Engineers, for LIr . John Possehl, Crsneral President, International Union
of Operating Engineers. Subject, wa ,e and hour provisions. Reference,
hearing July 20, 1933, pages 19d to 195 inclusive. T3riefs from his
statement .
The International Union of O'oeratin,: Engineers wishes to take
exception to Article V of the code of fair competition and trade practice
for the ship building and repairing industry as submitted July 12, 1933 '
as it pertains to the maximum hour provision under the national Indust-
rial Recovery Act. ViTe also v.'ii:h to :)rotest the Drovisions for the
minimum rate contained in Article VI of this code. The engineer as
employed in this industry has several classifications, namely: Station-
ary plant engineer, cornpressor plant en jineer, crane operator, dinlty
9732
-45-
locoinotive en,^ineer, derrick eni;inepr, etc. The en£:ineer is necessarily
a liiii,lily skilled woiL-krjaxi and cnl-'- becones proficient after many y.3ars
of -practical experience and co:itimiOLis study. His duties are of such .
a nature that upon his cfiiciciiy depends the successful operation of the
entire industry and they rSijalate the production.
It is our jvid.'X.aent from experience and ohservation that it is the
intent and purpose of the national Industrial Hecovery Act to provide
eraploynent for a greater nxLTioer of sk.illec'. worlnnen thoji are now employed.
To this end v/e propose stikin:-, out the prevision for the 40 hour week
and inserting- instead thereof a provision for a miidm-'om of 30 hours per
week divided into o days of ' hours each with a px-ovision that if over-
time work is permitted under the provisions .of the code that such over-
time be paid for at the rate of double time.
Mr. Thomas A- 'j'ood, representing the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron V7qrkers. Subject, wa.^e and hour
provisions. Reference, acarin^r; Jiily 20, 1933, pa^es 197 to 199 inclusive.
Briefs from his statement.
Oi-u- or£;r.ni?.e.tion ur;:es that a iv.iziinum work-week of 30 hours be sanc-
tioned bu the National Eecover;^ Administration for both navy yards and
private shipbuildin;:: concprns. j^s to wa.:es, we urge further that the
existing hourly rates of '^ay be so increased as to yield the same
weekly income for thirty honors as is now received for a longer work-
v/eek.
TJe are fully aware of the fact ;;hat the increase in ho-orly rates
where .^overniaent or private shipyards have a forty-eight hour week will
amount to 37 i nercent, but on the other hanc, we v/ish to point out to
the Recovery Adiainistration that tiiis does not really represent a com-
mensurate increase in labor cost. The orevailir.g rates of pay in the
navy yards were established in the year 1938. Since that time there have
been decided technolo ical ijAprovements in navy yard work and also in-
creased meclianizrtion \;hich in large uteasure v/ill absorb any increase in
labor costs arisin . from the hi; her hourly rates vfhich v:e advocate.
As to conditions of ":)roduction in private shipbuilding plants, we
request of the Recovery Administration that bct^ hours and rates be
placed on. the level as navy yards, tlxat is, the 1923 full-time weekly
earnings for navy yards x'or a thirty-hour VYork-week, in order that
employees in private establish.iients may earn approximately a sufficient
amount to maintain themselves and their fejnilies in reasonable health
and decency .
Mr. George I. Pov/ers, Representin , the Steel and Metal Workers'
Industrial Union. Subject, wa-;e and hour -yrovisions. Reference, hearing
July 20, 1933, pa_,es 211 to 212 inclusive. Briefs from, his statement.
This is a proposed draft of a .code for drydock and shipyard workers.
"1. A s^25 minirmam weekly wages for coi.i.ion labor, for a. 6-hour day,
5-day v/eek, hours a.m. and p.m. to be specified. All hourly rates to be
raised in the same oro'oortion as the increase in the coriTaon labor rate.
9732
-44-
Time and one-half for all overtiuie. Llaxinmm v7orl"in£' week to be 40
hours. Automatic v/a";e increases to ir;ept each rise .in the cost of living.
Aholition of all pieceviorl: and', suh-contracting.
"2. A ;';;uarantee of ^.:0 Vireeks Y/ork per year. All Y^orkers jjettin^s
less than 40 weeks v;ork are to receive unenroloyinent insurance at the
rate of full vace.s - the cost to "be ^aic^. eoj.ially "by the company and the
Federal Government . "
Mr . J . M. Mullin, on Behalf of Eniployees of the ITevv York Shipbuilding
Coi.nany, Camden, Kcw Jersey, Subject, v^are and hour provisions.
Reference, hearinij July 20, 1933, pages 21S to 21? inclusive. Briefs
from his statement.
I vnsh to anno'once at this time that the empjloyees of the New
York Shipbuilding industry in Cai.iden, ITew Jersey, have gone on record
as opposin;:, the 40 cent minimuin and are asking for a 50 cent minimum
to be paid to acuiskilled labor.
Inasraach as the v/orlaaen.of the Kew York Shipbiiildin;"; employees
feel that our connany will rjet a fair proportion of Naval work that is to "
be :jiven to private yardc, we, the em'oloyees of the New Y^rk Shipbuilding
Company feel that a 40 hcxvc week will take cave of all uiiemployed in our
district v/ho belong to the shipbuilding- industry.
If sufficient work is awarded to our company, it is our belief that
from 4500 to 5000 men can be added to our "payroll v/ithin the next year.
We feel tlia^t a -1-0 hour v/eek is cin ideal workin'; week, and is the best
that can be obtained for the interests of both labor and industry.
Assuming that all the rn.ei7rployed belonging to the shipbuilding industry
can be taken care of v/ith a 40 hour week, Y/e see no reason for a
Shorter week.
It is ovir understandin:i: that the code submitted by the shipbuilders
calls for a minimiij rate of 4:0 cents per hour for unskilled - labor . We
cannot help but feel that the rate c.ocs not provide a comfortable and
decent living. Therefore, it is our desire to submit a minimum rate of
50 cents an hour for your consideration. In August, 1932, the ship-
builders saw fit to reduce all v/a^es throughout tiie yard that this re-
duction should be restored under the nev/ deal. It is our intention to
cooperate with the Goveriunent and industry in this .jreat program, however,
we feel unless a substantial increase ia s^ranted to all employees it will
be impossible for the Y/orkin^i; ^I'lan to meet the nev/ rise in the "orice of
commodities.
Mr. Charles W. Wilkerson. on Belialf of the International Molders
Union of North America, Subject, wa:je and hour provisions. Reference,
hearing July 20, 1953, pa^-es 217 and 220 inclusive. Briefs from his
statement.
Mr. Chainaan, this -pertains only to the .v.-iolders and core men. Of
course we are asking for the higher v/age than the minimum .'of ..^25.00 a
week. My statement is very short.
9732
-45-
In ;,oinc over the code submitted to you by the Shipbuilders and
Repair Industry, we find they have not placed in it the mininium wa:,es
to be paid to holders and corei-iakers woi->inr; in this industry, and,
as v;e understand the object of the law is to establish fair competition
in the inc.ustry, and in order to accomplish this, we feel it is neces-
sary to establish the same minimum rate of wages to be paid to the
mechanics mal:inc the castings for the ships to be built in all ship
plants anu for repairs for old ships, also that the -ourpose of the act
is to pay a weekly wa;.,e so that the employees caai mrcbase as much as
they could with u week's pay in the normcd years, from 1926 to 1929.
Therefore, we bvlit?ve the wages for nolders anc. coremakers should be
^j49 .4'-J: per week.
■Mr. T. F. Behney, on Behalf of Pattern llalrers Leariie of ilorth
America. Subject, wa ,e and hour provisions. Reference, hearing July
20, 1933, -oar.es 230 to 321 inclusive. 3riefs from his statement.
T/e hereby su-mit for your ap iroval sug,'jes tions for ^-overning the
pattern maliers trade insofar as it affects the shipbuilding and ship
repair industry in the United States. T/e op-'Ose any differential in
•rates as to the location of industry. We a«k that /ou make effective
a rate of not le^js than ,;1.25 "oer hour for all journeymen pattern
maimers; that the hours per day shall not be more than six, and the
ho-urs per week not in excess of thirty. To insure against unneces-
sary overtime, we ask tluit a vienalty of double time be imposed.
lir. M. p. &arrett, Representing the United Association of
Journeymen Pluiabers and Steam fitters of the United States and Canada.
Subject, wage and ho\ir provisions. Reference, hearing July 20, 1933,
page 221. Briefs from his statement.
We oppose any differential in rates as to location of industry.
We ask that you mal-e effective a rate of not less than :;;i.25 per hoior
for all journey.aen plnmbers ana steam fitters, and a Tite of not less
than 35^ per ho\ij: for all journeymen plwabers and steam fitters helpers.
That the iklours per day shall not be more than 6, and the hours per week
not in excess of 30. To in;?ure against unnecessary overtime, we aSk
that a penalty of double time be innosed.
Mr. Jolin F- McHamara, representing the International Brotherhood
of Firemen & Oilers. Subject, wage and hour provisions. Reference,
hearing July 20, 1933, page 222. Briefs from his statement.
It is our judgment from experience and observation that the
intent and purpose of the National Industrial Recovery Act is to pro-
vide emraloyment for a greater n-uraber of skilled worlanen than are now
employed. To this end we jrcpose to strike out the provisions for the
40 hour week and to insert instead thereof a provision for a maximum
30 hour week to be divided J days of 6 hours each v/ith the miniraom
pay of not less tlian ^37.82 of water tenders, and of not less than
iSb.OO for firemen and oilers, with the provision if overtime is per«»
mitted under the provisions of this code that said overtime be paid for
at the rate of double time.
5732
'^ -46-
Mr. William G-. McDermott, Ke-^respntin;-^ the Employees oi ?ore
River Plant of the EetlileLem Corporation, Qjulncy, Mass. Subject, wai'^e
g^ncL hop.r provisions. Reference, hearing- July 20, 1933, page 225.
Briefs from his st;atement.
The eOToloyees of Pore River Plant of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Corporation, Quincy, Massachu-setts, represented here by the employees
representative body, wish to submit their recoi-iiaendations relative to
the shipbuilding code.
1. This committee is in accord with the maximam hours submitted
by the shipbuildin;j code, namely, 40 ho'ors per week, as we feel that in
reducing oiir regailar 48 licur week to 40 hours per week it will soon
absorb all shipyard workers that are now -unemployed in our district.
2. That the 40 pent perhour minii.T'.mi based on 40 hour week we
oppose for the foll'^wing reasons;
That in order to line in comfort and decency as so stated in this
Recovery Act, we feel that ,)16. per week is inadeouate. Prices of all
conrnodities o.re increasing daily and edl other living expenses in propor«*'
tion; for example, the average home for the v/orkin;; man 8>,nd his family
in our district costs him approxii:iately ^'30 per month, or if he is
purchasing a home through any bank, his ;oayments are generally predica-
ted on the same amount monthly, plus tajxes, insurance, etc.
We could offer fui-ther details substantiatin;:; our recommendation
but we do not feel v;e should take Vcp too much of your comiaittee's
valuable time.
We reconuaend tliat the minimum rate paid to shipyard eiiployees be
50 cents per hou.r, based on a 40 hour per week.
Mr. John W. G-arvey on, behalf of Intornational Hod Carriers'
Building and Coaimon Laborers' Union of America. Subject, wage and hour
provisions. Reference, hearing July 20, 1935, page 224. Briefs from
his statement.
In place of Section 3 v;e propose the follov/ing provision:
"No employee on an hourly rate aiay work in excess of thirty (30)
hours a vi^eek, and there shall, be no overtime work except in an emergency
measure. If any employee on an hour rate works in excess of the
schedule six (o) hou.rs in any one day, the v\ra':,es paid will be at the
rate of double time the regular hourly rate for such time as may be in
excess of six (6) hours."
The second objection we demand to make is against section 4, and in
it's place we propose the following provision:
"The minimura pay for laborer shall be at the rate of twenty-five
(25) dollars per week for a thirty (30) hoiar week.
(a) On and after the effective date of this code, employers shall
not eniploy any minor under the age of sixteen (IG) years.
9732
-47-
Mr H Geriish SirAth, President, national Council of Aiacrican
Shi^D^ouTi7^^."~sirblTct, re^Dl:/ to ouesticns ashed hy the Chairman.
Reference, hearinc July SQ-. 1953, p.v.es 22S to 232 inclusive. Brxefs
from his stateivient .
The T)resent rates in :5ostcn, tho oasic rate for coi-iaon later is
3-- cents 'an hour; in ITew York, it is -^^0 cents; in northern Hew Jersey.
55 cents, and phi lade l^v.da, 3^-: cents.
in Baltimore they are now 35 cents; in Hampton Roads, they are 2-.
cents; in New Orleans, 2^.- cents; Mooile 2-1- cents, anc^ Galveston. 32
cents .
"The ^resent camcity of active shipbuilding and ship repairing
cou^aaiies of the United States as a vhole, is in excess of present or
any"-orosoective needs. Therefore, it be considered a violation of this
code" to Wee aiiy aiaterial increase in the plant capacitj^ of the In-
dustry, such as new shops other than to replace existing shops new
drydocks or new .marine railways or new shipways. curing the life o±
the National .. Industrial Recovery Act."
Deputy Whiteside. May I have your definition of "north and south"
as you interpret it?
Mr. Smith. South of Ilaryland and Texas, inclusive.
De-Tuty Wliite-oide. That is all States south of Maryland?
Ur. Sraith. Inclucdng Maryland to Texas, inclusive.
De-Quty TTniteside, Runnin,:.; to the i.Iisaissiopi River?:
:.Ir. Smith. Runiiinj to the ?do Grande.
De-raty Whiteside. Then, airectly dov/n th- line of States west of
the Liississippi throu'Ji Texas?
Mr. Smith. Ho, sir, we have .x.de no attempt to define west of the
Mississippi excepting Texas.
Semty ■Whiteside. Eave you any su^-v.estion to rnaice re^^ardin^j the
machinery to be set up to enforce the Code?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. We propose the followinfj paragraph to be
inserted in the Code;
"The administration of this Code in the Shipbuilding and Ship
Repairin- Industry will be undortai-en by committees elected by the
Industry? co-ordinated by national Committee which will cooperate with
the Administrator as a planr.in _, and fair practice a-ency for the
industry."
S732
-43-
Ur. F.o''oort V/ . Malone, Rcpresentiu" the G-alveston Drydock and
Constriiction Coupany. Sii-'cject, Article 7 - Restriction of Kev/ Facili-
ties. Reference, liearin'^ July 20, 1953, pages 234-2'_l inclusive. Briefs
from his statement.
Factiial data have "been presented to the Acjninistrator, explaining
the heavy expanr.ion of both "builc.in; , ejid- repairia^ facilities, incident
to the v/ar euer,2;ency, and explaining" chat notwithstanding a liiaterial
contraction in the scope of such fc-Cilities betv/een the close of the war
and the present tiae, due to the la.clv of need or deiiiand for them, those
facilities which remain are far in excesr. of what na,y be conservatively
estimated as the normal needs of the shipnn^-; industry under satisfactory
shipping conditionc; it hein,;^ a selfevident fact, a,clinowled;';:ed in every
quarter, that shipping today is in s-iich a slump as to be noT/here near ..
nornal. Thus, the existin;;^' shi-)h^iildin:;; and shiprepairing facilities
exceed normal requirements, and vastly exceed present reauiremcnts.
Today there are 93,000 tons of dockin- capacity of coiTimercial docks
in the Gulf, plus the 15,000 ton ITavy dry dock available in case of
necessity.
The dry docks a,re located as follows:
Galveston 10,000 tons - 1 dock.
Beauxaont 25000 tons - 1 Railv/ay.
New Orleans 37,000 tons - /^ docks.
Mobile 36,000 tons - ■!■ docks and 1 railway.
Pensacola 5,000 tons - 1 dock
Tampa 2,500 tons - 1 railway
The above does not inclti.de an7,rthin,:.; of a capacity of less tlian
2000 tons of v/hieh there a,re a lax-;i;e nuinber available for river and
harbor craft.
Statistics furnished by the o-oerators of these plants r'.isclose
that the facilities were" oogupied ostly by ocean .•joinz vessels the
following percentage of the total tim.. O-uring the last year:
Galveston 51 Percent.
New Orleans ID. 2 Percent.
Mobile 33.1 Percent .
Pensacola 20 Percent
Beaumont, no data reouestcd.
Tampa, no data requested.
9732
-49-
i!r. Johji M- Tobin, Generpl Vice President, International Brother-
hood of Blacksnichs, Drop Formers and Helpers. Subject, wage and hour
provisions. Reference, heari:".;, Jul"/ 2^, 1953, pa^-cs ,2'i2-243 inclusive.
Briefs froin his statement.
Paragraph 5 of the Code .as proposed by the shipbuildin^-j and
repair yards provides that no indivic.ual will be employed in excess of
forty (40) hours in any one week. V/e urge that the words and fig:ures
of forty (40) be chang-ed to the words and firrures of thirty (3) be-
cause forty hours per week will not, according to out best .judgi.ient,
based ur)on a general iTnowledge of the conditions in this industry
reemploy the available blacksuiiths, forgers and anglesniiths ordinarily
ciiiployed in this industry.
V'e suggest that the following lan.gaajo be added to paragraph 5 —
"that the miniLruin rate of pay for blacksmiths working on li,^,ht v/ork
shall not be less tiian ;?42.?2 per week. The mininiuru rate of pay for
blacksmiths' helpers working on ligixt work shall not be less than
j29.76 per week. Ivlinirmua rate of pay for blacksmiths worlcing on heavy
work shall not be less than $-l-5.57 "i.-.r week. ' The minimum rate of pay
for helpers on heavy blacksmith fires shall not be less than J30.72
per vfeek.
The miniLTUxn ra.tes of loay for heavy forgers shall not be less than
.^65.28 per v;eek. The uiniMUia rate of ■';)ay for helpers on heavy forging
shall not be less thcji ,'.30.73 per week.
Mr. A. 0. Wharton, Internation President by H. J. Carr, C-eneral
Vice President, International Association of Machinists. Subject,
wage and hoixr provisions, Reference, hearir. , July 21, 1953, pages
1003 to 1004 inclusive. Briefs fror.i his statement.
"Relative to p.aragra-)h 3 'of revised code, we urge that the v/ords
and fig-ores 40 be changed to the words and figi.ircs 30, because 40
hours per r^eek vcill not, accordin to o-it best judginent, based u:pon a
general l3iowledge of the conditions in this industry, reenroloy the
avail£.ble nvtraber of r.TachinistG ordinarily emr^Dloved in this industry.
"Relative to oaragraph 4 of revised code: the proposed rates of
3.5 cents per hour in the South and '--O cents per hour in the ITorth
produces a ,;i'^-.00 and .15.00 per v/eek earning.
"The common labor rate set b}' the Government in the shipyards
operated bv the Govermnent ranges from 3C cents to 56 cents per ho^ur,
oased of 48 hours per v/cek, v.'hich produces ,17.23 and ;^26.£8 per week
respectively.
"The minimum rate of pay for machinists shall be .^4-4-.lC per week.
"The minimum rate of pay for machinist .ihelpers shall be J29.28
oer week.
9752
-50-
llr . H- G. Sraitli, President, iTational Council of American Shi o-
ouilc'ers. Subject, Heply to ruestions asked by the Chairraaii. Reference,
hearin;- July 21, 1935, -la^es 1007 to 1011 inclusive. Briefs from his
statement .
De' Tuty Vifhi t c s i cle . The first question is, '.7ore wages cut by the
shipbuilders or ship repair concerns after ivlatch 1, 1S32?,
Mr . Sini th . Yes. There had bo'-.-n a reduction of about 10 per cent,
a little less in Eomc plants, and a little i.iore in one or two others,
and one or two others that made no cuts at all.
Deputy Vfhi t c s i de . That is, the wa;;,,,e rate was c\it on an avera.^e
of approxii..atcly 10 per cent since Liarch 1, 1S32?
Mr . Smi th . That is v\'hat the fi.^.ures sho¥\^.
Deputy Whi t c s i de . T]ie next ..nuestion is, VJhat pcrcentace were
wages cut between J:.jmary 1, 1923, and March 1, 1932?
Mr . Smi th . There v/as s.li.iost no red.uction. I find one instance of
r. five iDer cent reduction.
De-Quty ViThi t e s i de . uliat increase -.7ould the -.:0 cent minimum wage
show over the present va-zQ in the ITorth? That is, the present minimum
wages in the ITorth.
Mr. Smith. I quote the ■:)resent ba,cic rates irevailinr: in the north
as follows: Boston, 34 cents; Hew York, --0 cents; northern New Jersey,
S5 cents; f^niladelphia, 3^:- cents.
Deputy Vfjii t c s i de . Arc you prepared to show a £iven estimate of the
increase in the labor cost which woiilc result from the 30-hour week as
against the -iO-hour week as it ap -lies to the craiser pi-ogrcaTi?
Mr. Smith. Yes-, Those f i ^ires are already in the record in type
in t*he statement mad.e by Mr. Spoar, but I have another estimate or
sheet that v^as worked out last ni pit . In referring to Mr. Spear's
figures, that shows a detailed ^1,000 ex lenditure on a 40-hour basis as
compared with vfhat it would be in the shipyards on a 50-hour basis,
assuming the sa^ne weekly wage. This sheet is. not ty-oewritten, but it
uiay be so .
Deputy 17hitesid.e. Are you prepared to offer it so it may be in
the records this i.;ornin;';?
Mr . Smi th . Y'es; I am.
Deputy Whi t e s i de . It is quite important.
Mr . Smi th . li 3h6ws';an increase in cost of approximately 59 per
cent, so far as the shipyard work itself is concerned.
Deputy V/liiteside. That is the direct labor increase?
9732
-51-
Llr . Sr.ii th . :?hat is the diroct cost incree.se in the yard Ccae to the
incrcas-j iu cirect lE.bor and increase in overhead. It does not talie
into acco-ont the factors affected 'by increase in the cost of material
and ec"aip..ier.t that wc iiave to tu:'.
Ee'.iut^'- ffhi t G s i de ■ Mr . Sharp .
Mr . Sharp . This is simply aji .-daptaLior. of the textile code
provisions anc. the ordc;r effectuating then, subject to correction and
discussion, just a sxig-^estion.
To effectuate further the policies of the act, a. shipbuilding and
ship repairing; industry conrnittoe is set .up to cooperate with the
Adi?.inistrator as a .'laiininr. and fair •ors.ctice ar;ency before the ship-,
building; cjid ship repairing; industry. This couiuttee shall consist
of, I say five althou.l.i I do r.ot l-iov; how laany you want, five repre-
sentatives of the industry, appointed by, and this is subject to
correction aga-in, ap jointsd b--' the coiTidttee presentirip this code, and.
three aerabers, withcat vote, a^: loiv.ted by the Presic.ent of the United
States.
Said coi-iniittee may, from tir.iG to tiiac, present to the President of
the United States recoiuviend-atiors based on conditions in the industry as
they may develop from time to time which vdll tend to effectuate the
operation of the provisions of this code and the policy of the
Hational Industrial Recovery Act.
The textile code contains specific sug;2;sstions as to the tjrpe of
recooraendations which are contemplated. You may first consider whether
you want to m?J:e such GU;_,^estions in your code.
Ac'-Bural Cone, Chairi:iaii of United States Ship dnjj Eoard. Subject,
ShipbuildinjV facilities. Heference, hearing July 31, 1955, 1016 to
1017 inclusive. Briefs from his statement.
Admiral Cone ; Liy position v;ith reference to ship buildinp is that
Vifhich I lia,ve as Chairrncin of the Shippinp Boai-d and as a member of the
Board, in v/hich connection I have ha.d active charge of the constriiction
loan f'und which has financed the builuin", up of the present modern
merchant marine. I have been in close touch with the ship bui.loLing
industry all of ir^/' life, and in the Ijavy I was Chief En _;ineer 25 years
ago, and I lia^ve been in touch with those matters. I had an idea from
the people who oppose this tlic.t I vas called down here to 5,ive my views
on the general policy of ship h.ilcdn.'j yards in the eo\intry in the
f utiire .
Deputy TThiteside; Have you any definite opinion to express on that
point?
Admiral Cone; Yes, Sir.
De )uty TTniteside; If you have, it would be helpful to me.
)752
-52"
Adi.iiral Cone; I think the ship buil.-in, Incaistry in the future
will have to he expanded to provide for the merchant marine that this
nation v;ill he.ve to liavc .
Se'outy V/hitesidc; You mean in the future?
Adi.iiral Cone; Yes, sir, I i.iean in the future. I believe further
from a _:eo^,ra_)hica.l and^ cliniatic, lahor and raw i-naterial sta^idpoint
tha,t there sho'ild Ije more shiphuilding facilities on the ',ulf .
De'iuty 7/hi t e s i dc ; Have v;e no adequate facilities there at the
present time?
Admiral Cone; ?/e ha.ve no active ship hiiildin facilities on the
jjUlf at the present time.
De'outy VHii t c s i de ; In other v/ords, t:/::in;^; Key 'Jest as a point and
running to Pancima, in that stretch of coast v/e do not have the ship
buildin;-j yards v/hich yoii thin]-: should be available?
Admiral Cone: \7e have no i-ctive shipbuilc.inj ya.rds in th^t area.
'He have some repair yards there. \!c. have one or two shipbuilding
yea'ds that were active •:urin tiie war out v/hich hLave since become dead.
Deputy V/hi t e s i de ; V.'hat oiJect rould an imjcrtant increase in the
cost of shipbuilv..inij_' have on the ai.ioiint of business that would be
placed with the shi o yards?
Admiral Cone: It \/oulc have aai immediate effect. The main burden
thcut the A.iericrji shipbuilder operates \mu.er as compared ''dth his
forei.'^n coi.ipetitor is the difrcrer.tial in ca'oital char^::es. It is almost
all of the dixference as octv/een operat^n;; an Ai.terican vessel and a
foreifji vessel. The higher that cont is the more the Ai:ieriC£di shi-j
o'oerator is handicapped. And that runs usually a,bo"at 1:3 oer cent on
the excess capital cost, or I'-l- or l.j :crc..nt .— 5oper cent for ainorti-
zation, 6 per cent for interest a,nd 3 "ler cent average for insurance on
that excess cost.
i'.Ir . H. C-. Smith, President, national Cotuicil of American Ship-
builders. Subject, Hevised Code. Reference heariU;;; July 21, 1933,
pai^-es 1022 to ■3^02C . See Exhibit B.
Ca'Ptain Henry Vfilliams, (CC) United States Navy. SvJbject,
Laborers' Rates Per Week in llavy Yards. Reference, hearing; July
21, 1933, Da^i'es 102'. to 1027 inclusive. Briefs from his statement.
9732
-53-
Maxii.iiTj-n
Hates
[f per
Per Er.
week
(<:8 hrs)
Boston .
.56
26.38
New York
.56
2C . o?-
Phi lade 1:
^•Mr
.53
25.4'.
Norfolk
AC
22.08
Charleston
.3G
17.23
Ir.tei-Liediate
Boston
.51
2-.:. •.-■8
[^
New York
.51
24.-8
Philadelphia
.■v8
23.04
Norfolk
.41
19.58
Charleston
.31
15.81
■viinimi-uu
Boston
.40
22.08
New York
.■-•6
22.08
Philadelphia
.43
20 . -34
I
Norfolk
.35
17.28
Charleston
.26
12.48
Less
15;
■J
22
.85
22,
.85
21,
.63
13
.77
14,
.09
20.80
20.80
19.58
16. C3
13.44
18.77
18.77
17.54
14 . 69
10.61
Ca'Ttain Henry Williaias (CC) United States llavy. Subject, Increase
cost as affected by waiV,e and ho"irs. Reference, hearing July 21, 1933,
pa^2GS 1056 to 1057 inclusive. Briefs froia his statement.
The esti»,iated cost of the Na.vy Building program is ,i238, 000,000.
A rough estimate of the amount of ship^'ard and navy yard labor involved
is SO per cent or ,j 142, 800,000. Assuming the same weekly rate of
v/ages nov/ in force applied to a 30-ho\ir week, to detei'mine the total
weekly Tfa:2;es to be paid, we should "nave appro".im£,tely a 60fj increase in
labor rates for ITavy Yards and 33-1/5',^ increase fo.r private shipyards.
(There would also be a decrease in effectiveness of labor which vail
be ignored here). As an approzin:atcly eo^i-al portion of the v/ork is
to be perfoi'Lied in private shipyards and navy yards, I will assume the
9732
-54-
aver£ve:e increase in v.-jujcs to 'oe -15; or e. total increase in labor costs
based on hourly rates of ,)64, .:^G0,000.
lion. Iilillarc". Y . Calc'.vfell, Hembor of Conjress, Tliird Florida
District. Subject, res urictin/^- extension of shipbuilC.in j facilities.
Reference, liearinc Jxxlj 21, 1933, ;:)a--:,es 1030 to 1033 inclusive. Briefs
from his statement.
PuClatin^, to the proposed insertion in the Shi,) bull din;; sjid Re""iair
Code of a clause nov.' niu.ibered 7 restricting or ;jreventin..3 extension of
shipbui ldi-.\;: f aci li ties .
The proponents of the Code r^:. present, accordin^i; to their ovm
ste.tement, ap roximately 90^: of the shipbui Ic-in/-^ industry in the United
States. To ^". very lar:e extent shipbiiil(.in - is confined to yards on
the ITorth Atlrntic Coast at and Ijorth of Nevroort ITews. As has already
been shown by evic.ence submitted hj other parties, these .^.roups are
closely interconnected and are closely affiliated v/ith other industrial
;::roups, particularly in the steel industry. It is acjuitted by the
representatives of this group that their shipyards are incapable of
competing with foreign shipyards, and that, as a conseouence, their
yards are largely ,i.dle and practically dependent upon IJaval construction
for renev/ed activity.
The national Industrial Recovery Act specifically orovides tliat no
provision of the industrial Codes shall be such as to permit or encourage
monopolistic or unfair practices. The expressed object of the Act is to
prevent unfair compctitivo practices and to increase employment. The
Act includes certain specific provisions for the protection of labor and
the im-)rovement of industrial conditions. The Act nowhere sug-ests the
inclusion of the Code of any such -provision as Claiise 7, vihich, if
adopted, v/ill defeat the very purpose of the law, as it proposes to
prohibit the ex'icinsion or extension of shipbuilding facilities, thereby
perpetuating the existin. ^ monopoly of the shipyards along the North
Atlantic Coast.
In fairness to the worhers ane. industrialists in ■'Southern States,
this clause should be stric]:en from the Code, as t'lerc v^ould be no
relief brought to the shipbuilding industry in the South Atlantic and
Grulf States by adoption of the Code if this clause is contained therein.
In substantiation of these statements an exhibit marked "Exhibit
P" is submitted herewith. (See erhibit "C" attached).
W,iereu5on, cvt 1:15 o'clock p.m., an adjournment was ta]-en, subject
to notice.
Volume B. contains letters and briefs, the substance of which has
been incorporated in the foregoing subject ma,tter of the open hearings
of July 19, 20, and 21. However, reference is iTiade to the letter of
973^
-55"
! ■■ .
Mr. C L. Bardo, President of \tl\e "Jew York Ship'bixilc'.ini, ComDany,
attaches hereto as Ijcliibit D, vdiicli replies to tho contention of the
Hon. Willai-d F. Celo.well, Member oi Corgx-ess, Third Florida District,
contained in Exhicit C attached.
The ConsressiiUrA sot forth arftinnent to the effect that shi is could
"be huilt in lar-.,c duplication. Kr. E. rdo cited the e:roerience of the
y.evi Yorlc Shi-:)Ouildia.- Ccujany, v/hich contro-venes such a losnihility in
peace tiuc. Of course, it is ■'jjiderstocd that ships v/ere duplicated
in the War huildin-; period.
9832
II. Historv of Code formulation.
a. From Ttjublic liparirig to a-riroval
1. Suiimary of ;TOsb-hearinti conferences.
There were thre=. conferences held by General Johnson, resulting
in drastic reductions in the iiaxirauiu hour -irovisions of the Code from
those finally submitterl with the revised Code, durinc^ the last day
of the hearin^; r?.nd copy of which is attaclied hereto as Exhibit B. No
record of these conferences could be found either in Code Record Sec-
tion, or in any oth^r Files. The storj' ha.s been told and retold, how-
ever, verbally.
Mr. H. C-errish Smith, President of the National Council of
American Shi'Vouilders, u;oon rf^quest, has ,iiven his version of these
conferences as representing: Industry. (Hef. Exh. L, Appx. ) Mr,
Joseph S. UcDona,;h, later a-Toointed to the Code Authority to re;)resent
Labor, who was i^resent at these conferences, obtained from '!r. John P.
Frey, President, Iletal Trades Department, American Federation of Labor,
who was also ;-.resent at chese confere;ices, his version as representing
Labor. (Rei, Exh. F and F 1, Ar^x. )
Mr. H. Gerrisii Siaith's ver-jion is as follov'S:
"Satui'day, Jul.,-- 32nd: Two meetings v/ith
General Johnson, one eX ?:00 ;"j.m. and the other at
8:00 p.ra. At the first meetin^: che undersijined started
to discuss the Code in a s^^eneral v/a^ feeling that the
preliraina.ry period in Washington had been s-ient in ne-
gotiation V/itn I.ir. l/hiteside and since the document had
been corxjleted and conte.incd all of Mr. Whiteside's
sut-,gesti "jns, that it was now practically an at^Teement.
This idea was soon dispelled and the Shioouilders were
informed that the meet int.; v'as en 'a question of hours and
wat.:es and that the Shipbuilding, Industry was a typical
one in which a shorter labor v;ee]c should immediately
be put into effect, and intimated that his own experience
in industry was such that he was perfectly familiar v;ith
the situation.
"The L.'ibor group was also present and they pro-
posed six hours a day, thirty hours a \7eelc, and a min-
imum of $25 per week. General Johnson figured this out
at 83f^ an hour a.nd stated that it was impossible and
that that proposition is just out.
"He was of the o:oi:iio;i that the entire $238,000,000
a-opropriated to build naval vessels v/as for contrrcts to
be placed v;ith -irivi'te shi'oysirds, but he was informed
that not more than §150,000,000 would be given to the
private shi'iyards , the balance ^oing to i^avy Yards, and
none of it ^,oing to the Shiprepairing plants.
973?
-57-
"At the end of the period General Johnson wrote on a
sheet of panor two', f i<^urps, one of o? hours a vjeek and the
other a miniiiurn waj^e. I for.,et v'hether the latter v/as
weekl'' or hourly. '
"Second ieetin,- At Go'clocl:; The Shi- buildin.^ i.,rou--) still
asked for tht^ 40 hour we^k v.'hich hc.d heen arrived at after
very careful study and consideration and further stated that
it \7as its belief that it would be aole to ermloy more rnen
under this condition uha., on a o? hour basis. The builders
of merch-.nt vessels scatec' at this neetin^5 that a Z2 hour
week v.'ould be harinful to then in securing- commercial work
and thrt the uneimloyment situation would be ire ter than if
T/'orkinij, 'iO /'.ours. Meeting:, adjourned at 10:S0 ^.ra to meet
again on July ?.Srd, at ?:00 p.m.
"Suiad-ay, July ?5rd; The s-j^e ,,rou-^ that net the Cxeneral on
Saturday v/as folloT/ed uo on Sunday v/ith the group bein^
aui^mented by Mr. H. L. ?ei\iUson and Mr. C. L. 3ardo. The
meetin^^ took -ilace in the General's sitting room at the
Uardhan parJc Eotei r-t which tivae further ar,;u;-nert v/as made
in favor of the 40 hour \.ee';, and the General finally
reiterated that the facts meide no im'oression o'l him a.nd that
nothiniii' wa;'. brought; forv/ard to alter his o-oinion that the
Shi-->buildin . Indus cry v/a.s a tjr-)ical industry and should
en^a^e on shorter wor/: hours. L; bor also attended this
raeetiiij^ and iir. Froy, Labor lea.dcr, discussed Che 30 hour
v/eei: for soKie ohree or foiu- ninutes. The General had
another nieetm^ •lendint;, '-"-'■'-- closed 'ci-ie conference. As the
Shi ^build'^rs v.ere' a.bout to leave, iir. Whiteside asked the
vmdersi^ned to kee-"' our group together as he had a comiororaise
arran^,;ement vhich he thought the General would acce^it.
"After talkiu;^ with I'r. liThiteside for sOine time, the
Industry finally a:-;reed to the 32 ho :y week for iLaval shi'o-
buildinti '^■'■--^ 40 houTs per week, not to e:rceed 36 hours
averaged over a six month's period, for merchant shipbuilding
and shiprepairint,-.
"Mond^^y. Jul:' ?4th; The Shi'ibuilders worked vrith Iir. DuBrul,
one of Mr. TThitesile's assistants, in rev/ritinj th.e Code,
havin;^- in io the vreekly hour provisions as stated above.
Several minor crian.jes were ina.de to meet the requirements of
Mr. TThiteside.
"They were finrlly a-oroved on the mornin. of July ?:6th,
after wriich they were submitted by General Johnson to the
President, a.nd v/ere a'Tiroved bv him some time th?t day."
Mr. John P. Prey's v^^rsion is as follows:
"I have, your request that I suroly i^oxx. with the state-
ment relative to conferences held with General Ha^h S. John-
son at the time when the Shi )buildin_. Code was under con-
sideration.
9732
-58-
"I have just .examined the minutes of the meetings under
the auspices of the Metal Trrdes Department which took place
during the letter nart of July 1935.
"I find that there \:rs a special conference of Inter-
national Representatives of metal trsides, held in the Depart-
ment's Head-'uarters on July .?2. At this meeting I informed
the re^iresentatives that the meeting had hcen called unon the
request of G-eneral Ea,,h S. Johnson, so that a comiiittee re-
presentin, the Intern'i.tional L'nions affiliated v.'ith the Hetal
j?rades Deimrtment could he apr)0inted to meet v/ith General
Johnson and the coirunittee rcnresenting the shipbuilders.
"At this mectin, it v;as announced the conference v;ould
be held in General Johnson's office at 2 p.m. that day. The
meetiub a-r-^ointed J. A. Franklin; J. S. lIcDonoufh; Fred
Hewitt; Thomas Belxiiey; W. P. r.icGinn, and Jolin P. Prey as the
committee.
"That afternoon at 3 n.m. the above named comiaittee were
present in General Johnso:i'G office. The comjnittee represent-
in^ th'' shinbuilders were also present.
"A leniChy discussion took nlace durin, vmich the
representatives of shipbuilders and those of the Ifetal Trades
Departrieut ex-jressed to General Johnson their views concern-
in^. thf-^ labor provisiO;,s \'hich should be incorporated in the
code.
"This conference continued until the evenini^ v/ithout
any detcrmina/tion bein^ reached. 17/_en the adjournment was
taken it was ^.ith the understrndin^, that the conference would
reconvene the follo\ ini_-, day, v/hich was Sunday, in General
Johnson's apartment, The Uardiian Park Hotel.
"This conference failed 'oo rea,ch any conclusion, and
General Johnson declared the conference at an end.
"Later in the day Genertil Johnson notified the committee
representing the Lletal Trades Department, that after the con-
ference had adjourned the shinbuilders had held a conference
with him, at v/hich they had at^Teed to the incornoration in
the code for their industry of certain labor provisions which
had been ur^^ed by the resoresentativcs of the Metal Trades
Department."
2. Activities in obta.ininn,' a-p-^roval
All activities of record in obtainincj anproval have
been recited under previous title D, 1.
Ui'. J . Lev/is Luchenbach, Industrial Adviser, aTiroved
the form of Code by memorandum of July 26, 1933. (Reference
Code Record Section, ap-orova.l of the Code Docket).
9733
-53-
IJone of the ot'Ter .-advisor;,- ! boards made reconmiendations.
(Heference Code History Folder", De-mty's Files)
3. p- te of Approval
Julj- '^6, 193o - Exec^itive Order ?-l (Peference Code
Record Sectio-i) .
4. Conditions in order of 8;.r-iroval;
ir.du stry reaction.
There v. err no conditions in the order of amroval. In-
dustry vfas very ap'orehensive of increase of costs, nrobable
loss of business, and delay in completing contracts due
to the shorta(_;c of v/orlrin^ hours.
The Shiibuilders resisted co the very end a reduction
of Txiaxinura h-nirs "belcv/ 40 hours per v;eelr:» Tliey set forth
in the he.arin-.s that a reduction to 50 hours per wee'r., or
thereabouts v/a.s oconoriiically unsound fro;n the points of the
incres-se of cost of coiistruction, and th? increase of em-
ploynent. Subsequent histor;;/ of the Industry confirms their
contentions as havin^ been substantially correct. They h; d
to accept the 33 hx.rs ner \veel: for nrvo.l shipbuilding and
55 hours per v/eeh for co!7i;aercial shinbuildint-, because of the
proT)Osed openin_; of I'aval bids on July 36, 1933.
Froi,--rscs under rxecutive Order l"o. 6?05-3
Tiiere were ten protests or clai.ns of exemptions filed
v/ithin the ten day period provided in the Executive Order.
There is inserted in the apnendix, Exhibit R, a list entitled
"Protests to be ta-cen up by the Shi:>ibuildint5, and Shiprepairing
Industry Cor.-;ittce on Monday, Au^u^t ?8, 1932". Of this list
ten were filed on or before August 15, and within the ten day
period.
These protests and/or requests are divided into throe
classif ica.tions as follows:
ITorth and South Ua^e Differential
The Code as finally approved did not contain a dividing
line as between the I'orth and South and the Code Authority
only deterr;;ined a line as arjlied to the Atlantic Coast. ITo
definite action v;as taken.
3y-Lav/s
Tiie 3--Laws, so-ccllcd, v.-ere in f-:ci: a plan for the
District and Local Cora.uttees for both Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairin^; and a comprehensive set of Fair Tr?de Practices
which were dravrn with pjarticular reference to the Shiprepair-
ing Industip/. The;' were the subject of the followint^:
Ec-arin^ Held August 35, 1933
9732
-60-
Code Authority Heetint, Se-jteraoer 6, 1933
Code Authoritj iieetiiit. Septeraber 11, 1933
Hearing Held Se itemlier 3G, 1933
Code Authority lieetinj^, Se:otember 27, .1953 • •
Code Authorit-'- Ileetinj;; October 2, 1933
The title of these ny-Lax s v;as chc,n,ed to "Administra-
tive Rules aad Re_,ulations" about September 6, 1933. During
this tii.ie of com;irehensive discussions and hearir-^s,
questions brought u- by the- ■iro-test«. and requests for exemp-
tions were disnosed of.
Labor
Protest of the Tei".' Yorl: Shi' ibuildin^c Cor-ioration' s em-
ployees a,_^ainst the reduction to the 33 hours per v/eck be-
cause of the severe reduction in the pay envelopes. This
matter \/as determined ^oy the Labor -irovisions of the Code.
Protest of the em-iloyees of the American Shi'^builain^:
Com;:iai\7. T^'his v/as determined by the Labor ^orovisions of the
Code.
Protests of employees of the Chicago Shipibuildin^
Connary a.na other Labor protests, corresTondence of vdiich
cannot be located, all are believed to have been determined
by the Labor provisions of the Code.
9732
-61-
CHAPTER III - COPE ADI.IIIIST5ATI0N
A. General Prelininarj- Discussion - The Code Authority ras orga-
nized TTithout difficulty. The :.ilan for the election '.tcs set forth in
a set of 3:'-LaT7s (later entitle! Bia.eG and 2e£u]l-ations) sutaitted rrith
the Code and the election uas duly car?'ied out as set forth in this
chapter under title B. Tiie field organization rras pnnptly set up as
originally provided in the B;''-Lar.'s (later entitled :Rules and Reigula-
tions) as pet forth hereinafter under title 3, 5 of this chapter.
The Budget vas on a voluntary haais and financial matters of the
Code Authority- nere handled in a very satisfactory manner. There nac
no problen of collecting stifficient funds for the adrninistration of the
Code and the expenses of the Code Authority and District and Local Con-
mittees. The entire 3iid;:et xie..s woimd up in a husiness-like vraj after
the ternination of the Code Authority. Certain proportions of the
funds -'ere returned to nenhers of the industr;</- iron the halance that r?as
left. This is set forth in detail --onder title C of this chapter.
There vrere three ai".iendi3entR to the Code, i.e.; Amendment 1-Jo. 1,
dated Cctoher 10, 1933, approvef", oy the Prerddent, which provided for
six Industry meiihers and four ne:.ibers to he g-oijointed hy the President,
thus exiending the provisions of the Code, which originally provided for
five Industry nemhers and thre^;- nenbers to be appointed by the President
(Hef. ExLi. A, Appx.); Ai.iendment ilo. 2, approved 'larch 29, 1934, by
Hugh S. Joiinson, Administrator, modified the definition of the Industry.',
T/hereby the provisions for certain snail vessels was done away with, in
order that such vessels co-oJ-d be put under the Boatbuilding and Boat-
repairing Inductrji- (lief. Exli. A, Appx.); Ar.iendnent ITo. 3 approved by
Hugh 3. Johnson, Administrator, April 2, 1954, changed the hours for
Naval shipbuilding from 32 to 36 hours per week to coincide with Code
provisions for the building of commercial bessels. (Hef. E:di. A, Ap;ox. )
Eiis subject is full^' dealt with imder Chapter IV, C. Hours.
There was only one interpretation during the life of the Code,
which was with reference to Part 3 (c). This provision provided for an
exemption of six months to penait emplojinent of employees for designing,
etc., to exceed the majzimian weekly hours. The c[uestion arose as to
whether the six months period shoiild be counted from the effective date
of the Code, or from the talcing of the individual contracts. It was
determined in Administrative Order 2-27, signed by Barton \I . Hurray,
Division Administrator, that this period sho'old begin with the letting
of each contract, as the object of the provision was to reduce the tine
necessary before the actual start of construction. The Code Authority
made a number of interpretations. This subject is dealt with in detail
under title D 2 of this chapter.
There were many requests for exei-iptions and stays due to the re-
stricted maxim-Qji hour provisions of the Code and also due to the fact
that the Code did not provide for emergency repadrs or trials of ves-
sels and equipment. These exeM])tions and stays were renewed from time
9732
to time. All is set forth hereinafter in this cha-oter under D 3.
The individual Industry raembers of the Code Authority viere named
as the Trade Practice Complaints Coiiiraittee and, duly ao-proved as set
forth in detail in this chanter under title B 4 (a).
Labor 'became unrestful because their pay envelopes were reduced
under the provisions of the Code, therefore, an Industrial Helj,tions
Committee became very necessary. This Committee was set up and effec-
tively functioned. It was conroosed of three Industry and three Labor
members, who admirably worked together. This subject is found in detail
in this chapter -onder title B 4.
By-Laws (so-called) were submitted with the Code. These later were
changed to the title of "Sules and Regulations". The first part of
this instrument pertained princioally to the field organir^ation and its
duties, the latter part pertained to Fair Trade Practice provisions.
The members of the Code Authority and the Industry, under the guidance
of the Deputy, worked seriously in perfecting these Rules and Regula-
tions. They were the Tjrincipal subject of consideration in three Code
Authority meetings and two hearings, one of which was an open hearing
and were finally adopted October. 2, 1933, by the Code Authority. How-
ever, the Fair Trade Practice provisions contained matter which should
have been submitted as amendments to the Code and other provisions that
should have been modified in order to make them pro-oerly enforceable.
Unfortunately, the Deputy did not submit these Rules and Regulations
tOv the Administration for approval and consequently the Fair Trade
Pras.tice provisions soon were in discard, which left the Industry with-
out proper provisions of this character. The subject is dealt vith in
this chapter under title B 4 (c).
The principal trade association v/as the National Council of Amer-
ican:i Shipbuilders, which was formed in 1921, and continued active
operation throughout the period of the Code and is still active. It
was the principal proponent of the Code. It collected data of interest
to the Industry, issued bulletins and in other, wavs was a hcnefit to
the Industry, but did not undertake any actual work of Code Administra-
tion.
The Code was not a benefit to Industry or Labor in the opinion of
the author. The restricted maximum weekly hours acted to iiicrease cost
and "iar commercial contracts and thereby retard the normal increase of
coraiiercial business incident to the improvement of "business conditions.
Employment was not increased to the extent it might liave teen owing to
these restricted hours, as peak emolo:/ment on Ifeval contracts was de-
layed and the lack of new commercial business acted to more than off-
set the slight increase of eraplo-yinent during the first few months of
the Code. This subject is dealt with under Chanter IV, Operations of
Code Provisions. Further, the losn of the Fair Trade practice provi-
sions, contained in the Rules and Regulations, left the Industry with-
out the principal benefit it ercpected under the Code.
9732
-63-
Tlie CP'iQliance Division's F.uir.ary of connln.iiits is as fol?_ows:
Labor Complp.ints Total docketed 145
IiiTestig.-ted Comolaints adjusted 74
Nuifiber violatioiis foand 42
Bockkeenin.-^ rejections 12
Compliance Division' or Regional Office 11
On hand Hay 25, 1935 . 6
Tra.'de practice Co;.volaiats doclreted 6
Investigated comolaiats adjusted 3
ilo violations found ,3
This summarjr is dated June 3, 1935, and is located in Conoliance
folder, Deputy's Files.
9732
-64-
3, op::./-i:,^riov
T'.c u- !.!'.: xor tl.c r.election of the Inc.ustrj'- l/ien'bers of the Ship-
building and Ship rep o,i ring Industry Coianittee (Code AuthoritjO nas set
forth in the "By-Laws (so-called) for adninisterinf^ and enforcing the
Shipbuilding Division of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry"
ajid the "By-La\7s (so-called) for administering and enforcing the Shipre-
pairing Division of the Shipbuilding and Shipre]:r,iring Industry^" (Hef,
Code ?:ecord Safe and E:dis, I and J Appx, )
The following is an errcerpt of a letter of Au^^ast 20, 1935, from
H. Gerrish Smith, President of the national Covuicil of American Ship-
builders, to H. ITer/ton Whittelsey, Assistant Dejiuty Director (Ref, Exh.
W-1, Appx,).
"I regret to inform you that there are no minutes of the meeting
of the National Shipbuilders Administrative Committee and the
Nr.tional Committee of Shiprepairers 'vhen these Committees elected
the members of the Code Authority, as the election was done by
corre^,pondence (letter ballot). The ballots are in the possession
of the Secretary,
"By-Lans, Immediately after the Code vras signed b;'- the President
of the United States a meeting \Tas called of all shipbuilders and
shiprepairers \7ho v.'ere proponents of the Code, the first meeting
being held on August 1, 1933 for the discussion and formulation of
final by-la;7s for the shipbiiilding and shiprepairing division, as
some of the provisions contained in the original code nere deleted
by the Administration from the Code iroper but it was understood
the provisions could be incorporated in the by-laws,
"Companies having representatives at the meeting of August 1st,
were:
Weirport ilev^s Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Companj'-
The Pusey & Jones Corporation
Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Company
The L'aryland Dr;?- Dock Company
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Coriporation, Ltd,
Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company'-
New York Shipbuilding Corporation
Todd Shipjrards Coriooration
Kensington Sliipj^ard & Dry Dock Corporation
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp, Ltd, (West Coast plants)
New York & New Jersey Dry Dock Association
National Co^ancil of American Shipbuilders
"Tlie by-laws for both divisions v?ere gone over and after thorough
discussion they were left with a drafting committee to smooth them
up, Tlriis was done and on August 4th and 8th, at meetings of ship-
builders and shiprepairers the by-laws were put in form for presen-
tation to the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry on August 9th.
"At meeting on August 9th, at which representatives of the follow-
ing companies were present:
9732
-65-
The MArylsjid Drj- Doclc Co:.\oa2.\j
The Ri.sey & Jones Corporaoidn
Alabaria. Dry Dock & Shipljuilding Company
Bethlehem Sliipouilciinir Corporation
Todd Shipyards Corporation
S"an Shipbuilding & Drj' Dock Coiapany
ITorfolk Shiphuildini^ & Dry Dock Comiiany
Kensington Sliipyard & Diy Dock Corp,
Nevroort Kews Shiphuilding & Dry Dock Co,
Ira S. Bxishey & Sons
National Council of American Shiuhuilders
the hy^laws Tor both t>ie shipbuilding and shiprepairing divisions
1.,'ere finally ironed out and adopted, and made effective at 12:01,
August 14, 1933.
"It; vas the belief of the proponents of the Code that the adoption
of the by-laws was within their power. These by-laws were submitted
to all neubers of the Industry prior to the election of a Code Author-
ity."
The By-Laws as revised by Industry'- and effective August 14, 1933, will
be foijnd in the Appendix, Srdiibit I-l and J-1, respectively.
The Shipbuilding Division By-Laws provided in part as follows:
"SBGHSGATIOil 0? THE SHIPBUILDIUa IIIDUSTRY
3, For the -ouriiose of adj.iinistering the Code the shipbuilders will
be segregated, according to the location of their respective ship-
yards, into the following major geogrsphica]. districts or groups:
(a) Atlaaitic Coast
. (b) G-ulf Coast
(c) Pacific Coast
(d) Great Lalces
(e) liississippi and Tribtitar;'- Rivers
(f) Other major grouns that may come under the Code
ADklLIISTrATIOU
4, The Code shall be cidninistered by a Comuittee of not less than
nine (9) members; five (5) elected from the AtlaJitic Coast; one (l)
from the Gulf Coast; one (l) from the Pacific Coat-t; one (l) from
the Great Lalces aiid one (l) from each major group that may hereafter
operate under this Code, The President of the National Council of
American Shipbuilders will be ChairBian of the Connittee but without
the right to vote.
Each of the eight (s) members of the Committee elected from the
Atlantic, G"alf, and Pacific Coasts end Grert Laices, shall be a
representative of the Individual Ilembers of the National Council of
American Shipbuilders or signators of this Code,"
The Shiprepairing Division By-Laws provided in part as follows:
9732
-66-
"SEGBEGATIOII OF THE SHIPIGFAirJFC- IITJUSTEY
2. (a) ~or t'le lour-nose of a.d'Tinistra.tion of the Code the ship-
repairers mil "be segre.'^ated, according to the location of
their respective shipyards, into the follo^'ing najor f^eo-
graphical districts.
(a) Atlantic Coast
("b) Gulf Coast
(c) Pacific Coast
(d) C-reat Lakes
(e) l,:ississip"oi P.iver and TrilDutaries
(Id) The shipreiiairers on the Atlantic Coast "ill "be further
segregated according; to the loc3,tion of their respective
shipyards into the follor/ing local geographical areas:
(a) IT err England
("b) Hew York
( c) Dela\7a.re River and Bay
(c) Chesapeake Bay (d)
(e) Hampton Roads, includirrg the South Atlantic Coast.
(c) The shiprepairers on the Gulf Coast may "be segregated into
such local area.s as they nay deter^iine to "be advisa"ble.
(d) The shiprepairers on the Pacific Coast, on the Great
Lai-es and on the Mississippi River and- Tri"butaries raa,y
divide themselves into such local geographical areas as
the district committee in each of these districts -decides
to "be desira"ble for the purposes of these By-Laws. The
local area divisions determined by them are to "be stipulated
in their district By-La'^s provided, for hereinafter.
6. As a neans of provid.ing an equitable renresentation on the Dis-
trict Committee, as hereinafter provided, the -shiprepairers in each local
area shall elect t^-'o representatives to serve as mem"bers of such District
Committee on the follo"in;T "ba.sis:
7. One representative vill "be elected "by a majority vote of the ship-
repairers T'here each shiprepairer shall "be entitled to cast one vote.
8. A second representative shall "be elected ''o-^/ the majorit;'' vote
where each shiprepairer shall "be entitled to cast one vote for each fift3''
of the avera9-e workmen employed "by such shiprepairer on shin repair '"ork
during the preceding twelve calendar months prior to such election.
11. District Committees District Committees shall
"be composed of two representatives elected "by the ship-
reps-lrers in each local area. Each district committee
shall elect a Chairman and Vice- Chairman and fucii other
officers as it may deem necessary.
9732
13. The totp.l iirfjer' of the combined re-oresentatives
on the District Co~inittees of the Gulf and pp.cific Coasts
shal], not exceed the total nujiber of renrer.entatives on
the District Connittee of the Atlantic Coa^t.
15, The I'a.tional Committee shall he con-nosed of the
Chaiiinan elected hy the respective District Coirriittees.
16, The Vice Chairman of the District Conmittee shall
act on the National Connittee as an alternate for the Chair-
nan of ruch District Connittee in the event of the latter' s
inability to serve.
17, The Hrtional, Connittee shall have a Chairnan, vrho
shs.ll be elected by a majority vote of th^? total niinber of
menbers of the District Connittees. He shall not be ident-
ified as an officer or employee of any partnership or co-
rporation engaged in building or repairing vessels, nor shall
he be entitled to vote."
The Plan subnitted to the Adninistration by letter dated August
IS, 1933, addressed to lir. Arthur D. Tifniteside and signed by the Committee
representing the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing. Industry, K. Gerrish Smith
and Joseph Eaag, Jr. (llef. E:di. TT-3, A-npy., ), The letter reads as follows:
"T7ith reference to the aiDpointne it of a Ship-
building and Shiyjrei^airing Industry Connittee, pro-
vided for in Paragraph 8 (a) of the Shipbnilf^ing
e.nd Shirsrepairing Code, it is proposed to elect this
Connittee as fol^^ov's, viz:
"1. An Adninir-trative Shipbuilring Committee
for the administration of the Code has been elected
'b-f the menbers of the Shipbuilding rnd Shiprepairing
Industry who are engaged in building floating marine
eouipnent. This Connittee consists of three reiore-
sentatives' of the larger shipbuilding ya,rds on the
Atlantic Coast, two from the sm.aller shipya.rds, one
from the Gulf, one from the Pa.cific Coast, one from
the Great La''es and a Chairman who is the President
of the National Council of American Shipbuilders,
nine menbers in all.
"In carrying out the election of this Committee,
consideration has been given to both large and small
shipyards and those located in different geographical
areas. '' •
"2, A national Committee of Shiprepairers is in
the process of. election, which will be composed of siz
nenbers, one from the Atlantic Coa.st, one from the Gulf
Coast, one from the Pacific Coast, one from the Great
L-?""es, one from the '.'ississip-oi and tributary rivers and
a Chairman '.without vote.
9732
-68-
"The ITa-tional Comnittee is elected tiy the District
Coi^mittee rrhich, in turn, are elected by local committees
in the various local areas, therehj"- resulting in equitable
representation. The various districts cover the entire
Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coasts, Great LaJces and Hiss-
Issiprii and tributary rivers.
"The representation on this National ShipreiDair Com-
mittee vil] therefore be six members, although for the "ore-
sent it hiay consist of only five, due to the fact that the
shipre^iairers on the Kississip'^i and tributary rivers have
not yet set up their organizations.
"The Administrr.tive Committee of Shipbuilders and the
National Committee of Shiprepairers therefore equitably re-
present all members of the industry in all -cjeo graphical
loca.tions. These combined committees rill meet to elect the
members of the committee called for under Section 8 (a) of
the Code. Both Shipbuilders and Shiorepairers, large pnd
small interests, ■'"ill be equitably represented on this com-
mittee, giving such consideration as practicable to geo-
graphical locations.
"Ue trust that this method of election 'ill be satis-
fa.ctory to the Administrator and in this connection request
3/'our aiiproval.
"Our telegram to you of Auci^ast 16, 1933, may be disre-
garded. "
Verbal approval of the method of election, set -forth in the forego-
ing letter of August 18, was given and the Administration v.-as advised of
the election of the Industry mem.bers of the Code Comm.ittee by letter dated
August 22, 1933, addressed to the Hon. Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator,
signed by fl. G. Smith and Joserih Hagg, Jr., for' the Shipbuilders. (Ref.
Exh, 11-4, Aiopx.) This letter reads as follows:
"In accordance with the authority given rae by you on
Friday last for the election of a. Committee \ind.er Section 8
(a) of the Shipbuildiag and Shiprepairing Code, this is to
inform you that the following Committee has been elected,
na.raely:-
H. G. Smith,: ©resident. National Council of American
Shipbuilders
Joseph Hagg, Jr., President, Todd Dry Doch, ■ Engineer-
ing & Repair Com.
S. W. TJa^-eman, Vice Pres., Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Cor:poration, Ltd.
Roger WilTiams, Vice Pres., Newport News Ship-
building and Dry Dod: Co,
Roger Haig, Vice Pres., Siin Shipbuilding and Dry Doc]:
Company
W. K. Gerhauser,. President, Great La'-es Shipbuilding
& Repair Association
9732
-69-
"A" both Shipt'iil'i'era and Shiprepairers must "be represented
on tliis co:.i"ittee, and as our fieof-TaiihicaT distribution is so
great, ve are rsi-in^ your- -.aiToroval of a connittee of, six instead
of five, '"ith a -^osTibln irxreaco later on to t,'\'-e care of re-
■oresentation for the Iliiisissippi River pnd its Tributaries,
"On tliis conmittee Kr. Josenh Haag, Jr. re-niesents tlie
shiprer>airin5 interests on the Atlantic, ."Gulf and Pacific Coast,
!!r. S, "J. Ur'^enan reprerents shipbuilding and shiprepairing
interests oi. the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, llr, Roger Williams
renresents a shipj-ard engaged in both builc'ing and repairing
merchant vessels and the buildin."' of naval vessels. Mr, Robert
HaL'; is Vice President of a company engaged at the present time
on raerclipnt building and repairs only. J'r. W. H. Gerhauser re-
presents the Great La'-es* intererts T7hile Mr. H. G. Smith, one
of the signers of this letter, represents shipbuilding and ship-
rexiairing interests as a v.'hole through the national Council of
American Shipbuilders.
"This coinnittee is n-^'^-' ready to meet at short notice Fith
the committee appointed by the President for the Consideration
of cnj natters that you may •'•^ish to bring before it."
Later at the request of Kr. William H. Davis a furtlier letter rras ad-
dressed to General Jolinson, Adiinistrator, dated September 23, 1933, and
signed by the Committee representing: the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry, H. Gerrish Smith and Joseph Haag, Jr. (Ref. ESii. N-5, Appx. )
The letter r-3ads a-^, follows:
"VJith reference to the a-ppointment of a Shipbuilding and
Shi-ore-oairing I-^.dustry Committee, who, together t/ith the four
Presidential ai?-oointees, are to form a Planning and Fair Practice.
Agency, provided for in Paragraph 8 (a) of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Code, as modified September 22, 1933, an Industry
Committee has been elected by the folloT'ing method; viz,
"(1) An Administrative Shipbuilding Committee for the
administration of the Code has been elected by the members of
the Shipbuilding and Shiprersairing Industi-y v/ho are engaged in
building floating marine equipment. This Committee consists
of three representatives of the larger shipbuilding yards on
the Atlantic Coast, tr;o fmm the smaller shipyards, one from
the Gulf Coast, one frim the Pacific Coast, one from the Great
La"-es, rnd. a Chairman rho is the President of the "ational
Council of American ShiiD builders.
"In carrying out the election of this Com.mittee consider-
ation T7as given to both lar-e and smell shipyards and those
located, in d.ifferent geographical areas.
"(2) A national Committee of Shiprepairers has been el-
ected and. is composed, of six members; one from the Atlrntic
Coast, one fr-^m the Gulf Coast, one from the Pacific Coast,
one from the Great Eal-es, one from the Kississi-opi and Tri-
butary Rivers, and. a Chairman rithout vote.
9732
-70-
"Tlie I'ational Coranittee is elected by the District Con-
nittees rrliich in turn are elected by local Comiiittees in the
various local areas, tliereby resulting: in equitable represent-
ation. The various Districts cover the entire Atlantic , Gulf
and Pacific Coasts, Great Lakes and Mississippi and Tributary
Rivers.
"The Administrative Connittee of Shipbuilders and the
National Cornmittee of Ship repairers, therefore, eqxiitably re-
present all members of the Industry in all f^eos;rg,phical loca-
tions. These coinbined Com^iittees have met and elected the
lenbers nf the Conimittee called for under Para:^raph 8 (a) of
the Code as folloirs:
H, G. Smith, president, National Council of Anerican Ship-
builders.
Joseph Haag, Jr., President, Todd Dry Dock, Enf^ineering &
Repair Corporation
S. 1. riakeman, Vice President, Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Corporation, Ltd,
Roger Uilliams, Vice President, ITerfport Te^^s Shi-':)buildi?ig
and Dry Dock Company
Robert Haig, Vice President, Sun Shipbuilding and Drj' Dock
Company
W. H. Gerhauser, President, Great Lokes Shipbuilding &
Repair Association
"TJe hereby request "/our approval of this method of
election and the members of the Industry so elected."
All members of the Shipbuilding a-nd Shiprepairing Industry Committee
(Code Authoritjrjj were recognirred by the Administrator, Hugh S. Johnson,
on September 23,, 1933, by letter addressed to H. Gerrish Smith, President,
national Council of American Shipbuilders (Reft Exh, K-IB, Appx. ) . The
letter reads as follor/s:
"The amend'-ent of Section (a) of Paragraph 8 of the Code
. of Pair Competition of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing In-
dustry having been a-oproved by Executive Order of the President
of the Unitec" States under drte of September 22, 1S33, to read
as folloT's:
'(a) To effectuate further the policies of the
Act, a Shipbuilding a,nd- Shiprepairing Industry Com-
mittee is hereby designated to cooperate rdth the
Administrator as a Planning and Pair Practice agency
for the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry.
This Committee shall consist of representatives of
tlie Ship Builders and Ship Repairers in puch number
not }ess than six as the Administrator in his dis-
cretion may from time to time determine, elected by
a fair method of selection to be ap-'roved ^y the
Administrator, and four members without vote appoint-
ed' by^the President of the United States. Such agency
9732
-71^^
raaj'' fro'i ti>-e to tine present to the Administrator
recomr^enclations based on conditions in their in-
duct rj^ as they may develop from tine to tine rhich
will tend to effectuate the provisions of the Code
and the policies of the ITation??! Industrial Hecovery
Act.'
and the iollor;ir,g,^naned -entlenen havin^^ been elected by a fair method of
selection approved by the Acljninistrator:
H. G. Smith Chairman
Joseph Haag, Jr., Pres., Todd Dry Doc]r, Engineering & Repair
Corporation
S. V, Tfelcenan, Vice Presi6.ent, Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Corporation, Ltd.
Roger TTillians, Vice President, Uer.'port iler's Shipbuilding and
Dry Dock Company
Robert Haig, Vice President, Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Conp?-ny
\i, H. G-erhauser, President, Great La':es Shipbuilding and
Repair Association
the election of those six gentlemen is hereby approved.
"Under date of September 22, 1S55, the President has appointed the
follotring four members of the Code Co^riittee ^'ithout vote:
Robert L. Ha.gue
Joseph S. i.IcDonagh
TTilliam H. Davis
Capt. Henr;- L. "Tillians
- Industrial and Consumer Advisory
Capacity
- Labor Advisory Capacity
- national Recoverj?- Administration
Representative
- Pro^odsed by the Secretary of the
iTavy
Very truly yours,
/g/ Hu-?:h S. Johnson
HUGH S. JOHIISON
ADiilinSTRATOR"
APPROVAL EECOLHElffiED:
/s/ TTillian E. Davis
TflLLIAi.I H. DAVIS
DZPU7Y ADillillSTEATOR"
S732
-73-
2. Personnel of coc^e authority; naies, ad-
dresses, conpany, association or group
affiliation, f:;eorrar)hical or other repre-
sentation, nestings.
Industry MemTjers
H. aerrish Smith, Presioent
national Council of American Shiphuilders
11 Broadway • ' ' ' '
Hew York, ITer? York
Roger TTilliams, Vice President
ITevroort Y<exis ShiTituilding and Dry Dock Conpany,
Approx. $16', 000, 000 (Ref. Hoody)
llorfolk, Virginia
S. W. TIal'eman, Vice President
Bethlehem Shiphuilding Corporation, Ltd., Est.
$30,000,000 (No report availahle) Sulisiduary
of Bethlehem Steel Corp.
25 Broadwaj'-
New York, New York (Member National Council of
: American Shipbuilders and
Pacific Dry Dock Association)
Joseph liaag, Jr. , President
Todd Dry Dock Engineering and Repair Corporation, Ltd. ,
Suhsiduary of Todd Shipyards Com., Approx.
$20,800,000 (Ref. lloody)
25 Broadway
New York, New York (Keraher National Cou.ncil of
American ShipbuiD.ders, Pacific
Coast Dry Dock Association and
of the Gulf Coast Group)
Robert Haig, Vice President
Sun Shii:)building. and Dr^,' Dock Company, Approx. $6,000,000
(Ref. I'oody)
Chester, Pennsylvania (liember National Council of American
Shii^builders)
IT. H. Gerhauser, President
American Shipbuilding Company, Ap'-^irox. $8,390,000
(Ref. I.:oody)
Cleveland, Ohio (Member National Council of
American Shipbuilders and Great
Lakes Association)
9732
Presidential A-o-.'oiiitees - Executive Order 2-lA, Ser)tenber 9, 1933,
(Ref* Code Record Section -nd Exl:i. K-IA)
Jope^h S. ncDona{:^h (Representiiif; La"bor
Interr.atinnal Brotlierho -^d of Electrical "orlrers
1200 fifteenth Street,- Horthr-est
• TTashin.-ton, D. C.
Captain ilenry L. Uilliams (CC) U.S. 11. (Repre- •
sentins Secretary of Nav;','-)
Ilavj'- Department
Washington, D. C.
W. E. Davis (ll. R. A. Representative)
Washington, Di C. ,
Rooert L. Hagac (Representing Consumers)
Vice President, Standard Ship-oing Company
26 BroadT7ay
Kew Yorh, Y.ev York
3. Chan^^es in Code Authority''
TJillian H. Davis, Ac>ninistration lienher to the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Induntr^,'- Cor.iinittee resigned and his resignation was made effec-
tive February 16, 1934. (Ref. Adiainistrative Order 2-4, Peh. 16, 1934,
signed Hugh S. Jolinson, on file Code Record Section, Deputy's files, and
Exli. K-4, Appx.) i:r, Davis \7as assigned other duties in IT.R.A. , "being
succeeded by J. 3. ¥ea,ver. Deputy Adriinistrator, for the Shipning Section
of Division I, to \-hich this Code v/as assigned,
Arba B, iiarvin v.'as appointed Adninistration Fenber to the Shipbuild-
ing and Shiprepairing Industry Connittee February 15, 1934. (Ref. Adjnin-
istrative Order 2-5, Feb. 16, 1934, signed Hugh S. Johnson, on file Code
Record Section, Deputy's files, and Exh. K-5, Appx.)
Resi.gnatioR of Arba B. Iiarvin as Adrainistration Menber October 27,
1934. (Ref. Orcer 2-21X, on file Code Record Section, Deputy's files, a.nd
Sxh. K-21X, A-o-o:m. ) i;r, Iiarvin resigned in order that the policy of full
time Adninistration Ilember could be :\BAe effective on this Code.
Francis E. Lee, Assistant Deiouty Adriinistrator for N. R. A., appointed
November 27, 1934, Adxiinistration Member to succeed Arba B. Marvin, who
resigned. (Ref. Administrative Order 2-25, signed W.- A, Harriman, on file
Code Record Section, Deputy's files, and Exh. K-26, Appx.)
The Code .'.uthority Ind.ustry members rrere selected from- the leading men
of the Industry and each individual ras of long experience and of proven
executive ajility in manage-ient operations of their res"oective shipbuilding
plants over a tern of years. Also the four members ap-oointed bjr the Pre-
sident were of high calibre and lent valuable asristance in their advisor3''
capacities. The Chairman of the Code Authority, who was also the President
of the national Council of American Shrobuilders for a term of years, was
particularl;- well aua.lified by his long contact with the Industry _and his
9752
-74-
experience in ship'bui"' oing natters. The Secretary alr,o ^-as the Secretary
of the "National Council of Anorican SiiipbuiXders and consequently '-'ell
versed in shrohuilding affairs. , .
I.'eetings of the Code' Authority are listed ^elotr.
Au£:ust 22, 1933
Au,^st 28, 1933
Septe'-^ber 6, 1933
Septerilier 11, -1933
Septenher 27, 1933
October 2, 1933
Octo^jer 9, 1933 ■
October 25, 1933
October 30, 1933
llovenber 8, 1933
Janunry 4, 1934
February 14, 1934
Ilarch 2, 1934
'larch 15, 1934
A-nril 24, 1934
Septeraber 12, 1934
December 20, 1934
January 17, 1935
February 21, 1935
liarch 21, 1935
■Anril 26, 1935
Auf,ust 20, 1935
11 Broadway,
W. H. Davis'
11 Broadnay,
11 Broadray,
17. H. Davis'
11 Broadv^a'^r,
11 Broad'Tay,
11 Broadi,7aj'-,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadr-ay,
TT. H. Davis'
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadway,
11 Broadv/ay,
Kew York
Office, TTash.
rew York
re^- York
Office, T7ash.
i"ew York
rew York
ITew York
Hew York
Ner' York
Office, TTash.
Tew Y'ork
raw York
I"ew York
Hew York
Few York
I^ew York
ITevr York
ITew York
He'-' York
ITew Y'ork
Fe'.v Y'ork
The Minutes of these neetings are in the Deputy's files.
9732
Minutes of ^^'eetings. Briefs and Excerpts
AUGUST 22, 1933, IJEETING HELD AT 11 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY, AT
10:30 A.M. Briefs and excerpts from K'inutes. (Ref. Deputy's Files in
Sec-. 2) .
There'were present, representing the Industry, Messrs. Robert Haig,
Roger Williams, Joseph Haag, Jr., A. B. Homer - representing S. W. Wakc-
man, H. G. Smith, and C. C. Knerr (Acting Secretary). Mr. ¥. H.
Gerhauser ipas absent.
Mr. Robert Kaig was asked to act as Temporary Chairman. This he
agreed to do and thereupon asked for nomination for Chairman.
Mr. Roger Williams nominated H. G. Smiith and A. B. Homer seconded
the nomination. There being no further nominations, a vote was called
and Mr. H. G. Smith was ^jxianimously elected Chairman of the Code
Committee.
The Chairm.an then outlined briefly the visit he and Mr. Joseph 'Hrriag
had with the NRA office in Washington last Friday. He stated that the
question of election, of comiraittees under both sets of by-lav;s was '
discussed with Mr. Farnsworth and Mr. Whiteside and upon request a
supplemental letter was written stating how the elections had been
conducted, which letter was approved by them.
Mr. Smiith reported his telephone conversation with Mr. Farnsworth
yesterday and 'stated that Mr. Farnsworth had told him that a Mr. Davis,
one of the Deputy Commissioners, has been assigned to the' administra-
tion of the shipbuilding and shiprepairing code. Mr. Davis was in-
troduced to Mr. Staith over the phone and stated that the. recommenda-
tions for the Presiden' s Committee of Three had gone in and they were
awaiting approval of same, which he anticipated would be very prompt.
He informed Mr. Smith that he thought it advisable to have a meeting
of the Code Committee at the earlist practicable date in order to take
up matters now pending. A m^eeting was set for Monday morning August 28,
1933 at 10 a.m. in the offices of the NRA.
Mr. Sm.ith stated that in the talk he and Mr. Haag had with Mr.
Farnsworth, the objections set forth by the Administrator were minor
ones and that the tiio principal objections were; 1. "A violation of
the by-laws shall be considered a violation of the code". 2. The
10,000 limit on time and m.aterial work.
Question arose as to classification of vessels owned by the
Shipping Board and it v/as decided that these vessels should be classed
as merchant vessels and come under the code.
Mr. Smith reported that the Brewer Dry Dock had filed a protest
with the AdmanistrafOr^n the shiprepairing by-laws.
The committee had before it request for exceptions from the West
Coast and certain East Coast yards wherein they requested that they be
permitted to operate their yards without putting in the wage increase
9732
~76~
called for in the code "because of the fact that they had maintained
their wage schedules at high rates during the depression. This is a
matter which will he taken up in Washington on Monday next.
Frotest hy the Steamship Owners against the "by-laws-will be one' .•'
of the questions' tc'be takfen up with the Adm.inistrator on Monday next.
Protest from Condenser Service & Engineering Company, paragraph
34 and 35 of the Shiprepairing By-laws, will, "be ' taken up with the
Administrator on Monday next. ' ..
Memorandum for Mr. Korndorff calling attention to the proposal to
"be incorporated in the Steamship Owners' Code a clause prohibiting
construction of new merchant tonnage during the life of the Recovery
Act will be discussed cnrefully when their code comes up for a hearing.
Letter of Augusl; 18th froffi the Maryland Dry Dqck Companj'^ asking
interpretation of "casual and incidental labor" vms discussed and_
while it was thought the yard should use its own judgment as the code
was very clear on this, Mr. Smith will talk the matter over with
Mr. Brown.
AUGUST 28, 1933, MEETING HELD AT WASHINGTON , D. C. , AT 10:00
A.M. Briefs and excerpts from. Minutes. (Ref. Deputy's Files in
Sec. 2) .
This meeting was termied a hearing, although only members i.of Itite
Shipbuilding and Shipreijairing Industry Committee (Code Committee),
were present. • -There were present, representing the Industry, Messrs.
H. Gerrish Sm.it'h', Chairman; Roger Williams; 'E. M. Secrest, Secretary
of Great Lakes' Shipbuilding and Repair Association; Joseph Hang, Jr.;
Robert Haig, and 3. "W. Wa'keman represented by A. B. Homer ;^ representing
the Administration, J . S. McDonagh; R. L. Hague, and Captain Henry
Williams. •
It was conducted by Mr. William H. Davis, Deputy. Mr. H. Gerrish
Smith was duly elected Chairman of the Code Committee and Mr. C. C.
Kneer was elected Secretary and Treasurer. . . , .
Extended consideration was given the By-Laws, (so-called) of _ the
"Shiprepairing Division of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry",-
and the By-Laws, (so-called) of the "Shipbuilding Division of the Ship-
building and Shiprepairing Industry" which were submitted with the Code.
(Ref. "Volume- II ,■ Code Record Section and Exh. I and J respectively,
ApTiiX . )
It was agreed on Mr. Davis' suggestion to rename these By-Laws
"Rules and Regu.lations" , for the administration of the Code for the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry. It was also agreed that the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing By-Laws should be combined into one
instrum.ent and the administrative provisions of the By-Laws segregated .
from the other part pertaining to Fair Trade Practices.
9732
-77-
Application was received from a number of shiprepairing yards for
exemption from Section 4 (t) of the Code, wherein it required the employer
to pay for 36 hoiirs of work, the equivalent of what was paid for forty
hours of work prior to July 1, 1933. The matter was thoroughly dinonQcod
and conclusion arrived at as per the following excerpts:
Deputy Davis: Why is not this the action for this committee to take
— to sa.v that these requests are so wide spread that, to grant them all,
Vi'ould be a yielding of the whole effect of the code in that regard and
that cannot be done; that the Committee is willing to consider very
special cases of hardship but could not make' a ruling that will exempt
the whole shiprepairing industry, in effect, from, the provisions of the
second sentence of paragraph 4(b), because, gentlem,en, if we start
giving exceptions to the Code at this early stage, we will not have any
Code left in a month from now.
■ • Shall we take that action?
J/r.. lAcDonagh: I think it is possible, before we open this thing
up, that it will lead into a general wage discussion and .there arc many^
many raifiifications to this thing here and if you start breaking this
thing down — and I think you have some information on that from the
American Federation of Labor to the effect that that will have some
effect on the Navy Department wage scale — if you are thinking of
doing that I would like to have some of our people study it and present
their views.
Deputy Davis: Without having any views at all on the detailed
merits of it, I am sure if we tacitly said, without doing irreparable
injury, we should stick to our code and get it working once before
making exceptions at. the outset. ■
Captain Williams; It seems to m.e in the shiprepairing industry
there are very few mechanics who get the full 40"hour v/eek or even 36
hours' work a v/eek.
Iv!r . Smith: That is true.
Kt . Roger Williams: I move, Mr. Chairman, that no exception be
m.ade in favor of these applicants for extensions in the Code, from
paragraph 4 (b>) .
Deputy Davis: Any objection?
¥r. Smith: I will second it.
Deputy Davis: That motion is carried. Now, that takes care of
those things.
(Assistant Deputy Director's note: The particular provision of Section
.4 (b) of the Code referred to, proved to be very unfair in its appli-
cation to a rroiTiber of s'';all plants that had maintained wage schedules
.of 1929. It was particularly hard on the Pacific Coast yards, which
9732 • ■ ' • '
-■,- b-
ty ais;reement with the Unions hrd rraintained the, scale of 1929, through
the depression and up to the tlTie of the approval of the Code. During
this period the mnjcr shjpya-^.i; of the Atljcitic Coast, also the Union
Iron Works of San ^ti'rancibco and others had reduced wage scales l&fo or
thereabouts- The Code in regard to these, had "the effect of restoring
the wage scales. Howe^rer, in the case of ?.0 rep'air plants of the San
Francisco Bay area and other repair plants in the Portland Oregon, and
Seattle District, v,'hich had not redu.ced wa^e scales, this provision of
the Code had the effect of increasing their wage scales at least 11'^
above the 1929 rate. This subject will be set forth in more detail
hereafter; in the History.)
SEPTEMBER 6, 1933, MEETING HELD AT 11 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY,
AT 10:30 A. M. For the purpose of discussing Arlministrat ive Rules and
Regulations established by the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Committee. Briefs and Excerpts from Iv^inutes (Ref. Deputy's Files, Sec. 2).
There were present, representing the Industry, Messrs. H. G. Smith,
Chairman of the Code Committee; C. C. ICnei'r, Secretary-Treasurer of the
Code Committee; W. H. Gerhousur, Fresidsnt of the Great Lakes Ship-
building and Repair' Association ; S. W. Wakeman, Vice-President Bethlehem
Shipbuilding Corporation: Rogs^ Williams, Vice-President Newport News
Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company: C. S. Petersen, Assistant to the Vice-
President of the Nevrport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company; Robert
Haig, Vice-President Sun Shipbuilding? & Drydock Company; Joseph Haag, Jr.,
President Todd Drydock & Engineering Com^pany, representing the Admini-
stration, Captain Henry Williams, U. S. N. and Mr. Robert Hague, President
Standard Shipping Company, Consumer Representatives, Messrs. Joseph S.
McDonagh, Labor Representative of the International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers; W. H. Davis, Deputy Administrator NRA; G. H, Shields III,
Assistant Deputy Administrator NRA.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Davis, I assume you will act as Chairman of this
meeting the same as you did in iJrshington?
Mr. Davis: I promdsed in Washington that I would do something in
the way of getting up a revised form of rules and regulations for this
industry, - I am using that term in place of "By-laws'', because there,
has been so much ccnfusicn in the use of the word "By-laws" , between by-
laws of the Association and by-laws of the Committee, that I thought it
would be advisable to drop it in this connection and I have tried to
do that .
I told you in Vfashington that we would try to work the thing out. in
two groups of regulations, one purely administrative, and the other
regulations which really amiount to interpretations of or modifications
of the Code.
While we went over these proposed by-laws in Washington at 'our meet-
ing, I am obliged to confess that v;hen I attempted to revise them, a great
many questions came up concerning which I was not sure that I -understood
their purpose, that is, of the administrative regulations, so what I have
9732
-79"
drawn up here, we will go over, I think perhaps as we did in Washington,
by reading the whole thing over first and coming "back to it for dis-
cussion, paragraph by paragraph. Whether I have correctly interpreted
the purpose, I don't know, "but if I have not, we will try to work it out.
If , everybody a-^rees, we will just read the whole thing over, end to
end. These are only the administrative rules, and I .have included in
them ns a subject for consideration, both the shipbun Iding .and ship-
repairing plans, so we could see it all at once.
"The Ship Building and Ship Repairing Industry Committee (heroin-.
after referred to as the Code Committee) having been elected by the ship
builders and ship repairers and appointed by the President of the United'
States in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) as amended September, 1933,"
I have drawn up an amendm.ent of Paragraph 8 for six members of the
industry and four aTTOintees of the President, as we agreed to do, but
that has not as yet been signed by the President, who has not yet returned
to W-Ashington, but I assume it will be signed some time in September.
The Hules and Regulations as drafted by lv':r. W. H. Davis from the
By-Laws -fs originally _ submitted are set forth in the- KUnutes of this
meeting, beginning on page three. (Ref. Deputy's Files).
The sections and paragraphs were read one by one and discussed
extensively, all of vfhich is contained in the 130 pages of the transcript.
No finite conclusions were made, as the work consisted principally of
pre-oaration of these Hules and Reriulations for an open hearing, which
was later held on September 26. A Sub-committee was appointed to redraft
the Hules and. Regulations. A further meeting was neld on the same sub-
ject September 11, 1933.
SEFTSIviSR 11, 1533, MEETII;G HELD 11 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY, AT
10:30 A. M. Briefs and excerpts from I^iinutes (Hef. Deputy's Files,
Sec, 2) .
There were present, representing the Industry, Messrs. H. G. Smith,
Chairman of the Code Committee; C. C. Knerr , Secretary-Treasurer of the
Code Committee; W. K. G-erhauser; President of the Great Lakes Shipbuild- ■'
ing & Repair Association; S. W. Wakeman, Vico-President , Bethlehem Ship-
biiilding Corp.; C. S. Petersen, Assistant to the Vice-President of the
NeT.Tort News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.; Robert Haig, Vice President,
Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.; Joseph Haig, '''r.. President, Todd Dry-
dock & Engineering Co., representing the Administration, Capt. Henry
Williams, U. S. N. , Robert Hague, President, Standard Shipping Company, •
Consumer Representatives; Joseph S. KcDonagh, Labor Representative of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; W. H. Davis ,■ Deputy
Administrator Nra.
The Sub-Com.m.ittee, appointed at a previous meeting, redrafted the
Rules and Regulations and they were submitted to this m.eeting. A very
thorough discussion ensued, which is set forth in the transcript of 98
pages. The Rules and Regulations were agreed to in final form in pre-
paration for the open hearing that followed September 26, 1933.
9732
-sc-
SEPTEMBER 27, 1933. MEETIHa HELD IK THE OFFICE OF W. F. DAVIS,
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMJnSTRATTON.WkSKIlIJTCN, D. C, at 2:00..P.M..
Briefs and excerpts from Mirmtes ' (deference: Deputy's Files, Section 2)
There were present Messrs. H. &. Srnith, Chairman, S. W. Wakeman,
Joseph Haag, Jr., Robert Haig, W* H.: Davis, Henry Williams, J. S. McDonagh,
R. L. Hague, G. H. Shields, C. Winship, and C. C. Knerr , Secretary.
Mr. Roger Williams was absent. -
The purpose of the meeting was- to go over the testimony presented
at the Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 1933 on the Proposed
Rules and Regulations for admir. isterinp^"- the Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing Code . '
The Chairman explained to the Committee the importance of having
the Rules and Regulations put in final form at the earliest practicable
date and that it was the' desire of the elected representatives of the
Committee and of the Board of Directors of the National Coiincil of
American Shipbuilders that Deputy Administrator Davis seoure an Executive
Approval of same, as this action would tend to stabilize the industry.
The Committee also went on record, tnnt immediately after the Rules
and Regulations are in final shp.pe, that they should be sent out to the
Industry with an announcement that said Rules and Regulations have been
approved by the Code Com.mittee and are effective as of the date of
Release.
There was discussion as to the method to be adopted to handle labor
difficulties arising in the industry. Mr. S. f. Wakeman described in
detail the method apjjlicable to his plants for handling disputes arising
locally.
W. H. Davis explained conditions- iphich may probably have, to, be met
if disputes arise under the Public V-'orks Progr;am. 'Circulars Nos, 1 and 51
of the Federal Emergency Admiini strati on of Public Works (Rules Prescribed
by the President) and any plan formulated should have these circulars in
mind.
Mr. Davis also suggested a Shipbuilding Conciliation Board to which
the employees of the, yards would elect their own representatives.
The conclusion reached was that the industry members of the Code
Committee should submit a plan for handling labor problems.
Mr. S. W. l!fakeman was assigned a Committee of one to draw up a plan
for the handling of Labor Problems and to report back at next Code Com-
mittee meeting.
The Committee then began the consideration of the Rules and Regula-
tions together with testimony presented on September 26, 1933.
The Rules and Regialations are to be rewritten, incorporating therein
the suggested changes and then sent out to the Industry as being the
9732
51-
Rules and Zlegulritions adopted "by the Code Conmittee.
Overtime
The pnjTTient of overtime nfter eight hours work and T)ayment of over-
time pfter 12 noon on Snturdays was discussed. The Code very clearly
states that a rate of "not less than 1^ times the regularly hourly ratcc,
but otherwise according to the prevailing custom of the port" shall be
paid.
It was Mr. Davis' opinion that the Code is clear that the plant must
pay 1^ times for overtime beyond 8 hours and it is felt that if there is
no uniformity in a "port" that the real intention was that the prevailing
practice in each plant v-'ould be applicable. So far as overtime on Sat-
urday's is concerned, however, this is somewhat uncertain as any decision
on this matter must take into account not only past practice but any
change in conditions brought about by shorter hours under the Code Re-
quirements • On this latter matter Mr. WakemaJi is to prepare a statement
of fact. The Code Committee did not go on record as rendering any de-
cision upon either of these matters.
Committee adjourned at 5:30 to meet again at 10:30 A.M. Monday
October 2, 1933.
OCTOBER 2, 1933. MEETING HELD IN THE OFFICES OP THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF A!.;ERICAN SHIFiSUILDERS, 11 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY, AT 11:00
A.M. Briefs and excerpts from minutes (Reference: Deputy's files,
Section 2)
There were present Messrs. H. G. Smith, Chairman, W. H. Gerhauser,
Joseph. Haag, Jr., Rob-jrt Haig, S. W. Wakem.an, Cf.rl E. Petersen (repre-
senting Roger Williams), W. H. Davis, R. L. Hague, J. S. McDonagh,
Captain Henry Williamis, G. H. Shields, and C. C. Knerr, Secretary.
The Code Comnittee considered further the Rules and Regulations as
proposed by the Code Com'iittee with such changes as made as a result of
the Public Hepring in Washington on September 26th.
Mr. Smith raised the question as to the propriety of having the
Rules and Regulations apr^roved by the President of the United States so
as to become the "law of the land". Mr. D^vis reported that he had taken
this m.atter up with Colonel Lea and that it was thought that the Code
Comrr.ittee had sufficient p0T;er under the code to enforce the Rules and
Regulations as written and that. the approval of our Rules and Regulations
would establish a precedent. Mr. Davis was of the opinion, however, that
if the Rules and Regulations were found to be unenforceable that he would
again take the matter up with the Administrator to have them, approved by
Executive Order.
Mr. Davis then sugsested that 'the Rules and Regulations be signed
by each member of the Code Committee and this was agreed to.
The Rules and Regulations (Reference: Exhibit "L", Appendix )
9732
promulgated under the authority of the Code Committee v/ere then read and
upon motion ty Joseph Kang, seconded by P-obert H;iig, the following resolu-
tion was adopted:
RESOLVED: That these Rules and Sef-nilations having
been discussed and agreed upon are tnereby adopted.
A vote was taken by the Code Committee and all ansv/ered in the'
affirmative .
A poll was then taken of the Presidential Appointees and they approved
of the Rules and Regulations as adopted.
As Paragraph 8 (a) of the Code provided for a Code Committee . consis-
ting of five (5) Industry Members and three (S) members to be appointed
by the President and rs the increase in this Committee to six (6) Industry
Members and four (4) appointed by tne President was not approved until
September 2?,, 1933 it was moved by Mr. Robert Haig, seconded by W. H.
Gerhauser that a resolution confirming all of the previous acts of the
Comm.ittee be ratified ^nd thereupon it was
RESOLVED: That all of the acts and things heretofore
done by the group constituting the code committee,
pending the formal apriroval of the election of the
industry members and the aprjointment by the President
of the United States of four representative members,
are hereby ratified and confirmed.
A roll call was taken rnd all answered in the affirmative.
The mem.bers of the Code Committee were handed a chart showing the
organization of Shipbuilding -'nd Shiprepairing Industry Committees for
operation under the Code dated September 21, 1933. (Reference:
Exhibit "L", Appendix)
On motion of t-.r . S. W. W-keman, seconded by Mr. Joseph Haag and
unanimously carried it was:
RESOLVED: That the Committees appointed or elected
and set up on the chr.rt dated September 21, 1935
and attached hereto be ratified and confirmed."
Mr. Shields read a letter from, the Seattle-Portland Chamber of
Commerce (letter in Mr. Shields' possession) requesting exemption from
paragraph 4 (b) of the Code for certain yards in that area. As other
districts have asked for the same exomption ana -is such request has been
disapproved on miction of Mr. Joseph Hnag, seconded by S. W. Wakeman, the
request for exemiption was denied.
9732
h83"
0CT0B3H 9, 1933. MEETIKCr PELD IN THE OFFICES OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL 0? A^IEHICAN SHIPBUILDERS AT 10:45 A. il. Briefs and excerpts
from Minutes (Reference: Deputy's Files, Section 2)
There v^ere present Messrs. H. G. Smith, Chairman, T;. H.' G-erhauser,
Roger Williams, Robert Hai^, TT. H. Davis, A. 3. Homer (representing
S. W. ^akeraan) , Captain Henry "Williams, G. H.. Sheilds III, R.L. Hague,
and C, C, Knerr, Secret: ry. Messrs. Joseph Haag, Jr., and J. S.
McDonagh were absent.
The Secretary'- announced that A. B. Homer vjas present today re-
presenting S. TT. '-''akeman.
North and South Dividinf?: Line
Mr. Davis asked the status of this subject and it vxas announced that
the Chairman was gettin.g data together and the subject vras left open to be
discussed at a future, meeting. - . .
"JTatchmen' s Force'
The question of hours of labor for ■vvatclimen v^ras discussed and
Mr. Davis agreed to take in hand the vri.ting. of -sorae- -c-lause to cover this
class of '.7orkra*en for consideration at a subsequent Code Committee
meeting.
Protection for Handling Labor Disputes
This question V7as discussed at length as to t^hat kind of an or-
ganization should be set up to handle disputes within' the industry. The
Code Committee' 'has 'before it, at the present time, two suggestions from
members of the industr'^ and one suggestion from Mr. Joseph Franklin.
The various ^lans will be considered and discussed at a later meeting.
Col-'jmbia River Shipbuilders and Shipre-oairers Association
This association asked exemption from putting in the wage increases
required under' the shipbuilders code. Exemptions from various sections of
the country had been previously requested and had been denied and it was
felt by the code committee tha't the request from this association should
also be denied and the Chairman was inr.'tructed to so inform them.
The Chairman was also instructed to v/rite to C. T. 7iley, Chair-
man of the Seattle District, informing him that the request had been
denied but that he. should investigate the matter further as to feasi-
bility of grajitihg them ah exem'otion, and transmit his recommendations
to the Code Committee.
Portland Shipbuilding Co. . -. ■
Erickson and Klep
Astoria Marine Construction Co« ' ' . ' •
This wa's a request similar to the Col-umbia River Shipbuilders' and
Shiprepairers Association and it /./as moved that the same action be taken
in regard to' this request.
9732
That is, corainon lafcor must be paid not less than forty~five cents an
hout and all lahor in the higher "brackets not less than 11-1/9 percent
increase over the rates -prevailing before the Code nent into effect.
TTages - Charleston, Brunswick. Savannah and Jacksonville
The Chairman reported the complaint by T7. A. Calvin, dated September
14th with reference to rates of pay for shipbuilding employees in Chax'les-
ton, Brunsv/ick, Savannah and Jacksonville. It wp.s stated that shortly
after the shipbuilders code v/as put into effect a question arose in .ne
South Atlantic Section of the countr-'-, as vrell as from various other
sections of the country, with reference to rates of pay in their respect-
ive localities, and the Code Committee ruled that no exceptions could be
granted.
It was moved that I;Ir. Smith advise Mr. Calvin of this decision and
that the rates prescribed by the Code should be put into effect.
Overtime Pay for Saturday Af t e moons
Labor Complaint He: United Dvy Docks &
Todd Dry Docks, Hew York Area
Mr. W. A, Calvin in a letter dated September 19th complained that
the aforesaid tjlants were employing their men more than the hours called
for by the code and further a complaint was filed that certain men were
in the employ of both companies.
Marietta Manufacturing Company
The Chairman announced he had forwa,rded the telegram of September
25th from C, L. Jarrett charging that this company was violating code
provisions and paying a minimum v/age of twenty-five cents per hour,
eight hours per da^r, seven days per v.'eek and that he had received a lett-
er of October 5th from the company informing him that the charge was true,
but that they rrere fulfilling a contract on which bids were opened on April
6th and that the work carried no profit and that the contract provided for
work on SundajT's and Holidays and tliat it carries liquidated damages of
$1,000 per day for non-deliverer. The committee considered the circumstances
and it was the opinion of the code committee tli^t the companj'- was in an
unfortunate situation, but that the code had to be comiplicd witji.
OCTOBER 25, 1933. IvIESTIIvTG HELD IK THE OEPICES OP THE MTIONAL COUNCIL
, AT 35 00 P. M.
Files, Section 2)
OP AJvIERICAN SHIPBUILDERS m ill 3R0ADV;AY,MEU YORK CITY,, AT 3;00 P. M.
Briefs and excerpts from Minutes (Referemie: Deputj'-'s
There were present Messrs. H. G. Smith, Clialrraan, W, H. Oerhauser,
Robert Haig, A. B. Homer (representing S. W. 7akeraan) , Roger Williams,
Joseph Haag, Jr., C. 17. V.'iley (by invitation), T7. H. Davis, Captain
Henry T7illiams, R. L. Hague, G-. H. Shields III, J. S. McDonagh, and C.C.
Knerr, Secretary.
The Secretary aitvised the Committee that A. B. Homer was representing
S. W, Walceman.
9732
Erev.-er Dry Dock C ompany
i.'r. Smith "t;roii£;ht to t'ae attention of the Cnnmiittee the fact tmt
the Brewer "Jry Dock Company., a plant of consideraole size in the 1-Tev/
York Area, filed rrter- v;hich v/ere telieved to te so lo^v tlx't they, are
in violation of the code as being "Oslov; reasonaole cost," He stated
that the rates are Icv/cr tiU^n the rates in effect oefore the code was
signed, since '"hich time there has been an. advance in v/pges of at least
17 ■_-'er cent in Rew York,
Mr, Davis cotimenteo. tlip.t the Coranittee is confronted with a ques-
tinn of .fact and th':'t it woxild he in order for the Comnittcc to ask
the lire'.ver Corapany for a statement of fact, v/hich statcnent should he
certified to oy a Certified Puhlic Accoiontant and thereupon the follow-
ing resolution was proposed by Roger 'Williams and seconded by A.E,
HoLier anc read as follows:
Wlr^lBEAS ; The Brewer Dry Dock Company has filed with the
Code Coiruiiittee , u.ider the -Trovisions of Section 2 of Fara-
j.raph VIII of the Rules and Regulations , a-^-Troved and ef-
fective October 2, 1335, schedules
I'TQTff, T:-:ER"".F0RE , E'n I? RT;SDL7EI): Tiiat a subcommittee of the
Code Goniiittee be a^v oiatcd to investigate these schedules,
wita authority/ to C'ernrand a.id procure from the •Corapcny an
immediate report n:rx: r'etailed statement of account, under
oath, s.nd sup-orte; b;/ a pv/orn statement 'by a Certified
Public Accoijiitant , . f rom the boo.'.s of the Company, showing
the Company's cost of direct labor and cost of materials,
if any, .anc- omcu -'.n njnount oi overhead as has been included
by the. Brewer Dry Dock Conioany in establishing the sche-
dules referred to, together v.''ith detailed statement, unaer
oath, and su orte." by .a sworn statement by a Certified
Public Accouritant, of n.ctual overhead expense a,nd volume
of business from tne books of the Cora"any over a period of
tiie -oast two years, and such specific information as the
subcomruttee m. .y deem necessary, or the Brewer Drj'' Dock
Compan3' iiia.y c'eem advisable;' and with povrer to fix the time
vhen such reports shall be submitted 'hy the Brewer Drj^
Dock Company to the subcommittee.
AliZ 33 IT F3.T"-ZR RESOU-rp^D; That the subcommittee si^all
render its re-oort, 3/fter investigation, to the Code Com-
mittee not l---ter thiin Monday, I-ovemocr 6, 19S3,
7?ork of Subcormittee of Three
Appointed by "_!ational Labor Roard
Both :ir. Smith and Mr. Dpvis outlined the work which h.ad been
done by the Committee of Three i;-i rega,rd to securing information on
hours and wr^es in the shipyards in order to rmZie a report, to the
Rational Lr'-bor Board.-
An unsatisf ctory condition exists Y^nereby:
973S
-85-
1. Government norli performed under the code on
basis of 3.3 Iiqijjts c. ■'■Teelc "^nd
LJ. Work ;,jerfor::ed in 'J-vy Yards on entirely
d i i' f e r e n c ho lar s ancl.
3, Worl: ^^erforraed laider the P. ?/. A. on a still
different "basis of hours anc, v/ai^es.
Statement hy Mr, Davis to the effect th^t unifornity of practice
as to vrorlrin;;^ hours is iraporta.nc not only in the shipbuilding industry
itself but vdth some other incustries ^as nade to the Code Comnittee,
v/ho concurred in this opinion. The Corjnittee of Tliree is preparing a
report which it is hoped to submit to the '.'ational Labor Board by
November 1st,
Hr. Davis reported thpt he hoped to have a report in such shape
so as to be submitted to the llationa.l Labor Board by the first of
November in conformance vdth the agreement he h-'.d riven to the erriploy-
ees' representatives. 'Ae was also of the opinion that a Public Hear-
ing should be held before the ilational Labor Board as to hours of work
and v/a!-,es paid and thst the com;olainants be notified of the date and
invited to a-^-ear and present their cases and thrt industry could also
appear if they so choose,
Laobor ?,e -'resenta.tion
The question w.:,s also discussed as to how labor should be reipre-
sented in the administration of labor disputes ari-ing under the code
and as several other plans had been previously suggested, Hr. J. S.
IIcDon3.gh presented the following as anothe r method of procedxire.
"Por the purpose of dealing vrith all questions and com-
plaints arising out of 1-bor conditions in the shipbuild-
ing and shiprepair yards, there shall be established a
Kational Committee consisting of seven; one to be ap-
pointed by the Administrator of the IT.H.A.; three to be
selected by the shipbuilders and the shiprepairers ; and
three to be selected by the Metal Trades Department of
the A.F. of L. with the aiiprova.l of the President of tne
American Federation of Lfibor. Such National Committee
shall have authority to take up and dispose of all labor
questions coming to it from the employers or employees
of any shipbuilding or shiprepair yard, or from any of
the divisions and sub-divisions into v/hich the ship-
building and shiprepa.iriag industry may be divided,"
This matter is to be taken under a,dvi3ement.
OCTOBER 30, 1933. ilEETIi-G HELD III T.-T. 0"''ICES 07 THE HATIOITAL
COUl^CIL OP Aiv'ERICAN SHIPBUILDERS AT 11 BROADWAY, HEW YORK CITY, AT
10:30 A.M. Briefs and excerpts from Minutes (Deput;''G Piles, Section
2)
There v/ere -nresent Messrs. H. G-. Smith, Chiirrnan, Robert Haig,
9732
.r.67-
'.". K. Gerhauser, ,.. 3. Homer (representing S. W. Wakeman), Joseph Haag,
Jr., "■. 11. Javis, Ca-itain Henry '',iFilli?ms , 3.. L. Haii,ue , J. S. I'cDonagh,
G. H. Shields III, and C. C. linerr, '.'-ecretary. Mr. Roger 'S'illiams v;as
absent,
Coniicittee of Tnree
Appointed hy the :'ction--.l l£;,"bor. Boaa-d
The work of this corimittee v/as again discussed owing to the close-
ness of the date on -.'hich a reyort to the !'J";tional Labor Board v/as
promised to the employees of certain complaining yards, Iluch time was
given to the .nethod to oe adopted to hear the coiipl .inants before the
Labor Board after tne report jx?,s been submitted by the Conimittee of
Tlxree. It lias been sug^^ested that a representative of the employees
from each yard should a.ttend,
1. Hev^rescnting non-unionized '.nPDloyees
2, 5.epresenting.u)iionized employees.
The plan v/as discarded as it v^as the opinion of the Committee that
the men v;ho originally ma.de the corajDlaints should be the ones to speak
on the subject v/hich they had presented to the Administration.
hr. Davis stated th t Ih". Jolm Trey ha^-d gone abroad but that he
had left a letter covering his thoughts and tlia.t he (Mr. Davis) would
write up the report in collaboration \dth Mr. Smith and present same
to the H0,tional Labor Board by November Ist after vAich a date would
be set for the he '.ring.
Stateaients were made by memV^ers of the code cormittee setting
forth the necessity of hciving longer hours for both naval and commer-
cial work and further th t the wor?,: performed under PWA contracts
should be -oe'rformed under the same hours o/nd labor rates as provided
for in the code.
Delinouency in Filing Schedules
The Chainnan directed the attention of the Code Committee to the
fact that many shiprepair ya.rds , self-repairers a.nd non-drydock repair-
ers have failed to file, the schedules called for in the Rules and Regu-
iations. .
Brewer Dry Dock Company ' ■ ■
I.:r, Davis reported tliat Hr. Sauer iiad carried on after his meet-
ing here in i'^ev; York v/ith Ilessrs., Haig and Williams and stated that
Brewer Drydock, while desiring to furnish the reports requested by the Code
Committee at -its last meeting, nesitated on furnishing the information
desired to the sub-conimittee Y.'hich is called for in the Resolution.
They prefer to give it to Mr. Davis, Deputy Aojr.inistrator. The action
taken by Brevrer was understood by the Code Cominittee but it was felt
nevertheless tha.t the Coce Committee should '^r-.ve the information but
tlmt it would have to be kept confidential within the membership of
the Committee and therefore Mr. Davis suggested that a m.eeting be held
with j:r. GrjTiies and Mr. Sauer on the following day 7/ith a view to
9732
-88-
determining when and hov; the . inform?;,tion v?oiild "be f-urnished,
Ilmergency IVork
Tlie Chairman ag?dn trought to the attention of the Code Committee
a request from the McDona-gh Iron '/forks, Galveston, for an exemption
for Tror?:in£- men over forty hours. They stated they" had endeavored to
obtain additional vorlanen hut failed, and hence worked the men in ex-
cess of Code requirements. I.ir, Gerhauser cited a similar instance "by
Chicci£0 Shiphuild-ing Company.
After thoro-ugh discussion as to the possioility of. yards ahusing
this privilege, it ?;as agreed th ,t a form shoiild he dravm up embodying
thereon general regulations to cover emergency work, this form reqiiir-
ing certification from the managers of the pla,nt , and emphasizing the
absolute necessity of reporting on vior]z done \mder emergency conditions
- pointing out tlu'.t failure tq report is a violation of the Code and
subjecting the violator to a penalty of $500,00.
The form is to be dravm up and submitted to the Code Committee
for approval.
United- Enrineerin;: Company, San Fr8.ncisco, Cal .
Exemption, Paragraph 4 (b) of the Code ■
The Ciiairman brought to the attention of the Committee a request
from United Engineering Company for exemption to Paragraph 4 (b) of
the Code, stating that their rates had not been decreased during the
depression, and that if the increase prescribed hy the Code is man-
datory upon their plant and existing differential betvreen their plant
and other plants in the San Francisco district will be increased.
In order to intelligently examine this matter, request was made
through the Pacific Coast Dry Dock Association for wage scales to be
submitted by all yards in the district. Upon receijiit of these viage
schedules the matter will be presented again to the Code Committee for
determination.
United States Structural Steel Comp.any , '
I'iera-phis, Tenn. and East St. Louis, Mo.
Dry Dock Gangs - Emergency Vifork
m,uestion arose s.s to exemption for men empioj^ed in operating
docks, due to unusua.1 conditions, such as change of tides - exception-
alljr short intervals for boat to leave dock betv/een regular hours and
overtime hours, etc.
The working of this class of e:TOloyees is to be treated the same
as other "emergency work", and must be reported to the Code Committee.
Dry Dock Rates. City of Portland, Oregon
9732
Johnson and Cochr^-,n, Korfolk District
G'oarantee Men
The Chi.iman re-oorted he had circularized a n-umbcr of the plJ^nts
as to their interpretation of the vords, "gtnrantee men", and the
follov.'ini^ was read into the r:pp,rd;
"It is oxir under standing that 'guarantee men' as used.,
therein refers to men eiiTTloyed on or ahout a vessel as
a consequence of an unexpired guaranty or 'warranty, such
men's services "being engaged exclusively on the equip-
ment or apparatus to ?/hich the gxuiranty applies.
"In the general sense the term, 'g-uarantee men' has been
usually used to refer to those men accompanying and acting
as advisory engineers on board a vessel on which certain ^
equipment is still subject to an unexpired guaranty. Since
such men are usually considered by the Industry as being in
the saiiie catagory as ship's personnel, we believe tha.t the in-
tent of the Rules and Hegulations was to provide for a situ-
ation v'laerein an omier might 'oe compelled to carry out re-
pairs to the ship's equipment with labor employed, by the
guarantor by reason of the guaranty being subject to the
provision that re2:>a,irs, if any, during the period of the
gua.ranty, be perform.ed bj' the guarantor esclusively,"
T'nc matttjr will be gone over and smoothed up, to be presented at
the next meeting of the Code Committee for adoption as an interpre-
tation, and sent to vll members of the iJational ■ Shiprepairing Committee,
Shipbuilders Administrative ComiTiittee, and Local Area Chairmen for dis-
tribution to the yards.
Unearned Discount
In view of the Code and the ~.ules and Regula.tions saying nothing
to the contr.ary, and in the a,tsence of a credit bureau, it was felt
that a two percent - thirty days discount v/as permissible at this time.
The establis_"jiient oi credit terms will be taken in hand as soon as a
credit committee has been appointed,
".'aiving of .32-ho-'ar ?eek for 48 '-Tours for
Pattern I.iahers on ilaval 7/ork
The Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, in a letter dated October
23, 1933, requesting permission of the Code Comj.iittee to work pattern-
makers 48 ho'ors per week on naval work, in accordance with Section 3
(d) of the Code, all ?i?ith the object of proceeding rapidly ?/ith the
pattern v/ork in order to speed up v/orl: in the other departments in the
yard .
9732
Before grajiting the reojaest, the Bethlehem Coriroany is to precent
1 furtner statement to the Code Coinmittee for revieA^ at its next meet-
ing, a.s to the numDer of pat ternmalrers involved. If -oossible , the
statement is to jr^ive a pictvire of aov such exemption viovIll aj^ply to
the other yards 'lo'inj^; "a^.val work.
Repairs to Lit;:ht Shi^:^ Jo. 86
Interpretp^tion of "Da:/"
Second Para/;raph, Section o-A (l) of the Code
Mr. L. R. Lvciila:p asked for a:: iutei-pretation of T/liat constitutes
a day. As the hoiir of startin. varies in 6.ifferent plrmts, not only
in the various districts hut in the same localities, it v:as felt tlia.t
in the aosence of 'imif ormity no definite interpretation v/ill he made
at this time, hut if the question arises - to inform them to qo ahead
and aoide h;/" wliat they .ha.d teen doin/-^ in the i^ast, until definite de-
cision is made.
Standard Forma of Reports .
The Ciiairman reported that the coiTimittee appointed to consider
the stands,rd forms for re-portin£; shiprepairing and shipouilding statis-
tics vfas proceeding with their work and had accomplished something,
but was not ready to meke a report,
Firms not in.. Business of Making Repairs ,
"but who Occasionally Perform Such ^otI:
Self-Repairers (Z -.ilroad and S_tcaraj;^hi|-i Lines)
Attention was also ciirected to certain steamship companies and
railroads having shops c.oing rep?.iring to floating equipment. It was
felt tiic't all sho^Ts doing repairing to floating marine equipment vrould
come under the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code; a,nd investigation
is to "be :nade to get a proper definition of the meaning of the phrase
in the Code - "engaged in the "btisiness of huilding, fa"bricating *****"
to see whefner it covers such inde-,>endent companies, and if it does
they will he req\iested to file letters of compliance.
?732
-91-
NOVEI£B?R 8, 1935. MEETIIIG HELD III THE OEPICES OF THE NATIONAL
COUi\rCIL OF .W^CRICAN SHIPBUILDERS, 11 BROADWAY, HE:/ YORK CITY, AT 10:30
A.I'. Briefs and excernts from Uinutes (Reference: Deputy's Files,
Section 2)
There were loresent Messrs. H, G. Smith, Chairman V. H. Gerhauser,
A. 3. Homer, S. U. Wakeraan, Robert Haig, Joseph Haag, Jr., Roger Williams,
Cantain Henry 'Williams, R. L. Hague, C. H. Winship, G. H. Shields III,
»'. H. Davis, J. S. McDonagh, and C. C. Knerr, Secretary.
Committee of Three
(Appointed hy National Labor Bo^rd to Consider Wages and Hour
Problems) ■ • ■
The report of this committee has teen filed with the National
Labor Board, After considerable discussion Mr, Davis said he would
arrange to hold a meeting in his office at 8 p.m, Monday, November 13,
1933 with the National Labor Board; the employees who made original
labor complaints, members of the Code Committee and other shipbuilders
interested. This meeting is to deal 'Tith the necessity of having longer
hours for both naval and commercial work in order that the weekly earn-
ings of the men may be increased and a uniformity of hours to apply to
all shipbuilding and shiprepair work,
Delinqiiency in Filing Schedules
This matter was discussed ;^t the October 30th meeting of the Code
Committee and as conditions have not changed in the meantime it was
felt that some method should be adopted whereby such firms as have not
filed schedules could be brought in line. It was suggested that a
telegram should be sent out over the signature of W. H. Davis, Deputy
Administrator. Thereupon the following telegram was drafted and sent to
the seventeen local districts set up to administer the shiprepairijig
section of the Rules and Regulations.
"It is compulsory that every member of the ship repairing
industry file not later than November sixteenth with
the Code Committee the schedule or schedules called for
by Section VIII of the Rules and Regulations stop You
are charged with full responsibility for getting these
schedules in your district stop Please repeat this
telegram to every member in your district and report
delinquents imraedintel?/ to me sending copy of report
to Chairman of Code Committee,"
Method of Handling Labor Disputes
Mr. Davis called the attention of the Code Committee to the lack
of a committee within the industry to settle labor disputes. He cited
the method adopted in the Bituminous Coal Code as being an example of
what another industry has done.
9732
-92-
The Clmirmar. rerainded 'ilr. Davis that tr.-o .lernbera of the Code Com-
raittee had filed sUt-gested -ola.n.u and that a --ilan v;as on record presented
by Mr. McDonat.h urA b" f'lr; J. A. ?rrn;i;lin and that thr industr- had
this matter oontinvially in mini but t.i date had coiAe to no agreement
as to v/hether a.T,y _)lan would be suitable. The matter is still o-oen
and havini- the consideration b;;' the " ir.dustr" neiiibers of the Code
Committee.
i.Ir. Davis stat^-d that any ■)lan adopted v/ould have to heve the
a;Tiroval of C-eneral Hu:.-,h S. Johnson.
Research L Planuin,^ Re-'orts
IToith and South
The question of the dividin.. line for the shi"'buildin_; industry
between the h'orth and South v/as brought uo and iir. Smith directed tlic
a-ttention of the Administrator to the dividing- line 'established in the
Retail Code. T]-;e matter is left over for a subsequent meetin^;.
Emflr^^^ncy Work
The Code CormTiittee for several ::ieRtin,;s v/as confronted v/ ith re-
quests from shi'^building and shi irenairin . firms aslcin^^ for exemptions
in hours worhed due to emer^'enGy i.vorlr. It '.vas felt by the Committee
that some lettei' of instruction should be sent cue ' coverint'jC this class
of v/orl: and therupon the Chairirirn offered a. draft of letter and form
for ar.Tiroval. The letter r.'fis .^one over <".nd the following was adopted:
"The>r6 hr ye .come before the. Code Cormuittee numerous
. reouests for a.pr)roval of ejnerj,ency wor]: in excess of
the maximujn nmiber of worJcin.^ hours "~ier week pre-
scribed in the Code of ?Rir Com^ietition and Trade Prac-
tice for' the Shi-Vouildin.. a.vA Shi;"irepairin,_ Industry
in tlie United States.
"The Code Coininittee has not .-.ranted any .eneral
aiiproval of emer,,ency v'ork, and v/ill not do so.
Por the tiv.ie beint,, the Code Coimaittec v.'ill con-
sider soecial cases of emergency work, a.nd will
a-jprove them v;here t'le facts jiistif- such action.
It must be realizpd, however, that unless the re-'
quests for F-:orovrl of 'emergency v/orl: are strictly
liraited to unescapable emergencies the purpose of
tne plan v/hich the Code Committee is now ado;::)tiniS
will be defeated, ana it will become impossible to
introduce, aiiy flexibilit, ■ into the a'rolicatiov of-
these .provisions of the Code.
""Jver; i.iei.iber of the Indus'try is therefore urged
to c'vnfine the emer^-ency work s trice ""y to the min-
im'om ii:-.iit-i, and is required, in the event of
3732
e
-95-
emergency worl:, to submit a \7ee]:ly statement on the nt-
tached loim. Tliis statement is to show the mamber of hours
.v/orked per man in excess of the weekly limit, the necessity
therefor, ana other information requested on the form, over
the signature of an executive officer of your plant. This
statement must also be duly notarized."
The fox-ra -..ill be i^.-inted and 'sent out to all Local Area Chair-
raen, (See Sxliibit " '", Appendix, Interpretation rlo. 2)
Mr. Homer moved the adoption of the form and letter and the ■
motion was unanimously ^ppi-oved.
United Engineering Com^^any
The Code Committee had before it the request of the United Engin-
eering Conrjany for exemi:)tion of clause 4 (b) of the Code. This matter
was carried over from a previous meeting but in the meantime an inves-
tigation was made of this natter by cormTiuni eating v.'ith the West Coast.
The committee was in possession of the wage schedixles adopted by various
plants on the VJest Coast which reflected that most of the companies had
complied with the code in establishing the rates called for under the
code. The United Engineering Conpany re;oort shovred that no increase
had been granted ever what had existed before the code become effective.
It was the opinion of the Board that this company should be notified
to comply with the. code and that the Code Couimittee cannot reconsider
the subject - even a request for an exemption Uiiless they bring them-
selves into compliance with the code and in the event they do not do so
within ten days that the matter sh:^uld be turned over to the Administra-
tor. Mr. ¥akeman mo.ved and Mr. Gerliauser seconded that such action be
taken. It was passed unanimously. - ■- — -■'■■
G'aa.rantee Men
(See Exhibit "I-l", Ap^iendix, Intrepretation llo. l)
International Brotherhood of Boiler Workers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Welders and Helpers
Self He-oairers
(Haiiroads £ Steamship Lines)
Casual and Incide .tal Labor
973::
-94-
JMUARY 4, 1034, J^EZTIKG HELD lil OFFICE OF V7. K. DAVIS,
DEPU'lT ALMli;iS'xBA'j.'OR, NATIONAL RECOVSSY ADiaillSTMTION, WASHINGTON,
D. C, at 10:00 A. M. Briefs and excerpts from Llinutes (Reference:
Deputy's Files, Section 2)
There v/ere present Messrs H. G. Smith, Chairman, Robert Kaig,
Roger Williams, Joseph Ilaag, Jr., W. H. Gerhauser, S. ?/. Walceman,
A. B. Homer, W. H. Davis, Capt. Heniy Williams, E. L. Ife,giie, J. S.
McDonagh, George H. Shields III, F. C. YJaldron, C. C. Knerr, Sec-
retary.
Flan for Distriaution of Expense for Ac'iministration of the Code
Tho Cliairman presented a plan for prorating cost of adininister-
ing the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairin;^" Code v»hich plan had b een previous-
ly aiscussed ?i.nd approved by the Industry Members of the Code Committee.
Mr. Davis stated that if the plan I'lS-d been so approved he thought the
administration ';?ould approve same subject tj adjustment of coraplaints
that may come in from individual shipyards. Therefore, the plan dated
January 4, 1934, attached hereto, vas adopted. (Reference: Page 89
hereof.
Interpretation by Code Committee in connection vith negotiated p rice
above $3500. and $7500. (Rales and Regulations - Section VIII, Para-
graph (d) last sentence),
(See Exhibit "1-4", Ap;:)endix, Interpretation No. 4)
Approval of Interpretation as to those' who come under the Code
(See Exhibit "1-5", Appendix, Interpretation No. 5)
Interpretation - Marietta Ifenufacturing Coiiroany in letter of December 29,
1933 asked for ruling as to whether ma.chinery built in a shipyard shop
for another shrobuilder under the code or not,
(See Exhibit "I.-6", Appendix, Interpretation No. 6)
Repairs to p-umns & Dredge Equipment
(See Exhibit "1-14", A'opendix, Interpretation No. 14)
Interpretation - Section VIII, Paragraph (i)
(See Exiiibit "I-. 7", Appendix, Inter;oretation No. 7)
Certificates of Ccmolianco regarding Subcontract Work
(See Exhibit "1-8", Appendix, Intei-p rotation No. 8)
9732
-95-
Interpretation - Section VIII, Paraji-raoh (i)
•(Sec Exhibit "1-9", iVnjsndix, Intci-prctation Ho. 9)
LujED Sum Prices
Unit F rice 3 - Section VIII, Paragraphs (c), (d) C^ (c),
Separate Prices - Hv.les and Rogv.lations
(ScG I^xhiliit "I-S", Appendix, Intcrprctatiou Ho. 3)
Pailroad Shipreoair Plants Repairin;-; Their Ovm 3]quipment
(Sec 3xiii"bit "1-13", Appendix, Interpretation Ho. 13)
Port ni Portland Fates
Hcrreshoff Manufacturinr Comijany
Coicplaint of Suretea, Boiler Works
Under date of Gctohcr 13th the International Protherhood of
Boiler Maimers, Iron Ship BLiilders, Welders and Helpers complained to
General Johnson that the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation refused
to permit the Sare.r3. Boiler Works to finish vrork on the "President
Pierce" while the vessel -.vas in the yard of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Company and that furthermore the Bethlehem Company performed the work
on the boilers originally contracted for vjith the Zureka Boiler Works.
Tnis item was referred to the Cimirman of the Pacific Coast Dis-
trict, and the report received thereon indicated that the 3uroka em-
ployees were refused admittance to the decks but th^t the Bethlehem
employees did not comnlete the work commenced by employees of the
Eureka Boiler 'Jorks but that such work was cornpleted by the Eureka
Boiler Works after the vessel left the plant of the Bethlehem
Company.
Hewpcrt Hews SMobuilding: '?c Dry Sock Company
(AIHCPAPT CAFJIIEF. -„ "EAHGIS" )
The Chairman reported he had received a letter dated December 21st
from the Howport Hews Shipbuilding &. Dry Dock Cornpany stating that the
contract iime of deliver^'- of the aircraft carrier "Panger" is Ivky 1,
1934 and that owing to the operation of the Code, which reduced the
number of working hours per week, tne vessel cannot be delivered on
time and requests tliat. an exception be made in connection with the
work on this vessel in the number of hours of employment per week,
9732
-96-..
making the limit for cmr/loyces nn an hourly rat-3 forty-four hours
instead of thirty-t-,vo, effective xmtil tho completion of the vessel.
Ro,;;er V/illiaras informod tho Comraittee timt the niatter of delivery
is noT' 'before tho SeOi'0-+'ary of tho Ifevy and tiiat oenclng a determination
"by him as to the effective date of delivery this matter can he held in
abeyance.
Credit Terms
The Ciiairman reported the resii-lts of a Committee meeting held
in New York to consider credit tenns as provided for under the Rules
and Regulations. As this is a question w hich involves the entire in-
dustry'' upon motion of Rcgsr Williams, seconded hy S. :u Wakcmian, it was
resolved that the Secretary he instructed to circularize the industry
to ohtain the views with respect to the credit terms nromulgatod and
that heforc action is taken hy the Code Comiiittce ti"iat it "be dis-
cussed with the Steamship Ovmers.
Ijmcrgency Work
The Chairman reported v;e li£\d received from firms located in
various sections of the country nimcrous reports on emergency work
requiring hours of lahnr per week in excess of those provided hy the
Code and that the necessity for such overtime hs,s hee-.i certified to
"before a ITotary Puhlic hy an official of each comoany in question.
After discussion Mr. Roger Willigms moved and Mr. Robert Haig seconded
that :
The reports listed on the st3te;iient dated Januaiv 4, 1934
covering emergency v.'ork be laid on the table for future
consideration.
Code - Paragraph 3 (c)
Members of tho Code Committee stated that the provisions of para-
grap.h 3_.(jc); of the Code will Syroire on Robruar;^ 6th -^nd inasmuch as
the stage of conTOletion of the plans, ordering materials, etc., was
such that it would rea_ixire an extension of this exception to permit
the orderly flow of materials into the yard, tae following resolution
was moved by Roger Willioms seconded by S, W. Wgkeman, and carried:
Tliat it is necessary to the pi'ogrcss of preliminary work
on new naval contracts, upon which the rapid employment
of men in the construction of these vessels depends,
tliat there should be a further extension for a period
of six months of Paragraph 3 (c). Regulation of Hours
of Work in the Code of 5'air Conrpctition -and Trade Prac-
.tice for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry.
Code - Paragra'oh 5 (a) Overtime
(See Exhibit "l-ll". Appendix, Interpretation ITo. ll)
The labor rcproscntatives of the Code Committee presented a
9732
-97-
letter at tiiis tii.ie I'elatiiig to overtime in v/hicli it was claimod that
overtime siioiilc "be ;;^Daid on conunercial v/ork after thirty-six hours a
vreek. The m-ittor ',ms discussed gad llr. D:,vis, Deputy Administrator,
gave the follovin.- intenrotation, namely:
"That Gvertine is ::ot to te paid for the four
hours in excess of the 36 hours in any one week
"btit if> onl;," to Tdo paid for hours in excess of
eight hours in any one day."
This intei^Dretation was adopted vcoon motion hy Soger Williams,
seconded l)y 3o"bert Kaig.
General Ship and Zn;"ino '^orks
The Clairman re-oorted tliat the General Shri and 3ngine Works did
not respond to the request of the Atlantic Coast District Chairman for
certain papers pertaining to their "bid on Lightship #86.
Code - Paragraph 4 (Ij) ",7agc Increases
Certain shiprepair plants in the San Prancisco district have re-
fused to put into effect the v;age increases prcscrihed by the Ship-
building and Shiprcps-iring code because of the fact tlmt the prevailing
wages in those plants '^rior to the code v;ere already in excess of the
wages applying to other plants in the district since the adoption of
the code. Tvro requests for exemption by these plajits lig.ve been denied
by the code com'Tiittee and these plants have not yet comolied v;ith the
code.
The mptter was thoroughly discussed, but there was no decision as
to wliat action is to be taken at the present time except to receive
informa.tion as to detailed wage schees (schedules) in San Francisco
District. Part of this information is alroac'y available v^^ith the Code
Committee.
Shi-Q-Qing Board Vessels under Private Q-oeration
(Sec Exhibit "I-IO", A-rpendix, Interpretation No. 10)
Harbor Hates
The classification of Harbor Craft vessels was discussed and
it was considered tliat this is a matter that should be settled by the
national Shiprepairers' Committee. Papers were referred back to this
Committee.
Eules and Regulations, Section VIII. Paragraph 2 (c)
On bids for repairs to Barge Socony 219 "Jakobson cj Peterson"
and "LlcWilliams" companies submitted firm bids on job amounting to
less than $2500. and on Tug Socony 18, "United Dr;,' Docks Inc;.", "Union
9732
-98-
Engineerins Conpany" ?nd "Atlantic 3asin Iron Works" sutraitted firrn
liid-on job under $2500. and en S/S Antietp,m the Sun Shipbuilding
& Dry Dock Company submitted a, firm hid on joh amounting to less
tlian $7500. These firms were cited to the Code Committee as violating
the ahovG section of the Sales and Hegulations, In several instances
the repairer has ac'oiowledged violation and lia.s stated that same have
"been committed in error.
The Code Committee ruled that as this is the first instance
of such violation in each case tliat no further action would he taken
by the Committee upon these specific violations 'hut th?.t a repetition
of a violation under this section would subject the repairer to
liability of a penalty and that these particular yards should be so
informed.
Hules and Hegiilations, Section VIII, Para^'raph Z (c)
(See Exhibit "L-12", Appendix, Interpretation ITo. 12)
J. Larson, V/est Hew Brighton, S. I.
The Cl:iairma.n reported that the Hew York ajid Hew Jersey Dry Dock
Association load protested to the Code Committee that
1. Bates filed by J. Larson were brilow reasonable
cost.
2. That same had not been certified
3. Tliat J. Larsen had not submitted billing rates
for use of dry doclcs and lEa.rine railv^ays.
The committee was in commuaiication v/ith J, Larson both by letter
and telephone and to date J. Larsen has refused to submit any information
to the Committee.
Before taking any action as to rates being below reasonable cost
it is necessary tliat such rates be submitted over the certification
of the ship repair yard in question.
Tentative Plan for Handling Labor Disputes
Readjustment of Ho\irs, Wagner Committee
A tentative plan for a Lahor Committee within the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry T;as discussed for sometime with Mr. Shields
and later with Mr. Davis.. There was also discussion with Mr, Davis
as to the pending report of the National Labor Board upon the question
of uniform hours in the performance of all vvork in thf Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing industry. Mr. Davis informed the Committee that it
was anticipated that the report of the National labor Board would
recommend 40 hours a week for the industry but tliat such a recommenda-
tion would bo contingent upon acceptance by the industry of some plan
for the handling of labor disputes a.nd complaints. Without commitment
by the members of the Committee at the meeting there was lengtliy
9732
discussion of the tentative plr.n which devolopcd the desirability
of some' changes.' Hr. Davis offered to x^ewrito the plau to provide
for such ckarii^es and to send the revised plan directly to the
raembers of the Code Committee for their further consideration in
order that the Shipbuilding' and Shiprenairing Indaistr;,^ might consider
such revised nlan and decide u-oon tiie action they would take regarding
it.
9732
100
PE3EUAHY 14, 1334. ME^^TIITa HZLD AT 11 BROAIilAY , IJEYT YOK;: CITY, AT
10:15 A. U. Jiriefs and excerj-jts from Linutes (pLeference: Deputy's Files,
Section 2)
There rrere present, reioresenting the Industr;^, :;es3rs. H. G. Smith,
Chairi.aii, ilo,3er T7illiai/is, Hooert Haig, S. ^. Wakerarn, W. K. Gerhauser,
Joseph Haag, Jr. There Tere present, representing the Adnini strati on,
I^essrs. R. L. rlag-ae, Captain Eenry WilliaEs, (*) Arba B. Marvin,
G. il. Shields III, and C. C. Knerr, Secretary, i.a'. J. S. McDonagh was
absent.
The Chaii'n.-an e::plt.ined in considerable detail to the members of the
Shipbuilding and Shipi-epairing Industiy its status r/ith respect to the
setting up of committees to deal uith Trade Practice Complaints and
La,bor Coraplaints as provided for in the iianual for Adjustment Complaints,
Btilletin #7, issued by the IJntional Recover;'- Administration.
i.Jr. T/. H. Davis, under da,te of February 1st, nrote a letter to the
Chairman of the Code Com.mittee, stressing the importance of imnediateljr
fon.iing an a^jpropriate comviittee to haridle labor complaints, as in the
absence of such a committee the KRA nould be compelled to defer such
questions as do arise to the State Director of the National Emergency
Council. Thereupon the Code Committee took imder consideration the
formation of committees to hendle Trade Practice Complaints and Labor
Complaints.
i.iinutes, Code Committee i.Ioeting
After disciiesion, uoon m.otion hy s. W. Wa2:eman, seconded by Robert
Haig ar.d unanimouslj'' carried the following resolution was adopted:
Tliat a Trade Practice- Complaints Committee be organized
and set up to be comprised of the six Industry ilembers
and the Administration L'enber of the Code Authority.
Therefore, the members constituting this Committee are:
H. G. Smith, President, lla.tional Couiicil of American Shipbuilders
Roger YJilliams, Vice President, Newport Hews Sliipbuilding and Dry Dock
Cor.pany
Robert Haig, Vice President, Sun Shipbuilding c; Dry Dock Company
S. V. WaJccman, Vice President, Bethfelhem Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company
W. K. Gerhauser, President, American Shipbuilding Company
Joseph Haag, Jr., president, Todd Dry Dock Engineering &. Repair Co.
Arba 3. Iia.rvin, Adjiinistration I.icmber of Code Authority
v/ithout vote but with veto,
subject to review by IJRA.
In order to further the '.:ork of the Trodc Practice Committee the
Code Authority passed a resolution that:
(*) To represent the Administrator in place of 7. H. Davis.
9732
The Trade Pric'ice CoTTolnints Comnittee be authorized to
pet vi^o division,"!, -erion.-!!, o- local Industrial Adjustment
Aj^oncies or use existing H'-itional District and Local Area
Conmitteos or>ranized and fiinctionin.'r tmder the ShipoxiildiniS
a:ic Shi-orcirj-iring Industrj' Code.
Committee to Consider Lrbor CoraiDlaints
: inutes, Code Connittee ^'eetinig;
It \^as the opinion of the Code Authorif' that a committee should
be organized to handle Iribor complaints and upon motion oy W. H. Gerhauser,
seconded oy S. W. "iialcemRn, it ''^as resolved:
Th;it a Cou'iittee of Tnree be set up as a Labor Complaints
Committee -nd that Roger w'illinms, Vice President, Newport Nens
Ship-L)uilding a Dry Dock Company is nominated as the Industrial
Member of tnis Connittee, and that Joseph S. McDonagh is
recommended as a second laemuer of the committee.
New York Local Area Orj:2;''nization
Hinutes, Code Comnittee Meeting
"Tha,t the Chairman of the Code Committee be authorized to en-
dorse the letter of the Ne'-^oort "Tews Shipbuildin;'; and Dry Dock
Company of December 21, 1933, asking for an opportunity to
'"ork 44 hours a week on such trades as necessary for the comple-
tion of tho Aircraft Carrier RAKG-ER within the contract time."
•.Test Coast P.e.-u-jst for Sxcoption to §?500 - $7500
Limitation in Bieding
The Chairnrji '^eportcd that the shiprepairers on the '.I'est Coast
desire permission to quote foreign ship o'"/ners a' firm price irrespective
of the Rules ■'"nd P.efTals.tions '-'hen reauostid to do so ':'hen the ship is
not in port, r-s inauility to bid v/ill, in their opinion, divert the
^'ork to British Columbir- rs must of the vessels in question touch all
ports on the uest Coast from San Pedro to Vancouvt^r.
The Code Conmittee thoroughly considered' this situation and after
discussion '" .s of the opinion tnat no e-^ception could be granted and
that the yards on tne '/est Coast must adhere to the Shipbuilding Code
and Rules and Regulations for its administr/ition with respect to bidding
under Section VIII, Paragraph (c) of the Rules pnd Regul'^tions.
General Coniorences of Code Authority and Code Committees '.Washington
'."arch 5-^8. 1934
9732
"102-
This matter -vas discussed and unon motion of Roger Williams,
seconded "by S. VJ. Wakeman, it "?as moved that the 'Chairman "be authorized
to drai; uv a report on the condition of the industry and include there-
in the request for the same hours for the Shit)t)uilding and Ship-repair-
ing yards as e^n'oly to Navy yards arid that the Chairman should be
accompanied by at least t'','o members of the Code Committee to attend the
conference and in addition -enuest p'irmission for time to srseak at the
conference on oehalf of the Industry.
Committee of Three on Shipbuilding
The Chairrapin reported the status of the report to be submitted
by the Wagner Committee on the renuest of the ShiiDbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry for longer hours than those called for under the
Code, It is luiderstood the recommendption now -orovides for a uniform
36 hours per week for both naval and commercial work with a special
provision for 44 hours 'oer week maximum on repair work with a.n average
of 36 hours over a six montns pel-iod. It is understood that the pbove
recoramendfn tion is now before the President for pction.
Defintion for Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code
The l^TEA has before it a proposed Code for the Boatbuilding and
Boatrepairing Industry. The definition for boatbuilding and boatrepair-
ing is such that it is in conflict with the definition for shipbuild-
ing and ship-^ePairing and therefore it is important that a new
definition should be arrived at to shc^? mo^-e clearly the line of
demarcation oetween the two codes. Questionnaires have been submitted
to the Industry and f-rora' an analysis of same, definition has been
arrived at which is in close agreement between the proponents of the
two codes and administration.
Tvhilo the proposed definition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing Indiistry is not as yet entirely satisfactory to all members it was
nevertheless resolved: ' '
trhat authority is given to the Cnairraan of the Code Committee
to submit a proposed df'fintion for Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing to meet as closely rs possible the objections that have
been offered by various members of the Industry.
MARCH 2, 1934. ^ffiETITTG HELD AT 11 BPOAD^'AY, HEW YO^Y. CITY, AT
2:15 P. M. Briefs and e"cerpts from minutes (Reference: Deputy's Piles,
Soction 2)
There were present, representing the Industry, Messrs. H. G-. Smith,
Chairman, Roger Vallians, W. K. Gerhauser, Joseph Haag, Jr.,
Robert Haig, and S. W. Tifakeman; representing the Administration, Messrs.
A. B. Marvin and Henry V,'illiaras nnd C. C. Knerr, Secretary-TT-easurer ,
Messrs. J. S. McDonagh and R. L. Hague wore abs'^:'nt, Mr. P. T. Keresey
(Chairman's Stpff) was also present.
Industrial Relations Board ■ •
The Chairman reported thr. t he was in receipt of a letter dated
9732
February 21, 1934 from J. B. eaver, Deputy A', ministrator, Shiuoing
Section, vith reference to setting iin '-ithin the riduntry of a
Com<nittee :^or the handlinr; of l^bor disputes to be kno^-'n as the
"Industrial Relations Board". The Administrator su;';gests that this
Board should consist of six nenibers; three to oe ap"(^oirJted oy the Ad-
ministrator fro'i nominations by the Lrbor Advisor'- Board and three to
be apnointed by the Code Authority to represent Industry, and a seventh
nenber to be appointed uy the other six neinbers.
The contents of this letter '."are dispussed at length, and upon
motion by I'r. Rooert Haig, seconded b^ ilr, W. H. Gerhauser the follow-
inf': resoltuion r-'s offered and adopted:
"That the Industry set up an Industrial Relations Conmittee
consi^tin.-: of thro>- rep-^esentat ives of Industry, three
representatives of Labor, and a seventh '■■,ember to be selected
by the other six, --ith the understanding' tnat if this
Comnittee is set up, th.-t the lou^-;er hours and other provi-
sions of th.; report o-^ tlie Fational LPobor Board concerning
hours and 'vrges -elatin;^ to tne Industry be promptly approved
by such governmental agency '-s necessar:'' to make it effective,
and with th.i further provision t'lat the Labor Members of the
Conmittes be properly representative of the employees engaged
in the Indiistry-,. and
"Provided furtaer, that the plan of on-i'-anization of such •
a Committee be sunst ant tally along the lines of 'a plan -Iready
prepared by tne Industry and commented upon by I/ir. W. H.
Davis and Tvhich is in general satisfactory to the Industry."
Revision of Rules and P-egtilations and Code
The Chairman "eported that a meeting v^'as huld in thu morning ^rith
members of the Shipjuildini^; a-nd Shiprepairing Industry and the members
had adopted certain resolutions with the suggestion that they be
presented to the Code Authorit2^ for action. These resolutions v:ere as
follows:
Resolution Po . 1
"That action be taken instituting lump sum bidding on the
Atlantic Coast on steamship v/ork on a basis of Labor, Material
and seventy-five percent Overhead on Direct Labor, as a mini-
mum price, plus Drydocking, to- go into ef-^'ect promptly and
remain effective imtil such time p,s the Code Committee decides
other'-'ise. ",
Resolution Ho. 2
"That the limitations 'in bidding sho-m in the Rules and
Regulations under Section VIII, second paragraph of 2 (c) be
increased. "
Resolution No. 3
"That the thirty day -jrovision as to filing of rates be
9732
-104-
eliminated ■f-ora Section VIII, Paragrauh 2 (a)."
There '^ere referred to the Code Authority the above three
resolutions, in connection nith the Rules and Regulations and Paragraph
7 (a) of the Code. Action uoon these matters -'as taken 'by the follow-
ing resolutipn offered by Roger Williams and seconded by ■,;. H. Gerhauser,
and unanimously carried:
"".■K3HSAS The Rules ?nd Regulations for the Administration
of the Code of Fair, Competition and Trade Practice for the
ShiTDbuilding and Shiprcpairing Industry in the United States
have been violated v,'ith such freouency as to be detrimental
to the Industry; and
"WHEREAS There has been no conclusive action taken by an
enforcement authority; and
"■ifflEF;EAS The Code Committee has been informed by the
National Comoliance Director that the Rules and Regulations
are unenforceable and otherwise defective in many resT^ects;
and
"WHEREAS There seems to be a general demand within the
Industry for modifications and improvements
"THE-EEORE, BE IT .RESOLVED: That the Shipbuilding and ShiiD-
repairing Code be re-written with a view to including there-
in all necessary and proper features for its administration,
regulation and enforcement; and
"3E IT EIRTHER R'^SOLVED: That the re-writing of the Code be
postponed until immediately following the first meeting of
the Code Committee following the general meeting of all Code
Authorities called by the Administrator in Washington,
commencing March 5, 1934,"
Trial Trip Cre-rs
The Chairmn -eported that the following letter under date of
February 14th had been received from the Mew York Shipbuilding Corpora-
tion:
"We have transferred twenty-three. (23) men from an hourly
rate to a weekly rate to form a crew for continuous operation
and tests on the Cruiser TUSCALOOSA, as necessarj'-. ■ As operat-
ing Parts are finished this crew will be added to unc -r the
same arrangement. This .has oeen done with the full consent
of each individual man, all of whom have agreed, and their rate
is based on some margin above the hourly rate multiplied by
fifty-six (56) hours.
"It is expected that these men will work 56 hours oer week.
It is impossible to do anything else because qualified men can
not be obtained. This will be a nucleus of the crew which
will take the TUSCALOOSA on both the Builder's trial and the
9732
'Preliminary Official Trial."
The letter '-'-s d iocu<:;sed .-ina s the reniiest vrs reasonable in
that it is wholly iiaprrcticaole to carry on trial trixis '^ith the
coranlicated character of a naval vessel except by a minimum change in
the o"ocrating crerrs, upon motion by Hobert Haig, seconded by W, ;/.
Gerhaiiser it '"'as resolved and carried
"That exception may be made in the number of hours of
employment for employees of shipbuilders or shiprepairers
engaged in the conduct of preliminary and official trial
trips incident to the completion of ""ork on a vessel."
Extension of Provisions of Section. Sub-Section (c) of Code
For the record the Secretary read the Administrative Order 2-3
dated February 1, 1934 extending the provisions of Section 3, Sub-
section (c) of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code ivhich is as
folloT;7s:
Executive Order ITo, 2-1 A.
Paragraph 8, Suo-Seetion (a) of Code
The Secretary rer^d Executive Order No. 2-1 A, dated September 9,
1933, nhich is as follows:
"I have appointed the following-named persons as members of
the Ship Buildin^-- and Ship Repairing Industry Committee to be
established ps a Planning and -Fair Practice agency under
Paragraph (S), Section (a), as amended, in the Code of Fair
Competition of the Ship Building and Ship Repairing Industry.
Robert L. Ha.^e - Industrial and Consumer
Advisory Capacity
Joseph A. I'cDonagh ^ - Labor Advisory Cppacity
William H. Davis - National Recovery Admin-
istration Representative
Capt, Henry Vfilliams - Proposed by the Secretary
of the Wav;;''
"Please communicate these appointments to the persons named,
"Very truly yours,
"F?.AtJi:LIN D. ROOSEVELT"
Lightship Fo. 36 - Genrral Ship & En^:ine Works
Unit Prices - Government Work - Interpretation Vo» 5
9732
"106-
The Chairman reported his conferences '--^ith Officers of the War
DeiDartraent in regard to the Arrajr's request for imit iDrices on "bids
coverin^i^ repairs to equipment owned and operated by the (Quartermaster
Cor-os and United States Army En,<;ineers. It vps learned that the Army-
could not change its present practice v.'ithout reference to the
Comptroller G-eneral, and therefore, .the Array promised to refer the
Code Authority's courolaint to the CotTotroller G-eneral of the United
States for a rulin^^.
The Chairman of the Code Authority further reported that consider-
able difficulty '7as "bein^ encountered in enforcing its Interpretation
Mo. 3 or/ing to the insistence of the Army on having unit ririces
furnished and in view of the A^my referring the matter for decision to
the Comptroller General, the Chairma,n renorted that he hnd sent the
following teleg:,Ti;ii to all ■ Local Area Chairmen and District Committee
Chairmen; , ■
"Reference to Internretation iT\].mber three submission unit
prices stor) It is necessary to sus^oend this "orovision as
regards Government '"ork for the time being Dending settle-,
raent the matter between governmental dexiartments and
Comptroller General stoT) You riP.y therefore submit bids in
, accordance with sioecif ications furnished stop Notify, all
firms your district stou Telegram sent, to all local area
chairmen and district chairmen."
Upon motion by Robert Haig, seconded by ff. H. G-erhauser the
action of the Chairman Wn.s ratified.
Conflicting Code Provisions , ;
The Chairma^n reuorted. that a hardshiiD was being v/orked on certain
members of the Industry due to the difference of hours and wages
provided in other Codes in manufacturing materials which are a.lso
built in shipbuilding and shiprepairing yards _when bids^are asked from
firms operating iinder different Codes.
Executive Order of February 8, 1934 Relative to Rules and Regulations
for Posting or Sis-playing Provisions of Codes
The Chairman reported that the Code Authority had received
between meetings the above Executive Order and Rules 3.nd Regulations,
■Drer)q.red by the Administrator, setting forth the. necessary provisions
to carry out the -our-ooses and intent of said Executive Order. In
comx)liance with this Order and Rules and Regulations, Bulletin No. 1,
a co-oy of which is attached, was issued.
The Chairman called tne attention of the Code Committee to the
above Executive Order and Rules and Ref'alations governing the posting
of labor -orovisions and stated tha,t additional p-'-inted instructions
in conijec^ioij. 'yith -this matter are e.T.pec-ted fr9n^ the Administrator's
Office within a few days, at which tine the members of the Industry
will be informed as, to what document?; must be r)0sted. _ , , ■ .
MARCH 15, 1934, MEETIiTG HELD AT 11 BROAD'/AY, NEW YORK CITY, AT
9732
-107-
3:00 P. H. Brief n and cxcernts from Minutes (Reference: Deputy's
Files, Section )
There were -orescnt, rcTiresent ing the Industry, I.i-^ssrs. K. Gerrish
Smith, ChairrasJi, Roger Uillians, ',1, H. G-erhauser, Joseph Haag, Jr.,
and Robert Ef\ig; renresentin*-; the Administration, Kesyrs. Arba B.
Mprvin, Rooert L. Hague, Qp.rjtain Honry Vifilliams, and J. S. McDonagh,
Mr. S. ^7. Wakeraaji '7as absent. Others present v;ere J, B. Weaver,
Deputy Administrator, G. H. Shields III, Assistant Deputy Adminis-
trator, W, M. Lnu^rhton, and P. T. Keresey, ChaiT"man's Staff.
Ot)enin^-: of a Bank Account
The treasurer announced that it -r/ould be necessary to authorize
some depositary for the mopies received in connection with the
opera.tions of tiie Shipbuilding and Shiprenairing Code and thereupon on
notion of Roger \/illiams,' seconded by ¥. H. Gerhauser, it was
PJSSOL\'ED: Th.i.t ;in account or accounts be opened for and in
the nane of this Association with THE NATIONAL
CITY 3AHK, 26 Broadray, and that the said Bank is
hereby authorized to nay or otherwise honor any
chocks, drafts, or other orders issued from time
to tine' for debit to said accoi.mt or accounts when
si^yied in any manner in the name' or on behalf of
this Associp tion 'oy
H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman, and
C. C. I'nerr, Treasurer, jointly
either in an' official capacity or otherwise,
inclusive of any such favor of any said person(s),
and that the said account or a.ccounts be reconciled
from time to time by said person(s), or his or
their designees.
Administrative Orders
Pe: Resignation o"^ Tf. ?". Davis as Administrator's Representative
The Clmirman read the following order to the Committee:
9732
-108-
HE3IGNATI0H 0? ADMIKISTilATION i/HI.iBZH OF T'lE
SHIPBUILDING ASD allPlaSPAIJlING INDUSTRY :0;ii.lITT3E
70'R T;iE SHIPBUILDING AND SiilPiGPAIxlING INDUSTRY
ORDER NO. 2-4
Re: Appointment of Arba B. I/iarvin as Administrator's representative
The Chairman read the above order which is as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2-5
APPOINTiffiNT OF SUCCESSOR ADMINISTRATION l/iELfflER
3;.IPBUILDING AND SlIIPREPAIRING INDUSTRY COi/MITTEE FOR
TI-IE SiilPBUILDING AND SiIIPREPAlRING INDUSTRY
New York Local Area CoiUTiittee
The Chairman read to the Committee 'a letter received from the
New York Local Area Cliairman dated llarcOi IQth, 1934 in which was set
forth the reorganized committee in compliance with- a plan approved by
the Code Committee at its meetini^- on March 2, 1934.
"The CoraiTiittee is 'composed o'f the representatives of tlie
following named associations.
Joseph Hagg Jr. , Todd Dry Dock, Engineering and
.. ' Repair Co.
Francis 3. Bushey, Ira 3. Busi.ey and Sons, Inc.
LeRoy .V. Caddell, Caddell Dry Dock and Repair C^.
Irving D. Jalcobson, Jakobson and Peterson
Charles 3. Hallock, United Dry Docks Inc.
Representatives of NE/^ YORK AI^ID NET/ JERSEY
DRY DOCK ASSOCIATION
George E. Monroe, .fyjuo Engineerin.^ Co.
John J. Alexander, Alexander, Reid and Co.
Joan K. Ceilings, Turbine Engineering Co.
Representatives of INDEPEIJDENT 3. IPREPAIRERS'
ASSOCIATION
Andrew Baxter, Jr., Federal Composition and Paint Co.
Representative of tiie MARINS PAINTERS' ASSOCIATION
At the meeting held on March 5th the Committee elected the follow-
ing officers.
Joseph Ilaag, Jr. , Cliairman
George E. Monroe, Vice Cliairman
Joseph Haag, Jr. , Treasurer
LeRoy I. Caddell, Secretary
9732
-109-
On motion di 7. "I. 5er.iauser, seconded by Roger Villiams, the set
up of tlie Cciffinittee ^,s sliov/n above Vi'as approved. '.Tliile tlie Local Area
Com.nittee aslced approval by tlie NH4, I.'Ir. liields informed tie Code
Authority this was unnscessary.
L'.ghtship y86 - General Sliip and Sii,"jine lorks
At the Code Coninittee meeting- October 30th i/ir. 3.iields presented a
complaint filed by I. L. Snow and Gompaiiy on bid of G-eneral 3"aip and
Engine '^Torks submitted on repairs to Ligntship ii^SG, charging that the
bid submitted was below cost.
• Estimates v/ere furnished by t.ie other bidders on this job but the
General SLiip and Engine Jorks failed to furnish the information.
T-ie CTiiairraan reported to the Code Committee that all papers con-
cerning tlie bids on Lii^itsiiip -}36 under contract to be repaired by the
General Ship and Engine 7orks had been submitted to the Assist.?jit Deputy
Administrator on January 15, 1934 and that no information of any kind
up to date ha^- been received on t.iis complaint.
Mr. Sliields reported thr.t tiis protest was now in the Compliance
Division but as the contract is bet\'7efcin a government depsxtment and a
private contractor it has been referred to Comptroller General licCarl
for a ruling. Previously the Comptroller General had ruled that a
firm did not have to be a member of a Code to be eligible to receive a
government contract but that t.ey must, however, r'.fter receiving a con-
tract, comply wit., the Code pertaining to the Industry.
Revision of I^iles and Re "..ul at ions and Code
The Chairman reported tiat the Code Co!;i;nittee had passed a resolu-
tion on March 3nd laying on the table certain res:;lutions oertaining to
c-ianges in tie Rules and Regulations and the Code. Tlie tliree resolu-
tions were taken off the table and discussed. Tlie resolutions are as
follows:
Resolution #1 - "That action be taken instituting lump sum
bidding on the Atlantic Coast on Steamship
work on a basis of Labor, Material and
seventy-five percent Ovemead on Direct
Labor, as a minimwn price, plus Drydocking,
to go into effect promptly and remain
effective until sue.', time as the Code Com-
mittee decides otherwise.
Resolution #2 - Tliat the limitations in bidding shovm in
t.ie Rales and Reg'alations under Section VIII,
second paragraph of 2(c) be increased.
Resolution 7r3 - T-iat t-ie t.irty day provision as to filing
of re.tes be eliminated from Section VIII,
Paragraph 2 ( a) .
9732
-no-
Mr. H. L. "agu-e, tlie consumers' representative, stated tliat if sucli
resolutions were passed on to tlie Adiiiinistration in tiie ao-ence of liis
liaving statistical data, especially on Resolution -^1 , 'le, as a consumer,
would have to object to t'ae formula set-up. Lir. 'lague stated tliat since
tue operation of the Oode "lis hill for repairs ranged from 15 to 20
percent higher.
Mr, J. B. Weaver was of the opinion t'..iat the code should be amended
and rewritten as tiiere are a lot of loose ends which could be rectified
when the code was being redrafted. Mr. Rcger jTilliams in spealcing of
the resolutions was of the opinion that no action be taken on them but
p<"ick to the provisions of the'code until the code is rewritten and that
i» should be rewritten immediately.
Mr. Gernauser suggested that a subcommittee of the 3ode Committee
be appointed to amend the code and he tiierefore made the following
motion:
"That tlie Ciiairman be- empowered to appoint a coraiTiittee
to work with the Administra.tion representatives in re-
drafting the code, taking into account the three resolu-
tions tabled at the meeting of March 2nd. , together with
all the matters which have been discussed from time to
time and v^nicn should be considered in connection with'
redrafting t.ae code and further that the Chairman be
authorized to employ Counsel if found necessary."
Motion was seconded by Roger Williams and carried and the Chairman
announced he would make these appointments promptly.
Rh-les and Regula.ti^ns, Section VIII, Paragraph 2.
The CoiTiraittee again took u;o discussion of Resolution -'fS tabled at
the Code Meeting of March 2nd, and after di ?ci4.ssi jn, Mr. Roger Williams
moved, seconded by Mr. Robert haig: .
That the thirty (30) days notice requirement for the
filing of sc-iedules of Billing Ra.tes ■;xnder Section VIII,
Paragraph 2 of the Rales and Re^^ulations be rescinded.
All members voted in favor of tnis resolution and the industry
will be notified accordingly.
Industrial Relations Committee
The Cuairman called to the attention of the Committee a letter
dated Marcn 10th from J. B. Weaver, Deputy Adjninistrator, in response
to a letter of March 2nd, 1934, from tae C'de Coa.httee, relative to
the set-up of an Industrial Relations Coinmittee. Taese letters were
as follows:
9732
-Ill"
March 2nd, 1934.
"Dear Sir;
T-ie Code Authority of t.ie Shiphuildin^ and Shiprepairing Industry
at a meeting held this day, by magority vote, passed the following reso-
lution:
'That the Industry set up an Industrial Relations CoiTOnittee con-
sistinj: of t'lree re jresentatives of Industry, three, representa-
tives of Labor, and a seventh member to be selected by the
otner six, vvith t^ie understandint^ that if this Com-uittee is set
up, that the loni2:er hours and other provisions of the report
of the National Labor Board concerning hours' and wages relating
to the Industry be promptly approved oy such governinental agency
as necessary to make it effective, and with the further provi-
sioi t-iat the Labor Members of the Cominittee be properly repre-
sentative of the employees en_,aged in the Industry, and
Provided furtiier, t.iat the plan of organization of such a
ComiTiittee be substantially along the lines of a plan already
prepared by the Industry and commented upon by Mr. 1. H. Davis
and whicxi is in general satisfactory to the Industry.'
Under the conditions outlined, the Code Authority is prepared to
appoint the Industry membe.rs of the Comnittee.
Sometime ago the Industry outlined a proposed plan for the considera-
tion of Labor Disputes riich plan was submitted to and commented upon by
Ut. W. '". Davis. A revised i^lan to provide for a Coimnittee of Seven
instead of a Cominittee of Three will be along the lines of the previous
plan and is being prepared and will be submitted to you v/ithin a very
fe'.v days.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) II. G. Smith,
Chairman. "
9732
-nn"
7ASHir&TCi;, D/'Tr
' ■ i.?rch IC, 1934.
Ivlr. H. Gerrish Smith, Clisirmpai
Shipbuilding ant? Shioreoriring Code Coinnittee,
11 Broadway, • '
New York, il. Y.
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Labor Advisor]'- Board has refused to recommend the aT)pointment
of a man to re-oresent labor on the Labor Complaints Committee for the
Shipbuilding and Shi-oreoairing Industni^. Their position is based on the
fact that an Inoustrial Relations Board has been discusred and a Resolu-
tion has been pa.i-'jed authorizing such a Board snd that th.e^'' believe
this Board should be definitely established before they take action on
the Gom-^laints Comrr.i ttee. In vie^- of the i^rovisos attached to your Re-
solution authoriiiing end Industrial Relations Bo.-rd, the Labor Advisonr
Borrd feels thf t imdue obstrcles rre being placed before the setting up
of tiii s Board.
I find their refusal to a.p;ooint a man to the Labor Complaints Com-
mittee indefensible. Hovsve'r, I co pgree 'dtli them th->t the provisos
attached to the Industrial Relations Board set-up are out of ordier. I
went to take this op;oortunity to inform the Code Authority tha.t until
such time as this Board is established, v/ithout strings attached in the
form of MrovisoF, and enporerec to handle not onl^j- labor disputes but .
also broe.d labor Questions withoat rest:^iction, this office' v/ill not
consider petitions for exceptions, eremptions, etc. jTurthermore , it
cannot be expected that the Recover^'- Adjninistration v.'ill amend the Code
in order to clear up tlie hour question without such a Board being es-
tablished althouijh it is agreed that the question 'Till not be turned
over to this Board for settlement but rather 'that we will press for a
decision from the iva,tional Laoor Board and a subseauent amendment of the
Code independent of this Board once it is osta,blished..
Serious doubt has been raised in my mind as to the truly representa-
tive character of tho existing Code Authority''. This is evidenced not
only by the fact that there is no representa.tion from the shore shops on
the Code Authorit-^- but also from the fact that following a conference of
the members of the Industry located in and around^ New York at which some
immediate amendments were decided upon, the Code Authority determined to
delay action. Farthermore, the representation of the Gulf and Pacific
Coasts would not appear to me to be entirely satisfactory. The men on
the Code Authority representing these Districts do so by virtue of the
fact that plants subsidiary to their ma.in plants are located in these
districts.
It may be, of course, that it is impossible for members on the
Pacific and Gulf Coasts to attend meetings of the Code Authority. If
this is the case it vail perha.ps be desirable to decentralize in some
9732
-US-
manner snd five more loc£.>l autonomy to tli.^ different regions.
In concrasion it is my -ancierrtanding that a meeting of the Code
Authority will be called iminediatly now that the conferences are com-
rjleted here, to outline a plan of procedure. It seems desirable either
that the meeting be held here or thr.t I come to I'ei.' York for it inasmuch
as I believe it would oe mutuall"' beneficial if I could attend that
meeting in orc'er that the Indastr^r and m^'self maj' be perfectly clea.r on
pur future course of action.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) J. B. Weaver
Deputy Administrator.
The Chairman took exception to fae language used in the second
paragraph of the letter.
Mr. "eayer eivolained iiis position in connection '.Tith reouest of the
industr^'- for a longer 'vork i^eek . and stated that the lOA and -oeonle con-
nected -'ith it did not have tlie -jO'ver to push through decisions of the
National Labor Board. He ur^ed th-it the industry'- set up a Board that
CcJi act on exemotlonc, vage. rates, etc., and that a resolution should
be adopted somewhat alon~ the lines passed on Mrrch 2nd but v.'ithout any
limiting restriction.
Ro,:-er '.Villiains asked l/lr. T7eaver if ^''e set up this Board today
without an}'- strings attached to it vould it remove the difficulty in
getting a decent break on hours for the rest of the industr^"-, i.e.
straight 3o-hour reek for our industry and smooth it out for exceptions
to the working hours and v/hich v/ill "oermit Tei-'port News to finish the
"Ranger" which the government wants. Lir. J. B. T'eaver re-olled "It will.'
There was further discussion of the need for an Industrial Rela-
tions Committee with comm.ents by i/ir. Robert Hai", J. B. 'Teaver and the
Chairman.
On motion of i.h'. Robert Hsig, seconded by Roger 'Tilliams, the fol-
lowing resolution ?'as rerd and adopted:
"There shall be constituted by appointment of the Ad-
ministrator for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
an Industrial Relations Committee, to be comriosed of seven
(7) members: three (3) to be nomin-ted by the Code Author-
ity to represent the emplo^-ers, three (L.) to be nominated
by the Labor Advisor;- Board of the National Recover?/ Admin-
istration to proDerly represent the employees in the indus-
try, and one (l) to be selectee by the other six. "
Mr. Jos. Eaag Jr. was recorded a.s not voting, as the New York and
ioew Jersey Ei^.' Dock Association were not willing to vote in favor of an
Industrial Relations Committee -'ithout -oassing upon the 'olan finally
set up for such a Committee.
As the original resolution provides for three industry'' members, Mr.
9732
-114-
Hoger T/illiarns made a motion
That the Chairman of the Code Autaority be cuthorizec' to
to nominate the throe Indv^stry Leraber-j of the Industrial
Relations Comrnitiee. ■
Motion r,'L.p seconded by Llr. ~i . H. Gerharaser. The vote vas a.s follons:
Messrs. Jerha.user, TTillir^ras, Smith and Hri™ in the affirmrtive. Mr. Jos.
Eaa^';: Jr. recorded as "not voting".
Intertiretation - Thether a shio ormer is entitled to re-place materials
supplied by ei shiprepairer rrther than pay for such materials on the
basis prescribed by the Hules and. Re^^Llations.
The above question ^'as submittec to the Deputv Administrator under
date of liarch 9th, and -nicer date of llsrch 13th, Geo. H. Shields, As-
sistant Deputy Administrator informed the Code Committee as follows:
"Mr. Weaver is of the definite opinion that the tnaterial in
question should be charf^ed for on the basis of the Rules and
Regulations and does not feel that a yard is compelled to ac-
cept replacements."
Overtime - Interpretation relative to pa'jTner.t of Overtime after 12
o'clock l.Iidnight.
Interpretation - Permission tovork men additional hours on Commercial
Tork after '.'orkii'i=2: 32 hours on i aval ".'or]:.
General ShippinrT Cocie
"I'.ir. '.'.'eaver has asked me to inform you that ship companies,
if emploj'-ing rer:\ilar land, crei.'s for m.'iintenance and repair,
will have to abide 'q--'- the hourr and v.axes of the Shipbuild-
ing and Shiprepairing Code, but that m.aintenance men at sea
will be ^u.ided accordin.j to the clau'^e in the General Ship-
ping Code. "
!Durable Goods Committee
RESOLViD, That the Chairman of the Code Authority is hereby .
a.uthorized to cO;:tribute up to $500. tov/ard the expenses
of the DURA:';ls: GOODS C0i:iJTTE3 appointed at the reouest of
General Johnson diiring the meetings of Code Authorities and
Code Committees in TTashington r'arch 5 - 8, 1934, to investi-
gate and report on conditions in the DURABLE CrOODS IIvODUSTRY.
9732
-11 r>-
APRIL 24, 1934. liEETIlC- HELD AT 11 BROADWAY,
IJEl YORK CITY, AT 3:15 P. M. Briefs and excerpts from Minutes
(Eeferencc: Deputy's liles, Section 2)
Tlipre wore present, representing the Industry,
Messrs. H. &. Smith, Chairman, Roger Williai"ns, Joseph Haag, Jr.,
W. H. Gerhauser, S. W. Walzeman; representing the Adjninistration,
Hessrs. A. 3. Marvin, R. L. HagTie, J. S. McDonafh, 'and Captain
Henry 'vVillians, pIso G. C. Knerr, Secretary. Others present were
Messrs. H. N. r.iittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, and
P. T. Keresey, Chairman's Staff.
Mr. 'Vhittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, v/as in-
troduced by the Chairman to the members of the Code Authority,
The Chairman stated that Mr. Fnittelsey was representing
I.'r. J. 3. Weaver and asked if he had any messa^^e for the Code
Authority from llr. Weaver. Mr. Miittelsey replied that he had
none.
The Code Authority then froceedea to talcc in hand the matters
appearing on the ai^enda. . ,
Administrative Order #3-11. Aaendraent STo. 3, Hours in the Code
The Secretary reported that he was in receipt of a certified
copy of Administrative Order #2-11 covering a modification of the
Code in regard to hours of worlc. This mod-ification was covered in
Code Authority Bulletin 5, dated April Ifith, -copy attached, which
was sent to all interested, parties through the Local Area 'Chairmen.
;^;dmin^i_s_tr^Ea^i^ve_Order_jt^^^ - posting Labor Provisions
The Secretary reported that he was in receipt of a certi-
fied copy of Administrative Order #X-7, dated February 28, 1934,
v/ith regard to regulations governing the posting of labor pro-
visions of Codes of Fair Corn-petition.
4^Sillij-tJl§ii.''{.§._0?l4^J^^lii " Statistical Reports from members
of Industries.
The Secretar.y reported that he was in receipt of a certi-
fied copy of Adrainistrative Order #X-10 requiring certain sta-
tistical reports from members of industries subject to Codes of
Fair Com.petition
J732
-116-
Adinini.strative Order #2-fi - Application of JuttO'ii-Kelly Co.
The Secretary reported he war- in receipt of a certi-
fied copy of Administrative Order #2-*^, approving applica-
tion of Jutton-Kelly Company for exemption from the provi-
sions of Article 3, Section (b) of the Code. of Fair Compe-
tition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry, ap-
proved by the Administrator on March 1, 1934,
Administrative Order #2-7 - Approving Application of Ne\Tport
News S/3 & D/D Co. for exception
from the provisions of Article 3,
Section (h) of the Code.
The Secretary reported he was? in receipt of a certified
copy of Administrative Order #2-7 approving the application
of the Jlev.port News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for ex-
ception from provisions of Article 3, Section (b) of the code.
This order was covered in Code Authority 3-u.lletin No. 4, dated
March 23rd, copy attached, and it was sent to all interested
parties through the Local Area Chairmen.
li?.9J!iLiZs^rier_#'Tf^4n - Re: Government Contracts
The Secretary reported he was in receipt of a certified
copy of Executive Order No, f^n4^ concerning Government Contracts,
and contracts involving the use of Government funds. This order
was covered hy Code Authority Bulletin No. 3, dated March 19, 1934,
copy attached, and it wa,G sent to all interested parties through the
local area chairmen.'
Executive Order #fifi32 - Creation of National Review Board
The Secretary reported he was in receipt of a certified
copy of Order #fi'^32 covering the creation of the National Review
Board. This order was covered in Code Authority Bulletin No, 4,
dated March 23, 1934, copy attached, and it was sent to all in-
terested parties through the Local Area Chs.irracn.
Executive Order ^fi^Qi^-F - Re: Interpretation and Application
of Certain Provisions of Codes as they
may affect Handicapped Workers.
The Secretary reported he was in receipt of a certified
copy of Executive Order #fi'^0'^-F prescribin;?; rules and regulations
for the interpretation and aprilication of certain labor provisions
of codes as they may affect handicapped workers. This Order v/as
covered in Code Authority Bulletin No. 4, dated March 23, 1934,
9732
-117-
copy attached, and it was sent to all inlierested parties through
Local Area Chairmen.
Exc cuti vc .Or c.qr No... .'^^1 2- A ) He: iTational Labor Board ;
The Secretary reported he v/as in receipt of a certified copy
of Executive Order No. o580, dated February 1, 19S4 conferring; ad-
ditional duties u-Dcn the National Labor 'Board, and Ixccutive Order
No. oftl2-^, dated February 23, 1934, amending Executive Order No. ^580.
These two Orders were covered as Items* 3" and 5 in Code Authority Bul-
letin No. 4, copy attached, and distributed to all interested parties
through the Local Area Chairmen.
1^2il'^:tiX3 _2^lder JTo.__n5S(>;.A - Dol elation of Authority by the
President to the Administrator
for Industrial Recovery.
The Secretary reported he was in 'receipt cf a certified copy
of Executive Order No. ■■^•>'o90-A, relative to -delegation of authority
to the Administrator for Industrial Pecovery to prescribe rules and
regulations governing amendments, modifications, exceptions, etc.,
to approve codec. This order v/as covered as Item 3, in Code Author-
ity Bulletin No. 4, copy attached a,nd sent to all interested parties
through the Local Area Chairmen.
AuthQr_i_7^atioji__fQ r J2odc_ Authority to Handle Labor ^omjolai n t s
en 5cf erencc .anc__Ls,b_o_r.,i)i_spv-te_s
The Chairman roaa a letter dated March 30th, 1934 from
Mr. K. M. Sim-Dson, Division Administrator to Mr. E. Gerrish Smith,
Chairman of the Code Authority, which read as follov/s:
"Dear 'At. Smith:
You are hereby granted authorization to
handle labor complaints on reference, and labor
disputes for a period of sixty days- from date
hereof.
Within said time there shall be presented
a, complete plan of procedure for handling such
complaints and disputes to the U.H.A. for exami- .
nation and approva.1 by the Administrator.
Very tnjly yours,
X. M. Sim.pson,
Division Administrator
II
A cop:/- of the com-nronication was ordered to be sent to the
Industrial Relations Coiamittee and the original placed on file.
9732
-118-
Budget for Code Authority
The Chairman rf the Code Authority reported that at the
January 4th meeting of the Code Authority a budget was adopted
totalling $28,500 f*r expenses of the National Organization and
that in the meantime the expenses of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast
District Committees had baen reported as 38,470 and the expenses
of the Atlantic Coast and G-ulf Coast Local Area Committees were
$fi,511 or a grand total of $43,481, and that up to April 23rd
the Code Authority was in receipt of funds to the extent of
$21,584.
The Chairman f\irther rep(<*rted that the National Council
of American Shipbuilders had made expenditures from its own
funds far the carrying on of Code Authority work and that up
to and including March 31, 1934 had expended a total of $14,27f^.l5
which amount, together v/ith the amounts set up by the District
and Local Area Committees should be reimbursed.
In view of the funds in hand being insufficient to pay all
amounts reauested some method of proper allocation must be de-
termined upon and upon motion by Mr. W. H. Gerhauser, seconded
by Mr. Joseph Haag, the following resolution was adopted;
RESOLVED: That a Committee '•f Two be appointed by the
Chairman to audit the bill of the National Council of
American Shipbuilders; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the committee be and
is hereby empowered to determine the distribution of
funds in hand at this time.
The Chairman in accordance with the ab^ve rcsoliition
thereupon appointed Mr, Robert Haig and Mr, Roger Williams to
act as this Committee of tv/o.
Industrial Relations Committee
Thn Chairman reported that between meetings he had nomi-
nated Messrs. L. Y. Spear, G, H. Bates and J. B. Woodward as
the three members to represent the employers on the Industrial
Relations Committee uf the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code,
After the cfficial appointment by the Administrator,
Mr. G. H, Bates submitted hie resignation as a member and therf!-
upnn the Chairman nominated Mr. James Swan.
9732
~iiy-«
U^jcn raoticn of :.;r. S. T. ¥rJ:.onsn, seconded by
Hr, W. H. Gerhauper the action of the Chairman in the
selection and nominr tion of the appointees was confirmed,
T'hc Sucrotary then read the certified Adjninistrative
Orders Nog. S-8 and 2-13 coveriu£ the appointment of the three
industry nJcmlicrG of the Industrial Relations Coiarjittec wliich
reads as follows:
Location o/_ .'"If f i.ce ^of .Ii?-A''-i?..t'li5!:l. ■g-^latAo.n.s.^Comqi^ttec
PJ3S0LV3D: Th?.t it is the desire a.nd wish of the
Code Authoriti^ that the work of the Code Authority
he centra-lizcd, and therefore the headquarters of
the Industrial delations Cora.iiittee should oe es-
tablished in the offices of the Code Authority at
Eleven- Broad.way, JTcav York City.
This motion vas seconded hy 'i/lr. W. H. G-crhauser and carried.
^_ge_ S qual i z a t i o n
■The Codo Authoi'ity rueried Mr. McDonagh as to v/hat was
meant hy "wage standaraization" as it was unaware of any refer-
ence to the Industrial Relations Committee of a study on "Wage
Standardiz8.tion".
It developed that the reference to "v/aje standrruization"
was tho fifth finding in the report of the I'lational Labor Board
to the Executive Council in regard to rages and hours of employ-
ment in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry which find-
ing reads as follows:
"5. That a Board unon which employees and em-
j.'loycrs are eoually represented be estab-
lished to study wage problems which arise
from the establishment of the thirty-six
(3^) hour week provided for in Sections 1
and 2 hereof, a.nd that it shall be a function
of this 3',ard to equalize by negotiation any
unfair competitive inequalities in the v/age
rates that may exist as a result of the past
application in the Industry cf the wage and
hour provisions of the Code 'plus the present
application of the hours and wage rates pro-
vided for in Sections 1, 2 and 4 hereof.
9733
-120-
If or when tliere is set up in the Industry
an Industrial Relations Board approveci "by the
national Recovery Administration the foregoing
duty and functions shall devolve upon that 3oard. "
Budget _f o^_I ndus t i2^al_3 el_ay^q ns___C£im:^^
The President then offerea for aiscussion the "budget
prepared by the Industrial Relations Coinmittee in the amount
of ^32,000. The tentative figures as reported a,re as follows:
Executive Secretary S5,000,"'0
Stenographer i- Ixle Clcr^-: 1,800.00
Office :-:ent (TTashington, D. C. ) 1,000.00
Telephone, -oostLV^e, stationery etc. 1,200.00
Kliscellaneous expense of investi-
gations, etc. 2,000.00
' Stenographic and office expense,
and rent for seven rerional com-
mittees. ^.2l,poo.oq_^
' T'^TAL: 'zi2^666".66""
The Code AuthGrit7 in rcviewin.. the budget, item Toy item,
was of the opinion that the seven regional conmittees could for
the time being be eliminated and,, therefore, the 321,000 set up
in the "budget for this activity was eliminated from the discus-
sion.
In view of the O-ecision to eliminate the seven regional
offices and the establishment of the office in New York instead
of Washington the following resolution A^as offered by
Mr. 'i7. H. C-erhauser, seconded by Mr. Roger Williams, and
adopted;
PJSSOLVEr: That there be advanced from the assess-
ments already made o3,000 to defray the expenses of
the Industrial Relations Committee, it being under-
stood, however, that a "budget covering the expenses
of this Committee Y/ould be set up for approval by the
Code Authority; and
3-^ IT FURTHZR RESOLV^JD: Tiiat the Industrial Relations
Comnittee be and it is hereby authorized to expend such
sums as may be necessary for the employment of an Execu-
tive Secretary £vnd the defrayment of head office expenses
and the traveling ex-oenses of all members of the Coinmit-
tee including the alternate members.
3732
=^:tSi^
The Ciiairnan presentC''l for discussion the -'3:,-Lovs of the
Industrial Relations Coirxnittee ado"oted by the Committee on
March 28, 1934. 'These hy-laivs were laid over by the Code Au-
thority awaiting a further report from the Industrial Relations
Commit toe.
Strilce Situation ,?„t J"'.l.'.yitL^°i. JlS^l X9.^K .5.^'-AP-!i?iiA'l\^ .Comoan^
The Cj.airnan read a letter dated April 34L-th from
Mr. C. L. Bardo, President of the }lev} York Ship'ouilding Company,
officially re'iiestin." tiie Code Authority to request the Indus-
trial Relations ComiiiittGe to take jurisdiction of the labor dis-
pute nov/ existent at his olant.
The aduvisability of referring this labor dispute to the re-
cently created Indu'itrial ?x-lations Coi.nmittee was discussed and
the conclusion reached wa.s that this Coirtaittee was entirely capa-
ble of handli.if: it and, thereupon, Mr. S. W. V/aKreman moved:
"That the strike situation nt the IJew York Ship-
building Company'' 's plant at Camden, "'I. o. be placed
in the hands of the Industrial Relations Committee
for immediate settlement."
Motion v;as seconded b'>'' lir. Roger 'Tilliams and unanimously
carried,
I.ir, J. S. !/cDonag-h raised the oucstinn as to why this .nat-
tcr should be referred to the Industrial Relations Committee in-
asmuch as the national Labor 3oard v/as authorized to handle it
by reference from the Industrial Relations Coi.iiTiittee. Fu.rther-
more, he stated the Committee was not properly set up to handle
this cucstion -jnd he wishe;' tn be recorded, as the Labor Repre-
sentative on the Code Auth;jrity, as bein^, opposed to the adoption
of the aDove recoltition,
f'r, Wakemif'Xi asked -iir, KcDona^^ih to define "not i^roperly set
up-" and }'r, j.IcDonagh replied:
"Tilers is only one reason in not being properly set up is
because the office is not set up in ¥asnington."
As the Code Authority did not consider this a valid reason,
Mr, Ro^er "Williams then offered the following resolution:
)752
-122-
E2S0LVED: That the Chairman "be authorized to
telet-j;raph the National Labor Board as follov/s:
"Nev/ York Ship biiil din;; Cnirrpany has rcouested
Code Authority,' of Shiribuilding and Sniprepair-
in;?; Indus-try t-* asic Indu? trial Rcla.tions Cora-
mittee set up oy the Industry tn take jurisdic-
tion 'if lahor c'isputc now existent at the plant
nf the aoove c-^^ipany r.top Code Authority passed
resolution t'-icar that strike? situation at New York
Shipbuilding plant be placed in the ha,nds of In-
dustrial Relations Coiiurdttcc of the Shipbuilding
and Shi-orepairing Industry f^^r settlement."
The moti'sn v/as seconded by Mr, Robert Haig and carried.
CQ-tJ^.s -^Mo.di f i^c a t i on - Longer l^orking Hours
Tiie Code Authority, crignizant nf the hardship involved in
the Industry due to the shorter v/eek under the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Code than in the majority of the approved codes
passed the f ollov/in.^; resolution offered by Mr. S. T. lakeman,
seconded by Mr. Roger ^Tilliarns:
"R3S0LVEB THAT, 7r^{EHEAS: Enroloyment in the private
shipyards of the United State? is "limited to thirty-
six hours a v;eek on inerchant shipb^^ilding and on
naval coiistruction; v/hile employ.ncnt in goveriunent
navj.- yaras on nov/ naval construction is limited to
forty hours a v/cek;
WHEREAS: 3y reason '^f their shorter hours of em-
ployment private shipyards are placed in an unfa-
vorable competitive condition with government nav;.'-
yardus, so th'-^.t in man- instances employees of pri-
vate shipyards are leaving their employment and are
seeking eupl'i":!cnt in .yovernmcnt navy yards, v/ith
the result that such private shipyards find it dif-
ficult t'^ secure and maintain adequate numbers of
skilled mechanics and are confronted v;ith unrest
and dissatisfaction among their employees - a con-
dition that is largely responsiole for the present
strike in the shitjyard of the Hew Y^rk Shipbuilding
Company;
WKEI'iEAS: because of the restriction of employment
in shipreriairing ya.rds to an average of thirty-six
hours a woe: ever a p'^riod of six months v/ith a maxi-
niam of onlv forty hours in any one week and because
of the intermittent character of the work performed
by them the a.vers.ge hours of employment in such yards
is less than thirty hours a v/eek v/ith the result that
the same unrest and dissatiofaction prevails among
their employees as in the private shipbuilding yards; and
0732 (
-IS?-
THEHSAS: Records shov; that more tha,n ninety
percent of all cooes un-^ler tho 'J?J^ are on an
e'nplo:,Tnent oasis of fortj' hours a weeli or over
includin;^, substantially all of tlie cocoes re-^.u-
latinf industries that are cOi.TOetitive nith the
character of v/oric perfornied in private shipyards.
TH::~'m;~037:., 2^0*7 B"i' it laSQFrD: IL is the opinion
of the C:^de Authority for the Shipbuilding ana
Shiprepairing Industry that the stabilization of
the Industry, the elimination therefrom of xmfair
competitive practices and the maintenance of har-
Kionious relations betv.-een management and employ-
ees, recuires the establishment of forty hours a
week of eraployiiient throughout the shipbuilding
br;;,nch of the jsindustry and a-n average of forty
hours £i v;ee:.c over a, six months period ¥/ith suffi-
cient leeAvay to penr-it a ma;:iraujn of forty-ei^i-ht
hours of em^loy:nent in ar^ one week for the ship-
repairin^; branch. The Code Authority recoianends
im-uediate epioro-vil of the above changes in hours
for the Shipbuilding ^-nd Shiprepairing Industry."
The above resolution was una.niraously adopted.
Thereupon IJr. Roger Willis.ms moved and Mr. 7J. H. Gerhauser
seconded that:
"The fore;;oing resolution be transmitted by the
Chairman of the Code Authority to the Deputy Ad-
ministrator with a reouest for imiaediate action,"
Resolution y/3.s unanimously carried.
Pa_rai?:raph 3 .(_cl.q.f ..Code, - Turther Extension
The Code Co:-ni.iittce discussed the present status of plan
work, ordering of material, etc., for the nev/ navy ;orogram and
it bein^ found necessary to the nrogress of preliminary work upon
which the rapid employment of men in the construction of these
vessels depends that there should be a further extension of para-
graph 3 (c) .and thereupon I'r. .Roger 'r7iliiaras offereu the follow-
ing Resolution:
"That it is necessary to the progress of preliminary
work on new naval contracts, UT3on v.hich the rapid em-
ployment of men in the constnj.ction of these vessels
deuends, that there shoulo. be a further extension from
and after Hay 5, 1934 for a period of six months of
paragraph 5 (c), regulation of hours of v/ork in the
code of fair cora-netition and trade practice for the
shipbuilding and shiprcpa,iring industry*"
?732
-124-
The motion 7/as seconded by Mr, S, ".'. Wa.ceman and unani-
mously carried,
'L^A^^. .P.^.?;Q.tA<^® poj^Pt'iJT.^.?, J^.oJi'li 't t e. e
The Chairman a.nnounced that pursuant to authority contained
in a letter of April 4, Ido^: from K. M. Simpson, The Trade Practice
Complaints CcTinittee ?/as duly organized today but at the present
time has no report to mal-ie to the Code Authority.
Mr. Marvin drev/ the attention of the Code Autiiority to a let-
ter dated April 12, 1934 from K, M. Siupson relative to an Inter-
Industry Practice Relationship Committee to oe appointed to meet
with similar Trade Practice Committees under sach other codes as
experience proves to be suf ficientl;/ related to require coordina-
tion for the purpose of formul.cting fair trade practices between
such related codes.
Upon motion of Mr. S, W. Wakeman and seconded liy Mr. Roger
Williams the Trade Practice Complaints Comi.iittee of the Shipbuilding
and 3hipreps,iring Industry was desi-jnated as the Committee to meet
v.'ith such other Committees as outlined above.
Stratus of A^.?. yi^L®^_^^'l^SjSi\^A1:.°.^§..S£.t?£tA.Y.?. JiQZ^"i^
The Chairm£.n reported tnat the Code Authority is in receipt
of a communication from a shiprepairing firm as to the status of
the Rules and Hcir'alations and recuesting an interpretation as to
"whether failure to com-ply v/ith the re-'uirements of the Rules and
Regulations incapacitates yards in this area from bidding on any
Y/orlc covered by Bulletin >Io, 3, Executive Order IIo. '^!^^_ft, issued
from yo-'or office under date of March 19th, 193^^, so long; as they
fail to live up to the Rules? If they bid on such v;ork are they
liable to fine and imprisonment?"
In viev.' of the action of the Trade Practice Complaints Com-
mittee-in referring to the Co ce .Authority the ouestion as to the
legality of the Rules and Regialations anc the by-laws previously
adopted for the industry' and which committee asked the Code Au-
thority to secure a ruling from the Adininistrator as to their le-
gality, the following resolution was offered by Mr. S. 'u. Wa'ceman
and seconded by Mr. Robert Haig.
"That action on this particular request for inter-
pretation be deferred pending ruling as to the le-
gality of the Rules and Regulations and By-Laws and
be it further resolved that the inouirer should be
c« informeci."
The motion v;as carried.
5732
-125-
The Gi.airman iiiforace' the Code Authority that he wn.s in re-
ceipt of a letter from the Ingalls Iron iTorks dated April 3, 1934,
reruestin,:,. authority to wor'c forty hours a weelc on four barges under
construction in their yard nt Decatur, Alabama for the account of
the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Tlie Chairman reported that, no response had been received from
the ISIA in connection v/ith our letter of February 14th, wherein it
was requested that a La.bor Cor..plaints Committee be appointed and in
the same letter the Industry, nominated its members. The Chairman
informed the members of the_ Code Authority that this matter vras pend-
ing in view of the formation of the Industrial Relations Committee.
^T.iill -.'^J.ij?- .Q.^Lej'L?.
Tlie Chairman informed the Code Authority that he was in re-
ceipt of the following letter from the Industrial Eelations Commit-
tee dated April .2; l9o---: ., • . ,
"deferring to the reruest for exemptions to the Code
to cover testing and trial trips, referred to this
Committee for action, this Committee, after due con-
sideretion, has unanimously adopted the following reg'a-
lation as an exemption to the Cod^,:
'In testing installations, machinery and equi-o-
ment for ships, doc3c trials, and sea trials to
demonstrate satisfactory 'operation or contract-
ual roruirements, code hours may only be exceeded .
by employees on an hourly rate, v/here it is im-
practicable to do the v/ork with safety or to the
satisfaction of the customer's inspectors by the
emplojTnent of addition.al men, provided that this
exemption must not be used for tne purpose of dfe- -- •
creasing cmploynent, or for reclassifying cmploj^-
ees at a lower rate.
'If an employee on an hourly .rate works in ex-
cess of eight (8) hours in any one (l) day, the
wage paid '.Till be at the rate of not less than
one and one-half (l^) times the regular hourly
rate, but ottierv/ise according to the prev§,il-
ing custom in each port, for such time as may be
in excesr, of ei^ht (8) hours.
9732
-126-
'In every cs.se where code hours are ex-
ceeded hereunder the employer shall re-
port on a form to be stipulated by this
committee, all the facts and circumstances
of the case - and if the Committee shall
find that conditions hereof have been vio-
lated it shall report the employer as a
violator of the code.'...."
?9:£§-'[li'^.?!.®9:Se, San Francisco Bay Area
The Bhairman reported the status of the request of certain
yards in the San Francisco Bay Area for an exemption from the labor
provisions of Section 4 (b) of the Code. At a previous Cnde Au-
thority meeting this request had been denied. The matter was, hov/-
ever, referred by the N31A. to the Industrial Relations Committee and
under date of April 3rd the Industrial Relations Committee, informed
the Code Authority as follows:
"At the meeting of this Committee on yesterday,
the petition of certain shiprepair shops in the
San Francisco Bay Area, represented by Mr. Harrison S.
Robinson of Oakland, California, for exemption from
the labor provisions embodied in Section 4 (b) of the
Code, was considered,
"It T/as the unanimous decision of this Committee
that the increases in wage rates under this sec-
tion of the code are mandatory and that no exemp-
tion is therefore in order.
"Will you please keep this Committee informed of
any steps that are taken by the Code Authority in
connection herewith."
Emergency Work
Mr, Smith brought to the attention of the Code Authority
the large number of notarized reports covering emergency work per-
formed in a great number of plants. It appeared from the text of
the reports that a large number of them, while of an emergency na-
ture were more of an emergency to satisfy the requests of the con-
suner, rather than actual emergencies in the industry itself.
The members rf the Code Authority were of the opinion that the
matter should be restated to the Industry and thereupon Mr» Robert
Haig, offered the following resolution^
RESOLVED: That the Code Authority hereby authorizes
its Chairman to bring to the attention of the Indus-
try any cases which appear t«^ be excessive hours of
work and that the Industry must in the future confine
its emergency work to actual emergencies in the industry
itself.
The motion was carried,
9732
33PT3i,iB23 12, 1934, iffiSTOG WLL aT 11 B.^omVAY, NET YC3K CITY
3ecUon°^t""' "^""^''^'^ '''"'^ Excer;its from Minutes. (Hef. Deputy's Files,
C^.aiJ;'rV'-' P^"^^"^' i^epresentins tie Industry, Messrs. 'T. Gerrish 3mitl^
Cnairman, W. ... Geraauser, 3oger lillia.ns, JoseiDli "laa^, jr. and
^' "''Tv' ^®^^^^-^^^i^- 3. I. .Vakeman; representing the Ac^uninistration
..essrs Arba B. I.iarvin, J. 3. i/IcDonaga. Capt. -enry Tillia.ns. and
C. C. Knerr, Secretary-Treasurer, Those absent were Mes^^rs
S. w. iaiceman, Hcbert Tlai^ and Robert L. Hague. Others T^re?ent were
Colonel ,v. .7. Rose, Deputy Adimnistrator, Mr. H. Newton Xiittelsey.
Assistant De.-aty Administrator and Mr. L. C. 3rown.
Financial Statement
Tne financial stntements for tlie montas of April, May, June, July
and Aue^ast, on motion oi Mr. .--..raer, seconded by Mr. liUiains, were
approved and made a part of tuo official minutes.
Industrial Relations Com-dttee
_ Inasmuch as Colonel Rose nad bat recently been assigned as De-mty
Adimnistrator tc aandle tlie SaipDuilding and Sliiprepairing Code, the
uaairman outlined briefly the entire history of the Industrial Relations
Committee m connection with its set-up by Resolution of the Code Auth-
ority on March 13, 1054; tie plan dated March 16, 1934 and submitted on
tae same date for its operation; the appointment of members to the
Committee and subsequent events. The first plan submitted by the Indus-
try on March 15th, for some reason, had never been transmitted by the
Deputy Administrator to the Industrial Relations Committee, so that
tiere was seme delay on procedure until the olan which had been jointly
prepared by tne Industry and our Depity Administrator received the com-
ments of tne Industrial Relations Committee. It was approved by the
Coramttee on June ?lst with some changes. All o:' the caanges were not
acceptable tc the Industry but with a very few changes the plan was re-
turned to N.R.A. by the Industry with letters from the Code Authority
dated June 26ta and 29th, togetaer with a letter from a sub-comni ttee of
tae Industry to the Code Authority dated June 27th. No further comments
were received from N.R.A. until July 27th at waich time Mr. -. Newton
Whittelsey submitted anc.ther plm different fro.i the ^olans of June 21st
and 27th.
Subsequent events were as follows :-
On July 27th a hearing was granted labor by Senator Walsh, Chair-
man of the Senate Comaittee on 3duc;-.tijn and Labor. At ta.is hearing
Labor alleged labor abuses in tae private shipbuilding industry. On
August 2nd, Senator '.valsa addressed a letter to the Secretary of the
Navy calling attention to the statements made by Labor representatives
at tae hearing on July 27th. In tais letter Senator lalsh suggests
taat suiamary actions be taicen ^oy tae Navy Department to clarify the
wage rates and working conditions under which tae shipbuilding program
is to be carried out before tae letting of the next contracts? '
In the morning of August 9th, a meeting was held in the offices
9752
.138-
a
of tlie Assistant Secretary of t^-ie Kavy, 8.t v.uica there were ^resent;
As'-istant, Secretary ci.nd lils staff of Bareau Officers
?presentativos of t--OSi:
in L'aval construction
Hepresentativos of t.-ose -irivate s/iiolDuilders en jaged
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy w,as infirrned tift t-ie industry
knew of nc abuses in tne private sliipbuildin;^,' in-lustry an I that there
was no reason whatever for delayin^^ the opening of bida or ti^. plo-cing^
of contracts for new naval constiruction.
The morning .neetinj; was followed by a raeetin^, in the afternoon at
wuiC'i t'lere were ;^jresent:
Assistant Secretary of tie SFavy ajid his staff
Tv;o representatives from tne S_iipbuilding Industry
-tepresentatives of lT.il. A.
A representative from tlie Depart^nent of La.bor
At this rneetin-^ a proposed 3xecutive Crder, prepared by the Depart-
ment of Labor was presented to the effect that there should be a
special board appointed to reviev; shipbuilding wagos and working condi-
tions under P,7A appropriations as applicable to naval vessels — those
now under construction an-i those' for wl.icii contracts '//ere to be placed.
This meetin_, was adjourned without any final action but the same parties
reconvened tne following morninj, August 10th, together with repre-
sentatives of Labor. The proposed Executive Order vi/a' thoroughly dis-
cussed and the Industry iiembers present pointed out that the President
of the United States by letter dated Uarch 27th had directed all work
on Ctovernment contracts for s/ii-^building and shiprepairing to be per-
formed uniler the provisions of the Snipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code.
As a result of the discussion it was decided at this meeting that there
shoul I be a joint ineetin "^ on the following day, August llt.i, of the:
llavy Department officials
Department of Labor; and
II. R. A.
Such a meetin-, was ..leld and it was decided that instead of the
special committee discussed tne day previous, that t"ie Industrial Rela-
tions Committee saould proceed under its present set-up but under an
Adrainistrative Order v^iiich. would orovide for its financing by !'RA with
offices in Washington and witli six (6) meinuers inptea,d of seven (7).
In connection wit., taese meetings the following letter was
addressed to tiie Assistant Secretary of tne Navy by the President of
the National Ctmncil of American Snipbuilders, under date of August 10,
1934:
"With reference to tne conference of yosterday morning in
youT' of f ice as between the private s^iipbuilders engaged in
naval work and yourself and tne further conference in the
afternoon with lAr. Battle of the Departnent of Labor, and
the furtner conference tliis morning,
-129"
I wisli to .:iai:e tae following statement on be-ialf of the private
s/ii"'builders:
Tile siibjects lisciassad at our conference were tie following:
1 - A letter submitted 07 Senator lals'n presentint.;
certain statement <5 made by Labor before his Com-
mittee at a hearing on Jul/ 37, wi.ich statements
alleged labor abuses in the Private Saipbuilding
Indastry.
2 - An Induitricl .Ijlations Oon;nittee in the iii'o-
building Industry set up in connection with its
code of fair c-i.a-:)etition.
3 - A propc©! Executive Order presented by iir. 3attle
wl.ich would provide for setting up a Naval SSiip-
building Wr.ge Board to deal witxi wages and hours
under Title II of tae national Industrial Re-
covery Act and of Title II of t-ie Emergency Appro-
priation Act for tiie fiscal /ear 1935.
Tnese tliree subjects have been enumerated in the order in which
they arose for discussion , but it is necessary to fir-t discuss briefly
the proposed Executive Crder prepared by the Department of Labor. Tliis
Order, if issued, would give financial control over the expenditures
of fvmds for new naval vessels, bids for wnich are scheduled to be
opened en Augiist 15.
I call your attention to the fact tha,t it is necessary in the con-
duct of work in a private shipyard to conduct tJiis work on a uniform
basis of hours and wages if v/ork is to be performed in an orderly
manner and expeditiously. The proposed Naval Shipbuilding lage Board
would have jurisdiction over hours and wages that might be wholly
different from tliose prevailing under the Code and might result in a
wage and hour c-.nditian that would preclude the possibility of secur-
ing any commercial ?/ork.
?urthermcre, sucii jurisdiction would apply only during the ex-
penditure of the particular funds appropriated for this Fiscal Year,
while future funds for t le completion of the contracts would probably
be under Increase of the llavy Appropriations.
By order 01 t.ie President of t.ie United States all work' in t'He
private siiipyards, with the exception of a few early contracts placed
under P'.7A funds, is now being carried :n under a Cods of trade practice
and fair competition applicable to all work in process.
"It is necessary in connection with new contracts for na,val
vessels t.iat tae same condition as to "hours of labor, wages
and working conditions snould apply for all work underway
in a snipyard, whether Government work or commercial work,
and regardless of the appropriation under whicl; such v.'ork
is oerformed.
9732
If this condition is made to apply, then the only other
problem referred to in Senator Walsh's letter as needing
considera.ticn and v/hic'.i was very freely discussed with
you is that of en Indus '..rial xlelatijis Convnittee. From
the s-catemeuts made dj'' the I','e:.i'08rs of t-".e Industry at
the .neetinj yeaterday, I helieve you fully understand the
difficulties confronting the Inlustry in setting u"t an
Industrial P.eiatii-ns Committee of seven; three of whom
are Industry Members , three of whom are Labor Members ,
and the seventh of whom is to be an impartial member,
and for tne reasons stated to you we do not believe that
this bi-partisan committee will ever function satisfac-
torily and tl'j.3 Industry, has, taersfore, su^^^ested to
you, and ur^^ently renuests, that t.ils comiMittee should
be made up of not more than tiioe disinterested members
to be created by Presidential Order. ,7itu this in mind
we ask you to request tlie .Pre'-ident to extend the duties
of the national Steel Labor Relations Board to cover
dispvites and complaints arisinj^ in t.^e Sliipbuil linj In-
dustry, the extent of the responsibilities of this
Board for the SIiipbuildln-:5 Industry to be tiie same as
those prescribed by tlie President for t--ie Steel Indtistry.
/Ye believe tliat tue two dofinite sugi;estions made herein
will fully dispose of ti.e problems involved in the dis-
cussions in your office tuis mornint^."
On August 15th G-eneral Jcmson issued an Administrative Order which
has not as ?/et been received by tne Code Authority alt.aougli an unsigned
copy has been received -.TiLich it is presuined is correct reading, as
follows: (llote: The following is an excerpt of Administrative Order
2-21, dated August 15.)
"NOI, THSfffiPOfvS, I, Hugh S. Johnson, by vi'rtue of authority
vested in me, do h.ereby order that my previous orders of
March 26, 1934, and Ar.ril 4, 1934, whereby I appointed the
Industry and Employee Members, respectively, of the Indus-
trial Relations Committee for tie Snipbuilding and 3}.iipre-
pairing Industry, be a^'nended by omitting the provision re-
quiring the selection by the Industrial Relations Cormittee
of a seventh (7txi) member.
It is furtlier ordered that the Industrial Relations Com-
mittee be and is .xereby made independent of and not sub-
ject to the Jurisdiction of the Sliiobuilding a,nd S'aipre-
pairing Indiistry Com"nittee hereinabove referred to.
It is furtner ordered t.aat the National Recovery Admin-
istration shall set aside a reasonable portion of the
fixnds allotted to it to cover tne Committee's office ex-
penses, traveling and sabsistence expenses of each, of
its members Wxien on official business in ci/nnection with
tiie perfonnance of nis duties as a, member of the said
9732
vxir\,-
Cominittee, and funds for tlie payment of sucli secretarial,
clerical and teclmical assistance as tlie Conmiittee may re-
oaire in t.-e performance of itt- duties. In addition to
the aJove, ea.cb. /nernber of tlie Jo'.nmittee shall 'oe entitled
to a per diera of fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for eac^. day of
actual attendance at any and all :.ieetin^;s of the Oonamittee
and when on official "business for the said Committee, from
tlie time of departure to tae time of retxirn; provided,
aov7ever, tiiat any financial c oiiorai t trnen 1 3 made by the Com-
mittee saall be subject to the fiscal re^^pilations of the
National- Recovery Administration; ajid provided further,
t-iat before any expenses incurred by t..ie Co.iimittee or any
of its members are paid by the National Recovery Admin-
istration vouc.iers t.ierefor snail be duly authenticated
by the Secretary of the Comnittee and suall be subject to
revievj and disapproval by txie National Recovery Adminis-
tration."
**********
"Undttr dato of July 27th an Administrative Order cover-
ing 'Labor Complaints And Disputes' was issued by the N.R.A.
and in connection with this subject the Chairman aslced to
:iave inscribed in the minutes a copy of Ac''-ministrative
Order No. X-69."
At the renUGst of Colonel Rose the Code Authority will submit to
hira a statement coverin^q, the views of the Code Autnority as to the plan
of procedure forwarded by N3A to the Industrial Relations GomiTiittee
dated August 28th.
Payment of Expenditures Incurred by July lleeting of I.R.C.
The 3ecret-^,ry v;as in receipt of bills from the three Industry
Members of t.;e Industria.1 Relations Committee cover in/-; traveling ex-
penses in ccnnectiou wit'.', the work of tie GoiTimittee and upon motion of
1. 'i. Ger.iauser, seconded by A. 3. "lomer, their .Dayment was approved.
Amendment to Code to ProviJ.e for t'le Levy of Assessments
It was decided that t.'e Code Authority would net present an amend-
ment to the Code, at ti.is time, to pr jvi le for the levying of assess-
ments for carrying on the worh of th.e Code Authority and its District
eind Local Area Cliai'rmen, but for tie time beinvj would rely uioon volun-
tary contribations.
Approval of B^adget
A budget of expenses for tie vjeriod July 1, 1934 to June 16,1935,
was presented and Mr. Gerhauser offered the following resolution:
223CLVSD: Tliat in connection with tie Code Budget
for the Sliipbuilding and Sliiprepairing Industry
for t.ie period July 1, 1934 to June 16, 1935, that
the assessment be on tiie basis of total man-hours
(bot-i direct and. indirect work) worked over a tv;enty-
9732
six week period (October 1, 1933 to i.Ierch 31,1934)
and that tne assessrr.ent to be levied s-iall be for
a six montiis period, July 1, 1934 to December 51,1934.
Rate per man-ajiir for a six montlis period not to ex-
ceed .0.0014 wi oh a miniiTTJjn billinj^- of )3.00 vsr
plant for a six mont.a;j period.
Ur. G-erliauser moved its adoption, seconded by Joseph 'Taag, Jr. , and
carried.
Tlie budget on m.otion of Mr. J. '1. Geruauser, seconded by
Mr. Joseph 'laag, Jr., was approved and made a part of the minutes.
Approximately one-naif is to be raised, payable i.omediately, and
adjustment will be made in second half of fiscal year for any surplus
fund received ovex" and above anticipated receipts.
The Code Authority also approved tne period of April 1, 1934 to
September 30, 1934 a.3 t-ie period to secure man-hour data for the assess-
ment to be levied on January 1, 1935.
Durable Goods Industries JoiTimittee
Tlie Cl:iairman reported that the Durable Goods Industries Committee
had requested an additional contribution from Code Authorities to pay
bills already incurred and that a sun 'of .^300 is being asked from a
considerable number .-f Code Authorities. It is the intention of the
Durable Goods Indi\s tries Com-nittee to refund all monies received over
and above the sum needed. On motion of Mr. Gerhauser, seconded by
Mr. Homer, the additional contribiition of ."^300 was authorized.
Definition of Term " Em.ergency"
The Chairman wrote a letter dated June 13th to the N.R.A. reouest-
ing that the Code be amended to includs this definition. (Copy of
letter has been sent to the Code Comi-nittee; 3iip'builders Administrative"
Comniittee; Shiprei^airers National Gomnittee and all Local Area Chairmen.)
In tlie meantime, a request was made by the Code Authority to have the
papers in connection with this amendment held up by K.H.A. until further
advised by the Industry. The Code Authority at its meeting today de-
cided that its request for the Emergency Definition should be laid on
the table.
Possible Conflict Between the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Code and the Supplementary Codes for the Construction Industry.
Under date of August 21st the Chairman addressed a letter to
Major George L. Berry with reference to tlie possible conflicts between
the provisions of the Construction Code and the Sliipbuilding and Sliip-
repairing Code. Under date of August 24th, Major Berry informed tlie
Code Authority that si.nilar que-3tions aad been raised by others to
such an extent that it was reco,gnized that a hearing would have to be
held to develop the necessary facts upon which to base a detenninative
ruling and that the Code Authority' s name iiad been placed on the mail-
ing list to receive a copy of notice of any hearing to be held.
9732
Administrative Orders
The following AiLr-inistrative Orders vifere read rjid placed in tlie
record for tlie information of tlae Jode Autiiority:
A33i.IINI JTJIATIVE o:iD:-:H ;io. 2-9
(llarc. 29, 1934)
Anen.iment To Code Of Fair Comoetition j'or Tie
Siipbuildin^ And S^iiprepairing Industry
ADljiIl-:i3T?ATIVS 0,^33 ^D. -J-14
( April 37, 1934)
Stay Of The Provisions of Part 3,
oections jr..) and (o)
-15
(Lay 1, 1934)
Denial of application of General Enj^lneering
and Dry Deck Company, (and others)* ***-•*
ADUIIIISTP.ATIVS 03D1.R ]^0 . ^-16
(hv-vy- 4, 1934)
Approval of application of iianitowoc SldpTjuilding
■ADl.;iITIST2AT I?3 03I>1,R DIP, j-17
(:;ay^4, 1934)
Extending Provisions of Section 3, Sub- Section (c)
of the Code of Pair Competition for the Sliip-
"building .-aid S^:iiorepairin;r Industry
ADl.JI'ISTRATITP 03D:1 ]^-. :>-13
(j-one ^0, 1934)
Further 5t-\y of t-ie Provisions of Part 3,
Sections (a) and (b)
AD...n:i3T.l4TI\r5: ORDSR ro. 3-19
(June 33, 1934)
Granting application of St. Louis Car Company, St. Louis,
Missouri, ********
9732
-1 r,^—
ADIiBTIST^ATIVE GRDE?. NO
{Jo-ly 5, 193")
Granting aoplicrticn of ilie CTener"J. Hn-'^ineering anl Dry
Dock 3'^mpany, (<and ot'iers) *********
Sxecutive Orders
Ko. 6710 - AiTiendinsnt of ilxecutive Order To. 5334 of October 33, 1933.
Prescribing H'lles and 3fcg'.uation^. Under the ;;;i?.tional In-
di:.strial ileco'.'ery Act (Application of Cede Provisions in
Toiivn of <;,500 or less population).
(inccrpc rated in Bulletin No. 5
dated JiOne lltn)
No. 6711 - Prescribing a Hegulation Pro^iibiting DisTiissal of ;?]rr/ployees
for Peocrtinj- Alleged Violations of Codes of Fair Competi-
tion.
(incorporated in Bulletin No. 6
dated Jane lltli)
No. 6673 - iiiciking Provision for a Clause in Codes of Fair Competition
Helatin^^ to Collection of Expenses of Code Administration.
(incorporated in Bulletin No. 6
dated J^one lltii)
No. 6750 - Prsscribing H'J.les and P.egulations for the Interpretation and
-C Application of Certa,in Labor Provisions of Codes of Fair
Competition as They May Al'fect Apprentice Training Programs
in Industry. (This Sxecutive Order was sent to each member
of the Code Ccninittee; 5..ii prepairers. "ational Committee;
Shipbuilders Adrainistrative Co3L:iittee; and all Local Area
ChairmeiT, under date of July 17, l'-)34 and copy of same is
made part of the official minutes.)
No. 6763 - Creation of the National Labor Relations Board. (This Execu-
tive Order was sent to each member of the Code Committee;
Shipbuilders Adrainifitrative Comiuittee; Sliiprepalrers
National CoiBmittee; and all Local Area Chairmen, under date
of July 30, 1934, and copy of same is made part of the
official i.iinutes.)
No. 6767 - He; Permitting up to 15 jercent Reduction in Filed Prices to
any Agency or Instrumentality of the United Stat-^a, or Any
State, Itonicipal, or Other Public Autnority. (Under date of
August 16, 1934, a letter was addressed to the Industry which
specifically showed that t..ic 15 p;ircent reduction does not
apply to the filed rates with tne Shipbuilding and Shipre-
pairing Code Autnority. The letter is as follows:
9732
-135-
"In connection \7ith Executive Order No. 6767, dated
J-oJie 29, this office made a s-o'ecific request for information
r.s the applicability of this ordsr to shipbuilding and ship-
repairinj; sjid T/e'liave received the following information from
the legal department of the KH4:
'Executive Order I'o. 6767 applies only to Ijids
made to Governmental a-^encies hy Members of the
Industry suhjcct to Codes v/hich provide for .
open f ilin.j. ' ■ . . " •
Administrative Order jlo. X-13 : Code Blue Ea^^le negpilr/^jions
Secretary reported that all members of the Industry have been
furnished a L;lue Ea^rle a.nd report made thereon to the Insignia Section
under c.,".te of AU(;i-ust 10, 1934.
Executive Orc.er V.o. 6590-1; Postine; Terms of Code
Administrative Order 'Jo. X-7; posting Terms of Labor Provisions
SecretaiT reported that all memb;;rs of the Industry have been
furnished r-ith the Official Copy of the- Labor Provisions in QU?Jitities
as reauested oy the firms'' engaged in Shipbuilding or Shiprepairing,
Administrative Order Ho. X-7?; Sxemptian of Certg.i_n
Em-Qloyers in Tovrns of Leas than 2,500 popul-'.tion
(See E::ecutive Order ITo. S710)
A copy of this Administrative Order was sent to the Code Committee;
Shipbuilders Administrative Committee; Shiprepairers National Committee;
and all Local Area Chairman, loiider'.date of August 15, 1934, together
with a copy of a statement b" the Aominlstrator e:-:plaining Executive
Order ITo. 5710. The statement by the' Adiainistrator specifically states
that the Shipbuilding sJid Shiprep airing firms are not exempted by the
Order. Copy of order attached as a pairt of the records.
Office Order No. 105) Creating Industrial Appeals Board, duties.
Office hemo. No. 273) purooses. etc. of Industrial Appeals Eaord.
Copies of this order and memorandum were forv;arded to the Code
Comiiittea; Shipbuilders Administrative Committee; Shiprepairers National
Committee; rnd all Local Area Chairmen, "onder date of August 15, 1934,
and copies are att^.ched q,s ' a pai'i-t of the records.
9732
DLCSMBER 20,' 1934, IISETIl^G HCLD ^TH BROADT'AY, im\J YORX ClTf , AT
10:15 A. 1,1. BRIEFS A.TD EXCERPTS EROii HIITUTES. (REEEREilCE: DSPUTI'S
PILES, SSCTIOIT 2.)
There -'ere present, rer)resentin-" the Industry, Messrs. H. Gerrish
Smith, Ghairraan, ¥. H. Gerhauser, Joseph Haag, Jr., and Roger TJilliaras;
reoresenting the Administration Hessrs. P. E. Lee, Captain Henry Uilliajns
and J. S. McDonagh, Those ahsent nere Ilessrs. Rohert Haig, R, L, H.'^gue
and S. W, Walceraan. Others present nere H. Het'-'on Whittelsey, Assistant
Deputy Administrator and A. B. Homer,
The financial statements for the months of September, Octoher jijid
ilovember on motion of T7. H. Gerhauser, seconded hy Ro^-jer TTilliams '7ere
ap Droved and ma,de a part of the official Minutes.
Administrative Orders
The following Administrative Orders i-'ere read and 'ilaced in record
for the information of the Code Authority:
ORDER
.,, CODE OP PAIR COLiPETITION
POR THE
SHIPBUILDIIIG AiiD SHIPREPAIRIxJG IiJ)U3TRY
ORDEIa KO. 2-21
ORDER
CODE OP PAIR COiiPETITIOil
POR THE
SHIPBlTILDIilG AID SHIPREPAIRIlG IlIDUSTRY
2-22
Said Industrial Relations Committee he, and it is hereby offi-
cially authorized to proceed r'ith the ho,ndling of lal^or com-
plaints and labor disputes arising under the Code for such
Industry, pursuant to the a-o iroved olan of -procedure.
ilATIOIAL liiDTTSTRIAL RECOVERY BOARD
/s/ 17. A. HARIilMAI^"
Administrative Officer
9732
OPDER NO. 2-23
co:-!]: oi' PAn coiipstitioii
POR
SIIIP3UILDi:7C> Aia SHIPESPAIRIIIG liJDUSTRY
Approval of Plan For Adjustment of L.-^lDor Convolaints £c Disputes
OHDZH NO. 2-24
CODE OV PAI2 COMPSTITICN
POH THE
SHIPBUILDING- AlID SKIPEEPaIIUNC- i:mUSTRY
Granting Farther Extension of Provisions of Section 3, Sut-
Section (c)«
OHDini NO. 2-25
CODE OP PAIR 'COlffETITIOir
FOR TEE
SHIPBUILDIIIG M-D SHIP2EPAIRING IIIDUSTRY
EXEIvIPTION
NATI ONAL RECOVERY ADI -INI STRAT X ON
Granting Application of i marietta Manufacturing Cojapany, Point
Pleasant, TTest Virginia, for a Tenporary E.xeni':tion from the
Provisions of Prrt 3, Paragra^oh (a), of the Code of Prir Com-
pe'titicn for the Shi-ouuilding and Shipre^Dairing Industry'-, as
amended. ' ' '
OFJ}ER
NO. 2-25
CODE or FAIR C0I3'ETITI01T
FOR TP3
SHIPBUILDIL'G At© SHIPRSPAIRING IlfDUSTRY
AP?OIKTMEi[T O:-' ADLIINI STRATI ON lEi.SSR
OP THE PIuUrNING AiZ) FAIR PR.VCTICE
aGEI.'CY
9732
-138-
VHEHEAS, Arl)a B. liarvin, "iTho pursuant to srid -jrovision of
said Code, was on Pebraa.ry 16th appointed Adiainistrr.tive
Member for said Shipbuilding pnd Shiprepairing Industry Com-
mittee for p.c.icl Industry has submitted his resignation for such
Administrative Member, rrhich resignation has been .accepted;
NOW, THEIlEPOHE, pursuant to the authority vested in the
National Industrial Recovery Board by the Executive Order of
September 27, 19o4, and otherwise, it is hereby ordered that
Francis E. Lee, Assistant Deouty Administrator for national
Recovery Adiainistration, be and he is hereby ap'oointed and
constituted as Administrative Member without vote to said
Shipbuilding; and Shiprepairing Industry Committee for said
Industry to serve during the pier sure of the ITati' ^lal Indus-
trial Recovery Borrd.
OJlDiilB. IJO. 2-27
CODE or FAIR COiTETITION
FOR THE
SHIP3UILDI1TG AID SHIPEEPAIRIIfO IIIDUSTRY
NATIONAL REC0\1;RY ADMINISTRATION
NAI/E 07 CODE: Shi-obuilding and Shipre^airing Industry,
CODE NO, 2
APPLICANT: Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee,
11 Broadway, New York, Ji. Y.
QUESTION: In Sub-Section (c) of Section 3 of the Code,
does the six months' period begin on the ef-
fective date of the Code or on the date the
order is placed for each new ship?
INTERPRETATION: The six months' exception permitted under
Sub-Section (c) of Section 3 of the Code of
Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding pjid
Shiprepairing Industry begins on the date the
order is placed for each new ship.
***** >|t ******)):***** l((
Draftsmen and Mold-Loftmen
The Assistant Deputy Administrator, by letter of December 6th,
informed the Code Authority that in the event interoretntion of Sec-
tion 3 (c) as to vrarJcing certain emoloyees on ne^,' shiij construction
being favorable it would be necessary for the Code Authority to pass
a resolution aooroving epch case for epch shipyard that will be permitted
to work under the excention and in view of such inter'oretation (2-27)
being favorable thereuoon on motion of T7, H. Gerhauser, seconded by
Roger Williams the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
9732
^139-
T7HZKEAS7 certain rinval contrr.cts vrere r.rrardet', in Av.^Gt 1934 to:
Bethlehem Shipbiiildin.^ Corp. Ltd, (Quincy, i.I?s3,)
Electric Boat Com-onny
United Shiphuilding & Dry Dock CorT).
Federal Ship'builc'in/:; li Dry Dock Co,
ller? York Shi'iLuildin ; Corporr.tion.
NeiT^ort ilens Shipbuilding & Dr-' Dock Co.
TJHEESAS, such contrpcts -.-ere allocated to the above shipyards as
f ollovs:
Number
CL-46
CIr-47
DD-380
DD-S82
DD-331
DD-3S3
DD-384
DD-385
SS-176
SS-177
SS-173
TJHEREAS , ■
TT-^e of Vessel
Li,-;ht Cniiser
II II
Destroj'er
II
It
II
II
II
Submarine
II
II
Section 3 (c)
Shjioyp.rd
lien York Shipbuilding Corp,
llevroort liens S/3 & D/D Co,
Bethlehem Shiphuilding Corr).
II . " n II
Federal S/3 & D/D Co,
II II II II II
United S/B & D/D Co.
II II II II II
Electric Boat Cora^anj''
II II II
" " " , and
of the Code for the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry orovio.ea for the follo-dng exceptions:
"For a periou. of si:: (6) nonths exception nay be nade in the
number of hours of en^loynent for the employees of the Shi'p-
builders engaged in designing, engineering i'lid in raoldloft
and order departments rnd such others rs are necessary for
the preparation of plans and ordering of materials to str^rt
work on nev ship, .cons tnj.ction, but in no event shall the num-
ber of hours \7orked be in excess of forty-eight (48) hours
per r'eek, s.nd in no case cr class of cases not a.ioproved by the
Planning and Fair Prpctice Committee provided for in Sec-
tion (3)" , and
TTHEI-vEAS, The Code Authority is in receipt of Administrative Order
Ho, 2-27 dated December 13, 1934, rhich reads as follorrs:
QJESTIO:.: In Sub-Secticn (c) of Section 3 of the Code, does the
six months -jeriod be ;in on the effective date of the Code or on the date
the order is pl.^ced for each ner; shi"n7
I1JTSP.PPJETATI'"'": The six months' e::ception Ternitted under Sub-
Section (c) of Section 3 of the Code of Fair Competition for the Ship-
building e-jid Shiprepairing Industry begins on the date the order is
Dlaced for each ne^ shii?" .
9732
-140-
NOW, TffiCEEFOEE, 3S IT EI^SCLVED: That the above shipyards are
granted the privilege of '■'orking s.ll trades eniunerated in Section 3
(c) of the Code for a rieriod of six (5) months fron the date of the
contracts on the ebove named vessel's.
As to a further extension for draftsmen and loftsmen as regards to
contracts older thaji six months, this matter is still in the hands of
HEA and it is anticipated that action will "be taken at an early date.
Trial Tri-ps
Administrative Order 2-18 granting exception of Part 3, Sections
a and b coverin,;; employees in testing installations, machinery and
equipment for ships etc. , expires on December 27, 1934, and ina-smuch
as a continuation of this exception is necessary, upon motion of Mr. \J,
H. Gerhauser, seconded by ROti'er Williams, the following resolution was
adopted:
WHEREAS, the exception granted by Administrative Order llo,
2-18, staying the provisions of Part 3, Sections (a) and
(b) of the Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding
and Shipreriairing Industry, covering employees in testing
installations, machinery, and equipment for shi;os, dock
trials and sea trials to demonstrate satisfactory opera-
tion or contractual requirements where it is impracticable
to do the work with sa,fety or to the satisfaction of the
customer's inspectors by the employment of additional men,
expires on December 27, 1934; and,
WKEEEAS, the same conditions aiToly at this tine as when
Administrative Orders llo, 2-14 and 2-18 were issued;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Code Authority that the Administra-
tor further stay the provisions of Part -3, Sections (a)
and (b) until June 16, 1935.
Galveston Area
(Resignation of Chairman and Secretary)
(Election of llew Officers)
The Chairman reported that the Secretary of the Code Authority
is in receipt of a letter dated December 26th from Mr. R« C. Johnson,
former chairman of the Galveston area in regard to change of officers
in the Galveston area.
:4c af! 34e * >)« If' 3^ * ^ >S itc
Administrative Order X-119
(Prescribed Rules and Regulations for. tho Protection of Funds
Received by the Code Authority)
9732
-l'il-«
The Chairman reported thp.t p.ll conditions required by this order
can be net hy the Codo Authority ?_nd that in the meantime a bond in the
amo-ont of $10,000 hp.d b«.;en tpi:en out to cover the Treasurer, the bond
being olaced '-ith tl:e United Str.tes Guarantee Companj'-, a copy of ^.^hich
will be nailed to the Assistmt Deyiuty Adiiinistrptor,
* Ji: ********* *
Validity of Rules an.d He^rulations
The Chairman reed into the record a letter dated lioveraber ISth
from Mr. H. If. TTliittelse ;■' covering exchan£;e of telegrams bet'/een the
Galveston area and hUA in connection with the validity of the Rules
and Regulations. The Chairman at this point referred also to a letter
dated May 13, 1934 fron ilr. TThittelsey therein the validity of the
Rules and Regulations ^-'a.s coninented upon by Assistant Counsel of IIRA
and the Code Authority at this time endea,vored to learn from Mr.
Whittelsey the legality of the Rules and Regiilatio:is adopted October
2, 1933 as on the date of their adoption the Chrirman s'-^ecif ically
asked Mr. U. H. Davis, De'outy Administrator at that time, as to the
propriety of havin,;; the Rides and Regulations approved by the President
of the United States so as to become "the law of the land" to which Mr.
Davis stated that he ha.d taken the matter up with Colonel Lea and it
was thought the Code Authority ha.d sufficient loower und.er the codo
to enforce the Rules a.nd RegxLla.tions as written and that the approval of
our Rules and Regulations '-ould establish a precedent.
This matter of the contents of the Rules and Regu.lations '-'ill be
studied by the Committee n.cting on code revision and nothing will be
done at the -oresent to h-ve them approved by the Administration as
originally written.
By-Laws - (Code Authority
(Trade Pr; ctice Corrolaints Committee
The Chairm.ari re-oortea th-t Mr. H. ITewton Whittelsey had forwarded
to the ChairmaJi of the Code Authority proposed by-laws covering the opera-
tion of the Code Authority a3ad also for the operation of the Tra,de
Practice Complaints Committee ajid upon motion by Mr. A. B. Homer, sec-
onded by Mr. Roger Tilliams, both subjects -rere to be referred to the
Committee on Code Revision for study and re jort thereon.
Revision of Shiobuildin-- and Shi-ore-oairin>-: Code
The Chairman re-oorted that the Committee a'opointed to consider code
revision is still working on revision of the code but that the matter
would be taken up with a vie^- to having it in such she.pe that it can be
printed at aai early date and sent out to the industry for suggestions
before submission to IIRA for hearing. The Chairman informed Mr,
Whittelsey that the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry has not
accepted the revised definition for shipbuilding and shipre-oairing.
9732
-143-
Standards of Health and Safety
The Chairnan directed the attontion of the Code Authority to a
letter from llr. 1', llewton ¥hittclsey dated Decenher 12th in connection
with the adoption of clauses in the Code to cover Stajidards of Safety
f,nd health. Before adoptin ; such provisions, the Chairman asked the
Assistant Deputy Administrator to forward to him such standards as al-
ready have "been adopted by other code autbrities and incorporated in
their codes so that the na.tter could he considered hy the Coda Author-
ity and the Code ?Levision Cormittee.
Emergency Work
The Chairman rcoorted that the Code Authority is in receipt of a
great number of reoorts coverinj; eniertjency vrork under the shipbuilding
and shiprepairing code. The Code Authority under date of June 13th had
submitted an amendment to the Code but it -was withdrawn ss it could not,
at that time, bo acted u jon i-^ithout a public hearing. Nothing has been
done in connection vith the pressing of this amendment since that date.
The Chairman did, however, agree to send I,Ir, Whittelsey a memorandum on
emergency work and this will be done '/ithin a, day or two.
973^
-143"
JAIUARY 17, 1935, I.ErTirG HELD AT 11 BnOAWAY, 7171 YO^i CITY, At
10:15 A. i.. Sriefs atid ey:cerptz iron ;;inutps. (?.ef. Deputy's Files
in Sec. 2) .
There -.-ere present, represent in;.: the Industrjr, Messrs. H. Gerrirh
Snith, Chairiian, S. TI. TTaicenan, Robert Tlaig, iRoger Williais, TJ.H.Ger-
hauser; representing the Adj^iinirrtration, Tessrs. Trancis E. Lee,
Captain Henrj'- Millions, J. S. "i.cDona;rb, C. G. Knerr, Secretarj'-Treasurer.
Others present rere Colonel \J. TJ. Zose, I)ep\ity Adiiinistrator, :.;r. H.
Ks'Tton TTaittelsej'-, Assistant Depatj- Adrainistrator, ;;r. L. Y. Spear.
Those absent rere ' r. Joseph Ha^g, Jr. and Lr. R. L. Ka^oie.
Financial Str.tev.ents
The financial statements for the --lonth of December, 1934, on notion
of i.r. W. H. Gorhauser, seconded b3^ l.r. Roger Williairis vere approved and
made a part of the official minutes.
Adninistrative Orders
The follo'ving Adninistrative Orders veve read and placed in the
record for the inf ori.iat ion of the Code Authority:
Order
TTo.2- 28
CODE or PAIR COITSTITIOH
TOk 'the
SHIPrjILDIlT-AITD SIIIPREPAIRIIIG INDUSTRY
Den^-in,'^ 31an':et Extension of Section 5, Subsection (c) of the Code
and Granting Extension thereof rrith limitations and conditions to the
ITeTi-port i'evTs Shipbuilding and Dry Dock ComiDany, the Bethlehem Shipbuild-
ing Cornoration and the ITevr Yorh ShiiDbuilding Corporation.
ORDER
ITo. 2-29
CODE or FAIR COIPETITIOK
SHIPBUILDIIIG A."D SHIPHEPAIRIilG INDUSTRY
AS Ai.ElIDED
C-r?jiting Further E::emption iron Provisions of Part 3, Sections (a)
and (b), of Employees Engaged in Testing Installations, hachinei-y and
Equipment for Ships, Doch Trials and Sea Trials.
5732
Indtistrial 2elatiQns Cor.inittee
Tlie CliaimrJi reoorted that "betutien nestings a letter "ballot hai
been tjurei:. of tiie Indxiptrj' Lsmliers of tlie Code Authority relative to the
nojiin'^.tion of Tr. Joseph YT. Hart, as an industry liemher to represent en-
plovers on. the Co:.inittee, to siicceed hr. Jaiies Svr;m, resigned, a:id the
Chairnpn therefore as]':ed for ratification of the lollovring resolution
rrhich had "been previoxislv sent to h.R.A. \inder date of December 28,1934.
The resol-ation reads as follo-7s:
"T]HEf:EAS on I.iarch 15, 1^3'±, the Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing Industr^;^ Coanittee passed the fcllovriug resolution:
'There shall be constituted b3' appointment of the
Acaiinistrator for the Shipbuilding an-d Sliiprepairing
Industry axi Industrial delations Cour.ittee to be coii-
posed of seven (7) ■.leribers: three (3) to be nominated
by the Code Authorit3?' to represent the employers.
Three (o) to be norainatcd bj- the Labor Advisoiy Board
of the llationa". Recover;- Administration to properly
represent the employees in the Industr^r, and one (l)
to be selected by the other si::.' ;
"AI'D "IIEHMS, Jan.es Svan, who pursuant to the -iDrovisions of
se.id resolution, T?ar; on April 6, 1C34, appointed a member to
represent employers on the Industrial Itelations Committee of
said Industry, has submitted his resi;:^ation as of January 14,
183§,
"■JOTJ, THEZSFOrj, 3S IT PSSOLVED: Tliat hr. Joseph y. Hart is
hereb:/ nominated bv the Code Authority as an Industry"- hember to
represent erai^loyers on the Industrial Hela,tions Committee as
of Januar;,' 1-1, 1S35 to tahe the place of L'r. Janes Swan,
resi|.'3ied"
Overt r le I-eyond Weekly Hours
The Chairman reported that since receipt' of Administrative Orders 2-
28 aiid 2-29 therein \7a.s embodied the fol].o\;ing proviso:
"Provided ho'jever, that if an employee on an hourly rate works
in excess of eight (S) hou.rs in any one day or in excess of
thirty-six (36) hours in pny one vjcelz he shall be paid at the
rate of at leo.st one and one-half (iv) times his reg-alar hourly
rate for overtime so '■Torked; hovrever, in the compxitation of
pay v/hen such an employee \70rl:s during any one reek overtime
in excess of both eight (8) hours per day and thirty-si" (36)
hours per reel:, the overtime pay shall not be compounded by
addition of both dally raid i/eckly overtime, but the employee
shall be paid either the sum of the overtime pay eacned dur-
ing the overtime da^'s or the ovcrtire pay earned during the
overtime ree':, whichever is the higher for said week."
he had received a.dvicc from raer.bers of the Industry protesting overtime
payment beyond vreekly hours nnd that the proviso vras in direct conflict
with Section 3 (b) of the Code whereby employees on ship repairing are
9732
-145-
TDemitted to ATork 40 hours a week with an average of 36 hourr> over a six
months' period.
The Chairman referred to interpretation given by i.r. TJ. K. Da-iis,
our Deputy Administrator at the ti'ie and incorporated in the ninutes of
the Code Authority of January 4, 1934 which reads
"That overtime is not to he paid for the four hours in excess
of the 36 hours in any one week hut is only to he paid for
hours in excess of eight hours in any one day."
and this interpretation was released to the Industry as Interpretation
Ho. 11, dated January 4, 1934.
:.:essrs. Berhauser, Walcenan, Haig and YJilliams further au^nnented the
statement hy citing specific instances to show the inpracticahility of
the order as it related to the shipbuildin:': and shiprepairing industrj?-.
The Industry Lemhers of the Code Authority protested the above ral-
in2 by IT.H.A.
Both Colonel Hose, Deputy Ad'Tinistrator, (ind H. Nev/ton Uliittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator said that the natter could be referred
back to i'.?L.A. for reconsideration and therefore the following resolu-
tion was offered by Kr. Roger Willians, seconded by hr. Robert Haig, and
carried:
"Tihereas in Adjninistrative Orders
llos. 2-5
2-16
2-19
2-25
■ • • 2-23
2-29
"II. H. A. have directed that overtime be paid beyond weeklj'
hours as well as beyond daily hours the Code Authority pro-
tests this ruling as not being ■.•ithin the reajairements of
the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code, and further has
never been a practice of the Industry and therefore is un-
acceptable to it; and
"■;SI:?:EF0ZE, be it resolved, That the Code Authority directs
its Chairman to address a letter to I''.R.A. asking that this
requirement be stricken fron the aforesaid Administrative
Orders. "
Revision of Code
Adoption of Ey-Laws-Code Autiiority
Adoption of By-Laws - Trade Practice Complaints Committee
Validity of Rules and Re-^ulations
)732
-l-:-6~
The Ch?.irmaJi of the Code Authority re;oorted that "both Colonel Rose,
Deputy Adninistrator, and IJr. H. ITevton V/liittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Adiainistratoi- had urged, a revision of the Shiphuilding and Shiprepairing '
Code and that the natter had haen, disciissed "by the Chairman at some
length \7ith Loth the Deiraty azid Assistant Deputjr Administrators. It was
requested that Colonel. 5ose might state to the Code Authority his rea-
sons for feeling: that the Code should he revised at the present tine.
Colonel Rose ntated tnct since the adoption of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Code, i7hich nas Code No. 2, that many provisions had been
adopted by U.S.A. -iThich it was felt should be in all codes and that fur-
thermore the present Code was l3,cl:ing in certain provisions to take care
of cases that had arisen and that it is his belief Code Revision would
be of benefit to the Industry. He stated he did not want the Industry
to think he was attenpting to coerce it in, any manner by pressing for
Code Revision and thereupon gave the following examples of what the Code
does not now provide for and which in his opinion should be incorporated
in a revised Code.
1. The definitions are inadequate. It h^s been suggested
thsut there be a Havnl Shipbrdlding Code, a Commercial
Shipbuilding Code, and a Shiprepairing Code. Also that
the Code oj ~ht to be modified with respect to the boat
building Code v.here there is conflict.
2. Question of hours of work in connection with draftsmen
and mold loftsmen, where v>ey is in excess of $35.00 a
week.
3. Question of hours for clerical staff.
4. Provisions for emergency I'ork.
5. Provision of testing installations and trial trips, etc.
6. Hours of \7atchm.en and firemen.
7. Clause to prevent employees from exceeding maximum hours
by working for tv.'o employers.
8. Lack of Regional and Divisional Code Authorities.
9. Present Code Authority represents Naval builders
only.
10. Absence of Pair Trade Practices.
In the discussion of these matters it v/as pointed out that the pre-
sent Code Authority does not represent Naval shipbuilders only as only
two of the members of the Code Authority are builders of naval vessels
and that through the Committee set up under the Rules and Regulations
which were developed in connection with the Code that all geographical
districts on the coasts of the United States and on the Great Lal^es are
represented.
9732
-147"
This led to a discussion of the Ziules and .ietJu.lationr> adoi^ted
October 2nd, 1933.
l.;r. Uliittelsey stated that these Cornnittees are not recognized hy
N.R.A. The Code Authority argued that thej- should be reco^Tiized by
II. 2. A. because the Rules and Regulations had been developed in coopera-
tion nith : r. TTilliam H. Davis, our Deputy Administrator at the trie and
that they had been approved bj'' hin.
Colonel Rose stated tha.t he V7as unaware of this fact and he felt
tha.t the matter should be referred to hin by letter in order that he
might definitely ascertain as to whether the Roles and Regulations have
a legal stajading or not. It v/as pointed out to Colonel Rose that the
Rules and Regulations had certain fair trade practices incorporated in
theyj and that although the natter had been previously subnitted to II. R. A.
for a ruling as to legal itj^ that it vas felt the natter had never been
definitely disposed of.
The Chairiiian vras directed to subnit this natter to the Deputy Ad-
ministrator for action.
Section 5 (c) Of The Code - Draft snen and ilold Loftsnen
Paragraph 3 (c) of the Code rith reference to the enplojaient of
draftsmen and loftsnen contain the following phrase at the end of the
paragraph :
"aiid in no case or class of cases not approved b;'' the Plan-
ning and Fair Practice Comnittee provided for in Section (8)."
In vievf of the wording it nas deei-ned advisable that the Code Auth-
orit;"- should approve of longer hours for both draftsmen aaid nold lofts-
men that had been working under this provision of the Code and thereupon
passed the following resolution offered by i.r. S. T7. Wakeraan, seconded
by ;;r. Roger TJillians:
"TTHERSAS, the Assistant Deputy Atoinistrator, by letter of
December 6, 1934, infomed the Code Ai\thority that in the in-
terpretation of Section 3'(c) as to working certain employees
on new ship construction it would be necessarj'' for the Code
Authoritj;- to pass a resolution approving each case for each
shipyard that would be pemitted to worl: under the exception,
and
"¥?ISREAS, an examination of the previous minutes of the Code
Authority fails to disclose such.reo^^uest by any prior Admin-
istrator or Deputy Administrator on prior exceptions, and
"TflEREAS, certain Kaval contracts were awarded in August 1333,
to:
Hew York Shipbuilding Corporation
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. , Ltd.
United Dry Docks, Inc.
8732
-11:8-
3?th Iron 7for]'5 Cor^'ioration
Pederal Shipouiloinc £-. Dtj Dock Co.
Electric 3oat Conpany
re'.-riort i>Ie\ s Siiip'buildin..3 P.- Dr-j Boch Co.
-and Co:inercial Contrr.ctG in J-ujie 1933 to Ilerrjort Hers Sliip-
■buildin:^ and Diy Dock (lov'-Tcxiir , aiid in Janurry 1334 to V.e\i
York Shipbuilding Corporetion, ':ni on i-lovenber Ic, 1933 to
United Dry Docks, Inc.,
"WiEHEAS, such contracts ucre alloca,ted to the above shipyards
as follovs:
Ilnj'-iber Tyne of Vessel Shipyard
DD 356-39 Destro^^ers lle.v York Shipbuilding Corporation
DD 360-3 Destroyers Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd.
DD- 364-5 Destroyers United Di-y Dock, Inc.
DD- 365-7 Destroyers Bath Iron Uorks Corporation
DD- 368-9 Destroyers federal Shipbuilding & S/D Co.
SS 174-5 Subnarines Llectric Boat Conpany
CV 5-6 Aircraft Carriers Ijevroort Ile'.-'s S/B & D/'D
CA 44 Heavy Cruiser Bethlehem Shi^Dbuilding Corp.
CL 42-43 Li;-:;ht Cruisers ■Terr York' Shipbuildint-; Corp.
2 Carro Vessels
for A. H, Bull kerport Ileus S/3 & D/D Co.
2 Gil ta:;kers for
Standard Va,cu''jm
Transportation Co.i'oiJew Yhrk Shipbuilding Corp.
3 iiotor Tankers
for Socony- Vacuum
Oil Co. United Dry Docks, Inc.
"WHEZSAS, Section 3 (c) of the Code for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry provides for the follorring exception:
'For a period of skit (6) nonths exception nay be
made in the ntij.-iber of hours of employnent for the
employees of the shipbuilders ejjgagftd in decsi^ning
engineering and in mold <sroft and order departments
and such others as are necessary for the prepara-
.tion of plajis and ordering of materials to start
work on new ship construction, but in no event
shall the number of hours vjorked be in excess of
forty-eight (43) hours per week, and in no case
or class of cases not approved by the Planning
and Fair Practice Committee provided for in Sec-
tion (8). '
"TJHEPJEAS, the above shipyards 'jere granted privilege by the
Administrator of working certain trades enumerated in Sec-
tion 3 (c) of the Code
9732
-149-
ITo . of
Drier-
3y Adninistrative Order 2-3 ret.S, 1S34 to i.'ay 5, 1934
. S-17 liay 5, 1934 to Kov.3, 1954
2-24 ITov. 5,1934 to Dec. 5, 1934
and
"TniIl?XAS, the Industry r/as notified 'hy tele^rans, "bulletins
and circular letters as fol.lo-s:
1st Extension - Circular letter of 2/2/o4 and TulZetin
I'D. 2 of 2/19/34
2nd Extension - Telegram of Lay 3, 1954 and Circular
Letter of i>,y 3, 1934
5rd Extenrion - Telegram to seven yards of ITov. 8,1934
and Circular Letter of IIov.27, 1934
"31 IT PJESOLVED, That the Planning and lair Practice Coranittee
ijrovided for In Section (8) of the Shipbuilding and Shipre-
pa.iring Code, approves such cxeuption in each of the above-
naned cases."
Section Z (c) Oi the Code - Draftsnen and Loftsnen
By Ad'ilnistrative Order 2-28 the plants of the Bethlehem Ship-
building Corporation, Ltd., (Quincy, liass.), lie V7 York Shipbuilding
Corporation and the lle-nort llerrs Shipbuilding and Drj' Bock Conpany
were granted j)ernission to '-ork longer hours on certa.in contracts, i.ir.
Whittelsey asked the ratification of the Order by the Code Authority' so
that these plants could be privileged to '.7ork certain classes of labor
longer hou.rs.
The Code Aiithority apr)roycd the irorking of longer hours at these
pl?n.ts bu.t restricted its approval of the order (2-28) by the follow-
ing resolution offered by kr. Roger Uillians, seconded by kr. T7. H.
G-erhauser. and carried:
"RESOLVED, That the Code Authority approves Order 2-28
granting longer hours of work of draftsnen a,nd mold
loftsmen at the plants of the lien York Shipbuilding
Corp., ilevTport ITerrs Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. and
the i<iuincy Plant of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corpora-
tion, Ltd. , except as to the provision for the poyraent
of overtir.-.e beyond thirty-six (36) hours."
Emergency TTork
The Chairman reported that -onder date of Jonua;:y 9, 1935, kr. H.
Herrton ^littelsey had written a letter to the Code Authority stating:
"It is understood that necessary emergency repairs to vessels
have been made over a long period of years in energenc3'"
9732
-150-
situations 'jhere'by a danger or menace to the safety of
a vessel, life or property existed; or where a delay
^70^^1d have '-'orhed an undue hardship on an ormer.
"Ho\7ever, i-^hen the raaxirauii hour provisions of the Code
are exceeded in '-rorkin;:; under such eneri^encies, special
exemption from the raaxinxin hour "orovisions of the Code
must he obtained either hy an anendnent to the Code or
hy an exemption of a temporar;^ nature.
"The Code has not been amended to permit work beyond the
naxim-om hours of the Code in emergencies, nor has any
exemption been requested or granted. The sunendnent re-
quested on June 13, 1S34, was withdrawn.
"Therefore, there exists no authorization for any ship-
buil din/5 OJ" ship repairing yard to work in excess of the
maximum hour provisions of the Code on emergencies sjid
any yard so working would lay itself open to a charge of
violation of the Code, even if it does file a report with
the Shipbuilding jnd Shiprejiairing Indiistry Committee."
The Ghairriian reported that all yards have been submitting weekly
reports covering emergency viork in accordance with action tal:en bj"- the
Code Authority with the Icnowledge and advice of its Deputy Administrator
under date of November 16, 1933 and that the various unite of the in-
dustry have been submitting their reports in accordance with the action
taken at that meeting which reports show the reason for working overtime
and are duly noto.ri^ied over the signature of an official of the Company.
The Industry under date of Jtuie 13, 1934 presented a pi-oposed
amendment to the Code to cover a definition of "emergency work" but
in vie-' of other matters that vrere liadcrstood might be tal-cen up at the
same time the Industry requested that the proposed amendment be held
up.
The Code Authority again discussed the cue;:tion of amending the
present Code to cover emergency work and the following resolution was
offered by I'r. Roger 7illiams, seconded by ;:r. Hobert Haig, and carried:
"KESOLVED, That the Code Authority authorize its Chairman
to clarify with 11. R. A. the situation with respect to emergen-
cy work and to request approval of such definition of emer-
gency work for the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry
as necessary to clarify this matter; and
"EZSOLVED, That the following is adopted as a definition of
emergency work:
'The term "emergency" means that a sit-aatlon
whereby a danger, or m.enace to the safety of a
vessel, life or ijroperty exists; or where a delay
would work an undue hardshi;p on an omer or con-
tractor. '
9732
.■ -151-
"And that to each of the ParafTaphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) of
the Code there be added the follov,'ing TrordG:
'The above limitation of hours, in any one
TTeelc shall not apply to er.ier^ency worl:'
"AND SE IT FtJPJHEP. xffiSOLVED, That pendin,^: the adoption of
the amendjnent by II.R.A. that a temporary exemption be
granted for emergency rork by "/.R.A. to the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Indut'try."
Labor Advisory IDoard
The Chainian reported that the Code Authority was in receipt of a
communication fro:;i L'r. Solomon .Barkin, Assistant Executive Director of
the Labor Advisory Board dated Janua:^ 10, 1935, requesting certain
information as to the advantages viiich have accraed to the Code Author-
itj'- from the presence of a labor representative on the Code Authority.
On motion duly Seconded and carried the letter vras ordered to be
laid on the table.
Audit Of Accounts
The Chairman reported that under Administrative Order X-119 Pre-
scribing Pules and Regulations for the protection of funds i-eceived by
Code Authorities it would be necessary that the accounts of the Code
Authority be audited. On motion of V.r. S- TL ¥aJ:eman, seconded by
"ur. 7. H. Gerhauser and dul^' carried, permission ras granted to employ
a Certified public Accovjitant to audit the books of the Code Authority.
Bond
The Chairman reported that a bond had been talzen out by the Treas-
urer and photostatic copy had been sent to T.R.A. but that 11. R. A. had
written the folloring letter dated January 8, 1534 in connection
therev.'ith:
"The photostatic copy of your bond in the amoutit of
$10,000, written by the United States Gua,rantee Company,
has been duly submitted with ny recommendations and has
been accepted as sufficient in amount.
"However, the Code Authority Account Section points out
that if any other officers of your Code Authority are
empowered to draw upon the f-unds of the Code Authority,
those officers or employees should be bonded.
"/s/ H. liewton Whittelsey
"As::isi.ant Deputy Administrator
"Division 2, Section D, Group 3"
As checks, in order to be negotiable, must be signed by the Chair-
man in addition to the signature of the Treasurer, question arose as
9732
-152-
to necessity of a bond to cover the co-signer. Colonel Rose stated
that in vievj of the fact that checks require both the signature of the
Treasurer and the Chairman, and since the Treasurer is bonded, in his
opinion I'.R.A. nould not require an additional bond, but that he rrould
talce the matter in hand vilth a vie^-- to having a prompt decision ren-
dered by N. E. A.
3732
-153-*-
Shipbuilding and Shiprcpairing Industry
FEBRUARY 21, 1935. IviEETIlIO HELD AT 11 BROADWAY, KEff YORK CITY,
AT 10:15 A.M. Briefs and cxerpts from Minutes (Reference: Deputy's
Piles, Section 2).
There were present, renrcsentins the Industry, Messrs. H. Gerrish Smith,
Ch-airman, S. W. Tfalceman, Joseph Haag, Jr., Roger Williams, W. H. Gerhauser;
representing the Adniini strati on, Messrs. H. Tewton Whittelsey, Assistant
Deputy Administrator, Francis Lee, Administration Representative,
J.^S. McDonagh, Captain Henry Williams, C C. Kncrr, Secretary-Treasurer,
Messrs. Rohert Haig and R. L. Hague were absent.
Financial Statements
The financial statements for the rao:^th of January 1935, on motion
of Mr. S, W, Wakcman, seconded by Mr. W. H. Gerhauser were approved and
made a part of the official minutes.
Administrative Orders
The following Administrative Orders were read and placed in the
record for the information of the Code Authority:
ORDER NO. 2-30
CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
FOR THE^
SHIP:3UILDING AND SHIPREPAIRING INDUSTRY
Acceptance of the Resignation of James Sv/an and the Appointment of
JoscT)h W. Hart as a Member of the Industrial Relations Committee.
ORDER NO. 2-31
CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
FOR THE
SHIPBUILDING AND SHIPREPAIRING INDUSTRY
Granting application for partial stay of the maximum hours provisions
of the Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprcpairing
Industry, contained in Part 3, Paragraphs (a) and (b), to permit
emergency work.
Executive Orler No. 6949 (Non-Waiver
cff Constitutional Rights in Connection
T^ith Codes of Fair Competition )_
Rules and ReJ:ulations
The Chairman reported that the subject of the Rules and Regu-
lations, discussed at the previous mectin,;- of the Code Authority, had
9732
-154-
again teor. submitted to IIBA for a ruling as to whether they are valid
or not "but that u;o to date no final action had been taken although it
is understood that the matter is under consideration by HEIA..
Overtime in Excess of 36 Hoii-rs , '
As discussed at the previous meeting of the Code Authority, a
statement was submitted to MA under date of January 28th, protesting
against the imposition of overtime on weekly hours in view of the fact
that overtime is s^oecif ically covered in the code as applying to daily
hours only and thjat tho requirement, for overtime beyond weekly hours as
well is outside the provisions of tho code. This matter is being
followed up with a view to elimination of overtime beyond weekly hours.
Emergency Work
There was presented to the Code Authority an order 2-31, appearing
on pages 4 and 5 of the minutes, received this day, granting a sixty
(60) day stay on emergency work but stipulating the payment of overtime
beyond weekly hours as vvell as daily hours and also requiring that
reports of emergency work be submitted to the Industrial Relations
Committee within five (5) days after the end of the week in which such
emergency work is performed. This ma,tter was discussed at length at the
meeting and both of these provisions were protested and the Chairman of
the Code Authority was directed to proceed in accordance with the follow^
ing resolution offered by W. H. Gerhauser, seconded by Roger Williams,
and carried:
"THE CODE AUTHORITY RESOLVES: That the
Chairman of the Code Authority be di-
rected to protest to IffiA. the Adminis-
trative Order No. 2-31 in its present
form as being opposed to the payment of ■
overtime beyond the maximum hours of
the Code, and as opposed to the provi-
sion of the Order requiring weekly re-
ports of overtime performed' to be re-
ported to the Industrial Relations Com-
mittee unless such reports are the re-
sult of a complaint filed in regard
thereto: and,
"FURTHER: That the Chairman be di-
rected to communicate with NRA and re-
quest an opportunity for the Code
Authority to appear before the National
Industrial Recovery Board and present
its point of view regarding these
matters. "
Captain Henry Williams renresenting the Ylavy D^wartment on the
Code Authority stated tiiat a ruling had been nvado by the Comptroller
General to the effect that overtime on work performed in government
establishments was on a basis of weekly hours only and does not apply
to daily hours, that is, to the effect that tho overtime applies on
9732
. -155-
only one basis of hours' and not on two which is the condition now pre-
vailing in thd shipbuildin.2 industry but which would be changed by the
requirement of Order 2-31.
It was also stated by raembers of the ividustry at the meeting that
the overtime provision would increase the cost of reppirs and add to
the tendency to the' repair of vessels in foreign -"lorts to the dis-
advantage of American industry and American labor.
Re-Qort of ChairiTian on Hearings -
I'T. R. A. on Employment
The Chairm-an retjorted briefly on the hearings held by IHA from
.January 30th' to February 3nd, on the subject of employment and in-
formed the raembers that a brief statement on this had already been
sent to them.
Auditor's Report
-The Chairman presented for record in the minutes of the meeting,
the Certified Public Accountant's report of code expenditures from the
inception, of . the Code to December 31, 1934. Instructions were di-
rected to forward tlirec copies to iffiA in accordance v/ith their request.
Resolution Re Working of Draftsmen on New
Construction. (Para. 3 (c) of the code).
The following resolution with reference to working of draftsmen
on new ship construction was offered by'W. H. Gerhauser, seconded by
S. W. Wakeman, and carried: ' .
."WHEREAS, certain Naval contracts were awarded in August 1934 to:
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd.,
(Q,uincy, Mass. )
. ' Electric Boat Company
New York Shipbuilding Corp.
WHEREAS, such contracts were awarded to the above shipyards
as follows:
No. T?rpe of Vessel YARD
CL-Ce Light Cruiser New York Shipbuilding Corp.
•-DD-380 Destroyer Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. Ltd.
DD-382 " "
S3-176 Submarine ' Electric Boat Company
SS-177 " "
SS-178 It r II
WHEREAS, Section 3 (c) of the Code for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry provides for the following exemption:
"For a period of six- (6) months exception raay be
made in the number of hours of employment for the
9732
-156-
employees of the Shipbuilders engaged in designing,
engineering and in mold-loft and order departments
and such others as are necessary f(tr the preparation
of plans and ordering; of materials to start work on
new ship construction, but in no event shall the
number of hours worked be in excess of forty-eight
(48) hours per week, and in no case or class of
cases not approved by the Pla-.ning and Fair Practice
Committee provided for in Section (8)".
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that it is necessary to the progress of
preliminary work on the aforesaid naval contracts, upon which the
rapid employment of men in the construction of these vessels depends,
that there should be a further extension from and after February 1935,
for a period of four (4) months, of Paragraph 3 (c). Regulation of
Hours of Work in the Code of Fair Competition and Trade Practice for
the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry;
MB BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Navy Department by virtue
of changes on CL-46 determine that such changes as arc made to CL-46
are applicable to CL-42 and CL-43 that the same exemption may be
granted in the preparation of plans and mold-l«ft work on these two
hulls, CL-42 and CL-43."
Resolution will be forwarded to NRA for action.
Definition of the Word "Emergency"
The wording of the term "emergency" as contained in the temporary
Stay granted by HRA (Order No. 2-31 ) was considered and on motion of
S. W, Wakeman, seconded by W. H. Gerhauscr, was adopted. This defi-
nition is in lieu of that adopted at the meeting on January 17th, and
reads as follows:
"The term 'emergency' mean's that- situation involving
danger or menace to the safety of a vessel, to life,
or to property, or v;hcn a delay would work an undue
hardship on the owner or the shippers or the passengers
through loss of use of a vessel for prompt loading or
discharge or prompt and safe carriage of cargo or
passengers to destination,"
Additional Regulation - PWA Work
The Chairman called the attention of the members to a joint reso-
lution of the Treasury Department and the Department of the Interior
with relation to the expenditure of Public Works Funds wherein each
contractor and subcontractor engaged in the construction, prosecution
or completion of any building or work of the United States or of any
building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from
the United States or in the repair thereof is required each week to
furnish an affidavit with respect to the wages paid to each employee
during the proceeding week. He informed the meeting that a protest
had been filed under date of February 16, 1935, with Mr. Ickes, on
this subject.
9732
-157-
LIARCH 21, 1935. MEETING HELD AT 11 BROADWAY, I^TEW YORi: CITY, AT
3:00 P. M. Briefs and exerpts from Minutes (Reference: Deputy's Files,
Section 2)
There were present, representinc^ the Industry, Messrs. H. Gerrish Smith,
Chairman, Joseph Haag, Jr., Roger Williams, W. H. Gerhauser, S. W. Wakeman,
and Robert Haig, representinji the Administration, H. Newton Wliittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, Francis Lee, Administration Re|)rescntative,
J. S. McDonaeh, and Captain Henry Williams, and C C. Kncrr, Secretary-
Treasurer. Mr. R. L. Ha^ue was ah sent.
Financial Statements
The financial statements for the month of Fabruary on motion of
S. W. Wakeman, seconded by W. H. Gerliauser were approved and made a part
of the minutes.
protest on Time and a Half Provision Beyond Weekly Hours
The Chairman called attention to the Code Authority's letter of
February 21st on this matter and to the fact that no action had yet been
taken upon it. He informed the Code Authority tliat Mr. Joseph Haag, Jr.,
W. E. Gerhauser and himself had anpcared before representatives of the
U.I.R.A. on March 6th and liad presented both a written and an oral pro-
test against the imposition of overtime on a dual basis, as overtime is
already provided for in the Code beyond daily hours. (Copy of written
protest is made a part of the minutes.)
Mr. Whittelsey informed the Committee that he anticipated action
UTion this matter in the near future as the papers are in such shape as
to be forwarded to the National Industrial Recovery Board within a few
days.
The Industry-Members of the Committee complained of the great
length of time taJzcn on matters submitted to NRA and asked for in-
formation as to the routine throur!;h which an item such as the above
had to pass before final approval, and it was reported to be as follows:
The above case was forwarded to the Industrial Relations Committee,
Research and Planning Division, Industrial Advisory Board, Consumers
Advisory Board, the Labor Advisory Board and the Legal Division.
Each one of the above groups submit its recommendations. Upon
returi to the Assistant Deputy Administrator a memorandum is prepared
by him forwarded to the Deputy Administrator, '. examined by his Aide and
if the Deputy Administrator concurs he signs it. It then goes to the
Code Assistant of the Division Administrator, examined by him and if
satisfactory to the Division Adrrdnistrator he signs it.
It goes from him to the Review Division, v.-hich is an independent
body and hias the right to reverse the decision. All shipbuilding matters _.■:
go through both the Assistant Head of Review and the Head of the Review
Division. When passed upon by the Review Division it goes to the
Administrative Officer. of NRA whose signature upon it is final.
9732
-158-
The Industrial Relations CominitteG consists of six members,
Research and Planning about eight, Industrial Adyisor.y Board about
the sane n'juiber. Consumers about the same number, Labor six or seven,
and the Lethal Division two.
Rules and Regulations
Mr. TiTlii tt el s ey , stated that his report upon this matter could be
expected in the very near future as he is in receipt of^ corajnents from
various e,roups to v/hom this matter lias been submitted.
Extension of Section 5 (c) of the Code
It was the sentiment of the Code Authority that a resolution be
passed setting forth the delay in the construction of naval vessels
caused by the length of time required in secioring action by KRA on pro-
posed extension of exception Section 3 (c) and that such resolution be
forwarded to those shipbuilders interested in connection v/ith claims
for extension of time on naval contracts where delay has been caused by
reasons beyond the shipbuilders' control.
Aiiiendment to Code to Cover Emerr;encies
At the request of Mr. T^hittelsey the following resolution was •
imssed as to a definition of the word "emergency" under the Code which
definition supersedes the proposed definition passed by the Code
Authority on Januar:' 17, 1935 and February 21, 1935.
"RESOLVED, That the following is adopted as a
definition of emergency work: - ■■
'The term "emergency" means that . .
situation involving danger or menace
to the safety of a vessel, to life,
or to property, or where a delay
would V¥ork an undue hardship on the
owner or the shippers or the
passengers through loss of use of a
vessel for prompt loading or dis-
charge op prompt and safe carriage
of cargo or passengers to destina-
tion; and
"FURTHER, BE IT RESOLAffiD, That to each of the
paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Code there
be added the following vrords:
'The above limitation of maximum
weekly hours in any one week shall
not a-">ply to emergency work, ' "
Mr. Whittelsey informed the Committee that he anticipated early
action upon: this matter of emergency work. ■ •
.It was pointed out, however, that this matter had been referred
9732
•• -159-
to KEA by letter of January 17th and that a temporary stay of sixty days
granted under date of Pehruary 19, 1935 (Administrative Order No. 2-31)
contained provisions as to overtime that made it unacceptable to the
industry. Early action upon this matter was requested.
Overtime in the Mobile Area
Having been requested by IISA to give its interpretation of the term
"day" as used in the Code the matter was discussed and the following
resolution was moved by Mr. Gcrhauser and seconded- by Mr. Williams, and
unanimously carried:
"RESOLVED, That it is the sense of the Code
Authority that the 'day' referred to in the
Code means 'Cn.lcndar Day'."
T
lO-^oT^^ '^^^ ^^?^* ''■'^^'^■I^^'^' --^^LD AT 11 BROADWAY. !TEW YORK CITY, AT
Pii;s. SecUofs)" ^^-^^^.^.^^^^l'^^ ^^-'^ '^'^-^ (Reference: LepUty-s
q^ifL^^^n'"^''^''^ present, re:oresentine the Industry, Messrs. H. Gerrish
rrprese.U-r~T' ^^^-.''^^^l--^ ' ^°^ert Haig, and' Joseph I^ag Jr"
representing tae Administration, Messrs. Prancis E. Lee, R. L E^Ae
Eaptain rienry .rn 11,^^3 ^^^ C. C. Knerr, Secretary-Treas^e; Others'
Mes!;s r\7 SnT' ^"^^.r^^^^^^ Relations Committee. Those absent were
Messrs. S. W. Wakeman, W. H. Gerhauser and- J. S. McDonagh.
Financial StatpniPntc,
Eoherr^H-J^'''^''''''^^%^''i'T*' ^°'' ^^' "°^*^ °^ '^^^^^^ °^ "^°tion of
mrt of T^' '-"^°^'^^^ ^y J°^eP^ H^-^-ag. Jr. v,e're approved and made a
pai L 01 tne minutes.
Administrative Orders
recorr?n^°^^°"'''^' ^^^^^^^i^^^^i^^ Orders were read and placed in the
record for tne iniormation of the Code Authority:
ORDER NO. 2-32
CODE 0? FAIR COMPETITION
SHIPBUILDING AND SKIPREPAIRING INDUSTRY
?or1eLtioTn' °' ^!-.SMpbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee
tainini to t^ provisions in Exemptions and Partial Stays granted, .^e
111 hot f f ^^^^^™^^t *-^t at least time and one-half be paid for
c ipor^ed'in Ad '"■ TT °' ''" """'"^ ^'^^^^^^ ^°-^ °^ "- Code in!
2-S anl 2 'l ^^'""^'''^^^'^'^ OrdersNos. 2-6, 2-16, 2-19. 2-25. 2-28,
73 er-
* i|t !'! Jlc =!: :!: ^- ,■< ^ ^ 5), ^
CR^ER NO. 2-33
CODE OP PAIR COIvIPETITION
SHIP^UIL!.ING AITL SHIPREPAIRING INDUSTRY
buiMJ^f Exemption from Part 3 (a) of the Code to the New York Ship-
bSidx'^S Corporation. Electric Boat Company and the Bethlehem Ship!
o?^the CoL^^^^'^'^r' '' ^"'™'' ciesigners to exceed the maxim-.m hours
of tne Code on certain i^aval shipbuilding designs.
* « * ))! ^:: sK * * * * * *
(^) Dual Overtime Provisions
^2) Appeal From Der.i ^jon Administrative Order 2-52
(3) Resolution re: Staying Reouest Por Action On
™gMmgnt_Coveri:.ig Definition Of "Entergency"
(4) Resolution Of Confirmation Of Request Tor
9732
-.161-
Turther Stay To Fernit "Saerffency V/or3c"
Hesol-ution i'o. 1 — noved by Mr, Ro;;;,er Villinins, seconded "by Mr,
Joseph ria.a.Q, Jr. ?.nc. carried:
"WHZ?J]AS, ?lie -preparatio:: of plaii? in conneckion with the 'building
of naval vessels and pr.rticulcrly tho prompt prep^,ration of plans r?-
-sulting fron clianges is i-iecescary to the expeditious construction of
naval vessels and the carryin^j; out of chvnges at the plants of con-
tractors constructing naval vessels; and
"WHERMS, The working of longer hours per weeh if. essential to the
preparation oi' such plans and in the laying dovm of vork in the mold
loft to exi^edite the work of construction and maintenance of emplojonent;
and
"'.VHEHEAS, There has heen presented to ll.R.A. hythe Code Authority
under date of Febriiary 7, 19S5, e. request to extend the period of exemp-
tion provided in Section 3 (c) of the Code; a,nd
"WHEBEAS, This action taken by letter of February 7, 1935, was
ratified by i ormal" resolution of the Code Authority at its meeting on
February 21, 1935; and
"'.7HEREAS, The Code Authority has been unable to obtain sanction to this
extension' without the imposition by IT.R.A. of dual overtime provisions
in the determination of overtime on a vreekly basis as v.'ell as on a
daily basis, v;hichever is tiie greater; and
"WHEREAS, The overtime consideration cannot be accepted -by the
Industry as it v;ould establish a precedent foreign to overtime practice
of the Industry;
"BE IT RESOLVED, That the tardy action of ll.R.A. and its
final refusal to grant relief to the contractors from
the unacceptable- dual overtime provision, is equivalent
to comielling them to perform all v.'ork v/ithin the limit-
ations of the regular Code hours, v,-hich may occasion
delay, due to causes beyond the control of the contractor
•■ and without his negligence, in the completion of naval
vessels now under construction,"
In connection with the above resolution it was felt by the In-
dustrial Members of the Code Authority that it might be well to con-
eider delays on other requests for exejiptions .with the view of sub-
mitting a broader resolution than the above, ?/hich matter vdll be
taken in hand.
Resolution Ho, 2 — moved by Mr, Roger Williams, seconded by
Mr, Robert Haig, and carried:
"3E IT RESOLVED, That the Action of tne Chairman taken by
letter of April 8, 1935, informing LIRA that the Code Author-
ity exxiccts to a:-ipeal directly to the Industrial Ap'ieals
Board tne provision ct>ntained in Administrative Order 2-32
be and is hereby ratified and directs the Ciiairman to pre-
9732
-162-
pare an appeal and upon conrtTletion to file vjith and a-o^ear 'before the
Industrial Appeals Board,"
Resolution No. 3 — Moved "oy Mr, Joseph H?xig, Jr., seconded by
Mr. Roger V/illiEiras, and carried:
"RESOLVED, TImt the action take;: 'by the Cliairman in his
letter of April 8, 1935, staying the request for oxtion
on the amendment to the Code to cover the definition of
the v.'ord 'emergency' covered in the Code Authority's letter
of March 28, 193D, be and is hereby ratified,"
Resolution ITo, 4 — moved by Mr, Roger Williams, seconded by
Mr, Joseph Haag, Jr., and carried:
"RESOLVED, That the action of the Chairman taken by his
letter of April G, 1935, requesting tiiat a further stay
of the maximum hour provisions of the Code of Fa,ir Com-
petition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Inaustry
contained in Part 3, Para^^^.raphs (a) and (b), be granted
to June 16, 1935, be and is hereby ratified."
August 20, 1935, Meeting of the Industry Members of the Code
Authority called for the nojrpose of closing up its affairs, v/as held
on Tuesday, Aug-ust 20, 1935, at 10:30 A. M. in the office of the
National Council of American Shipbuilders, 11 Broadv/ay, Nevj York, New
York. (Ref. Minutes, Deputy's files)
There were present the following:
Roger ViJilliams
S. W. Wakeman
W. H. Gerhauser
Josei:-.h Haag, Jr,
Robert :"aig
H, Gerrish Smith
C. C. Knerr, Secretary
Excerpts of the Minutes are as follows:
"Reading of Minutes
"The reading of the minutes of the
meeting held on April 26, 1935, ?/as dis-
pensed with and approved as they had been
previously submitted to each member of the
Code Authority."
" financial Sta.t ements
"The financial st8,tercents for the
months of April, May, June and July v;ere
approved and amde a- y,>art of ' the minutes."
9732
-IBS'*
" Liq'aic'.ation of Code !Funds
"The Caaiman recorded tiiat after
all disbtirsenent (for ?.ll areas) iiad 'been made,
a balance of $15,382.27 rp:p.ained -unexpended,
"There was also disc"'.ission as to the
disposition of the files n,nd records of the
Code Authority and District and Local Areas,
and it v;as the opinion t^iat these records
sho\ild be placed, "onder the jtirisdiction of
the !I;itional Coimcil of American ShiTibiiilders li'
"The balance of $13,582.27 as matheraat-
ically c-dciilated would be equivalent to a refund
of $0.185S97 on the dollar and the following
le\;ter, to be addressed to those nierribers of the
industry who contributed to the expense of adjninis-
tering the code, v;as a^-reed u^^on as covering the
disposition of coth moneys and records,"
" ' (jame of Individual Firm
to be Inserted)
Gentlem.en:
"The Industry Members for tne Ship-
building and Shiprepairing Industry- that
were represented on the -Code Authorit,]/
for the Code of Fair Competition and Trade
Practice ;i?.ve held no i.ieetin;;;^s since April
ue, 1935 uiitil Augu.st 20, 1935, on which
date a meeting \'as held to consider o.nd
recomoTiend action as to the disposition of
the files and records, and the liquidation
of moneys obtained fror-; code assessments
and nov; on iia-jid.
"There is attached hereto a definite
statement of receij^ts and ex-Tenditures for
the period July 26, 1933 to June 16, 1935*
The receipts from assessments and. from the
liquidation of furnit"are and fixtui-es
totaled $72,071.41 and the total exp'endit-
ures were $58,639, 14 » leaving a balance for
distribution of $13,332,27 or $0.185997 for
every dollar received. Your proportion
would be $ ,
"It is believed th t ali of those who
contributed to the administration of the Code
will be satisfied upon an inspection of the
financial sto,tements that strict economy v/as
exercised in the administration of the funds
by the Ood.e Authority, the District and the
9732
--1G4-
LocF.l Lrea Cnr.nittGes — -ra nco;:.o:.ij*
tiiat could only have "been ootained
Cy mo^'zinrj; v,sq of existirit; organizations
r.'ithin t.ip industry*
"It is ^Ut.gfcsted tnat tlie industry
assent to tlij disposition of the file ?,nd
records and the distribution of uneiiiOended
funds cts- follows:
1. That the Hc=.tional Ccuiicil of
jlmerican Shi'o Guilders "be as-
signed to ta're ca,re of such
files and records as it is im-
portant to preserve.
2. That tne TanecjiJended balance of
individufi.l or corporate volun-
tary" contrih'iti.Tns to the ad-
;;iinistr3.tion of the Code (that is ,
$0.185997 for every dollar re-
ceived) be assigned to txie .'ation-
al Council of American Shipbuild.-
ers to be expended in trade asso-
ciation activities for the ship-
building and shipre'oairing industry
as the 1:^- tionn-1 Council of American
Shipbuilders rn.-.;y deem just anu proper,
3. Tliat if thj individoa-l or corporate
contributor is not s".tisfied to dis-
tribute the bt^laiice on hand 3.s
sUf;,gested above tlia.t a checl: be made "^
out ^.n ru.j.iled to him or it in an
amouiit '■•nich sliall oqu.al txie balance
of his contribution remaining in the
fund,
"Please note tiiu attaxhed tv;o forra
letters - 'Form Ho. 1 assenting to itcra£(
l-Ios. 1 and 2 above, £ind Porm ilo. 2 assent.i'hg
to items ITos. 1 .and. .'5 above, v/hich are sent
to you for you_r convenience in. ■■ asDOnding to
the above recor.Tinenda.tions, It v/ill be ap-
preciated if you will fill out i^roraptly the
one ■■0 v;hich you agree and retxirn it to this
office,
• "In order to facilitate a prompt closing
oixt of the wor:': of the Code Authority it will
be assiimcd th:\z if a reply to ou:r letter is
iiOt reC' ivod on/or before .September 15, 1935
f'.v9.i^ you assent on your part to the Form
Le t te"r- Ha, _ 1- a£.at to you.
97S2
-165-
"There ic enclosed for your con-
venience a self-a.i-dressed, Gtamped en-
velope for your reply.
Very truly yours,
C. C. Knerr,
Sccrotary '"
"la view of t.ie f:.ct th?.t thir. is
the last i.ieeting to dispose of all mp.tters
relating to the adninistration of the Code
and tl'L^'t it '."'as called for the purpose of
cl-osin^: up the affairs of the Code Author-
ity the minutes are hereby ap'oToved and
signed hy the Industry flemhers of the Code
Authority,
"/s/ Ro'^er V'illiams
"/s/ S. '.7. Wakernan
"/s/ n. H. Gerhauser
"/s/ Joseph Ea.a.ci, Jr.
"/s/ Robert Haig
"ATTEST
"/g/ C. C. Knerr
Secretary"
"/s/ II . G-errish Smith
;732
-5-66"
4, Agencies of the Code Authority
(a) Local. See Tield Organization
(h) CoTnpli;ince. See Field Organization
(c) Statistical. See Field Organization
5, Field Organization
The plan for the ITation-il Committees, District Committees and
Local Area Committees was first suonitted as part of the "By-Lai^rs (so-
called) for administering and enforcing the Shipbuilding Division of
the Shiphuildin • and Shiprepairing Industry" and the "By-Laws (so-
called) for adxiinistering and enforcing the Shiprepairing Division
of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry". (Ref. Vol. II, Code
Record Safe and £xh. I and Exh. J Appx, )
The original 3y-Lpws as submitted were modified and approved
by Industry as per the following excerpt from letter of August 20, 1955
from H, Gerrish Smith, President of the National Council of American
Shipbuilders to K. Kewton Whittelsey, Assistpjit Deputy Administrator,
(Ref. £xh. N-l, Appx.)
"(c) Bv-La\7s, Immediately after the Code was signed
by the President of the United States a meeting was
called of all shipbuilders and shiprepairers who
vrere proponents of the Code, the first meeting being
held on August 1, 1935 for the discussion and formula-
tion of final by-laws for the shipbuilding and ship-
repairing division, as some of the provisions contained
in the original code jrere deleted by the Administration
from the Code proper b\it it was understood the pro-
visions could be incorporated in the by-laws,
"Companies having representatives at the meeting of
August 1st, were:
Wevrport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Com^^any
The Pusey & Jones Corporation
Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Compaiiy
The J,;aryland Dr^/ Dock Company
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Ltd.
Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company
New York Shipbuilding Corporation
Todd Shipyards Corporation
Kensington Shipyard 5: Dry Dock Corporation
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. Ltd. (West
Ccnst plants)
New York &. New Jersey Dry Doik Association
National Council of Aaeric^n Shipbuilders
"The by-laws for both divisions ^'ere gone over and
after thorough discussion they were left with a drafting
committee to smooth them up. This was done and on
9732
-167-
August 4th and 8th, at meetings of ahipbuilders and
shiprepairers the ty-laivs were put in form for pre-
sentation to the Shiphailding and Shiprepairing
Industry on August 9th,
"At the meeting on August 9th, at which representatives
of the following conpanies were present:
The Maryland Drj Dock Company
The Pusey £c Jones Corporation
Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Company
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation
Todd Shipyards Corporation
Sun ShiiDbuilding « Dry Dock Company
Norfolk Shipb-oilding & Dry Dock Company
Kensington Shipyard & Dry Dock Corjj,
NeiTport News Shipbuilding ci Dry Dock Co,
Ira S, Bushey & Sons
National Council of Anerican Shipbuilders
the by-la77S for both the shipbuilding and shiprepairing
divisions were finally ironed out and adopted and made
effective at 12:01, August 14, _ 1933.
'"It was the belief of the proponents of the Code that
the adoption of the by-laws was within their power.
These by-laws were submitted to all members of the
Industry prior to the election of a Code Authority,
"The first meeting with the 'Deputy Administrator was
.on August 28, 1935, at which meeting much time was devoted
to going over the by-laws (effective on August 14th) to
see if they constituted in any wy an amendment to the
Code. (See II. E, A. Release No. 540 of August 28, 1933),
"The meetings held on September 6th and 11th were devoted
almost entirely to getting the by-laws in some form which
would be acceptable to Mr, Davis, and after a public
hearing held on Tuesday, September 26th, the Rules and
Regulations dated October 2, 1935, supplanted the original
bjr-laws of August 14, 1933,
"Znswering your specific question -under (c), the by-laws
were not put in force by the Code Authority but were
adopted by the Industry as shoT-Tn above. "
The By-Laws as revised by Industry, effective August 14, 1933,
were the subject of a hearing August £3, 1933, (?.ef. Code Record
Section). It was determined to chaage the title from By-Laws to
Rules and Regulations,
9732
-168-
The Eules and Regulations were the principal subject of con-
sideration in meetings of the Shipbuilding Industry Committees (Code .
Authority) held September 6, 1933 and September 11, 1933, (Ref.
Minutes, Deputy's Files), They were further the subject of the
hearing of September 26, 1933, (Ref» Code Record Section) and
meetings of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee
(Code Authority) held September 27, 1933, and October 2, 1933. They
were finally ^proved by the Committee at the October 2, meeting,
(Eef, Minutes, Deputy's Files) of vihich the following is an erccerpt:
"lir. Smith raised the question as to the propriety of
having the Rules and. Regulations approved by the President
of the United States so as to become the "law of the land",
Mr, David reported that he had taken this matter up w.;th
Colonel Lea and that it was thought, that the Cod* Comiiittee
had sufficient power under the code to enforce the Rules
and Regulations as written and that the approval of our
Rules and Regulations would establish a precedaat. Mr,
Davis was of the opinion, however, that if the RuLes and.
Regulations were found to be unenforceable that he wfWild.'
again take the matter up with the Adraini-st-rator to
have them approved by Executive Order,
"Mr, David then suggested that the Rules and R©gulati^i>«'
be signed by earh member of the Code Commi-iTtee and this
was agreed "t«,
"The Rules .and Regulations (Ref, £xh. L, Appx, ) -promxi^sted:
under the authority of the C'*de Committee were then read
and upon motion by Joseph Haag, seconded by Robert Halg,
the f ollowing^ resolution was adopted:
'RESOIYEB: That these Rules and Regulations
having been discussed and agreed lopon are
thereby adopted. '
A. v«te was talcen by the Code Committee and. all answered
in the affirmative,
■"A poll was then tjicen ef the Presidential Appointseo and
they approved of the Rules and Regulations as adopted,"
It is the opinion of the Assistant Deputy (the author) that
the foregoing recounted a,dvice was one of the' two basic unfort-unate
incidents thai lead to the difficultistj of the Industry under the
Code and the administration of it. As later history proved, this
instrument should have been, immediately submitted to the Administrater
for approval.
Both the By-Laws (so-called) and the Rul«s and Regulations
consisted, in fact, of t¥if0 parts. The first part pertained to the
National, District and Local Area Committees and their functions, and
the second .part -to Trade Practices, The later .history of the R-oles
9732
-169-
and Fvegulations is hereinafter set forth under Title III - Code
Administration, sub-title C. - 5y-La'7s, prge 454 hereof. The
'first part, tein^ lar^jely adrai:iistrative, was generally within
the authoritj'- of the Code Autnority, even thou/;h not formally
e.pproved, and the respective Committees were duly 3et up and
functioned durintt^ the period of the life of the Code,
The following is rn excerpt of tlie "Sy-Laws (so-called) for ad-
ministering and enforcing the Shi2:5 0uilding Division of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry, a,s originally submitted with the Code
(Ref. Vol, II, Code Record Snfe and Exh» I, Appx. ) , which pertains to
these Committees and their functions:
"S£&R£GATIO:; OF THE SHIPB'TILPIIJCr IITOUSTRY
2, For the puroose of pd:.iinistration of the Code
the shipbuilders vill be segregated, according to
the location of thpir respective shipyards, into the
following najor geographic districts:
(a) Atlantic Coast
(b) Gulf Coast
(c) Pacific Coast
"ad;.:ijistration
3, The Code shall be administered by a Coirrnittee
of eight (8) members; five (5) elected from the
Atlantic Coast; one (l) from the G-ulf Coast and
one (l) from the Pacific Coast and a Ciiairman who
will be the President of the National Council of
American Shipbuilders without the right to vote,
ilach of the seven (7) members of the Commi'ttee
elected from the Atlantic, G-ulf and Pacific Coasts
shall be a representative of the Individual Members
of the National Council of AmeriCcin SliipbuilderS
or signators of this Code,
4, The Atlantic Coast members of the Committee will
be elected in the following manner:
(a) The President of the National Council of Americ'^Ji
Shipbuilders shall appoint a nomin3,ting corani.ttee
consisting of three members representative of the
shipbuilding industry. This Committee shall promptly
prepare two ballots,
(1) The first ballot will consist of four (4) candidates
chosen to represent shipyards employing less than an
average of l,nno men for the preceding t'-'el^^e (12) months,
(2) The second ballot will consist of si- (6) csjididates
chosen to represent shipyards emplo-^in? m.ore than 1,000
men for the preceding twelve (12) ^nonths.
9732
-17l-
(b) Ar'ditional n<?jnes may "be placed on tne b-llots
on written petition of npt less than six (5) siiiiDyrir ds,
(c) From the first h-llot t'^o (2) re-oresentatives
will "be elected by a n'.jority vote of the shipbuilders,
where each .shipbuilc.er shall be entitled to cast
one vote for e-ich of t^/o representatives,
(d) From the second ballot three (Z) representatives
will be elected by a majority vote of the shit)builders
ivhere each shijcibuilder shall be entitled to cast one
vote for each of thre-^ representatives for eaxh l,nnr)
average worlcinen employed by such shioyrd on shipbuilding
work d'orin,:;^ the preceding t-.7elve (12) months prior to
such election,
(e) Alternates will be selected by the principal to
substitute for him in his absence.
(f) Gulf and Pacific Coast representatives and alternates
will be elected by their respective groups,
(g) The Vice President of the iJational Coijjicil of
American Shipbuilders will serve as .alternate for the
ChairrarrL,
5, In the event of a complaint by a shipbuilder that
can not be amicably adjusted by the Committee, then
such shipbuilder shall have the right to appeal through
the Chairmmi to the Administration of the National
Industrial Recovery Act, The Chairman shall present
the subject in dispute to the Ad:ministrator and shall
provide an opportunity for the dissenting shi-pbuilder
to be heard- ^t the s.ame time,
6. The Comnittee shall hear all complaints and consider
proposals for amendments to the Code or exceptions thereto.
The Chairm.an shall perform the service of liaison officer
with such officers as may be appointed by the President
of the United States to effectuate the ]oolicy of the
National Industrial Recovery Act, "
The following is an excerpt of the "By-LaA7S (so-called) for
acministering and enforcing the Shiprepairing Division of the Ship-
building and Shirepairing Industry" as originally submitted with the
Code (Ref, Vol, II Code Record Safe and Exh, J, Appx,), "^hich pertains
to these Committees and their functions:
"SEGRiLGATIOH OF TEE SHIPP.gPAlRIHG- IIPUSTRY
2, For the purpose of administration of thp Code the
shiprepairers will I^p segregatedj according to the location
of their respective shipyards, into the following major
9732
>-171-
geographical districts,
(a) Atlantic Coast
(b) Gulf Coast
(c) Pacific Coast
3, The shiprepairers on the Atlantic Coast will he
further sef'-:;;re:>T^.ted according to the location of their
respective shipyards into the folloi7ini^ local geographical
districts:
(a) Ne\T Snfland
(b) Nei.7 York
(c) Dela^^are River and Bay
(d) Chesapeake Say
(e) Harroton P.oads, inc lading the
Sov..th Atlantic Coast,
4, ShiTorepairers \7hos8 yards are sitaated on each of
the Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast will he segregated
into such local districts as they may determine to
be advisable,
"AJHIiaSTRATIOII • ■ ' '
5, The' Code shall be administered by the organisation
of the following named Committees:
(1) Local Committees
(Z) District Coij.mittees
(3) National Committee
6, Local Committees, The shiprepairers in each local
district shall organize a Local Committee with a
Chairman ajid a Vice-Chairman, and such otlier officers
as they may deem necessary,
7, Each Local Committee shall be responsible for the
enforcement of the Code, insofar as practicable, in
its local district,
3, As a means of providing an equitable representation
on the District Committee, as hereinrfter provided, the
shiprepairers in each local district shall elect two
representatives to serve as members of such District
Committee on the following basis:
9. One representative will be elected by a majority
vote of the shiprep?,ir<"-rs where each shiorepairer shall
be entitled to cast one vote,
10, A second representative shall be elected by a
majority vote where each shi'orer^airer shall be entitled
9732
-173-
19, The National Committee shpll h.^ve a Chairman, '.7ho
shall he elected by a majority vote of the total nunhe r
of memhers of the District Committees. He sh-^ll not he
identified as an officer or employee of any partnership
or corporation en^^aged in building or repairint-; vessels,
nor shall he be entitled to vote,
20, ■ The National Committee shall act and consult with
its Chairman on subjects of national scope, including
the hearing and ar'-justment of complaints and the con-
sideration of proposals as to ths aiiiendment of the code
or exceptions thereto. The chairman sliall perform the
service of contact officer with such officers as may be
appointed by the President to effectuate the policy of
the •^National Industrial Recovery Act."
21, If rjiy Local Committee shall refer to the Chairman
any subject for his advice eJid action, which, in his
judgment, is properly a subject for consideration by
a District Committee, he shall refer the subject to
such District Committee for its action and recommendation,"
The folloy;ing is an excerpt of the Eiiles and Regulations as
ppproved by the Shipbuilding and Sliiprepairing Industry Committee
(Code Committee) October 2, 1933 (Ref. Exh, M Appx, ) , which pertains
to these Committees and their functions:
"I, SEGRSGATIOII OF THE SHIPHUILDIilG lilDUSTRY
For the porpose of administering the code, the ship-
builders will be segregated, according to the location
of their respective shipyards, into the following major
geographicfi^l districts or groups:
(a) Atlantic Coast
(b) G-uli Coast
(c) Pacific Coast
(d) Great Lakes
(e) ' Mississippi and Tributary Fivers
(f) Other major groups that msi'- come
under the Code.
"II. SIfIP-:?UIJJ)IHG COMMITTEE
1, To assist the Code Committee in the administration of
the code there shall be elected, in the manner directed
by the Code Committee, a Shipbuilding Committee of not
less than nine (9) members, of which until otherwise
determined by the Code CoD.mittee, five (5) shall be
elected from the Atlantic Coast; one (1) frxm the Gulf
Coast; one (l) from the Pacific Coast; one (l) from the
Great Lakes, and one (l) from the k'jssissippi ai-id
tributary rivers. The President of tne national Council
9732
■ 174-
of American Shiptuilders shall "be Chairman of the
Shiphuilding ComTiittee, tut without the right to vote.
The Vice-President of the National Council of American
Shipbuilders shall serve as alternate for the Chairman.
2, It sliall he the duty of the Shiphuilding Comnittee
to ohtain from employers and deliver to the Code Com-
mittee such reports in respect to wages, hours of lahor,
conditions of enplo^yrnent, nujnber of employees, and other
matters pertaining thereto as nay he necessary, or as
may he reauired hy the Code Committee to keep the Code
Committee informed as to the operation and ohservance of
the code by the shiphuilding industry; and to malce
recommendations to Code Comnittee \7ith respect to de-
sirable or prooosed modifications of, additions to, or
exceptions from the code, and to receive, to consider
and to atterrot to adjust all complpints (except labor
complaints) with respect to the operation and observance
of the code,
3, It shall be the duty of the Shipbuilding Committee,
with respect to all infractions and evasions of the code
within its knowledge, to notify the member or members
of the industry involved in such infractions or evasions
to the end that such member or members shall promptly
desist therefrom, 3Jid in case of raiy such infraction or
evasion persisted in after such notice, the Shipbuilding
Committee shall promptly bring such infraction or evasion
and the proceedings of tne Shipbuilding Committee in
connection therewith together with any views or documents
that such member or members may care to submit, to the
attention of the Code Committee,
4, In the event that any complaint cannot be amicably
adjusted by the Shipbii.ilding Committee, then the com-
plainant shall have the right to appeal to the Code
Committeel and the Shipbuilding Committee through its
Chairman, shall present to the Code Committee the matter
in dispute and the proceedings of the Shipbiailding Com-'
mittee in connection there .dth, together with any views
or docToments tlia.t the interested party or parties shall
care to submit, and the Code Committee will provide an
oiTDortunity for all interested parties to be heard,
"III, SEC-REGATION OF THE SHIPHEPAIRIMG INDUSTRY
For the purjDOse of administration of the Code the ship-
repairers will be segregated, according to the location
of their respective shipyards, into the following major
geographic districts:
(a) Atlantic Coast
(b) Gulf Coast
S732
-175-
(c) Pacific Coast
(d) Great Lakes
(e) Mississippi Hiver and Tritutr^ries.
The shiprepairers on the Atlantic Coast i.Yill be further
segregated according to the location of their respective
shipyards iiito t'.ie follovdng gFOgraphical areas:
(a) Hew Englnnd
(b) IJerr York
(c) Delav;are River and Bay
(d) Chesa,peai::e Baj/"
(e) H.onipton Roads, including the South
Atlantic Coast
The shipreoairers on the G-ulf Coast, may be segregated into
such local areas as they may determine to be advisable.
The shiprepairers on the Pacific Coast, on the Great Lakefe
and on the Mississippi River .and Tributaries may be
segregated into such local geographical areas as the
district committee in each of these districts decides
to be^ desirable.
"IV. LOCAL SHIPRJiPAlRIi'IG COM.IITTEES
The shiprepairers in each loca.l area shall organize a
Local Committee with a Chairman and a Vice- Chairman and such
other officers as they deem necessai'y.
1. It shall be the duty of each Local Shiprepairing Committee
to receive, to consider, and to attempt to adjust all com-
plaints (sxceijt labor complaints) as to the operation and
observance of the code arising '.vithin its local area. In
the event that any complaint cannot be ajnicably adjusted
by the Local Shiprepairing Committee, then the complainant
shall have the right to appeal to the Code Comnittee, and
the Local Shiprepairing Committee through its Chairman,
shall present to the Code Committee, the matter in dispute
and the proceedings of the local shiprepairing committee
in connection therewith, together with such views or
documents as the interested party or parties may care
to submit, and the Code Committee will provide an oppor-
tunity for all interested parties to be heard,
2, It shall be the duty of each local shiprepairing
committee, with respect to a,ll iixfractions gjid evasions
of the code within its knowledge, to notify the member or
members of the industry involved in such infraction or
evasion to the end that si^ch member or. members shall
promptly desist therefrom and in case of aiv/ such infrac-
tion or evasion persi::ted in after such notice, the
9732
-176-
local shiprepairing coinnittee shall promptly tring such
infraction or evasion, and the proceedings of the local
shiprepairing coinnittee in connection therewith, together
with any views or documents that such member or nemlDers
ma;^'- care to submit, to the attention of the Code Committee.
3, It shall he the duty of each loc^l shiprepairing
committee to coooerate with its district shi-oreoairlng
committee, the National Shiprepairing Committee and the
Code Committee when called upon to do so, ;:ind each local
shiprepairing committee shall he free at oL 1 times to
suggest to its district committee or to the Hat innal
Committee or to the Code Committee, pny modifications
of, additions to, or exceptions from the code, tha.t may
seem to it desirahle.
"V. DISTRICT SHIPREPAiniNG COLl'IITTSES
1, Each of the geographical districts into V7hich the
industry is segregated shall ha.ve a District Shiprepairing
Committee, Unless and auitil otherwise provided by the
Code Committee two members of the District Committee
shall be elected for each local area in that district
by the shiprepairers in that local area; provided,
however, thfi the total number of representatives on
the district committees of the Gulf Coast aid of the
Pacific Coast coinbined, shall not exceed the total
n-omber of representatives on the district committee,
of the Atlantic Coa.st; jmd no shiprepairer shall
have more than one representative on any district committee,
nor shall a, shiprepairer have more than two representatives
on all the dM-rict committees combined,
2, Each district committee shall elect a chairman
and a vice-chairman, and, such other officers as it
may deem necessary,
3, Each district committee shall have, with respect
to matters affecting generally the shiprepairers in
such district, the duties that are set forth in Section
IV above for local committees with respect to local
mat ters.
"VI, ITATIOIJAL SHIPREPAIRING COLOilTTEE
1. The National Shiprepa,iring Committee shall be
composed of the chairman of all the district ship-
repairing committees,, sad. the vice-chairman of each
district committee shall act as alternate for the
chairman of that district committee, Ulie chairman
of the National Committee shall be ele.cted by a
majority vote of the whole number of members of the
9732
-177"
district committees. He shall not be identified as an officer or
employee of any partnership or corporation engaged in building or
repairing vessels, nor shall he be entitled to vote^:
2. The National Committee shall act and consult with its chair-
man on subjects of national scope, -including": the hearing and ad-
justment of complaints, (except labor complaints) the reporting
and adjusting of infractions and evasions of the code, and the
consideration of proposed or desirable amendments of, additions
to, and exceptions from the code, and the chairman shall report
to the Code Committee all such amendments, additions or exceptions
as are approved by the National Committee.
3. In the event that any complaint cannot be amicably adjusted
by the National Co-nmittee, then the complaint shall have the
.right to appeal to the Code Committee, and the National Committee,
through its chairman, shall present to the Code Committee the
matter in dispute, and the proceedings of the National Committee
in connection therev^ith, together vdth such views or documents
as the party or parties in interest shall care to submit, and the
Code Committee will provide an opportunity for all interested
parties to be heard.
4. If any local committee shall refer to the National Committee
any subject for its advice and action which, in the judgment of
the National Committee, is properly a subject for consideration
by a district comm.ittee, the National Committee shall refer the
subject to such district committee for its action or recommenda-
tion.
5. The local shiprepairing committees and the district ship-
repairing committees may prepare and submit to the Code Committee
such additional rules and regulations as they may deem appropriate
to deal with purely local problems in the local areas, and with
district problems in the. districts. But no such rule or regula-
tion shall become effective until it has been expressly approved
in writing by the Code Committee."
These Committees were duly selected as set forth in a chart dated
September 22, 1933 (Ref. Exh. L Appx.) and were approved October 2, 1933,
by the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code Committee)
(3ef. Minutes, Deputy's files) by the following resolution:
"The members of the Code Committee were handed a chart show-
ing the organization of Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Committees for operation under the Code dated September 21, 1933.
(Ref. Exh. L, Appx.)
"On motion of I='r. S. W. Wakeman, seconded by Mr. Joseph Haag
and unanimously carried it was:
'RESOLVED: That the Commdttees appointed or elected and set
up on the chart dated September 21, 1933 and attached hereto
be ratified and confirmed.'"
9732
-178-
The subject Committees as set forth on. the chart are as follows:
SHIPBUILDERS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
(As Provided By Paragraph 4 of The Shipbuilding By-Laws)
CHAIHJ/AN - K.G.SMTH - Pres. National Council of Araer. Shipbldrs.
SECRETARY - C.C.KNERR - Sec. National Council of Amer . Shipbldrs.
ATLANTIC COAST 1.C.L.3AHD0 _ Pres. New York Shipbuilding Co.
2.H. L.FERGUSON - Pres. Newport News S/b & D/D Co.
3. W.S. NEWELL - Pres. Bath Iron Works Corp.
4. J. W. POWELL - Pres. United Dry Docks, Inc.
5.S.W.WAKEi^:AN - Vice Pres. Bethleham S/B Corp. Ltd.
GULF COAST ■ D.R.DUNLAF-Pres. Alabama D/D & S/B Co.
(ALTERNATE-ANGUS ^.ARSHALL-Pres . Pa. Shipyards, Inc.
PACIFIC COAST A.S.GUFr:-.Gen. Mg'r. Union Plant, Bethlehem S/B Corp.
GREAT LAI>:ES W.H.GERHAUSER-Pres. American S/B Co.
SHIP P.EPAIR3RS NATIONAL COML^ITTEE
(As Provided By Paragraph 15 of The Ship Repairing By-Laws)
CHAIPJAAN (Temporary) H.G.SMITH PRES. National Council of Amer. Shipbldrs.
SECRETARY (Temporary) C.C.KNERR SEC. National Council of Amer, Shipbldrs.
ATLAlvTTIC COAST JOSEPH HAAG.JR. PRES. Todd D/F Eng. & Repair Corp.
GULF COAST D.R.DUNLAP, PRES. Alabama D/D & S/B Co.
PACIFIC COAST C.W.WILEY, PRES. Todd D/D Inc., Seattle, Wash.
GREAT LAKES W.H. GEREAUSER, PRES. American S/B Co.
ATLAI'JTIC COAST DISTRICT ( SHI PREP AIRERS)
CHAIRMAN - JOSEPH HAAG.JR., Pres. Todd D/D Eng. & Repair Corp. N..Y.
VICE CHAIRMAN - ROBERT HAIG, Vice Pres. Sun S/B & D/D Co.
SEC. & TEEAS.
NEW ENGLA^TD A. B. HOMER, Manager of Sales, Bethlehem S/B Corp.
W.S.NOLAl^T, Sec. Quincy D/D & Yacht Corp.
NEW YORK JOSEPH HAAG.JR., Pres. Todd D/D Eng. & Repair Corp.
F.S.BUSHEY, Pres. Ira Bushey & Sons, Inc.
DEL. RIVER & BAY ROBERT HAIG, Vice Pres. Sun S/B & D/D Co.
A.J.SPEIGEL HALTER, Vice Pres. & Wks . Mgr. Pusey & Jones Corp.
CHESAPEAKE BAY H.M.ADDISON, Pres. Spedden S/B Co.
H.F.BROWN, Pres. Maryland D/D Co.
HAMPTON ROADS H.K.PEEBLES, Mgr . of Repair Dept., Newport News S/B & D/D Co.
& SOUTH ATLAlNfTIC C.S.ROGERS, Vice Pres. & Genl Mgr. Norfolk S/B & D/D Co.
9732
-179-
lUJJ IL:C^^3 ABSA ( SlIIPlffPAIIliJES)
CHAI21IAN
G.G.STE33INS Gen. i.igr. Boston Plant Bethlehem s/U Corp., Ltd.
VICE CHMPi^UiW
J.P.AaHIKGDAlE Prcs. L'.or.toii Engineering Co.
SEC. & THEAS.
H.W.BLAMEY AssU. To Gen Ilgr. Bethlehem S/S Corp.
COLO.ilTTEEIiEN
P.C.GaTCOIvIBS Jigr. I. L, Snow Co.
E.B.TTriEELLR Shipbuilding hgr. Electric Boat Co,
J.P.UC1«EH1\;EY Vice Pros, Cro^7ninshielcL S/B. Co,
M.T. GREEN Pros. Fdchr.:.-cL T. Green Co.
M.J.KEMEDY Pres. Quincj'- E/B & Yacht Corp.
C.J.BONOVAN Pres, & C-en. llgr. The ■Marine Co.
KD" YOPjr AREA ■ ( SHIPREPAIHET.S)
CHAIKIAN
JOSEPH HAAG, J?.. Pres. Todd B/B Eng. & Repair Corp..
VICE CHAimiAN
F.S.3USHEY Pres. Iri^ Bushey & Sons, Inc.
SEC. & TREAS.
11. Y. & K. J. BEY BOCi: ASS^IJ. ■ '
C01,Q.:iTTEEl,ZEN
JOSEPH HAAG, JR. Pres. Todd b/B Eng. & Repair Corp. ,
GEORGE H. BATES Vice Pres, United Bry Bocks, Inc.
G. P. FISCHER Trer.n» Bre-r/er B/B Co.
L.W.CABBELL Sec.~Treac. Caddell B/B &' Repair Co.
BRUCE SCRIIaGIO'jS. : Gen. ilgr. Consolidated s/B Go,
P. S. BUSHEY Pres, Ira Bushey & Sons, Inc.
BELATTARE RIVER & BAY. AREA ( SHIPREPAIPJ^ES)
CHAIHi'lAN
JOHK '.7ATT Vice Pres. Cz Gen. Mgr. Kensington Shipyb., £: B/B Corp.
VICE CHAIRi/lAK
R.L.BURZE Vice Pres, am s/3 & B/B Co..
SEC. & TREAS.
W.F.EBBLEMAl^ Sec. 8-. Tren.s. ilathis Yacht Bldg. Co,
COmnTTEElSN . . .
W.W.ROBIKSOH Pres-. Jolm E. Mathis Co. . .
S.H.BECOURSEY Pres. Tioga Engineers, Inc. . ,
J.FRAIIKEL Mgr. Gen. Engineering Wks.
S.SOECKER Vice Pres, Hoecker S/B Co..
3732
-18C-
ch::sa?:].:s 3ay aijea ( shifi:^pmi!ZI:s)
CHAIffi.'lAN
H.Ii.ADDI'SOK 'Pres. S-oecXen S/B Co,
VICE CHAIEiViAU
E.I7.3AIITH0L0W Sec. 3ooz 3'ros,, Inc.
SEC. ft T]REAS.
H.M. AUDI SON Pres. Spcddcn S/B Co. ' .-
COillHTTESIvIEH
H.E. BROWN Fres. iira-ylcnc'. D/D Co'. ...
C.3,LYKCH Pres. Obreclit-Lynch Corp.
J. M. WILLIS Gun. Urv, 3et:ileliera S/3 Corp.,' 3.'^ltir.ore
H.;l.FT01T liO:DS C: so. ATLAI-ITIC ( SHIP^ZP.aniSS)
CHAIHviAN
K.K. PEEBLES lii-r. of ?.e-x-ir Dept. Ne\Tport l\Ie^,7s S/3 Cc D/D Co.
VICE CKAIK.iAK, lT011TI-:nr.lT A2IJA
C.S.ROGERS Vice Pres. 6 Gen. Ligr. Norfolk S/3 ft D/D Co.
VICE CFiAIRivlAN, SOUlliEiai ^JT^A ' ■ ' ,
J.C.t'ERRILL Gen. lijr, llerrill Stevens D/D Co.
SECRETARY
O.A.BLOXOF- Pres. Soutliern Shipyard Corp.
TREASUPlSR • ■ • . ■ ,
G.O.BROLrGrlTON Gen. Ilgr. Old Dominion Marine Rail'jay Corp,
COlIiilTTES i/iEN • ■ ■
C.S.S01:'KIN Vice Pres. Charleston D/d & Mach'y. Co,
B.O.COLOMA Vice Pros. Colonna' s Shipyard, Inc.
GUlr COAST DISTRICT ( SHI PREP AIBER^)
CHAIRliAN ■ • ■ ■
D.R.DMLAP ■ Pres. Alaoar.a E/D & S/B Co.
VICE CHAIPiiAH
R.O. GRAVES Gen. ll.^v, Galveston D/D & Construction Co.
SEC. & TREaS.
B.P.CAl.iPBELL Alabcoa D/3 ft S/3 Co. ■
TAIIPA M. 0.. ^iY Pres. 3a-.-ooro Marine Ways' Co., St. Petersburg
i.IAX KREIiER Sec. ft Treas. Tarapa S/B & En. ;rg. Co.
PEHSACOLA J.C.DUirHii: pres. Bruce D/D Go.
T . J . SHEPJ LAIT St. Andre-7S Bay Foundry ft Mach. Co.
MOBILE B.R.EmiLAP Pres. Alaoama D/d & S/B Co.
A.C.DEYO Vice Pres. Todd s/B & D/D Co. Uohile
NEW ORLEANS S.V.LulSSIMINI Gulf Eng. Service ft Specialty Co.
F.3.HESLEY Vice Pres. Todd Eng., D/D ft Repair Co.
N' Orleans
TE^wlS R.O.GRAVES Gen. Kgr. Galveston n/l> ft ConstiTiction Go.
J.HAlilLTON i'lLL Pres. Steamship Supply Co.
9732
-I SI-
TU JA AllD '.TEST COAST 0?
SOv-.:,. TLOrJDA ABSA ( s-iiP?j:PAi:-Sis)
CHAlHilAU
C.J.HYIR, Frcs. Taupe, llr.rine Co.
VICE CHAlBi.lAi'J
H.A.VAlQOHl^SUl.l, Pres, 71r., Ilacli. & Sng'r'g. Co.
SEC. & THEAS.
L.B.POSTOIT, Mgr, nivcr Ileif-hts Boat Yd.
• PZITS-XOLA APEA CSHIPHZPAIHSIIS)
CHAIHi.IAK
J.C.DUI^IIIAM, Pres, Bruce D/D Co.
VICE CliAIK/Ltd^T
R.V.CO'"'LEY, Pres, Peas:, cola Tool & Supply Co.
SEC. & THEAS.
EDl'IUND POX, Bruce d/D Co.
LiOBILE ;^-^l ( SHIPaSPAll-iERS)
CHAlEi.U^U
L.R.DUlTxAP, Pres, Alc.oc::c. D/D & S/3 Co.
VICE CHAIEi'EEH
T.J.BEi3)ER, Pres. Benc.er "elding & Mach. Co.
H.C.i.'iUHHAivi, Pres. Liurnrji' S/B' Co.
SEC. & TRSAS. ■
C.A.BAUIIHAUER, Pres. piioeni::' Brass Foundry & Hacv. -Wlcs.
ITZ- OPXIAHS AREA ( SHIPREPAIRERS)
(jiL OP LA. EXCEPT LAICE CTiaS)
CKAIPIiAlT c/-. -<
^APJSw JOHKSON, Pres. Jolmson Iron !Yks. D/D & S/ jj uo.
VICE CHAimiAN
P.J.RICHARDSON, Sec. C: Treas. Union Iron I7ks.
SEC. & TREAS.
R.J.V^raERWEl^IDE, Vice Pres. Todd Eng. , D/D & REPAIR CO.
TE:-.AS AREA (SHIPREPAIP-ISRS)
(lirCLllJlLIG LAKE CHaF^ES, LA.)"
CHAIRI'IAH
J. HAIIILTON KILLS, Pres. Steamship Supply Co.
VICE CHAlRi/LAK
RATMOin) JOHNSON, Sec. IxDonough Iroii Wks.
SZCPZTARY
T7-.;.30LLER, JR., Gclveston D/D & Const. Co.
3732
-132-
PACIFIC COAST DISTRICT ( SHIF.-ffipaJEEnsI
CHAIEiAN
C.W.WILEY, Pres. lo-'.C- -j/'J Inc, , Seattle, Wash.
VICE CHAim/!M
SEC. ec TEEAS.
SA1\I DIEGO
Sja PEDRO
& LONG BEACH
LOS AI\TGELES, JAS.G.CPjlIG, JR., Pres. Craig S/B Co.
HARBOR GEO.A.APiiES, Pres. C-en, Eng. & D/d Co.
SAN PRAirciSCO, J.A.iXOPJ], Pres. Moore D/D Co.
BAY A.S.GUi::!!, Gen. Mgr. Bethlehem s/B Coro.
PORTLAiro & W.G.E.SLITE, Smith Iron Wlcs.
COLOIiBiA RIVER r.T.CASLY,. Pres. Commercial Iron TP:3.
PUGET SOmiD
SAJ' DIEGO AREA ( SHI PREP AIRERS)
CHAIPJ'IAN
G.E.CAi'IPBELL, Cam-o^oell Liach. Co.
VICE CHAIEIvlAN
D.B.JOIffiSON, San Diego Ilcrine Const. Co.
SEC. & TREAS.
H.C.MARSHALL, San Diego i'-rine Const. Co.
SAN PEDRO & LOHG BEACH ( SHIPREPAIRZRS)
1\'0 APPOINTEES
LOS AlIGELES HARBOR (SHIPREPAIRERS)
CHAIRMAN ~
JAS. G.CRAIG, JR., Pres. Craig S/B Co.
VICE CIlAIK/iAM
MAX WARNER, Uhlin Llachine Wl:s.
SEC. & TREAS.
COMMITTEEIviEN
THOS.EORSTER, Gen. Sapt. San Pedro Wl^s., Bethlehei.i s/B Corp.
L.J.REIFHARDT, Comptroller Los Angeles S/B & D/l, Co.
WALTER RICHARDS, Wilmington Iron Wlcs.
JAS. G.CRAIG, JR., Pres. Craig S/B Co.
nA:^ WARNER, Uhlin Machine Wl:s.
9732
-183-
SAii ~!ru:icisco bay (shifrefaifi:rs)
CHillRI-IM
J.T.GZEANY, Bethlehen S/3 Corp.
VICE CHAIRI'IAI^'
ROBERT CHRISTY, United Enc;tr»g. Wlcs.
SEC. & TREAS.
IJAURICE ASHER, Sec. Pr.cific Coast D/D Ass'n.
COIO'IITTEEISK
HUGH BROM, 3ro-m 3ror,. TelCing Co.
FRA1-3C POX, Chief Engineer C-cnl. Engrg. & D/D Co.
P.A.COXOII, Moore d/D Co.
J.T.GREAFY, Bethlehem S/3 Coit).
ROBERT CHRISTY, United Engrg. ITlcs.
PORTLAIH) i: COLOLOIA RIVER ( SHIF?J:?AIRIT.S)
CHAIRJ.IAK
W.G.E. SMITH, Smith Iron '..Irs.
VICE CHAim.'IAl\"
L.R.HUSSA, Altina Engine & Ilach. Wks.
SEC. & TREAS.
T.L.HA1.T1\TIEG, Sec. Steel Tr^il: & Pipe Co.
C-F-EAT LAKES SHIF3UILDIITG
AI'TO FZFAIF ASSOCIATION ( SHIFlgPAIREES)
FRESIFEiTT
W.K.GERHAUSER, Fres. A;:ei-icc-.n S/B Co.
VICE FRES.
JOmi T.^BSTER, Vice Fres. C-r. Lakes Eng. Wks.
SEC. & TPJEAS.
G.C.SHEIDLER
DIPJ]CTORS
JOHi; T.WEBSTER, Vice pres, Gr. Lalces Engineering Tll:s,
CHAS.C.WSST, Fres, Lajiitoroc S/E Corp.
J. BURTON AYERS, Sec. & Asct. Treas. Toledo S/B Co.
H.J.DEFOE, Managing Pr.rtner Lefoe Boat & Motor "^is,
F.F.RAMAHAN, Gen. Kr-nr^ger 3--tffalo Marine Const, Corp,
J.A.ROGAK, Fres. Cal-Jiaet Shipyard & D/F Co.
W.H.GERHAUSER, Fres. Anericr^n S/B Co.
FUG-ET SCm-ID (SHIPREFAIRERS)
SEATTLE
CVjilRiJ^ - C.W.7ILEY, Fres. Todd D/F Inc.
VICE CI-alRI'AII - OTIS CUTTIITG
SEC. & TREAS. - S.A.GRIFFITHS
CO;a.:iTTESl,iEll - T.TT.SIIITH
P.E.VIITOT
EVERETT
CHAIRIIAIm - H.L.DURHAi.!, Fres. Everett Marine Ways Inc.
VI CE CHAI Hl'Jd^ - G . FI ilGLER
SEC. & TREAS. - W.SijUALS
DISTRICT REFRESEIITATI^'ES ~ G.W.irOl.lAW, Fres. Ba/side Iron Wlcs.
H.L.DURHA1.I
TACOMA
BELLI NGEAM
Glf^YS HARBOR
5732
-164-
IIISSISSIPPI RIYER DISTRICT ( SIIIPIICPAIHEIIS) ' '
The Conmittee for the Llisnissippi Hiver rjid Tributaries was never
appointed or elected, and the District and Local Area Coinmittees were
not continued after ua;'- 25, 1935 (Ref. letter Sept. 3, 1935, from
C. C. Knerr, Secret -,ry of the National Cotmcil of iijierican Shipbuilders
to H. NcAvton '"'hittelGey, Asst. Deputy, in Deputy's files), which reads
as follows:
"With reference to your letter of Aufcust 3l3t requesting in-
formation r.s to the committee for the .ilississippi Eiver and
Tributaries, a com littee for this section of the country was
never ?.ppointod or elected. We did, ho'^ever, have a very
close connection with Mr. V. B. Edwards, Vice President of
the Drr,vo Contrrx.ting Company, Pitt sour ^,-h. Pa,, vyho sent out
inforrap.tion from time to time, hut in most cases the Code
Authority sent the information directl;^ to the yards located
on the Rivers,
"In reply to the questions asked in the last parai-rraph of
your letter, this is to inform you that the District and
Locp.1 Committees have not functioned since Ivlay ?.S, 1935*
The staff of the National Council of American Shipbuilders
is '.;ell acrtiainted with almost all of the members of the
various District and Local Committees and as occa.sion arises
we will probably contact them for such inforr.ation as we de-
sire to secure with reference to conditions, in the shipbuild- ■
ing and shiprepairing industry."
The chaj>/^'es in these Committees are set forth in letter of August
^3, 1935 to H. IJoT'ton IThittelsey, Assistant Deputy Director, from
C. C. Knerr, SccrctcMy of the National Council of American Shipbuilders
(Ref. Exh. Ir-1 Appx.), which rea,ds fis follows!
"I have your letter of , August 28 requec:ting additional inform-
ation in connection with chart covering the organization of
the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Indi^strj'' for Operation under
the Code. There were two cht-.nges froii the original chart which
are as follows:
New York Local Area
Chrirr.r2i
Joseph Hac^, Jr. -Todd D/D. Eng. & Rpr. Corp.
Vice Chairmaji
Geo. D. Monroe, - Wymo Engine ering Co.
Treasurer
Joseph Hacag, Jr. - Todd D/D. Eng, Cz Rpr. Corp.
Secretrry
L, W. Caddcll - Caddell Dry Docl: & Rejoair
9732
-165-
f
CoiJinitteer'cn !
Joseph iIao<:;, Jr. - Todd D/D, Er.;^. f: Hpr, Corp. '
P. S. 3i.ishc7, - Ira S. Bushey & Sons !
L. TT. Cr-dc.ell - Cp.ddell Dry Doclc & Repair j
I. L. Jvlzonzo-i - Jalco'bson & Peterson j
C. 3. Hrllocl- — United Dry Docks, Inc. _ . j.
Geo. E, Ilonroc - TTyno Enfaneering Co. j
J. J. Ale:::iider - Alexander, Reid -T: Co. I
J. K. Collir^-s - Turbine Engine crinf; Co. _ .. ;.
AndrevT 3r:::l;cr, Jr. - Eederpl Composition
& Paint
"The aoovo o:rficers were elected 'under a plcvn approved
hy the Cof.e Ar.tliority at its meetinf- of Llarch I5, 193^*
(see pa^'-es 3 ^' ^ o^ minutes). . ,.. _, ;,
"Texas Locrl ^rea
"On December ZG, I93U, the- Texas Loc?JL Area reported
that new officers '.7ere elected in tlia.t Area and that
R. C Johjison and TTilliam Zoller, Jr. resigned as Chair- I'
man and Secreta,r2,', respectively; and tliat E. D. Purse,
of the Kno'.vles Iron Works was named Chairnan and S. H.
Kemp, of the IZnov;les Iron T7orks, was np.ned Secretary,
so that the. officers will read as follows:
Chair-'.an
E, J, Parse - Knbwles Iron Works
Vice Chciri'.rA
Caas. Petrie - Petrie & Companj'-
S. K. Xe::p — Knowles Iron ^orks
(See minutes of December 20, 193"+. P^-S^ 11)" ;•
a. O'oeration anc". Acco:'.i3lj.shncnts.
Functions and operations yf the National, District and Local Com-
mittees are hereinbefore set forth on pages ISJ "to 193 inclusive. 1
The accompli slinent of these Coninittees outside of the election of
the Code Authority, which has heretofore, been recounted, consisted
principally of the activities f>f the Local Area Com::ittees. All were
active in their respective zones on matters of Trade Practice, compli-
ance with the Code a,nd the' like. They kept their own records and only
reported to the Code Authority on matters that could not be locally ad-
justed. Such subjects vrere reflected in the ueetint;; of January U, of
the Code Authority wherein a considerable number of interpretations on
the Rules and ae-gult,t ions were made. (Ref. Minutes, Deputy's Files and
Interpretations under title D, 2 of this chapter). On- this subject the
President of the ITational Council of American Shipbuilders, who was the
Chairman of the Code Authority, was addressed as follows:
9732
"185-
"Septenber 7, I933
"Mr. H. G-errisli S"dth, President
National Co^aiicil of Ai.ierican ShipQuilders
11 Broadway
New York, Nov; Yorl:
He: Code History - Sliipbuilding and
Shiprepo.iring Industry -
Operation and Accomplishments
of the District and Local Axea
Cort-iittees
"Dear Mr, Sr^lth
"Under date of August 12, I asked for infornation on
the ahove matter, as well as certain other information.
However, I hrve co;'-pleted this part of the History in
rather good fom e:;ceptin,g for this iten of "operation and
accompli shr.ient s" •
"As these Co:xdttees only reported throufjh the Nation-
al ComTiittoes to the Code Authority and ?.s I tic^re no record
of such reports in the file, the only thing I can do under
the circumstrjices is to surmise on this suhject. I believe
it will be better to obtain the inforraa.tion from you on the
matter and hope ■'•ou will kindly give me a reasonably good
picture of the ^opcr;^tion and accomplishments* of these
District a,nd Local Area Com'iittees.
"Thanlcing you and Mr. Knerr for your previous help
given in writin--; this History, I am
"Yours ver;' traly,
"/s/ H. Newton TThittelsey
H. Newton Whittelsey
"HN¥:jwc Assistrjit Deputy Director"
No formal re-^ly was made. However, the author was informed that
the situation was sttb st ant i ally as recounted in the preceding paragraph.
No definite records of the actions of these Local end. District Com-
mittees can be found in the records other tlian h^a already been re-
counted. The shipbuilders did not show a disposition to maJce available
such records as there r.ay be in the file of the Code Authority. However,
in the author' s opinion their actions v/ere of only local character and
necessarily of short ^ration as the Trade Practice provisions of the
Rules and Re^rulations went into discard within si:: or eight months, as
is set forth unt.er title D, U (c) of this chapter.
9732
-187-
1-^ ■
6 . Discussion of Q-ocrnti on of the CocLe Authority.
Aftef the approvc-l of oiie CO'^'c •T-u.."'.^'- :"it. 1'"";", no time was lost in
the selection -of the CoJ;c >athovil\7 a.l it ,.ro ..-tl;' held its first meet-
ing Augast 22, 1S35» -I" ■-■-el-'., •■.uri:!.; the t-.;«j:rfc;,--tv;o rionths life of the
Code, twertty-t'7o -^fcetiiV-c, v;hicu r/ere^con-^ .cted in a serious and "busi-
nesslike naniier. Heferk:.ce is ■r;,de to list of r.ncl e::ccrpts from Minutes
of meetings hereinoefor-e set forth on pa^jes S] e. to l'(G d inclusive.
There were two na-Jor problems that confronted this Code Authority,
namely those of the restricted maz-cim-ura hours as provided in the Code
and that of adequate Pair Trcade Practice provisions, which were not in-
cluded in the Code, After the effective date of the Code, the Industry
soon found itself in difficulties owing to the restricted weekly hours.
Consequently the Code Av.thority made efforts to have the sane increased.
As a result the President requested the Nationo2 Lr-hor Board to investi-
gate the subject in the Pall of 1933* This Bo?.rd appointed a subcom-
mittee, which made a thorough study and the Board latter reported to the
President in March lS3'-l-j which resulted in an anencaient. No. 3» April 2,
193^1 approved by Hugh S» Johnson, Administrator, to the Code whereby
the maximum weekly hoiirs for Naval shipbuilding were increased from 32
to 36 hours per week to coincide with the Code provisions for Commercial
shipbuilding, (Ref, Chapter IV, Hours)
Amendment No, 3 or.l-j provided partial relief, therefore, the Code
Authority made a request of the Administrator for UO hours per week for
the Industry and appeared at a hearing conducted "oj the Administrator
on May 7f 193^» IJ'o decision was rendered by the Administrator. Con-
sequently the Industry?- continued under the 3S hour provision. (Ref,
Chapter IV, Hours)
The restricted r.rr:i:.:an hours made necessary a.pplication for a n-um-
bei* of exemptions and stcys. It was necessar;'- that the Code Authority
apply for exemptions on energency repair work, cud. exemptions to permit
trial trips, dock tric^ls, etc. Certain shipbuilcang companies found
themselves in difficulties due to the shortage of l?,bor of certain kinds
in Completing contracts and the Code Authority requested exemptions for
them. (Ref. title D of this chapter.)
The Minutes clearly show very serious thought was given to the
problem of Pair Trade Practice provisions. Attention is called to meet-
ing of January U, 193^> 'There a series of carefully considered inter-
pretations, pertaining to the Fair Trade Practice part of the Rules and
Regulations, were made. The subject is full;"" set forth in title D, c,
of this chapter.
In March 193^ the Code Authority determined to write an amended
Code as a proper solution of the difficulty with Trade Practice pro-
visions; also to contain suitable maximum hour provisions for the
Industry, as set forth in title D, 1, of this chapter. In the opinion
of the author the mended Code should hpve been submitted during the
Pall of 193^> as it is believed the Industry woi:J.d have been materially
benefited by the provisions that probably would hc.ve been granted by
9732
-168-
N. R. A. .
The only discrininr.tion of record was in rego.rd to the San Francis-
co small plants and other concerns on the Pacific Co?,st which had not
reduced wage rates durinfj the Depression, as set forth in title D, 3,
of this chapter. In -ihe opinion of the author^ the Code Authority
should have requested ercenption from or an anenccient to the Code to re-
lieve the unfair operc.tion of Section k (fc) in these instances. In
general, the records shov; that the Code Authoritj^ sincerely and without
stint of work tried to {govern as V7ell as possilDle the Industry under
the Code, and at all tines it advocated strict conpliance.
9732
-189-
C. Budget and Basis of Assessment
The Budgets were on a voluntary basis of a*sessment. It was
the subject of discussion at the meeting of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code Committee^ on Se'^tembor 12,
1934. The following is an excerpt from the Minutes, page 9 (Rcf,
Deputy's files) . ■ •
"Amendment to Code To Provide For The Levy of Assess-
ments
It i.7as decided that the Code Authority v^rould
not present an amendment to the Code, at this
time, to provide for the loT^'ing of assessments
for carrying on the work of the Code Authority
and its District and Local Area Chairmen, but
for the time being would rely upon voluntary con-
tributions. "
The budgetary periods were fro.r. Jxily 1933 to July 1, 1934, and
from July 1, 1934, to June 16, 1935.
The National Coioncil of American Shipbuilders advanced the
necessary Code Committee funds until the Committee was in funds
of its o\7n. (Ref. Ejdi. 0-5, Appx. )
1. Budgets as submitted and a^oproved
The Budget for July 1935 to July 1, 1934, was not submitted
to the Administration as the basis of assessment was voluntary, how-
ever, the books were duly audited as of December 31, 1934, and the
report of the auditor was submitted as will be set forth in detail
with references.
January 4, 1934, at a meeting of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code Committee) the following ac-
tion was taken. (Hef« Page 1, Minutes January 4, 1934, Deputy's
files)
J*Pl3n for Distribution of Expense for Administration of the
Code
The Chairman presented a plan for prorating
cost of administering the ■ Shipbuilding and Suipre-oair-
ing Code which plan liad been previously discussed and
approved by the Industry Lfembers of the Code Committee.
Mr. Davis stated that if the plan liad been so approved
he thought the adminiscration would approve same subject
to adjustment of complaints tliat cone in from individijal
shipyards. Therefore, the plan dated January 4, 1934,
attached hereto, was adopted."
"PLAL: for PROPATIITG COST OF ADMIUISTSRIITG
TH3 SHIPBUILDING AIID SKIPR^PAIRIITG C0D3
January 4, 1934
9732
-190-
"'Irformation has "been collected as to the
employment in the various local areas during
the past few months and while this eraploj-ment ,
fluctuates to a considerable deeree it shows
that the distribiition of ex-jenne, tased on
employment, sljould he es follo\;s:
Atlantic Coast 56,,j
Gulf Coast 13;j
Pacific Coas'ti^ 13,;
GSat Lslces • 3';''
loa',
"No percentage is submitted as yet for the
yards on the Great Kivers although some of the
smaller ones are operating under the Code. Others,
such as barge builders and subsidiaries of the
Steel plants, are waiting the oiitcome of the Plate
Fabricators Code. Vrhcn the status of the Hiver
Yards is clearly defined a prorata share of the ex-
pense of administration oi the code will be allocated
to them.
"Up to date no part of the cost of administering
the National Council of American Shipbtiilders has
been charged against the Shipbuilding and Sliip-
repairing code, although the headqua.rters of the
Code Committee, the Shipbuilders Administrative
Committee and the Shiprepairers national Coraraittce
are in the offices of the National Council of Ameri-
can Shipbuilders, and much of the time and facilities
of the National Council of American Sliipbuilders have
been devoted to tho administration of the Snipbuilders and
Shiprepairers Coda in esta"fclisaing the cost of administer-
ing the Code. From Jane 1st to December -^-Ist, 1933 the
National Council hns expended approximately $7,000
directly chargeablo to the Code. This figure is in-
cluded in the ■p2Q,BrjO. Frjra January 1, 1934 to July 1,
1934 approximately twenty-five percent of the cost of
operating tiie National Coimcil will bo charged as a
proper expense against tne administration of the Code,
This particular charge amounts to $5,500 and a total
billing of $28,500.
"On this basic, tho prorata distribution to the various
districts will bo as follows:
Atlantic Coast .018,800
Gulf Coast 3,700
Pacific Coast 3,700
Great Lakes ."^.SOO
$ 33 , 500
"To the amount allocated to each District Committee should
9732
~191-
"be added the anticipated expense of the District
Committee for the period in question.
"The allocation of the exi^ense to each local area
on the Atlantic Coast, where the errnTloyraent returns
are fairly complete, is as follovrs
ITew Sngland 15.6,;
Hew York .37.7
Delaware River 25.3
Chesapealce , 10.9
Hampton Roads 22.6
"The C-ulf District, pacific District and Great I^kes
District each should allocate its prorat? sliare to
its local areas, based on einployment in such areas,
as the information at present available to the Code
Committee is not sufficient to permit of allocation
to the local areas in those districts.
"To cover the expenses of the Code Committee,
Shipbuilding Administrative Committee and the Sliip-
repairint; National Committee the Treasurer of each
of these committees \7ill render one bill to cover
the cost to the res'oective District Com.iittee Chair-
men. District Chairmen v;ill render bills, to local
area chairmen separately to cover the cost of the
Code Committee, Shipbuilding Aciministrative Committee
and Shiprepairing National Committee as one item and
the cost of administering the District Committee office
as a second item.
"Local Area Committees in collecting funds in their
respective areas for the Code Coimnittee and District
Committee should add such exoenses as are necessary
for the administration of the Code in such local
areas. Zach Local Ai-ea Committee should render
bills to its yards and shiprepairers in its area.
"Local Area Chairmen .will make payment directly
to the Treasurer of the Code Committee to cover
the expenses of Code Committee, Shipbuilding Adminis-
trative Committee and Shiprepairing llations.l Committee
and another ":)ayment to the District Chairman to cover
its expenses.
"A list of the yards in each local area, together
with reported era^oloyraent figures, is enclosed here-
with."
In accordance with the foregoing plan the Industry was duly billed
on a basis of $1.20 per man employed, on the bill form Exhibit 0-1,
Appendix. The total billing was $61,652. (Rcf. 3xh. 0-5, Appx. , letter
9732
—1 <^-'?^
to H. Newton Whittelsey, Agsictant Deputy Administrator from C. C.
Kncrr, Secy.-Treas. of Katl, Coiiiicil of Ainerican Sni-o'builclers,
Sept. 5, 1935) ' ' '
Iferch 15, 1934, the Code Conrr.ittee a^i.thorir'.ed the opening
of tlie bank acco'unt. (?.ef« i-ioie 1 j.iniites, Deputy's files)
"Opening of a Bank AccQimt
The treasiirer announced that it woxild "be necessary
to authorize some depositary for the monies received
in connection with the operations ox the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Code and thereupon on motion of
Roger ^jlilliams, seconded by W. H. Gerliauser, it T7as
"RESOLVED: That an account or accounts be
opened for and in the name of this
Association v;ith THE llATIOML CITY
MMC, 26 Broadway, and that the said
Banlc is hereby authorized to pay or
otkerwise honor any chocks, drafts,
or other orders is'sued from time to
time for debit to said account or
accounts when signed in any manner
• in the name or on behalf of this
Association by
H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman, and
C, C. Knerr, Treasurer, jointly
either in an official capacity or
other/.'ise, inclusive of any such in
■favor of any said person(s), and
that the said account or accoiojits
be reconciled from tiuie to time by
said person(s) , or his or their
designees."
In accordance with the foregoing, the banlc account was opened
April 4, 1934, with the National City Bank of New Ygrk in the name
of the Shipbuilding and Ship repairing Code Committee (Ref. letter
Feb. 23, 1935, from C. C. Knerr, See re tar;/-Trca surer to H. Newton
'jThittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, E:ch. 0, Appx.)
April 24, 1934, the Code Committee received from the Chairman
a^ report and took action as per the following excerpt from the
Minutes. (Rcf. Minutes, page 5,'Depiity's files).
"Budget for Code Authority
The Chairman of the Code Authority reported tliat
at the January 4th mooting of the Code Authority a ■
budget was adopted totalling $28,500 for expenses
of the National Organization and that in the meantime
the expenses of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast District
9732 ' ■ ■ ■ '
-195-
Committeos liad "been reported as $8,470 and
the e.^enses of the Atlantic Coast and Gulf
Coast Local Area Committees were $6,511 or a
grand total of $43,481, and that up to
April 2ord the Code Authority was in receipt
of funds to the extent of $21,584,
"The Chairman further reported tliat the
National Council of American Shiptuildcrs had
made expenditures from its own funds for the
carrying on of Code Authority work and that up to
and including March 31, 1934 had expended a total
of $14,276.15 V7hich amount, together with the
amounts set up by the District and Local Area
Committees should be reimbursed.
"In view of the funds in hand being insufficient
to pay all amounts requested some method of proper
allocation must be determined upon and upon motion
• by Mr. V/. H. Gerhauser, seconded by Mr. Joseph Haag,
the following resolution was adopted:
"RSSOLVSD: That a Committee of Two be appointed
by the Chairman to audit tho bill of the Nation-
al Council of American Shipbuilders; and
"S3 IT yUSTHZH RES0LV3D: That the committee be
and is hereby empowered to determine the distribution 6f
funds in hand at this time.
"The Chairman in accordance with the ab^ve resolution
thereupon appointed Mr. Robert Haig and Mr. Roger
Williams to act as this Committo© of two,"
Also tho Biidgct for the Industrial Stslations Committee was
considered and acted on at the same meeting as per the following
excorpt: (Ref. Minutes, page 9, Deputy's files)
"3udp:et for Industrial Relations Comidttoe
The President then offered for discussion
the budget prepared by the Industrial Relations
Comraittee in the amount of $32,000. The
tentative figures as reported are as follows:
Zxecutive Secretary $5,000.00
Stenographer & File Clerk 1,800.00
Office Rent (Washington, D. C. )l, 000. 00
Teloplione, postage, station-
crJ^ etc. 1,200,00
Liiscellaneous expense of
investigations, etc. 2,000.00
Stenographic and Office
expense, and rent for
seven regional committces21,000»00
9732
TOTAL: $32,000.00
*-1 C't^
"There wr.s nucli discussion as to hov/ to raise
this money and pre su+x^stion- was s.dvanced that . '
a special essessnent "be niade..pn the Industry' to
carry on the activities of the, Industrial Rela-
tions Cornraittee, "but it v/as "believed that a
special assessment could not ho, levied at this
time and that it should come out of tJie general
funds of the Code Authority.
"The Code Authority/' in reviewing the budget,
item by item, was of the opinion that the
seven region-al committees could for the time
being be eliminated and, therefore, the $21,000
set up in the budget for this activity was
eliminated from the discussion.
"In view of the decision to eliminate the
seven regional offices and the establisliment
of the office in Hew Yoi-k instead of Washington
the follcv;ing resolution was offered by Mr. W. H.
Gerhauser, seconded by Mr. Hoger V/illiams, and
adopted:
"ESSGLVED: That there bo advanced from
the assessments already made $3,000 to
defray the e;coenses of the Industrial
Relations Committee, it being understood,
however, tiia.t a budget covering the ex- :•
. .. , penses of this Corai-nittee would be sot
up for approval by the Code Authority;
and
■' ■ "B3 IT*rURTH3R RESOLVED: Tim t .the Indus-
trial Relations Committee be and is
hereby autnorizcd to expend such sums
as may hs ncccssa.ry for the employment
of an Executive Secretary and the defray-
ment of head office expenses and the
traveling exrpenses of all members of the
Committee including the alternate
members. "
September 12, 1334, the Code Authority (Shipbuilding and
Ship repairing Industry Committee) aiToroved the financial statements
for the months of April, May, June, July and August. (Ref. page 1,
Minutes, Deputy's files)
At the same meeting the new Budget was approved for the period
July 1, 1934, "to June 16, 1935, as per the following excerpt : (Ref .
Minutes, page 11, Deputy's files)
"Approval of Budget
A budget of e:rpcnses for the period July 1, 1934
to June 16, 1935, was presented and Mr. Gerhauser
9732
—1 on_
offered the followiriit; resolution:
" H3S0LVEI): Tliat in connection vfith the Code
Budget for the Shiplauilding and Shipre-oair-
in.e, Industr;;/ for the period July 1, 1934 to
June 16, 1935, tliat the assessment te on the
"basis of total man-hours (both direct and
indirect, ^'ork) worked over a twenty-six v/eck
period (October 1, 1933 to Ivlarch 31, 1934)
and that the assessment to be levied sha.ll be
for a six months period, July 1, 1934 to
December 31, 1934. Hate per man-hour for a
six months -loriod not to exceed $.0014 with
a minimum billing of $5.00 per plant for a
six mionths period,
"Ur. Gerhauser moved its adoption, seconded
by Joseph Hagg, Jr., and carried.
"The budget on motion of Mr. Vj'. H. GerlTauser,
seconded by Mr. Joseph Ilagg, Jr., was approved
and made a part of the minutes,
"Ar)proximately one-half is to be raised,
payable iminediatcly and adjustment v^ill bo
made in second half of fiscal year for any
surplus funds received over and above
anticipated receipts.
"The Code Authority also approved the period
of April 1, 1:34 to September 30, 1934 as the
period to secure man-hour data for the assess-
ment to be levied on Janua.ry 1, 1935,"
The Budget as approved is shown as Exhibit 0-2 Ap":iendix
from which the recapitulation is as follows:
(See next page)
9732
22,^6
o to
o
r-n
o o o o
O O lH
Lr^
o r-o O'O o
r- o
o r-
o
r—
O O CTx O
r— o rv'
to
O ^D O O O O
MD 1^
• •
*
•
■ • • •
• • w
•
• *•■••
• •
o r-
o
h-
O O rH O
-:!- O t--
t-^
O CM O O O C
C\J ^
O OJ
f-l
H ,
CM o ro LO
60 iH O
o
w ir\ ir\0 O r^
iH ir^
o to
I-+
fr>
O rH O UD
t-— O I —
t^
rH ?\J LT^ O K> CM
ir\ r—
UD^
in
Lr>
J- K-,
^ rH OJ
U5
UJ J- r^ iH
lr^ t—
r-i
0.)
<-\
r-i LO
-&D-
■c;>
•€0-
■C/J- -&9-
C! o
n o
to
r-—
r—
CM
rH
■ee-
to
CM
LO.
■ca-
~oO
to
t^
1^ I--
-ee-
U3
C\J
o
t-- o
CM ^
o o
CM
crt
(D
ri
^H
fl)
<aj
S
Jh
rH
■H
crt
CTi
o
r-'
C5
t.)
H^
<JD
8
O
o
O
o
O
O
O O
o o o
o
o
O O O
• O O O
o
o
88
o
o
to
o
rH
o
rH
O
O
CM
,H O
o
J- O K-
CM rH K
r^ rH
o
rH
o o o
to inLfN
o
IT
o o
to o^
-OT-
• ^'-
1-H
rH
t^\ r-i
■ifi-
rH r<~\
r-i
-e/3--©3-
CH
g
O C
OT a
•H ^
PI o
O
O
CD
O
■eel
o
o
o
o
O
O
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
•
*
•
•
•
• •
o
o
o
o
^^
o
o o
r-1
a!
^
v,o
o
CM
o o
UJ
J-
ji-
CM
o
rH
■«/>
cm"
■m-
o,
o
o
o
o
O
O
■
•
o
to
rH
o
o
c^^
•«
•»
-68- ■««-
fe
HH O
S Eh
R
<il^
r^
>;
rt CTi
+=
O rH
•H
Fr
(U
M
M
■ri
O
&]^
o
C3
5J
i25 >H
ri
M fc3
^
l-^g
w
o
Ph o
O M
Ph
EH M
H fM
cb
e p^
ffl §
o o
O
O
o o o o
o o o
o
o o o o o o
o o
o o
■ O
o
<D <D O O
o o o
o
o o o o o o
o o
• •
•
•
• • • • '
• » •
•
• • • • • •
• •
o o
o
o
o o o o
o o o
o
o o o o o o
o o
o o
o
o
o o o o
o o o
o
o o o o o o
o o
O LT^
o
LO,
^ rH ir^uD
CM O LI"'
K^
O O LO O K^O
to MD
VD rH
rH
H
to
rH
CJ rH
H rH
r^
r--^ rj r^ r-i
■to-
•to-
■c/>
•CO- -co-
u
Q)
O
•H
«H
tH
o
o
w
!h Q)
^r^
o
•H
u
o
rH
o
•H
(D +3
r-i
w
-P
fn -H
Q)
p 1
p
EH ^
CJ
(J
rH
O
1 o
C!
^
<V
CD
U -P
pi
;-^i
w
K
O
lu
W
ri fj
O
!H
m
-P -^
f<fl
M
Vi
a
rH
o
l-H
fl)
1^ 0)
Ci
a
(^
•H
O 'Tj
f (1
i)
•=^
a
0) o
(U
■p
i-i
o
CO o
M
t/j
I
o
El
<D
4^ EH
I'-l
.C
in
tQcS
•H
r^
Hi 2
f4
o3 o
. .5
o C
n (1)
o
I EH
!H
(U
. . fJ
O O
E -H
P, 4J
•rH lu
fj H-3
cr'c/3
W -
Q
(D 'f)
O r^,
•H -1^
'+H 'n
ttH o
o m
•H
o
C
Pi
O rH
•H nj
<H O
O EH
w
•H
rH M
Pi C
•H
• H
en
^
o
0)
0
• •
C
«
rH
r-i
0
•H
H
rH
O
I-]
0)
CJ
•"S
>
«
f^
nJ
• H
w
fn
(B
O
(M
^
!>5
+J
o
■H
rH W
<^
U QJ
0
W Fr
rrl
o
ca CO
o
4J
VI
tn
S S
(I)
0)
C)
fn
n -p
1^
n
C)
M p!
a
,o
•H d
r-i
Ph
cti b
Ci
:^
n3
-p
o
EH
0) ^ o fcx) tn
rl S O O 0) P!
EH
w
CD
•H
o
Pi
CD
b!)
C
•H
p;
O
<; 1-1 n o
EH
o
EH
I
-9GI-
The Industry \7as billed for the first hr.lf of the period in accord-
ance V7ith the foregoing; on Bill form E::hioit 0-3 Appendix in the total
amount for the period Jvly 1, 1934 to December 31, 1S34,' of $40,724.96.
(Ref. Exh. 0-5, Appx.)
December 20, 1934, the Code Authorit"' approved the fiaancial state-
ments for the ::o:>ith3 of Septenber, October, pnd Kovember. ' (Ref. Minutes,
pe^e 1, Deputy's files)
At the s.-::e i.'.eatini?; A''irainistri.tive Order #119 was the subject of
consideration r.s per the e-ccerot from the Kinutes (Ref, Minutes, page 12,
Deputy's files) r-.s follows:
"Adtiinistrrtive Order X-119
(prescribed P.ules and '.'-eguD-ations for the Protection of
"-iJuic.s P.eceived By Code Authority)
"The Chaii'^nan reported that all conditions required by
this order can be met by the code authorit;" and that in the
meantime a bond in the amount of $10,000 had been taken out
to cover the Trea.surer, the bond beins^ 'olaced with the United
States Gria.rcjntee Company, a copy of '•/hich ^'ill be mailed to the
Assistojit Deput3'' Administrator." '
January 17, 1S35, the Code Authority approved the financial state-
ment for December 1934. (Ref. Kinutes, pture 1, Deputy's files)
At the sciie meeting the audit, of the. accounts was authorized as
per excerpt fro.: liinutes (Ref. Ii'inutes, pae:e 14, Deputy's files) as
follows:
"Audit of Accounts
The Chairman rs'oorted that under Administretive Order
X-119 Prescribing Rules and Rerjulations for the protection of
funds received by Code Av.thorities it v?ould be necessary that
the accou:its of the Code Authority be audited. On motion of
It. S. 7. HaJremoji,. seconded by Vx . 1 . H. Gerhauser and duly
carried, permission, was granted to employ a Certified Ptiblic
Accountcat to. audit the books of the Code Authority." -"
The bo:-id v.t.s also the subject of consideration as per the following
excerpt fro:: the lanutes (Ref. Ps^e 14-15 Kinutes, Deputy's files) as
follows;
"Bond ' ■
The ChairmsJi reported that a bond ha.d been ta,ken out
by the Trc asvjrer and photostatic copy had been sent to IT.R.A.
but that IT.R.A. had v-ritten the following letter dated Janu-
ary 8, 1954 in connection thereivith:
■*The photostatic copy of yoior bond in the aciount
of S10,000, written by the United States C--aarantee
ComprJiy has been duJi.y subaiitted with my recommendations
and ha.s been accepted as sufficient in amount.
9732
-193-
'Honever, the Code Authority Accoimt Section points
out, that if any other officers of your Code Authority
are empowered to draw upon the funds of the Code Au-
thority, those officers or employees should "be "bonded.
'/s/ H.llewton TThittelsey
'Assistant Deputy Administr^.tor
. ■ , 'Division 2, Section D, Group 3'
"As checks, in order to "be negotiable, must be signed "by the
Clir.iruan in addition to the signature of the Treasurer, Question
?.rose as to necessity of a "bond to cover the consigner. Colonel
?.ose stated that in vie\7 of the fact that checks require "both
the signature of the Treasurer and the Chairman, and since the
Treasiijrer is "bonded, in his opinion K.R.A. would not require an
additional "bond, but that he would take the matter in hand with
r view to having a prompt decision rendered "by N.E.A."
The photostatic copy of the bond was duly submitted by letter of
Decenbcr 29, 1934, from C. C. Knerr, Secretary of the Code Authority,
to H. ilewton ".Tiittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator. (Ref . Budget,
Deputy's files) The bond was written by the United States Guarantee
Company, ilo. 1033039, da.ted Decen er 11, 1934, in the ajnount of $10,000
on Clifford Charles Knerr, principal, the Secretary-Treasurer of the
Code Authority for the period of one year. (Hef. Exh. 0-4, A^opx.)
The copy of the bond was duly submitted to J. D. Kershner, Code
Authority Accounts Section and l^r , Kershner replied by memorand-um dated
January 7, 1935, to the same effect as hereinbefore quoted from the
Minutes of January 17, 1955. (ref. Deputy's files)
JGJau8.ry 25, 1935, the Assistant Deputy addressed Mr. Kershner as
follov/s:
"SUBJECT: Bond of the Treasurer of the Shipbuilding and Ship-
re-cairing Industry Corar.iittee
"Reference is made to your memorandum of January 7 and to the
first prragraph thereof. Please be advised that funds from the bank
account of this Code Authority are withdrawn on two signature checks,
that is the signature of the Treasurer sjid Chairman, respectively.
The Treasurer is bonded. This appears sufficient. Do you concur in
the matter."
Upon receipt of the memorand-um, Kr. Kershner concujrred and
initialed the blue copy, which is filed in the Deputy's files. Mr. 'I.
Gerris'u Suith, Chairman of the Code Authority, was accordingly advised
by letter the _ same date by the Assistant Deputy. (Ref. ludget folder,
Depu.ty«s files)
February 21, 1935, the Code Authority approved the January, 195:5,
financial statement. (Ref. Kinutes, 'i^ge 1, Deputy's files)
At the same meeting the certified public accountant's report v/as
J732
-199-
presented r.s per tlie excerpt of the Kinutes (Kef. i'inuteg, page 8, Dep-
uty's files) r.s follo\7S:
"Auditor's ?:e"oort
The Chr.ir:'-ra presenteu for record in the rninutes of the meet-
ing, the Certified Public Accountant's reoort of code expenditures
from the inception of the code to Decemter 31, 1S34-. Instructions
were directed to forward three c o-jies to K.R.A. in accordance v/ith
their recuest."
By letter 'r^'ch 1, 1935, the Auditor's reoort vras submitted os
follov7s: (Zef. Budget, De'outy's files)
"Mr. H. JTarton Uhittelsey,
Assist. Iieputy Administrator,
National Recovery Administration,
Room 4040, Conr.ierce Building,
Washington, D. C.
"Dear :.r. '.Tnittelsey:
In compliance with Admininstro,tive Order X--119, dated
Decemher 5, 1934, the books of the Code Authority for the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry vrere audited, as of
December 51, 1934 by Alvin H. Fo'toII and Company, and ve
are pleased to send vou herewith three copies of the report
of the Auditor.
"Very truly yours,
"/s/ C. C. Knerr
"Secretary-Treasii.rer"
March S, 1S35, by memorandum to Code Authorities' Accounts Section
from the As^istrat Deputy, the audit of accounts was submitted in accord-
ance with office nenorandum 324 and 325. (Ref , Budget folder, Deputy's
files)
March 7, ISLo, letter to H. G-errish Smith, Chairman of Code Auth-
ority request v/as Liade for assessment forms or notices sent to Industry
members, in accordance with office me lorandum 323. In reply to the
foregoing the Assistant Deputy received the billing forms and the Bud-
get (Ref. S:di. 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, Appx.) forwarded same ;■ arch 14, 1935, to
the Code Authorities Accounts Section.
March 21, 1935, the Code Authority approved the financial state-
ment for February 1935. (Ref. Minutes, page 1, Deputy's files)
April 25, 1935, the financial statement for March, 1935, was
approved by the Code Authority. (Ref. Minutes, page 1, Deputy's files)
April 25, 1935, the Budget for period July 1, 1934, to June 16,
1935, for the ri-iount of $57,754.30, (Ref. Exii. 0-2, Appx.) was tenta-
tively approved by letter, (Ref. Budget folder, Deputy's files) as
9732
follows:
"Mr. C. C. liierr, SRcr-tsxy,
Shipbuilding and Shipre-oairing
Code Aut:iorit7
Room 681, 11 Broadway, . .
New Yo:^:-, 11. Y. . '. ,' •
"Dear Sir:
This is to rdvise that p\u'suant to p.uthority vested in the
National Industrial Recovery Poard, "by Executive Order No. 5859,
and otherwise, the budget of e3ti:iiated expenses of Code Adminis-
tration for the current fiscal -neriod ending June 16, 1935, in
the total rvioiint of $57,754.30, the original of which is on file
with the national Recovery Ac'jninistration, submitted in compliance
with Ac"j:;inistrative Order No. X-15o, d^.ted February 26, 1935, is
hereby tentatively ap'oroved.
"This tentrtive approvrl, ho'-rever, is subject to final approval,
withdrairal or modification by the National Industrial Recovery
Board upo:i full consideration and review of said budget.
"NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL HECOVZr.Y lOARD
By:.
Hiram S . ErcTn
Assistant to the Administrative Officer"
The Auditor'^: report previously referred to T;as entitled:
AUDIT OF AGGOUITTS
OP.
SHIPBUILDING A-ND SHIPRSFAIHIrlG 'll-DUSTHY
CODE GOI^T'ITTEE
JULY 1933 TO DECEi'-IBER 31, 1C34
Alvin M. Powell & Company
50 Church Street
New York, N. Y.
The docuijent is a complete audit and reoort of the financial oper-
ation of the Code Authority for the period named. Unfortunately the
sheet size is too large to bind in the appendix. It is filed in the
Budget folder, Depu.ty':s files. The following a,re ^excerpts, which set
forth the essential information:
"AFFIDAVIT
"I soleonlj'' swear that the audit of the books and accounts of the
9732
Shipbuilding- rjid Shiprepairinr Industry Code Committee, reported on
herein, vras AcCe "cy ::e or by my employees under my direction in con-
formity as ne-rly as possible in the circumstances -ith the i' Inst rxict ions
to Auditors of Books and Acco^ints o" Code Authorities', and that I am
qualified to audit the said Code Authority as a "competent, independent
auditor' as defined by the National Iiecovery Admini3tr::.tion in its Ad-
ministrative Order ilo . X-119, dated December 5, 1534.
"/s/ Alvin M. Powell"
"SWOM TO LEFCZC '.E
THIS 9th DAY
OF FEBRUARY, 1935
/s/ Isabelle 1-lose
Notary Public, Yev; York. County No . 15;3
New Yor:: Recister's No. 5R73
■ Commission er^ires March 30, 1935"
9732
-203-
ASSESSMENTS RECEIVABLE
December 31, 1934
Shipbuilding '^nd Shiprepp, iririiE: Industry Code Comn^.ittee
TOTAL CHAR&ES VAPE
Period July 1933 to July 1, 1934 $61,652.00
Period July l.to Dec 31, 1934 40.724.96
TOTAL ASSESSNiENTS MADE TC DEC. 31, 1934: - $102,376.96
LESS CREDITS
For .Adjustments Account of Cnncellations
Period July 1933 to Dec. 31, 1934 26,085.25
Account of Collections received
Period July 1933 to Dec. 31, 1934. ,69.978.26
TOTAL CREDITS: $ 96,063.51
BALAITOE OF ASSESSMENTS RECEIVABLE AT
DEC. 31, 1934 $ 6.313.45
9732
-204-
STATEIiElTT OF IITCOi'iE EXPSHSES AITJ BUDGET COI''iP.\F:ISOH
Period - July 1933 to December 31, 1934
ShipbuildinjS; and Sfaiprepairinp: Industry Code Committee
Ac tual
INCOIvlE
Assessments applicable to the period due and collected $69,978.26
Sale of • copies of ]3y-Lai:7.s- for administering code 15.00
TOTAL INCOl.ffl: 569,991.26
EXFEKDITURES " :' -..
A. Salaries
Chief Executive's Office Schedule ttI ,rf; 6,874.99
Clerical Employees Schedule #2 9,203.60
■ .. TOTAL ^SALARIES: • , . ' ?^16.078.59
3. Office Expenses
Occupancy (Rent) t 2,331.05
Telephone and Telegraph ■ ' ' ' 1,761.14
Postage • 846.62
Stationery Cc Supplies 806.39
Printing & llimeographing 1,414.44
Reporting- Services , etc. • 243.09
i iscellaneous Expenses 1, 117.47
TOTAL OFFICE EXPEIISES:
C Traveling Ei^n^enses
EmiDloyee Traveling Schedule #3
TOTAL TRAVELIlTGr EXPEI'TSSS:
D. General Expenses
Committee Expenses Schedule 7f4 '^. 2,378.60
P. R. Harris, Consulting Eng.
(Survey and report on Present
Shiribuilding and Shiprepairing
Facilities in the United States) 5,000.00
TOTAL GEl\r;RAL EXPENSES: $ 5.578.r-0
i
8,520.20
?
3.022.25
1
3.022.25
E. Otner Special Outlay
District Office Expenses Exhibit "C" ^ 1,500.00
Local Office Ex-oenses Exhibit "D" 4,858.41
TOTAL OTHSR SPECIAL OUTLAY:
TOTAL SXPEIIDITIPJIS -
SURPLUS PROi; 0PE1RA.TI0ITS -
$
6,
,358.
,41
339 ,
,358.
,05
f*;50 ,
,635.
,21
9752
-205-
RECEIPTS OV ASSESSIRFTS BY TRADE AREAS
Period - July 1933 To December- 31, 1934 •
ShJ-pbuildin^ And Shiprepairin^ Industry Code Committee
ATLANTIC COAST DISTRICT
New England Local Area* ., , S 8,239,41
New York " " - 12,666.60
Delaware River & Bay Local A^ea 13,737.85
ChesatJeake Bay " " 6,045.50
Hampton Roads " " 12.125.85
TOTAL: $52,863.21
GULF COAST DISTRICT
85.00
110.55
3,245.25
2,277.75
855.00
Tampa Local
Area
Pensacola
II
11
MoDile
II
II
New Orleans
II
ti
Texas
II
11
• TOTAL:
PACIFIC COAST
$ 6,573.55
San Diego Local Area — (*)
Los Angeles " " ' 968.80
San Francisco " " 3,505,45
Portland " " 55.00
Seattle " " 1.643.85
TOTAL: $ 6,178.10
GREAT LAKES DISTRICT
— • *
Great Lakes Local Area ^ 5,308.00
TOTAL: . . S 3,508.00
MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISTRICT
l.'issi3sixi"oi Local Area 1,055.40
TOTAL: ^ 1,055.40
TOTAL RECEIPTS BY TRADE AREAS; $69.978.26
(*) No collections received. Total charges of $350.00 made for
San Diego Local Area charged off oy cpncellations as same was
reported by Code Authority Secretary and Treasurer as being
uncollectible.
9752
-206r
- I'iASTEE SHEET -
DISTHIBTJTIOK 0? ESTII.iATED EXPENSES OP ADMINISTRATION OF CODE
OF FAIR COMPETITION AM) TR/J)S PRACJICE FOR THE
SHIPBUILDING AMD SHIFREPAIRING INDUSTRY UP TO JULY 1, 1934
Expense Of
Exi:)ense Of
Expense Of
National
District
Lo
cal Area
Total
Local Areas
Organization
Committees
Conmittees
Expenses
New England
$ 2,930.00
$
1,170.00
$
750.00
$ 4,850.00
New York
5', 2 10. 00
2,077.50
4
,293.00
11,580.50
Delaware River
and Bay-
4,360.00
1,740.00
200,00
6 , 300. 00
Chesapeake Bay
2,050.00
817.50
450.00
3,317.50
Hampton Roads &
South Atlantic
4,250.00
.T$18.800.00
i
1,695.00
^
600.00
.293.00
6.545.00
TOTAL ATLANTIC COAS
7,500.00
*32,593.00
Tampa & West Coast
of South Florida
111.00
29.20
13.02
153.22
Pensacola
259.00
67.90
20.00
347.90
Mobile
1,430.00
388.00
60.00
1,923.00
New Orleans
1,073.00
281.00
1,354.00
Texas
777.00
—
203.90
125.00
1,105.90
TOTAL GULF COAST:
S 3,700.00
1
970.00
*
218.02
^ 4.808.02
San Diego
San Pedro and
,
Long Beach
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Portland & Columbia
River
•
Puget Sound
TOTAL PACIFIC COAST
:$ 3,700.00
$ 2,300.00
Great Lalces
(Omit)
(
Omit)
$ 2.300.00
GROSS TOTAL:
$28,500.00
$
8,470.00
$6,
511.02
$43,481.02
9732
-207-
STATElvIF.liT OF GE:"ERA.L ILIFOrvILA-TIOI"
I December 31, 1934
ShipbTuilding; And Shiprcpniring: Industi-y Code Conimittoc
Executive Secretary-Treasurer, ':0T'-
I.;r. C. C. Kncrr, 11 Broadway, llcvj York, H. Y.
AddrcslSs'l. 9f Hcf;ional Offices
Atlantic Coast District
Cliairiiir.n, Joseph Haag, Jr. Rotins Dry Lock &. Repair Co.,
BrookljTi, Kcr; York,
Gulf Coast District
D. R.Dunl;:^, Alab,-..ia S/B <=■ D/D Co., Mobile, Ala.
pacific Coast District,
C. W. Wiley, Todd Seattle Dry Docks Inc., Seattle, Wash.
Great lakes District
\1. H. C-erha,user, Great Lakes S/B & Repair Association,
Clcvclmd, Ohio
Mississippi River District (llo office established.)
5udg;ct Period
1st Period, July 1933 to July 1, 1934 (See Exhibit "J" attached,
for amount of budget.)
2nd Period, July 1, 1934 to Ju:ic 16, 1935. One half of the 2nd
period to be raised to cover cr^cnditures six months period July
to December 1934 . (See E::hibit "K" attached for rinount of bud-
get v.-)
Rate, of Assessment
1st -criod, based mon rate of $1.20 per employee with $50. and
$25.' minimum. See Exhibit "P" , Receipts af Assessments by
Classification wherein is shown a detail of assessment distribu-
tion according to mtes and are.^s.
2nd -oeriod, $.0014 per T^r.n hour vdth $5. minimma. See Exhibit
"F" for detail of assessment distribution, according to rates
and area,s.
Audit Period
July 1933 to Dv^cember 31, 1934
ITumber of Enroloyees at end of}-oeriod
Administrative - Chief Executive Officer 1
__Se_c_retary-Tria.asui'ej*- ■'^'
Clerical (Some part time) 8
^^- Total Erriployees 10
9732
-2DB-,
Officer Under Bond
3. G. Xnerr, Secretary-Treasurer
Aino-ont of 3ond - $10,000.00
Accounts ?eceiva'ble of $5,313.45 r.p"03aring on Balance Sheet ex-
pected to produce ap"oroximptely one-third (l/3) of total or $2,104.45
per estimate of the Secretary-Treasurer.
Lease nov; in force e::;oires April 1, 1^3^^ but can be terr.iinated at
anytime on 50 dcvs' notice. ■_
Asressraents pa^'ments voluntar*/- and no bud.^et v;as submitted to
KRA for approval except co'ov wgs furnished to i'Ra for their information.
Uo prepaid assessments appear in collections. All assessments
appearing ns collected in audit "oeriod cover period from Jul'' 1933 to
December 31, 1934.
Ko fif^ures a.-opee.r in the books at December 31, 1934 for accrued
expenses. Auditors have been rdvised by the Secretar^'-Treasurer that
all bills received at December 31, 1934 have bean entered on the books;
also thot tue accrued pa.yroll at December 31, 1934 '■'ould only approxi-
mate $22.00. Bills received from tne He'.' York Local Area r/hich appear
in the distribution of er-.pensec onl-''- cover period to October 31, 1934.
Bill to Dec'-mber 31, 1934 has not been ciibmitted by such local area at
date of audit. Sv.ca c\i^T<-e together v?ith distribution to be received
from the other Local Areas and Regional Offices vill aiopea-r in distri-
bution of expencitures in the next accoimting.
STA'I^MSI^T 0? GSICRAL I1IF031LA.TICIT
December 31, 1934
Shi^jQ^uldin- spd Shiore^iairint Industr:/- Code Committee
Cancellations and ciaa,r^"e off of assessments totaling $26,085.25 during
the -neriod covered by this audit have been authorized by the Secretary-
Treasurer, Mr. C. C. Knerr. The following strtement signed by the said
Mr. Knerr ^fas submitted to the auditors:
"$25,085.25 T.'as either cancelled or adjusted by direction of
the Treasurer becf.use of
1. Found firms were imder Small Boat Code.
2. Advised hy Local Area Chairmen that firms were under other
Industrial Codes and not lUider the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Code.
3. Adjustments due to billing being rendered on imcomplete
inf ormr'tion at time of billing.
4. Due to t.ccounts being uncollectible
5. Firms discontinued ousiness
(Signed) C. C. Knerr
Dated: Jan. 31, 1935 Secretary-Treasurer
9732 ;
On page 5 of "Instructions to Auditors" is the recuest to furnish
a statement of Income and Expenses end Budget Comparison sliovring the
income and expenses synchronizing- in statement-form v/ith the p-ovisions
of the Budg-et. Explanatory note on ZJxhioit "3" attached hereto, refers
to this Exhibit "M", Statement of C-eneral Informa.tion to the effect
that the auditors are vjiable \,o set up proper budi^et comparison in ad-
cordance xrith the reouest on page 3 of "Instructions to Auditors". The
Committee in preparing its first bud-get for the period to July 1, 1934
did not show a detailed classification of e>rpendi ture s , onlv an esti-
mate of expenses of administering the code segrega,ted as to National
Orgamzation, District Committees and Local Area Committees. In the
second budget for oeriod - Julj'- 1, 1934 to June 15, 1935 detailed in-
formation \7as prepared to shovif budget expenditures for all depa.rtments.
For the reason that Exliibit "B", attached hereto, calls for a detailed
distribution of all actual e:qjenses paid, it is impossible to show cor-
responding budget comparison r-s proper detail distribution is onlv avail-
able for the second budget period. Hov/ever copies of the two budgets
are attached hereto.
2 . Termination of Para..sra'oh III of ."j ii.'.i r trat ipn ■lQi';^-e;r_Z>-_36 .
No recuest was made by the Code Authority for such termination-
3. Effect of othor Administrative Orders
The Code Authority abided by all Administrative Orders that
applied to a vol"'intary contribution basis.
4. Income from Labels
I'o labels were used.
5. Fro-Qortion of Assessments collected
Soference is -nade to letter September 5, 1935, as follov/s:
(Hef. Exh. 0-5, Ampx.)
"Mr, H. ITewton V.'hi ttelso^.-,
Assistant deputy Administrator, National Recovery Administration
1320 G Street,
Washington, 3. C.
Re: History Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Code - Budgets
9732
"Deaj- Mr. Whittelsey:
In resoonse to your latter of Sa-ntsmlier 3rd, relative
to infcrrnation concerning; billings and budt^ets:
"(a) The Uational Co^incil of American Shipbuilders
did advance the f'lnds for administering the code up to the
tii:ie the industry was hilled, hased upon the authority of
the resolution and pirn of Januarjr 4, 1934.
"(h) 1. Practically^ all hills for the first budget
period was sent out under date of March 20, 1934, with a.
few a.cditional billings up to and including May 1, 1934.
2, Billirgs for the second budget period were
made on October 1, 1934,
"(c) Prom a ca.refail reading of the minutes of January
4, 1934 you v/ill note that the plan of that cate ?/as adopted
by the Code Committee and wa.s not merely an understanding
among the members attending the meeting. In reading the plan
for prorating the cost of n.dmiRi storing the code I direct
your attention to the folloi"'inr:
'From Januar;;' 1, 1934 to July 1, 1934, approxi-
mately tv;enty-five percnet of the cost of operating the
National Council will becha.rged as a "oroper exioense against
the administration of the Code.'
"The budget for the year July 1, 1934 to June 15,
1935 provided for the twenty-five percent of sala.ries and ex-
penses incurred by the I.'a.tional Council.
(ilote: For j'-our information, the national Coijoicil of
American Shipbuilders did not bill the Code Authority for
twenty-five percent of its actual expenses, but eliminated
all items that referred strictly to National Co-oncil business,
such as, membershi;o dues in the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States; expense of holding annual meetings of Council;
traveling expenses incurred other than on code work; cost of
la" books; capital charges, furniture and fixtures; postage,
and other miscellaneous charges of a character which we felt
had been incurred directly for the benefit of the National
Coujicil. )
Amount Amount
Period Billed Collected
"(d) July 1933 to July 1, 1934 ' $61,552.00 $34,423.00
&
"(e) July 1, 1934 to December 31, 1934 40.724.96 37.525.41
Totals: $102,376.96 $71,948.41
"(f) No bills were rendered for the third budget period
covering Januarj^ 1, 1935 to June 16, 1935.
"TiTith best regards, I am , i „ „ ^^
'r,rt~ri Yours vert truly, /s/ C.C.Knerr
9732 Secretary"
-■211-
It should be noted that trio ano-unt collected given e.s $71,948.41.
differs from the Auditor's report of rjnount collocted to DeccralDer 31,
1934, set forth in the forGi2;oimg statement of income cx;::)ense as
$69,991.26. The difference of $1,957.15 v/as received subsequent to
Dcccmbur '^1, 1934, ot-t. of the $6,313.45 (asS(jS9nents hilled and not
realised) set forth in the Balance Sheet hereinbefore.
In considering proportion collected due account must he t^-^hen of
adjustricnts set forth in statcnent of General Information of $25,085.25,
Therefore, after ;-djiist:"Cuts , the accounts stand os follows:
Total -^jnount 'Ldllcl $102,376,96
Less adjustments 26,085.25
Adjusted iMnount hilled 76,291.71
Total pjnount received 71,948.41
Proportion collected after
adjustments related to the
.amounts hilled 94^
The iDroportion with relation to the Budgets and after adjustments
is as follov7s:
Budget July 1933 to July 1, 1934 $43,481.00
" July 1, 1934 to June 16, 1935, 57,754,50
$101,235,30
Less adjustments 26,085.25
575,150.05
Total amount received .^71.948.41
Proportion collected after
adjustments v/ith relation
to the Budgets
a. Discussion of Difficulties Involved
'Fac Ind.ustry financed itself on a voluntary hasis with marked
success as shcvn by the surplus account, of $30,533,21 and receivable of
$6,315,45 and payable of only $2, 194, 00* as of December 31, 1934 as
hereinbefore set forth.
The adjustments v/erc made necessary by ^. ciia.nge in "Definitions"
Nvhereby smaller vessels v/ere put under the Code for the Boatbuilding
and Boatrepairing Iiadustry,
9752
-212-
6 . Financial 0-ocr-T,tions of Code Authority ir. Relation to its
other Operations
The foregoin^s shows , th-.t the Code Authority adeq^.iatoly provided
for the entire field or.vanization as ?/ell as proper offices for itself
\7ith ample help, and nan-' gee' b;;- avi efficient Chairman and the Secretary-
Treasurer. All a-.^'\car te h-:.V'~ "been sxifficicntly compensated*
7. Closing oi the i'iaor.cip.l Operations of the Code Authority
Aiigust 30, 193u, c.t a mectin.; of the Industry Hemhers of the
Code Authority, preparation was made for closing t ic financial operr-
tions of the Code Authority. '£of, lanutes Deputy's files) Excer] ts
of the i/iinutes are as follows:
"Liquidation o. Code Funds
"The Chair^nan recorded thrt after all disbursements (for all
areas) had ocen made, a b-, lance of $13,382.27 remained unexpended.
"There was also discussion as to the disposition of the files
and records of the Coue Axithority and District and Local Areas,
and it was the opinion that these records should he placed under
the jurisdiction of the l^iational Council of American Shipbuilders,
"The balrncc of $13,382o27 as mathematically calcula,ted vjould
be eq.mvalent to a refund of $0.185997 on the dollar and the fol-
lowing letter, to be addressed to those members of the industry
v/ho contributed to tac exrrense of administering the code, v/as
agreed upon as covering the dippostion of both moneys and records,
" ' (iTame of Individual Firm to be" Inserted)
Gentlemen:
"The Industry f.Lmbcrs for the Shipbuilding and Shiprcpairing
Industry that v.-ere represented on the Code Authority for the Code
of Fair Coni-oetition ^ind Trade Practice imve held no m.eetings since
April 25, 1935 until August 20, 1935, on which date a meeting was
held to consider and recommend action as to the disposition of the
files ajid records, and the liqiiidation of moneys obtained from code
assessments and now on Iir.nd.
"There is attached hereto a definite statement of receijits
... ..:-;onditiu:es for the period July 26, 1933 to Juiic 15, 1935.
The receipts from assessments and from the liquida.tion of furniture
and fixt-ixes totaled $72,071.41 and the total expenditures were
$58,589.14, le;iving a balance for distribution of $13,382.27 or
$0.185997 for every dollar received. Your proportion would be
"It is b.lievcd th-.t ■■.11 od those who contributed to the Ad-
ministration of tile Code will be s...tisficd upon an inspection of
the fina-.icial statemonts that strict economy was exercised in the
administration of the fimds bv the Code Authority, the District
9732
and the Local Area Comiaittces — an economy tiv.t could only
kave been o"btp.ined by making, use of existing organizations v;ith-
in the industry.
"It is suggested that the industry r..ssent to the disposition
of the files and records and the distribution of uiiexijended funds
?,s folloT/s;
1. T'aat the National Co-jncil of j\rr.erican Shrpbuilders
be assigned to t:il:e care of such files ?nd record.s as it is
impoi'tant to preserve,
Z, That tl;e imex.^onded balance of individ-i:u.cl or cor-
porate voluntary contributions to t?ne administration of the
Code (tha.t is $0,155997 for every dollar received) be assigned
to the 'la.tional Council of A^-ierican Shipbuilders to be ex-
pended in trade association activities for the shipbuilding
and shiprepairing industry as the J-tional Council of American
Shipbuilders may deem just and proper,
3, Tliat if the individuiil or corporate contributor is
not sa,tisfied to distribute the br lance on hand as suggested
above that a check be. rna.de out and mailed to him or it in an
gjnount v/Mch sliall equal the ba.lance of his contribution re-
maining in the fund,
"Please note the atta.ched two form letters - Form V,o. 1 assenting
to items llos, 1 o.nd 2 above, and Form ilo, 2 assenting to items ITos, 1
and 3 above, which are sent to you for yo'^ir convenience in responding
to the aoove recoirimendations. It will be avpreciated if you vdll fill
out promptly the one to which you agree and return it "o this office,
"In order to facilitate a prompt closing out of the v;ork of the
Coda Authority it v/ill be assuincd tliat if a reply to our letter is
not received on or before Se-otcmber 15, 1935 that you assent on your
part to the Form Letter Bo, 1 sent to you,
"There is enclosed for your convenience a self-addressed, st-riped
envelope for your reply.
Very t^'ulj'' yours,
%
C. C. ICnerr,
Secretary. '"
?732
"214-
SHIPSUILDIl'G Ai'ID SHIPRZPAIRIl'G INDUST:^! CODi: COblllTTEE
11 BROAD' :AY
net: yoric
STAT-SII?,HT OF IirCOiiE* Al^D EXPEL^DITURSS* (JULY 1955 TO JUIIE
16, 1955) AED AMOUNT OF CASH ON EAST), AUGUST 20. 1955
INC 01.13;
Assessments (Jul]'- 1953 to June 16, 1935 - Exhibit "A") $71,948.41
Sale of By-Lavs . 13.00
Proceeds from Sale of Furniture & Fixtures 110.00
TOTAL INCOJ.IE: $72,071.41
EXFEiroiTURES;
Salaries $31,767.52
Office Expense
Rent $4,477.80
Stationery & Supplies 2,197.96
Printing & L'imeograpMng 1,882.98
Telephone & Telegraph 3,548.05
liiscellaneous Expense - 263.60
Postage ^ 2,139.53
Reporting Service 306.22
Luncheons 576.29 15,192.43
Traveling Expense 4,591.33
General Expense
Industrial Relations Committee $2,378.60
F. R. Harris - Consulting Engineer
( Surve'"- of Shipbuilding & Ship-
repairing Industry'' in connection
with preparation of Code) 3,000.00
Audit of Accounts Certified
Public Accouiitant ■ , 300.00
Contribution to Durable Goods
Industries Committee 800.00
Prentice-Hall Service 60.00
Bond for Treasurer 25.00 6,563.30
Furniture & Fixtures Purchased 574.26
TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 58.589.14
SURPLUS CASH IN BANK: . $13,382.27
(*) - Covers all National, District & Local Committees
9732
I
-215-
Si^^TLLElTT OF i:"CQ![E 3Y LGCAi. .ASLAS jU'D EXPSIIPITUHLS
OP ALL C0:ii;I?T£3S
(Exhibit "A", referred to in the fore^iOixig re-
port 01 income and Ix lenditures)
¥.0. of Income froin E:qTcnded by
Firms Assess.Tients Coimnittee
3i".i;obuillin^, & Shi-oreoairinti
Code Authority
Atlantic Coast District
•$43.114.77
District Comnittoe
'Jew England Local Area
ITew York Local Area
Delav/are Hiver Local Area
Chesaper]ce Bay Local Area,
Hampton Roads Local Area
Total
Gulf Coast District
District Comiriittee
Tanroa Local Area
Pensiicola Local Area
Mobile Local Area
iJe^.- Orle^ais Local Area'
Texas Local Area.
Total:
P&cific Coast District
Los Angeles Local Area 8
San Francisco (District &. Local
Area) 20
Portland Local Area 3
Seattle (District £■ Local Area) 20
$1,524.52
13
$8,910.06
. 326.73
97
13,165.65
6, 938. .63
14
13,797.40
99.89
14
6,090.40
438.51
31
12.262.35
569.33
159
$54,225.86
$9,997.51
3?
Total:
Great Lakes District
District & Local Area
Mississj-Q-Qi River District
District J; Local Area
GMI;D TOTAL:
51
45
299
$6.638.00
$968.80
3,627.60
60.00
1,749.65
$6.406.05
$5.C23.10
$1.055.40
$71.948.41
$417.46
4
$90.00
$15.00
4
110.55
20.00
11
■ 3,299.70
70.04
12
2,282.75
291.24
6
855.00
106.81
$920.55
None
$2,803.32
ITone
335.25
$3.138.57
$1.493.14
$ 24.50
$58.689.14
9732
-216-
In accordance \,'ith the action of the Indust^r/ Menbers of the Code
Authority Au^st 20, 1935, the financial pffairc -Tore closed ac per
the follovrin.-^ letter: (Ref. Deputy's Piles)
"September 23, 1935
"Mr. H. Newton TThittelsey
Assistajit Deputy Director
ITatirnal Recovery Administration
Conecticut Avenue & "L" Street
Wpshingtoii, D, C.
"Dear Mr. Wliittelsey:
"I have your letter of Septeraher 19 and just as same was received
I was on the verge of sending the information to 37OU as agreed upon when
in yoirr office Isst Tuesday.
"I am pleased to enclose herewith 9 copies of a letter sent to
all members who had contributed to the supTjort of the Code Authority
from its inception. The letter is in accordance with the action
taken by the Industry Members at its meeting on August 20. I auto-
matically extended the time in which to receive letters back from
September 15, 1935 to September 23, 1935 and I am "^leased to inform you
that the-accounts are now balanced and that all fiinds have been distri-
buted.
"If there is any additional information needed in connection with
an interiretation of these letters, please do not hesitate to caJ-l upon
me.
"Very truly yours,
"/s/ C. C, Knerr
Secretary"
9732
-217-
D. Administr-^tion of the Code
1. .^.Tiendments
Amendment No . 1 was approved by the President October 10, 1933,
(deference: Code Record Section and Amendment No. 1, Exhibit A, Appendix,
also Deputy's Files.)
The Code ns approved July 26, 1933, provided in Section 8 (a)
r-.s follov's:
"To effectuate f-orther the policies of the Act,
a Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee
is hereby designated to cooperate with the administra-
tor as a planning and fair practice agency for the
shipbuilding --.nd shiprepairing industry. This com-
mittee shall consist of five representatives of the
shipbuilders and ship repairers elected by a fair
method of selection, to be approved by the Adminis-
trator and three members without vote appointed by
the President of the United States. Such agency
may from time to time present to the administrator
recommendations bosed on conditions in their industry
as they may develop from, time to time T^'hich v-zill tend
to effectu.ite the operation of the provisions of this
code and the policy of the National Industrial Recovery
Act."
Amendm.ent IIo . 1 provided that Section 8 (a) be amended to read
as follows:
"To effectuate fijrther the policies of the Act, a
Ship Building and Ship Repairing Industry Committee
is hereby designated to cooperate with the Adminis-
trator as a Planning and Fair Practice agency for
the ship building and ship repairing industry. This
Committee shall consist of representatives of the
Ship Builders and Ship Repairers in such number not
less than six as the Administrator in his discretion
ma^v' from time to time determine, elected by a fair
method of selection to be ap'oroved by the Administrator,
and four mem^bers without vote appointed by the Fresi-
dent of the United States. Such agency may from time
to time present to the Administrator recommendations
based on conditions in their industry as they may
develop from time to time ^^-hich will tend to effectu-
ate the operation of the provisions of this Code and
the policy of the National Industrial Recovery Act."
iiTilliam H. Davis, Deputy Administrator, by memorandum of Septem-
ber 18, 1933 (Reference: Volumes I, II, Code Record Section and Deputy's
Files) pointed out that
9732
-218-
"The Shipbuilders .',nd Shiprepnirers stpte that
since totli of them must be represented on this
committee, and as the peofraphical distribution
is so great, they feel that a committee of six
instead of five is necessary, liith a possible
increase later, on to take care of representation
for the Mississippi River and its Tributaries.
"The Secretary of the Navy has sugisested that
since the operation of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Code will have an important
bearing on the Naval Shipbuilding Program, it
is desirable that the Navy Department be repre-
sented on the Committee, thereby necessitating
an additional Presidential appointee to represent
• him on this Committee.
"I recommend that you approve such amendment."
The letter to the President from Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator,
of August 30, 1933, (Reference: Volume II, Code Record Section, Deputy's
Files, and Amendment No. 1, Exhibit "A", Appendix) contained the following:
"Under the Code of Fair Competition of the Ship Building
and Ship Repairing Industry, as approved by you on July
26, 1933, the Industry has asked for an Industry Commit-
tee having six representatives of the Ship Builders
and Ship Repairers instead of five as provided for
by the Code. The Secretary of the Navy has asked for
representation on the Industry Committee."
There were no hearings or notice of opportunities to be heard.
The Consumers Advisory Board and Labor Advisory Board approved, and the
Legal Division approved as to form.
Amendment No. 2 was approved by Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator,
March 29, 1934, (Reference: Code Record Section, Amendment Folder,
Deputy's Files and Amendment No. 2, Exhibit "A", Appendix). This amend-
ment pertained to Definitions.
The Code as approved July 26, 1933, read as follows:
"1— -DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
"The terms 'shipbuilder' and ' siiiprepairer ' , when
used in this code, includes a person, partnership,
or corporation engaged in the business of building,
fabricating, repairing, reconstructing, remodeling,
and assembling oceangoing, harbor and inland water-way
vessels, and floating marine equipment of every type
above ten tons, including the building within their
plants of machinery, equipment,, and other ship's parts."
9732
-219-
Amendment lio, 2 provided ps follows:
"1. 'DEFINITIOK OF TERMS
"A. The Term ' Shipb-aildirif? and 3hiprepFiir„
ing Industry' means:
"1. The "building, fabricating, repairing,
reconstructing, remodeling and assembling
o'f all vessels and floating marine equips
ment except:
"(a) V,'ooden boats and vessels and wooden
floating marine equipment.
"(b) Pleasure boats and yachts, both wooden
nnd/or metal up to and including one hundred
and fifty ( 150) feet in length over nil.
"2. The building within shipbuilaing and ship-
repairing plants of machinery, equipment and
other ship's parts.
"B. The term 'Member of the Industry' means any
person, partnership, corporation, association,
trust, trustee, or receiver engaged in the Ship-
building and Shiprepairing Industry'-, either as
an employer or on his or its own behalf."
The report to the President of V.aTch. 29, 1934 from Hugh S.
Johnson, Administrator, (Reference: Volume II, Code Record Section,
and Deputy's Files and Amendment ITo. 2, Exhibit "A", Appendix) contained
the following:
"Since the effective date of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Code, August 5, 1933, it has
developed that the definition was too inclusive
and covered too wide a scope of operations inasmuch
as it brought within the scope of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Code practically the entire
operations of the smaller Boatbuilding and Boat-
repairing Industry, vmose activities and conditions
are of sufficiently different character to warrant
a separate code. The specific amendment proposed
by the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry and
as- amended at the hearing is as follows:
'The terms "shipbuilder" and " shiprepairer" ,
when used in this Code, include a person,
partnership, or corporation engaged in the
business of building, fabricating, repairing,
reconstructing, remodeling, and assembling
oceangoing, harbor and inland water-way vessels,
and floating marine equipment of every t,'/pe, except
-220-
"A. Steel pleasure craft and steel yachts
of 125' or under in length overall.
"B. Wooden fishing schooners 50' or under
in length overall, wooden trawlers 50' or
under in length overall, and wooden haroor
tugs 50' or under in length overall.
"C. All other wooden commercial vessels 75'
or under in length.
'The terms " shipouilder" and "ship-
repairer" also include the building
within their plants of machinery,
equipment and other ship's parts.'
"The facts brought to light in this hearing
revealed that a further modification of the
amendment was necessary. The following defini-
tion for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry has resulted from the reconvening of
the hearing in the Deputy's office on March 21,
1934:
'A. The term "Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry" means!
"1. The building, fabricating,
repairing, reconstructing, remodeling
and assembling of all vessels and floating
marine equipment except:
'(a) Wooden boats and vessels
and wooden floating marine
equipment .
'(b) Pleasure boats and yachts,
both wooden and/or metal up to and
including one hundred and fifty (150)
feet in length overall.'
"2. The building within shipbuilding
and shiprepairing plants of machinery,
equipment and other ship's parts."
'B. The term "Member of the Industry
means any person, partnership, corporation,
association, trust, trustee or receiver
engaged in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing Industry, either as an employer or on
his or its own beh-.lf . ' "
9732
321-
The Public Hearing (Reference: Code Record Section nnd Deputy's
Files) was conducted on March 20, 1934, at Washington in the Pan American
Room, Mayflower Hotel, Deputy Administrator, J. B. Weaver, presiding,
Assistant Deputy Administrator G. H. Shields III and F. C. Waldron,
Aide, present. There were present also:
Of the Industrial Advisory Board:
E. L. Fries-
Of the Labor Advisory Board:
Herman Brunck; J. S. McDonough.
Of the Consumers' advisory Board:
W. H. Edmonds.
Of the Planning and Research Division:
W. Cross.
Of the Legal Division:
Julian Johnson.
Witnesses heard were:
Mr. James A. FennjTmcker ,
National Council of American Shipbuilders.
Mr. H. F. Morse.
Mr. Henry B. Nevins,
Representing the National Association of
Yacht Yards.
Mr. A. E. Luders,
Representing the National Association of
Engine and Boat Manufacturers.
Mr. James A. Fennypacker, representing the National Council of
American Shipbuilders (the proponents of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing C ode) read a statement (Reference: Fa^^^ 3, transcript of Hearing,
Code Record Section and Deputy's Files) setting forth the shipbuilders'
viewpoint of the change in definitions as proposed by the shipbuilders
aS r ecounted hereinbefore in the excerpt from the report to the President.
This statement was signed by H. Gerrish Smith, President of the National
Council of American Shipbuilders, dated March 19, 1934, and addressed to
J. B. Weaver, Deputy Administrator. 5here was included in the statement
the r e turn from questionnaires that v;ere sent to shipyards and boatyards.
Replies were received from 22 shipyards and 25 boatyards.
Mr. H. F. Morse. President of the National Association of
Boatbuilders and Repairers (the proponents of the Code for tra Boat-
building and Boatrepairing Industry) read a statement (Reference:
beginning page 16 of the transcript of the hearing, Code Record Section
m d Deputy's Files) in which the following points were made; that of
336 motor vessels built, 213 were built in boat yards and 90 built in
shipyards, the balance being built by the Government. ' These vessels
being between 100 and 150 feet long; that below 100 feet in length there
were 332 vessels built, of -.-hich almost 100^ were built in boatyards.
That the shipbuilders' statement was based on returns from
only 22 shipyards and 25 boatyards, whereas in the United States there
9732
-232-
were approximately 3000 boatyards and appro::iraately 66 shipyards, mem-
bers of the National Coiincil of Snipbuilders . He requested that all
wooden "boafbuildinfc and repair v/ork of any size, both commercial and
yacht work, should be placed within the definition of the Boatbuilding
Code and excepted in the definition of the Shipbuilding Code. (Author's
note: - There were 232 tliipyards assented to or signed letters of com-
pliance to the Shipbuilding Code.)
Mr. Henry B. Nevins, representing the National Association of
Yacht Yards, testified as to the substantial difference between ships
and yachts and between chipbuilding and yacht building. He submitted
considerable data to prove that yachts up to 150 feet were for the most
part built and repaired in boatbuilding yards and made a plea for the
definition that had be^n made a part of the proposed Code for the Boat-
building and Bostr.-jpaj ving Industry to be set forth in the definition of
the Shipbuilding Industry as ez-cept-^d. (Reference: beginning page 25,
transcript of Hearing, Cede Hecord Section and Deputj'-' s Files)
Mr. A. E. Luders, representing the National Association of
Engine and Boat Manufacturers, stated that the opinion of the Association
he represented was that the de^narcation (between the Shipbuilding and
the proposed Boatbuilding Code) as proposed by the Boatbuilders and
Repairers was a fair, ecuitable and proper definition. (Reference:
beginning page 36, Transcript of Hearing, Code Record Section and Deputy's
Files)
The reconvened hearing in the Deputy's office on March 21, 1934,
cited in the report to the President hereinbefore set forth, the parties
of interest arrived at the agreement on the definitions that were approved
for this amendment (no transcript or other record can be located of these
proceedings in the Code Record Section, Central Files, or the Deputy's
Files)
Amendment No. 3 was approved by Hugh'S. Johnson, Administrator,
April 2, 1934 (Reference: Volumes I, II, Code Record Section, Deputy's
Files, and Amendment No. 3, Exhibit "A", Appendix). It was recommended
for approval by K. M. Simpson, Division Administrator.
The Code as approved July 26, 1933, provided as follows:
"3 — Regulations of Hours of Work
"(a) Merchant Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing —
No employee on an hour rate may work in excess
of an average of thirty-six (36) hours per week,
based upon a six (6) m.onths' period; nor more
than forty (40) hours dui-ing any one week. If
any employee on an hourly rate works in excess
of eight (8) hours in any one day, the wage paid
will be the rate of not less than one and one-half
di) times the regular hourly rate, but othervase
according to the pro-vailing custom in each port,
for such time as may be in excess of eight (8) hours.
9732
"(b) Shipbuildine:; for the United States Government.
— No employee on nn hourly rate may work in excess
of thirty-tvv'O (32) hours per week. If any employee
on an hourly rate works in excess of eight (8) hours
in any one day, the wage paid will be at the rate of
not less than one and one-rhalf (l^) times the regular
hourly rate, but otherwise according to the prevail-
ing custom in each port, for such time as may be in
excess of eight (8) hours."
"4 — Minimum Wage Rates
"(b) The amount of differences existing prior to
July 1, 1933, between the wage rates paid various
classes of employees receiving more than the estab-
lished minimum wage shall not be decreased. In no
event shall any employer pay an employee a wage
rate which will yield a less wage for a work week
of thirty-six (36) hours than such employee was
receiving for the same class of work for a forty
(40) hour week prior to July 1, 1935. It is under-
stood that there shall be no difference between
hourly wage rates on commercial work and on naval
work, for the same class of labor, in the same
e s t abl i shment . "
Amendment No. 3 provided as follows:
Fart 3, Paragraph (a) is modified to read:
"Shipbuilding No employee on an hourly rate shall
be permitted to work more than thirty-six (36) hours
per v/eek. If an employee on an hourly rate works in
excess of eight (8) hoiu's in any one day, the wage
paid will be at the rate of not less than one and
one-half ( I-5) times the regular hourly rate, but
otherwise according to the prevailing custom in
each port, for such time as may be in excess of
eight (s) hours."
Part 3, Paragraph (b) is deleted and a new Paragraph
(b) is added, as follows:
"Shiprepairing. — No employee on an hourly rate shall
be permitted to work more than thirty-six (36) hours
per v^eek averaged over a period of six (6) months,
nor more than forty (40) hours during any one week.
If an employee on an hourly rate works in excess of
eight (8) hours in any one day, the wage paid will be
at the rate of not less than one and one-half ( 1-^)
times the regular hourly rate, but otherwise according
to the prevailing custom in each port, for such time
as may be in excess of eight (8) hours."
9732
-^1-.~
Fart 4, Paragraph (b) , is modified to read as
follows:
"The amount of differences existing prior to
July 1, 2935, between the wage rates paid var-
ious classes of employees receiving more than
the es':ahlished minirjom wage shall not he de-
creased. In no event shall any employer pay
an emplo2/ee a viage rate vaiich will yield a less
wage for a work week of thirty-six (36) hours
than such employee was receiving for the same
class of work for a forty (40) hour week prior
to July 1, 1933."
Provided, howAver, that the hourly wage rates
now prevaiiirii-; :n private yards shall not be
reduced because of the increase in ho\irs, ex-
cept rates resulting from the application of
Public Works Administration Bulletin No. 51
9732
-225-
The re-oort to the President fron Hu^h S. Johnson, Administrator, of
April 2, 1934, contained the follordng:
"Sir: This is a re-:iort on the anendnent to the Code of
Pair Cora-oetition for the Shiptuilding rjid Shiprepairing
Industr]'' sjid on the recora lendrtions nade thereon hy the
Kationo.1 Lahor Board to the national Snergency Cottncil
on Ilarch 22, 1954.
"The arnendnent follows the reconnendaticnr. of the National
Lal3or Board :;7hich was transnitted hy it to the national
Emergency Council on March 22, 1934, and ap;n-oved "oy
you on l.Iarch 27, 1934,"
The report on the Amendnent, ilarch 30,1934, to Hugh S, Johnson,
Administrator, from J. 3. TTeaver, Deputy Adr.iinistrator (Heference:
Volume II, Code Record Section and Deputy's Piles) contained the
following:
"This is a report on the araendiaent to the Code of Pair
Competition for the Shipbuilding ?-id Shrorepairing In-
dustry and on the recomKenda,tion3 nade thereon oy the
National Labor Board to the lle-tional Emergenc;' Council
on March 22,1954.
"The following exhibits are included or attached:
Legal Division's approval
Original letter of transnitt'^1 fron Industr-'-
Notice of opoortunity to file objections
Code to which ajnendrient is bei .^: raade
Transcript of the herring held before the
National Labor 3oard
"The other exhibits ordinaril"'- included are not ^jresent
in this case due to the f-ct th-t no hearii^g has been
held before the ITrtio-rial Recovery Aririiiistrr-tion on
this oinendment.
"The amendnent concerns the revision of the hour clauses
now obtaining in the Code of Pair Conoetition for the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry-, arid follows
paragraph three of the recorxiendatioas uaie by the Na,-
tional Lrbor Board to the National 3nergency Council on
March 22, 1934, a:ad en .•-roved by the President on Ilarch
27, 1934."
9732
The reconnendation (Reference: VoltUiie II, Code Record Section
and Deputy's Files) of the national Labor Board ttss as folloi-'s:
"RECOiniEilDAIIOiJS TO IIH I^^SOUTIVE COIfilCIL 3Y THE
KATIChiil LA301-: 30AID Oil EliPLOYEll RELATIOIIS III
THE SHIpgUIIiDIlia AIED Si'IPEEPAIRIIJG IjDUSTRY
"Pursuant to the reqti.est of President Pranld.in D. Roosevelt that
the National Labor Soard study the relationship 'betTTeen the Navy Yards
and private shi-obuildiag concerns in re:^ard to va^ges, hours of eimloy-
raent a^ad similar matters, the Borrd makes the recomendations embodied
in this report.
"On Se-otember 22, 1933, a Sub-conmittee was appointed by the
Chairman of this Board as a fact-finding body to determine the exact vre^
vailing conditions uith rogard to this question. This Sub-committee re-
ported back to the Board on llovember 1, 1333, embodying in its report
(copy attached) substantially all the necess' ry facts regarding the pre-
vailing situation.
"FollO',7ing receipt of cms reiDort a conference uas held under the
auspices of the Board -yad- presided over by the Chairiiria of the fact-
finding Sub-comnittee, on ilovenber 13, 1933. At this conference all
interested pp.rties were re-oresented»
"On December 5, 1933, a public hearing \7as held before the national
Labor Board follo'iing its acceptance of the facts established by the
Sub-committee report. In addition to the evidence sup-^lied by this re-
port, Tvitnesses nere herrd fro:i all parties in interest nho requested to
be heard.
"i'llIDIliGS
"The Board finds, on the basis of all evidence submitted for
their consideration, that a worJc vreei: of thirby (30) hours and the
Public 7orks Administration scale of •r.'ages is not practicable and
feasible in the Shipbuilding n.nd Shi-)re;oa,iring Industry.
"The Board recoianends in the light of this finding:
"1. That a thirty-si:-: (33) hour v;eek be estab-
lished in the Industry for all shipbuilding.
"2. That for all shiprepairing an average of
thirty-six (36) hours per i7eek over a six
months' ;oeriod be established, and tha.t
the maximum hours in any one Feek be estab-
lished at forty (40) hours.
9732
-^27-
"3« That the desirability of iiniforn hours in
the shipyards and in the Navy^^JCards 'je re-
cognized, and in the event that stteh equal-
ization is not hroughc ahout \7ithin a per-
iod of six months from the date hereof,
the Administrator of the Industrial Recovery
Act shR.ll review the question of t^eelcly
hours in the shipyards.
"4, That the hourly -.-^age rates now •:)revailing
in private yards shall not he reduced he-
cause of the increase in hours, (except
rates resulting frou the p.-plication of
P. ¥. A. Bulletin llo. 51),
"5. That a Board UTon v/hich employees and em-
ployers are equally represented he estph-
lished to study wpge prohlems uhich arise
from the estahlishraents of the thirty-six
(3S) hour vreeh provided for in Sections 1
and 2 hereof, and that it shall he a func-
tion of this Board to equalize hy negotia-
tion any unfair competitive inequalities
in wage ra,tes that ncy exist as a result
of the past application in thu Industry of
the wage ajid hour 'orovisions of the Code
plus the present application of the hours
and T??.ge rates "orovided for in Sections 1,
2, and 4 hereof.
"If or when there is set up in the Industry an Industrial Rela-
tions Board aporoved hy the national Recovery Administration the
foregoing duty and functions shall devolve upon that Board."
The reference to the Rihlic Works Administration work week of
thirty (30) hours and scale of '-ages was hroutght ahout, "because a con-
siderable portion of the Haval "building prograra was to be paid for
out of P. W, A. funds. P. ¥. A. issued the wage and. hour provisions
referred to in the report of the National Labor Board.
The letter from the President was as follov.'s:
the; miiTZ house
17ASHI"JGT0iI.
March 27, 1934,
"Honorable Harold L. Ickes, Adninistrptor
"Federal Emergency' Administration of Public T/orks
"Washington, D. C.
9732
_OOp„
"Ily dear l.Ir. Secretary:
"I hp.ve toury r"T3rovod the recornnenda.tion presented to- me by the
Uational Lc-bor Bcarci, -■■urcuaut to L^y request thrt the;"- study the rela-
tionship hetwsen the ITavy Yards and privete shiphuildin.'^ concerns in
regard to ^•JP■^es, hours of employment, and sinilar matters.
"Administrator Huf-h S. Johnson has been directed by me to effect
the ajnendment of the:' Shi-obuildir^:^ rnd Shipropairing Code in accord^Jice
with the findin^-s and reoornmen'dp.tions of the Hational. Labor- "Board.
"TJlien these p.iendraents a.re made and bscone effective, yon c-'re
directed to adjust the Public 'Jords Atoi hi strati on scale of ^-'-^ es,
hoxirs of eimloyment, 'ar-d siinilar matr.ers no'-' prevailing for ship-
building a,n:l shiprepairing, to correspond rrith the Shipbuilding pjid
Shiproioairing Code as aMended.
"Very sincerely yo-ars,
"/s/ "JHiiinCLIIi D. HOOSE'/ELT
"President."
The Notice of Oo-)ortunity to file Objections uas duly issued
April 4, 1954 (Reference: Lrciiibit "A-1", Append!::) .
Legal Division apiaroved. (Hefere'^ce: Volxim'e II, Code Record
Section)
"If this situation requires inMedi;ite change, the Legal
Division -oasnes the ;:!rocedure and doc^anients involved. There
is a danger that ttr are too for on the negative side of
Constitutional requirements as to due process, but ue may
be sustained, h.- ving jrovided a rule to oho--' Cr-use.
"/s/ ikn.us P07 Shannon , Jr.
"A:igus Roy Shannon, Jr.
"At^sistant Counsel."
a. Effect on the indxistry
Amendiaent ITo. 1. wliich pertained to increasing the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepa iring Indu';try Connittec from an Indiistry neinbershi-o of five
to six and froii the representatives ao jointed by the President of three
to four, had the effect of enabling rdded reoresentation by the ship-
repairers and the effect of enabling the Secretary of the Wavy to have
a representative on this Code Aithority.
Amendment ITo. 2, irhich -ocrtained to the definitions, hp.d the effect
of releasing from the -)rooosed loatbuilding and loatrepairing Code a.
class of relatively small vessels, that 'vere not for the most loart built
by the shipyards, and that were in fact built by boutyfirds. This change
9732
-229-
in definitions had little effect on shiptuildin;::; production and na.s
■beneficipl as it released a nuij'ber of 'boafbuilding concerns v^hose prac-
tice V7as considerably different than a truly shipbuilding^ and ship-
repairing ;olan»
Amendment ITo. 3, had the follovanfi effect:
(a) IThereas the raaxiraum neelcLy hours for shipbuilding
for the United States Governr,ient had been 32 hours per
week it was changed to 36. This made for better operation
in those yards which were building vessels for the United
States Governr-.ent and also comnercial work, which had been
■ granted 35 hours under the Code as approved.
(b) The amendment as written for shipbuilding withdrew
from Commercial shipbuilding, the flexability originally
incorporated in Section 3 (a) of the Code, quote, "no
employee on an hourly ra,te rasy -'ork in excess of an
average of 35 hoiirs per rreek, ba^-.ed -apon a six months'
period, nor more than 40 hours during any one week."
(c) By the direction of the Pr.sident in the letter
hereinbefore set forth, the Riblic Uorks Adrnini^.tra-
tion modified Bulletin 51 by the addition of Section
55 to the Bulletin. This section provides that "on
all ship-building and shi;>-repairing -:;rojects for which
invitations for bids for contra.cts are issued after
July 1, 1934, the sca.le of wo.ges and hours of em-iloy-
raent shall be determined by the Code of Fair Comi^eti-
tion for Ship Building and Ship Repairing Industries.
Therefore, on such contrp.cts, articles 11 (b) and 18 of
Form ITo, P. W. A. 51 shall not be in effect."
(d) The aaendment to Part 4 (b), which eliminated the
provision, that there be no difference in hourly rates
on commercial work and llavaJ. work had little effect, as it
is the practice with the private shipbuilding yards to
pay the same for the sajne cla.ss of i/ork on either Com-
mercial or ITaval shi"obuilding.
b. Critical discussion of value of amendments, including un-
a'D'oroved ajnendments
Amendment ITo. 1. Tliere is no criticism of this amendment.
Amendment ITo. 2. It is noted that in the hea.ring en this amend-
ment, steel cora:iercial vessels of the sma.ller sizes ''ere not given con-
sideration, T/hereas many boatbuildin.-; and ooatrepairing plants have
facilities for and do build and repair such vessels.
The Code Authority for the Boatbuilding aiid 3oatrepa.iring Industry
soon learned that the smaller steel commercial vessels shoixld have been
included in their definition and excepted from the definition of the
shipbuilders. An amendment was submitted to the Administration by the
9732
-230- ■
National Code Authority for the BoatDuilding and Boatrepairing Industry
together rrith other amendments not concerned with definitions (Re-
ference:' Amendment Folder, Bo,Tt"building ana 3oa,trepairing Industry,
Deputy's Tiles). This piaendraont was suhmitted when such matters were
"being held ;oending their incorporation in a revised Code to conform
with the expected new KHjl Law, Further the shiphuilders had 'been
working on an amended Code for a confiderahle time which, also had heen
held pending the enactment of the e:.-''ected Law. This matter of de-
finitions wp,s, therefore, to he adjusted "between the two industries in
the proposed revised Coc.ss.
Amendiiient IJo . 3. Tnile the provisions of this amendment, where"by
the np^ciuum hourly week on ship"building for the United States Govern-
ment was changed from 32 to 36 hours, had the effect of simplifying
the operations of the yards and giving the men larger pay envelopes,
it fell short of adequate reasona"ble honors for this Industry. Under
the 36 hoxir provision the avera^ge hours worked "by the men was only
30.5, whereas the average hours worked in all Industries was 35.2 (Re-
ference: Konthly Lahor Review, Vol-ume 40, llo . 3, March 1935, pages 756
and 757) .
[Moreover the Navy yards which operated under a 40 hour per week
"basis had the effect of drawing skilled men from the private ship-
"building plants. The res-ult of these restricted hours was reflected
in the applications for many exeaptions from the maximun hour provisions
of the Code.
9732
6'
-231-
Unaoprcved Anendments
(1) Smerfiency 7ork. - It was not provided for in the Code. On
October 30, 1953 the Code Authority took action as per the excerpt from
Uinutes as follows:
"The Chairman a^^ain brou.,5-it to the attention oi the Code
Coi-nmittee a request froin the 'JcDona^.! Iron 'lorks,
Galveston, for an exemption for working men over forty
hours. They stated they had endeavored to obtain addi-
tional workmen but failed, and hence worked the men in
excess of Code requirements. Mr. (Jerhauser cited a
si ailar instance by Cliica^o S-iipbuildin^ Com^xiny.
"After thorough discussion as to the possibility of yards
abusing this privilege, it was agreed that a form should
be dravm up embodying t/^ereon general regulations to
cover emergency work, this forn requiring certification
from the managers of the plap.t, and eiinhr.sizing the
absolute necessity of reporting on work done under emer-
gency conditions - pointing out that failure to report
is a violation of the Code and subjecting the violator
to a penalty of poOO.OO.
"Tlie form is to be drawn up axii submitted to t-ie Code
ComiTiittee for approval."
November 16, 1933. In acccriaiice wit/i tne foregoing the Code
Authority issued Interpretation ilo. 3 (deference: Sxiibit 1-3, Appendix)
as follov>fs:
lUTEZPEJlTATIOl^ KG. 2
Shipbuilders and Sliiprepairers Code,
Paragraph 3 (a) (l)
Paragraph 3 (b) (l)
TO: CODS COi/u.lITTES
SHIPBUILDIrlS ADjIII'ISTPATIVE COI-ilHTTES
SriPPJSFAIiERS i:aTI:1'IAL C0i.i..-ITT3E
ALL LOCAL AISA C0Aia-.3i: (Please see that a co-oy of
this Haling is distributed to each meT.ber of the
Industry in your Area. ) ,
C-entlemen:
There have come before the Code Co.umittee nuiierous requests for
approval of Emergency 7ork in excess of the. ;;iaximuin number of working
hours r)er week prescribed in the Code of Fair Competition and Trade
Practice for the Sliipbuildin^ and Shiprepairing Indu'itry in the United
States.
The Code Committee has not granted any general approval of Emer-
gency '.York, and will not do so. lov the time being, the Code Cormnittee
will consider special cases of Ihiergency lork, and will approve them
where the facts justify such action. It mrast be realized, however, t.iat
9732
unless tlie requests for ar-iroval of Eiaergenc;/ '.Tork are strictly limited
to actual emergencies t.'.e pur_Jose of tl\e plan wiiici the Code Cominittee
is now adopting will "be defeated, and it will become impossible to in-
troduce any flexibility into t'A : application of these provisions of tLie
Code.
Every member of t^ie Industi-y must confine the Emergency "York
strictly to the mini;TiUjT:i limits, and is required, in the event of Emer-
gency 'ilorlz to submit a statement witnin the week the work is performed
on the attached form. This statement is to show the nuiiiber of hours
worked per man in excess of the ?;eekly limit, the necessity therefor,
and otiier information requested on tie form, over the signature of an
executive officer of your plant. This statement raList also be duly
notarized.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very traly yours,
II. Ct. Smith, C"na.irman.
A saiTiple of the statement form, just referred to, made by the
Bet"xalehem Shipbuilding Corporation is 3"hown in E:diibit I-3A, Appendix.
Request for air.endment to the Code should have been immediately made
after the .meeting of October 50, l?3o, in the opinion of the Author.
Althougli t-ie Deputy Ad.i-iinL;=:.tr;;tor, .7. ;.!. Davis, and Geo. h. Sliields III,
Assistant Deputy Aiainistrator, \.'ere present accorling to the minutes,
t^iere a;opears to be no record o\ either malcin. , svicli a suggestion.
Apparently t.ie Code Authority understood such actiji within its pov;ers
although the Code, Section 3 (d), provided as follov/s:
"(li) It is contemplated that from time to
time supplementary ;orovisi:.ns of tiis code or additional
codes will be sabmitted for tlie ap srcval of -t-ie President
to prevent unfair competition in price and otlier unfair
and destructive competitive practices and to effectuate
tlie otner purposes and policies of Title I of the
National Indastrial Recovery Act consistent wit"-i the
provisions t.iereof."
January 4, 1934. Tne Code Authority received a report as follows
(Reference: i.iinutes, page 3, Deputy's Files).
"EiTiergency Work
"T"ae Chairman reported we had received from firms
located in various sections of the co^antry numerous
reports on emergency work requiring Jiours of labor
per week in excess of those provided by the Code and
■ that t:ie necessity for such overtime had been certi-
fied to before a Notary Public by an official of
each company in question. After discussion Mr. Roger
Williams moved and V.r. Robert Haig seconded that:
97 3S
-233-
"The re_5orts listed on txie statement
dated January 4, 1954 covering emer-
gency work be laid on tae ts^ole for
future consideration."
. 1933. Tlie Code Autliority passed a resolution providing
for tlie re-writing of the Code (iReference: page 5, i.Iinutas, Deputy' s
Files)
April ^A, 1954. Tlie Code Authority again acted on "21-nergency Jork"
(Hefjrence: .linutes, pa.ge 16 and 17, De Taty' s .Tiles).
"T.ie members of tie Code Aufciority were of tl..e opinion
that the matter should be restated tc t.'.e Industry ojid
th-ereupon Mr. Robert 'laig, offered tie following
resolution.
'333CLVZD: Tliat the Code Authority lereby
authorizes its Chainnan to bring to t;.e
attention of the Industry pjid cases which
appear tc be excessive h-ur? of work ejid
that the Industry nust in tie fiitare con-
fine its e.'nergency work to actual e..iergenG:.es
in tiie industry itGelf.'
"The motion was carried."
During tiis period and for sc.ne montis thereafter a sub-co..i:dttee
of the Code Authority were re-v/ritin^ the Code pre-^- ratory to sub'.aission ,
which was to provide suitable cla^ises to cover t^is "Snergency ,7ork."
J'one 13, 1934. The Code Authority .aade ap;olication for the aiaen 1-
ment by letter to J. 3. '.Teaver, Deputy Administrator, from >I. 3errish
Smith, J-iairman of the Code Authoritj,'", (Reference: Deputy's ~'iles) of
whicli the following is excerpted:
"A modification of the present Code provisions to
allow greater leeway per week on emergency work is
necessary. As explained to General Jolinson at our
meeting with him on May 7ti, we are continual ly
receiving reports from sliip-repair yards of the
necessity for exceeding the forty ..our limitation
in order to accomplish emergency work.
"As you will appreciate, sl-ips t^at are on reg'o.lar
sailing schedules must be repaired on time or else
tiey are delayed in sailing.
"As previouslj'' explained tc you because of the
li.uitation in Y/eekly hours employees in shiprepair-
ing are not averaging thirty hours a week tirougli-
out the industry.
"Under tie circuiastances, a modification of the
weekly provision relating to shiprepairing is very
97 32
essential, and it is reco.-iiiiended t-ia.t as applyin_ to 'botli
siApbuildin^, and saip-repaArin^ tne follov/in:,, definition
"be accei^ted for an emergency:
' Tlie term "emergency" means that situation
where"b/ a danger, or menace to tlie safety
of a vessel, life or property exists; cr,
wliere a delaj'' would work an undue liar d ship
on an o?mer or contractor.'
"Now follow with the tY/o definitions of hours for the Siip-
building and Sliiprepairing w^L-ich have not been changed and
add a third paragraph so that the three paragraphs will
read as follows:
"Tile above limitation of hours in any one week shall not
apply to emergency work."
Tlie amendment was wit...draYm as per letter Jvjie 38, 1934 to
". G-. Smith, Chairman of tlie Code Authority, from H. Kev;ton ITnittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, (.Reference: Deputy's Files) which is
as follows:
"Tnis is to a.cknowle l,:e you;; lon^^' distance telephone call of
yssterday afterno.:n, June 37, in reply to my letter of
J\ane 25, witi regard to the Amendment pertaining to tne
Emergency clause that y'ju requested in your letter of
June 13.
"I understood from you as follows: if it developed that
an open hearing must be held on the Application, you at
the present time, did not desire to have us proceed
wita tne matter, for the general reason that an amended
Code is in formulation and Wxien it is up for considera-
tion then tiiS open .learing will be condacted.-
"I informed you in tne teleph-,ne conver&a,tion that the
mL\ltigraphed copies of t^ie original letters of Jione 13
were sent without our knowledge to the Administration,
and in the usual course had been distributed to the
various Advisory Committees or Boards; and that I had
heard the Application for tiis Aneninent should be the
subject of an open liearing.
"In accordance with your v/ish, the preparation of the
papers for the .Amendinent was stopped, and will not be
proceeded with ^ontil v/e are in receipt of a further
request.
"Please accept this as a reply to you on the same sub-
ject of June 27 letter."
Following this period the proposed amended Code ¥/as expected from
month to month, finally December 14, 1934, thete was a letter sent to
E. G. Siiiith, Chairman of the Code Authority, from •!. Newton Tnittelsey,
9732
-255-
Assistant Deputy Administrator. (Reference: Deputy' s Files) Tnis letter
• set forth tae circumstances and asked tne following:
"'iVill you please give ne or point out in the record the
authority on whica the Siiipbuilding and S'liprepairing
Industry have teen working in excess of the maximum
hours of the Code in Emergencies?"
In reply December 21, 1934 letter to 'I. Newton Whittelsey, Assist-
and Deputy Admnistrator, from II. G-errish Smith, Cliairrnan of the Code
Authority, (Reference: Deputy's Files) there was attached a memorandxixn
setting forth the shipbuilders contention for longer hours, but no
legal basis for Emergency '.fork beyond the m£:,ximuj.i weelcly hours of the
Code.
January 9, 1925. Letter to Z, Gerrish Sriiith, diairmaxi of the Code
Authority, from II. Newton Hiittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator,
(Reference: Deputy^ s Files) approved by memorandu;n to I'.ie author from
T. R. Vaug].ian, Assistant Counsel, by r.oward Ralph, Assi-tant Counsel,
.(Reference: Deputy's Files). The subject letter read as follows:
"Dear l,Ir. Smith:
"■Reference is made to ycur letter of December 21, in
reply to my letter of December 14 with regard to the
above subject. Particular note has been talcen of
your memorandum on emergency work, dated December 19,
'attached to your letter.
"Examination has been made also of the Minutes of
the meetings listed in your memoraadum and also
Bulletin llo. 2, which pertains to this matter.
"It is understood tliat necessary emergency repairs
to vessels Iiave been made over a long period of
years in emergency situations whereby a danger
or menace to- the safety of a vessel, life or proper-
' ty existed; or where a delay wciild hav© worked
an undue hardship on an owner.
•Tlowever, when the maximum hour provisions of the
Code are exceeded in working under such emer-
gencies, special exemption from the maximum hour
provisions of the Code must be obtained eitl:ier
by an amendment to the Code or by an exemption
of ^ temporary nature.
"The Code has not been ai'nended to permit work
••bbyond the maximam hours of the Code in emer-
gencies, nor has any exe:Trption been requested
orgranted^ The amendment, requested Jxme 13,
1934, was withdrawn.
"Therefore, there exists no autliorization for
any shipbuilding or shiprepairing yard to woris: .
9732
-see-
in excess of the iTaximTi" licur provisiDns cf the Code
on emergencies and any .yard so v/^rkin;; would lay it-
self open to a char-i^e ol 'riolal.ion of tne Code, even
if it does file a report i.7ith the Sliiphuilding and
Shdprepairin-!? Industry Co .iTiittee.
"It is understood tiat suitehle err.ergency provisions
are heing incorporated in the proposed amended Code,
which is to oe th^e subject of consideration at your
meeting of Jp.nuary 17. If this amended Code is
submitted to the ,'/h;iinistration , I believe due
consideration would be given to a renuoest for ex-
emption from tne maximuiii hour provisions of the Code
in emergency repairs of ships for a period not ex-
ceeding three months, which shoxild be sufficient for
the consideration and approval cf the new amended
Code.
"The subject is recommended for your careful atten-
tion. Kindly acknovifiedge. "
January 17, 1935, heetmg of tne Code Authority. Tne foregoing
letter was read (Heference: pa.ge 12, iiiinutes, Deouty' s Files) and the
follov/ing resolution was passed:
"HS30LTSD, That the Code- Author! tv authorize its
Chshrman to clp.rify with N.xl.A. the situation with
respect to emergency work and to renuest approval
of such definition of eaiergency v/ork for the ship-
building and sliiprepairing industry as necessary to
clarify this matter; and
"H3S0LV3D, That the following is adopted as a defi-
nition of emergency work:
'The term "emergency" means that
situation whereby a danger, or
menace to t]ie safety of a vessel,-
life or property exists; or, v/here
a delay would v.ork an undue- hard-
ship on an owner or contractor.' .
"And that to each of the Paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b)
of the Code there be added the following v;ords:
'The above limitation of hours in
any one week shall not ap-ply to
emergency work.'
"AND BE IT FUxRThSH SSOLVSD, That pending tne adop-
tion of the amendment by h..^.A. that a temporary
exemption be granted for emGrii-,ency work by N.H.A.
to the Siiphailding aaid SJdprepairing Industry."
Application for the teraporctry exemption was duly received and
9732
— oO f —
Administrative Order 2-31, February 19, 1955, signed by I. A. Ilarriman,
Executive Officer, was issued as a stay of Sections (a) and (b) of tlie
Code. Tliere developed considerable controversy over the v/ording of
the term "Emergency Work" within the Administration, which resulted in
a better definition and one well suited to sniprepairing cjid shipping.
Hie Code Authority at its meeting of February 21, 1955 adopted
the new definition (Preference: pa^e 9, l/iinutes. Deputy's Files) as per
the following excerpt from the minutes:
"Definition of the '.7ori "Emergency"
The working of the term ' emergency' as contained in the temporary
stay granted by iJIlA (Order No. 3-31) was considered and on motion of
S. I. lalceman, seconded by 1. K. Gerhauser, -was ado':ited. Tliis defini-
tion is in lieu of that adopted at t]:e ineetinj; on January 17th, and
reads as follows:
'The term "emergency" means that situation
involving danger or menace to the safety
of a vessel, to life, or to property, or
wien a delay would work an undue hards. lip
on the owner or the shippers or t'le
passengers through loss of use of a vesyel
for prompt loading or discharge or prompt
and safe carriii_:;e of cargo or passengers
to destination.'
Ttie situation became involved owing to tie resistance of the Code
Authority to provisions in exemptions and stays, whic!i required over-
time be paid beyond the maxiimara weekly hours of the code, whic.i was
interjected into the letters from the Code Authority on the amend_aent;
consequently, the author sent the following letter dated l.ferch 30, 19 35
to C. C. Knerr, Secretary of the Code Authority (Reference: Deputy's
Files)
"Dear l/Ir. Knerr:
"Referring to my telephone conversation with you to the effect
tha.t it is advisable to pass a new resolution of request for tiis a-
mend^nent and thus consolidate the two previous resolutions pertain-
ing to the matter.
"Tlie resolution should clearly state the T/ording that you desire
to obtain in the Code and not be involved in other matter such as con-
tained in the letter of January 17. Tlie definition, of course, should
follow the corrected wording passed at the last meeting.
"It has been advisable to hold this .natter until a decision could
be obtained on tie protest against time and one-half provision. Tlie
subject is now in Review and goes direct to tlie National Industrial
Recovery Board for final determination of tliat Board., whidi I hope can
be obtained next week. Tlierefore, v/e are almost in a position to
start aliead with this amendment. You understand if the Board denies
the protest tliat any amendjiient pertaining to emergency work must in-
9732
elude tlie prnvisijn for time anl ".ne-lislf in excess of tlie maxi^ifuin hours
of tie Code.
"I hope to "be a,t year .iipe\:ine, toiT.orrow.
"Very tidily yours,
"H. Kewton V/liittelsey,
"Ansistant Deputy Adininistrator
"Squiixnent Divi si on . "
The nev/ resolution was passed at the ineeting of th.e Code Authority
March 21, 1035 (Reference: pa^-=: 3, Llinutes, Deputy's Files) and formal
letter of application for the Amendment was received "by letter dated
March 23, 19Z5 to li. ITewton "Jnittelsey, Assistant Deputy Adjuinistrator,
from IT. Gerrish SiTiith, Chairman of the Cole Authority (Reference:
Deputy's Files). Tne letter re-d as follows:
"The Code Authority at its neeting in t'lis office on
Liarch 21st, 1934 passed tiie followin;;; resolution:
'ZESOLVHD, That the following- is adopted as
a definition of emergency work:
"The tenn ' em.ergency' means that
situation involvin-; dan^^er or
menace to t'ne safety of a vessel,
to life, or to property, or wiaen a
delay would v/ork an undue "Hard-
ship on tie owner or tie shippers
or the passengers through loss of
use of a vessel for prompt loading
or discharge or prompt and safe
carriage of cargo or passengers to
destination: and
'FU3T:-:.i;R, be it is solved. That to each of the
paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 ("b) of tie Code
tiere be added the following words:
"The ahove limitation of ma,ximura
weekly hours in any one v/eek
shall not apply to emergency work."'
"It is requested that tiis definition may he placed
before the proper autiorities in ITRA for their con-
sideration and that the definition may be adopted
as an aiTiend.nent to the code. Early action is re-
quested. "
Administrative Order 2-32, March 21, 1935, signed by ',?. A. "larriman.
Executive Officer, denied tie request of the shipbuilders for the dele-
tion from Exemptions and Stays, the provision that overtime be paid be-
yond the maxiinum weekly hours of the code, and consenuently tiis subject
involved the amendiaent. April 5, 1935, a letter to II. Gerrisli Smith,
Chairman of txie Code Authority, from h. llewton Jnittelsey, Assistant
9732
Deputy Administrator, (Reference: Ds'puty' s Piles) -.vns as follows:
"Dear Mr. Smith:
"Mr. J . W. Hc.rt, one of tlie Indastry .nembers of t.ie
Industrial Relations Conadttee for your Industry,
has just infonaed me tar_t your Sliiphuilding and Sliip-
repairinj^ Industry Committee proposes to exercise
its right to appeal from Administrative Order 2-33,
pertaining to the payment of time and one-half be-
yond weekly hours, to the Appeal r, Board and tnat
you are raaicing preparations for such an appeal.
"In view of this situation, and in order to keep
matters clarified, I would suggest the ■fallowing;
"(a) A letter advisinz that you intend to tcC:e such
an appeal.
"(b) A letter requesting the "ational Recovery Ad-
ministration to withiiold action on the proposed amend-
ment pertaining to emer.?ency Y/ork pending the deci-
sion of the Appeals Board for the reason that such
decision is necessary as a proper guide in the deter-
mination of the final fonn of the proposed aaendment.
"(c) A letter re.-^ueiting extenaicn of the partial
stay, Administrative Order 2-31, until such time as
the amendment is approved and citing tliat you intend
to take an appeal of 3-Z-3 and :iave made reouest for
witliholding action on the proposed amendment iintil
the decision of the Appeals Board."
Tile a-'iendment was withdrawn and. extension of partial stay (Admin-
istrative Order 2-31) v;as requested in letter dated April 8, 1935 to
E. Hewton Tnittelsoy, Assistant Deputy Administrator, from
H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Cole Authority, (Reference: Deputy's
Files) which read as follows:
"Subject: Emergency VYork.
"Ref . A. Code Authority' s letter to H. H. "ji/liittelsey
dated March 28, 1935.
"Ref. 3. H. K. Wliittelsey' s letter to Code Authority
dated April 5, 1935, paragraph (b)
"Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 5th, in con-
nection with definition of em.ergency work.
"In view of the Code Authority' s letter of even date re-
questing a further extension of the partial stay
(Administrative Order 2-31) covering e.viergency work,
it is requested that our letter of March 23th, asking
that the code be amended to cover definition of emer-
9732
-24C-
gency "be held up -until our appeal from tae decision
of AdiTiinistrative Order 3-32 iias been acted upon \>y '
the Industrial Appeals Board."
Tlie amendment had "been sent to the Advisory Boards, etc., hut they
were all notified .h.y memorandum dated April 9, IfoS of the situation
from H. Newton "fcittelsty. Assistant Deputy Administrator.
Eie shirhuilders were duly further auth.orized by Adjninistrative
Order 2-34, Extension of Stay (Administrative Order 2-31) signed by
W. A. Harriman, E:-:-3Cutive Officer.
9732
( a) Fro-'osed .Amendnent of Paraf:raphs 3 (a) and (h) of the Code as
Amended "by No. 3. A-oril 2. 19?4.
Au-^^st 3, 1934. The proposed anendecl Code had not "been submitted
and conseoj\ently the hour provisions of the Code remained at 36 ho\irs ryer
week whereas the Congress had definitely sej^the naxinuri weekly hours for
the Govern:-.ient llavy Yards at 4C hours r^er week.
Documents were drafted to correct the situation hy a proposed amend-
ment to the Code to provide 40 h-mrs as the maximu:-;! weekly hours.
The Order was signed "Approval Recommended" by C. E. Adans, Division
Ac^ministrator of Division I, but was nit signed ''oy Hugh S. Johnson, Admin-
istrator. Exceripts from the Order (Reference: Volume I, Amendment Tolder,
Deputy's Piles) are as follows:
"Part 3, Paragraph (a) is modified to read:
'Shipbuilding - Ko employee on an h-iurlj'' ra,te shall be permitted
to work more than forty (40) hooars per v;eek. If an employee cm.
an hourly rate works in e::cess of eight (8) hours in any one day,
the wage paid will be at the rate of not lesr; than one and one-
half (1-?:-) times the regular hourly rate, but otherv/ise according
to the prevailing custovi in each port, for s\ich time as may be in
excess of eight (8) hours.'
"Pa.rt 5, Paragraph (b) is modified to read as follows:
' Shiprepairing - ITo employee on an hourly rate shall be permitted
to worlr more than forty (40) hours ner week averaged over a per-
iod of six (6) months, nor more than forty-four (44) hours during
any one week. If anj'' employee on an hourljr rate works in excess
of eight (B) hours in any one day, the wage paid will be at the
rate of not less than one and. one-half (IrO times ..the regular
hourly rate, but otherwise according to the prevailing custom
in each port, for such time as may be in excess of eight (8)
hours. '
"Provided, however, th?t the hourly rates now i3revailin.^ in
private yards shall "not oe reduced because of tlie increar;e
in hours except rates resultin-'^: from the a.ioplication of
Public TTorks Administration Bulletin ITo. 51,"
The report, August, 3',. 1334, to Hugh S. Johnson, Adminintrator, signed
by J. B. ¥eaver. Deputy Adminietrator, and approved \)j C. E. Adams, Division
Administrator, (Reference: Volume II, Aiiend.nent Folder, Deputy's Piles) is
excerpted as follov;s;
"This is a. report on the amendi^ent to the Code of Fair Competi-
tion for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry and on the
recommendations made thereon by the national Labor Board to the
national Er.iergency Council on March 22, 1934.
9732
"The follo^.-'ing exliiliits are inc"'-iicled or attached:
Legal Division's a.p"oroval
Original letter of tr^^isnittec'. fron Industry
^'otice of Opportunity to file objections
Code on rhich anend-ient is beixV^ made
Letter from Secreta?"3'' of the lisTy
Transcript of tiie hearing; held liefore the
national Labor Boa,rd
"The other e:diibits ordinarily included are not present in this
case due to the fact that no hearing has been held before the
national Recovery Administration on this amend-ient.
" A co-ny of the i:a,ticnal Labor Board's re-oort is ' .
included in tiie ex^aibitc,
"Para:'5rar)h of 3 of the findings of this ireport reads as follorrs:
'Tha,t the desirability^ of uniform hours in the shipyards
and in the l^ovj Yards be recognized, and in the event that
such equalization is not broughtabout vithin a period of
six months from the date hereof, the Administrator of the
Industrial Hecovei-j^ Act shall revier; the question of weehly
hours in the shipyards. '
"The passage on Uarch 23, 1^34, of the Independent Offices
Apnro-oriation Act cst.abllshed for the I'avy Yards a work
reel: of forty (40) h.ours. The Act likev;ise provides that
emploj'ees of the Ilav^'- Yards should receive for the ner
forty (40) hour week a veclzly '^age rhich vould equal that
nhich TTOuld have been received for a forty-eight (48) hour
/week under the old wage scale.
"The Navjr Department in submitting its vievrc on the natter
has stated tiiat a completion of all vessels nor unden. con-
struction is essential at the earliest loossible date and
recommends as a means of accelerating orogress on this rork
that the hours be increased fr-m thirtv-six (36) to forty
(40) in the Shipbuilding and ShiDrepairing Code,"
During this period the controverse.y over the Industrial Relations
Committee as betv/een Industry and Labor reached a climax. The Labor mem-
bers of the Committee testified before the Black Committee of the Senate
which resn-lted in a letter, from- Senator- BlAck. to, the Secretary 6f'"the Ifxvf.
This letter, amongst otlier things, suggested that the Naval bids v/hich
rere to be opened August 15, 1934 be rithheld until the Industrial Re-
lations Connittee ras properly set up. (The details of this situation
will be set forth by the Author under the title of Industrial Relations
Committee)
Also the Shipbuilding Coc'e and the Author rere transferred August 1,
1934 from Division I to Division II, although by agreement the Division
Administrator and Deputy Adiinistrator of Division I signed the repott
to the Administrator.
9732
The dociments \7ent f.irect i^ro-i Divisio-i I to Colonel Goor^^e A. Lynch,
Administrative Officer, T'ho informed the Author that he t/ould hold the
matter until the return of G-eners.l Ku.^h S. Johnson, Adjninistrator, and
further was of the opinion thc.t the orcer coul.d not te approved without
an onen hearing in view of the controversey existing hetv/een Industry and
Labor. The documents \7ere returned to the Author without comment after
the return of the Administrator Au-^r-ist 15, 1C54 without the Adninistrator's
signature.
Proposed Amended Code
March 2, 1954 the Code Ai\thority neetin^;. The following resolution
was passed: (Ref. page 5, Minutes, Deputy's Files)
"¥riZEZAS The Riles and Heg-alations for the Adnin-
istration of the Code of Pair Corapetition and Trade
Practice for the ShipbiiilcUnr and Shiprepairing In-
dustry in the United States have 'been violated with
such frequency as to "be detrimental to the Industry;
and
"TTHEFZHAS There has Deen no conclusive action ta':en
hy any enforcement a.uthority; a.nd
"TTHEEEAS The Code Corraittee has iDeen informed hy the
National Compliance Director that the Rules and Re-
g-ulations are u-ienforceahle and otherwise defective
in rneziy respects; ?i.rd.
"T7HEPJEA.S There seens to he a general denand within
the Industry for modifications and. improvements
"THSREirOHE, 3E IT 73S0LTzD'. That the" Shiphuilding
and Shiprepairing Code he re-written with a view
to including therein all necessr.rj'' and iDi-oper features
for its adriinistration, regula.tion and enforcement;
and
" 3E IT FJRTI-iEE RESOLVED: That the re-writing of the
Code he postponed' until immediately following the first
meeting of the Code Committee following the general
meeting of all Code Authorities called by the Admin-
istrator in Washington, commencing March 5, 1934,"
";arch'15^ 19u4 the .Code -AVithority ?.:eeting.
Excerpts from the Minutes are as follows: (Ref, page 5, Minutes, Deputy's
Files)
"Mr. J. B. "eaver wan of the opinion tliat the code should he
amended and re'.'rittea as there are a lot of loose ends which
could he rectified '"'hen the code was heing redrafted. Mr
Roger TTilliams in speaJiing of the resolutions was of the op-
inion t'.ip.t no action he ta'::en on them but stick to the pro-
visions of the code "'ontil the code is re'^ritten and t hat it
should be rewritten immediately
9732
'^nr. Gerhauser suggested that i^ubconmittee of the Code of
the Code Corar-ittee. te r?>TX)oA"iiit4u to ajaend the code and he there-
fore nade the folloTring mctioni
'That the Chairman he empowered to appoint a committee
to work T/ith the Administration representatives in re-
drafting the code, taking into account the three reso-
lutions taoled at the laeetin;^ of Ilarch 2nd, together
v/ith all the matters '^hich have been discussed from
time to time and which should he considered in connec-
tion with redrafting the code and further that the
Chs.irmar. "be authorized to employ Cotuisel if found nec-
essary. '
"Motion wa,s seconded by Horyer Williams and carried and the
Chrdrman announced he: would make these appointments promptly,"
In accordance with the foregoing resolution the Code Revision Committee
was appointed as follovrs: (Ref, letter Sept. 27, 1935 to H. Newton
Whittelsey, Assistant Deptity Director, from C. C. Knerr, Secretary of the
National Council of American Shipbuilders, Deputy's Files)
A. B, Konior - Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
W. H, GerhauF:3i-— ' American Shipbuilding Corp.
Carl E. 'fe-cersen - Newport Hews S/b & D/H Co.
The Committee thus a;opointed promptlir began work on a Revised Code ac-
cording to verbal information given the Author,
April 24, 1934 the Code Authority passed a resolution pertaining to
code modification, (Ref. r^are 11, Minutes, De2outy's Files), Excerpts of
this resolution are as follows:
"Code Modifica.tion - Longer ITorking Hours
"The Code Authority, cognizant of the hardship involved in
the Industry due to the shorter vorl: week under the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Code than in the majority of the approved codes
passed the following resolu.tion offered by Mr, S, W, Walceman,
seconded by Roger ITilliaras:
"THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED: It is the opinion of
the Code Authority for The Shipbuilding and Shi-orepair-
ing Indus'Ci-y that the stabilisation of the Industry, the
elimination therefrom of unfair competitive practices and
the maintenance of harmonious relations between mana-ge-
ment and employees, requires the establislxnent of forty
hours a week of employment throughout the shipbuilding
branch of the iU'S-Ustiy a,nd an average of forty hours a
week over a six months i^eriod \ ith sufficient leeway to
permit a maximim of forty-eight hours of employment in
any one week for the shiprepairing branch. The Code
Authority recommends immediate ap"i~roval of the above
changes in hours for the' Shi-pbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry,
9732
-245-
"Tlie acove resolution v^ar. unaninotisl^ ac'.ootod. "
As a result of the foi-e;;oir.g resolution -neinbcrs of the Shipouilding
Code Authority appeared before General ''^ufrh S. Johnson, Adiainistrator,
in a prelininar;'" -orivr.te conference "lay 4, 1954, and again before him in
a general conference Kay 7, !'9r4, v^here pri?icipa.l parties of interest were
present. The subject Fas the request of the Indurstr^'- for a 40 hour v/eek.
Research and Planning nade a report lator, hut tho Aclministrator rendered
no .decision and therefore no relief vn-xs {^ranted. (Atithor's note: The
details of this occurrence Till be set forth under lY, Operations of Code
Provisions, C. Ho-'ors)
June 1, 1934 the proposed amender' code had not been submitted, as
the Shi-Douilders contended that the question of maximum Treekly-hours should
be first settled. The Author, by direction of J, B. Weaver, Deputy Admin-
istrator, drafted a letter to I-!. G-errish Smith, Chainnan, of the Code
Authority, for the sijTjiature of Hu^h S. Jolinson, Administrator. This letter
required the Code Ao.thority to submit the proposed amended code by June 15,
1934, The letter and co-oies veve sent forward, biit nas not promptly signed,
in fact both the letter and conies became lost. A substitute letter was
drafted for the same purpose and sent forvard. Tlien the original letter
was received by IJr, Smith in ITgw Yor': duly signed. ITo copies of the signed
letter can be found -- in any files although careful search has been made in
General and Deputy's Files.
The Author knows of no re-oly to the subject letter nor can any be
located in the file. However, there was a conference arranged by telephone
by the Aiithor for Jxine 23, 1934. For the Shipbv.ilders, H. Gerrish Smith,
Chairman of the Code Authority, anc' Roger TTilliams, Vice-President of the
Newport 'J.evs Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, and mera:ber of the Code
Authority were ^:)resent, and J, B, Ueaver, Deputy Adjninistrator, and the
Author, The Shipbuilders contended, thrt in view of the controverry be-
tween the Industr^r and tlie Washington representatives of Labor, both at
the conference of L'ay 7, 1934 hereinbefore referred to, and the Industrial
Relations Committee that it was iin^'use to submit the amended code and put
it to open hearing prior to the e:qjected o"oening of Fav"'- Department bids,
August is, 1934.
Ilr. TTeaver agreed with the Shipbiailding view but with the understand.-
ing that the proposed amended code would be submitted as soon as the new
Navy contracts were awarded.
The foli'.owing letter is quoted as t^'-picrl of the views of the Indur.tr;'-
at this time, (Ref, Deputy's Tiles)
"June 23, 1934,
"Dear Sir:
"I I'^ave your letter of June nineteenth "ith reference
to the revision of the Shipbuilding and Shipre-oa.iring Code,
"It seems to "-e tha.t is useless for the industry to
a.ttemp}) to revip.o the ■•:.re&ent Code until the question of
weekly hours, both on ship building and ship repair work, is
9732
-C4G-
settled on a more satisfactory "basis than at present. The indust-
ry has teen promised relief anu eqv.itable treatment in this re-
gard, but thus far thes3 cror.ises have not been kept.
"Yours V'?ry triily,
"/s/ W. H. Gerhauser"
"H. Newton Whittelsev, Assistant
Deputy Adn) inistrator,
Shipping Section,
National Eecov&ry /.c.ministraticn,
Washington, LV C.''
The Code Authority sent out the following duplicated letter:
"June 26th, 1934.
"TO: The Code Conraittee
Shipbuilders Aa ainistrative -Committee
Shiprepairers National Com-nittee
All Local Area Chairman
"The Code Rev:-.;^cn Com'aittee has continued its work of revi-
sion of the Shipbuil-Jing and Shipre-oairing Code but this v/ork has
necessarily rjroceec'ed slov-ly because of the numerous changes in
Codes resulti*-!? frcm Administrative Orders and because of the f3,ct
that the Comi-'iittee has bspn asksd to give thorough consideration
to many points sug.-::Boted to it by the Administration itself. There-
fore it will be some time before a revised code can be submitted
to the Industry for final comment.
"Very truly yours,
"H. Gerrish Smith
Chairman. "
Letter to H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman, from H. Newton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, dated Jime 23, 1934, made the following
request, quoted from the letter:
"Under the circumstances it is my duty to ask you to kindly
point out the Administrative Ord.ers j'^ou have reference to and e.lso
the many points su;:gected by the Administration."
Mr. Smith sailed for Europe the same day and no reply was received.
August 6, 1934, the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Tforkers of America, Local No. 4, Bath, Maine, by letter to Mr. Lloyd Gar-
rison, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board submitted an amendment
to the Code. (Ref. Denutv' s Files")
August l*"), 1934, Benedict TJolf, llxecutive Secretary to the National
Labor Relations Board, acknov/ledged the sub.ject letter to the Union and
9732
-247-
forvrarded the letter to J. B. "/eaver, Deiouty Adriinistrator. CSef . De-
-out;-' s Files") Tb;e Code and the Aathor by this time had been transferred
to Division 2, however, the letter was finally received Aiigust 19, 1954.
The subject letter was submitted to the Legal Adviser on the Ship-
building Code who replied by memorandum August 17, 1934, to H. Her.'ton
Uhittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, from Howard F. Ralph, Assist-
ant Counsel. (Hef. Deputy's Files'! August 21, 1934, the subject letter
vras sent to H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, from H.
Ke'r'ton ffhittelsey. Assistant Deputy Administrator, for consideration
by the Code Revision Committee and was duly acknowledged by return let-
ter dated August 22, 1934, from Mr. Smith. (Ref. Deoutv' s Files) The
Union's letter was also acknowledged August 21, 1934, to Leo W, Hig-
neault. Secretary to the Union, by the Author and the Union was advised
that the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Code Authority.
i,;r. H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, was in ffa-
shington, D. C, the week beginning August 12, 1934, and discussed vfith
the Author the proposed amended Code. Augast 21, 1934, letter to H. G.
Smith, Chairman, from H. llev/ton Fnittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administra^
tor, (Ref. Deputy's Files'* contained the following;
"When you were in Washington last week v;e discussed the "oro-
posed Amended Code which your Code Committee is preparing a.nd I
understand you are now a-ooroaching the time when same is to be print-
ed and submitted to the Industry. During the conference I informed
you that I had, with the aid of our Legal Staff, made preliminary
drafts of the Amended Shipbuilding Code in the hoioe that same ma.y
be of assistance to ycur Code Authority.
"I am sending this matter to you with the luiderstanding that
it is to be talcen only a.s containing ra"' osrsonal views and not in
an-f sense as protjosed by the national Recovery Administration."
The draft of the -oroposed amended Code above referred to is
filed in the Deputy's Files.
September 5, 1934, letter to H. G. Smith, Chairman of the Code
Authority, from H. Newton Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy Adjninistrator,
(Ref. Deputy's Files) was as follows:
"Re: Amendments to Code
"Dear Mr. Smith:
"Please find attached coioy of a letter addressed to Mr. Bar-
ton W. Liurray, Division Administrator, under date of AT:igust 30 by
Philip Van Gelder, Executive Secretary, Industrial Union of Ua-
rine and Shipbuilding T7ori:ers of America.
"The purport of the letter is to make recommendations for cer-
tain provisions to be incorporated in the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Code.
9732
"In view of the f;~ct that you are working on the amended Code,
I am sending this to you for consideration of your Code Authority.
"ITill yoTi please ac'.Dicwlel.'^e? •'
September 12; 19o4, meeting of the Code Authority attended by W.
\i. Rose, De-outy Administrator, and H. Newton '.Thittelsey, Assistant
Ee-Quty Administrator. The proposed amended Code was informally dis-
cussed ano- we were given to i-u-;.derstand it was substantially ready, how-
ever, there is no record of the discussion in the Minutes of the meet-
ins-
September 20, 1954, letter tc H. G-errish Smith, Chairman of the
Code Authority, from H. Newton Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy Adrainistrs.-
tor, (Hei. De'outy' s Tiles') was as follows:
"Re : FroTQOsed Amended Code.
"Dear Mr. Smith:
"Conf irnin.^ my conversation of yesterday, I beg leave to
give you the following information:
"Tfe h.ave already received from the Industrial Union of Ma-
rine and Shbibuiiding \7orhers. Local 7H, Bath, Maine, a proposed
8,ne;adraent to the Shiobuilding Cede. Further, we received from
the Industrial Union of .larine and Shiijbuilding Workers, Camden
local, under date of Aug-ast 3'\ another proposed amendment to
your Code. Both of these -oroiDOsed amendments -oertain to maximum
hours and other labor ;.iatters.
"There a,lso is in process, although v/e have not officially
received same, a iDrooosed amendment to the Boatbuilding and Boat-
repairing Code which will effect the definitions contained in the
Shipbuilding a,nd Shiprepairing Code. There is a possibility
that other amendments proposed by the Boatbuilding and Boatre-
pairing Industr^r may likewise be of interest to you.
"From the discu.ssion at your Code A^ithority meeting, it is
mjr understanding tnat yoior proposed amended. Code is substantially
ready for final submission to the Industry and that you are about
ready to ordei' it r)rinted.
"Perha-DS in yo\xr meeting toviiorrow, or the one proposed for
Tuesday, you can obtain authority for the printing of this Code
and promptly get it out to the /embers of your Industry.
"It is verv desirable that definite -orogress be registered
and that we nay definitely expect the amended Code to be submit-
ted to the Administration not" Inter than October 31. This, under
normal -orocedure, would bring the Hearing in late November.
"I must definitely notify the two Locals of the Industrial
Union of Marine and Shipbuilding TTorkers that definite progress
97C2
■■1/1 n
is being made in the submissii:n of the Cede in order that they
may be satisfied to arait the Hea-ring on the amended Code and not
enforce an apilication for an a lerdment under the present Code.
"Both cf thece rea"ies''"s for amendment v/ere 'oro-iptlv sent to
you and you kindl-' ack:novvl90-:2;c~.d saine.
During October and i'lcvember and December, 1934, lir. H. Gerrish
Snith, Chairman of the Code Av.tncrity, and president of the National
Cou:.".cil of Aaericon Shipbuilders, v/as in 'vTashington aliiost weekly.
i.Ir.ny informal talks were had ?/ith him by V. u. Kose, Deouty Adi.iinistra-
tcr, and the Author. He was continually pressed to submit the proposed
auended Code. Certain membex's of the Code Authority were unwilling to
have it submitted for several rersons, i. e. : The 30 hour law before
Congress, the controvsrsy over the Industrial Relations Com:iittee with
iTc.shingtcn renresentatives of Labor, which was finally adjusted early
in Hcvenber, the lack of favorable decision Dj General Hugh S. Johnson,
Administrator, on their aoolication for a 40 hour week, and the general
determination to stay out of o-oen hearings during the period of inves-
tigation by the Nye Comriittee of the Sena-^e on munitions. The Ship-
bi-.ilders out none of the foregoing in rriting for obvious reasons, and
even meetings of the Code A'athority were not held.
However, December 2'"^, 1954, meeting of the Code Authority v;as
held and- the loraoosed amended Code w?.s discussed. (Ref. page 14, ; Mi-
nutes, Deputy's Files'* Excerots are as follo^vs:
"Revision of Shipbuilding and Shioreppiring Code
"The Chairm.a;i rj-norted that the Committee appointed to con-
sider the code rerision is still r'orking on revision of the cods
but t'h£.t the matter would be taken up with a view to having it
in such sha^>e that it en be printed at an early date and sent out
to the industry for suggestions before submission to N.R.A. for
hearing. Tl:e Chairman ir-formad lir. VJi.ittelsey that the Shipbuild-
ing and Shipreoairing Industr / has not accepted the revised de-
finition for shipbuilding end shiprepairing. "
January 17, 1935, meeting of the Code Authority was attended by
'•J. '.'. Rose, Deputy Administrator, and the Author, H. ilewton Whittel-
se-', Assistant Deputy jiirainistrator, for the particular purpose of in-
dtLcing the Code Authority to submit the amended Code. The followi^-g
is excerpted from the i-iiutes. (Ref. Kinutes, pages 8 and 9, Deput"'-' s
files'!
"Revision of Code
"The Cha.irr.an of the Code ^uthorit^'- reported that both Colonel
Rose, Deputy Adainistra,tor, and Mr. H. lTe'.7ton TiThittelsey, Asr^stant
De:uty Administrator had urged, a revision of the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Code and th^it the laatter had be^n discussed by the Chairman
a.t some length with both the Deputy and Assistant Deputy Administrators.
It was requested that Colonel Rose night state to the Code Authority
his reasons for feeling that the Code should be revised at the present
tine.
9732
"Colonel Rose stated tht.t si-ice the a.donticn cf the Shiobiiilri-
ing and Shioreoairing Code, v^hicb was Code i^Ic , 2, that many -ore-
visions had been adooted by ii.^.A. vrhich it ras felt should be in
all the codes and that f Lrrther.m^re tne oresent Code we,s lacking in
certain -orovisior.s to ta-:e cr.re of ce.ses that had arisen and tha.t
it is his belief Code Prevision v'ould he of benefit to the IndLXstr--.
He stated he rUd not want the Industry to think he was attei-roting
to coerce it in any manner bv iressing for Code Revision and thero-
uoon ga,ve the following exa-anles of wha,t thn Code does not now pro-
vide for and which in his opinion should be incorToorated in a
revised Code.
"1. The definitions are inademiate. It has been sij^gested
that there be p. iJaval Shiobuilding Code, a ' Com:nercial
Shi-'obixilding Code, and a Shiprepairing Code. Also that
the Codu oUfTht to be modified with respect to the boat
building Coae where there is conflict.
"2. Question of hoiu-s of vork in connection with draftsnen
and mold loftsr.ien, where nay is in excess of $35. OO a
week.
"3. 'Question of hours for clerical staff.
"4. provisions for einergency work.
"5. Provision of testing installations and trial trips, etc.
"6. Hours of w;itchmen and firenaJi.
"7. Clause to orevent eriir)lo'"'ees from exceeding inaxirnu:n hours
by v-.'orking for t'vo enplcyers.
"8. Lack of Regional and Divisional Code Authorities.
"9. Present Code Authority represents JTaval builders only.
"10. Absence of Fair Tr-^de Practices.
In the discussion of these matters it was loointed out that the
present Code Authoritv does not represent Haval shipbuilders only as
onlv two of the raembers of the Code Authority are builders of nav-al
vessels and that through the Committees set uio under the Rules and Re-
gulc.tions which were developed in connection with the Code that all
gecgraohical districts on the coasts of the United States and on the
Great Lakes are reoresented.
"This led to A discussion of the Rules and Regulations adopted
October 2nd, 1933.
"I.ir. Whittelsey stated that these Committees are not recognized
''OY il. R.A. The Code Authority argued that they should be recognized by
il.R.A. because the Rules and Re/-;ulations had been developed in coopera-
tion with Kr, William H. Davis, oui' Deputy Administrator at the time
and that they had "Been approved by him."
9732
During; the discussion substantially the same reasons for not
subraitting were exoressed and in adaiticn the question of the vr.lidit"
of the Act, vrhich was much in the nev/soapers at the tii.i.e.
The same situation continued throxi^-^h ^^ebruary and I.iarch, 1935,
Aoril 17, 1935, letter to H. G. Smith, Chair.aan af the Code Authcrity,
fron K. Kewton Whittelsey, Assistant Der-uty Administrator, (Ref . Doou-
■' s ITiles^ was as follovs:
0 '/
"Re: Fronosed Amended Code
"Dear !'ir. Smith;
"Plans apDear to oe f ori,nilatinf:, subject to the action
of Congress, to rewrite all the Codes \7ithin s coiirparative-
ly short ueriod of say three months.
"Your riroblem will be quite difiicult in that your amend-
ed, or rewritten Code will substaatiallv have to be nev; from
cover to cover. Under the circ\.rastyjices it would seen '7ise
tc contin^e work on this matter, r^articularly on Tr-rde Prac-
tice provisions with a possible idea of subraitting a "orelini-
nary draft of such nrovisicns to the Administration.
"I am advised the Industrial Relations Committee vi^ill
probably hold a meeting next Tuesday the 23rd and I hooe that
your orooosed meeting may be broiight about on Thiorsdajr the
25th.
9732
-253-
2 . Internre tat ions
0. (1) There was only one official Interpretation, Admin-
istrative Order 2-27, dated Lecera'ber 13, 1934, signed by Sarton VJ.
M-urray, Division .-administrator, (Reference: Code Record Section, In-
terpretation J'older, Leputy's Files, and Exhibit K-27, Appendix) from
which an excerpt I'rom the order is as follows:
"QUESTION: In Sub-Section (c) of Section 3
of the Code, does the six months'
period begin on the effective date
of the Code or on the date the
order i.- placed for each new ship?
"INTERPRETATION: The six months' exception permitted
under Sub-Section (c) of Section 3
of the Code of Fair Competition for
the Shipbuilding a::d Shiprepairing
Industry begins on the de.te the order
is placed for each new ship." ^
Reference is made to the memorandum of December 5, 1934, to
Barton '''. Hurray, Division Administrator, from H. Newton Whittel-
sey, Assistant Dcj)uty Administrator, (Reference: Volume, Order 2-27,
Code Record Section and Interpretation Folder, Deputy's Files) from
which excerpts are as follows:
"INTLRFRSTATIO '. Exccptioiis , Section 3 (c) of the Code of
Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry,
"1. The above setion of the Code reads as follows:
'Section 3 (c) Exceptions. - For a period of six
(6) months exception maj'' be made in the number of
hours of employment for the employees of the Ship-
builders engaged in designing, engineering and in
mold loft and order departments a,nd such others as
are necessary for the preparation of plans and order-
ing of materials to start work on new ship construction,
but in no event shall the number of hours worked be in
excess of forty-eight (43) hours per vreelr, and in no
case or class of cases not approved by the Planning and
Fair Practice Committee provided for in -ection (8).'
The Shipbuilding and Shi 2irepai ring Industry Committee
telcgrapheo. vith reference to its interjDretation of
the meaning of the above Section ;,s follows:
'It is our inter;:iretation of exception three C in
the Code for the Shipbuilding Industry thsi-t on new
ship construction such as tha,t on naval vessels for
v/hich contracts liave been recently pla,ced draftsmen
and loftsmen on these new contracts can worlc forty-
eight hours a Vvrcek for a six months period stop
S732
t
request confirmation this v-uidcrstaixdinf-;'"
"4, This Section of the Code provides that 'for- a period
of six months exception may be made on
new ship construction ' The question to he
d.etermined hy internjretation is the time from v/hich
the sir. months exception is dated,
"5. In August, 1933 the iiavy Department placed large
naval shi-i?huilding orders v/ith private shipbuilders.
Again in Aiigust and September, 1934 orders v/erc
further placed v/ith private shipyards. The ship-
builders contend th.-xt the Exception with regcard to
the naval contracts pla,ced in 1934 should data from
the time of placing of the orders and th-^t tliis was
the intent ymen they proposed the Exception in the
original Code submitted by the Industry cs recorded
in the hearings prior to a^p'^'roval,
"6, (a) By advio,!?. of cou^isel the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry Conmittee on ITovember 19 v/as in-
vited to submit their argument in support of their
Interpretation, The argument was submitted in their
letter of ilovember 20 nereto attached.
"6. (b) The Shipouilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Committee further submitted argui'nent on "ovember 21,
and therein pointed out that the Exception was proposed
in the original Code as shovm ir. the record of the hear-
ings of July 19, 1953;' and tha.t the necessity- for this
provision was discussed by Rear Admiral Land on Page
99 of the hearings and also by llr, Lawrence Spear, of
the Hew London Ship and Engine Com;nany, on Page 60.
They fiu"ther point out th t the Exception y/as written
into the original proposeci Code applicable to all nev;
construction with the -
'full realization of the fact tlii^.t it is impossible
to create emroloyment in the mecluxnical trades until
the plans are prepared and. arnproved and until the
"7, Mr. A. D. Whiteside, acting as Deputy ir. charge of
the Shipbuilding and S nip re'oai ring Code, condiicted
the hearings of Julj/' 19, 1933, and was present at
post hearing conferences with General Johnson. In
conference he stcated tiiat he remembered the incident
clearly and confirmed same as follov/s:
'It is my recollection that the six months e.xception
provided in the clause v/as to date from the time of
placing orders for new ships as such orders niay be
placed from time to time a,nd not to date from the
time of the approval of the Code,' •
9732
-2 J4-
"8, Captain Henry rillianG (C .C.U.S .:i.) v/as presont at
the hearings of July 19, 1933, and v/as appointed ty
the President to represent the !fevy on this Code
Authority. Sy Kcnorahduit he points out that the !Iavy
Dejiartinent "nr^'ed exemption from hours of vovlc limit-
ing draftsmen, loftsnen, a xl other clerks, and that
after a shipyard receives a contract for a new ship ,
its actual construction cannot proceed until the
- drafting room ha.s prepared the detailed plans, the
material orcered, and the vessel laid c.ovm in the
mold loft, rle further sta,tes as follows:
'VPnile at tne tine of consideracion of the Code, atten-
tion T/as focussed on the new naval program, the proha.-
oility of additional nevr sThi^o constru.ction was recog-
nized and all of the provisions of the Code affecting
nev/ ship construction had in viev/ additional new con-
struction to that contemplated at tliat moment.
^U^' recollection is tliat the provision of tne Code in
qLiestion was intended to apply >~ilso to future new ship
construction and not exclusively to" the naval ship-
building program tncn "ondcr considera'cion.
'I iia,ve in my possession a copy of a memorandum dated
• 14 July? 1933, wnich I i:3repared for Mr. Whiteside fmd
which contemplated and urged the need for e. general
exerqption for ill draftsmen tj-t all times from any
lijnita.tion on hoiu-s of 'j'or]~, '
"9. lir, Joseph S. Mcrfonagh, "rho v;as appointed "by the
•president as Lahor adviser to the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Code Authority, v;as present at this hear-
ing. He states that it is his conviction that the six
months' exception contained in the Section was to date
from t":ie time the Code was approved "by the President
and not from the time new contracts vrere signed."
Research and Planning Division made no definite recommendations;
the Lahor Advisory Board rmde no definite recommendation, hut the
tenure of their memoranda was uafavora.'ble ; Consumers. Adyispry Board
recommended disapproval, although tney v/ere supposed to represent the
interests of the llavy' in this instpjice, Industrial Advisory Board con-
curred; the Assistant ^Counsel concLirred, and ihe Assistant Deputy
reconrnended.
a (2) Interpretations "by Code Authority
The Ship'oui Iding and Shijorepairing Industry Committee (Code
Authority) "b - resolution made certain interpretations wnich v/ere not
submitted ior approval, as folloT/s;
Meeting Novemher 8, 1933 (Reference: Minutes, page 4,
Deputy's Piles).
9732
-255-
IHTTP-PiffiTAJ-IOlT NO.. 1. .
HoV'.jr.iber 15, 1'2'3"
RULES All. IlIOtLiTIOyS, Section VIII
faiui'tIiap:-: (i)
tertaini.if; to G\ira''intee iien (l\ef« Ixli. I-l, A i^x)
Meeting Novemocr 8, 193? (P.eicrence : Minutes, pa,"e 3,
Deputy's Files)
Ii:i!£E?BETATI01T iTO. 2,
Koveraber 16, 1933
SHIPEULLDEES & SHIFH^FAI^xERS CODS
Paragraph 3 (a) (l)
Para-::rapli 3 (b) (l)
Smcrp;ency Work (lef.Lxh. 1-2, Appx)
Meeting January -1-, 193'!-, (lieference: Minutes, page 5,
Deputy's Files)
Il'SEHPHEo^iiTION JO, 3,
Jan-ioary 4, 1954-
P.UIiSS A:tD HEGUIATIOIIS, Section VIII
Fara;^-raphs (c), (d) <£; (c)
iviain Contracts (P.ef. 3xh. 1-3, Arpx)
Meeting Sanuary 4, 1934, (Peforcnce: Minutes, Page 1, Deputy's Files)
lilTESPRETAI'IOii !T0. 4,
Jan-ocary 4, 1934
PUIi33 AFD PZC-ULAPIO:;TS, Section VIII,
Para£:raph (d)
Lu-iro Sue: Price (p.ef . 'E:zh, 1-4, Appx)
Meeting Janus.ry 4, 1934 (Reference: l.Iinutes, page 2, Deputy's Files)
INZEEPEEiAIIOH I'O. 5,
Janua.ry 4, ■19r'4
SHIP3UI IDLES & SHIPKSPAIPSRS CODE
Inter-retation £is to Those '.'.'ho Cone Under the Code
(Eef. Sxh. 1-5, Appx)
Meeting Jan^aary 4, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 3, Deputy's Files).
IPSERP-PJITATIOIT I'O, 6,
Jan-oar y 4, 1934
SHIPBUILDERS &"SPI?RSPAIREES CODE .
Ruling as to TThether Iviiichinery Built in a Shipyard Shop
for 4no'Pner Shipbuilder Comes Under the Code
(Ref. Pxii. 1-6, 'Appx)'
Meeting' Jan-oa.ry. 4, 1934 (Reference: "'linutes, page 4, Deputy's Files)
liiTEERPkEPATIOH ilC. 7,
January 4» 1934. '
9732
"356-
RULES AlTD lE&ULATIOITS, Section VIII
PrracTapli' (i)
- Tec ■ -
(Rcf . Exli, 1-7 fi-o-^r.)
Meeting Jan-'o^ry 4, 1934 (Reference; iiinutcs, pa-ge 5, Deputy's Piles),
IITTIJ-PEETA-'ICj! !jO. 8, ■
Jam^ary 4, 1934
RUISS AilL RZGULATICIIS . Section VIII
Parai^raph (i)
Compliance Certii'icate
(Refo E::h. 1-3 Appx)
Meeting Ja,n-uary 4, 1934 (Reference: ianuteo, pa-^^'c 5, D.-3puty's Files)
II'TTIEPHBTA^IOIT W. 9,
January --l-, 1954 ;
RUIES Al'I* T.GULATIOIIS, Section VIII
Para' rppii (i)
Exception Denied
(Ref, S-:h. 1-9, Appx) (<__
Meeting Jamiary 4, 1934 (Reference: liinutes, page 10, Deputy's Piles)
IKTERFRSTATIOII :to. 10
January 4, 1934 , ■ '
RUIIJS A:\D REG-ULATIO'S, Section VIII,
Paragraph 3 (c)
Shii^ping Board Btireau Vessels u^ider
Private operation
(Refo Zxli, 1-10, Appx)
Meeting Jan-uary 4, 1934 (Reference: i'inutes, page 9, Deputy's Piles)
IKTERPRETATIOK HO. 11,'
January '.- , 1934
SHiPRUiLDERS a:":d shipp:spaipj:rs code r
Fara;i.r?.pli 3 (a) (l) ^
Overtime Payment
(Ref. E:-Ji. 1-11, Appx.)
Meeting January 4, 1934 ('leference: Minutes, page 10, Deimty's Piles)
INTEPJ'RETATIOil 110. 12,
J .nu;a-y 4, 1934
RULES AlID liECUIAriOilS, Section VIII
Paragraph 3 (c)
Special Marine Repairs
(Ref. Exh. 1-12, Appx.) .
Hceting January 4, 1934 (Refere.ice: Minutes, pa^.e 6, Deputy's Riles)
II'TEPJPRETATIOiT ITO.. 13,-
Janurvry i, 1934
SEIPEUILDERS ;j:iD SHIPREPAIRERS CODE
9732
-257-
Rc^ilroad S":iu^rcpair Flnnts Repairing Their Ovm Eauipment
(lief, Exh. 1-13, Ar^-px.)
Meeting January 4, 1934 (Reference: ".iinutes, v!~>.^:e 4, Deputy's Files).
INTERPRETATI.OF 1"0. 14,
Jj.n-uary 4, 1934
SHIPFUI-LDERS AlID SlilPREFAIRERS CODE
Repairs to Fumps and Dredge Enxii-Dment
(Ref. Ej:h. 1-14, A-'^px.j"
)732
-258-
Interpretation "by H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprc}jairin^- Indur^trv Conmitteo, and confirmod by inference at
meeting March 2, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 6, Deputy's Files).
IKT3EPHETATI01- IIO. 15
January 15, 1934
RULES ArD EEGULATIOIIS, Section VIII
Paragraphs (c), ( d) and (e)
Shipping Beard Vessels Under Private Operation
(Rcf. Exh. 1-15, Appx. )
Reference is made to the foregoing intcr-pretations made and issued
to the Industry by the Code Authority. They may be classified as
follows:
Interpretations of the Rules and Regulations
are Kos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15.
Interpretations of the Code are Kos. 2, 5, 6,
11, 13 and 14.
No sufficient explanation can be found in the files whj^ these in-
terpretations were not submitted to the Adriiini strati on for arjproval.
Mr. W. A. Davis, Dc:outy Adjninistrator, on the Code during this period
was also the appointee to the Code Authority to represent the Adminis-
tration. The Minutes of the Meetings of November 8, 1933, and January
4, 1934, set forth that he was present at both meetings. (Reference:
Meetings, Deputy's Files)
With regard to the Rules and Regulations, Mr. Davis made the
following statement as to the necessity of submitting them in the
October 2, 1933 meeting, at which meeting they were approved by the
Code Authority. (Reference: Minutes, Deputy' s Piles)
"Mr. Smith raised the question as to the propriety
of having the Rules and Regulations approved by the
President of the United States so as to become the
"law of the land". Mr. Davis reported that he had
taken this ma.tter u-o with Colonel Lea and that it
was thought that the Code Committee had siifficient
power under the code to enforce, the Rules a.nd
Regulations as v/ritten and that the approval of our
Rules and Regulations would establish a precedent.
Mr. Davis was of the opinion, however, that if the
Rules and Regulations were found to be ixnenf orccable
that he would again take the matter up with the
Administrator to ha^ve them approved by Executive Order."
Under the foregoing advice the Code Authority assumed that In-
terpretations of the Rules and Regulations were within their authority accordir^
according to verbal statements to the Author.
However, the IntcriDretations of the Code, other than explanations
in fact, have even less foundation for not liaving been submitted to the
Administration for approval in the opinion of the Author.
9732
U
-259-
t . Results of Inter-orctations
Interpretation (Order 2-27) of sub-section (c) Section 3
of the Code was promptly put into effect by private shipyards building
the 1934 Naval program. These yards v/ere duly authorized at the meeting
of the Code Authority (planning and Fair Practice Committee) on
December 20, 1934, (Reference: Minutes, pages 9 and 10, Deputy's Files)
Draftsmen and Mol d-Lof t smcn
"The Assistant Deputy Administrator, by letter of December 6th,
informed the Code Authority tha,t in the event interpretation of
Section 3 (js) as to working certain euro loyeesoccn new ship construction
bein^ favorable it would be necessary for the Code Authority to pass a
resolution approving each case for each shipyard that will be per-
mitted to wrrk under the exception and in viev; of such interpretation
(2-27) being favorable thereupon on motion of W. H. Gerhauser, seconded
by Roger Williams the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
1934 to:
"WHEREAS, certain Naval contracts were awarded in August
yards
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. Ltd. , '^Quincy, Mass.)
Electric Boat Company
United Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Corp.
Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
New York Shipbuilding CoiTporatinn
Newport News Shipbuilding &. Dry Dock Co.
"ITHEHEAS, such contracts were allocated to the above chip-
as fellows:
No.
Type of Vessel
.CL-46
Light Cruiser
CL-47
II
DD-380
Destroyer
DD-382
II
DD-381
H
DD-383
1!
DD-384
11
DD-385
H
SS-176
' Submarine
SS-177
H
SS-178
II
Shipyard
New York Shipbuilding Corp.
Newport News S'/B & D/D Co.
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
n
Federal S/B & D/D Co.
n
United S/B & D/D Co.
II
Electric Boat Corapan;'-
n
" , and
"WHERMS, Section 3 (c) of the Code for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing industry provides for the follov/ing exception:
'For a period of six (G) months exception may be
made in the number of hours of employment for the
employees of the Sh-ipbuildors enga.£ed in de-
signing, engineering and in mold-loft and order
departments and such others as arc necessary for
the preparation of plans and ordering of materials
9732
-26C-
to start work on nev; ship construction, but in no
event shall the number of hours worked be in ex-
cess of fort;''- eight (4S) hours per week, and in
no case or class of cases not approved by tbc
Planning and Fair Practice Committee provided for
in Section (8)', and,
"T'HErLEA.G, The Code Authority is in receipt of Administrative
Order I'O. 2-27 dal^ed December 13, 1934, which reads as follows:
'QUESTION: In Sub-Section (c) of Section 3 of the
Code, does the six months period begin on the
effective date of the code or on the date the
order is placed for each new ship?
•INTEEPHETATIOIT:
The six months' exception permitted
under Sub-Section (c) of Section 3 of the Code
of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepa.iring Industry begins on the dat e the
order is placed for each new ship.
'NOW, THEHEFOEi;, BE IT EESOLVED: That the above shipyards are
granted the privilege of working all trades cnuJiierated in Section 3 (c)
of the Code for a period of six (c) months from the date of the contracts
on the above named vessels. ' w •
Interpretations by the Code Authority, not submitted for
approval of the Administration, which -Tortaincd to the Rules and Regula-
tions will be discussed under the heading III-D-5 "Othei- phases of
Code Administration."
Interpretations by tlie Code Authority pertaining to the.
Code reflected on Industry as follows:
Interpretation No. 2 had the effect nf authorizing the
employment 'of men on Emergency work beyond t]ie maximum weekly hours of
the Code, provided certified reports viere made on certain forms to the
Code Authority.
Exemption was later granted by the Administration for
emergency work, as this interpretation was clearly without the powers
of the Code Authority in the opinion of the Author.
Interpretation No. 5 pertained to "Those Who Come Under
the Code." It was in fact an explanation and for the most part within
the authority of the Code Authority and tended to enhance corrpliancc.
Interpretation No. 6 pertained to "Machinery Built in a
Shipyard Shop for Another Shipbuilder." This also is an explanation
and tended to maintain compliance with the Code,
Interpretation No. 11 was as follows:
That overtime is not to be paid for the four hours in
9732
-251-
excess of the 36 hours in imy one. week, hut is only to he p-.-.id for hours
in eiicesE of eight hours in cjiy one d,.y.
The excerpt from the meeting of Jrjiuary 4, 1934 (Hcference: Minutes
page 9, Deputj'-'s Files) is c,s follov;s:
"The Lc.bor representatives of the Code Com-
mittee "jrescnted a letter i.t this time re-
l:.tin£; to overtime in which it Vi/c,s clcimed
th;.t overtime shoxild be paid on commercial
work cftcr thirty-six hours c. week. The
matter v/r.s discussed and Mr. Davis, Deputy
Adiainistr^,tor , gave the following- inter["ire-
t at ion, ncjae 1 y ;
'Tl-iat overtime is not to be paid for the
fo'or hours in excess of the 36 hours in
any one v.'eek but is only to be paid for
hoiors in excess of eij^jht hours in any
one day. '
"This interpretation was adopted upon
motion by Soger Williams, seconded by
Robert Haig."
Therefore, it was really Deputy Administrator W. H. Davis
v;ho mate this Interpretation and the Code Authority adopted it. It
most assuredly should have been submitted to the Administration for
approval in the opinion of the Author.
Interpretation No. 15 pertained to "Railroad Shiprepair
Plants Repairing their Own Eouipment." This v/as an explanation made by
Deputy Aci-ministrator \i. 11. Davis and adopted by the Code Authority, and
was wpII groujided in the opinion of the Author.
Inter-jretation ITo. 14 pertained to Repairs to "Puiiips and
Dredge equipment." This was an explanation by the Code Authority and
is concurred in by the Author.
c. Interpretation (Order 2-27) of sub-section (c) Section 3 of
the Code was effective at the time v/hen all private snipyards building
•n the i'iaval programs of 1933 and 1934 were msiking every effort to
obtain longer hours for designers and loftsmen, in order to shorten the
time to actual ship /construction. For the 1933 program there were a
series of Administrative Orders extending the exceptions granted in
Section 3 (c) of the Code, namely Order 2-3 February 1, 1934; Order
2-17, May 4, 1934; Order 2-24, Hovemb^r 14, 1934; Order 2-28, December
29, 133-_-, and Order 2-23 A;pril 13, 1935. (Reference: Code Record Section
and Exemption Folder - Deputy's Files) Reference is mad-e to the
volumes containing these Orders. They contain the Resolutions of the
Code Authority setting forth the necessity for longer hours, coit>-
raunications from the Kavy Department and other pertinent information of
the sarr.e natijxe.
There is no doubt in the Author's mind that the subject
9732
-262-
Interpretation viras properly ^■[^roiuidecl and of considerable benefit to the
Industr/ anc] to the lTa.vy jepartaent, in that it acted to encourage
reasonable 'rogress on the l^aval building prograi.i.
Inter'oretat ion' b'^ t : le Code Authority not submitted
for a.iDoroVgl of the Adi-:inistration
The Author in general concurs v/ith those that are substantially
explanations as hereinbefore set forth.
However, Interpretation No. 2, which had the effect of
authorizing limergency worl: beyond the raaxinnjin hours of the Code, vie.s
clearly, in the opinion of the Author, a modifica;tion of Code pro-
visions and should have been submitted at the time as a Code Ainendr.ient .
It vi^as necessary, later for the Author to rectify the situation, which
unavoidably ca\ised irritatio:.i of the Industry.
5^arther, Interpretation No . 11, v/hich provided "That Over-
time should not be paid beyond the maxim'-oin v^eekly hours" was a clear
limitation of the Code provisions in the opinion of the Author. It was
a bad start on a complicated ouostion. After the Code Authority once
had this Interpretation, it resisted to the end of the Code, every
provision in later Exeniptions and Stays tliat provided for overtime be-
yond weekly hours.
9732
<■> -^ t-7
3 . E::enptions gnd Stays
Exerotions ar.d Stays tre iiereins.fter grouiDed as follows;
a. I'lscell-neous Lxomptions to ividividusl corap.'HJiies because
of shortage of ccrtr.in classes of labor in each case.
h. S::tensions of Section 3 (c) o-^ the Code pertaining to
rr.aigners -^-- Loftsnen.
work.
c. Stc;:j of Sections (a) p.nd (u) pertrinin:-; to 8:nergency
d. Stay of Sections (a) anr' (h) pertaining to Trials.
e. S.-:ei.rotions pertaining to San ITrancisco Pay Area.
f . protest of Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Com-
mittee agair.st provisions in evc;mption and stay Orders requiring pay-
ment for o-v-ei-ti:.:e beyond the maximum weekly hour provisions of the Code.
a. liiscellnieous Exemptions
Administrative Order 2-5, Ilarch 1, 1934, signed by K. ¥•. Simnson,
Division Ac>:inistratcr, Division I, and recommend-ed by J. B. TIeaver,
Division Acxiini^tr .tor, (Reference: Code Record Section, Exemptions,
Deputy's ?iles vi\C. Tichibit 'K-G, Apnendix) . The Order was granted as per
the following excerpt:
"Approval of application of JiTtton-Kelly Cojii^any for exemption from the
provisions of Article 3, Section (b)
"An application ha.ving been duly made by the Jutton-Kelly Company,
Field Office, of C-enoa, 'Jisconsin, for an exemption from the provisions
of Article 3, Section (b) , of the Code of Fair Competition for said In-
dustry, for ship carpenters, ship crulkers and ship carpenter helioers
employed in the c-'nstruction of two ba.rges to be used in floating their
equipment needed in the construction of Lock No. 8 on the Mississippi
River at Genoa, "isconsin, to alld" the above employees to work forty-
eight (48) hours :er week for a period of not to exceed three weeks from
the date of this order, and finding that justice requires that said
application be grrnted, provided thp.t overtime is ■•">aad at the rate of
time and one-half for all hours in excess of fo-.-ty (40) hours per week."
Administr .tive Order 2-7, Karch 10, 1934 signed for K. V^. Simpson,
Division Ac"ni:-iistrator, Division I, b;r Beverly Ober, Executive Assistant,
Division I, a:d. recommended by J. I.. 'Jeaver, Deput?/ Administrator, (Ref-
erence: Code r^ecord Section, Exemptions, Deputy's Files, and Exhibit
K-7, Appendix). The order -jas granted as -oer the following excerpt:
"Approval of apolir.- tion of ■'■^evTport i^e¥;s Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Com-
pany for exception from tho provisions of Article 3, Section (b)
"An applic-.tion having been duly made by the T'ewport Hews Shipbuild-
9732
-264-
ing and Dry Dock Cov.i^rtny, xTe\Toort llerrs, Virginia, for an. exception for
employees --or?:i-A on Aircraft Carrier iTo . 4, the 'RjUrGIlH', from the
provisions of .-.rticle III, Section (n) of the Code of Pair Com-cetition
for said 'Incaistry, to allow the employees to -.'ork forty-fouj" (44) hours
per week until the 'PjiJIG-LrL' has been delivtred to the United States Gov-
ernment, and finding that justice reor.ires tlia.t s r.id application be
granted to certain euployccs, namely* electricians not to exceed one
hundred (lOO) in nuvdoer whose urates cf pay are in excess of sixty (60)
cents per hoxir, ciid mechanics from the Plumhing Dep-rtnent, not to ex-
ceed fifty (50) in nun-.ter, whoze v.or!: ir: necessary i,nd in conjunction
with that of the electricians herein excepted;"
Adminictrative Order 2-15, May 4, 1S34, signed "by K. L'. Simpson,
Division AcUiinistrator, Division I, and recommended hy J . B. V/eaver,
Deputy AdJiiinistrator, (Reference: Code P.ecord Section, Exemptions, Dep-
uty's Files, and Ezdiihic Z-16, Appendix). The Order was granted as per
the following excerpt:
"Approval of a;oplica,tion of Manitowoc Shiphuilding Corporation,
Manitowoc, "Wisconsin, for exeiiption from the provisions of Pa.rt 3,
Paragraph (h) of the Code of Pair Competition for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry, as aiuended.
"NOW, TIEPlDPOPJj , pursu3.nt to authority vested in me by the Admin-
istrator for Industrial Recovery, and otherwise, it is hereby ordered
that the said application for exemption be and it is hereby granted to *
the extent of per:,:itting- caulkers engaged in work on the United States
Coast Gua.rd Boat 'Erxaufba' to '-ork in excesr, of forty (40) hours per
week, for a period of one (l) week from a,nd ri"ter the da.te of this
order, the w?:/;e paid to be at the rate of not less than one and one-half
(l-^) times the reg-alar hoiu'ly rate for time vorked in excess of forty
(40) hotirs pe:.- v/eek."
Administrative Order 2-19, June 25, 1934, signed by C . E. Adams,
Division Atxiinistratcr, Division I, and reconriended by J. B- Weaver,
Deputy Aiiimistrator, (Reference: Code Record Section, Exemptions,
Deputy's Piles, and Erdiibit 1^-19, Appendix). The order v; as granted as
per the follov-ing excerpt:
"Granting Ap'olicr.tion of St. Lo'ais Car Coiipany, St. Louis, Missouri, for
an Exemption froi the provisions of Part 3, pa.ra.graph (a,).
"WHEREAS, an a'^-'lication has been made by the above-named applicant
for an exemption from the provisions of Part 3, paragraph (a), of the
Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry,
as amended; and
"NOW, THEREFORE, -oursuant to authority vested in me, it is hereby
ordered that the above-named applicant be and it hereby is exempted
from said provisions of said Code, as amended, to the extent of permit-
ting riveters, caulkers, sand blasters and welders engaged in construct-
ing steel pontoons for U.S. Engineers, Memphis, Tennessee, to work a
maximum of fift3''-six (56) hour 3 per week for a period of two weeks end-
ing June 30, 1934, the v;age paid to be at the rate of not less than one
9732
-265-
and one—half (l^) times the regular hourly or piece-work rate for time
worhed in excess of thirty-six (36) hours per week,"
Adsiinistrative Order 2-25, Noveraher 17, 1934, si:_^ned hy Barton IT.
Murray, Division Administrator, Division 2. recommended "by ¥. W. Hose,
Deputy Adn:inistrator, and memorandum and recommendation "by H. Neuton
Whittelsej'-, Assistant Deputy Administrator, (Reference: Code Record
Section, Exemptions, Deputy's Piles, and Sxhibit K-25, Appendix),
"G-remting Application of Marietta 1 lamif acturing Companj'-, Point Plea-
sant, ¥est Virginia, for a Temporal;)^ Exemption from the Provisions of
Part 3, paragraph (a), of the Code of Fair Competition for the Ship-
huilding and Shiprepairing Industry, as Amended.
"ilOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to authorit;"- vested in the national In-
dustrial Recovery Board, it is hereby ordered that the ahove-named ap-
plicant he amd it herehy is exempted, as of the date of this Order, aoad
for a period of ninety (90) days thereafter, from so,id provisions of
said Code, as amended, hut only to the extent of pemitting employees
engaged in the trades of pipe coverers, sheet r:etal \7orkers and their
helpers to he worked a maxiiium of forty (40) hours in anj'- week d'oring
said QO-da];" period; r)rovided, that said em::)loyees shall he compensated
at the rate of not less than one and one-half tines the regular hourlj''
rate of pay for time worked in excess of thirty-six (36) hours in any
week, Tlie temporary exemption herein granted is suhject to cancellation
prior to the eiqpiration of said 90-day period in the event of a shov/ing
of proper cause therefor, "
D, Extensions of Section 3 (c) of the Code pertaining to Desi^'^ers
and Loft sm en
Adrainistrative Order 2-3, Fe-oruary 1, 1934, signed hy Hugh S.
Jolinson, Administrator, and approval recommended hy k, li, Simpson,
Division Administrator, Division I, and memorandum and recommendation
hy T7, H. Davis, Deputy Administrator, (Reference: Code Record Section,
Exemptions, Deputy's Files, and Exliihit K-3, Appendix). The Order r.'a.s
gremted as per the following excerpt : _
"EXTEimillC- PROVISIOIIS OF SECTIOH 3, SUS-SSCTIOLT (c) OF CODE OF FAIR
COltPETITIOK FOR THE SlilPSUILDI/a AID SHIPEEPAIRIilG IlIDUSTRY
"A Code of Fair Competition for the Sliiphmlding and Shiprepairing
Industry having heen approved hy the President July 26, 1933, said Code
providing in Section 3, Suh^Section (c) that. for a. period of six (6)
months exemption from the maximum hours provided in said Code ma;"- he
made for employees of that Industry' enraged in necessarj'- preparator3''
work to start new ship constraction, and upon consideration of a memo-
randum from the Deputy Aojiinistrator, dated January 26, 1934, apjroved
hy the Division Administrator, recommending that favorable action he
taken :
"ilOn, THEREFORE, I, Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator for Industrial
Recovery, pursua,nt to the authorit3'- vested in me hy Executive Order
9732
No. 6543-A, dated December 30, 19??, do hereby p-rant an extension of
the Drovisions of Section ?, Sub-Section (c) of the said Code of "^air
Comnetition for a loeriod of thr'^e months from and a-^ter
February 5, 1934 ■• ^ Th-^ Administi-ator reserve's the rieiht to stay this
order if adequ-ate cause therefor is shown to him by anyone within a
■oeriod of ten (10) days from February 5, 19?4."
Administrative Order 2-17, May 4, ISS-^, sif^ned by Hugh S. Johnson,
Administrator, aiDiDroval recommended by ^<!. I'. SirnDSon, Division Ad-
ministrator, Division I. and memorandum and recommendation by
J. B, Weaver, Denuty Administrator. (R ference: Code Record Section,
Exemptions, Denuty's Files and 'Sxhibit K-lVj Ari-Dendix) The order was
granted as Ber the following excer-ot :
"EXTENDING PROVISIOlvS OF S~CTIOF 3, ST^B-SECTION (c) OF THE
CODE OF FAIR COf.'P^TITION FOR Tl" SHIPBUILDING
AJ}JD SKIPR^PAIRING INDUSTRY
"NOW, THEREFOR'^, I, Hus'h S, Johnson, Administrator for Industrial
Recovery, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Executive Order
No. 6543-A, of December 20, 1933, do hexeby ^rant a further extension
of the provisions of Section 3. Sub-Section (c) of the said Code of
Fair Com-oetition for a period of six (5) months from and a-fter
Hay 5, 1934, only to the extent, hc^ever, of exempting designers and
mold loftmen, FroviAed, ho-'ever, That designers and mold loftmen shall
not be permitted to work in excess of forty-four (44) hours per week.
The Administrator reserves the right to stay this order if adequate
cause is shown to him by anyone within a period of ten (10) days from
May 5, 1934."
Administrative Order 2-24, November 14, 193i , signed by
W. A. Harriman, Administrative Officer, recommended by Barton W. Murray,
Division Administrator, Division 2, memorandum and recommendation by
H. Newton Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, approved by
W. W. Rose, Deputy Administrator. (Refer^nc^^: Code Record Section,
Exemptions, Deputy's Files, and Exhibit t<'-24, Appendix). Excerpts
from the Order are as follows:
"Granting Further Extension of Revisions of Section 3, Sub-Section (c).
"NOW, THEREFORE, the National Industrial Recovery Board, pursuant
to authority vested in it by Executive Orders of the President, in-
cluding Executive Order No. 6859, and otherwise, does hereby order
that the provisions of Section 3, Sub-Section (c), of said Code be,
and they are hereby extended for a period of thirty (30) days from and
after November 5, 1934, only to the extent, however, of exempting
designers and mold loftmen: Provided, however, that desie-ners and mold
loftmen shall not be permitted to work in excess of fort<'--four (44)
hours per week, and provided further that all time worked in excess of
thirty-six (36) hours per week shall be compensated for at the rate of
one and one-half times the regular hourly rate,"
9732
— ^ u ( -'
This Order was originally sip'ned l)y Hr. warri-^an 'MoveTn'ber 7, "but
his signature was withdrawn November 8 and finally ^jade effective
Novenber 14. The Shiiobuilders protested the time and a half beyond
maximum weekly hours nrovision in the order; therefore, the Author,
Assistant Deputy 'Vhittelsey, addressed memoranda of November 9 and
Nov--mber 13 to Barton 'i?. Murray, Division Administrator, which were for-
warded to Mr. Harriman, setting forth the necessity for the -orovision
(the increase of emx)lovment and the discouragement of excess overtimed
(Reference: 'Sxem-Dtion Folder, Denuty's Files and inside cover of
Deriuty's cony of Order in Deputy's files).
Reference is made to the memorandum November 3, 19?4, to
1. A. Harriman, Administrative Officer, from H. ^lewton lhittels°y,
Assistant "?enuty Administrator, (R=>fer9nc-: Order 2-24, irolume, Code
Record Section and De-outy' s Fil°s) of which the f oil owins: is excer-pted:
"1. The Code, Section ?, Sub-Section (c), -orovides:
'For a -oeriod of si?: (6) months exce-ction mav oe made
in the number of hours of emoloy-neut for tne em-olovees
of the Shipbuilders ensa^ed in d^si.^nins-, en"-ineering
and in mold loft and other d-ioartments and s-.ich others
as are necessary for the T}i'°r)aration of "olans and
ordering of materials to start ^-Tk on new shi^ con-
struction, but in no event saeV^ tiie number of hours
worked be in excess of -forty-eieht (A'^) honrr. ner week,
and in no case or class of cases not a^nroved by the
Planning and Fair Practice Committee -orovided for in
Section (Q) . '
"2. In addition to the original extension of six (6^ months
Drovided in the Cod = , there has b^en "-ranted a f^i.rther three (3)
months extension and a still further six (6) months extension of this
Drovisipn, the latter extension expiring Nov, 5, "i°34.
"3. The ShiiDbuildine: and ShinreiDairing Industry Committee has
made aonlication for a further extension of seven and one-half (7cr)
months of this Droyision of tne Code,
"5. The time period as between the actual receipt of this a^oli-
cation for extension and the exuiration of the nresent ord^r,
Nov. 5, 1934, was insufficient to make an adeauate examination of the
matter, and, therefore, an equitable determination on the ar>T:lication
f or p 6 veil a-.-3 one-half (?-) m.onths extension.
"6. "^he Code Lee-al Adviser recommends a thirty (70) day extension
with time and one-half for overtime.
"7. Research and Flamming Division ''Fconomic Adviser) recommends
denial of extension for seven and one-half (7-) months.
"8. Th= Industrial Relations Co-!mittee for the ShiiDbuildine- and
ShiTDre-oairing Industry has under the circumstances unanimously voted
to grant an extension f'^r thirty ("0) days, during which time nro-oer
inves'-igation can be made, I concur in this for designers and mold
9732
loftsmen, but with time and one-half raid for overtime. It arj^ears
advisable and necessary thus to duly recom-nense such eToloyees and to
induce by such o-^ertime ■orovision th° incrf^asa of e-nnlovment . Other
exemr)tions for skilled and unsMlled labor have lorovided time and one-
half for overtime.
"9. Th= Acting Secretary of th^:> ATavy in the memorfmdum to the
National Indiictrial lie covery Board ureas the necessity of further ex-
tension of time and the 'memorandum from Caritain Henry "Tilliams (C.C.)
of the Navy further details such necessity. The re-oly to the last
memorandum by 11. '.?. Rose. Deuutv Administrator, is concurred in by the
writer as a suitable analysis TDendine; amole inves*i.2;ation.
"10. The Shii^buildin?; and Shi-orerairing Industry Committee's
letter of October 50, 19-34, sets forth thfot on July 1, l^??, there
were 894 draftsmen and icitsrae:: on Noval work and at the -oresent time
there are 1210. The said lett^.r further sets forth excerots from
letters of -nrincir^al shiTjluildir,?; coin-^anies building Naval vessels.
These excerpts allege th'^t they have em-iloyed dra-f"tsmen and loftsmen
to the fullest ext^^nt of tLeii' T:)r°s.^iit caoacity in dra'^'ing room and
mold loft space, and further tht'o the difficulty is largely the lack
of skilled men to lead the less skilled.
"11. In vie^ o''^ the emer'"-^ency existent, I recommend an extension
for thirty (30) days after Nov. ', 1P3<1, of the -provisions of Section 3,
Sub-Section (c), of the G'jde, only to the extent, however, of exempting
desip-ners and mold lcjft&T.=^n; pr'^vided, howevx^r, that designers and
mold loftsmen shall Tiot •: j permitted to work in excess o-f forty-four
(44) hours per weekj and orovided fui Lher thnt all time worked in
excess of thirty-six (36) hoars per we^k shall be compensated for at
the rate of one and one--ha.lf times the re.gular hourly rate."
Administrative Order 2-23, jecember 29, ''934, signed by
-I. A. Harriman, Administrative Officer, recommended by Barton T. Murray,
Division Administrator, Division 2, memorand'im and recommendation by
H. Newton Whittelsey, Assistant D^p^ity Adnin-.strator, approv=d by
W. W. Rose, Deputy Administrator. (Refer7;nc': Code Record Section,
Exemption Folder, Deputy's Files and ^.zhibit T-.''-2e, Appendix). "Excerpts
from the Order are as follows:
"Denying Blanket Extension of S--3ctinn 3, Subsection (c) of the Code
and Granting Extension thereof with limitations and conditions to the
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, the Bethlehem Ship-
building Corporation and the New 'J^ork Snipbuilding Corporation.
"WHEREAS, the Chairman of the Shipbuilding and Shipreoairing
Industry Committee submitted to the Administration a letter dated
November 24, 1934, setting forth a resolution of the Shipbuilding
and Shipr=pairing Industry Committee adopted November 22, 1934, re-
questing a further extension from and after December 4, 1934, for a
period of six and one-half (6^) months of S-ction 3, Sub-Section (c),
of the Code; and
9732
-r.69-
"NOW, THERSFCR^., the Kational Industrial Recovery Board, pur-
suant to aiithority vested in it ty "Executive Orders of the President,
including Executive Order 6859, and other^is", does hereby order:
"1. T^hat tiie ap-olication o-f the Shi-ohulldins: and ShiTDr^nairing
Industry Comtiittee for a olan'-et extension o*" Section .'', Suh-Section
(c) of the Code for a neriod of six and one-half (5--) months froii
and after Decemher 4, 1P?4, "be, and it her^hy is denied'
"2. That the NewiDort News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company
designing Aircraft Carriers CB5 and GE6 and the Bethlehem Shi-obuilding
Corporation designing H-avy Cruisers CA 35 and CA Z-4 be, and they
hereby are granted an extension of Section 3, Sub-Section (c) of the
Code for a -oeriod of four (4) months froTi IieceTiber 5, 1934 only to the
extent, however, of exeimoting designers to work on designs herein-
befor= named; -orovided, however, that such desia-ners shall not b= "oer-
mitted to work in excess of forty (40) hovjrs -oer week, a^d TDrovided
further, that if an em-oloyee works in excess of eight (8) hours in any
one- day or in excess of thirtv-six (36) hours in any one- week he shall
be Toaid at the rate of at least one and one-half (li) times his regular
hourly rate for overtime so worked; however, in the corarjutation of xiay
when an emiDloyee works during any one we-^k overtime in excess of both
eight (8) hours uer day and thirty-six (36) hours -oer week, the over-
time TDay shall not be comt)Oundcd by addition of bo':h daily and weekly
overtime, but the e"nDloyee shall be rt^id either the sum of the over-
time Day earned during the overtime d?ys or the overtime xiay earned
during the overtime week, which ever is the higher for said week; and
"3. That the New York Shi-obuilding Cor-ooration designing Light
Cruisers CL40-43 be, and it hereby is granted an extension of Section 3,
Sub-Section (c) of the Code for a -oeriod of four (4) months from
December 5, 1934 only to the extent, however, of exem-oting desio-ners
to work on the design hereinbe-fore named; -crovided, hoT'ever, that such
designers shall not be -cermitted to work in excess of forty-four (44)
ho-ars per week; and, -DroYTded further-, thrt if an em-oloyee works in
excess of eight (8) hoir-'s in f^uy O'oe day cr in excess of thirty-six
(36) ho-'urs in any one w^-jk he shall be paid at the rate of at least
one and one-half fl--) ti'jes his regular hovriy rate for overtime so
worked; however, in the comxiutacion of -oay when an em-oloyee works
during any one week overtime in excess of both eight (8) hours -oer
day and thirty-six (36) hours -oer week, the overtime -oay shall not be
conroo-'Jiided by addition of both daily and weekly overtime, but the
em-oloyee shall be uaid either the s-um of the overtime -oay earned
during the overtime days or the overtime -oay earned during the over-
time week, whichever is the higher for said week."
9732
-870-
Seierence is made to ihe. uer.ior.,.nc.'uni- Tecember 18, 1934-, to W. A.
Harrinian, Aojninistratiwe Officer, f±'oiii H. Kewtou \7iiit tclspy, Assistant
De jiity Acjninstrator , (Heference: Orl.^er 3-28, Voluiiie, Cole Hecord
Section 5.nJ. rOcouty's riles) of v/liich the iollov/ir:;.. is excerpted:
"'i. The Code provided a six.(G) i.ionths exception anr. tlie Acxiiuis-
tration ^-.raaited fr.rther Extensions oi throe (3) months, six, (j)
months and thirtv (30) days, respeccively.
"5. The Sliiphuildin^ ani. Shiprcpairin^ Inu^ustry was , ^'ranted an
interpretauion on this Section of the Code, Order lie. 2-27, December,
13, 1934, to the effect that the six { ,) months exception ber'\'ins on the
date the order is placed f6r each -aoM ship. ,
"8. JiPDloyment is 1310 as of October 50, 193':.-, ...esi^ners c^nd
loftsmen 894 as of July 1, 13^3, c«n increase of only 35,;.
"9. Avera,;:e time Y.orhed per weeh over a 'jeriod of sixteen months ■
is about 4- hours. Time worlzed durin' the last six months is 4-4 hours.
Zstimated increase -employment rsouircc^ to maintain the present pro:2;ress
of designers on a 3' hoxir basis about 300 men and on a 4-0 hour basis
IJO men.
"10. llr.val contracts for shipbuildin._; in private yards ,131,728,500.
Designs for these ships are not only bein;; made for. the -private yards
but aluo for a pro;;ram of abou.t.'lijrc cost buildin,:'; in the Government
Navy yards. ,
"11. ShipDuildin;'j and "Shiprepairihg Industry Corai-iittee letter of
November 2-l-, 1954,' reouests Extension of six and one-half (G-?t) months ■'
from December '_, 193-_-, ta^res exception to pa/in;, overtime beyond
thirty-six (35) hours per weeh. and sets forth the Shipbuilders'
interpretation of Section 3 (c) of the Code, which interpretation v/as
approved in substcnce by the Achmnistration.
"12. IJavy Department letters froi.i the Hon. II. L. Hoosevclt,
Acting Secretary of the Navy, of October 24, 193--:: and from Capt. Henry
Williams (C.C.) U. S. N. of Octover 30, 1934, recoi.L.iend a further
Extension and set forth the shortage of experienced desi, ncrs and the im-
possibility of iuraodiate employment sufficient to make up the man hours
lost by the redtiction of the weehl',^ hours.
"13. (a) llavy Departiient letter from Captain Henry Williams (C.C)
U. S. N., dated December 18, 1934, sets forth the definite progress on
the six (6) dosi,;ns of the 1933 pro-r,am. This data inc.icated that all
desi;_,ns with an employj xnt of a/J.-^-- to 48 hour basis are substantially
on the projected pr0;i;ress pro 'Tarn, except C140-43, 4-6-4-8 Lifjit Cruisers,
New York Shipbuildin;v, Com:)any estimated -Tcrcenta; e 65' with tictual
percentage 44yi. This latter c.esi;2Ti is 21;. behinc". schedule and is to be
sup-olied to the New York Nav-; Y'-a'd, the Philadelpliia Navy Yard and the
Nevoort News Shi"ibuildin'; Ccnany for the construction of the same class.
(b) The letter further states that the Navy Dc-mrtment hesi-
tates to enter into the discussion but 'tirefers the cuestion be settled
9732
-271-
by N. d. A. in accordance with the Hctional polic?/. This ua/ he ti-ans-
lated iniio "in ■occordaace with the national Defense" and f-orthei' offers
the opinion that i^Tcater pro^ircss in construction and employraent inclu-
ding di-af tsmen, would have "oceii m.-^de on a 40 hour week from the outset
aoid also {^reater progress in the future may bo expected from a 40 hour
week.
"14. Letters from the four nia^or private shipyards of the seven
private shipj'ards buildin^j ITaval vessels set forth their employi.ient
condition re^c^'ardin^; design one. moldloft, and ar£,ue as to the necessity
of a further Extension.
"16. (a) Incorporated by reference to file containing" data from
the U. S. Dept. of Labor, U. S. C. Service Comi.iission, TeciinicUl',,
Societies, Universities and Enr:-)loyees Committee listing eight hunc'jred and
forty-nine (849) en^uneers, desi';-ner3: and iof tsmen.
(b) The list contains a larii;e niiriber of hi;2;hly trained
ensi^incers of experience who coiild be adapted to ship work; many hi .hly
qualified Marine desi-jiers and also beginners and over fifty (50) ship-
yard draftsmen Icnown to the desi',-ners of the United Dry Docks, Inc,
For the most part the names, addresses, classif ica^tions, experience
are shov/n on these lists. There appears little doubt but that desir^ners
are available at proper recompense.
"23'. National Defense and Maximum Increase of Suiployment of this
ship construction must be the basis of the determination on this request
for extension and both are coincident and will be as the program progres-
ses. An increase of man-hours worked on designs, whether through in-
crease of eLiploynent of designers or increase of their hours, will act
for the benefit of the National Defense and the shortening of the
period to Ma:>:imum Construction IGmroloyment may be twenty to one at the
peak of the construction time.
"34. National Defense and Increase of Employment will be best
served by a plan v/hich will act to aid and not retard the progress of
the designing. Reference is made to letter of the Navy Department dated
Dec. 18, 1934, settin" forth the actual progress made on the designs for
the 1933 program. This letter indicates that a blanlcet Extension of
Section 3 (c) of the Code is not necessary in this instance even for the
shipyards building Naval vessels and no facts havo been submitted, or do
I laiow, of any major comraercial contracts •:ilaced with the shipyards
vfhich \7ould require permission to work beyond 5C hours -ler v/eek on
designs.
"26. (a) Tii.ie and one-half for overtime beyond 36 hours per week
has been actively protested by the Shipbuilders and they liave pointed
out tliat where the Code -provides for time and one-half beyond ei^ht
hours per day and an Order provides for time and one-half beyond 36
hours a week, th.at the overtime paid may be compounded. Examination
of the matter discloses that their point is well taicen.
(b) A suitable clause pcrtainin,-; to overtime beyond eight
9732
-272"
hours -per day and 3G hours -^er .'oek, desi.':nec'. to prevent cor.ipoundin^,
was drav/n and sent to all advisory Boards and the Le.^al Division,
Sug/iestions and criticismc were duly received, all of which were suuiaitted
to Review tocpthcr with the ori.inal draft and Revie?/ edited a suitable
finished clause which may he used wherever Orders "provide for overtirae
beyond ei-jht hours per day and 3G hours per week as in this case.
The clause just referred to is as follows:
"and, provided further, that if an employee vTorhs in excess of
ei:',ht (8) hours in any one day or in excess of thirty-six (3o)
hours in any one week he shall "be paid at the rate of at least
one ana one-half (l-g-) tiraes his roTular hourly rate for overtime
so worked; however, in the computation of pay v/hen an enrployee
workes durin;_: any one week overtime in excess of both oijht (8).
hours per day and thirty-six (36) hours per week, the overtime
pay shall not be compouiided by addition of both daily and vfeekly
overtime, biit the employee shall be paid either the sijia of the
overtime pay earned durin , the overtime days or the overtime pay
earned durin;2,' the overtime week, whichever is the hi/;.her for
said week."
Adiuinistrative Order 2-33, April 13, 1935, si.jned by Sarton ¥.
Murray, Division Adiainistrator, Division 2, recouuuended by W. "7. lose,
Deputy Administrator, memorandum and recoi.imendation by H. IJewton
V/hittelsey, Assistant Depiity Ad:ainistrator . (Reference: Code Record
Section, Deputy's Files, and Exhibit K-33, Appendix.)
This Order pertained to the 193'_- Naval building; pro.'-;ram, except
in one case of the New York Shipbuilding^, Corporation, whereas all the
orders previously cited under this heading pertained to the 1933
program. Excerpts from the Order are as follows:
"Granting Exemption from Part 3 (a) of the Coda of the New York Ship-
building Corporation, Llectric Boat Coinipany and the Bethlehem Ship-
building Corporation, to permit designers to exceed the maximum hoTirs
of the Code on certain Naval shipbuilding designs.
- "WHERMS, Administrative Order 2-27 interpreted Part 3 (c) as
follows:
'The six months' exception permitted under Sub-seci:ion (c)
of Section 3 of the Code of Fair Competition for the 3.:ip-
building and Shiprepairing Industry begins on the date the
nrder is placed for each now ship'; and
V/HEREAS, the Navy Department reports the contracts let and the
dates thereof to respective shipyards as follows:
9732
-273-
Shj-p- Contractor J^'.to of Contract
CL-46 New York Shipb-ailding Corp. 22 A-u^ust 1934
SS-176 Electric Boat Comoany 22 Au^^ust 1C34
SS-177 Electric Boat Conrpany 23 A-agust 1934
SS-178 Electric Boat Comany 22 Aiit.ust 1934
DD-380 Bethlehem Shipt-aildins Corp. 2 October 1934
DD-382 Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. 2 October 193--
and
"V;hEEEAS, Administrative Order 2-28 granted to New York Ship-
building Corporation permission to work designers on light cruiser
design CL40-43 for a ^oeriod ^f four (4) months from December 5, 1934,
which extension terminates April 5, 1935;
"FjiEiaiS, The ClmiriEan of the Shipbuilding and Ship repairing
Industry Committee transmitted by letter dated Feb ruarj^ 23, 1955, a
resolution of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee
requesting extension of Part 3 (c) of the Code for the above named
siiipyards; and
"iTOW THEEEFOEE, The National Industrial Recovery Board, pursuant
to authority vested in it by Executive Orders of the President, in-
cluding Executive Order 6-859, and otherwise, does hereby order: ■'
"That the Ne\7 York Shipbuilding Corporation, designing 1933
class of light cruisers- CL40-43, be and it is hereby granted an ex-
emption from Part 3 (a) of the Coda, as amended, for a -ocriod be-
ginning April 5, 1935, to June 16, 1935, only to the extent, however,
of permitting employers to employ designers to \7ork on designs of the
vessels hereinbefore named; and
"That the ITew York Shipbuilding Corporation, dctjigning '1934
class of light cruiser CL46, be and it is hereby granted an exerap-
tion from Part 3 (a) of the Code, as amended, for a period beginning
April 5, 1935, to June 16,' 1935, only to the ext en t,-' however, of per-
mitting eriployers tj employ designers to work on design of the vessel
hereinbefore named; and
"That the Electric Boat Company, dcsignine, submarines SS176,
SS177 and SS178, be an-d it is hereby granted an exemption from
Part 3 (a) of the Code, as amended, for a period beginning April 5,
1935, to June 16, 1935, only to. the extent, hov/ever, of permitting
eiroloyers to employ designers to work on designs of the vessels
hereinbefore named; and
"That the Bethlehem Shipb^jilding Corporation, designing 1934
class of destroyers DD380 and DD382, be and it is hereby granted an
exemption from Part 3(a) of the Code, as amended, for a period bc-
binning April 5, 1935, to J-ono 16, 1935, only to the extent, however,
of permitting employers to employ designers to v/ork on designs of
vessels hereinbefore named;
"PROVIDED, HOWEVEP, that employers shall not employ designers to
9732
-274-
work in excess of forty-four (44) hours per week, and provided,
further, that if an enroleyee on an hourly rate works in excess of
eight (8) hours in any one day or in excess of the maximum hours
permitted "by the Code to he v/orked in any one week, he shall he paid
at the rate of at least one and one-half (li) times his regular
hourly rate for overtime so worked; and, provided further, that in
the computation of pay of such an employee whose overtime in any
one week is in excess of "both eight (8) hours per day and the max-
imum hours permitted "by the Code to "be worked in any one week, the
overtime pay shs.ll not "be compounded "by addition of "both daily and
weekly overtime, but the employee sliall be paid either the sutti of
overtime pay earned during the overtime days or the overtime pay
earned during the overtime week, \7hichever is the higher for said
week; and"
Reference is made to memorandum March 11, 1935, to Barton ?f.
Murray, Division Administrator, Division 2., from H. Newton ^Thittelsey,
Assistant Dgputy Administrator, (Reference: Order, Volume, Code Record
Section, and Deputy's Files) of which the following is excerpted:
"3. The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee by
resolution has requested an extension of Section 3 (c) of the Code
to permit the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Ulectric Boat
Co., and the Hew York Shipbuilding Corp. to employ desigTiers and
loftsmen to exceed the maximum hour provisions of the Code on Naval
contracts taken in, 1934 for a period beginning six (6) months'after
signing of such contracts and also a provisional request for the
New York Shipbuilding Comisany on two (2) contracts (of one class) of
the 1933 program, which latter contracts, however, are of the same
class as the contract taken by the same shipbuilding company for the
1934 program.
"(a) The said light cruiser designs are of the 1933 Naval program.
This class of vessel is being build not only by the New York Ship-
building Corp., but by the New York Navy Yard and the Philadelphia
Navy Yard from the designs of the shipbuilding company,- This exemp-
tion expires April 5, 1935.
"Reference is made to the memorandum of the Navy Dopartraent
of December 18, 1934, which sets forth the dates that the following
contracts vvere let to the respective shipyards:
e
Shi-
Cl-46
SS-176
SS-177
SS-178
DD-380
DD-382
Contractor
New York Shipbuilding Corp.
Electric Boat Co.
Electric Boat Co.
Electric Boat Co.
Bethlehem SB Corp. Fore River
Bethlehem SB Coro. Fore River
Date of Contract
22 August 1934
22 Au^st 1934
22 August 1934
22 August 1934
2 October 1934
2 October 1934
9732
-275-
"8. Reference is made to mcmorandvun from the Navy Department,
dated iviarcli 8, from vfhicli the follovan^ is an exccri-it:
"Vessels • Contractor Bstimate Actual
CL 42 43 II. Y. Shiphuilding Hull Lachineiy Hull Hachinory
Corporation
Light Cruisers Camden, N. J. 6,?,j - 54.6,:i 56.2',j
'These figures are "based on man-hours of drafting work and
not on corji)leted plans issxied to the yard."
"9. Reference is made to the resolution cf the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry Conmittee, which sets forth that it is
necessary to the progress of preliminary work on the aforesaid Naval
contracts, upon which the rapid employment of men on the contracts
of these vessels depends, that there should be a further extension
for a period of four (4) months, of paragraph 3 (c) of • the Code.
"10. Reference is made to letter of February 7 from the-Cliair-
man of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee, which
sets forth the argument of the shipyards for which the request as
contained in their respective letters. It is noted that the Ncv/pbrt
Hews Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., the Federal' Shipbuilding and
Drydock Co., and the United Shi-obuilding and Drydock Co., who also
took contracts of the 1934 program, liave not made requests for the
extension of this section of the Code,
'"11. Reference is made to letter of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Conipany, which sets forth the following:
(a) That -it is the desire of the llav;'' Dept. as e:qpressed
in contracts for Haval work that the contractors make every possible
effort to expedite the work during the first and second years of
the contract time .in order that employment may be increased. Employ-
ment in the yards is depend.ent upon the production of the plans; tliat
the creative effort involved in this work precludes the use of shifts,
thus making the hours wliich the designer or skilled draftsman can
3.pply to his task the limiting factor iu plan connletion. Additional
men v/ill not relieve the sit"aation.
"(b) That the six months' period from the signing of the con-
tract is not sufficient to accom»lish the desired res"alts, and that
they refer to their letter of April 13, in ',vliich it was suggested
that the forty-eight (48) hour week should b.e effective for 30,j of
tne contract time (that is the time v/itiiin which the vessels are to
be built)'.
"14. (a) Reference is made to letter of the l]e.-vy Department
dated February 12, 1935, of which the following is an excerpt. It
sets forth the progress of design on the vessels contracted for . i
the 1934 program.
9732
-276-
Vessels Contractor
Hull
IVlach. Hull
Mach.
- 9^r-
• •
'l6,o '9^"
"2,^, '
gfo
39.&/j 36.9fi
40,0
15fi
** 33. 3; J
,M
DD380, 382 Bethlehem Shipbuilding
2 destroyers Corporation, Quincy.Mass.
CL 45 Hew York Shipbuilding
1 lisl^t cruiser Corp., Camden, N. J.
SS175-178 Electric Boat Company
3 submarines Groton, Conn.
"15. Employment is 1210 designers as against 894 in 1933, an
increase of 35^0. This force is working on the 1933 and 1934 pro-
gram.
"16. Reference is made to memorandum from the U. S, De-oartment
of Labor setting forth the available ship draftsmen and mold lofts-
men in the principal shipbuilding districts V7here Haval vessels are
under construction. The total of these is less than IO^j of the
total employment.
"17, This office carefully investigated the av3.ilability of
suitable engineers and draftsmen in llovember and December, 1954,
prior to the issuance of Administrative Oi-der 2-28, which pertained
particularly to 1933 contracts. Lists of a considerable number of
electrical, civil and mechanical engineers were obtained.
"However, the difficulty now appears to be that only special,
highly trained men in naval ship design can be usefully added to
the present forces. This aspect has been pointed out in conference
by the representatives of each of the shipyards and is set forth in
the letter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. attached hereto.
C. Stays of Section 3 (a) and (b) of the Code pertaining
to Emergency Work
Administrative Order 2-31, February 19, 1935, signed by W. A,
Harriman, Administrative Officer, recommended by Barton W. i-rurray,
Division Administrator, Division 2, memorandum and recommendation
by H. Hewton V/hittelsey, Assistant De-outy Administrator, and ap:Trovcd
by W. W. Rose, Deputy Administrator (Heference: Code Record Section
and-. Exemptions, Stays Folder, Deputy's Files, and Exliibit i:-31,
Appendix). Excerpts from the Order are as follows:
"Granting application for partial stay •f the maximum hours provi-
sions of the Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry, contained in Part 3, Paragraphs (a) and (b), to
permit emergency work.
"1/THEEEA.S, the Shipbuilding and Shiprcpairing Industry Committee,
through its Chairman, has made a request for a partial stay of the
above provisions of the Code of Fair Corrnetition for the Shipbuilding
and Shiprcpairing Industry to an extent which v/ill permit emergency
work on vessels when there is a danger or menace to the safety of the
vessel, to life, or to property, or when a delay v/ould work on undue
9732
-l;??-
hardship ; and
"HOV;, THI;RZ?OR::j, the National Industrial 2ecovci-y Board,
purs-aant to authorit:/ vested in it ty Zxcc-u-tive Orders of the Presi-
dent, including 3xocutivc Orior G859, and otherv.dse, aces hereby
order:
"Tiiat a jartial stay of the maxirau'-n hour provisions of tne
Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding- and Shiprepairing
Industry contained in Part 3, parat];ra-:)hs (a) and (b) as amended,
be and hereby is ^ranted for a period of sixt: (GO) days from
the 'late hereof to the extent of permitting emioloyeps to em^^loy
emoloyecs in excess of the maximum hour provisions of the Code
when they are emoloyed i/i emergency woi-k involving dant^er or
menace to the safety of a vessel, to life, or to pro-ocrty, or
vdien a delay '.70uld i,7ould an undue hardship on the o^.Tner or the
shippers or the passengers through loss of use of a vessel for
prompt Ijading or discnarge or prompt and safe carriage of cargo or
passengers to destination.
"PROVIDED, H0V;'3V3Il, that if an erqoloyee on an hourly
rate works in excess of eight (8) hours in any one day or in
excess of the maximum hours permitted by the Code to be worked
in any one week, he shall be paid at the rate of at least one
and one-half (l:j) times his regular hourly rate for overtime
so worked; and, provided fiirther, tliat in the computation of
pay of such an employee v;hose overtime in any one v/eok is in
excess of both eight (3) hours per day and the maximum hours
x)ermitted by the Code to be worked in any one week, the overtime
pay simll not be compounded by addition of both daily and weekly
overtime, but the employee sha.ll be paid either the s^irn of the
overtime pay earned during the overtime days or the overtime pay
earned during the overtime week, vdiichever is the higher for said
week; and
"PROVIDED, PURTHER, tliat this partial stay shall not be
used for the purpose of decreasing employment or for reclassi-
fication of eniployeos at a lower rate; and
"PROVIDED, rURTHER, tha,t in each case when maximum hours
specified in the Code provisions are exceeded, the facts and
circumstances shall v.'ithin five (5) days of the ending of the
week during which such overtime v.'ork vra-S ■■Terformed, be reported
to the Industrial Relations Committee for the Sliipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry on duly notarized forns stipulated by said
Industrial Relations Committee. A copy of such re-oort shall be
sent to the Code Authority."
Reference is made to memorandum Jantiar:;' 31, 1935, to V/.
A. Harriman, Administrative Officer, frci H. Nev/ton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, (Rroference: Order 2-31, Volume,
Code Record Section, and. Deputy's Piles) from v/hich excerpts
are as follows:
9732
-275-
"2. The Shipbuilding arid Shiprepairing Inc'u.stry Conmittee,
thro-agh ito Chairman, has made a rcqiiest for an e::enption from
the above provisioiiG of the Co6.e to permit energency nork.
"4. Energency work en chips has alr.'ays been necessary'- where
there has been a danger ci' mencoe to safety of a vessel, life
or property, or Yihen a deJ.ay T;o"j.ld motIz an undue hardship on
the orner or shippers or passengers through loss ox use of a
vessel for pr:i:-pt loading or discharge or prompt and safe car-
riage of cargo or passengers to destination.
(a) A ship Js our most complicated unit of trans'oortation.
it nay embody the capacity of a usrehouse, have accomodations
of a hotel, a prop'3l:ing plant capacity of a. power plant, and
must be a strajturo i'o resist the stresses of the sea with
sea-going qualities to wi'distand the forces of the storm v;a.ves
of the ocean, and be suita.ble for -oropulsion.
"(b) It not only represents a large investment of capital but
is used by a multivade oC shippers and hundreds of passengers
for transportation. The prompt and safe carriage of the goods
or passengers a^id prompt 6.ischarge at destination is vital to
the interests and welfare of a large niinber of people. Other-
\7ise goods ma.y be sp-'-xou;_>ly delayed in distribution, passengers
delayed, some of wncm may have vital transportation connections
to mak^. or important fimuxcial or business a;'^pointments to keep
and further, the loading docks soon pile up in congestion with
goods for transportation when a ship is delayed in tailing on,^—
ca,rgo .
"(c) Emergency repairs, always have been and alv'ays must be
made with the utmost speed. Kmergancj'' work here contemplated,
is of a kind tha-t cannot be successfully rierformed by second
or third shifts of men. T/here such shifts caji be used, work
so performed would not come under the title of "emergency
v/ork" , nor wovJd usual repairs and overhauls.
"(d) Such emergency work m.ay be reo^uired on the lining of
pro^oeller shafts in cases where one foreman and crew must be
maintained on the job ui.til it is completed as the work may
be largely of a trial ana correct the error method. Such
shafting may be 150 feet long a:'id 15 inches in diai-ieter or
larger, supported by tail bearings and st'off ing box and many
line bearings, all of which must be properly lined with
due regard to the flexing of the vessel, kany other opera-
tions may also be of a nature tha.t would require the work of
one foreman and crew to perform such as certain repairs of
propelling machinery' or important auxiliary machinery, re-
pairs to boilers, blov/er equipment and the like, or repairs
to steering gears or electrical installations, especially
on ships highly electrified. AIl'O certain hull repairs for
dama.ge received entering or leaving port. Emergency repairs
may be necessary w}iere no danger to the ship, life or prop-
erty may be determined beforehand such as repairs to venti-
lating systems for ships sailing to hot countries where the
9752
-279-
health -^jid confort of passengers may be vitallj'- affected, or
perishable cargoes spoiled.
i'(e) Emergency repairs of all kinds cannot be defined before-
hand; therefore, the Order for the Partial Stay herewith con-
tainr provisions to prevent abuse, in that, at least time and
a half is provided for overtime and notarized reports are re-
quired to be made by the shipyards to the Industrial Relations
Connittee for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Indv. trjr on
each emergency contract vrorlied. The Industrial Relations
Committee, composed of three labor representatives and three
industry representatives, are a capable committee to judge
the necessity for emergency i70rl:. It is expected that this
Committee will file charges of violations of the Code in the
event of any abuse of this Partial Stay by any shipyard.
"(f) Experience indicates that such emergency repairs as
herein contemplated, will average one per month for each of
twenty-five (25) major shiprepairing plants and one per year
for one hundred (l09) medium size plants of the two hundred
and forty- six (246) plants which have assented to the Code.
A Partial Stay has been drawn instead of an exemption in or-
der to provide for this situation.
"(g) Application has been received from the Code Authority
for an amendment to the Code to permit emergency repairs on
vessels. Therefore, this Partial Stay is drawn for only a
period of sixty (60) days during which time it is proposed
to make up the case for the granting of the amendment.
"5. The Shipbuilding Industry since iTovember 8, 1933, has
been working on the supi-iosed e;athority of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code Committee) to
permit such emergency vrork. However, the Code was never
properly amended, nor was an exemption requested, or grant-
ed by the Administration. For this reason I advised the
Code . Committee that I could find no adequate authority for
the Industry to continue to exceed the ma:cimum weekl;, .lOurs
of the Code on emergency work. I advised them further that
the Code might be amended and while an amendment was under
consideration, a teraporarj:' exemption might be granted."
Administrative Order 2-34, Hay 2, 1935, signed by W. A.Harriraan,
Administrative Officer, recommended by Barton T/. Lurray, Division
Administrator, Division 2, memorandum and recommendation by H. Newton
TTnittelse;^, Assistant Deputy Ac'jninistrator , approved by W. ¥. Rose,
Deputy Ao-'iinistrator. (Reference: Code Record Section, Deputy's Files,
and Exliibit I';-34, Appendix.) Excerpts from the Order are as follows:
"Granting stay, upon application for extension of Adminis-
trative Order 2-31, dated February 19, 1955, granted for
sixty (60) days, terminating April 20, 1935, of the maximum
hour provisions of the Code Part 3, Paragraphs (a) and (b),
as amended, to permit emergency work.
-280-
"\»'HEHEAS, the Shir)building and Shinrer)airing Industry
Conmittee through its Chairman has made a request for an
extension of the partial stay, Administrative Order 2-31,
dated February 19, 1935, granted for sixty (60) days, ter-
minating A"pril 20, 19r,5, of the maximura hour provisions of
the Code, Part 3, Parati'raphs (a) and (t), as amended, to
permit emergency work, t)ending the determination of the
appeal to the Industrial Appeals Board from Administrative
Order 2-32, and pending the subsequent action on the amend-
ment to the Code to nermit emergency Y/ork; and
"HOW, THE5.3F03E, the National Industrial Recovery Board,
pursuant to authority vested in it by Executive Orders of
the President, including Executive Order G859, and other-
wise, does hereby orders
"That a stay of the maxim-am hour nrovisions of the Code
of Pair Competiticn fOx- tne Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry contained in P„;..^-c 3, Paragraphs (a) and (b) , as
amended, be ^nd it hereby is granted for a period from
April 20, 1935, to June 16, 1935, only to the extent
of permitting employers to employ employees in excess
of the maxim-um hour provisions of the Code, as amended,
when they are employed in emergency work involving danger or
menace to the safety of a vessel, to life, or to property,
or when a delay would work an undue hardship on the owner or
the shippers or the passengers through loss of use of a
vessel for prompt loading or discharge or prompt and safe
carriage of cargo or pa^-sengers to destination;
"PROVIDED, KOlffiVER, that if an employee on an hourly rate
works in excess of eight (8) hours in any one day or in
excess of the maxim-am hoars permitted by the Code, as
amended, to bo worked in any one week, he shall be paid
at the rate of at least one and one-t'alf (l^-) times his
regular hcur]y rat? for overtime so ■ri;rked; and provided,
further, that in the comoTitation of pay of such employee
whose overtime in any one week is iri excess of both eight
(8) hours per day and the maxin-.:ri hours permitted by the
Code, as amended, to be worked in ar> one week, the over-
time pay shall not be compounded by addition of both daily
and weekly overtime, biit the employee shall be paid either
the sum of the overtime pay eai-ned during the overtime days
or the overtime pay earned during the' overtime week, which-
ever is the higher for said week; and
"PROVIDED, FURTHER, that employers shall permit employees
a rest period of not less than eight (S) hours between the
termination of the last hour worked in any day and the
beginning of the first hour worked in the succeeding day;
provided, however, that if any employee is permitted to
work during such rest period, he shall be paid at least
time and one-half his regular hourly rate for the time so
worked; and
9732
-281-
"PROVIDED, FURTHER, that in each case when maximiim
hours specified in the t)rovis'ons of the Code, as amend-
ed, are exceeded, the facts and circumstances shall,
within five (5) days of the ending of the week during
which such overtime work was -performed, be reported to
the Industrial Relations Committee for the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry on duly notarized form stip-
ulated by said Industrial Relations Committee, and a
coTDy of such report shall be sent to the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry Committee; and
"PROVIDED, FURTHER, that this Order is expressly subject
to cancellation in the event of a subsequent showing of
TDroper cause therefor."
Reference is made to memorandum April 17, 1955, to W. A.
Harriman, Administrative Officer, from H, Newton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator (Reference: Order 2-34, Volume, Code
Record Section, and Deputy's Files).
"4. The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Com-
mittee, through its Chairman, in its letter of April 8,
1935 sets forth the following:
(a) 'In view of the Industry's intention to appeal
to the Industrial Appeals Board from the ruling laid
down in Administrative Order 2-32, will you kindly have
a further partial stay granted to the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry similar to that covered in Adminis-
trative Order 2-31.'
(b) It is requested that this stay may be granted to
Jujie 16, 1935 subject to cancellation if and when the
proposed amendment to the Code defining emergency work is
approved, '
"5. Further, the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Committee, through its Chairman's letter dated April 8,
requested that action on the amendment, submitted to the
Administration to cover emergency work, be withheld -until
Administrative Order 2-32 has been acted u-oon by thf^ In-
dustrial Appeals Board.
"6. (a) Administrative Order 2-32 is the denial of a
request from Industry to delete the time and one-half
provision for overtime beyond the maximum weekly hour^ of
the Code incorporated in six (6) exemptions and partial
stays granted. The findings of the Industrial Appeals
Board are necessary, as ' they directly affect a condition
that may be incorporated by the Administration in the ap-
proval of the amendment submitted to permit emergency work.
"15. There has been brought to the attention of the Admin-
istration an abuse by a member of this Industry, that de-
serves consideration with a view of adopting means to pre-
vent its recurrence.
9732
-282-
"(a) A certain comnany on the Gulf Coast in the Opera-
tion of docking a vessel and work thereon T7orked its em-
ployees from four o'clock in the aft'ernoon to twelve mid-
night, and from twelve midnight iintil eight the next morn-
ing, and did not -oay overtime for the period worked from mid-
night to eight A. n. The reason given wps that the second
eight hours were in the successive day,
"(d) This matter was called to the attention of the Ship-
huilding pjid Shiprepairing Industry at their last meeting.
It was generally deiolored "by the members of that Committee.
One of the members of tha.t Committee hy letter has suggested
a rest period as a suitable corrective means.
,"(c) In the dry-docking of ships, docking crews and cer-
, tain others skilled in emergency work, must often work con-
', tinuously for eight hours or more, althciigh sixteen hours
are unusual. Sh:p;3 generally must be taken off /out of the
dry-dock on the hi^;h tide and put on/into the dry-dock on
the high tide. The tii::e of high tides change approximate-
ly one hour per day,, and tides wait for no mano
"(d) It is a common custom in the shipping business to
dry-dock, if possible, at night and leave the dry-dock at
night in order not to break into discharge or loading days
and, therefore j save time of the ship and the delay of
cargoes. There no doubt have been several thousand dry-
dockings at night during ;the In^st year and possibly,
one-quarter of these required men to work beyond midnight.
Ho'^ever, the Assistant Deputy has learned of this one
complaint only, undoubtedly for the reason that the In-
dustry in general has volunta.rily. for a period of time.
Paid the men proper overtime beyond midnight.
"(e) Provisions for an eight hour rent period. It is
believed, will prove a proper corrective means^ That is,
a rest period of eight (S) hours from ths termination
of the last ho\ir that a ri-ian works one day to the beginn-
ing of the first hour tha,t he works in the succeeding day;
howfever, if a man is required to work during such a rest
period, he should be paid at the rate of at least time and
one-half his regular hourly rate. Such overtime require-
ment would act to discourage, undue and ■unnecessary over-
time work of employees." .1
d. Stays of Section 3 (a) and (b) pertaining to Trials
Administrative Order 2-14, April 27, 1934, signed by Hugh S.
Johnson, Administrator, recommended by Ko ivl. Simpson, Division Admin-
istrator, Division I, memorandum pjid recommendation by J. B. Weaver,
Deputy Administrator, approved oy K. M. Simpson. (Reference: Code
Record, Section, Deputy's Piles, and Exhibit X-14, Appendix.) Ex-
ceipts from the Order are ag follows:
9732
-283-
"STAY 07 THE PROVISIONS 07 TXRT 3, SECTIONS (a) and (b)
"NOV/, THEEEFORE, I, Hugh S. Jolinson, Administrator for In-
dustrial Recovery, nursuant to authority vested in rac, do
hereby order that the said provisichs of said Part 3, in-
sofar as the hours of emriloyinent for employees of ship-
builders or shiprepairers are concerned, are hereby stayed,
for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this order
and subject to ray further orders, to permit exceeding the
maximum hours of v/ork of eraxiloyees rirovided in the Code
in testing installations, machinery and equipment for ships,
dock trials, and sea trials to demonstrate . satisfactory
ODeration or contractual requirements where it is imprac-
ticable to do the work Tith safety or to the satisfaction
of the customer's inspectors by the employment of addi-
tional men, -orovided that this stay shall not operate or
be used to decrease employment or reclassify emDloyees at
a lower rate, of wages. Provided, however, That if an, em-
ployee on an hourly rate works in excess of eight (8) hours
in any. one (l) day, the wage paid will be at the rate of
not less than one and one-half (1^) times the regular hour-
ly rate, but otherwise according to the prevailing custom
in each port, for such time as may be in excess of eight
(8) hours: And, provided further. That in every case where
code hours are exceeded hereunder the facts and circiom-
stances shall be reported to the Code Authority and the
Industrial Relations Committee on a form stipulated by said
Industrial Relations Committee,"
Reference is made to memorandum April 19, 1934, to Hugh S.
Johnson, Administrator, from J. 3. Weaver, Deputy Administrator.
(Reference: Order 2-14, Volume, Code Record Section and Deputy's Files)
Excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
,"The Code Authority for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry has applied for an exemption from the maximum hours
established by the Code for employees of shipbuilders and
shiprepairers engaged in the conducting of preliminary and
official trial trips incident to the completion of wor''- on
vessels. This application has been approved by the Chairman
of the Code Authority on behalf of the Industry.
"The Industrial Relations Committee of the Shipbuilding and
Shipre-oairing Industry has approved of this application with
the reservation that overtime rates be paid for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day and also that all
such ca.ses of exceeding maximum weekly hours be reported to
that Agency, The Labor Advisory Board likewise approved on
the same conditions.
"The Order has been drawn up in accordance with these re-
commendations to provide for overtime rates of pay for all
time in excess of eight hours per day and to provide that
all such cases of exceeding maximum weekly hours shall be
9732
;4"
reported "both to the Industria,! Relations Committee and to
the Code Authority."
"It has "been found that exera-otion from the maximum hours
• in the cases referred to herein is necessary to the In-
dustry and in accordance with the -orovisions of the Act
and is herety recommended for your approval."
• Administrative Order 2-18, June 20, 1934, signed hy Hugh S.
Johnson, Administrator, recommended "by C. E. Adams, Division Admin-
istrator, Division I, memorandum and recommendation hy J. B. Weaver,
Deputy Administrator, approved by C. E, Adams, Division Administrator.
(Reference: Code Record Section, Deputy's Piles, and Exhibit K-18,
Appendix.) Excerpts from the Order are as follows:
"FURTHER STAY OF THE PROVISIONS OF PART S, SECTIONS (a) and (b)
"^iTIEREAS, an order was signed by me on April 27, 1934,
staying the said provisions of said Part 3, insofar as the
hours of employment for employees of shipbuilders or ship-
repairers are concerned, for a period of sixty (60) days
from the date of the order and subject to my further
orders, to permit exceeding the maximum hours of work of
employees- provided in the Code in testing installations,
machinery and. equipment for ships, dock trials, and sea
trials to demonstrate satisfactory operation or con-
tractual requirements whefe it is impracticable to do the
.'work with safety or to the satisfaction of the customer's
• inspectors by the employment of additional men, provided
that' the stay shall not, oper&te- or be used to decrease
employment or reclassify employees at a lower rate of wages.
Provided, however,' That if an employee on an hourly rate
works in excess of eight (8.) hours in 'any one (l) day,
the wage paid will be at the rate of hot less than one and
one-half (P) times the regular hourly rate, but otherwise
according to the prevailing custom in each port, for such
time as may be in excess of eight (8) hours: And provided
further, That in every case where code hours are exceeded
hereundpr the facts and circumstances shall ba reported to
the Code Authority and the Industrial Relations Committee
on a form stipulated by said. Industrial Relations Committee;
and
"".jTIEREAS, ray said order of April 27, 1934, expires June 27,
9732
"285-
1934, and justice requires that an extension of the said
stay he granted;
"NOViT.TJIEIREPORE, I, Hu^h S. Johnson, Administrator for
Industrial Recovery, pursuant to authority vested in rae,
do hereby order that the said provisions of said Part 3,
Sections (a) and (h) of the Code of Fair Competition for
the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry, stayed in my
order of April 27, 1934, be further stayed for a period
of six (6) months from and after June 27, 1934, subject
to my further orders. "
Reference is made to memorandum to Hugh S. Johnson,
Administrator, from J. B. Weaver, Deputy Administrator. (Ref-
erence: Order 2-18, Volume, Code Record Section, and Deputy's
Files) Excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
"The Code Authority has applied for a further stay
of the above mentioned provisions of the Code, and the
Industrial Relations Committee has reaffirmed its former
recommendation that the stay be granted.
"The Order has been drawn up extending the stay of these
provisions for a period of six (6) months. This is felt
to be justified in view of the fact that dock trials and
sea trials are conducted from time to time by members
. ■. , -. of the Industry, and in the operation of these trials it
. is often impracticable to observe the maximum hours id:^o-
vided in the Code. "
Administrative Order 2-29, December 29, 1934, signed by W. A.
Harriman, Administrative Officer, recommended by Barton W. Murray,
.Division Administrator, memorandum and recommendation by H. Newton
IThittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, approved by W. W. Rose,
Deputy Administrator. (Reference: Code Record Section, Deputy's
Files, and Exhibit K-29, Appendix.) Excerpts from the order are
as follows:
"G-ranting Further Exemption from Provisions of Part 3,
Sections (a) and (b), of Employees Engaged in Testing In-
stallations, Machinery and Equipment for Ships, Dock Trials
and Sea Trials.
"WHEREAS, an application has been made by the Shipbuild-
ing and Shiprepairing Industry Committee for a further ex-
tension of the aforesaid exemption from the provisions of
Part 3, Sections (a) and (b), of the Code of Pair Compe-
tition for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
from December 27, 1934 to June 16, 1935; and
"HOW, THEREFORE, the National Industrial Recovery Board,
pursuant to authority vested in it by Executive Orders of
the President, including Executive Order 6859, and other-
wise, does hereby order:
9732
"That an exemption from the maximiira hour -orovisions of the
Code contained in Part 3, Sections (a) and (h), as amended,
"be and it hereby is granted from Deceraher 27, 1934 to Jtme
16, 1955 to permit emiDloyees to exceed the maximum hour
provisions of the Code employed in testing installations,
machinery and equipment for ships, dock trials and sea
trials; provided ho\7ever, that if an employee on an hour-
ly rate work-s in excess of eight (8) hours in 'any one day
or in excess of thirty-six (36) hours in any one week he
shall be paid at the rate of at' least one end one-half
(l^-) times his regular hourly rate for overtime so uorked;
however, in the computation of pay nhen such an em"oloyee
works during any one week overtime in excess of toth
eight (8) hours per day and thirty-six (36) hours per
week, the overtime nay shall not be ' compounded by addition
of both daily and weekly overtime, but the employee
shall be naid either the sura of the overtime pay earned
during the overtime days or the overtime pay earned dur-
ing the overtime ueek, whichever is the higher for said
week; and, provided further, that in each case where Code
hours are exceeded hereunder the facts and circumstances
shall be reported to the Code Authority and the Industrial
Relations Committee on a form stipulated by said Industrial
Relations Committee."
Reference is made to memorandum December 21, 1934 to W. A.
Harriman, Administrative Officer, from H. Newton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, (Reference: Order 2-29, Volume, Code
Record Section and Deputy's Files) Excerpts from the memorandum are
as follows:
"4. Testing installations, machinery, equipment of ships,
dock trials and sea trials to demonstrate satisfactory
operation and meet constructional requirements have been
the practice of the Shipbuilding Industry for many years.
To do the work with safety and/or to the satisfaction and
specification of the customer, it is usually necessary to
exceed the hours stated in the Code as the maximum hours
of the Industry. Many of the employees are specialists
and of long experience with the shipyards by whom they are
employed. Trial trips and dock trials, testing operations,
new installations of machinery, boilers, electrical equip-
ment, etc, can only with safety be entrusted to thorough-
ly trained men of known experience and of a limited number
on the respective tests."
9732
-237-
e. Exemption Part 4 Section ("b) (also written as Sn' tion 4 (b)
pertaining to the San Francisco Bay Arsa.
Administrative Order 2-15, fey 1, 1934, signed "by K. M.
Simpson, Division Actainistrator, Division I, recommended by J.
B. Weaver, Deputy Administrator. (Reference; Cods Record Section,
Deputy's Files, and Exnibit K-15, Appendix.) Excerpts from the
Order are as follows:
"Denial of application of General Engineering Sc Dry Dock
Conipany, United Engineering Company, Colijmbia Iv^ciiine Works,
Brown Bros, Welding Company, f/larine Electric Company, Tourney
Electric & Engineering Company, Morrison cS: Bevilockv;ay, De
Lano Bros. Company, Cook Sc Company, Bowes Cc Andrevifs, Cassidy
& Gratta, Neptune Machine Works, Dahl-Beck Electric Company,
Thos. H. Smith Machine Works, Von Tagen Company, E. T. Tray,
C. W. Smith Copper Works, S. I/i. O'Donnell Copper Works, C. A.
McCarthy & Company, and T. J. MojTiihan cS: Company, engaged in
ship repair work in the San Francisco Bay area, for exemption
from the provisions of Part 4, Section (b) reading as follows:
'The amount of differences existing prior to
July 1, 1933, between the wage rates paid various classes
of eirployeos receiving more than the established miniim:mi
wage sliall not be decreased. In no event sl"iall any em-
ployer pay an employee a wage rate which will yield a
less wage for a work week of thirty-six (36) hours than
such employee was receiving for the same class of vrork
for a forty (40) hour week prior to July 1, 1933. It
is understood that there shall be no difference between
hourly wage rates on commercial work and on naval work,
for the sajae class of labor, in the same, establishment. '
"An application having been duly made by General Engineer-
ing & Dry Dock Company, United Engineering Company, Columbia
I&chine Works, Brown Bros. ?/elding Company, ferine Electric
Company, Toumpy Electric & Engineering Company, Morrison &
Bevilockway, De Lano Bros. Company, Cook & Com;:oany, Bowes &
-Andrews, C.assidy £!: Gratta, Kcptunc Machine Works, Dahl-Beck
Electric Conitpany, Thos, H. Smith Ifechine Works, Von Tagcn
Company, E, T. Tway, C. W. Smith Copper Works, E, M. O'Donnell
Copper' Works, C. A. McCarthy 5: Company, and T. J. Moynihan &
Company, engaged in ship repair work in the San Francisco
Bay Area, for exemption from the provisions of Part 4, Section
(b) of the Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry, and the Deputy Administrator Iiaving
recomiriended, and it appearing that justice requires, that said
application be denied;
"IJOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to authority vested in me by
the Administrator for Industrial Rgcovery, and otherwise, it
9732
-ass-
is hereby ordered that the said application for excm-otion
he and it is hereby denied."
Reference is made to meraorand-ara, April 24, 1934, to K. I.'. Sim-;)-
son, Division Administrator, froin J. B. Weaver, Le^outy Administrator
(Reference: Order 2-15, Vol-ome, Code Record Section, and Deputy's
Files) Sxcerpts froi:i the icemoi-and-cun are as follows:
"On December 11, 1333 certain firms, doing reiDair
work in the Sa]:, Francisco Bny Area, nade application to the
District Conrpliance Director for an exemption from the provi-
sion _^of txie Shipbuilding and Ship repairing Code >7hich requires
.11. 1> increase in wage rates. Previous to this, application
. was made to the Code Authority for exemotion from this provi-
sion of the Code, and the Code Au.thority is not empowered to
grant or deny exemptions from the Code, a formal application
v;as raa.de to t/io National Recovery Administration.
"Action on this application v.'f.s delayed until an In- V
dustrial Relations Coraraittoe. was established for this Industry
m order that such an agency might consider the matter and
maice recommendations th,,,!., on. This Committee is now in existence,
ana on being presented with the case, unanimously recomruendod
that the exemption from the Code be denied. The Labor Advisory
Board, in their rcoort, concurred in this decision.
"Some of the concerns making application for this cxerao-
. tion have delayed raising wages .in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Cod-, awaiting a final decision on their a^oplica-
tion, and several comolaints liave been lodged against these
firms charging violation of the Code. These comolaints will
be turned over to the Industrial Relations Committee for
adjustment of back wages due to under the provisions of the
Code.
"In view of the cirajrastances, and the ' recommendations ^^
of the Code Authority and the Industrial Relations Committee,
I recommend this denial for your approval."
_ Administrative Order 2-20. J^lly 5, 1934, signed by C. E. Adams,
Division Administrator, Division I, recommended by J. B. Weaver
Deputy Administrator, Brief on hearing by H. Newton Whittclsev,
Assistant Deputy Administrator. (Reference: Code Record Section.
-e:-mty's Files, and Exhibit K-20, Appendix.) Exceri^ts from the
Oraer are as follows:
"Granting Application of the Ggncral Engineering & Dry Dock
Company, United Engineering Comoany, Columbia Machine Works,
Brown Bros. Welding Company, ferine Electric CorrnDany, Tourney
ilectric & Engineering Company, I.'orrison r": Bevilockway, Do
i.ano Bros. Company, Cook Cc Company, 3o'.;cs & Andrews, Cassidy
c.^ Gratta, Neptune Machine V.'orks, Dahl-3cck Electric Com^mny,
£aos. ii. Smith I/achine Works, Von Tagcn Connany E. T.Tmy
C. W. Smith Copper Works, S. M. C'Donncll Cnpper Works, C. A.
973P
-289-
McCarthj'- & CoiTOai^v, T. J. Moy^.ih, n t. Coni'-x^n;' and EMre]-a Boiler Works,
Incorporated, eny-^ed iu shi--) r^iair v;ork in the Sim Francisco Say Area,
r f or exemption from the provisions oi 'i'art ^■-, Section (b).
"ViTiEaEaG, an order si^-ned a/ 1, 19r-<4, denieci the arnlication for
exemption from the -n-ovisions of Part 4, Section (b), of t;!-; Code of
Fair Competition for the Shi Vjuildin. and Shi ^rr-^airint... In." -try; and
"TffiERIJlS, a hearing }ias beer, duly held on the order sii,ned ury 1,
1934, which denied the amplication for an £xe;/.ption from the ^n'ovisions
of Part 4, Section (b), of- the Code of Fair Ccmf-ietition for the Ship-
building, and Shi;nre--iairin^ Industry, and the Deputy Administrator havin^
reported that the failiu'e to .^rant the exe;n-)tion from the -provisions of
Part 4, Section (b) in the instant case v/ould be discriminatory and re-
sult in increasing; by 11.1 percent an alrerc"i,y adequate mini;num hourly
wage rate of 84-3/8 cents maintained by the aforesaid firms durin.' the
period 1933 to date, and it a^-inearinB to :-Ty satisfaction, that the
exemption hereinafter .^ranted is necescar-- and v/ill tend to effectuate
the Policies '^f Title I of the ^faticnal Industrial Recovery Act;
"!IOi.", T:iEIEI''0?i: , -nursu.'rnt to authorit - vested in ne, it is hereoy
ordered that the order sitined May 1, 19r4, which denied the anplicrtion
for exemption from the -)rovisions of Part 4, Section (b), of said Ccd'-;,
be cancelled, and it is hereby further ordered ttet the s.bove-naned
amlicants and the firms recommended for exem-ition by the Code Authority
be and they hereby are exempted from -said ;-'rovisions of s?id Code. Pro-
vided, however_, that the wa^'^ r^tes being -^aid on July 1, 193C-'; to various
classes of emi^loyees by the firms h-rein exemited shall not be decreased."
Reference is made to ;.ienorand:;jn, June ?7, 1934, to C. lii. Adp.ms,
Division Administrator, from J. 3. IVeavor, De"nuty Adi-:iiTistratcr . Re-
ference: 2-20 Order Volume, Code Record Section, and Dnnuty's Files)
Excer-ots from riemorandum are as follo'vs:
"On iviay 1 an Order was signed deiiyino the a:Tolication of twenty
ship re-oair films in the San Francisco Bay Area for exempt:.! from the
previsions of Part 4, Section B of the Code of Fr^ir Competition for the
Shi^ouildinti -.and Shiprepairin^ Industry, v/hich r.'-auires an increase of
11.1/0 in the hourly wat^e rates in effect on Jul;-' 1, 1933.
"On protest from certai;. of these firms a mblic hearin, was held
in Washin^^ton on June 7, at which time certain facts were brought go
li^ht shov/in^ thp.t these firms should be exem^ited from that -)rovisi''n
of the Code requirin, an increase of ll.lv' i'-^ the hourly rate of em-
ployees. It was pointed out that these firms, in every case small
enterprises, had reintained their hourly waf_e rates a-t the same level
for the -last eleven years, while two other firms, the largest concerns
in the area, and in direct com-ietitiori, had lowered wa._.cs substantially.
The 3ethlehem Shi)buildinp, Corporation naid a base rate of 71(* per hour
for machinists in 1929, 54(^ ;-)er ho'or in 133?, and is now paying. 68# nor
hour. The smaller firms have 7iaid continuously for this class of skilled
labor 84-^ '^er hour base rate, which in 19?S wrs IB^'o hij^hcr than tiiat
paid by Bethlehem, i.: 1932, ^q ', •■.-_ ,: ,^-. ;_vg, ' ithout^ the 11.1,J i/.crcase
is 24,j hi_h--r. TTith tJie^ 11.1 ■ i-.-icr-er.s-, >■:. in^.i;-.,^ '•'.,& ra-^s up to 93(#, it
would be Z6% hisher than the Bethlehem rate. Even without the increase re-
quired by the Code the differential in the wage rates is greater nov; tlian
9732
-290-
in 1929. By com^Tellin^, the small firms to raise their v;a;_:es to 93(# per
hour, a decided hardship is ira-:)Osed u;oon them. Although a differential
has al?/ays existed, an increase of this differential at the -present time
would be disastrous to the small firms through the establishment of an
unfair com-:)etitive condition. It v.'.s definitely established that the
Code aggravated an already existing injustice.
"This, is just one instance v/herein the Code of ?air Competition for
the Shipbuilding, and Shirjrepairing Industry has been unv/orkable. It
will be necessary to revise the Code com--iletely at a later date so that
it will be of greater advantai^^e to the Industry.
"The Code Authority has tv/ice before talren unfavorable action on
the a-oplication of these firms for exemption, and its recommendation is
therefore not included in this report. It developed at the Hearing that
the Code Authority had denied the exemption previously not on the merits
of the case, but because of the inadvisability of setting an example by
^ranting, the exem-^tion.
"I believe that the purpose of the National Industrial Recovery
Act, furthering, methods of fr.ir competition, protecting small entemrise,
and preventint^ monopoly, ca,n only be obtained by grantint^ relief to the
appellant concerns. An Ordei' ht^.s been di-av/n up cancellinti, the former
Order of May 1, and ^.ranting the exenrjotion applied for, which I urgently
recommend for your signature."
Heference is made to the Brief by H. Newton Tlhittelsey, Assistant
Deputy Administrator. (Reference: Order 2-20, Voluiitte, Code Record
Section and Deputy's Fil-s.) Excer-nts from Brief arc as follov;s:
"HEARIIIG ON OEDZR DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR EXEIPTION Ul'DNR PROVISIONS OP
PART 4, SLCTION (b) OP TIS CODE OP PAIR COMPETITION FOR THE SHIPBUILDING
AND SHIPEEPAIRING INDUSTRY
"BRIEF
"(?:E'F3RENCES HEREII^ refer TO THE EXTRACT PAGES)
"1 (c) Substantially all yards and re>mir plants were forced to
reduce drastically hourly rates due to the deioression. It may be
assumed the proponents of the Code, with the immediate necessity before
them of establishing conditions for Navy contracts, believed all "jlants
v.'ithout exception had so reduced wages, and the provisions of Part 4,
Si-CLion (o) of the Code were written in for the s^oecific Durpose to re-
turn wa£,es to a fairer livin^ scale, and no provision was made for con-
ditions v/hore plants had not reduced wa^^es below the 1929 basis. This
unfortunate omission is the underlying cause of this controversy. (Ref.
p. lb, Sec. 23 (b), p. 36)
"3. The National Industrial }\ecovery Act \/f;„s never intended to
raise wa^es above the 1929 level, but this Oaiission would have exactly
that effect. (Ref. p. 51, p. 59)
9732
-291-
"3. In fact the ^oal of the national Administration, as imhlicly
stated manj'- times, is to retia-n Industry, Labor, etc. to the 1926 scale.
These petitioning shiprepair -olants of 'the 'San Francisco 3ay area have
been -laying: the 1936 scale, and did not reduce same.
(Ref .' p. 19, Sec. 17)
"4. The hourly base rate of 84-3/S(# for skilled labor paid by the
petitioning, plants coiiroares favorably v/ith that of nine major ship-
buildii-s plants buildinti Raval ves-sels nov; employing 10,000 men, v/ho
were the principal "oroponents of the CoO.e thrjiiji their Trade Associ-
ations.
"5. The apnlicant small -olants of the San Prancisco Bay Area
maintained the base scale of 84-3/G^ for skilled labor froai 1933 to date.
(Eef. p. 5, Sec. 8 (b) )
"6. The srid a^T-'licant small slants could not reduce wages during
the depression because of labor trade ai-,reements.
(Ref. p. 6, Sec. 9 (e), n. 18, Sec. 23 (c), ■!. 35, -n. 38)
"7. The Sc^ii a-^licant small plants, if required to comply v/ith
the Code, would have to raise the base scale to 93. 7(^.
(Sef. ;^, 7, Sec. 9 ( d) , ^t. 37)
"8. The ;>ethlehem Shipbuildin , Coranany, Union Iron ".'orks Plant,
did reduce washes to the 54<# scale, also the.lioore Shipbuildin,, Company
to j8rf.
(Sef. p. 16, Sec. 21 (a), ■■>. 35, -•). 40, Sec. 5)
"9. Ho prooi has been offered to show that the 84-3/8rf base is
not a fair livin^. wa^e.
"10. (a) The Jethlehcm Shiibuildint,- Coranany prior to the degression
paid a scale of 71-|^ which V7as a differential of 13rf under the scale
of the applicant plants. It a-ipears from the record this is the
differential of normal times, and any increase of differential tireater
than 13(!J is a h; rdship on the applicant plants.
(Ref. p. S, Sec. 9, -o. 6, Sec. 9 (f), p. 6, Sec. 9. (t) )
"14. Enforcement of srid '-jrovision would tend to create a
monopolj- as it v/ould tend to le: ve only the lar^^e shipyards v.'ith their
lower scales in the field at San Francisco, and it v;ould tnnd to crush
small industries, all of which is sioecif ically prohibited by the
rational Recover;- Act.
(Ref. p. 39, p. 51 (d) )
"15. Question: 'Do you thirk that a tenToorary rcstrainin^i order
would be issued b^'' a Court of competent jurisdiction in view of the
records .-ie.de at the recent hearin^ on an a-)plication for exemption from
the labor ;orovi3ions of the Code?'
(iTot pert of the record: Re-)ly : 'ir. Conway (Lethal Counsel): 'Yes.'
"17. Code Authority denied a-rolication, not on the merits but on
9732
-292-
policy because of nev/ness of the Code. ■ .
(Ref. ;i. 17, Sec. 23 (a), p. 20, Sec. 29 (a), (b), (c), (d) )
"18. Industrial Relations Coimaittee denied application not on
merits but for lac]:, of jurisdiction.
(Ref. p. 20, Sec. 28)
"19. Labor is not without synroathy for the difficulties of the
applicants.
(Ref. p. 22, Sec. 21, p.. 23, Sec. 33.)
and hold the Bethlehem and lioore plants should be reauired to bring ut
their wage scale.
"25. The Inuustrial Adviser recormr.ends the excrmtion be granted
in the follov/ing:
Accordiai totrhfe Code, b:--sed upon a strict interpretation, the
request for exenr-ition must be denied. In that even the code itself:
Oppresses k.tif.II enternrise and creates mono';:)oly.
With this heavy wage differential the "little
fellow" cannot compete with the "big fellow" even
in bids f or Governuent work.
It works a gross injustice to the many in favor
of the few, to the small in fa,vor of the la.rge,
to the \veak in favor of the strong, to the just
in favor of the unjust.
Codes were never so intended. Therefore, as a natter of fairness
and equity*', this roouested exemption should be granted."
9732
-233-
f» Protest of Shj-pbuilding: nnd Ship re-pairing- Industry Committee
(Code A-'athority) a^rainst ^jrovisions in Exenotion and Stay orders recg-iir-
in^:: -Qp.yment of overtime beyond the maxi'..i-ujn T'eokly hour iTrovisions of the
Code,
Administrative Order '2-32, March 21, 1935, signed ^oy V. A. Harriman,
Administrative Officer, recommended "by Barton W. Murray, Division Admin-
istration, Division -2, raemorand-ara and reconnendation 'by H. Nei-'ton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, approved by W. W. Rose, Demty Administra-
tor, (Reference: Code Record Section, Deputy's If'iles a.nd Exhibit K-32,
Appendix.) Excerpts from -the Order are as follorrs:
"Denying request of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairin;'.; Industry Committee
for deletion of provisions in Exemptions and Partial Stays granted, per-
taining to the requirement that at least time and one-lialf be paid for
all hours worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours of the Code incor-
porated in Administrative Orders Nos, 2-6, 2-16, 2-19, 2-25, 2-20, 2-20
and ^51.
"The Code, as amended, Part 3 (a) and (b), provides:
'(a) "Shipbuilding - Ho employee on an hourly rate shall be
permitted to work more thpji thirty- six (36) hours per week.
If an employee on an hourly rate works in excess of eight
(8) hours in any one day,, the wage paid will be at the rate
of not less than one and one-half (1-7) times the regular
hourly rate, but otherwine according to the prevailing cus-
tom in each port, for such time as may be in excess of eight
(8) hours."
'("b) " Shipre^airing - No employee on an hourly rate shall
be "oerraitted to work more than thirty-six (36) hours oer
week averaged over a period of six (6) months, nor more
than forty (40) hours diiring any one week. If an employee
on an hourly rate works in excess of eight (s) hours in any
one day, the wage paid will be at the rate of -not less, than ■
one and one-half (l;:-) tines the regular hourly rate, but
otherwise according to the prevailing custom in each port,
for such time as may be in excess of eight (8) hours,"'
"■WHEREAS, the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Indus trj^ Committee
by resolutions passed at meetings held Jaji-'oary 17, 1935, and February
21, 1935, respectively, protested the requirement that a.t least time
and one-half be paid for all hours worked in excess of the maxiraam
weekly hours of the Code and requested that this requirement be stricken
from Administrative Orders 2-6, 2-15, 2-19, 2-25, 2-23, 2-29 and 2-31;
and
• "WHEREAS, the Administrative Orders referred to were granted as
follows:
9732
54-
Order
Granted
Overtine
11-111111)6 r
Dated
S-.1-34
For
3 Txks.
Rate
Over
2-6
1-^
40 iirs.
2-16
5-4-54
1 ;rk.
li
40 hrs.
2-19
6-25-34
2 v;ks.
1-
36 hrs.
2-24
ll-14r-34
30 d-i^e^s
i';
36 hrs.
2-25
11-17-34
90 days
I'-
36 hrs.
2-28
12-29-34
4 mo.
ll
35 hrs.
2-29
12-29-34
6-16-35
li
35 hrs.
2-31
2-19-35
60 days
1}
max. hrs.
Granted
to
Jut ton Kelly Co,
liajnitowac SB. Corp,
St. Louis Car Co.
Industry
Marietta Mfg. Co,
ITevroort News SB. DD, Co,
Hew York SB. Co.
Bethelehem SB, Co,
Indus tr^'-
Industry
.".ITHSEEAS, the Demity Adninistrator hciS reverted, and it ap'r'ears to
the satisfaction of til? national Industrial Recovery Board that the denial
of the aforesaid request is neceasa,ry and will tend to effectuate the
policies of Title I of the ITation?! Industrial Recovery Act,
"NOW, TIITREPOPuE, the National Industrial Recovery Boprd, pursuant
to axithority vested in it "by Executive Orders of the President, including
Executive Order 6859, find otherwise, does herehy order;
"That the request of the Shipbuildin,';,- and Shiprepairin,:: Industry
Committee for deletion of provisions in exemptions and -oartial strays
gra,nted renuiring that at least time and one-half be paid for all hours
worked in excess of tho maximum weekly hours of the Code in 'Adriiinistra-
tive Orders 2-6, 2-16, 2-19, 2-25, 2-28, 2-29 and 2-31 he and is
hereby denied."
Reference is made to memorandum March 5, 1335 to W. A. Harriman,
Administrative 0:'"f icer, from^ H, Newton Fiaittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Administrator. (Reference: 2-32 Orcier Volume, Cbde Record Section and
Deputy's File:j.) Excej)ts from the mei.iorandum are as follows: '
"2. (a) The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairiag Industry Committee
passed the following resolution at meetin^;,- held Jan. 17, 1935:
"Whereas in Administrative Orders No. 2-6, 2-16, 2-19, 2-25, 2-28,
2-29, N. R. A. . have directed, tliat overtime be paid beyond weekly
hours as v/ell as beyond daily hours the Code Authority protests this
raling as not being within the requirements of the Shiobuilding
and Shiprepairing Code, and further has never been a practice of
the Industry a.nd therefore is unacceptable to it; and
'TKEREPORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Code Authority directs its
Chairmr'n to address a letter to N, R. A. asking tha.t this require-
ment be stricken from the aforesaid Administrative Orders,"
u
♦Contains the; subject provision but is not listed by the Code Authority;
-2?5-
(b) The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Connittee passed
the follc-ing resolution at ingeting held Feb. 21, IS.'^S.
'THE CODE iUTHOHITY RESOLVES: That the Chairman of the Code
Authority be directed to protest to N.R.A. the Administrative
Order No, 2-31 in its present form as being opposed to the payment
of overtime bevond the maximum hours of the Code, and as opposed
to the provision of the Order requiring weekly reports of overtime
performed to be reported to the Industrial Relations Committee
unless such reports are the result of a complaint filed in regard
thereto; and,
FURTHER: That the Chairman be directed to communicate with K.R.A.
and request an opportunity for the Code Authority to a-^mear before
the national Industrial Recovery Board and present its point of
view regarding these matters,'
"7, Reference is made to letter of Jan. 28, 1935, from the Chair-
man of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee in vihich
argument is set forth as follows:
"(a) That the overtime clauses (subject provisions) directly
conflict with the 'Code which provides for overtime payment beyond eight
(8) hours per day, but does not provide for overtime payment beyond the
maximum weekly hours. The Code does not provide for overtime work beyond
weekly hours under any circumstances,
"An exemption or limited partial stay granted v/hich acts tempo-
rarily to modify a provision of the Code, na^^ contain any conditions
deemed' advisable by the Administration,
(c) That on January 4, 1934 , I.!r, William H, Davis, then Deputy
Administrator, dictated a statement incorporated in t.ie ianutes of the
Meeting held an that day as follows:
'That overtime is not to be paid for the four hours in
excess of the 36 hours in eny one week but is only to
be paid for hours in excess of eight hours in any one
day.'
"The above provision was not submitted to the Adnini strati on
for approval. If approved, it '"ould constitute an aaendiient to the
Code, Further, the Code in Section 8 (d) clearly provides .-.at supple-
mental provisions shall be submitted for the aroproval of the President,
Therefore, the above provision is of no force or effect,
•"3, Reference is made to letter dated Feb, 21, 1935, from the Chair-
man of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee setting
forth argument as follows : . ■ -
"(a) That the Industry did not consider or agree to any over-
time provision beyond the weekly hours of the Code, This is answered in
7 (a) hereof.
9732
-296-
"(b) That the practice has never prevailed in the Industry
to pay over tine except "beyond daily hours and it rrould establish in the
Industry a condition that vrould be very difficult, if not impossible,
to change,
"The Industry has paid for Simday v/ork double time or a higher rate,
and for Saturday afternoons, tine and one-half or h, higher rate. These
payments are in fact payments bej^'ond the usual weekly hoiirs of v-'ork,
whicli, viere generally forty-four (44) hours. The exenptions and partial
stays granted in most cases pertained to relc.tivelj^ few employees in re-
lation to total euploj^nent; therefore, it does not ao Dear that the over-
time requirement vould act to establish a precedent,
"(e) , That the Ilav;;'' De-oartment only requires overtime payment
beyond forty (40) hours per \7eek,
"The nandatory law limiting the hours per day to eight
(8) hours of ^'orkg requires no overtime provision to protect the situa-
tion. Therefore, in effect, the Eavy Department's daily and weekly
hours are effectively protected against undue overtime,
"9c Reference is made to Administrative Orders 2-6, 2-16, 2-19
and 2-25, all vere -granted to sioecific shipyards on representatives
that the particular kind of labor exempted was not available in the
immediate localitj'-. In such instances the local labor offices cannot
be considered an infallible guide nor is it possible to judge the avail-
ability of men 'in not too distant points that might be moved. Therefore,
the subject provision of overtime pD.yrnent beyond the maximum hours of
the Code is most useful to properly'" control such situations; that is,
to discourage undue overtime ^ ork and induce the increase of employment
of more men to handle the work in question.
"10, Reference is made to idministrative Orders 2-24, and 2-28,
both of which pertain to the extension of Section 3 (c) of the Code
regarding designers and loftsnen.
"(a) The memorandum cf llovember 9, 1934, to the Division
Administrator, copy attached, sets forth that there was an original
exception provided by the Code for six (o) months, and this was extended
by an additional three (3) months, and a still fu:'ther additional six
months, all without overtime provision. During this total time of
fifteen (l5) months the designing forces were only increased 35^,
"(b) This tine was quite sufficient to train additional men
to properly handle the designing of the large naval program that ?/as
let in 1933, However, at the termination of this period, llov, 5, 1934,
the Shipbuilders apiolied for a further extension,
"(c) The condition therefore existed as follows: The ship-
builders ho,d vforked their designing forces for nine (9) months at 48
hours ajid for six (6) months at 44 hours, the;'" had failed to employ and
train sufficient men to do the work, they raid the men no overtime for
work beyond 36 hours per week as it v^as not required by the Code or the
extension thereof. This is a clear case of the lack of a suitable pre-
vision to prevent \andue overtime and to increase employment,
9732
-297-
"(e) The memorandum of November 13, 1934, to the Division
Administrator, copy attached, sets forth the increased cost per month
of overtime required hy the respective Orders in the designing of the
$181, 728,600 naval "building in private yards. It is shown that the
percentage of increased cost per month with relation to the contracts
is estimated at only IS/lOOO of ifo, and the overtime cost per month
with relr.tion to the jayroll at only 7/l00 of 1^.
"11, Reference is made to Administrative Order 2-29, which grajits
a further exemption to employees engaged in testing installation,
raachinerjr end. equipment for ships, dock trials and sea trials.
"(a) The memorandum in this case addressed to the Adminis-
trative Officer sets forth in considerable detail the special problem
connected rith this matter. The men selected for such trials and their
number is a management problem of shipyard operation and cannot well be
intsrf erred, with.
"(b) This matter, however, should be adequately safeguarded
in order to discourage unnecessary overtime work and encourage em-
plojaient of sufficient men to the fullest extent. Therefore, the sub-
ject provision embodying the requirement that time and one-half be raid
for overtime beyond thirty-six (36) hours is most desirable and ne-
cessary 3j.id the only one suitable to properly guard the situation.
"(c) The Labor Advisory Board, Research and planning Divi-
sion cjid Legal Division recommended that time and one-half be paid for
overtime beyond the maximum hours of the Code, although the question
was not definitely asked of the Advisory Boards in the memoranda that
went to them.
"12 (a) Here again the memoroJida in the case, addressed to the
Administrative Officer, v7ent into considerable detail in regard to the
necessity of emergency work in the repair of ships and clearly set
forth that permission to perform emergency repairs must be --^ranted to
the Industry. Such repairs must be ma,de immediately when tj.re is in-
volved the danger of menace to the safety of a vessel, life or property
or when a delay would work an undue hardship on the owner or shippers
or passengers.
"(b) Here again is a situation that must be safeguarded. The
Order provided for time and one-half beyond the maximum hours of the
Code aiad required that reports of such emergency work should be made
promptly to the Industrial Relations Committee for the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry.
"(c) The subject provision of time and one-half is the only
5732
-293-
suitr.tle control to discourage undue overtiinu nork and to encourage
adequate enployment. The Indur trial Relations Conraittee, the Consumers' "
Advisory Board, Eesea:rch and Planning Division, Lator Advisory Board and
Legal Division recorinended such time and one-half Toe -oaid for overtime
"beyond ma,xinuin hours of the Code,
"13, The Industrial Relations Committee for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Indvistry recorinended "by resolution March 1, 1935, as
follows:
'BE IT REGOLVjJD, that the Lahor i.Iembers of the Industrial
Relations Comnittee hereby record themselves as favoring the payment
of not less than tine and one-half for work performed in excess of Code
weekly ma^'tiraTin hours, and recom-'iend tho,t the Code Authority's protest of
January 23th, 1935, be referred to herein, be denied, and
'BE IT RESOLVED, that the Industry I.ienbers of the Industrial
Relations Committee hereby record themselves as O'oposed to the payment
of overtime for ■ ork performed in excess of Code ^;eekly manimum hours
and recoinmend that the Code Authority' s protest of January 28th, 1935,
referred to herein, be sustained,'
"20, An exemption from, or a stay of, maximum hour' provisions of
the Code which permit work beyond maximum hours is a temporary modifica"
tion of the Code provision effective for a limited time in lieu of an
actual aiendmcnt to meet the particular conditions for ?/hich the exemp-
tion or stay may be granted,
"(a) It follows that such temporary modifications of the Code
must be guarded by suitable conditions, in order that such modifications
may not be used for the purpose of decreasing employment or for reclass-
ification of employees a,t a lo- er rate,
"(b) Means to so guard such temporary modifications may con-
sist of the following:
"(l) The Compliance Division or other suitable agency
might be instructed to send its representatives into o.:.th plant to check
both the work and the payrolls, where men arc worked in excess of the
maximum hours of the Code under a given exemption or stay, to determine
and reoort that the privilege granted is not used to decrease employment
while working undue overtime and thereby not putting on sufficient men.
It is thought this method would be a nuisance and expense to the ship-
yards and has not been followed:
"(3) Another means is to act through economic inducement,
such as the subject provision that not less than time and one-half be paid
for ^^ork beyond the maximum hours of the Code, This automatically acts to
induce a shipyard to hire more men instead of i^orking a smaller force on
undue overtime and paying them time and one-half for overtime so worked,
"(3) No other effective nerns, that is not of a nuisance
nature, is knoTm that will guard this situation of the modification of
the Code by exemptions or stays. The time and one-half provision has un-
doubtedly worked tov/ard an increase in employment and toward a curbing of ',
undue overtime,
9732
-299-
"(4) The shi-nbuilders have made no constructive suggestion
as to means for guarding such tcm-oorary nodifications of the Cede in lieu
of the subject provision, which they protested,
"21, I recomend the protest of the Shipbuilding and Shi-:irepairing
Industry Comnittee and request for deletion of .provision in exemptions
and pai'tial stays granted, pertaining to the reauireinent that at least
time and one-half be paid for all hours '"orked in excess of the maximum
weekly hours of the Code incorporated in Administrative Orders Nos. 2-6,
2-16, 2-19, 2-25, 2-28, 2-29, and 2-31, be ended.
"I, therefore, recommend for your signature the apioroval of the Order,'
9732
-300"
4 . Other Administrative Actions and Agencies
a. grade Practice Comi?! JAts Corimittee
February 14, 1934, The Code .aithority set u^i the Trade Practice
Complaints Coi2":'.ittee as -oer the i-ollowing excerpts from the liinutes
(Reference: pa.5:os 1 ani: 3, i'lirratcs, Deput^'^s Files).
"The Chairiiir.n py.plained in co-:isidc-raolG dot-.il to the niemoers
of the SMp "building and Thiprcpairing Industry its status with
respect to the sotting up of coyxiittees to deal with Trade
Practice Complaints and La'oor Complaints as provided for in tlie
Manual for Adjustment of Complaints, Bulletin #7, issuea "by the
national Kecovery Adriinistrf:..tion,
"After discussion, upon motion "by S. W. ¥al:eman, seconded "by
Eooert Haig -and u^ianimously carried the follov/ing resolution
v.'as adop;bed:
'Tmt a, Trade Practice Complsiints Co'L.dttee "be
organized and set up to "be comprised of the six
Industry I.Iem"bcr3 and the Adinini strati on member
of the Code Authority. '
Therefore, the mem'bers constituting this Committee are;
H. G. Smith, President, National Council of Americo.n
Ship'builders.
Roger "Jilliarns, Vice President, Nemort ITews Ship-
building and Dry Dock Company.
Rohert Haig, Vice President, Sun Ship'building 2c Dry
Dock Company,
S. 17, ITakeman, Vice President, Icthlehem Shi}: "building
£: Iry Dock Corap.any.
W. H. Crcr'nauser, president, Ainerican Shi ;n "building Com-
pany.
Joseph Haag, Jr., President, Todd Dry Dock Engineering
P'. Repair Co.
Ar"ba E. Kar'vin, Acministration iJem'ocr of Code Ar.thority
without vote "but \7ith veto, sxib-
ject to reviev/ "by NRA.
"In order tn fuxther the v/ork of the Trac'e Praxtice
Coivimittce the Code Authority passed a resolution tjia.t:
The Trade Practice Complaints Committee "be author-
ized to set up divisional, regional, or local In-
dustrial Adjustment At.-,cncies or :.se existing Rational,
District and Local Area Comxnittees orii,anized and
functioning imder t'ne Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Indxistry Code,
April 4, 1954, Administr-vtivc, Order .■J-12A was issued in letter
form addressed to C. C. Kncrr, Secretai-y, Code Authority, from K. M.
Simpson, Division Aduiinlctr:;.tor , Division 1, as follov/st (Reference:
3732
-301-
Code Record Section, Deputy's Ziles, cjiC. Kdii-Liit E-12A, Air:)endix.)
"V/e have oxanined the proposals outlined in a letter from
Mr. Art)a B. Ilarvin, dated Mr'.rch 6, addressed to Deputy Administrator
J. 3. IVeaver, and the followint.,- naiaed persons are recognized as
niemljers of the iTavle Practice Complaints Committee for your Industry;
H. Cr. Smith, Presiccent, National Council of American
Shi^uuilders, 11 Broa.dway, Now Yorli, N.Y.
Ho^-er V'illiams, Vice President, Nevfport Hews Shiphuilding
and Dry Dock ConpanyT 90 Broad Street, New York, N.Y.
Joseph Haar;, Jr., President, Eodd Dry Dock Engineering & Repair,
Pt. of 23rd St"., Brooklyn, N. Y.
V/.'"H. Gerhauss];, President, Aaerican Shipbuilding, CoLipany, Cleveland, Ohio
P.o'aert Haig, Vice-President, Sun Shiphuilding & Dry Dock Company,
Chester, Pennsylvania.
S. ¥. '.'akenan, Vice-President, Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation
Ltd., Quincy, l,Iassachusetts .
Arba 3. Marvin A(?^iiini3tr>:'.tion iiepresenta,tive ol the Code
Authority, 277 Park Ave., New York, N.Y.
"You are hereby, authorized to handle traae practice complaints
in the first instance. This authorization is granted with the under-
standing that such complaints will be handled on a National basis,
with the Tra:;.e Practice. .Complaints. CoLimittee a-uthorized, to set up
regional or local adjustment agencies,, or us.e available agencies in
The Industry as fact. finding and advisory, bodies. .If,, in the future,
it should b.e dee.med advisable for such, regional or local agencies
to adjust complaints in, the fir.'^t instance, specific authorization OTj.st
be requested for this purpose."
1. Reference is made to memioranduin, April 4, 1934, to K.
M. Simpson.^ Division Administrri.tor, from J. B. V/eaver, Deputy Adjnin-
istrator, (Reference:, Volume, Order 2-12A, Code Record Section and
Deputy's, Piles) from which the folli^wing is excerpted.
"On l.Iarch 7th we submitted plans for a Trade Practice
Complaints Cov.niiittee for the above Industry to the Code
Authority Organization Committee, and requested that the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee be
granted permission to handle trade practice complaints
in the first instance.
"Pavorable reports were iliade by the various members
of this Cnmi.-dttee, but before final action was taken by
the Commitee they were instructed to retiorn all requests
tortile -Karioiis Industry Divisions in keeping with the new
procedure outlined in Office Orders 74- and 75.
"I feel th^t authorization should be granted to the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Coi.imittee to
handle trade practice complaints in the first instance
T/ith the understanding that the Trcde Practice Compiaints
Ccmrrdttee, as organized on February 14, 1934-, be recog-
nized and authorized to set ixp re.gional and local e.djustment
9732
-305-
apencies, or use available agencies in the Industry as advisory
and fo.ct finding bodies. If, in the future, it should be deemed
a,dvisahle for these regional or local agencies to handle trade
practice com-olaints in the first instance, special authorization
should be requested for this purpose."
Zeforence is made to letter, March 6, 1934, to J. B. Weaver, De-
puty Adniinistrator, from Arba B. Marvin, Administration Eepresenta,tive,
(Reference: Volume, Order 2-12A, Code Record Section and Deputy's
?iles) from vdiich the follov/ing is excerpted.
"It is to be noted that the personnel of this Committee is
•lOt identical with that of any committee in this Industry hereto-
fore authorized to handle trade practice complaints ' on reference
cjad it is not the intent that the proposed new Committee shall
tal:e to itself compla.ints on reference which since October 28, 1933,
have been delegated to District and to Local Jirea Committees in the
Industry. It is the intent that the proposed ne\7 Committee shall
take over the responsibility in the first instnjice of such earlier
coaplaints on reference and that the reoorts of the District and
regional Area Committees shall be ma.de to the oro'oosed nei7 Com-
nittee ojid then relayed by the latter to the Rational Recovery
■■ AcV.iinistration.
"Action on complaints in the first instance by this proposed
Trade Practice Comolaints Committee is to be national in scope. By
approva„l of the Code Authority now obtained, said Committee may
set up divisional, regional or local Industrial Adjustment iigencies
and tLse available agencies in the Industry such as existing trade
associa.tions. The present intent is to utilize to the fullest
possible extent the four District Committees and the fifteen or
more Local Area Coi.miittees tabulated on the accompanying chart, but
for the time being and until such divisional, regional ob local In-
dustrial Adjustment Agencies have demonstrated their capacity to
handle complaints on reference, the said proposed new Committee is
to receive all trade practice complaints in the first instance and
then use its discretion and judgment in referring anj^ -of those
conplaints to one or another of the available Industrial Adjustment
Agencies as occasion may arise."
The foregoing reference to October 28, 1933 was no doubt a typo
graphical error. There was no Code Authority meeting on that day, but
there was a meeting October 2, 1933, during which the Rules and Re-
gulations v.'ere approved by the Code Authority.
Reference is made to memorandum L'arch 22, 1934, to Dr. E.
Christopher I.ieyer from Theodore Voorhees of the Legal Division, (Re-
ference: Volume, Order 2-12, Code Record Section and Deputy's Files)
of which the following is excerpted.
9732
-303-
"L.liava examined the. rules and regulations for t.ie
adi.iinistration of the above code and the other papers
with regard to the handling of tra.c.e practice complaints
and I am of the opinion that the code coi.mittees should
be permitted to handle trade practice complains in the
first instance.
"Vrhile the r-olcs in this Industry are not particularly
similar to the sug^restions in Bulletin 7 for Industrial
Adjustment Agencies, I thin!: that it would be a, great mis-
take where an Industry has set up machinery for compliance
which is working effectively, for the Administration
to force the Industry to adopt an entirely different
syster.i. In other words it seems to me that unless it
appears tlmt the system ^f handling trade practice
complaints is inadequate or unfair we should approve
the set-up and allow the Industry to handle complaints.
■ "If you agree with me and propose to permit to handl-
ing of such cornplaints I suggest that you be particularly
careful to confine your approval to the handling of com-
plaints and that you do not permit the Industry to infer
that the rules and reg-ulations 'approved anc. effective
October 2, 1333' are approved by the Administration.
Perhaps these rules have been approved by the Deputy Ad-
ministrator. They contain many rather drastic provisions, ,
• however, and I do not think thv.t the Code Authority Organ-
ization Committee should a /lear to be sanctioning these
provisions unless they were carefully sfudied."
llo plan of Procedure for Handliiig Trade Practice Complaints
was approved in the subject order 2-12A. The Rules and Regulations and
the ciiart of the District and Local Areal .Convnittees was submitted and
incorporated in the volumes, and it may be assiuned that the Adminis-
trative provisions of these Rules and Regxilations received taci*
approval in that no exception was taJcen to them e ven v/hen pointed out
in the letter from Arl^a 3. l.iarvin hereinbefore quoted and bound in the
volumes.
As to oualifications of the members of the Committee.. It
is the identical list of members of the Code Authority which was
elected by the Industry as a whole as hereinbefore set forth and more-
over the author loiows these individual men are the actual heads of
active operation of the respective large shipyards set forth as their
affiliations.
April 24, 1934. L.Ieeting of the Code Authority, The
following action was talcen (Reference: page 13, I.iinutes, Deputy's Ziles):
"Trade Practice Comolaints Committee
"The Chair;nan announced that puarsuant to authority contained in a
letter of April 4, 1934 from K. M. Sin^son, the Trade Practice Complaints
Committee v/as duly organized; today but at the present time -has no report
to make to the Code Autlwrity.
3732
''Mr. Marvin drew the attention of the CocLe A"uthority--to
a letter dated April 12, 1934 from Lr. K. M. Simpson relative
to an Inter- Indus try practice Hele,tionship Coivimittec to be ap-
pointed to meet with similar Trade Practice Committees iinder
such other codes as experience proves to he sufficiently re-
lated to require coordination for the purpose of formulating
fair trade practices between such related codes.
"Upon motion of Ivir. S. W. Wakeraan and seconded by l.Ir,
Hoger Williams the Trade Practice Complaints Committee of
the Shipbuilding and Shiprepa.iring Industry was designated
as the Committee to meet v/ith such other Conniittees as out-
lined above."
Mr. H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the subject committee and also
the Code Authority, was requested from time to time to develop adequate
plans of Procedure for handling Trade Practice Complaints, but it was
delayed awaiting the amended code. However, the author addressed Mr.
Smith ilovember 20, 1934-, (Eeference: Deputy's Files) as Follows:
"Last week I sent to Mr. Knerr, your Secretary,
multiple copies of two diff^.rent plans for handling
Ttade Practice Complaints. •
"Reference is made to the Division Administr;itor ' s Order
dated April 4, approving the Trade Practice CoiTiivdttee . It is noted
that this Order did not contain the very pertinent paragraph in Mr.
Arba B. Marvin's Mninistration Member, memoranduivi dated March 5 to I.ir.
J. B. V/eaver, Deputy Administro.tor as follows:
'In general the procedure to be .followed
by. the Trade Practice Complaints • Committee
here proposed is that vdiich appears in IIRA
Bulletin IIo . 7, page 36, section 4'.
"It is now required that a plan for a Trade Practice
CoEipraints Comr:dtte.e be aiproved by the Division Adminis-
trator. The plan follov/s Bulletin No. 7, bxxt is more
complete in setting forth the detail matter in which
complaints are to be handled.
"I hope you will give careful consideration to these
plans of procedure for your Trade Practice Complaints
Committee and have the same adopted.
"I find no record of reports from yoixr Trade Practice
eorirolaints .Committee to the Acljni'ni strati on, which v;as under-
stood to have been made by the Code Authority. Will you
pleas-c have a surm.iary made and forward with extra copies."
Copies of the Tvio Plans of Procedure are filed in Trade Practice Folder
Deputy's Files. They differed in the field organization provisions.
December 20, 1934 meeting of the Code Authority the following action
was taken (Reference: pa^.e 14, Minutes, Deputy's Files):
9732
-305- ■
"By-Lav/s - (Code Authority
(Trace Practice Ccinplaints Committee
"The Chairman reported that I.lr. II. Hewton Whittelsey had forwarded
to the Clmiruan of the Code Authority proposed by-lav/s covering the
operation if the Code Authority and also for the operation of the
Trade Practice Cor.plaints Coraniittee and upon motion ty i.lr. A. B.
Homer, nnconded by Hr. iloger 'Jilliams ooth 'jubjects v»rere to be ;ef erred
to the Coumi.ttee on- Code Hevision for study and report thereon."
January 17, 1955 meeting of the Code Authority the Plan
was ajain on the agenda but the discussion became involved with the
Rules and Ees'.ulations and no action 'vas taken (Reference: Llinutes
Deputy's Files) .
Pebruary 13, 1955. ^'he Author a/;:ain addressed Mr.' Smith
as follov/s:
"On November 13 I sent to Mr. C C Knerr, your
Secretary, ajid later v/rote yo'i on November .20, in
re^;ard to this matter.
"You have a Trace Practice Coirimittee set up and
approved, but until your :3lan of Procedui*e is adopted
this .CouTinittee cannot properly function.
"This Plan of Procedure, the form of v/hich I sent
you, is in accordance with the policy of the Compliance
Division and includes in the Plan the method hy v/hich
complaints that cannot be adjusted by' your Trade Prac-^
tice Committee may be sent forward to the Comtjliance
Division of the N.R.A. and thereby bring in the aid'
the Administration can -jive in the enforcement of
Trade Practice.
"Will you please bring these up before your Code
Auth'->rity meeting aiid have them passed. I believe
they are now in the hands of the Code Couii.dttee."
As to the activities of the subject committee there v/as
little left of fair trade practices soon after the comi.dttee was appointed.
The Code only provided as follows;
■ " 7-"-UiiPAIR I.S;TH0DS OP C01.IPETITI0N
"To accomplish the 'oui-^jose contemplated by this Act, the members
signatory to this c^de agree that the following practices are hereby
declared to be tmfair methods of competition:
"(a) To sell any products (s) or service (s) bel^w
the reasonable cost of such product (s) or service (s).
"(l) Por this pujrpose, cost is defined as the
cost of materials plus an adequate ejiiount of
overhead, including an ajnount for the use of
9752
-306"
any pl8,nt facilities employed as determined ty
cost accoujiting metliocls recognised i.. the in-
dustry (and approved "oy the co;.imittee constituted
for the enforcer.ient of this code as provided in
Secf ion 8 (a) ) .
"(h) To give or accept rebates, refunds, allowances,
unearned discounts, or special services directly or in-
directly in connection T/ith any work, performed or to
receipt hills for insurance work until payment is made."
The Rules and Eej.'r^u.lations from Article VII v^cre intended
to amplify the code provisions, as hereinbefore set forth, these Rules
and Re^^ations were adopted October 2, 1933, but were not subnutted
to the adminic;tration on c^dvice of the Deputy in chtrin-e of the Code
(Reference: pa;:^e 2, Minutes, October 2, 1933, Deputy's Piles.) Their
legality bejan to cruiTible Feur^Jai-y 6, 1934 in raem6rand"'ain to C-eori^^'e
H Shields III, Iccictant Deputy Administrator, from Howard F. Ralph,
Assistant Counsel (Reference: Deputy^ s Riles), •'■here appears no
record, however, of the Code Authority bein^; informed accordingly,
prior to their appointment of the subject coinmittee.
April 30, 1934 letter to J. B. V/eaver, Deputy Administrator
from H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, reouestcd a
legal interpretation of the Rules and Regulations for the .guidance of
the subject co:ri..dttee . (Reference: Trade Practice Folder, Deputy's Files).
The reply was made by letter. May 18, 1934, to H. Gerrish
Smith, Chairman, from H. Nev;ton VAiittelsey, Assistant Dejmty Administrator
(The author joined N.R.A. organization April 24, 1934) (Reference:
Trade Practice Folder, Deputy's Files). Lxcerpts from the letter are
as follows:
"In reply to yotir letter to Mr. J. B. Y/eaver dated
April 30, v/hich has just come to my hands, in regard
to the Trade Practice CoLu.iittee on nuestions arising
pertaining to the Code of Fair Coi.metition and Trade
Practice of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Indus-
try. ■
"This matter was the subject of a letter I wrote
to Mr. Arba B. Marvin on May 10 as follows:
'I am informed by our Assistant Counsel as follows;
"1. Replying to your question number one it is
obvious that the Committee should not tal:e .action
on complaints filed solely on the By-Laws that
were in effect for a few v/eeks in the suiiiiner of
1953 and v/ere v/holly discarded and abandoned.
"2. Replying to your question nwnber two that
ComTiiittee should only take action on coniplaints
filed on the Rules and Regulr.tions as issued where
such complaints are based on provisions v/ithin the Code."' "
9732
-307-
Reference is uiade to letter, September 26, 1934, to Jacques J.
Reinstein, Atsistant for Code Authorities, from H. Gerrish Smith,
Cliairmaa .of -the Code Authnyity. (Reference: Trade Practice Folder,
Deputy's Files) The letter is explanatory of the situation at the
time and is excerpted as follows:
"Receipt is aclmowledged of your letter of September
13, addressed to the Secretary of the Shipbuilding an 1
Shiprepairing Industry .Coimnittee, concerning conpliance
activities of our Code Authority.
"This Industry has operated under a Code and a set of
Rules and Regulations, drawn up by its Code Authority in
cooperation with and approved by its Deputy Adininistrator.
"Prora time to time an occasion trade-practice com-
plaint was submitted to the Code Authority that provisions
of the Rules and Regulations had been viblated. The com-
plaints were brought to the attention . , of the Trade Prac-
tice Complaints Committee at a meeting on April 24th at
which time the vari-^us comnlaints in Question were considered.
"There had arisen in the meantime some doubt as to the
legality of the Rules and Regulations as adopted by the
Code Authoi'ity saiC the various complaints, therefore,
were laid on the table v;ith a request that the Ifational
Recovery Administration be ashed to render a decision as
to the legality of them. Accordingly, a letter was writ-
ten to ITRA under date of April 30th , and under date of
May 18th v/e received a reply from Mr. H. N. V/hittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administr...tor of the Shipping Section,
as per copy •. enclosed. The Riiles and Regulations were
dravm, as shown, to ccver the tra,de-practice provisions
of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the code. This Office has found
no way, however, in proving there has been a code viola--
tion of the Rules and Regulations,, so that there are •n
file at the present time no claims that this office can
show to be a violation of the Code itself. The total
number of such complaints under the Rules and Regulations
that v/ere submitted is twenty-eight (28)."
9732
"308-
b . Latior Corn-plaints Committees
Industrial Relations Committee for the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry vias originated by resolutici of the
Code Authority at meeting held J/arch 15, 1934 (Reference:
page 10, I/inutes, Deputy's Files). The Resolution is as
follows: ; ..
"There shall be constituted by appointment of the
Administrator for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepair-
ing Industry an Industrial Relations Committee, to
be composed of seven (?) members: three (3) to be
nominated by the Code Authority to represent the
employers, three (3) to be nominated by the Labor
Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administra-
tion to properly represent the employees in the in-
dustry, and one (l) to be selected by the other six."
Administrati /e Order ?-8, I'arch 26, 1934, signed by
Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator, appointed three Industry Mem-
bers nominated by the Code Authority. (Reference: Code Re-
cord Section, Deputy's Files and Exhibit K-8, Appendix.)
Excerpts from the Order are as follows:
"AlID raEREAS, the following persons have been nominated
by the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee:
Lawrence Y. Spear, Electric Boat Company,
Groton, Connecticut.
George H. Bates, United Dry. Docks,
New York City.
John B. Woodward, Newport News Shipbuilding
and Dry Dock Company, Newport
News, Virginia.
"NOW, THEREP'ORE, I, Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator for
Industrial Recovery, do hereby order that tne above named
persons be and they are hereby appointed and constituted mem-
bers to represent employers on the Industrial Relations Comm-
ittee for said Industry."
Administrative Order 2-12, April 4, 1934, signed by
Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator, appointed three Labor Members
to the Comnittee, nominated by the Labor Advisory Board (Ref-
erence: Code Record Section, Deputy's Files and Exhibit
K-12, Appendix.) Excerpts from the Order are as follows:
"AND WHEREAS, the following persons have been nominated
by the Labor Advisory Board:
Arthur 0. Wharton, President, International
Association of Ii'achinists .
Joseph S. McDonagh, Legislative Representative
of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers.
9732
-S09-
rilliairi. A. Calvin, Vice President of the Inter-
national brotherhood of Boilermakers
and Iron Shipbuilders.
"now, THEREFORE, I, Hugh 3. Johnson, Administrator for
Industrial Recovery, do hereby order that the atove
named persons "be and they are hereby appointed and con-
stituted members to represent employees on the I: dustrial
Relations Com.mittee for said Industry."
Adm.ini strati ve Order t.~13, April 6, 1934, signed by Hugh
S. Johnson, Administrator, appointed James Swann in place of
George H. Bates, resigned (Reference: Code Record Section,
Deputy's Files and Exhibit K-13, Appendix). Excerpts from the
Order are as follows:
"AlvTD WHEREAS, George H. Bates, who, pursuant to the
provisions of said resolution, was on March 26, 1934,
appointed a member to represent employers on the Ind-
ustrial Relations Committee of said Industry, has sub-
mitted his resignation as such member.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator for
Industrial Recovery, do hereby order that James Svrann
be and he is hereby appointed and constituted a member
to represent employers on the Industrial Relations
Committee for said' Industry."
Administrative Order 2-21, Aug'ast 15, 1934, signed by
Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator, approval recommended by Barton
W. Murray, Division Administrator, December 2, amended pre-
vious orders relating to the numbers of the committee as per
the following excerpt (Reference: Code Record Section, Deputy's
Files and Exhibit K-21, Appendix):
"UOW, THEREFORE, I, Hugh S. Johnson, by virtue of
authority vested in me, do hereby order that my pre-
vious orders of March 26, 1934, and April 4, 1934,
whereby I appointee the Industry and Employee members,
respectively, of the Industrial Relations Committee
for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry, be
amended by omitting the provision requiring the selec-
tion by the Industrial Relations Committee of a seventh
(7th) m.ember."
The full membership of the subject committee was there-
fore as follows:
Lawrence Y. Spear, Electric Boat Company,
Groton, Connecticut.
James Swann, Hew York Shipbuilding?' Corpora-
tion, 420 Lexin.!ton Avenue,
New York City.
9732
-310"
John B. Woodi7a,rd, :Te\7port News Shiptailding
and Dry Dock Company, Newport
News, Virginia.
Arthur 0. Y.liarton, President, International
Association of Machinists .
Joseph S. i;cDonr.gh, Legislative Eepresentative
of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical 7/orkers.
^(Tilliam k. Calvin, Vice President of the In-
ternational ?rotherhood of Poiler-
makers and Iron Shipbuilders .
Adr.inistrative Order 2-30, January 17, 1935, signed hy y. A.
Harrinrji, Adjninistrative Officer, appointed Joseph W. Hart to serve in
place of James Swan, resigned, as follows (Reference: Code Record
Section, Deputy's Jiles ^.nd Exhihit K-SO, Appendix):
"That the resL~nation of James Swan as a memher of the In-
du-strial Relations Ccmraittee for the Shiphuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry to represent employers be and hereby is accepted and that
Joseph ".'. Hart be and he hereby is appointed and constituted a
member to represent employers on tae Industrial Relations Committee
for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry. 'i
Reference is made to memorandum, January 10, 1935, to li. A. Harriman,
Administrative Office, from E. Newton Thittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Administrator, (Reference; 2-30 Order Volume, Code ...ecord Section and
Deputy's Files) excerpted as follows;
"3. The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee
have duly nominated i:r. Joseph ^. Hart as a member of the Industrial
Relations Committee, effective January 14, 1935, and have made re-
quest he be duly appointed.
"11. I have met I;Ir. Joseph 1. Hart, Assistant to the National
Covjicil of American Shipbuilders and discussed with him the affairs
of this Committee and the problems of the Shipbuilding Industry
pertaining to Labor Complaints and Labor Disputes. Prom his back-
ground and experience, I believe he will be a desirable, efficient
ajid suitable member to represent Industry on this Committee and I,
therefore, recommend his appointment."
The address of Joseph ". Hart is National Council of American Ship-
builders, 11 Broadway, New York, N. Y.
The qualification of the Industry Members is by long experience
with each of the respective shipyards with which they were affiliated as
hereinbefore set forth, except that of Joseph V7. Hart, whose qualifi-
cation has been set forth hereinbefore. The qualification of the Labor
Members is through their long experience with labor matters and in their
present duties as officers of the respective labor associations set forth
with each of their names.
1 . Development of the Industrial Relations Committee for
the Shi'obuilding and Shiprepairing Industry, and Pl?n for Adjustments .
9732
-511-
The first action toward the orr^anization of an Industrial Re-
l-^tions Conmittee was at the meetinfi- of the Code Authority held Sept-
emter ?7 , 1934 (^.eference: page 2, I'inutes, Deputy's Piles). Excerpt
from the minutes is as follows:
"t'r. S. W. Wakeman vas assigned a Committee of one to
draw up a plan for the handlin,-: of Labor Problems and to re-
port back at next Code Committee meeting."
October 9, 1933 meeting of the Code Authority discussed the subject
(Reference: page 2, fc-inutes, Deputy's Files). Excerpt from the minutes
is as follows:
"Procedure for H;ndlin,3: Labor Disputes
"This question was discussed at length as to what kind of an
organization should be set up to handle disputes within the in-
dustry. The Code Committee has before it, at the present time,
two suggestions from members of the industry and one suggestion
from Ur . Joseph Franklin. -The various plans will be considered
and discussed at a later meeting."
October 25, 1933 meeting, of the Code Authority discussed the sub-
ject (Reference: page 3, Finutes, Deputy's Files). Excerpts from the
minutes are as follows:
"Labor Representation
"The question was also discussed as to how labor should be
represented in the administration of labor disputes arising under
the code and as several other plans had been previously suggest-
ed, ^'r. J. S. McDonagn presented the following as another method
of procedure.
'For the purpose of dealing with all questions and
complaints arising-: out of labor conditions in the ship-
building and shiprepair yards, there shall be established
a National Committee consisting of seven; one to be ap-
pointed by the Admdnistrator of the.K.R.A.; three to be
selected by the shipbuilders and the shiprepairers ; and
three to be selected by the Metal Trades .Department of
the A.F. of L. with the approval of the President of the
American Federation of Labor. Such National Committee
shall have authority to take up and dispose of all labor
questions coming to it from the employers or employees
of any shipbuilding or shiprepair yard, or from any of
the divisions and sub-divisions into which the ship-
building and shiprepriring industry may be divided.'
"This miatter is to be tal^en under advisement."
November 8, 1933 meeting of the Code Authority discussed the sub-
ject (Reference: page 2, I/:inutes, Deputy's Files). Excerpts of the
minutes are as follows:
9732
-512"
"Method For Handling La"bor Disputes
"Mr. Davis called the attention of the Code Committee to the
lack of a committee within the industry to settle labor disputes.
He cited the method adopted in the Bituminous Coal Code as being
an example of rhat another industry has done.
"The Chairman reminded Mr. Davis that tv/o members of the Code
Committee had filed sugi^'ested plans and that a plan was on record
presented by I'v. I.'cDona^h and by Mr. J. A. Franklin and that the
industry had this matter continually in mind but to date had come
to no agreement as to whether any plan would be suitable. The
matter is still open and having the consideration by the industry
members of the Code Committee-
"Mr. Davis stnted that any plan adopted would have to have
the approval of G-enernl Hugh S. Johnson."
January 4, 1934 meeting of the Code Authority discussed the sub-
ject (Reference: pages 11 and 12, Minutes, Deputy's Files). Excerpts
of the minutes are as follows:
" Tentative Plan for Handling Labor Disputes Head.iustment of
Hours, VJagner Committee
"A tentative plan for a Labor Committee within the Ship-
building and shiprepairing Industry was discussed for sometime
with Mr. Shields and later with Mr. Davis. There was also dis-
cussion with Mr. Davis as to the pending report of the National
Labor Board upon the question of uniform hours in the perform-
ance of all work in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing industry.
Mr. Davis informed the Committee that it was anticipated that
the report of the National Labor Board would recommend 40 hours
a week for the industry but that such a recommendation would be ,
contingent upon acceptance by the industry of some plan for the
handling of labor disputes and complaints. Without commitment
by the members of the Comm.ittee at the meeting there was lengthy
discussion of tne tentative plan which developed the desirability
of some changes. Mr. Davis offered to rewrite the plan to pro-
vide for such changes and to send the revised plan directly to
the members of the Code Committee for their further consideration
in order that the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry might
consider such revised plan and decide upon the action they would
take regarding it."
The foregoing alleged statement attributed to W.H. Davis, Deputy
Administrator, is the basis for the contention of the Shipbuilders that
they were to receive the 40 hour week if they would set up the Indus-
trial Relations Committee as they have verbally stated to the author.
The tentative Flan for a Labor Committee before referred to was
dated December 1, 1933 and titled "Preliminary Flan Proposed by a Sub-
committee of Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers for Handling of Questions
and Disputes Arising in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry,
involving Wages, Hours of Labor, or other differences between Employees
9732
and Employers" (Reference:, Industiial Relations Committee Folder,
Deputy's Files). ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
February 14, 1934 meeting of the Code Authority further discussed
the sutject (Reference: pages'l, 2, 3, Minutes, Deputy's Files).
Excerpts from the Minutes are' as fellows:
"Mr. TT.H, Davis, unde?r dato of February 1st, wrote a
letter to the Chairman of the Code Committee, stressing the
importance of immediately formini? an appropriate committee to
handle labor 'complaints, as in the absence of such a comm.ittee
the NRA vrould be compelled to refer such questions as do arise
to the State Director of the Notional Emergency Council. There-
upon tne Code ComjEittee took londer consideration the formation
of committees to handle Trade Practice Complaints and Labor Com-
plaints.
"The definition of Labor Complaint is <iven in Bulletin
,f7 as follows:
'The term, "labor complaint" wherever used in
this manual (Bulletin ff?) refers to a com-
plaint alleging a violation of the labor pro- .
visions of a Code.'
" Committee to Consider Labo r Complaints
"The Manual for Adjustment of Complaints (lulletin #7) page
24, provides a method for the handling of Labor Complaints. There
was considerable discussion, as to the functions of this committee
and the duties of. same. .
"It was the oninion of the Code Authority that a committee
should be organized to handle labor complaints and upon motion by
VJ.H. G-erhauser, seconded by S.'/*'. Wakeman, it was resolved:
"That a Committee of Three be set up as a
L.abor Complaints Com.mittee and that Roger
Williams, Vice President, Newport News
Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company is nomin-
ated as the Industrial Mem.ber of this
Committee, and that Joseph S. McDonagh is
recommended as a second member of tne com-
miittee."
Varch P, 1934 meeting of the Code Authority (Reference: pages 1
and 2, Winutes, Deputy's Files). Excerpts on the subject are as
follows:
"Industrial Rel.ations Board
"The Chairman reported tn.-it he was in receipt of a letter
dated February 21, 1934 from l.'r. J. B. Weaver, Deputy Administrator,
Shipping Section, with reference to setting up within the Industry of
a Committee for the handlir.iSr of labor disputes to be known as the
9732
-514-
' Ind-astriril delations Board'. The Administrator suggests that
this Board should consist of six members; three to be appointed
by the Administrator from nominations by the Labor Advisory Board
and three to be appointed by the Code Authority to represent Ind-
ustry, and a seventh member to be appointed by the other six mem-
bers.
"The contents of this letter v;ere discussed at length, and
upon motion by Mr. Robert Haig, seconded by Mr. V/. H. Gerhauser
the follov'ing resolution was offered and adopted.
'That the industry set up an Industrial Relations
Conimittee consisting of three representatives of
Industry, three representatives of Labor, and a
seventh member to be selected by the other six,
with the understanding that if this Committee is
set up, that the longer hours and other provisions
of the report of the National Labor Board concern-
ing hours and wages relating to the Industry be
promptly approved by such governmental agency as
necessary to make it effective, and with the fur-
ther provision that the Labor Members of the Com-
mittee be properly representative of the employees
engaged in the Industry, and
'Provided further, that the plan of organization of
such a Committee be substantiallj' along the lines
of a plan already prepared by the Industry and com-
mented upon by I.'r. W. H. Davis and which is in gen-
eral satisfactory to the Industry,'"
March 15, 1934 meeting of the Code Authority (Reference: pages
7, 8, 9, 10, Minutes, Deputy's Files). Excerpts on the subject are as
follows:
9732
"Indugtrial Relations Committee
"The Chairnan called to the attention of the Committee a letter
dated March 10th from J.. B. Tfeaver, De-Diat5'- Administrator, in response
to a letter of March 2d, 1934, from the Code Committee, relative to
the set up of an Industrial Relrtions Committee. These letters vrere
as follows:
March 2d, 1934
"Dear Sir:
"The Code Authority,'' of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry at a meeting held this day,
"by majority vote, passed the following resolution:
'That the Industry set up an Industrial
Relations Committee consisting of three
representatives of Industry, three repre-
sentatives of Labor, and -a seventh member
to be selected by the other si::, with the
understanding that if this Corahiittee is
set up, that tJie longer hours and other
provisions of the report of the National
Labor Board concerning hours and wages
relating to the Industry be pj-j^mptly ap-
proved bv such governmental agency as
necessan"- to maize it effective, and with
the further provision tho.t the Labor I.cera-
bers of the Committee be oroperly repre-
sentative of the employees eng-^ged in the
Industr-/, and
Provided further, that the plan of organi-
zation of such a Committee be substantially
along the lines of a plan alreacy prepared
by the Industry and commented upon by Llr.
V. H. Davis and which is in general satis-
factory to the Industr;;.''. '
"Under the conditions outlined, the Code Auth-
ority is prepared to appoint the Industry members
of the Committee.
"Sometime ago the Industry outlined a proposed
plan for the consideration of Labor Disputes which
plan was submitted to and comraented upon by i.ir. T7,
H. Davis. A revised plan to provide for a Committee
of Seven instead of a Committee of Three will be along
the lines of the previous plan and is being prepared
and will be submitted to you within a very few days.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) H. G. Smith
Chairman. "
"NATIONAL EECOVHEY AD" :ii:i STRATI OK
^ASHIiJGTOF, D. C.
March 10, 1934.
"l.Ir. H. Gerrii^h Smith, Chairnan,
Shiptuilding end Shiprepairing Code Committee,
11 Broa,dway,
New York, K. Y.
"Dear Ilr. Smith:
"The Labor Advisors'- Board has refused to recommend the ap^ioint-
ment of a man to represent labor on the Labor Complaints Committee
for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry/-. Their position is
based on the fact that an Industrail Relations Board has been discussed
and a E.esolution has been passed authorizing siich a Board and that
they believe this Board should be definitely established before thej)-
take action on the Complaints Committee. In view of the provisos att-
ached to your Resolution authorizing an Industrial Relations Board,
the Labor Ad^^isory Board feels that undue obstrcles are Veing placed
before the setting up of this Board.
"I find their refusal to appoint a nan to the Labor Complaints
Committee indefensible. However, I do agree with them that the -oro-
visos attached to the Industrial Relations Board set-up are out of
order. I want to take this opportunity to inform the Code Authority
that until such time as this Board is established, without strings
attrched in the form of provisos, and empowered to handle not only
labor disputes but also broad labor questions without restriction,
this office will not consider petitions for exceptions, exemptions,
etc. Furthermore, it cannot be expected that the Recover^'- Adminis-
tration will amend the Code in order to clear up the hour question
without such a Board being established although it is agreed that
the question will not be turned over to this Board for settlement
but rather that we will press for a decision from the national
Labor Board and a subsequent amendment of the Code inde-oendent of
this Board once it is established.
"Serious doubt has been raised in my mind as to the trul],^
representative character of the existing Code Authority. This
is evidenced not only by the fact that there is no representation
from the shore shops on the Code Authority but also from the fact
that following a conference of the members of the Industry'- located
in and aro'und Sew York at v;hich some iraraediate amendments were
decided upon, the Code Authority determined to delay action.
Furthermore, the representation of the Gulf and Pacific Coasts would
not appear to me to be entirelj'- satisfactory. The men on the Code
Authority representing these Districts do so bv virtue of the fact
that plants subsidiary/ to their main plants are located in these
districts. It majr be, of course, that it is im-oossible for mem-
bers on the Pacific and Gulf Coasts to attend meetings of the Code
Authority. If this is the case it will -oerhaps be desirable to
decentralize in some manner and give more loca.1 autonomy to the
different regions.
9732
-317"
"In conclusion it is my -understanding that a raeetino" of the
Code Authority v/ill oe called immediately now that the conferences
are completed here, to outline a plan of procGdure. It seems desirable
either that the meeting he held hc-re or that I come to New York for it
inasmucn as I helieve it would be mutually beneficial if I could attend
that meeting in oraer that the Industry and myself may be -oerfectly
clerr on our future course of action,
"Yours very truly,
(Signed) J. B. Weaver
Deputy'- Administrator."
"The Chariraan took exception to the language used in the second
paragraph of the letter uhich reads as follors:"
'I want to take this opportunity to inform the
Code Aiithority that until such time as this
Board is established, *** this office \7ill not
consider petitions for e:cceptions, e;:eraptions,
etc'
"The Chairnan stnted tart the Committee is bound to send to the
administration whatever reauests come in and tliat he did not like the
code authority to be nut in a iiosition of not being able to send such
requests through proper channels.
"i:r. Weaver errplained his position in connection with request of
the industry- for a longer work week and stated that the TRA and
peoDle connected with it cHd not have the power to oush through de-
cisions of the national Labor iSocrd. He ur^-ed that" the industrj^ set
up a Board that can act on exemptions, wage rates, etc., and that a
resolution should be adopted somewhat along the lines passed on March
2nd but without sjiy limiting restriction.
"Hoger williajTis asked ivir. Ueaver if we set up this Board today
without any strings attached to it would it remove the difficulty in
getting a cecent break on hours for the rest of the indu■str^^ i.e.
straight ■ .36-hour week for our industry and smooth it out for excep-
tions to the worlcing hours and which will permit Kewuort News to fin-
ish the 'Ranger' which the government wants. Mr. J. B. 'Teaver
replied ' It will. •
"There was further discussion of the need for an Industrial
Relations Committee with comjnents by Mr. Robert Haig, J. B. Weaver
and the Chairman.
"On motion of Mr. Robert Haig, seconded by Roger Williams, the
following resolution was read and adopted: ^
'There shall be constitutea by a.p-oointment of
the Adjninistrator for the Shi-obuilding and Shipre-
pairing Industry'- an Industrial Relations Committee,
to be composed of seven(7) members: three (3) to
be nominated b'^ the Code Authority to represent the
employers, three (3) to be nominated by the Labor
9732
(^
- S18 -
Arlvisorj^ Soard of the national Recoveiy Adninistra-
tion to properly represent the employees in the in-
dustry, and one (l) to "be selected "by the other six. '
"i.ir. Jos. Haag, Jr. vras recorded a,s not votin.5, as the ITevr York
and lien Jersey Dry Docl: Association r/ere not vdlling to vote in
favor of an Industrial Helations Conraittee vrithout passing upon the
plan finally set up for such a Committee.
"As the original resolution provides for three industry members,
I'r. Roger ITillians made a motion
That the Chairman of the Code Authority he
authorized to nominate the three industry
members of the Inc-ustrial Relations Conrait-
tee.
Hotion T7as seconded by i.lr. W. H. Gerhauser. Tlie vote nas as follovrs:
i.Iessrs. Gerhauser, TJilliams, Smith and Haig in the affirmative.
l.Ir. Jos. Haag Jr. recorded as 'not voting',"
;;arch 16, 1934, letter to J. B. leaver. Deputy Adxiinistrator, from
K. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, set forth the fore-
going resolution aJid attach a "Plan for Adjustment of Complaints and
Disputes in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry. This plan was
dated harch 16, 1934. (Reference: Industrial Relations Committee
Folder, Deputy's Files)
Harch 28, 1934. J. 3. ¥eaver. Deputy Administrator, called the
subject committee together for its first meeting during nhich by-lans
vrere adopted (Reference: Administrative Order 2-9A, Volume, Code
Record Section, and Deputy's Piles). See memorandum dated March 30,1934
to IC. v.. Simpson, Division Administrator, from J. B. Weaver, Deputy
Adr.iinistrator, and By-La^vs bo-aiid in volumes."
Administrative Order 2-9A, liarch 30, 1934, -in letter form address-
ed to ?I, Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, signed by (
K. i,;. Simpson, Division Administrator, Division 1, (Reference: Code
Record Section and Deputy's Piles) authorized the Code Authority as
folloTr^s:
"You- -are hereby granted authorization to handle labor
complaints on reference, and labor disputes for a
period of sixty days from date hereof.
"¥ithin said time there shall be presented a complete
plan of procedure for handling such complaints and
disputes to the IT.R.A. for examination and approval
by the Administrator."
The foregoing order authorized the Code Authority and not the Indus-
trial Relations Committee, llo record can be found \7hereby the Code Auth-
ority delegated such authority to the Industrial Relations Committee by
suitable formal resolution.
9732
-319-
The Shipbuilders looked uv)on the subject committee as t.Leir conmittee,
and subject to the Gode Axithority, v/hich apr)ears to be confirmed by-
inference from the subject Order 2-9A
Heference is mf-de to Memorandum, dated March 30, 1934, to Division
Administrator, K. II. Simpson, Division 1, from Code Atithority Orga^niza-
tion Committee, sii=;ned by W. Averill flarriman. Chairman, finding that
the Code Authority is o^ualified to handle labor complaints on reference,
and labor disputes, and recommending such authorisation be given for
period of sixty days within which the Code Authority shall present its
corai^lete Tjrocedure for handling such complaints aiid disputes.
(Eeference: Order 2-9A Vol^jxne, Code Record Section an.d Deputy's Files)
Here again it was the Code Authority and. not the Industrial Rela-
tions Committee recommended. This caused misunderstanding and con-
fusion, which w."s later the cause of considerable trouble and delay in
the proper set up and functioning of the subject committee, in the
opinion of the ^'aithor.
Legal Division made a similar recommendation (Heference: Order
2-9A, Volume, Code Record Section and Deput,3^'s Piles).
April 2, 1934,. the second meeting of the Industrial Relations
Comi-iittee was called ''oy J. .3.. TTeever, De-^uty Administrator (Reference:
i.Iinutes, Industrial Relations Con-iittee Files). The following is
e3:cer;oted from, the mini-ites: •
"rir. TTinship reported that the Code Authority
Orgajiization Committee of i'JRA had recommended that
the Industrial Relations Conriittee oe given auth-
ority for a -^seriod of sixt"'- days to adjust com-
plaints on reference and disputes, during '..hich
period the Committee wo'old be expected to complete
an orgaJiization and develop a procedure for car-
rj'ing on its work. This recommendation met the
approval o.f the Administrator."
The report just quoted is a direct contre.diction of the find-
ings and recommendation of the Code Authority Organization Committee
as bound in the Yol'ome Order 2-9A.
April 11, 1934, reconvened meeting of April lOth of the Indus-
trial Relations Committee there was considered and adopted a "Plan
for Adjustment of Complaints and Disputes" (Reference: Minutes,
page 3 , Industrial Relations Committee Files and Indur-trial
Relations Committee Folder, Deputj'-'s Files). Tlie By-Laws were also
slightly amended at this meeting (Reference: page S , I-Iinutes,
Industrial Relations Comjnittee File). The following is excerpted
from the minutes:
"After full discussion a plan for adjustment of com-
plaints and disputes was agreed. U"^on and a letter drafted
to the Chairman of the Code Authority and the De^juty Ad-
mini str8.tor presenting the plan. The letter with its en-
closures was Tananimousl3'' approved and a cop'^ ord.ered
filed in the minutes. "
9732
~32C-
April 25, 19?4 meeting of the Indiistrial Relations Committee
(Reference: Llinutes, Industrial Relations Committee Files). Excerpt
is as follov/s:
^'On communicating by telephone r/ith the Chariraan
of the Code Authority it was learned that an initial
appropriation of $3,000 had been made on 4-24-35
toward the salary of an Executive Secretary and other
office ex-censes. "
April 24, 1954, dated Plan for Adjustment of Complaints and Dis-
putes was drafted by a Sub-Committee of the Code Authoritj'- and sub-
mitted to members cff the Code Authority by mail. !,Ir. H. .Gerrish
Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, in letter dated May 15, 1934
to James Swan, Member of the Industrial Relations committee attached
the plan (Reference: Plans for Adjustment Industrial Relations
Committee Files). The letter reads as follows:
■T "In connection with the propsed 'Plan for adjustment
of complaints and disputes in the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry, April 24th, 1934, ' I am pleased
to hand you herewith copies of three letters received
from Mr. Robert Haig, Mr. W. H. G-erhauser and Mr.
S • W . Wakeman .
"For your information, you may also include Mr. Roger
Williams and myself as being in favor of the plan.
"Mr. Joseph Haag, the sixth member of the Code Authority,
may, for the time being,- be recorded as not voting upon
the adoption of this plan. This is in accordance with
the action taken by him and recorded in the minutes of
the Code Authority meeting held on March 15, 1934."
May 16, 1934 meeting of the Industrial Relations Committee
(Reference: Minutes, Industrial Relations Committee File),
Excerpts from page 1 and 2 are b,s follows:
"Mr. Swan submitted the Code Authority's plan for the
adjustment of complaints and disputes. Tlie fact was
brought up that the Industrial Relations Committee had
prepared and submitted its own plan to the Code Authority
and the Deputy Administrator, \inder date of April 11, 1934,
and as there seemed to be differences between the two plans,
the Executive Secretary was directed to make a study of the
two plans to see wherein they differed.
Excerpts from Pages 3 and 3 of the May 16, 1934 Industrial
Relations Committee meeting are as follows:
"Upon receiving notice, unofficially, that the Secretary
of Labor had communicated to the Administrator the desire
of that Department to have three governmental representa-
tives appointed to the Industrial Relations Committee, the
Deputy Administrator, Mr. Weaver, was interviewed.
9732
-521-
It uas the feeling of the Committee that no addiiricnpl ■
members should he appointed; the scope and authority
of thL"? Co;a.":ittee as at present constituted is vague and
uncertain; the Administrator should he communicated with
regarding a general clarification of the organization,
purposes and authority of the Committee.
"The Deputj-- Administrator, Mr. Weaver, volunteered to
take such communication as the Committee might prepare,
to the Administrator. The Chairman then directed Mr.
lIcDonagh and I.ir. Woodward to prepare such a communication.
The Committee recessed at 12:55 P. M. to meet again at
2:00 F. ivl.
"The Committee proceeded with a discussion of the tentative
letter drawn up by Mr. McDonagh and Mr. Woodward. After full
study, a final form was decided upon, prepared, signed by
each member of the Committee, and delivered to the'^Deputy
Administrator for transmittal to the Administrator. The
letter is as follows:
'I.;r. J. B. Weaver
Deputy Administrator
Shipping Section
National Recovery Administration
Washington, D, C.
'Dear Mr. Weaver:
'The Industrial Relations Committee, recently set up
by appointment of the Administrator, has held a number of
sessions largely devoted to develoDing its functions, or-
ganization and prccedoire. Progress has Deon hampered by
lack of a clear definition and understanding of the scope
of the Committee's authority in dealing with the questions
which it has been set up to handle. The Committee believes
its main function to be the adjustment of labor complaints
and disputes and related questions arising within the
industry, including questions affecting hours of ser-
vice, overtime ws^~e rates, and adjustment of inequal-
ities with the object in view of removing unfair in-
equalities as between plants in competitive territory.
'In dealing with these matters its authority should
be coipplete to the extent allowed uiider N.I.R.A. , sub-
ject only to review by the Administrator. It further-
more believes it to be the spirit and intent of the K.
R.A. to afford to industry and labor generally the
fullest powers permitted under the 11. 1. R.A. in dealing
with these problems, and that the addition to the mem-
bership of the Industrial Relations Co.mmittee of the
Shipbiiilding and Shipreioairing Industry of representatives
of tne Government is in violation of the intent of the
IM.R.A., and will hinder rather than help the solution of
the problems presented to the Committee.
9732
'Ine CoEiudttee \7igiifis to feel Aw® |q call Mpcjei the (Joveniii'^t
f (T help in situations which seiim to require it, "but it re-
spectfully protests any unnecessary goyerninent control of it»
actions.
'It id the further "belief of thi? Committiie tha* its
formation should constitute it as an IndependenU j^adiciaj
body for the purposes set forth ahove; e. coraiailjtee not S^^"
ject to the authority or reviev/ of any Governmental ? ^ency
or body, other than the Administrator, nor subordinate t^
the Code Authoritj'- of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry in its handlings of the problems properly submitted
to it. Under its present set-up, the Committee ha$ only
such authority to act in labor complaints and di,spufces, and
other matters, as is derived from authorization granted the
Code Authority, in letter of Division Administrator W. M.
Simpson, dated March 30th, 1934.
'Very truly yours,
/s/ A. 0. Wharton ^.
JaiAes S'van f
J. B. Woodward, Jr.
J. S» McDonagh
L. y. Spear
y. A. Calvin'"
Administrative Order 2-17A, June 5, 1934, signed by C. Et Adama,
Division Administrator, Division 1, in letter form addressed to Arthi^r . -
0. Wharton, Chairman of the Industrial Relations Committee, (Referenci?{
Code Record Section and Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy'tp
Piles) extended the authority of the subject committee as per the fol-
lowing excerpt:
"On March 30, 1934, authorization was granted to
the Code Authority for the Shipbuilding and Shipre-
pairing Indur.trj'' to handle Labor Complaints on Refer-
ence, and labor disputes, for a period of sixty days. ^
It was further provided that within this time a com-
plete plan of procedure for handling labor complaints
and disputes should be submitted to the National Re-
covery Administration for the approval of the Adminis-
trator.
"This temporary authorization is hereb-"- extended to
the Industrial Relations Committee for the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry to handle labor complaints
and labor disputes for a period ending June 30, 1934.
Within said period the Industrial Relations Committee
shall submit a complete plan for handling such com-
plaints and disputes for the approval of the Administra-
tor."
Reference is made to raemorand'om, May 29, 1934, to K. M.
Simpson, Division Administrator, Division 1, from J. B. Weaver,
Deputy Administrator, (Reference; Volume Order 2-17A, Code Record
Section and Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy's Files)
Excerp is as follows!
9732
• -323— ■
"The Industrial delations Comrnittes for this Industiy
har> d\iring the sixty (60) day period, functioned satis-
factorily. It is felt that authorization should be di-
rected to this Committee to continue its good v.'ork. "
June 6, 1954 neeting of the Industrial Relations Committee (Re-
ference: Minute?, Industrial Relations Committee File). Excerpts are
as follows:
"The Chairman readletter received from Mr. C. E. Adams,
Division Administrator, IT.R.A. , dated June 5, 1934.
"The Committee then proceeded v'ith a, discussion of a
plan for the adjustment of complaints and disputes, and re-
ceived from Mr. Whittelsey, Assistant Deputj"- Admini strator,
suggestions as to the operation of the Cotton Textile In-
dustrial Relations Committee.
"The Deputy Administrator, Mr. TJeaver, was heard on the
subject of a plan and he presented his view that the panel
system, as provided in plan of the Code Authority, dated
April 24, 1934, was not a satisfactory -olan of procedure.
"After discussion of the original plan of the Com-
mittee, as submitted to the Code Authority and the
Deputj"- Administrator on April 11, 1934, and the plan
of Code Authority dated April 24, 1934, the Chair-
man appointed Mr. McDonagh, and Mr. T/oodward to attempt
to form.ulate a plan which might meet all objections."
Reference is made to letter, June 11, 1934, to C. E. Adams,
Division Administrator, from A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary of the
Industrial Relations Committee, (Reference: Industrial .Relations
Committee Folder, Deputy's Files) from which the following is
excerpted.
"This will refer to ^--our letter of June 5, 1934,
addressed to Mr. Arthur 0. T/harton, Chairman, Indus-
trial Relations Committee, wherein you extend to June
30, 1934, the temporary authorization of this Commit-
tee to handle labor complaints ajnd labor disputes. I
am informed by memorandum of the Assistant Deputy Ad-
ministrator, Mr. Shields, that yjider the terms of Ad-
ministrative Order IIo. X-29, abolishing 'complaints on
reference' and establishing only 'official authoriza-
tion,' authority of this Committee to act will expire
on June 15th.
"It was assumed ^oy the Industrial Relations Committee
that the extension of its temporary authorization wo-ald
not be affected by the Administrative Orders above re-
ferred to. If such is not the case, it is respectfully
requested th£-tt temporary official authorization be granted."
9732
Administrative Order 2-17B, June 18, 1934, in letter form addressed
to Arthur 0. Wharton, Chairman of the Industrial Relations Committee,
signed by Hugh S. Johnson, Administrstor (Reference: Code Record
Section and Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy's Files). The
order is as follow 's:
"Pursuant to a resolution dated March 15, 1934, of the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee I ap-
pointed, the employer representatives of yo\iv Committee on
March 25, 1934, and tlie emnlovee representatives on April
4, 1934.
"Due to a labor emergency in the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry authoriz.ation to handle labor complaints
on reference and labor disputes for sixty days was given to
the Code Autliority on March 30, 1934. This authorization . •
was extended to your Committee on June 5, 1934 for a period
ending June 30, 1934.
"The practice of handling complaints on reference was,
however, discontinued by Administrative Order X-39, ef-
fective June 15, 1934.
"In vievz of the above the Industrial Relations Commit-
tee as aiDpointed on March 26, 1934, and April 4, 1934, is
temporarily recognized- as the agency to handle labor com-
plaints and labor disputes for the Shipbtiilding and Ship-
repairing Industry/ subject to the following conditions
subsequent:
1. That the seventh member of said Committee be
selected at the next regular meeting of said
Committee.
2. That said Committee submit to this Administra-
tion for approval before June 30, 1934, com-
plete plans of procedure for handling labor com-
plaints and labor disputes.
"This recognition will terminate upon the aoriroval of
a new code or amendments to the present Code affecting
the Industrial Relations Committee.
"Until further notice the headquarters of the Industrial
Relations Committee will be in Washington, D. C. "
June 21, 1934 meeting of the Industrial Relations Committee
(Reference: Minutes, Industrial Relations Comhiittee File). Excerpts
from Pages 1,2,3,4,5,6 follow:
"The Temporarj' Chariman rend a letter received from the
Administrator, General Jolmson.
9732
-325"
"After formal discussion on the election of the Coromittee' s
seventh member, the members took up the question of the plan
for the adjustment of complaints and disputes; how the regional
committees slicijld he established, and how employee representa-
tives of aay panel, or other regional representation of the
Ccmmittee, should he appointed. Mr. Wharton stated that he
would not suhscribe to any form of plan v/hich might place the
question of emioloyee representation in the liands of a compar,/
union.
"Mr. Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, came into
the meeting at 10:30, and Mr. H. G-errish Smith, Chairman of
the Code Authority, came in at 10! 40.
"Letter of the Administrator, noted above in these
minutes, was haiided to Kr. Smith for his information.
"The situation at the Fore River Plant of the Beth-
lehem Shipbuilding Corporsition Mas immediately taken
up, copies of all correspondence in the case being in
the hands of the Committee. The Executive Secretary
read letter received from Philip H. Van Gelder.
"The cases of the five employees mentioned in the
above letter, who, it was alleged, had been discharged
because of union activities, had been presented to the
Committee on June 13 by the Deputy Administrator, Mr.
Weaver, for immedia,te handling, preferably in the form
of a sub-committee. The Temporary Chairman had there-
upon a-npointed a sub-committee, consisting of Messrs.
LicDonagh and Woodv;ard, and txie Executive Secretar:/, to
proceed to Q,uincy, Massachusetts, to investigate the
situg.tion. The Chairman of the Code Authority had for-
bidden such investigation by sub-committee, however, by
telegram of June 14, which read as follows:
'W6 38 SEE-3C- Hew York, N.Y. June 14, 1934
A. J. Doyle, Secretary
Industrial Selations Gomm.ittee
525 Investment Bldg.
'Industrial Relations Committee! should not s:nd
men to Eore River until plan approved by Code
Authority for settlement of all labor complaints
and disputes is definitely accepted and in oper-
ation stop Fnen will you establish your offices
in Hev.- York.
H. Gerish Smith'
"Mr. Smith -nresented the attitude of the Code Authority
that the matter should have- been handled in the first in-
staince by correspondence with the respondent company, ajid
that no investigators or sub-comiriittees should be sent to
any plant until the Code Authority's plan for the adjust-
ment of complaints and disputes had been accepted and v;as
in operation.
9732
-326-
"In view of the express order of the Code Authority,
the E::ec-ative Secretary had previously a.dviaed the Deputy
Administrator that the Committee vas powerless to e.ct
immediately hy suh-committee. Inasmuch as fairness
to the men involved seemed to call for some immed-
iate action, end as the Committee was powerless to
act, the only alternative seemed to he to turn the
cases over to the National Labor Board, as origin-
ally requested by the complainant, Ban Gelder, with
a recital of the facts involved.
"Mr. Woodward moved that this be done, co^iy to
be sent to the Deputy AdminiEtrat.or, pjid Van Gelder
notified. Motion was seconded, passed by unanimous
vote and the Secretary so instructed.
"Telegrams of the Code Authority, directing that
the office be established in New York were noted as
follo'./s:
'(A) "T[108 SER S EXTM-BG Mew fork II. Y. 12 S:34
P 1934 June 12 P;I 3:58 ,
"A J DOYLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
IiT)USTRIAL RELATIONS COIvnOTTEE
li.TESTIvEENT 3LDG. ROOM 526
""ITH REEERSFCE TO OUR LETTER OE APRIL
TT7ELTTY-SIXTH AND TELEGRAM OP MAY PIF-
TSENTH PLEASE A3PAliGE TO TRAITSESR YOUR
OFEICS PROMPTLY TO ELE^.^N BROADWAY NE?
YORK: CITY
H GERRISH SMITH CHAIRIvIAN
CODS AUTHORITY
'(B) "W105 13 SER-3G New York NY 14 4:16 P
1934 June 14 PM 4:42
"A J DOYLE SECRETARY
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COIvu/IITTEE
526 IWESTIDilNT 3LD
"ASHINGTON, D C
'U-.
"I/IY TELEGRAIvi TVJELETH STOP TPAalSFSR OFFICE
TO NEW YORK AS O'F MONDAY JUNE EIGHTEENTH
H GERRISH SMITH"'
C
97S3
"The auestion was? discussed, Mr. S'nith statins;
Industry's deteniration th^t the office should he
located at 11 Broadway, F'w York City, and Mr. Tharton
and 'At. FcDona.<?h em-ohasizing that a conraittee for the
settle'Bent of lab'^r coiirilaints and disriutes should not
be located in th-^- headquarters of the "^Tational Council
of American Shi-obuilders, hut should have its o^n inde-
t)end'5nt head offic?.
"Mr. Whittelsey, h-'for':- leaving, exoressed the
ho-oe that the . Coni".ittee might be able to do somethina*
looking toward the aD-oointment o'^ its seventh Tiember,
and that the -nembers iiight be cble to a:et toaiether and
decide uuon a mutually satisfactory "olan f'^r the adjust-
ment of comrilaints and dist)utes.
"Such a nlan was a^ain discussed and th? obstacle
encountered, on the one side, that em-oloyee re-oresenta-
tives of 'Whatever form of regional representation,
should be selected by the Labor Advisory Board, and on
the other, that such re-oresentatives should be selected
by the emtjlovees of the individual Tjlants. In view of
the Committee's inability to reconcile the two separate
ideas, and the advice of the Chairman of the Code Authority
that industry would not agree to selection by the Labor
Advisory Board, it was tentatively decided to draw uv
separate rilans, embodying the two viewooints, and submit
them to the Code Authority and the Deputy Administrator.
"The Committee th°n recessed at 12:55, to meet a^-ain
at 2:00.
"IIiDOn comins: together at 2:00 o'clock, th^ Committee
continued .its discussion of a -olan, and ai/i, members being
avers^' to a disagreement which would be evident were two
se-oarate nlans submitted, a further study was "lade. It
was finally decided to eliminate entirely from the Com-
mittee's TDrevious -clan, all mention and reference to re-
ference to regional committees, on the assumiDtion that
something mignt be devised later in the form of traveling
re-oresentatives or investigators. Copies of the amended
TDlan were "Drenared, and attemiot was made to locate the
Chairman of the Code Authority for discussion of the
amended plan.
"The Chairman of th- Code Autrority returned to the
meeting at 3:40 and was acouainted with the new r>lan,
being furnished a co-oy. The '^ecutive Secretary read it
to the m.embers for the Diaroose of a checka--'e with the
other plan, and u-oon being informed by the Code Authority
that -"personally, he could see no objection to it, motion
that it be ado-ot'od was unanimously a-oDroved, a^d the
"ilzecutiv? Secretary instructed to advise th^ Code Authority
formally by letter, with cor)y te the Ee-outv Administrator."
S732
-328-
The Plan for Adjustment of ComrjlPints and "Disputes of
June 21, 1P34 is filed in Plans, Industrial R':^lations Co-niiittee
File, and Industrial "delations GoTiTiittee Polder of De-outv's Files.
This -olan was duly submitted by letter, June 22, l^S'J, to
J. B. Vi'eaver, DeiDuty Administrator, and also to H. Gerrish Smith
by letter, June 22, 1P34, both sifrn-d by A. J. Doyle, Executive
Secretary of the Industrial Relations Committee (Reference:
Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Denuty's Piles and Plans
Folder, Industrial Relations Committee File\
June 18, 1°3^, letter to K. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the
Code Authority, from Huffh S. Johnson, Administrator (Reference:
Industrial Relations Committee Folder, T)eT)utv's Files). Excerpts
from the letter ar^ as follows:
"The handling: of com-olaints on reference was discontinued
effective June 15, 1934, by Administrative Orrler X-29. I
have, however, recos'nized the Industrial Relations Committee
as th'^ authorized agency of the Shi-obuildinfi- and ShiiDre-nairing
Industry to handle labor comTjlaints and labor disputes -oending
tne a-oriroval of a new code or amendments affecting the Indus-
trial Relations Comraittfee. A co-oy of this letter is attached
for your information.
"The scoTDe and nature of the activities of the Industrial
Relations Committee shall not be under the direction of the
Code Authority. The Committee shall, however, continue as
in the -oast to cooneratjo with the Code Autnorit,y in carrying
out its functions.
"In Administrative Crd^-r X-12, dated March 3C , 193^, I ■
requested all industries otjerating under aiD-oroved codes which
do not specifically -orovide for the creation of aeencies to
handle lebor disnutes and labor com-olaints to -oroceed in each
case to create and Industrial Relations Committee to nandle
both labor complaints and labor disnoutes-. In the rewriting
of your Code wuicr. is now under consideration it will be ad-
visable, however, to include definite -orpvisions relative to
an Industrial Relations Committee for your Industry in wliich
its -DOwers and duties are definitely ' outlined. If the -oresent
Committee should qualify under the provisions of thp rewritten
code, recosnition could be extended on the basis of such
Torovisions."
June 23, 1974 letter to H. Gerrish Smith, Chait.-. ^an of the
Code Authority, from J. B. Weaver, Deputy Administrator (Reference:
Industrial Relations Cor.;.iittee Folder, Deputy's Files). Excerpts
from the letter are as follor/s:
"I have at hand a plan ado-oted unanimously by the Com-
nitteo at their meeting on June 21, 1934. This plan arpears
satisfactor^r to me in vien of the circurastaiices, and I am
accordingly reco:nraendinj?' to ilr. Adams, Division Administrator,
that he a-jorove the plan and that the Com'iitte'e as no\7 con-
9732
-529-
stituted be 'officially author! ", ed ' to handle labor
conplaints and la^or dilutes for the Industry,
"I also 'Uive a. co'^y of Ganeral Joiir.son's letter to
you of June 18, li'34, in vr.iich he states that 'The scope
a:id nature of the activities of the Ind\istrial Relations
Cory.iittee shall not be under the direction of the Coc'e
Av.thority, ' In vierr of these letters and the expressed
statements of the Acbainistra.tor therein, I see no other
course except to submit the plan for approval. It is nade
clear oy the above quotation that it is not necessary for
this plan to be a -proved by the Code Authority."
June C6, 1934 telegrav.i to J. 3. ^leaver, Deputy Administrator,
fron ::. e-errish Snith, Chainnan of the Code Authoritj'-, (Reference:
Industrial Relations Comittee Folder, Deputy's ?iles) is as follows:
"Ship bull c'infj and Shiprepairing Industn'- not satisfied
for Industrial Relations Co^inittee to o'oerate under any
plan that has not been definitely approved by the Industry
iiienbers of Code Authoritj'' Stop Revised plan as acted upon
o'j Industrial Relations Comrrdttee Jtme twenty first is be-
i,if siibiiitted today to committee that ori.-inally drafted
the plan for report and position of Industi-;^ on this whole
subject T'ili be set forth in letter to Creneral Johnson Stop
Action will be talcen as quickly as jjossible. "
Jiuie 26, 1934 letter to General Hu£-:h S. Johnson, Adninistrator,
fron H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority (Reference:
Industrial Relations Committ.ee Folder, De-outy's Files). Excerpts
are as follows:
"References (a) Letter Administrator to Code Authority June 18th.
Aiid (b) Letter Ad-iinistrator to Industrial Relations
Enclosures . Committee, JuJie 18th.
(c) Letter J. Ij. leaver to Code Authority, J-'Jine 23rd,
"Dear Sir:
"Under date of Jujie 18th, reference (a), T/e received from
you a letter in which yoii recited certain steps that had been taken
towards settinfi uo an Industrial Relations Committee of seven
members for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairins^ Industry. We also
received with your letter 0007/ of a letter, reference (b), that
had been addressed to hr. Arthur 0. ITnarton, Chairman of the Indus-
trial •R3lations Committee in which it wrs stated, reference (b)
that ;rou had temporarily reco;;r.ized the Industrial Relations Com-
mittee e,s an a;^ency to deal with labor complaints and labor disputes
in the Industry-, subject to the following conditions:
'1. 'Tliat the seventh member of said "Conraittee be
selected at the next regular m.eeting; of said
Committee,
S732
-330-
'2. That sfdd Co:inittee siibnit to this Administration
for ao-proval 'bsfore Jime 30, 1S34, conplete plans
of procedure for handling Is-'oor connlaints and
labor disputes. '
"Since the receipt of this letter the Industrial delations
Couuittee held on Jtine 21st a meeting in Washington and re-
quested ne, as Chairman of tne Code Authority, to a-o^ear
oefore it and present the viev^s of the Industry in regard to
the -orocedure to he follovzed and the functions to he performed
h7 the Comnittee in the perfornraice of its duties.
"I aroeared hefore the Covr.iittee and pointed out that,
at tlie time the resolution requesting the setting up of the
Industrial P.elations Coumittee w:,s passed "hy the Code Authorit--,
a letter was addressed to the Deputy Acliinistrator auoting
therein a resolution passed hy the Code Authorit"/, acconraanied
'or a PROPOSED PLAh for committee operation.
"All discussion preceding the setting u:p of an Indu.strial
P.elations Co.Timittee for the handling of laoor complaints and
laoor disputes have proceeded iroon the premise that the
Industry i-'ould accept the creation of a Co^-.nittee to adjust
its lahor complaints and later disputes within the Industr"^
in accordance i7ith a plan approved hy the Industi-;/-. Part
Three of Bulletin T.o. 7 confirms this position in the title
uhich reads as follows:
'PAl-IT THHEI]
• adjust: EFT 3Y CODE AUTHORITIES OP C0MPLAI1>TTS
OP 7. R. A. CODE VIOLATIOhS'
"It nor; appears that the PROPOSED PLAl! ahove referred to
and approved hy the Industry was not -nresented to the Indus-
trieA Relations Coumittee when it first met and was onlj''
received hy it at a much later date, TJhen finally received
the Industrial Relations Committee modified the proposed "olan
and submitted it hacL- to t:iis office. The Industry accepted
the plan after making some modifications and again returned
it to the Committee. The Committee further modified the olan
and has no--' returned it to this office to he checked hy the
Indu.stry.
"In the meantime'' we are in receipt of a letter from the
Deputy Administrator, reference (c), stating that he is
recommending to you the a-^nroval of the plan as passed upon
hy tne Industrial Relations Comiiittee on J-une 21.
Ilrni
he Industrj"- takes this -oosition:
1. That the Industrial Relations Co:'nittee is to
operate under a plan approved jointly by the Code
Authority and by the Administrator,
:!732
-351-
2. Th.-^.t the Industrial Relations Connittee may make
si\7.festions as to the plan of operation, "but
that such plan does not hecome operative until
such siT^f^estions are a;ooroved "by both the Code
Authority and the At-'irainistrator.
5. That as the Code Authority is responsible for the
cost of operation of the Industrial Relations Gom-
niittee that it has the right to designate the
location of the headquarters of the Coranittee.
4. That vrhen the -olan of operation is api^roved and
the coFiinittee is completely set up with its seven
nerahers that the reports of the Committee to
•phonsoever the}' are sent muGt he forrarded through
the Code Authority in order that the Industry may
know what is going on in connection with its o\7n
"business, "
J-Jine 27, 1934 letter to H. C-errish Smith, Chairman of , the
Code Authority, from the Suh-Comnittee, Roger Williams and' A. 3. Horner
(Reference: Industrial Relations Co-mittee ?older, Deputy's Piles).
The letter is as follo-'s:
"Your Sub-Committee has carafully examined the Plan for
Adjustment of Complaints and Disputes in the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry as re-drafted liy the Industrial Relations
Committee and reports as follows:
1. Tiie redrafted lolar. follows very closely the original
proposed plan approved by the Industry and s\ibmitted
to the Administrator prior to the appointment of the
membership of the Industrial Relations Committee,
the principal exception being the elimination of the
proviso tliat v;hen a labor dispute is presented to
the Industrial Relations Committee, either bv employees
or employers, the Industrial Relations Committee
shall first refer it for settlement to the Connittee
representing employees and employers equally within
the plant, :
2, Subsequent to the official appointment of the members
of the. Industrial Relations Committee, dissatisfaction
was e:5)re6sed 'oir the employees in certain 3rards o-
the groiinds that they were not properlj'- re-oresented
on this Co:.'mittee. These objections -were overcome b3'"
adding to .the 'plan Regional Adjustment Agencies, a
provision Iiy wl"ich employees at a -oXant where a dis-
pute occurs have representation on such Regional
Agenc;'-, arid it was also considered that the appoint-
ment of Regional Agencies would facilitate the \7ork
of the Industrial Relations Comjnittee.
5752
-532-
3. Your Sub-Committee sees no objection in reverting
to the orii^inal plan in vmich all reference to
Hegional Adjustment Agencies is eliminated tut
desires to point out that such plan wi\l meet oh-
jections on the ps.rt of employees on the same
groujids as e-qoressed above.
4. Your Suh-Committee considers that the inclusion of
the proviso requiring the Industrial Halations
CoTomittee to first refer a dispute for settlement
to the Committee representing em-oloyees and employers
equally within the plant is vital for the proper
operation;;of the plan. Furthermore this conforiiis
to the procedure in Bulletin Wo, 7, and there-
fore ^'■our Suo-Corimittee is unrfilling to agree to
its deletion from the plan. This also necessitates
the reinstatement of the t?ro paragraphs referring
to this particalar question as written in the
original plan dated April 24, 1954,
5. Your Suh-Gommittee also objects to the. change in
the paragraph referring to the decision of the
a-roitrators. The paragraph as drawn hy us gives
to the arbitrator the decision as to the duration
of the agreement. Your Sub-Committee is of the
opinion that this should be left as originally
d-rav/n and that no fixed time should, be imposed
by the plan.
6. YovT Sub-Covimittee has no objections to the
omission of the last two paragraphs of the plan as
it is believed that the Committee can function
effectively und.er the conditions outlined without
the instructions contained in "these paragraphs.
A copy of the plan as recommended herein is attached,"
June 27, 1934, "Plan for Adjustment of Complaints
and Disputes" hereinbefore referred to in the letter,
June 27, 19o4, is filed in the Industrial Relations Committee
Folder, Deputy's Files, Copy of the June 27, 1934 letter and
Plan of the Sub-Com.mittee was forwarded to General Hugh S. Johnson,
Administrator, with letter, June 29, 1934, from.H. Gerrish Smith,
Chairman of the Code Authorit;^ (Reference: Industrial Relations
Committee Folder, Deputy's Files).
The "Plan" of June 21, 1934, adopted by the Indus-
trial Relations Committee, was submitted to the Industrial and.
Labor Advisory Boards, Research and Planning, Compliance and.
Legal Divisions. The Compliance Division, amongst other things,
took the position that the "Plan" did not set forth satisfactory^
procedure. The Labor Advisory Board disapproved the Plan and
mad.e many criticisms. (Reference: Industrial Relations Com-
mittee Polder, Deputy's Files).
9732
c
-333-
J. B. Weaver, De-o\it3'- Aiainistrator, thercAipon called a conference
Jill;,- 5th \7iien the Industrial and Lahor Advisor^/- Boards, Legal, r.e-
search and Planning, and Conroliance Divisions were represented. The
author uc.s a"bsent on vacation. A plan was draiA'n dated July 5, 1934
containing many of the reco;-)'nendations of the Compliance Division and
the Labor Advisorj^ Board (Reference: Industrial Relations Conmittee
Folder, Peputy' s Files),
rlotrever, the subject "Plan", departed from some of the provisions
that had "before "been common to "both the, plans of the Industrial
Relations Committee and the Code Authority, and were desired hy "both;
conseouently, the author, with the assistance of HpT/ard F. Ralph,
Assistant Counsel, and A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary of the
Industrie,! Relations Committee, made a carefijl analysis of the three
"Plr.ns" of June 21, June 26, and July 5, and drafted a consolidated
new plan of July 18, 1955 (Reference: Indiistrial Relations Co;nmittee
Folder, Deputy's Files),
"This latter "Plan" was approved or no ohjections found hy
Ind^^strial Adviser, Research and Planning, Compliance, and Legal
Divisions hut certain e:cceptions were taken hy Labor Advisory Board
(Reference: Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy's Files),
The "Plan" was sent to A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary of Industrial
Relations Committee, and K. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code
Axxthority as of Jrdy 26, 1934 by letters signed by the author,
H. iTewton Uhittelsey, Assistant Deputy AdjTiinistrator. The subject
letters explained the new subject "Plan" and advised of the approval
already received, and attached copies of the memorandum of
July 25, 1934 from the Labor Advisor;y' Board,
There existed at t^iis time general dissatisfaction, of both
Industr:"- and Labor, of the situation regarding the Industrial
Relations Comraittee, Industry adliered to its vieT.-point that it was
to handle its o^m labor affairs through the Industrial Relations Com-
mittee, whose expenses were being paid oy Industr3'-, and on a Plan
approved by Industry. Labor held that the Industrial Relations Com-
mittee should be an independent body and not interfered with by the
Code Ar.thorits'" or Industry nembers.
July 27, 1934, the Washington representatives of Labor appeared
before the Sub-Committee of the Committee on Education and Labor of
the Senate, David I. Walsh, Liass . , Chairman; Royal S. Copeland, IT.Y, ;
Louis iiurphy, Iowa; Elbert D. Thomas, Utah; Jai.ies J. Davis, Pa,; and
Ja:3es T, Clark, Clerk.
Those that testified were Joseph S. McDonagh, Legislative Repre-
sentative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
Willian A. Calvin, Vice President of the International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders, both being members of the
Industrial Relations Con.iittee, Captain Henry Williams (CC) United
States iTa\'y and J. 3. Weaver, Deputy Administrator. The shipbuilders
were invited to testify, but did not appear, Ar.iong those present were
Geo, W, Shields III, Assistant Deputy Administrator, and the Author,
H. ilenton Wlaittelse3-, Assistant Deputy Aoninistrator. (Reference:
Transcript of the Hearings in Hearings Folder, Deputy's Files)
9732
-554-
Tlie Senate Comraittee's vieu concerning the situation was convej^ed
in the falloT7in.~ letter (Heference: Order 2-21, Yolijme, Code P.ecord
Section, and Industrial Relations Committee Tolder, De-outy's Files);
"David I. T7alsh, I.Iass., Chairman.
Royal S. Copeland, IT. Y.
Louis Murphy, lov/a.
"abert D. Thomas, Utaii.
Frederic C. Walcott, Conn.
Jajies J. Davis, Pa,
James T. Clark, Clerk
ITi.'ITED STATES SEFATE
SUBCOllJTTEE OF THE CO::i;iTTSE Oil EDUCATION
AilD lABOR
TO IITVESTIGATE TKS RZrATIOlTSinP BETWEEN
E!:PL0YESS Al^D CONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC WORKS
(Navy file A1-3/QN(540802) Au,:;ust 2, 1934.
"The Honoraole
Claiade A. Sranson
Secretary of the Nav;'-
Washington, D. C.
"Dear Ilr. Secretar^^:
"At a recent ^learinf^ of the Senate Conmittee investigating
lahor ahuses, of 17'iich I am Chairman, representatives or or-
ganized lahor appeared, and requested to be heard in regard to
certain lahor questions arising out of contracts alread'y let and
to oe let hy the Nav^'- Department for the "building of naval ves-
sels, funds for w]iich had been allotted to the Navy by the I\iblic
Works Administration and also appropriated in the Deficiency Bill
for Public Works, and heretofore specifical].y set aside by the
President for naval construction.
"Fnile it was Tcrf vievi as Chairman of tais Senate Committee
that the matters soioght to be referred to our attention by the
labor representatives as aforesaid were not in all respects with-
in the purview of the jurisdiction of the Committee, yet, since
it was pointed out that a chain of labor abuses would result from
failure to o&j prevailing rates on th.s work, and, since it was
emphasized that the coc e for the Industry'' of Ship Building and
Ship Repairing Code, and, if they desired to be heard, the
re'oresentatives of the Ship;oing interests. The latter did not
ap-)ear. The testimony of the others was taken and is submitted
in its entirety herewith for your attention.
"In brief, the testimony sets forth substantially the
following allegations:
5732
(l) 'That 1310.5 \7ill be received for the "building of
Ilaval vessels on A-'j^nast 15th involving about
$50,000,000.
(2). That the Ship Euildini, Code signed last year
provides for an Industrial Relations Committee
to he set uo as agreed by the members of the In
dustry on October 7, 1933, but that such an In--
dtistrial Relations Cor.inittee has not yet been so
set tip.
(o) 7natthe provisions relating to labor in the Slip
Building Industry Code were less beneficial to
labor than the Davis-Bacon Law or the Public Works
Adininistration reg^j.lations, and that the zone
rates for labor do not auply therein.
(4) That there has been failure to nake satisfactory
progress on the construction of I'aval vessels,
T/-hich has restilted in the failure to employ the
mjjnber of uorkers estimated with resultant injui^r
to labor. Tliis is due, it was testified, to
. failure to provide engineering plans and designs
for construction; further, that no satisfactory
progress has iDeen :nade, and thousands of nen
have been left out of employ^ient both in private
and in nav;' yardt- on this new ship construction
-orograin \\ntil the "orivate yards submit plans to
the lIay^r Departnent ap:)roves these plans.
(o) That the naval progress sheets indicate that the
Ship Building Program is considerably behind
schedule on all 20 ship contracts heretofore
awarded.
(6) That in the erdsting contracts the rries and
reg-oJ.ations of the Public Uorhs Administration
are conditionally a-rolicable, but that there is
a spocial ruling by the Public Uorhs Administrator
to the effect that the Ship Briilding contracts
shall follOT/ the Code and not Bulletin 51 of the
P.w.A, regi:.lations as relating to labor natters.
(7) That thj P. "7. A. Labor Advisory Board has ruled
that if the Code is not deemed to be in effect on
the Ship Building Program, ths.t the labor questions
arising therefrom shall be referred to the Wagner
Labor Board,
(5) That the Ship Building Code is not functioning,
and there is no provision in the Code for properly
assessing the Industry for the expenses of opera-
ting the Code,
9732
— 526-f
(9) That it is the opinion of the Code Administrator
that a revision of the Code shoixLd "be made before
the letting of the Arigust 15th contracts in the in-
terests of all parties concerned including laoor
and the Ship Building Cornoanies.
"I have attempted to snniMarize only the salient points
of the testimonjr.
"If the facts set forth therein are correct and accurate,
it ^Tould seem that surariary action ought to he ta]:en hy the ITav;''
Department to clarify- the wage rates and working conditions
under which the Ship Building Program is to he carried out
hefoi-e the letting of the next contracts,
"If the Code is to apply, and if it is imsatisfactory to
la,l)or, and if no stipulations are to "be incorporated into the
contracts requiring acSJierence to prevailing wage rates and the
estahlishment of satisfactory working conditions, then it is
clear that -in the public interest either the Code should he
revised "before the letting of the contracts or provisions ought
to 'be written into the contract compelling compliance with P.L'.A,
regulations or with some other Governmental regulations, which
set adequate standards of \7ages and conditions of work,
"It is, therefore, ray opinion, and I stronglj'' urge uoon
you as reconmendations for yo\ir consideration, -
(1) That your Department urge a.nd try to arrange for
a revision of the Code satisfactory to la"bor before
receiving; bids on or letting the Ai:igust 15th con~
tracts.
(2) That in such revision the IJavj'^ Departnent insist
upon the incliision of a provision setting forth the
power and authority of the Industrial delations Board
already created by the Code (but not now frinctioning)
with a budget approved by the Administrator, providing
for financing by the Code Authorit;^ of the activities
of this Board,
(3) That if the above action be impossible or for
any reason not feasible, t"hen the Mav/ Department
with the cooperation of the Public ¥orks Acministra.-
tor o-ught to promiiLgate rales aind regulations b'^
which wages and working conditions may be maintained
at prevailing scales and high standards and incorpo-
rate the some into the contracts.
(4) That, in no event, shouJ.d the T.a-^rj Departnent proceed
with the letting of these contracts until the labor
wuestions now pending are resolved by some definite
contractual understanding with the contractors.
9732
-537-
"I know you will iindcr stand, ny dear Mr. Secretai"-, that
in forwarding you the testimony adduced at the hearings,
together with a suniiaary of tae more imi^ortant facts presented,
and sug,:'-ested recommendations, that I am acting in the public
interest with an eye solely to the performance of my du.t2'' and
with no desire to a^pe^ r to he interfering in matters concerning:
which the iJa.vy Department has original and -ultimate jurisdiction,
"Ti-usting that you may "be ahle to give this matter your
immediate attention, so that the conditions complained of herein-
above indicated nay he rectified before the letting of the
Augiast 15th contracts, and with kindest personal regards,
"Sincerely yours,
/s/ mVID I. TJALSH."
Aijgxist 8, 1D54, a conference on the subject was held by
Colonel H. L. Eoosevelt, Acting Secretar:/ of the Navy of which
the following is a report to the Adrainistrator and was aoproved
oy the Administrator, (Reference; Industrial delations Com-
mittee Polder, Deputy's Files)
"August 9, 1934
"lI£IIO?Ain)mi
"To: The Administrator
?rom: Acaainistrative Officer
Subject: Conference on Administration of Shipbuilding Code
held August 8, 1934.
"1. Conference was held at Assistant Secretary Hoosevelt's
office, 3:00 p.m. :
Present: Ass 't Secretar"/ Roosevelt, ITavy Department
Colonel Lynch, IMl.A.
Mr. Bsxttle, Labor Department
lir. hcDonough ) Union
ilr. Fry ) Representatives
Mr. rnittelsey, Division 2, I'.R.A.
I.r. I.:ui-ra7, Division 2, I'.L.A.
ilr. Lubin, Labor Department
"2. The proposal advanced by Mr. Battle was to have an
S.-ecutive Order issued setting up the Industrial Relations Board
of the Sliipbuilding Industry as a board independent of the Code
Authority, supported by funds allotted by jT.R.A. and endowed
with power to fi:: hours, wages and labor conditions in the
industry; such powers to be given the sanction of a clause in all
Shipbuilding contracts let by the Favy Department requiring the
contracting concern to abide 'jj the decision of the fndustrial
Relations Board,
9732
"3. The question of extending weeldy hours to 40 r^as "lot
discussed.
-"4. !ir. Roosevelt took the position that he coiold not
consent to any action Trhich i70\ild delay tne opening of the hids.
"5. I thinl: the position of r.L.A. on this matter should
he:
(a) It does not concur in the drafting of an Executive
Order on this suhject by the Lahor Department. This is an in-
cident of code administration nhich perts,ins to H.R.A.
(h) The Labor Department should as a matter of procedure
outline its desires and recommendations in a letter to the
Administrator of Industrial Recovery as to the action which
should he taken in the case,
(c) IT.R.A. concurs in the desirability of setting uo the
Industrial Relations Board as a committee independent of the Code
Authority.
(d) N.R.A. is not prepared to concur in the transfer to
this board of power to alter code lorovisions or engage in code
administration though the board may be authorized to submit
recommendations to N.R.A. on these matters.
(e) 1T.R..A. is not prepared to concur in any arrangement
by which the powers of the Code Authority are transferred to the
Board.
(f) IT.R.A, is willing to allot a reasonable sum to cover
the expenses of the committee to include:
1 - Travel expenses on the business of the board.
2 - Office expenses - but exclusive of anj'' ex-
penses incurred by a 'member in traveling to
or from TJashington, D, C. to attend meetings
of the Board,
3 - N.R.A. will furnish secretarial, clerical,
and technical assistance to the Board,
"/s/ G, A. LYKCH
Administrative Officer,"
The Secretary of the llavj^ replied to Senator Walsh by
letter August 8, 1934, (Reference: Industrial Relations
Committee Folder, Deputy's Piles) The following are excerpts:
"In response to your letter of 2 Aug-ast referring to the
complaints of representatives of organized labor who appeared
before your committee as to labor questions arising o\it of our
shipbuilding contracts, the questions you raise have been given
careful and thorough consideration by this Department and I am
9732'
-339-
of the opinion that it is highly unc'esira'ble to delay the ava.rd of con-
tracts for the construction "by private industry of thpse vessels for
rhich bids are to be cpened on 15 Auf;ust. Such a course not only would
defer the final cor.pletion of naval vessels needed so urgently for the
national defease to re'olace vessels already over age "under the Treaty,
but rrould dela3' for so le tine the emDloj^iient of many "len in the ship-
building industi-y.
"Sach of the contracts entered into for the construction of these
naval vessels wil]. contain a -orovision that each cor.tractor and sub-
contractor shall comply with each apuroved code to which iie is subject,
liodifications of or additions to the codes are equally binding whether
made prior to or after execution of the contract.
"The formulation and acjninistration of these codes is under the
Administrator for Industrial Recover;^ who has ber-n charged by the
President with this dutv and the adnini strati on of the W.I.R.A. Questions
regarding changes and additions to these codes are hendled londer his
direction and this Deioart-nent has not felt that it had any cognizance as
to these questions beyond "ms-'^ing reco^nnendations from tine to ti'^ie if re-
quested or as occasion demanded.
)732
-34 ,V
"The I'lavy Department is of the 0;-)iniO;i that the ques-
tions of Labor abuses brought to the attention of your
Cornraittee would not have been raised had the Industrial Re-
lations 3oard been functioninti' as contemijlated.
- . "As re:,r,rds .t]:e question of apnlyin^- the rates of i^ay
stipulated in P.Tif.A. bulletin ITo. 51, it must be borne in
mind that this industry has other worh besides the construc-
tion of naval vessels. It must be depended on to build
vessels so badly needed by the merchant marine and to re-
pair those i]i service. The Lnposin^^ of snecial rates of pay
for einriloyees working on naval contracts would result in
difficulties and cause unrest amonj;: the v.-orkers to such an
extent as conceivably to wrec]c the industry. All of the
agencies including- the Wagner 3oard vvhich considered the
question concluded that it is desirable tha,t the provisions
of the Code should ^ovcr:i vjage'i for the naval v/ork as v.-ell
as for thf other work in these shi^oyards. It seems evident
that this is the equitable course of action and that an,y
other course will lead to very serious difficulties.
"Since most of the ;TOints brou^^ht out by your letter of
3 August primarily concern matters under the jurisdiction
of the Recovery Administration, I am forwarding to General
Johnson, the Adniinistra.tor, a coioy of your letter to me,
v.'ith the request thct he _.ive consideratioxT to your re-
comniendations that there be a revision of the Shipbuilding
Code satisfactory to labor, including- a. ^jrovision setting
forth the pov/er and authority of the Industrial Relations
i3oard as 'veil a,s a;.jpropria.te a^rrangements for financing."
August 9, 1954, letter to Turner W. Battle (Reference: Industrial
Relatione Committee bolder, Ee^uity's Files) from Colonel G. A. Lynch,
Administrctive Officer, set forth the position of IT.R.A. as follows:
"August 9, 1934.
"i,ir. Turner 11. Battle
Assistant to th^' Secretary,
Labor Department,
Vrashini-^ton, D. C.
"Dear Ivlr. Battle:
"Reference is raa.de to the conference in Assistant Secretary Roose-
velt's office yesterday on the subject of the li-lustrial Relations Board
of the Shipbuilding Industi-y.
"I have submitted the ouestions .liscussed to the Administrator
and his views on the matter a.re as follows:
"1. He does not ccvicur in the
drafting of an e:':ecutive Order on this
977>2
subject by the Labor De;)art;me:it .
This is an incident of code Ad-
rriini strati on v;hich -nertains to
IT.R.A.
"?.. He thinics the Jjabor Depart-
ment should as a natter of -nroce-
dure outline its desires and rec-
ommendations in a letter to thr-
Adninistrator of Industrial Recov-
er^^ as to the action which should
be tahen in the case.
"?. He concurs in the desirc-
bility of setting, up the Industrial
Relations Board as a comniitte'^ i.-;-
denendent of the Code Authorit;-.
"4. He is not pre-oarcd to cor.cur
in the trrnsfer to this board of
"ov.'cr to alter code "orovisions or
en^:a^e in code administration though
the board ,m.y be authorized to sub-
rait recorraendations to "'. ^. A. on
these matters.
"5. He is not -^reoared to concur
in any arran^iement s by which the
powers of the Code Authority are
transferred to the Board.
"6. He is v/illin^ to allot a
reasonable sujn to cover the e:nenses
of the com.;iittcn to include:
"a. [Travel expenses on the
business of the Board.
"b. Ee r.'ill ap;^rove the furnish-
in:i of secretarial, clerical,
and technical assistance by
the K.H.A. to the .3o-'ird.
"■"■pry truly yours,
"/s/ Cr. A. Lynch,
Adiiii ni s t r at i ve
■ Officer."
AUi^ust 9, l'J?>4, a second conference v/as held by Colo;iel Roosevelt
with the same -.orsons present and also H. ^errish Smith, Chairman of
the Code Authorit".
Au_^ust 11, 1934, a final conference was held on the subject by
9732
-S42-
Miss Frances ?er.:in3, Secretary of Labor. Only Departments of the G-ov-
ernmert vere represented. Amon, those present were Assistant Secretary
Roosevelt, havy De^iprtraent ; Turner \i . Lat 1 1 e an J. Isador Luhin, Labor
Department; a,nd 3arton \: . iiurray and H. I'Tevton VJhittelsey, ;'p.tional
Recovery Administration.
It was at^reed that Colo-.el Roosevelt, for the llavy De-oartment,
and Miss Perkins, for the La.bor Depr.rtaent , iTOuld each v/rite a letter
to General Hu ,h S. John-jon, Aclministr^Ttor, recominendinij that the Indus-
trial Relaticp-s Conaitter be mt'?de independent of the Code Authority,
its ex'ienses be ^aid by National Recovery Adininistr, tion. Conies of
these letters, dated Auiust i:^., 1934, are found in Volume Ord-r 3-21,
Code Record Section, and Inaurrtrial Relations Committee Folder,
Deputy's Files.
Reference is made to memorandum, Aut^nst 14, 1934, to General Hujh
S. Johnson, Administrator, . from H, llewton T'hittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Administrator. (Preference: Order 2-?l ■"'olurae, Code Record Section and
Industrial Relations Cov.Traitte9 Folder, De-mty's File=) Excerpts of
the memorandum are as follov/s:
"Reference is here made to the letter of Au^'ust 3, 1934, to
the Secretary of the rav^,.' from Senator Dgvid I. '''alsh. Chairman
of the Senate Subcouuaittee v.-hich is investigating the relationshi;o
betwefni em^iloyees and contractors on public works. Tv/o conferences
in ret,,an-d to labor conditions in the Shi-Vouildinti' Industry were
held in i.he office of Colonel Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of
the IJavj'-, at which all ;oarties in interest particiioatcd.
"a later co:iference was held in the office of the Secretary
of Labor, at which the Secretary of Labor, the Assistant Secretary
of the llavy and representatives of II. R. A. -oarticipatcd.
"The Nav^/ and Labor Departments have agreed that the com-
plete divorceaient of the Industrial 'Relations Committee from the
Shipbuilding and Shi^orepairin,, Industry Comm.it tee (Code Authority)
is most desirable as a means of removin;, the final obstacle for
the inuiiediate carrying out of the ITaval building prOt^ram. I
believe that letters from these t"'o De-virtmcnts to this effect are
noviT before you. This divorcement ca.n'bcst be brought about by the
AdiTiinistration assuming the necessary ex~ienses of the Industrial
Relations Committee.
"!Frorn my own observation I am convinced of the almost im-
perative need of completely se^iarating the Industrial Relations
Com. littee from the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Coini.dttee (Code Authority) by the assumrition of all its necessary
,^ expenses by the F.R.A.
"Labor has requested a.nd Industry has a,greed tliat the Com-
mittee be relieved of the requirement to ap-,)oint the seventh (7th)
member and be ")er;iiitted to continue ■.'ith'the present membership
of three (3) Labor members and three (5) Industry members, as
both Labor and Industry hold that collective oargaining is better
procured by a com.iiittce of six (6).
-343-
"Therefore, the accoiapan^'in^ Order hns "been drawn ut3
for the maintenance of the Coumittee by the Ilational
Recovery Adrainistr?tion, In vievi of the recommendations
of the De-Dartnents of Nsvy and Lahor and my knowledge
of the siturtion, I recommend the accompanying Order for
your apTDroval."
Administrative Order S^-Sl, AUf::ust 15, 1934, was signed by
Hugh S. Johnson, Administrrtor, before 12:00 noon of AUf^ust 15 and
the Navpl bids '7ere duly opened on schedule. Approval was recommended
by Barton W. Hurray, Division Administrator, Division II. (Reference:
Code Record Section and Indiif.trial Relations Committee Polder, Deputy's
Files) The Order reads as follows:
"ORDER
CODE OP PAIR COIIPETITION
FOR TI-IE
SHIPBUILDING Aim SHIPREPAIRIilG INDUSTRY
"wHEKEAS, on L'arch 15, 1934, the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry Committee passed the followin^^ resolution:
'There shall be constituted by aopointment
of the Administrptor for the Shipbuilding and Ship-
repairing Industry an Industrial Relations Committee,
to be composed of seven (7) members; three (S) to be
nominated by the Code Authority to represent the
employers, three (3) to be nominated by the Labor
Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administration
to properly represent the employees in the Industry,
and one (l) to oe selected by the other six'; and
"'wTIEREAS, three (c) m.erabers of the aforesaid Committee
were duly appointed ''oy me on March 26, 1934, from a list of
nominees submitted by the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry Conmittee, and three (5) members were apoointed by me
on April 4, 1934, from representatives of employees recommended
by the Labor Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administra-
tion; and
"TJHEREAS, a seventh (7th) member of the said Committee has
not yet been selected; and
"TifHEREAS, it is desired by both Labor and Industry repre-
sentatives thrt a seventh (7th) member of the Industrial Relations
Committee for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry be not
selected; and
"TTHEHEAS, it appears from evidence submitted to me that the
Industrial Rela.tions Committee should be independent of and not
subject to the Jurisdiction of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry Committee, which latter Committee is provided for under
Section 8 of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Code,
and that certain of the expenses of the Industrial Relations
Committee_ should be defrayed out of the funds allotted to the
National -"-ecovery Administration;
9732
-o44~
"■J0\", TriEREl''OI?E, I, HUfch 3. Johnson, b" virtue of B.uthority
vested i;i me, do hereby order that .g ^reviou:. orcers of iiprch 25,
19Z4, and A;)ril 4, l''o4, whereby I o- . .ointed. the ladustrj'- pnd
Enxoloyee meubers resjiectively, - of the Industrial Helations Com-
mittee for the Shi".-!buildinfj and Shi-orepa.ir ing Industry, be amended
4 by omittinj- the "^rovisioj:- requiring the selection by the Industrial
Helations Comi-aittee of a seventh (7tii) member.
"It is fiu'ther ordered thc?.t tlie Inclustrirl Helations Com-
mittee be a-d is herebj'- made inde-^endent of and not subject to the
jurisaiccio:- of zhe Shiobuildin^. and Shi^.reMairin^ Industry Com-
mittee h'rrei.-.above referred to.
"It i'r. further ordered th;rt the :\atiQnal Recovery Administra-
tion shall set aside a reasonable "ortion of the funds r Hotted to
it to cover the ComiTiittee' s office ex-^enses, travellin,-^ and sub-
sistance exrienses of each of its .lembers v.'hen on official business
in connection ?:ith the -Terfornance of his duties as a member of
the said Comraittee, and funds for the -"layment of such secretarial,
clerical and technical assistance as the Coi"J7iittee may require in
the performance of its duties. In addition to the above, each
mer.iber of the Cora.;nttee shall be entitled to a ;oer diem of
Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for each day of a.ctual a,ttenda.nce at any
end a,ll meetint,-E of the Committee and ?/hen on official business for
the said Coraj.iittee, from the time of departure to the time of
return; • provided, hov.'ev'^r, that any financial commitments made by
the Committee shall be subject to the fiscal ret-,ulations of the
rational Recovery Adiainistration; and provided further, thot Tsefoye
any ex;-ienses incurred by the Committee or any of its members are
paid oy the Ffitional Recovery Adrainistr;- tion vouchers therefore
bhe.ll be duly authenticated by the Secretary of the Comiiittee and
shall be subject to reviev and disarorovrl by the I''ationa.l Re-
covery Adiiiinistr; tion.
"/r7 Hueh 3. Johnson
Adini; .istr.atcr for Industrial
Recovery
"Ap'iroval Recomme.Tded;
/s/ J^arton Yi/'. Murray
Division Aoministrator
Au.vast 15, 1934."
Administrative Order 3-21, August 1.0, 1934, hereinbefore
cited, so chan^.ed the status of the Industrial Relations Comiiiittee
thct certa,in irovisions in the "Ple.n for Adjustments", dated July
1&, 19?4, had to be corrected. Also it was desirable to meet a-s
far as possible the certain vie'-s of tlin Labor Advisory Roard.
Therefore, the author drafted a ne'.r "Pl-n", ch^ed August -8, 19?4,
which was conveyed with a letter, -'i.u_;ast 29, l.;r:4, to A. J. Doyle,
Executive Secretary of the Industrial Relations Coraaittee, from H. Ilev-
ton i.;hittelsoy, assistant Deputy Adrainistr;"tcr. (.";eference : Industrial
Relations Couii.iittce Folder, Deputy's 'yiles •■rnd i^inutes, September 6, 1934,
Industrial Relations Gomraittee Piles) Excerpt from the letter is as
lollov/s ;
-545-
"It is i-ji-esLimed your Coxiittc" will examine "11 Pln,ns ^\.'i-
may bo before it and on its ovm authority will develop the Plan
which to them best suits the situation and renuirements and as
pronntly ss -^ossiole forv-nrd it to the Administrption for ap-
■oroval. I i^resurae definite action vrill be tal:en at your next
meeting; in this matter and upon receipt of the Plan from your
Committee it will have immediate attention."
September 6, 1954, meeti7-ig of the Industrial Relations Committee.
(Seference: Minutes, Industrial P.elPtions Committer Files) Exccrots o.rc
as follows:
"The Chairman announced that the next order of business should
be a study and discussion of the Plan with a viev to r)ossible chant^ca
before approval.
"Mr. Wood\-ard announced that he felt he could take no action
on the Plan at this time. The Shairman of the Code Authority had
not seen th^ Plan and the members of the Code Comrriittee had had
no op:)ortunity to study it. Mr. ffood?/ard stated that he was a
representative of Industry on t..e Comraittee, and that inasmuch as
he did not kno\.- the views of Industry members of the Code Committee
on the Plan, he was not in b. position wher^ he could vote on it.
"Mr. Swan stated that he v/as in accord with Mr. Woodward's
sentiments and that they expressed his own views.
"It was finally determined to make a study of the Plan on
the basis of whether or not it met with the ap-iroval of the Labor
members, and the Industry members might inter;oose questions to
any -nart or "oarts of it, their action, however, to be deemed mere-
ly a personal study with no corarait;-ient of Industry to the Plan.
"The Plan was read by the Chairman, article by article, and
compared with the Plan previously amrovdd by the Co.nm.ittee on
June ?1, 1934.
■'Upon coiTinletion of the stud;-, a vote was taken on apnroval
of the Plan as amended. The Chair:.ian, Ux. V.'harton, Mr. McDonagh
and Mr. Calvin found the Plan satisfactory and voted in the affirma-
tive. In accordance with their previously expressed ideas, Mr.
Swan and Mr. Woodward did not vote.
"The Secretary was directed to drav; up a new Plan, incorpora-
ting the ciianges, amendments and substitutions noted, and to
furnish co-Ties to Mr. Swan and Mr. Woodward, it being understood
that they would take the plan up immediately with Industry members
of the Code Authority and be prepared to consider it finally as
soon as possible.
"Tn.e new Plan, dated September 5, 1954, as approved oy the
Labor members, is incorporated in these minutes as APPEl'DIX B.
"The Chairman invited attention to Article VI, Section 2, of
9732
-346"
the P1.-..1, v'hich called for ohe submission of •■-. badii^et to the
Administrator coverin,^ the Goraiaittee' s ostirimted exoenses.
"After full discussion of the question of a budget, and
after j-iearin^^ Assistant Dcnuty Adininistrator 17hittelsey on the
subject, Mr. '.'ocdvard moved that the Exocutive Secretary be
directed to ;7re;oare a letter to the Administrator, submitted an
estimated budfiot of tv,'enty five thousand dollars ($?5,000) for
a :-)criod of ten and one-h?lf nor.tnrj, from August 16, 1934, to the
end of thr- f iEca.l ypnr, June ?0, 1955. Ilotion was seconded by
llr. Calvin and unanimously voted. Ino S'cretary was directed, in
the letter of transmittal to set forth the inriortance of the
Committee, the difficulty of estimating the needed sum with any
decree of accur-cy, and to advise N.il.A. fully thrt the sco-^ie and
activities of tlic Conmitcee i.iight make the pro-^osed estimate an
insuff ici'-nt on_e."
The nev; "Plan", dated Se;-)tember 6, 1934, is also filed in
the In.Jiustrial :iel;~tions Goi.udttee Polder, Deputy's ^i'ile.
September 11, 19r4, letter to the Administrator from A. 0. VJharton,
Temporary Chairman of the Industril ■delations Goranittee, set forth the
budget (Heference: Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy's Files)
The letter was as follows:
"In conformance with Article VI, Sf^ction 3, Plan for Ad-
justment of Complaints a.nd Disputes in tlie Shi;ibuilding and
Shi^repairing Industry, which -provides 'The Coiiimittce shall pre-
;:)are a budget of its estimated ey^enses which budc~et shall be
submitted to the Administrator for apioroval' the following motion
was seconded ?.nd unanimously a;oprovcd by the members of the
Industrial Relations Committee at meeting of September 6, 1934:
"THAT TISR.E BE SUllIIITTED TO IKE AD-
airiSTRATOR FOB ■■ATIOITAL ;^j;COVERY A BUD-
GET ir TItL SUM 0? TUETTY FIVE THOUSAUD
DOLLARS ($25,000) TO COYIR THE ESTILIATED
EXP3■^'SES 07 Tj;. INDUSTRIAL RELATIO'-S
GOii[,iITTEE PO,,.l A 'I'^P.RIOD OF TEl- A"'D OIT-
HALF liOilTKS, FRO:! AUCtTJST 16, 1934, TO
THE El'D OF Thx 'FISCAL T'aR, JUI^E SO,
1935.
"Tliis sum, follov.'ing the Administrator's Order of Au,ust 15,
1934, loe^y bo subdivided as follows:
"OFFICE Ea^EUSE
"Incl.i.din^, telephone and telegra-oh, postage, and mail-
in^,, station^n^,- and su-rolies, ^rintin.-, and mimeogra-ihing, and
miscellaneous (rent, furniture and ty-x:writrr n:t included) $2000.00
"TRAVELIliG ^rD SUBSISTE"iCE OF ;;E...ER3 $4000.00
"SECRETARIAL, CLERICAL AD -RCK"ICAL ASSISTAITCE
977^0
-347-
" Includes an Executive Secrotarj a !p50G0, a
Technical Assistr-,nt a $4800*, and steno-
dTr:nher-file clerh a :^1800* $9600.00
"PER-DIEIJ OF -.ZLLBEHS $3000.00
"niSCSLLAITQ-S (Artitrrtion
( Investit_:ation $6400. 00
"*97| months frO:.i 3er)tember Id, .1934.
"In connection \ ith the sahniission of this budget, your
attention is invited to the fact that it is difficult to
visualize at this tirae the sco^tg and irmortance which the
activities of the Connittee nay assume. Many invest it;;at ions
p.'ill unaoubtedl- have to be m^ae; there raa.y be numerous
occasijns where arjitrati'n will be requested; the nuiaber
of committee and sub-comzaittee raeetin;3S may be larger than
anticiiated; duties rray be olaced U'lon th.e Committee which
will _,reatly increase its activities;, data, facts and in-
fornr^tion must be collected.
"-his Committe'^ is of paramount imoortance. It is
res.-5cnsible for the carrying out of the labor provisions of
the Code in connection v/ith contract awards involving
hundi-eds of millions of dollars r.iade 'oy the Tav^/, Far,
Treasury, Commerce, and other de-iartraents of the government,
to private shinbuildint, and shi--)re:oairin^ yards.
"In addition, Hesolutio:! passed May 9, 1954, oy a
Special Board for Public Wor_^:s, ampn^. other thin,_s, provides:
' 3e it Resolved further , That . o he
wage rrtes on shrnbuildini-. and
shi~)rn;'iairin-. ircjects on -irivate
shiij^ards financed with funds al-
lotted by the Public 'Vor^rs Admin-r
istration, where Public Tl^or.ts Ad-
ministration Bulletin T^o. .51 has
not been ap-olied, shall lil.-ewise
be determined by the aforesaid'
Industrial Relations Committee
whenever such adjustment ma^^ be
hereafter adjud^-^ed by such com-
mittee to be necessary. '
^ "The su::i. allottt-d for arbitrption and investigation
may be considera,bly lower than the amount which must be
exiended, but it is aifficult, if not impossible, at this
time, to estims.te the needed sum with any degree of accuracy.
"Tallin^ the budget submitted as a whole and consider-
in^^ the P'Ossiuilities ox the Com^nittee, it is -nossible that
the sum re-^ested may be insufficient."
97C2
-348-
The bud,jet letter was received, "b-^ the Author and sent forv/ard
throii^h KevYitc Crosbv, Executive As'sistant of Division 2. Reply was
received to the effect that there would be no administrative a"Toroval
of it but it would be filed for reference. Vo objection was taken by
N.K.A.
September 13, 1934, raeetin.^ of the Code Authority. (Reference:
Minutes Folder, Deputy's I'iles) The follov.i5.\^ is er-cerptcd from the
Minutes:
"Industrial Relations Committee
"Inasmuch as Colonel Rose had but recently been rssigned as
Deputy AdjTiinistrator to handle the Shi-ibuildin^;; and Shiprepairing
Code, the Chairma:-. outlined briefly the entire history of the
Industrial Relations Committee i:i connection with its set-u:o by Reso
Resolution of the Code Authority on March 15, 1934; the -ilan dated
i.^rch IS, 1934 and submitted on tlie same date for its operation;
the apnointment of members to the ComiTiittee and subsequent
events. The first nlan subraitted by the Industry on March 16th,
for some reason, had never been transmitted by the Deputy Ad-
ministrrtor to the Industrial Relations Committee, so that there
was some delay on irocedure until the plan which had been jointly
prepared by the Industi-y a .d our Deputy Administrator received
the comi.ients of the Industrio.l Relations Committee. It was
approved by the Com^uittee on June 31st with some changes. All
of the changes were not acceptable to the Industry but with a
very fuw clmnges the pl£.n was returned to il.R.A by the Industry
with letters from the Code Authority dated June 36th and 39th, to-
gether with a letter from a sub-committee of the Industry to
the Code Authority dp.tod June 27th. ITo further comments were
received from F.R.A, until July 37th at which time :.'r. H. Newton
^'hittelsey submitted another plan different from tJie -ilans of
June Slst and 37th.
"Subsequent events were as follov/s:-
"On July 27th a herring was granted labor by Senator Walsh,
Shairi.ian of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. At this
hearing Labor alleged labor abuses in the iirivate shi :)building
industry. On Au^;ust 3nd, Senator Halsh addi'essed a letter to the
Secretary of the Navy calling attention to the statements made
by Labor representatives at the hearing on July 37th. In this
letter Senator VJalsh suggests that summary a,ction be taken by the
ITavy Donartment to clarify the wage rates and working conditions
under which the shi;ibuilding yjro^.ram is to be carried out before
the letting' of the next contracts.
"Qn the morninti of Au.^ust 9th, a meeting was held in the
offices of the Assistant Secret;;ry of the I'avy, at vrtiich there
were present :
Assistant Secretrry and his staff
of Jiareau Officers
9732
-549-
RoprGsontatives of those "private
shipouildcrs engaged in Naval
cor.atrufction
"The Assistant' Sccrctp.ry of the Navy was in-
formed that the int.ustry Icncw of no ahuscs in the
private shiphuildint^ industiy and that thei'e vyas
no reason wliatcvcr for delaying tlie opening of hids
or the placing of contracts for new no-Val construc-
tion.
"The morning meeting was followed hy a meet-
ing in the afternoon at which there were -oresont:
Assistant Secretary of the Navj' and
his staff
Two rcoresentativGS fron the Ship-
tuilding Industry
Heprosentatives of N. H. A.
A representative from, the iJepartment
of lahor
"At this meeting a proposed Executive 6rdcr,
prepared "by the Department of Labor v.'as presented
to the effect that there shoi^ld he a special hoard
appointed to review shipbuilding wages and working
conditions under PV/A- appropriations as applicable
to naval vessels ~ those now under construction
and those for which contracts were to bo placed.
This meeting was adjourned without any final action
but the same parties reconvened the following morn-
ing, A-ugust lOth, together ?/ith representatives of
Labor. The proposed Executive Order was thoroughly
discussed and the Industry Members "oresent pointed
out that the President of the United States by let-
ter dated i.!arch 27th had directed all work '^n Govorn-
ment contracts for shipbuilding and shiprepairing to
be performed under the provisions of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Code. As a result of the discus-
sion it vras decided at this meeting that there should
be a joint meeting on the following day, August 11th,
of the:
Na\'y Department officials
Department of labor; and
N. R. A.
"Such a meeting was held and it was decided that
instead of the special committee discussed the day
previous, th^t the Industrial Relations Committee
should proceed under its present set-up but under an
Administrative Order which v?ould provide for its fi-
nancing by NRA with offices in Washington and with
six (6) members instead of seven (7).
9732
■35j«
"In connection with these meetings the fol-
lowing letter w-?.s addressed to the Assistant
Secretary of the Kavj^- hy the President of the Na-
tional CouLicil of American Shi-ohuilders, "u:^dcr
date of August 10, 1934:
■V/ith reference to the conference
of yesterday morning in your office as
"between the private shipbuilders engaged
in naval work and yourself and the fur-
ther conference in the a.ftemoon with
Mr- Battle of the Department of Labor,
and the further conference this morning,
'I wish to make the following state-
ment on "behalf of the -u'lvate ship"builders:
The subjects discussed a.t our con-
ference were the following:
I
1. -A letter submitted by Senator
Yfalsh ^resenting certain ,
statements m;ado by labor "be-
fore his Committee at a hear-
ing on July 27, which state-
ments alleged labor abuses
in the Private Shipbuilding
Indus trj^.
2. - An Industrial Relations Cnm-
mittec in the Shipbu-ilding
Industry,'' set up in connec-
tion with its code of fair
'Conrpctition.
5. - A proposed E::ccutivc Ordsr
presented by iar. Battlft
which would provide for set-
ting up a xlava.1 Shipbuilding
Vfege Board to deal with wages
and hours under Title II of
the Smergency Appropriation
Act for the fiscal year 1955.
'These three subjects have been
enumerated in the order in v/hich they
arose for discussion, but it is nec-
essary to first discuss briefly the
proposed Executive Ci-der pre-oarcd by
the Department of Labor. This Order,
if issued, vculC. c^ivc financial dn-
trol over the expenditures of funds
for now nav^l vessels, bids for which
9732
^51-
are scheduled to "be opened on Ai\just
15.
'I cp.ll your r.ttention to the
fact tint it is xiecccsarv in the con-
duct ni v.'orr. in a private shipyard to
conduct this v.-ork on a uniform basis of
hours and wages if work is to "be "ocr-
formed in an orderly manner and exped-
itiously. The proposed ITaval Shiphuild-
iaig 'J7a^e Board would have jurisdiction
over hours and wa^RS that might he vvholly
differ::';it from those pr^vailii'ifi under the
Code .-uid mirfht result in a wage and hour
condition that would ^ireclude the possi-
bility of securing any commercial work.
'FurthDi-inore, such jurisdiction
would apply only during the expenditure
of the -oarlioular f-ands appropriated for
this ?isca'I Year, v-hile future funds for
the enable tion of the contracts would
i^rohably "be under Increase of the Navy
App rop T j.at i r, ns .
'By order of the Pref.ident of the
"UFnited States all work in the private
shipyards, with the exception of a few
early contracts placed under PVJA funds,
is no^T "oeing carried on under a Code of
trade practice and fair comitictiiion appli-
ca"blo to all work in process.
'It is necessary in connection v.lth
new contracts for naval vessels -fehat the
same condition should apply for all work
under way in a s"nipyard, whether Govern-
ment work or commercial work, and regard-
less of the ai^propriation under vriiich such
v/ork is performed.
'If t"nis condition is made to apply,
then the only ot'ner problem referred to
in Senator \7aleh's letter as needing con-
sideration and which was very freely dis-
cussed with you is tliat of an Industrial
Relations Comjuittee. ?rora the statements
made by the Members of the In^iustry at the
meeting yesterday, I believe you fully un-
derstand f.ie difficulties confronting the
Industry It. setting up an Industrial Rela-
tions Committee of seven; three of v.'hom are
Industry- Mumbcrs, t'nreo of v;hom are Labor
9732
-352-
Members, and the seventh of whom is to "be
an impartial memher, and for the reasons
stated to you we do not believe that this
"bi-partisan committee will ever function
satisfactorily and the Industry, has,
therefore, suggested to you, and urgently
requests, that this committee should be
made up of not mere than three disinter-
ested members to be crofted by Presidential
Order. With this in mind we ash you to re-
quest the ?:"osident to extend the duties of
the llational Steel Labor Relations Board to
cover disputes and coiiiplaints arising in
the Shipbuilding industry, the extent of
the responsibilities of this Board for the
Shipbuilding Ind .sti-y to be the same as
those -prescribed by the President for the
Steel Industry.
'¥e believe tliat the two definite stig-
gestions nnde herein will fully dispose of
the probloMS involved in the discussions in
your office this morning.
9732
-355-
"On Au'just 15th General Jolmsori issued an Administrative Order
v^hich has not as yet been received by the Code Authority although
an unsi/jned copy has been received which it is presuiTied is correct
"It is noted that the order would establish an Industrial Re-
Lations CCiiL.dttee as independent of and not subject to the juris-
diction of the Shipbuilding- and Sliip rep airing Industry Cormuittee.
i'he Chairman uiade clear tliat it v;as not thoroU|2;hly understood v/hat
•independent of the Code Authority' meant, Ke did make it clear,
however, that the Chairman had tal:en the position with Mr. Murray
Division Adminiatrj.tor of the Sripbuildinf^ and Shiprepairing
Code, that any plain of operatior. of the Coixiittee must be satis-
factory to both Industry and IJ.P..--^. and stated that Llr Murray
liad fully a^-reed wiVii this viev. The Chairman also stated that
he had. info i-med Mr. Murray that any plan materially different
from that ori£;inally laroposed bv industry and passed upon by the
Industrial Relations CoLi..iittee^on June 21st, v/ould take from
three to four wrcks for su.bmission to the Industry and action
upon it. The Chairman informed the Committee that in the meantime
K.R.A., on August 29th, had subirdtted to the Industrial Relations
Committee another proposed plan of operation end had asked the
Committee to prepare and submit to N.R.A. for approval, a plan
which the Co..ii"nittee would recorun^end. llo copy of this proposed
plan nor copy of the letter submitted to ti e Industrial Relations
ComLiittee was sen'^ to th3 Code Authority. It received, hov/ever
unofficially, s. copy of the proposed plan from one of the Industry
Members.
"Under date of July 27th an Administrt^tive Order covering; 'Labor
Complaints and disputes' v/as issued by the H.R.A. and in connection
with this subject the Chairman a:uke,d to have inscribed in the
minutes a copy of Acujinistrative Order llo . X-69 .
"Prom this point on there was :mich discussion of the v/hole subject
of Industrial x\elations Cormmttee R,nd the Chairman made it clear
that the Industry v/ould insist unon its Members working to a plan
that is satisfactory to the Industry and stated that it ;Gav/ no
reason whatever, v;hj'' the plan that had been approved by the Commit-
tee on June 21st and v/hich was acceptable to the Industry, v/ith a
few modifications, should not be adopted.
"In discussing; the question of independence of the Industrial
Relations Co.ni-.u.ttee Mr. McDona,-;h stated tl'ia.t this v/a.s necessary
because of interference b"^ the Code Authority with a specific
Labor matter that liad arisen at the Pore River Plant of the Beth-
lehem Shipbuilding Cor'Joration. In order tlis.t the record might
be clear the Chairman pointed out that the Coi:imittee's plan
of operation had not been approved at the time and thc.t the
Committee hc/d stricken from the pla,n a specific reouirement to
the effect that v/hen a dispute arose that the first step to be
talcen should be a reference of the matter by letter to the
laanagement for a statement of faicts in the ca.se . The procedure
taken by- the Committee was not .satisfactory to the Code Authority
for the Industry and the telegram in connection with this matter
so far as it relr.tes to the subject in question was as follows:
9732
-354-
•IIJDUSTPJAL RZLATIOITS CCiLITTEE
SHOULD ITOT SSilD I.SJ TO jPOrjlRIVEH
UlTTIL PLAil A I-ROVED BY COiDE AUTIi-
OSITY ?0R SZT'_ LEi.j::TT OF ALL LAB.-R
COiviPLAIlTTS AITD DISPUTES IS DEFI-
iiiTELY ACc:;prED Aia iii op ■h.-.ticii.'
"During' f'sie course of the discussion Mr. Joseph Haag, Jr. and Mr.
Gerhauser expressed the opinion that the order of August I'Sth was
issued hy G-eneral Johnson in view of the i^iaval vessel situation and
they- asked the Code Authority to view the order in light that a
preponderant inajority of the industry have no ^'^•overnnental contracts
of any kind and that the Board as now proposed is not needed, in-
asmuch as complaints can he handled through the Code Authority.
"At the end of the discussion lur Gerhauser offered the following
resolution:
"WHEREAS, A plan proposed by the K.R.A.
dated Au,5u.st 28, 1954 for the handling of
labor relations by an Industrial Relations
ConLaittee has been brought to the attention
of the Code Authority for the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industty; 8,nd
'WIIEPiEAS, the order signed by the Admin-
istrator of the N.R.-'^. on August 15th would
mal:e the Industrial Relations Coininittee in-
dependent of the Code Authority; and
'WHEREAS, this proposed plan and order
attempts to. impose upon the Industi-y a bas-
ically different plan for handling labor re-
: ,■ lations than that previously submitted to
r ■ all members of the Industry and approved by
a majority of its members,
'BE IT RESOLVED: That the Code Authority
take no action at present upon the plan '
dated August 28th; and
'BE IT F..TITHER RESOLVED: That the Adrainis-
tration M-ember of the Code Authority be re-
ouested to consider with the Ac'-ministration
the fundamental differences betv/een the plan
previously approved by the Industry and the
plan of August 28th, and advise the Code
Authority as to further procedure.'
" Tlie resolution was carried.
"At the request of Colonel Ross the Code Authority will submit
to him a statement covering the views of the Code Autliority as to
the plan of jjrocedure forv;arded by NRA to the Industrial Relations
Committee dated August 28th."
9732
-355-
Septem'bpr 13, 1934, meetin;^ of the Industrial Relations Commit-
tee. (Reference: Minutes, Industrial Relations Co.xiittee Files) The
following is excerpted froiri the r.Iinxites;
"Mr. McPonai^h inurediately called attention to resolution passed
■by the Code Authority at raeetinrj of '.'ednesday Septeiriber 12, 1934.
"That resolution was read hy the Secretary
"Mr. ".Tnittelsey called attention to his telegram dated
September 13, 1934, to Mr. Arba B. Marvin, Auninistr tion Member
of the Shipbuilding- Code Authority, which was read by the Secretary
and wa-s as follov;sj
Arba 3.- Marvin, Ac'junistration i,.ember
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry
Laurel Road
Kevi? Canaan, Connecticut
'In view of Administrator's Order Au'':ust fifteenth making Industrial
Relations Comirdttee inde~iendent of Code Authority Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry I thihl-: it inadvisable that a member
of the Administration rnal:e analysis of plans for Adjustment of
Labor Complaints and Labor Disputes .of Industrial Relations
Committee Stop Code Authority has available three able Industrial
Members of Industrial Relations ConL.dttee and a.n able sub-code
Cor.n-iittee v/ith exj; rience on such plans Stop Position thtt
Industrial Relations Coniinittee muct adopt by its ovm authority
its own plan should be maintained Stop Please phone or v/ire Code
Authority in accordance Stop Sorrv" I did not recognize yester-
day complications tha.t might arise.
'H. Tewton vrnittelsey
Assistant Deputy Acjninistrator
Section 4, Division 2.'
"Diccussion follov:ed ae to the position of the Administration
Member of the Code Authority. Mr. Whittelsey defined his duties.
He further otxtlined the position of his superior officers, that
the Plan for Adjustment v.-as for the consideration of the Comnittee,
that both Industry and Labor VYere eajoally represented on the
Committee, and that their representatives should be authorized
to take definite action on the Plan, the Code Authority or the
Administration i'iember having no direct say in its approval.
"Mr. ;7oodward advised the Coi.niiittee members that after the
meeting of September 6th he and Mr. Swan dispatched a telegram to
the Chairman of the C'^d.e Authority, Mr. H. Gerrish Smith, apprising
him of the situation. That in view of. the resolution of the Code
Authority just noted by the Committee, the position of Mr. Swan
and himself had net changed and they were no more able at this
time to vote on the plan as representatives of Industry than they
were at the meeting of September Cth.
"Mr. McDo.-.agh stated that he felt a deliberate effort had been
made to obstruct the setting up of the Committee and that the blame
9732
could te placed entirely en Industry. He gave 'a resume of the
happenings before aiid since the Cohmittee's meeting of June Slst
and allejed a lack of cooperation and a policy of hindrance and
obstruction on Industry's part.
"Mr. Woodward felt that H.H.A. changes in the Plan and in
the set-uij of the Qcminittee had caused the trouble, and question-
ed whether or not the Codu Authority liad "been furnished copy
of the Administrator's Order of A''a/.ust 15th. Also, why copies of
the Nevr Plan for Adjustment had not "been- f-ornished the Code
Authority. Lir. Whittelsey ex;plained that copy of the Order had
"been sent the Code Authority iuiir.ediately Upon its signing, August
15th, hut that copies of the Plan for Adjustment had not "been
f'ornished inasmuch as the Coi.inittee ' s new set-up "under iJ.R.A. made
it entirely independent of the Code Authority.
"Ivir. V/1-arton stated ths-t there v;as no question in his mind
that if the Code Authority lic-,d v;anted the Committee to function,
it v/ould ha.ve been functioning within tv/o v/ceks after the submission
of its original Plan. There has been only one interference, and
that the Code Atithority. Industry Members on the Committee are in
the same position as La.hor Llerabers in regard to voting on the Plan.
Ee feels that ^,o long as Mr. Swan and Mr. Vfoodward are Industry
representatives on the Cominittee, the Committee has some definite
orders and must aiid should-proceed; that the whole situation refers
back to his original statement tn:,t Industry is responsible for
the Conrndttee not functioning.
"ivIr. McDonagh felt that it v.as a disgrace for Industry to
attempt to wreck the Co;xuttee at this time. The members came into
the Committee V7ith ideals and hopes that the Coiwnittee would be a
functioning body and of great assistance to Industry. He called
attention to the fact that no meeting of the Code Authority had
been held from April 24, 1954 to September 12, 1S34, and that ap-
parently the Code Authority meeting was brought on by the definite
approval of the Labor Members of E.H.A.'s Plan for Adjustment,
"Mr. Calvin felt that in view of all the circumstances, and
the efforts to obstruct the Cooiiittee by Industry, a report of the
v/hole situation should be submitted to the Administrator.
"The Comi'dttee came bad: after recess at 2:04 P.M. Mr. Wood-
ward advised that during recess he and Mr. Sv/an had reached Mr.
Smith on the telephone, advised him of the situation and asked him
to settle matters definitely in order that Industry's representatives
on the Committee might be able to act. He advised that Mr. Smith
notified him that he would put in the mail, not later than Thursday
night, the 13±h, a letter addressed to N.R.A. and setting forth
the comments of Industi-y on the. Plan for Adjustment of August 28th
that, further, he would be in ?/ashington On Monday, September 17th,
and would then take the question up with K.E.A. officials in an
effort to str;..ighten the situation out.
9732
-7>57-
Septeml) r 17, 1934, Meetinc; of the Industrial Iv--'.lations
Committee (Reference: Mintites, Industrial Relations Committee Files).
The following is excerpted from the Minutes:
"The mitter of a PIdji for .^..djustm.ent of Complaints and
Disputes was then talcen -0^3.
■ "lur. Wooav/ord advised the Coimiiittee that in an effort to clear
the sittiation vco, he and Llr. Sv/r.n had "been together in the morning
and had dravm vqi a Resolution. Copies of this Resolution were furn-
ished each of the meirTsers, informally.
"Discussion ensued as to why the Committee's Plan for Adjust-
ment of June 21, 1934, should nov< he considered at all in vievif of
the Adi:unistrator's Order of Aii;ust 15th, and the different set-up
of the Coi:iiuittee uiider the terrac of tha.t Order.
"Mr. Woodward ex;olained th;: t there v;as no effort on the part
of Mr. Swan and hihiself to substitute the old Plan for the one
of September 6th, or to impose it on the CoiTiraittee; tuat their idea
of hrinf^-inG the Plan of June 2l3t up for consideration v/as simply
an attempt on their part to have a plan approved by the Comraittee
under which it loi^ht proceed with the business before it. That
the v/hole ouestion of the nev/ plan of September 6, 1934, and the
Administrator's Crdf r cf Aur,n.iit 15, 1934, is a matter between N.R A.
and Industry, and that the question mast be settled between them,
Wien that question is dfcdide', a nevr Plan for Adjustment may be
devised and the Industry members of the Committee can then properly
vote. Ke had not been informed that Industry has accepted the
.-.dministrator 's Order of Auc^ust 15th.
"Mr. Vfliittelcey advised that it was clearly understood by all
concerned that the new set-ujj of the Comi.iittee was satisfactory and
it v;as oh that understanding th,^t the ifavy bids were opened on August
15th.
"Mr. liTliarton stated that it was his understanding at the last
meeting that the Industry members would find out just v/here they
stood and would come to this meeting prei:)ared for some definite action.
"Mr. Woodward claimed that he and the other Indu.stry members
were appointed to the origina,l CoiiUaittee, established uponrecommend-
ation of the • Code Authority. The nev/ set-up, under the Adi.iinist rat-
er's Order of August 15th, is a different one and, as he under-
stands it, has not been approved by the Industry as yet.
"Mr. Yrnarton stated that the new set-up was made because the
Code Authority \7ould not allow the Committee to function. There
were various labor and other problems in connection with the
Industry, and somethin,g had to be done l9oking to their settlement.
This resulted in the Ac'-minstrator 's Order of August 15th.
"Mr, Woodv/ard advised the Chairman that, in order to dispose
of the matter, he would lihe to move accejjtance of the Resolution
9732
-353-
prepared by 'ulr. Swan and hiiasclf.
"The Clia-iruan advised that such a motion vrould be out of order
that it was not a rjrop^r c^uestion to come before the CoiUmittee in
view of the Auministrator 's Order of August 15th.
"llr. Sv/?n stated that, ±n viev/ of the Chairman's statement,
it seemed that all the Industry members could do was to v;rite a
letter to the Chairman stating that Llr. Wood?/ard and he, in an
attempt to devise some suitable plan of procedure under which the
Committee's work could be carried along until the major ouestions
at issue were settled, had proposed to submit a Resolution made
jointly by them.
"llr. 'Joodward a.nd Mr. Sv/an then prepared a letter to the
Chairman.
" Mr. "liartnn, for the Labor members, then prepared a state-
ment for. ..the record.
"That letter of the Industry members to the Chairman of the
Industrial Relations Committee, and the statement of the Labor
members of the Cou-inittee are incorporated in these minutes and fol-
lov; irai^iiediately hereafter.
"liTashington, D.C.
September 17, 1934
"Mr. A. 0. TfJliarton, Chairman,
Industrial Relations Coh':..u.ttee
Yfeshington, D.C.
"Lear lir. ; /hart on:
"Vifhile the question of the status of the Indus-
trial Relations Coumitteo as affected by the Adrainis-
trator's Order of Axi^bust 1-5, 1934, and as set forth
in the Plan for Adjustment of Complaints and Disputes
in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry of Au-
gust 28, proposed by II.R.A. is under discussion be-
tween the Industry and the N.R.A. the Industry mem-
bers of the Industrial Rlations Cor.urdttee feel that,
pending a settlement of this question, the Comjnittee
can function under the plan approved on June 21, 1934,
and accordingly offer the follov/ing resolution:
'wHUREAS, The Industrial Relations Committee on June 21, 1934,
unanimoiisly adopted a plan for adjustment of complaints and dis-
putes in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry, and
'^"'HEIiHAS, A letter oated Jtme 29th, 1934, from the Chairman
of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code Auth-
ority) to the Administrator, National Recovery Administri-tion,
indicates thc.t a -majority of the Industry/ Members of the Code Auth-
ority have approved said plan with certain modifications, and
9732
-353-
'"w'HZIffiAS, It now orppears tlii-t the expense of the Industrial
Relations C^^u;littee are beint; 'borne by the N.H.A. instead of by
theCode Authority as contemplated in said plan,
»!IOV/, TIIHRITOHE, 3E IT
'KESGLVjID, That in order thr-.t the Industrial p.elations Commit-
tee may proceed in the exercise of its functions looking to the ad-
justment of labor conplaints and disputes, the plan adopted June
21, 1934, be ainended to conform to the above modifications, and
furthermore be it
'RESCLVSD, That the amended plan be submitted to the. Admin-
istrator, National Hecovery Adinini strati on, and his approval be re-
quested.
U7e understand that in view of the Adminstrator «s Crdcr
above referred to you consider this resolution out of order and so
rule. '
"Yours very truly
/s/ Jajnes Sv/an
/•s/ J. B. ¥oodv/ard, Jr. • '
"September 17, 1934.
["It is our ijiiderstanding of the position of the Management
Members of the Industrial Relations Conraittee of the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry that fhej ccai not proceed v;ith the worl:
of the Committee -ontil they are advised by the Code Authority
of the Industry that the. Order issued by C-eneral Johnson as
Administrator of the National Hecovei-y Administration, dated
August 15, 1934, creating this C'^mmittee as an a'-^ency independent
cf the Code Authority, is acce-:)t,' Jjle to . the Industry. It is our
further "ondei standing that the Order cf Augi:.st 15, 1334 supersedes
all previous orders relating to this Co;.a:iittee, and that
subsequent to August 15th we-, as a Cocaviittee, are reouifed to
function in ':.eeping T,'ith provisions of said Order.
"/s/ A. 0. '.Tliarton
/s/-\7.A. Calvin
/s/ Joseph 3. ;.cDonagh
" At 4:15 the Industry members went \;ith I.Ir. '.."hittelsey and
Captain 'vlilliaiMS to Soon 506 for a discussion of the situation.
"They returned to the meeting room at 4:50
"llr. "Jhittelsey s\ugested tli?.t certain changes in the Plan
for Adjustment of September 5, 1934, might malce the plan agreeable
to all concerned.
"l.h-. TJocdward stated th...t he and I.Ir . Swan v,'ere prepared to vote
approval of the Plan if the following clianges were made:
9732
-360- -
"In Article II, line 4, strike oiit the v/ords 'i,nd.epenclent of:
the Code Authority', '' .
"In Article IV, Section 1, line 5, cho^nge the coniiiia' ,'• after
the v;ords 'Relations CoiXiittee ' to a period' '.', and strike out all
remaining matter in the Section hesinnin/i,' with and including the
words 'but the Coim.dttee' up to aid Iricludin;'; the words 'are "being conv-
' plied v/ith' .
"The memhers discussed the importa.nce of these tv/o articles,
the Chairman and Mr, McDonagh contending th^.t the phrase 'indepen-
dent of the Code Authority' \ias entirely correct in viev? of the
Administrator's Order of AugTJ-st 15th, and tha,t Article I? gave the
■ Committee poVi^crs which it should rightfully have.
"lir. Swan and l^^r. Woodward contended thct these changes must
be made before they could vote an approval of the Plan, and that
by voting on the Plan, if such ch^ang'S were made, they were lassum-
ing a personal liability to the Industry solely for the purpose
of giving the Coi.ii'.uttee a Plan which would allow it to proceed with
its duties.
"lur. V,rharton stated that such changes might be considered
except for the manner in y/hich the Industry has acted. He has seen
no evidence thi t there is any desire on their part to go along on
matters of this kind.
"The Chairman and lur. HcDonagl'. being unable to agree to the
deletions from Articles II and IV which Mr. Swan and Mr. Woodward
insisted were necessary before they could vote approval of the
Plan, the members disbanded at 6:00 P. LI., v/ithout formal adjoixrn-
ment .
"i\ji engagement of Mr. Calvin mcide it necessary for him to leave
the meeting at 5:15 P.M.
"Captain Williams left at 5:30 P.M."
Referring to the foregoing incident at 4:15. The parting of Industry
and the Labor re iresentatives, located in V/ashington, had been widening
for months and finally at this time the Industry members were ready to
walk out, follov/ed by the Labor members, and that v/ould have been the
end of th^t CoiTaittee as constituted. Therefore, the Author's request
ti talk with then privately.
The substance of the Author's conversation v/as:
1. That there raast be an Industrial Relations ConTaittee for
the Industry.
2. That if t'le CouUiiittee members could not agree on a "Plan"
and then fimction properl3'', that papers would be immediately d ravm
terminating the Committee, and requesting the National labor Relations
Board to appoint a new nonpsrtisan committee of three for a new Indus-
trial Relations Coi.urdttce, and farther that the Author would malce every
9732
effort to have it approved by the AcKinistrr.tion.
3. That the iridur-try members had already informally approved
all provisions of the Plan of AiJi,-UGt 28, as amended hy the Labor members
of the CoiTimittee September 6, exce-it two points as follows:
(a) That in Article II, line 4, the -wording "independent
of the Code of the Code Authority" was not es£;ential in the "Plan",
but if it was objectionable to the Code Authority, the Axithor would
recommend its deletion.
(b) That in Article IV, Section 1, line 3, after the words
"Relations Co-inittee" the deletion of the balance of the paragraph,
would not change in any practical way the powers of tlie Committee.
It merely cited that the Committee could investigate any Labor dispute
even if not requested, which could be easily brought about under every
plan that had been drawn. Therefore, the Author was willing to recom-
mend this deletion in view of the fear of Industry, that every plant
might have an investigator of the Committee in its midst.
Ifhen the Author returned with the Industry m.emb rs to the
ComiTuttees Room, he was quite confident that the labor members v/ould
be pleased that the last ^^oint of dissension between the two sides
could je eliminated. However, the situation ]iad become so tense
that Labor was not ready to ihunediatelv go ahead. The meetings
were businesslike and o^uiet and no .hixsh language v/as used, even
•under the tension. The labor members appeared at the time to be
of the opinion that the Code Authority intended to. nullify the effects
of Aclministrative Order 2-21 dated August 15, 1934, whereby the Commit-
tee was made independent of the Code Authority.
September 18, 1934, the Author requested Joseph S. iucBonagh,
Labor member of the Comraittee, to attend a conference, which occTJjred
in the morning. He set forth the same points to i'.ir. I.IcDonagh that had
been used v/ith the Industry raem.bers of the Coi.imittees the day before
and tried to imoress upon Hr. I,:cDona.gh that the American Federation
of Labor would likely lose its representation on the Shipbuilding
Industrial Relatinns Coi.inittee, if the Labor members on the Committee
were not disposed to go ahead and agree upon the Plan of September 6
as it was proposed to an amendm.ent. The Labor members on the Committee
at this time were shortly to go to the American Federation of Labor
convention at San Prancisco and would probably be away for a period of
three v/eeks and it was, therefore, necessary to obtain favorable
action immediately from the, 'vlr. McDonagh said that he would confer
with the other Labor members of the Coiiimittee, and at 2:30 in the
afternoon he telephoned the Author that they would a^ree to the Plan
of September 6 as it was proposed to amend it.
ThereuT)on i,Ir. A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary of the Commit-
tee, was telephoiied and so advised of the aereement of the Labor
members and requested to imi-nediately corrjnunicate with'the Industry
members and receive confirmation from them of their agreement. Mr. Doyle
made every effort to accomplish this, but he did not fully succeed.
September 19, 1934, the Author called ^'^r. E- Gerrish Smith,
9732
Chairman of the Code Authority, a.t the offices of the Code Authority in
llev/ York. He recounted the SLjae points as heret-;fore set forth and re-
quested Mr. Smith to cp21 a meeting; of the Coca Authority and duly
authorize the Industry menhers of the, Coi.imittee to act. llr . Sinith agreed
that he v/ould jDut the :aatter 'before the Code Authority.
Septemher 21, 1934, latter to I-I. Kerton Vifhittelsey, Assistant Depiity
Administrator, from H. Gerrish Smith, Chairrrrin. (l^eference: Industrial
Relations Couimittee Folder, Deputy's Files) llr. Siaith wrote as follows;
"Vfe had considerable discussion at our meet-
ing yeaterday on the Industrial Relations Conmittees
for the bhiphuiliing and Shiprepairing Industry,
"but as I told you, this was a National Co-cuicil of
American Shipbuilders meetin.'j; and rnsjiy interested,
members ?/ere not ijresented.
"I have called a maeting for Thursujiy, September
27th, at 2:00 P. 1.1., the earliest date at which I
can ■i;et out members tot-^icthcr to consider this
matter and I will advise you 2Ji"omptly there-
after as to the results of this meeting."
September 27, 1934, letter *to Industry meiabers of the Industrial
Relations Conmittee, J. B. Tifoodward, James 3v;an emd L. Y. Spear, from
H- G-errish Smith, Chairman o- the Code Authority. (Reference: Industrial
Relations Coi:iraittee Folder, Deputy's Files) The letter reads as
follov/s:
"At a meetin,^; in this office tod;iy at i.vhich
there were present five of the Industry members
of the. Code Authority to.^ethcr with seven other
representative shipbuilders and shipre'oairers,
it v/as unanimoixsly voted that the industry should
proceed with a set-up of its Industrial Relations
Coimrdttee and to advise its Industry ^-embers that
the plan, dated Au;:;ust 28th, 1934, submitted to the ''
Industrial Relations Cornr.iittee by the N.R.A' is satis- •
fa.ctory tc tlie Industry with the follov/ing changes.
"Article II, Lines 3 and 4, eliminate the words 'independent
of the Code Authority'.
"Article IV, Lines 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, eliminate the wording
'but the Cormmttce nay tcJte cognizencc of inipending Labor Disputes and
act v/ithout the fori.iality of a complaint having been filed, or may^^ on
its, own motion, conduct in-vestigations to determine vrtiether the Labor
pro2fisions of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code are being complied
with' .
"It is understood thut the Industry ^'"embers of the Comr.iittee
have already agreed 'to vote favorably on the plan dated August 28th with
these eliminati ns."
October 3, 1934, letter to H. Nev;ton Wiittelsey, Assistant
Deputy Administrator, from A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary, Industrial
9732
Helatior.s Coniuttee (deference: Orcer 2-Pc VolvriO, Incustrial Relations
Co:.i;iittee lolc.er, Deputy's Tiles). The letter reads as follOTrs:
"The:~e are enclosed five copies of a Plcn for the Adjust-
nent of Conplaints raid Disputes in the ShiplDuilding and
Shiprepairin," Inc.ustn^, ap;iroved b:' the Intur.trial Rela-
tions Cora-iittee."
The Plaji acconpanyint'^ the alDOve cited letter of October 3, 1934,
dated and hnom as the Plan of October 2, nas the Pl;in of September 6
modified as per the a:3reenent of the resiiective Industry aiid Labor
aenbers. The subject Plan vrs duly sent to the Labor Advisor;' Board,
Conpliance Division, Legal Division, Research and Plrjinln^; Division
and Industrial Advisory Board for their recomnendations.
:Tove::.ber 1, 1G34-, Adiuinistrative Order 2-22, si{jned by !";. A.
Ilarrinan, Adi,:ini strati ve Officer, and aioTiroval reconnended by Larton
'J. ..iurra^r. Division Adj:inistrator, Division II. (Reference: Code
Record Section, Industrial Relations Cor.v.ittee 1 older. Deputy's Piles).
The Order reads as follorrs:
"ORDZR
CODE 01; PAIR COiJETITIOlI
roR
SRIPRUILDIhG Ai"D SHIPRRPAIRIRG IRDUSTRY
"""HEREAS, due to a labor ener^^^encj'- in the Shipbuilding and
Ship ^'epjai ring Industry, and by virtue of Orders Dated harch
25, 1C34 and April 4, 1934, as amended August 15, 1934,
there -as constituted by appointnent of the Acministrator
ar. Indu'?.trial Relations Con::ittee for the Shipbuilding and
Shi-orepairing Industry; and
"TIIEREAS, The Industrial Relations Cor.: it tee -as, on June 13,
1934, tenporarily reco2,'iiized 02'' 'the AcMinisti^ator as the agency
to hrii^d.le labor complaints and labor disputes for the Ship-
bvalding aiid SJriiprepairing Industry, subject to the following
conditions subsequent:
'1. That the ^.eventh nernber o-2 said Coriittee
be selected at the next regular neeting of said
Co:a;,:ittee.
'2. That stjid Committee submit to this Adminis-
tration for a.p~)roval before June 50, 1934, complete
pl?Jis of procedure for handling labor complaints
ant labor disputes'; and
"7PZERJEAS, ^oy Administrative Order of August 15, 193'-1-, the
first condition subsequent rras dispensed '-rith; and
9732
"VJIfEPJlAS, the second condition subsequent ttb.s conplied v.'ith;
and '
"UHEHEAS, a plan of procedure for handling labor disputes
in the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairinc IndustrJ? has been offi-
cially approved;
"NOW, THESEPOHE, the National Industrial Recovery Board,
pursuant to authority vested in it by Ezecu.tive Orders of
the Presic'jEnt, including E::ecutive Order 6353, and other-
irise, does hereby order, subject to any jiertinent rules
and regulations issued by the rational Industrial Recovery
Boa.rd and to the right of the National Industrial Recovery
Soard to rnal:e such changes in the authorisation herein
granted as uay seen to it necessary in order to effectu-
ate the policies of Title I of the National Industrial
Recovery Act, that
"Said Industrial Relations Conrdttee be, and it is hereby
officially authorized to nroceed rrith the handling of labor
cornplaints and labor disputes arising under the Code for
such Industry, pursuant to the approved plan of procedure.
"Approval Reconmended: NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY BOARD
/s/Barton M. Lairray By /s/Vf. A. Na,rrin.an
Division Adiuinistrator Adninistrative Officer."
Novenber 1, 1954,
Washington, D. C.
Reference is made to nenorandurri of October 25,1934, to Colonel
&. A. Lynch, Adrainistrative Officer, fron H. Nev/ton \7hittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Adriinistrator. (Reference: Order 2-22 Volume, Code
Record Section, and Industrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy's
Riles) The nemorandoja reads as follov.'s:
"Tenporarj?- authority to tlie Industrial Relations Co'imittee C
for the Shipbuilding ajid Shiprepa,iring Industry for hand-
ling Labor Gomplaint'o and Labor Dispu.tes v/as conveyed in the
letter of the Adjiinistrator to the Chairraan of the Comnittee
under date of June 18, 1934, subject to t''0 conditions.
"The first of these conditions \7as deleted b;'' Order of the
Adr.unistratcr dated Au,g-ast 15,1934, and the second has
been laade by the Corxiittee. Legal Counsel advises ne the
Comiiittee is erapovfered under the authority taus conveyed
in this letter.
"Ho'Tever, the situation is rnisiuiderstood and the authority
questioned by certain Regional Labor Boards and Field
Branches of Compliance, and
"lYirther, in vieu of the change in the status of this Ccnnit-
tee by Order of the Adainistr.atoi',! darted August 15, 1934,
it is desira.ble that a nev Order of Authorization for the
handling of Labor Cor.plaints and Labor Disputes be issued.
9732
~S65~
"I, thereiore recommend for "'oar si 'nature the ap"Troval
01 the Order."
(i.r. IT. A. Harrii.ian "becr.ne ACiinistrative Ofiicer llovenher 1, 1334, in
place of Colonel G. A. L:aich, resi;vned. )
ilove.i'ber 7, 1354, Adniuistrative OrO.er 2-55, si:jned ty Barton \J.
Liurr^y, Division Adninistrator, .Division II, r:id recommended ''03-
7f. 1. T.ose, Deputy Adninistrator. (deference; Cede Ilecord Section,
and Industrial delations Corrdttee Tolder, Deputy's Tiles)
Excerots fro-i the Order are as follows:
"Said Plan of Procedure for adjustr:ent of laTjor conplaints
and disputes, the original of which dated Octoher 2, 1354,
is on file vith the national ?.ecove-_y Administration, he
and it is hereby approved, \7ith the exception of the follow-
inf provisions:
"Article VII, change to read:
'All records of cases shall conform ^vith the
requirements of the ITationPol P.ecoverj'- Adminis-
tration, and may be inspected bj^ the Advisory
Boards of the said Adiinistrs.tion. The Complain-
• rjnt and Itespondent shall each receive a copy of
the ruling and copies of adjustments and settle-
ments. A copy of all rulings, adjustments and
settlem.ents shall be filed vrith the Code Author-
ity, The national hecovery Acuuinistration, the
Compliajice Division and the Labor Advisoiy Board
of I'.Pl.A. By— jeehly repoi'ts of activities shall
be made to the Code Authority, the national
Recovery Administration and the Compliance Divi-
sion of IT. P.. A. '
"Article VIII, Paragraph (a), change to read:
'The Corimittee, in its handling of Labor Com^Dlaints
rrhich are received b^- it, shall proceed in accord-
ance with the procedure herein outlined, uhich is
in accordance vith I'.R.A. Bulletin ITo. 7, and which
procedu.re is subject to "'.?.. A. Bxilletin ITo. 7 and
rJiy modification, amendments or substitutions
thereto. '
"Article VIII, Paragraph (f ) , change to read:
•Upon receiot of a Co'^iplaint of a Code violation,
the respondent shall be advised b'' registered
mail of the nature of the Complaint, and the parti-
cular provision of the Code which it is alleged he
is violating, and shall be sent a copy of the Code
ejid a copy of the statement "Information for
Persons charged with Violations of I'.Ii.A. Codes"
J732
.66-
cJid asl:ed for a Gtrte:'ent of his or its position
vathin five (5) b'lX'jiaess daj's of the receipt of
such notice. In the event the respondent does not
reply uithin five (5) 'b^.siness da^s, plus reason-
able a.llo\7aMce for transi'ittal in the -lails, he or
it shall he advised t]'.e second tine in the s'ine
nanner as above provided h^' re-'istered ;iail, out
r.'ith rctu.rn receipt requested. The na'ie of th.e
conplainant and any natter i.rhich "ould tend to
identify hi:i, shall he '.vitliheld. '"
Reference is ,.iade to nenorandiij-.i of hoveifoer o,1954, to
Barton V,. hurray, Division Adxiinistrator, fron K. ITev/ton Uliittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator. (?.ef .n-ence: Order 2-23, Voluiae, Code
Record Section, and Indu.strial 2.elations Cou:iittee Tolder, Deput;'-'s
Files) Erccerpts fron the r.e^ioranduj.: are as follo'Ts:
"1. This is a re-.ort of a Flan ;iroposed by the Ind"astrial
Height ions Coranittee for the Shipbuildin,^:^ aiio Shiprepairing
Industry for handling- Labor Coirolaints and Labor Disputes.
"4. The Industrial Advisor reconnends approvo.1 subject to
a nodification of Article VIII Sub-Section (f), to the ef-
fect that a copjr of the Cpde shall accor.paiij'" the leaflet
'Information for Persons char.'^ed vith Violation of h.R.A.
Code' and su-bject p.lso that a definite tine be allowed the
respondent to reply,
"5. Research and Planninij ^rrites that the subject has no
econonic significance and therefore Research, ajid Planning
has no comnents to offer.
"5. Conpliance Division aira-oves exceot in regard to the
follo'Ting points:
(a) Reconnends an additional henber to the
Copxiittee.
This roulc be contrar;.^ to the agreenent as
carried out in the Administrative Order of
August 15, It 34.
(b) Request is nade for by— ^eehly reports.
"7. Tlie Labor Advisor^" Board approves e::cept that it notes
that an earlier provision of the Plan has been onitted, to-
\".'it; to authorize the CoLinittee to investigate con]Dliance
v'ith the la.bor provisions of the Code although no conplaint
has been filed nith it, an.d the Board reco;:inends that tJiis
be added to the draft. Hor/ever, the Con-iittee has been
brordl;^ authorized 'b-j the hational Incustrial Recover^'- Board
to handle labor conplaints aiid labor disjjutes after the fil-
ing Of the complaints. The addition of such a provision
could neither extend the actions of tlie Comi-iittee nor \70uld
the oraission of such a provision act to restrict their ac-
tions.
9732
"8. The Lc^al Divi'3io:i a;rorove?5 sulj.ject to the change
in Article VII i;i Records of Conplrunts and Disputes,
Article VIII in procedure for handling Laljor Conplaints
(a) pjpA (f ) as per the redraft of t'.iesR sections herein-
after set forth in the Or'-or.
"3. I have r;ive:i sra-eful stua;;- to the pl^m subnitted
and believe it is conprehensive and oractical. I, there-
fore recomjiend thr.t ^ou approve the plan, ^-ith the e::cep-
tion of the follot.-ini; provisions; Article VII, and Article
VIII (a) and (f) to be nrde to read as set forth in the
Order to neet the require- lents of the Indurtrial Advisor
and Conpliance Division.
tJlO. I recon'iend for vour signature tjie approval of the
Order."
Koveriber 7, 1334, meeting of the Industrial ?.elations Con:iittee.
(Reference: Lanutes of heeting, Incustrial delations Coniiittee ITile)
The follo'-'in^- are e"cerpts f:con the ninutes:
"The Coniiittee first noted Order, Code of fair Conpetition
for Shipbuilding and Shi-ire:oairinG Industry, of the national
Industrial Recovery Board, dated "fovenber 1, 1934, copies
of T.'hich had previously been furnished nembers.
"The By-La'-'s of the Coir.iittee, as approved harch ?8, 1334,
and as anended April 11, 1934, bein.-; deeded in need of re-
vision, hr. S^ran sug:--;ested that consideration be .-iven
b;" the Connittee to a revision of those 3y-LrA7s. After
discussion pjid consideration, the follo'Tinij chant;;es iTcre .
tentatively noted, uithoxit objections
"At 4.00 P. 1 ., Assistgjnt De-outy Ad:.iinistrator Wiittelsey
cane in and annoijnced the,t the Order approvin;';: the Plan
for Adjustment had been signed. The Secretarjr road copy
of the Order
"Mr. 7ood'xard uoved that Articles VII, VIII (a) and VIII
(f) of the Con;iittee' s approved Plan for Adjustment , dated
October 2, 1934, be revised to confom to the require-
ruents of the Order of Tovenber 7, 1334, of the IJational
Industrial Recovery Doard, and that the Plan, as revised,
be approved in its entirety by the Gomittee. hr. iicDonagh
seconded the notion and it vas Linaninously carried. -
"The Plan for Adjustment of Cor.plaints and Disputes in the
Shipbuilding pnL Shipre-oairing Indtistrj?-, dated October 2,
1934, 8,s revisGO. gaid ap'iroved hovenber 7, 1934, is incor-
porated in and made a part of these minutes as Appendix A.
"l.r. woodrard then noved the adoption b-;-- the Co.nnittee of
the revised By-La^s as a vfhole. hr. hcDonagh seconded the
ootion ajid it na-s unaninouslj'' carried.
:^ f oc
-388- ■
"Second Day - ITo^^/ ember 8, 1934.
"In view of the AcVninistrator ' s Order of Au^^-ust 15, 1934,
Order of the -^'^ationcl Industrial Eecovery Board dated
lloveraber 1, 1934, and Order of the ITafional Industrial Re-
covery Board dated Woveuber 7, 1934, it V7as deemed advisable
to reappoint the officers of the Co..mrittee.
"Mr. T/Yoodward nominated Mr. A. 0. ITliarton as Chairman,
Mr. Swan seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried.
"Mr. ^ifharton nonunatGd L.ir. J. B. Woodward, Jr., as Vice
Chairman, Mr. McDonafda seconded the motion, and the motion v^as
unanimously carried.
"Mr. McDonagh moved the ratification of Mr. A. J. Boyle as
Executive Secretary of the Committee, Mr . Woodward seconded
the motion, and the motion was unanimously carried."
The "Plan for Adjustment of Complaints and Disputes in the Ship- |
building and Shiprepairing Industry," dated October 2, 1934, as revised
and approved November 7, 1934, is uvarked IJxhibit P, Appendix.
The By-Laws as revised and adopted November 7, 1934, are in the
By-Laws Polder, Industrial Relations Cor/Lmittee pile, and in the Industrial
Relations Committee Polder, Deputy's Piles.
November 15, 1934, letter to H. Ilewton T,7liittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Administrator, from A- J. Doyle, Executive Secretary, conveyed the
Plan as approved and amended ITovcmber 7, 1934, 'oy the Industrial
Relations Committee. The Plan was duly submitted November 16, 1934
to Euffiiett ?. Delaney, Assistant Counsel, by memjranduiii from H. Newton
Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator.
November 17, 1934, Eminett P. Dolaney, Assistant Counsel, sent
a memorandum to H. Newton V/ittelsey, Assistant Deputy Acijninistrator
approvin;7,- the Plan as follows: (_
"You are autliorized to aclaiowled^'edthe receipt of the revised
plan and to advise this committee that the plan as nov/ received has the
approval of the National Recovery Administration. It is mv opinion that
no further order is xreouired to mahe this ^lan effective.
November 20, 1934, letter to A. J. Doyle, Executive Secfetary
from H. Newton whittelsey, i^ssistant Deputy Administrator. The following
is an excerpt from the letter.
"The Legal Division has examined the foregoing matter and authorized
me to advise your CoriTnittee that the Plan as now received has the
approval of the National Recovery Adminis^'ration and that no frorther
Order is required to make the Plan effe tive."
9732
"369-
Cojiiec of the cJoove cited con-:-uni cat ions fo\.-uio. in Orc.sr 2-23
Voliiue, InCusti-ial lielations Co)rnittee Folder, Depixtj-'s Files and
Code Zecord Section.
Tiiv.s, the Industrial I'.elations Comittee ras rinallj- established
eijht nonths after the resol.ition of the Code Authority i.arch 15, 1934.
^732
2. Activities and Accomrlishiuents of the Indp-strial Relations
Committee for the Shi .oruilding and Shi'-jrepairinf; Industry
The meetings of tre Industrial Relations Com-iittee were characte-
rized hj efficiency, sorious thinking, tolerance and a real effort on
the part of all iueraters to be fair. They were exceedingly well conduct-
ed. The liinutes of the Meetings are briefed as follows to include im-
portant actions and discussions. (Reference: Minutes, Industrial Re-
lations Co^jnittee Files).
Meeting of March 28, 1934 .
Those present were Lawrence Y. Soear and John B. Woodward for In-
dustry; Arthur 0. V/harton, Jose-oh S. McDonagh and William A. Calvin for
Labor, and Charles B. Winshiu, Jr., Howard E. Ralph and Patrick Conway
for I.R.A.
Meeting called by J. B. V/eaver, De'outy Administrator. Mr. A. 0.
Wharton elected te.iioorary Chairman. Mr. J, B. Woodward elected tem-
porary Secretary. After full discussion the By-Lav/s were ado-oted. Meet-
ing adjoua-ned subject to call of J. 3. Weaver, Deputy Administrator.
Meeting of Aijril 2, 1934
Those present were Lawrence Y. S'^ear a.nd John B. Woodwa.rd for In-
dustry; Arthur 0. 'iTliarton (Chairman), Joseph S. McBonagh, and Williain
A. Calvin for Labor, and Charles E. Winship, Jr., for IT.R.A.
Mr. Winship reported "that the Code Authority Organization Commit-
tee of E.Il.A, had recommended that, the Industrial Relations Committee
be given aiithority for a period of sixty days to adjust complaints on
references and disputes. (The Author points out that the Code Autho-
rity Orgaiiisatior. Committee recommended that the Code Authority be gi-
ven this authority) (Leference: Administrative Order 2-9A Vol-ume,
Code Record Section and Indiistrial Relations Committee Folder, Deputy's
Files).
Re;i'ional Adjustment ^Igencies were discussed and it V7as tentative-
ly agreed that five district should be set up as follows:
1. Atlantic Copst North. 2. Atlantic Coast South. 3. Gulf Coast.
4. Pacific Coaist. 5. Grea.t Lal^es. The Secretary was requested to
obtain fron H. G, Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, a list of the
plants in the Industry with location of each, present number of employees
and capacities. ReGolu.tions passed to permit testing installations,
machinery and equipmenc for ships, deck trials and sea trials.
Request of certain concerns, represented by Harrison S. Robinson,
doing shiprepair work in San Francisco Bay for exemption from the wage
provisions of the Code was considered and the decision was against
granting su.ch exemption. (T''-is request had reference to exemption from
part 4, para.gra-oh (b) v/hich required that employees be paid a weekly
wage for 36 hours not less than they were paid for 40 hours urior to
July 1, 1933.
9732
-r.71-
Meeting; Apr il l'\ 1954
Lator Members of the Co::i:aittee hctd been aD'oointed April 5, and James
Swan, Industry Member, had been a:)nointed in olace of George H. Bates,
recigned.
Those present were Jjawrence Y. Spear, John B. Wood.vard and James
Swan for Industry; Arthur 0. Wliarton (Chairman\ Joseph S. KcDona;3h,
and William A. Calvin for Labor and Charles E. Winship, Jr., for "J.H.A.
The Comittee ratified the actions ta'cen at the previous meetings
of March 28, 1934 and April 2, 1934. Committee of Messrs. Wharton and
Woodward appointed to call upon the National Labor Boa,rd to leern their
attitude toward the Comiiittee's Responsibility in the matter of Labor
disputes.
Copy of letter of Anril 4, 1934, from Hugh S. Johnson, Administra-
tor, requesting the Committee to study wage problems arising frou the
establishment of 36 hoiir week, and to equalize by negotiations any un-
fair com-oetitive inequalities. Action was referred. Letter of April
9, 1934, from William H. Davis, National Compliance Director, enclosing
a letter from Captain Henry Willia,ns (CC") USIT in reference to labor un-
rest at Bath, Maine and the 4'1 hour v/eek question. Plan for adjustment
of complaints and disputes was submitted, discussed and approTed. Al-
leged violations of the Code by United Dry Dock Corporation, who were
requested to submit a sts-teinent relative to the circumstances of the
case.
Meeting of April 25, 1954
Those present were Lawrence Y. Spear, James Swan, and John B. Wood-
v/ard for Industry; 7^illia,m A. Calvin and Joseph S. McDonagh for Labor,
and A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary. In the absence of Mr. Wliarton,
I.Ir. Calvin was elected acting Chairvnan.
Letter from H. G-. Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority, dated
April 1'.), 1934, regarding San Francisco Bay case before national Com-
pliance Director.
The following complaints were received and the Executive Secreta-
ry instructed to acknowledge and proceed with investigation of the
cases: Tom 2ay, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, re welders
e:.Tployed by certain firms in the Oregon District; J. N. Davis, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilerr-iakers re disagreement wages and working
conditions Gulf Coast District; J. lI. Davis re preferential rate recent-
ly established Buffalo Dry Dock Company, and letter of April 23, 1934,
from Deputy Administrator relative to the complaint against Todc. Ship-
building and Dr:/ Dock Company. Complaint of April 14, 1934, Cowmcil
of Carpenters alleging violations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Al-
leged unfair differential in wages between the Bethlehem Shipbuilding
Corooration and repair shops San Francisco Bay District. It was de-
cided the matter would be considered along v^rith the general question
of unfair competitions. The Cojimittee was advised by telephone that
the Code Authority had been allocated $3,000 for its exoenses.
Committee interviewed two prosoective Executive Secretaries ?.no.
en motion engaged A. J. Doyle of WaEhin;r^ton at $5, HO') a year, effective
April 24, 1934.
Meeting Aoril 26. lv;34
Those present were John B. Woodward end James Swrn for Industr--;
Uillian A. Calvin and Jose-oh S. McDonagh for Labor, and A. J. Dovle,
Executive Secretary.
Extension of 3 (c") of the Code was considered and recorimonded.
The following corn'olaints were considered and the Secretary instructed to
a,claiowledge their receipt: E. H. Iv:ills, International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, re: Reestablishment d.ouols time for all overtime work as
prevailing custom up to April, 1933, in the Fort of New Orleans; P. A.
33elcuze, International Brotherhood of Boilerna-cers , re: Code complaints
at Me\7 Orleans and Mobile, and E. A. Howard, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, re: Galveston Ship Repairers. Letter fro a Code Autho-
rity quoting' resolution of the Code Authority to the effect that the
strike situation of the New York Shipbuilding Corapajiy be placed in the
hands of the Industrial Relations Committee l.Iessrs. McBonagh and Wood-
ward a-Dpointed to interview L!essrs. iuiller and T/olf of the National
Labor Board in reference to *the situation. Meeting adjourned and recon-
vened.
Committee of Liessrs. McDonagh and Wood'rard reported that the Nation-
al La.bor Board ha.d assumed no jurisdiction, the matter being in the hands
of the Labor Deoartment. Mr. Elliott of the Labor Department thought
that the situation ?/as bad, not much could be done by the Committee, or
any other body. liir. Cha.^pell of the Labor Deoartment had been in Cam-
den, was liked by both officers an.d employees, but had no success. I,;r.
Elliott suggested that Lr. Chaooell be contacted. Comiolaint of Adolph
■JQereng, discharged by the Ne^oort News Company "to give certp.in men
longer working hours." ExeC'.itive Secretary directed to proceed xiith the
C£ise. Com-olaint a.gainbt United Dr/ Doc':.s. Nc reoort from inquiry that
had been received.
Meeting of liay IS, 1934
Those present v^ere Lawrence Y. Spear, John B. Woodward, and James
Swan for Industry; Arthur 0. V.liarton ( Ci-xairman\ William A. Calvin and
Jose-oh S. McDcnagh for Labor and A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary. All
members present.
San Friancisco Bay Area case^ considriT'ed. A protest of unfair wage
inequality existing in San Francisco Bay Area. Resolution of the Code
Authority April ^4, 1934, relative to the establishment of the office
of the Coraiaittee at 11 Broadway, Ne'.' York City. No action talcen. lir.
Svfan submitted Code Authority's Flan for adjustment of comolaints and
disoutes. Executive Secretary instructed to make a study of the plan
in comoarison with the Comiaittee' s plan of April 11, 1934.
Resolution of the public Works Administrator discussed. Committee
was instructed to make a study of wages soecif led under Public Works
9732
-^'"''S-
Program No. 51.
Secretary of Labor desired three Governmental reoresentatives ap-
poihted to the Committee. The Co:i!iittee felt that no additional mem-
hers should be aioTDointed. Letter written to J. B. Weaver, Deputy Ad-
ministrator. Amons'st ether things was set forth the following: "It
is the further belief of this Committee that is f )rmation should con-
stitute it as an independent judicipl body for thu -our^TOses set forth
ahove; a Committee not subject to the authority or revievr of aiiy &o-
veriiinental Agency or body other than the Adniaistrp,tor or subordinate
to the Code Authority in its handlings of jroblems ororerly suomitted
to it. The Committee then returned to the consideration of a resolution
of the P. \7. A. Board. Committee called on Deouty Administrator J. E,
Ueaver to learn if its authority and scope had beei; accurately defined,
nothing definite was learned.
San Francisco Bay Area case again discussed. Fi^rther information
requested. Two protests of designers and loftsraen of the extension of
3(c) of the Code received from emoloyees of United Drv Dock Inc. and
the Hew York Shipbuilding Comoany. Executive Secretary em-oowered to
secure such clerical aid 'as necessary.
Meeting of June 6, 1934
Those Tjresent ¥/ere Lawrence Y. Suear, John B. Woodward and James
St/an for Industry; Arthur 0. Wharton (Chairman^ and Joseph S. McDonagh
for Labor; A. J. Poyle, Executive Secretary; J. B. Weaver and H. Hewton
whittelsey, forU.l.A., and Arba B. Marvin, Administration Member to
the Code Authority. , ,
Conraittee discussed Public Worlcs Board Resolution and acted as fol-
lows:
"Whereas, Hesolution of the Public Works Board, adopted Hay 9, 1934,
provided in effect that the rage rates on existing projects financed
with funds alloted by the Public Works Administration should he adjusted
hy the Industrial Relations Cor.Tmittee, such rates to be determined.
"before June 15, 1934,
"Therefore, be it resolved by recomnendation of the Industrial Re-
lations Coiiiittee that all existing contracts which were entered into
under the provisions of p. W. A. Bulletin Ho. 51, and on which the hour-
ly wage provisions thereof, and it is so recom jended. "
Letter, June 5, 1934, extension of authority from C. ■^. Ad?jns,
Division Administrator, authorizing Committee *,o Jxine 30, 1934 (Ad;,ii-
nistrative Order 2-17A, Cede Record Section, and Industrial Relations
Committee Folder, Deoiaty' s Files).
Reouest for reconnendation on exemioticn from maximum hour provisions
of Code oertaining to trial trros. Ho action ta-^en -oending examination
of "orevious orders on the subject.
The "plan" for "Adjustment" discussed. !:r. Wiiittelsey submitted
suggestions as to the ooeration of the Co'-.ton Textile Industrial
9732.
-374" •
Relations Coianittee. lir. '7ea,ver stated that the Tjanel system contaixied
in "Flan of Auril 24. of Code Authority" was unsatisfactory. ' Ccrauttee
further disc\issed "Flan of jVpril 11 of the Comiiittee" and "Flrn of
April 24 of the Code Authority/" and appointed Sub-Corainittee of Messrs.
i.iCDcnagh and Woodward to attemot to formulate a plan which might meet
ell objections.
Committee adjourned, and re-convened Jiine 7 at 8::30A.ivi., the scne
nemters were present.
Committee recom.iended Exemption for trial trips,- and adjourned
1'3:')) A.Ii. to attend hearin,i' on San Francisco Bay Area cases conducted
""oy lir. Weaver.
Meeting of June 21, 1954
Letter, June 18, 1934, from Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator, autho-
rizing the Conmittee, and reauiring that the 7th memher "be aooGinted,
S2id a Plan of orocedure be submitted by June 30, 1934. Discussion as
to Regional Committees.
The situation &f the Bethlehem Shrobuilding ComiDany, Fore River
Plan discussed, with reference to co::r-ilaint of Fhilin H. VanG-elder,
letter dated June 19th, 1934. ' Mr. Smith axivised the Committee, that
no investigators should be seat to the "olant uiitil the "Plan for Ad-
justments" had heen accented and was in operation. The Committee had
received a wire from the Chair'ian of the Code Authority to transfer the
office to New York. Messrs. Wharton and licDonagh emohasized that the
headquarters should not be at the national Council of American Shio-
iDuilders .
The "Flan" again discussed with particular reference to Regional
Comr.ittees and in viev; of the Committee's inability to reconcile the
tro positions of Industry and ?Labor, it waa decided to eliminate the
provision for Regional Committees.
The case of Bath Iron Works discussed re: comolaint of Industrial
Union of Marine Workers. Matter left in abeyance in view of the Com-
mittees inability to act in the Fore River case.
Application of the St. Louis Car Company for exemption. It was
decided the Code Authority ccuid handle the matter. The "Plan" was
again considered and ado^Tted as of June 21, 1934. Several names were
discussed in connection v/ith tlTe aupointment of the 7th member.
(Author's note: d-ue to the attitude of Lir. Smith at this meeting
respecting the oosition of the Cede Authority, the Laior members of the
Cormaittee ap-oarently believed that the Code Authority iitended to in-
terfere with the indeoendent action of the Com. littee, and that the
Committee was more or less "oowerless in view of the fact that the Code
Authority was oayiiig the bills. Following the adoption of the "Plan"
on June 21 the Code Authority drafted an amended "Plan" of June 25.
There v/as an ■ interchange of serious comj-iunications between the Code
Authority and 11. R. A.
)732
— O I D—
Meeting of Se-ot ember 15, 1534
Those present were ilessrs. John B. Woodr,'-.rd and James Swaai for In-
dtistry, Arthur 0. '.iliartoa ( Caairruan'* , and Josemh S. McDonagh and Uilliam
A. Crlvin for Labor, and H. ilevton Tfhittelsev, for M.R.A... and Captain
Henry "illiams, for U.S.U.
iir. LIcDonagh celled attention to resolution of Code Authority oer-
taining to Order 2-21, August 15, 1934, in which the Code Authority
resolved to take no action on the "Flan of Au£;ust 28." Industry raemhers
not authorized by Code Authority to take action on "Plan." Mr. McDo-
nagh felt a deliberate effort had been made to obstruct the setting
uo of the Coniniltee by Industry and Mr. Vfliarton that if Code Authority
wanted the Committee to function it could have been done' so in two weeks.
Discussion lasted several hoiu-s. (This subject set forth in detail in
previous title. )
Complaint of Anderson who had been discharged by Todd Shrobuilding
and Dry Dock Comoany, Ivlobile, Alabama. Comnittee unable to act imiiedia-
tel3'-. Secretary instructed to request that the reports on Emergency
work, received by Code Authority, be sent to the Committee. Letter fro?)
iir. Whittelsey asking if Com.-nittee v/ould be willing to. act, for Boatbuild-
ing Industry if IT.R.A. duly authorized. Committee favorable. Charles- ■
ton Dry Dock Company request for e:-:emjtion for welders. No action pend-
ing receipt, of further information.
Leeting of September 17, 1934.
Those present: Messrs. John B. Woodward, James Swan for Industry;
ArthujT 0. Wharton, Joser.h S. McDonagh, William A. Calvin for Labor; H.
iTerton T/hittelsev, for ¥.,3.. A., and Capta.in Henry Williams for U.S.iT.,
and A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary.
Chr.rleston Dry Dock Company recmest for exemption for v/elders. Ho
action taken pending further develoonents . Serious long discussion bet-
ween Industry and Labor centers to "Plan" and attitude of Industry.
Inc.ustrj'' members were oropared to walk out followed by Labor Members.
Conference of H. Kewton Whittelsey with Industry members, who agreed to
"plan of September 6" with t"'0 -unimportant dele,tiono. Labor members
would not imnodiately agree, principally because of attitude of the
Code Authority. (Labor members agreed the following da.yi (This sub-
ject set forth in detail under previous title"!. Meeting adjourned 6:00
P.l.i., after being in session since 10:00 A.M., except lunch hour. No
other business considered. (Code Authority authorized Industry members
to approve "Plan of September 6" as modified, Committee re-authcrizcd
by Order 2-22, November 1, 19S4, and Plan approved Administrative Order
2-23, November 7, 1334, all as set forth in detail under previous title).
The following briefs of the minutes of meetings that followed the
complete setting uo of the Cojmiittee November 7, 1934, were made by A.
J. Doyls, Executive Secretary, in memorandum, July 5, 1935, addressed
to ?I. Newton Whittelsey, Assista:at Deputy Administrator. (Reference:
Industrial Relations Conmittce Polder, Deputy' s Files)
When the "Plan" of June 21 was submitted to the Advisory Boards
and Compliance Division, the Labor Advisory Board recommended many
changes which made it necessary fo-r the Author to redraft the "plr.n"
under date of June 18th, Messrs. Wharton and Calvin, La.bor members of
the Committee, appeared before the Walsh Comraittee of the Senate and
made complaints. Senator Walsh addressed the Secretary of the ITav;"-.
Conferences were held and finally the Order 2-31, dated August 15, made
the Industrial Relations Com^iiittee independent of the Code Authority
by IJ.R.A. paying the expenses; the order also eliminated the necessity
of apiDOinting the seventh member.
Executive Secretary attempted to get a meeting on August 6, 1934,
but without success. The CoLimittee members considered it useless to
hold meetings through this period through lack of authority and inabi-
litj;- to apparently act. The Author redrafted the "plan" August 28, 1934
to comply with the new condition of the Committee as established August
15, 1934, "by Administrative Order 2-21. The Committee was brought to-
gether at the meeting of September 6, 1934.) (This subject is set forth
in detail under previous title.)
Meeting of September 6, 1934.
- Present: Messrs. John B. Woodward and James Swan for Industry,
Arthur 0. Wharton (Chairman), and* Joseph S. McDonagh and William A.
Calvin for Labor, and A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary. Also present
were Colonel ViT. W. Rose, Deputy Administrator, H. Newton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, and Captain Henry Williams (CC) U.S. 21.
Order 2-21, August 15, 1935, read; Letter from C. C. Knerr, Se-
cretary-Treasurer of the Code Authority, requesting the return of an^r
money left in the petty cash fund as of Augast 15, 1934, was read. Exe-
cutive Secretary, A. J. Doyle rea^-oointed.
"Plan for Adjustment," dated August 28 received from H. NevTton
W'iittelsey, Assistant DeT3iity Administrator, with letter. It was stu-
died and discussed, and compared with "Plan of June 21, 1934." "Plan
of August 28" read article by article, some modif ic§.tions made and
adopted by the Labor members, Industry members not voting, as they
considered they lacked authority from Industry. Secretary directed
to draw new plan from "Plan of August 28" as modified, which was hnown
as "Plan of September 6." (This subject is set forth in detail under
the previous title)
Committee authorized a Budget of $25,000 to be submitted to I^.R.A.
(Ko attempt made to do other business, during the four hours of the
meeting^i .
9732
Meeting of November 7th
Those present v/ere John B. 7/ooclw;;.rd and James Sv-'pn for Industry;
Arthur 0. T/haxton (Chair-aan) fnd; Joseph S. I cDona.'^h for Labrr; A. J.
Doyle, Executive Socrjtr.r-/, find Captain H^.nry Williams, U. S. U. , and
H. ilewton Whittelse'"", Assistant De-'Utv Administrator, for S.l.A.
Comroitteo revised and adopted nov.' s 't of By-Laws, Conraittee ap-
proved changes in Flan for Adjust-aent r!.coni.ionded b^ national .Recovery
Administration. ComiTiittee noted reruost of 'I.E. A. for recommendation
on designer, mold loftraan exccT)tion which had been requested bv the
Industry. Committee voted to send L'r. r'cDona.r^h a.nd 'Executive Secreta-
r;'' to the yards concerned to determine coiiditions and whether such an
exem-^tion was warranted.' Code cora-jls.int against Moore Dry Dock of
San Francisco passed tam.porarily in view, of inability to secure further
details from complainant. Appointment of John J. Lane as Special As-
sistant.
Miscellaneous complaints against Newport News Company of date
February, 1934, Mr. Calvin, origina.l complainant, in view of age of
complaints, agreed that alleged conditions might not now exist and re-
quested opportunity to check. Complaints therefore passed. Complaint
against Great Lakes Engineering lYorks re working oower hour firemen
and oilers 84 ho'irs per week. Company adiaitted, but stated that all
such emploj^ees sr^laried men and therefore not londer the Code. This
claim apparently correct, using strict interpretation of the Code, and
Com:.iittee powerless to act. Reconi.iendation to ?T.R.A., however, that
this situation and others IVre it bo given immediate considerstion a^nd
that the Code be so revised and a.niended as to eliminate the possi'&ility
of such excessive hours.
,"L.. M. Hills, Internationa,l Brot'iierhood of Boiler Makers, Wev/ Or-
leans, charged Warren Johnson wifn abuse of his office as Area Chair-
man. Passed for f^orther consideration. New York Marine Workers \Iq~
tal Trades District Co'ijicil' s request for collective bargaining. Se-
cretary instructed to take uo with all concerned. Gulf Coast collective
TDargaining requests. Secretary also instructed to take up with all
concerned.
December 13, 1934.
Those present were Lawrence Y. Spear, John B. Woodward, and James
Swan for Industry; Arthior 0. 'Wharton ( Chairman ">, Joseph S. i.cDonagh
and William A. Calvin for Labor; A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary, John
Lane, S-oecial Assistant; H. Hewton Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy Admi-
nistrator, for IT.R.A,
Heport of sub-committee on desi.gner, mold loftman exception. Com-
raittee recommended to 1^1. R. A. denial of blanket extensio'n, but approval
where exceptions are justified, the burden of proof in such cases to 'be
placed on the emolover. II. R. A. having requested recommendation on
Industry's petition for testing installations exemption. Committee rec-
cojnmended 60 day extension of present stay. Compliance Division, b3'-
letter, called attention to inadequacy of present Code. Committee
noted. Chairman of Code Authority fijrnished copy in order that a
9732
-578-
revision of Code might be hastened.
Code violations against Charleston Dry Dock CcraiDany, excecdii"-g
\7eelcly maximum without authority in order to comolete contract. Recom-
rae:idaticn ^lade to Com-oliance that Com-oany "oay all emplo'^'^ees worked over-
time, time and one-half for all hours in excess of 36, such -oay-ient to
"be made "before Januar^A .,1st, 1935, a.nd such an adjustment to close the
case. Request of Charleston Dry Dock Con-any for exemotion frora maai-
mwn hour provisions of the Code for welders. In view of all circum-
stances in case, and fact that Com 'any had exceeded maximum hour^ with-
out authority, recommendation made to H.R.'l. that exemotion be denied.
Code complaint against Todc. of Alabpma. Treviously sent to Cora-
pliance and that body hpd case almost ready for final disposition. Code
Authority, by letter to Mr. Swan, requested Committee to get it back.
This request denied. In connection with comiDlaint in G-ulf Coast District,
• iessrs. Swan, Calvin, and Lane appointed sub-committee to -oroceed there
and make adjustments if possible. Comolaint against three com-oriiies in
Portland, Oregon, for not having paid 40 hours for 36 hoiirs work, passed
for further information.
Petition of Mills for removal of Vi'arren Johnson denied in viev; of
fe^ct that this Committee has no authority in -Dremises. Code com-olaint
against Lykes Bros. - Ripley. Company states not under Shiobuilding
Code. Voted to ask interpretation of IT.R.A, Industrial Union asks
election at Electric Boat. Voted to request statement of representation
from £ill parties concerned. On Ilew York Ivlarine Workers' request, voted
to advise Bennett, president, Committee v/ould be glad to hear him.
January 24th Meeting
Those loresent were John B. Woodward and Joseph W. Hart for Indus-
try; Arthur 0. Vrharton (Chairman\ Willia::! A. Calvin and Jose^Dh S.
ilcDonagh for Labor; A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary, John Lc.ne, S;oe-
cial Assistant, and Captain Henry Willicms, U.S.N. , and H. Newton
Whittelsey, Assistant Deouty Administrator, for IT.R.A. Representing
the i.Iarine Workers Trade Council Herbert Bennett, President, and eight
re"oresentatives .
Bennett, New York i.Ietal Trades, and officers of his Council, given -
hearing by Conmittee on their reouest for collective bo.rgaining with
firms in tha.t Port. Unanimous resolution nassed directing firi.is to meet
him for purposes of collective bargaining, resolution being based on the
uj.i6.er standing that if a meeting with Mr. Bennett devcloned any facts,
the Committee's services would be available. Renuest of Industr^' for
emergency vifork exem"otion noted. Coiaolaint of International Brotherhood
cf Boiler Makers against Todd of New York, for formation of Comiany
Union. Apioroved that it be ps.ssed in view of CoKimittr-u' s Actic:^ in
whole New York area.
Resolution def ini :g eiaergencv work ariroved, and recommendation
made that same be granted Industry. Tenoorar^/- sub-com-iittee of ilcDonagh
and Ha,rt appointed to handle emergency matters between meetings. Com-
plaint noted that United Desic'^^a had jlaced men on 4'"i hour salary basis.
9732
Passed to await reioly of resDondent. 3.e; solution on service of i;r. Jaines
Sv/ai, whose resignation became effective.
K.H.A. having advisjed tint Lyices Bros. - Rir)ley SteoinSh'io Comoaiiy
cpjae ■under Shipbuilding Code in certain of its work, resolution passed'
requesting this Cora-oanj'- to maJce certain adjustments. International
Brotherhood of Boiler Makers against Defoe, of Bay City, i ichigcn, for
for-aation of Company Union. In viev; of Comoany being closed dovai, no
action could be talcen.
Meeting of March 1st in Hew York City
Those present vera Lawrence Y. Spear, John B. 'VJoodward and Joseph
W. Hart for Industry; Arthru 0. Wharton (Chair.nan\ Jose-^h S. McDonagh
and William A. Calvin for Labor; A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary and
John Lane, Special Assistant.
For purpose of hearing all oarties in iiarine Workers Metal Trades
District Council case. Upon coirmletion of this hearing, Committee cori-
. sidered request of N.R.A. for recommendation in connection with tiue
and one-half for overtime after v^eekly narciraum hours. Labor members
recorded themselves as in favor of siich overtime, Industry Tnembers re-
solved against it.
Extension of Section 3 (c) for certain Shipbuilding Com'ocnies on
1934 naval program aporoved, not to exceed 44 hours, Labor mem.bers' ap-
•Drcval being based on the understanding that not less than time and one-
half being paid for all hours in excess of 36. I'.r . Gibbs of United
Design De-oartment, 45 Broadway, was interviewed by Comraittee in connection
with comnlaint against his Company for placing emoloyees on weekly sa-
lary basis. No immediate action tal:en.
Meeting of March 8th
Those present were Lawrence Y. Spear and Joseph W. Hart for In-
dustrj''; Arthur 0. Wharton (G-iairman\ Joseph W. McDonagh and YiTilliam A.
Calvin for Labor; A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretary; John Lane, Special
Assistant; James Swan, Ex-L'ember; Cr.ptain Henrv Williams, U.S.H. and
H. ITewton Whittelsev, Assistant De'outy Administrator.
Committee ap-oroved and forv/arded to I\:R.A. forms to be subinitted
by Industry where testing and emergencj'' exefmotions utilized. G-ulf Coast
sub-ccniiiittee reported. Discriminator''' discharge of one Quibbedeaux
by Todd Galveston Dry Dock Company considered. Company requested to
return Q,uibbedea''jx to work and jjay him such coraoensation as he had lost
'bj reason of his unemployment. Discriminatory discharge of J.T. John-
son by same Company. Evidence not conclusive. Comoany requested to c6-
operate with Committee by giving further consideration to this case.
Complaint that certain emoloyees cf this Company were not recei-
ving a fair proportion of work handled. Resolution passed requesting
CoH9?,ny to remedy this. Another cor.olaint of discri-ainatorj?- discharge
denied in view of fact it aooeared this employee had vcluitarily left
service. Hew Orleans - Complaint that for many years previous to Code
9732
^so-
double time for overtime had been paid in this port but that shortly
before Code time and one-half custom established. Committee voted inter-
pretation be requested of U.R.A. on the basis of all the facts loncovered
by the sub-committee. ,
Mobile - Complaint noted a.5ainst Alabama Dry Dock because of tv/o
rates of pay for mechanics. Company requested to cooperate by abolish-
ing maintenance rate. Complaint that Alabama Dry Dock does not recog-
nize New Year's Day as holiday. Company requested to cooperate with
Committee by establishing this day as holiday. Complaints against both
Todd and Alabama Dry Dock re application of calendar day in their work.
Voted to advise II. R. A. thereof and request that remedial action be taken
in order that employees might not be worked excessive hours under the
term "day" without overtime.
Complaint that certain firms on G-ulf Coast refused to meet repre-
sentatives of employees. Secretary directed to prepare from letter
which might be utilized as a first step. Code Authority's protest
against submission of emergency work reports to this Committee. Com-
mittee unanimously voted this a proper procedure. Gulf Coast stenographic
bills approved. Industrial Union's request for election at Electric
Boat denied in view of its failure to cooperate with Committee by fur-
nishing statement of strength o'r even acknowledging Committee's letter.
Industrial Union's request for election at Bethlehem of San Francisco
noted, and Secretary directed to secure further information.
Wehner, complainant against Lykes Bros.-Hipley, of Galveston, ad-
vises that adjustm:ent has been made with him and thanks Committee for
its assistance. Complaint of Machinists and Boiler Makers against
Dravo of Pittsburgh for violation of Section 7 (a). Ho adjustment
possible by correspondence, sub-committee of McDonagh, Hart and Lane,
directed to proceed to Pittsburgh to handle situation. In connection
with threatened Camden strike. Committee considered protest of Copper-
smiths Union of Philadelphia and Vicinity against Industrial Union
action for them.
Meeting of April 23rd
Those present were Lawrence Y. Spear, John B. Woodward and Joseph
W. Hart for Industry; Arthur 0. Wharton (Chairman) and William A. Calvin
for Labor, and Captain Henry Williams, U.S.H., and H. Newton Whittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, for II. R. A .
Prior to this meeting, Chairman, at request of N.R.A. , had appointed
Messrs. Hart and Lane to proceed to Camden in connection with threatened
strike at New York Ship. Form letter approved where meetings requested
between employers and employees. New York Marine Workers Metal Trades
District Council - Com-^ittee offered its services to Companies in Port
of New York, in order that the truth or falsity of Bennett's claims of
representation m.ight be established. Report received from Camden sub-
committee. Voted to add Mr. Calvin to the sub-committee and that it
should return to Camden immediately, to use its good- offices in averting
strike.
9732
-SSI-
Alleged discriminatory discharge of Quibedeaux against Todd Galveston
Dry Dock - Company having ;refused to make adjustment. Secretary directed
to refer entire record to Compliance Division. San Pedro Painters and
Scalers strike. Bethlehem Company and Los Angeles Company advised no
members of this union in their employ. Four other smaller shops concerned.
Labor Department advised men had returned to w ork. Secretary advised to
confirm this and close case, ; ■ •
Industrial Union's request for election at San Francisco plants of
Bethlehem. Full information having previously been .sectored, Committee,
in vioT of all circumstances, denied request. Seven complaints against
St. Louis Car Company for excessive ^ hours and improper rate of compen-
sation. Proper rage adjustvnents haying been determined, Company requested
to adjust complaints by such payment. Complaint received by Gulf Coast
sub-comn^ittee that Ingalls Iron Works, of Birmingham, performed work
under other than the Shipbuilding Code. That Company advised that such
was not the case. The Complainant, Alabama Dry Dock Company, notified
and called upon for any further facts which'.TOuld assist the Committee.
He^uest m.ade of Alabama Dry Dock that it recognize Nev? Year's Day
as a holiday in its plants and thus elimiinate certain labor complaints.
This Company also requested to abolish its maintenance rate of pay, it
being alleged that such rate was Utilized ' for production work. Company
refusing, interpretation requested of II. R. A. as to whether it constituted
Code violation. United, Design Department called upon for final state-
ment before Com.mittee acted upon complaint againsfit. ■• -
As. a.. summary, I might say that in all 42 complaints of Code viola-
tion were received. In addition, 14 complaints 'were" received which '
alleged violation of Section 7 (a). Miscellaneous matters presented to
the Committee numbered 9.
3,-. ?|c s(e 3*( >!.;*;■.* ^ s;, >.- s(< sic >|e jJE ;+: sjc ^ jji jj< jl; 5fc »|e
Schedules .of Complaints, etc. ' . ,
There follows hereafter schedules; (l) Complaints based on wage and
hour provisions of the Code; (2) Complaints based on Section 7 (a); (3)
Request for recommendations and action of the Committee. These are copied
direct froni the journals of 'the Industrial Relations Committee.. . (Ref .
Industrial Relations Committee Files, front second drawer)
J
1
9732
zzu
\r\
o
o
o
o
n
W
I— I
>
O
o
p
pq
en
:^
l-H
<^
o
o
+=
^_
r<^
0)
0
r^
«
£)
iH
•
OJ
-^
^
•ri
i^
•
m
«H
o
■H
J-
^-t
_-j.
4^
,-J-
+=
S
rH
Q)
^
^
^-
+:>
^J-
r^
K^
r^
4=
u
c-3
o
-H
<U
r^
t~r-
r^
t,"
l^'
^-^^
Cj
o
+2
e5
-|J
cr
CT-
0"^+=
CT
bO
CCj
to
4^
4^
-p
4^
rH
r-\
r<
CD
r-i
rH
rH
H
m
l+H
ri
•zi
0
•H
^ •
^^^
— -^
•d
c3
0
o
^
r3
A
f^ "-i
•
CVJ
CM
OJ
•
•
•
E
o
1
'^
r^
1^
K"
u o
K
rH
<-\
<-^
H^
4^
o
b!
4=
u
^
O
rH
r-\
1 — i
CD O
rH
a
ri
o
ri
cn
fiO
CO o
o
+^ M
EH
EH
EH
CD
CD
■H
p)
rj
M ts
•
•
•
a
•
CO
CO
CO
s
G
fH
4J
•ra
m 1)
in
o
o
o
•H U
O
g
%
pq
H^
4^
o
CD
T=l
•
C
w
w
W
CD
PI
[3
m
cn
Vh
CD
oJ
o
1
."S CD
o
H
B
a
fH >
Pi
01.
CJP
a
^
•^
e
o
1
•H
O 1)
W
P-!,---
CD
Ti
+2
ci)
CS
ci)
=n >::
cp
Ph
rt
Pi
nj
"5
^c:!
o
CD
• '
nJ
S
Jr;^
S
1^
03
o3
Oi
la
rcl
\r\ •
1
C)
rH
1— 1
t-H
1— 1
2 o
hH
■^
^
1
E
c
ro LT^
-p
0)
&H
[IH
EH
EH
g
'M
<«
CD
— .1^
o
Ph
p^i
M
W
\A
Esi
o
u
o
•
E
r^-^
CO
!»
rt
w
H
pt^
+^
H
4J
r'
E
Csi CM
r-i
rH
tH
r-\
O Cti
©
CS
©
in
tfl
ri
E
o
^.-..^-^.^
~riU
*
03
+J +i
w
CO
CD
o
V ^ ir^
rH
•H
R
S
g
U> fH
R
a
g
S
@
0
r^
i
1
CD
o
CD
o
E
CD
o
PI
CD
^1
&j3 •
CD
cn
CD
05
pj
+^
E-i
ti^
EH
r^ a
Eh
EH
EH
EH
EH
EH
t^
^
o
o
W)
CD
EH
ri 4^
03
03
<H
m
CO
CO
CO
^-, !H
CO
CO
CO
CO
02
CO
B
ei
in
fH
p
Jh
CO
•
•H O
O
O
?!
t-1
&
fD
rH CD
H
t)
|o
&■
1^
D
[5
P
Ph
c^
o
.■-D
E
4J rH
^1
-a
H-D
1-3
t-D
r-{ -P
>-j
f-i
i-s
EH
EH
EH
'rH
tn
•-D
E
O
CD
CD
O
C
n
%
C5
TH
S!
q
%
^
Q
^
s
^
Ph
HH
9
o
o
0 >.
E ,£2
O
CO
CD
CO
*• ••
• •
•
• • ••
t)0
«•
M
• •
bO
•• ••
••
• •
• •
• •
• •
• c
rH
• •
• •
CVJ
• •
• •
CM
••
• •
CM
• •
• • •(>
.CT-
• •
• •
• •
• •
• • ••
• •
*•
g
^
.
^
OJ
rvj
r-\
r-\
rH
rH
LT-
CM
d o
g
r^
rH
rH
r-l
*-^
^^ —
■- — ^
- —
~~^ — ,
r^
~~^~-
O tH
o
CT>
r-^
H
r-\
t-A
r-^
C\J
CVJ
CVJ
OJ
CJ1
r-i
rt
o
rH
• •
o
• • ••
rH
• •
• •
r-K
• *
• •
rH
• •
• •
• •
r-H
• r
CO
H
• •
• •
• •
o
• •
o
«• ••
• •
»•
**
to
, ffl
^
ai
r-\
1-1
rH
rH
r-i'
H
CJ
LO rH
^-^
CM
CM
LT
4^
+=
f-o
-- —
--^^
■--^
•--.^
■~--,
— ^
l-^ ^~-^
^
■-^
*-*^
■cti
;:i
CT
o
rH
rH
o
r-\
r-i
rH
r-i
C/ rH
rH
'."M
CM
r^
1=1
u
rH
iH
•-\
rH
rH
rH
r-'.
rH
r-\
rHJ ^^
'!
"
• •
O
• • ••
LT
rH
ir
IT
L'"
^D
**
o
"
"
**
q
w
r-
OJ
**
U3
c"
**
h^
ir-
CD
rd
^ H
CM
H
^-.^
-~ — .
r-\
^- —
■^~^
CM
rH
H
t — i
rvi
LT
1—1
r^'
ai
CM
OJ
CM
•P
o
r^ -->
~^-^
r^
rH
-^ — ,
r-{
rH
r-i
-^^
^^ —
— ^
r^
^ — ,
*-^
^ — .
■~-H
**^
c5
(D
o^ <-{
,^
O
<-{
o
rH
rH
rH
r-\
CM
OJ
cv
H
cr
rH
r-i
r-i
CM
CM
ru
• •
• • ••
CD
rH
• •
cn
•• ••
(A
o
• «
S4
r-i
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
0)
r-\
••
rH
£1
rH
• •
CD
CJ
«•
« •
«•
• • ••
••
••
(4
p!
03
M
o
tH
o
s::;
CD
o
o
ri
m
o
CD
<
+^
d
J_3
o
l+H
^1
rr
o
CD
■ri
Vl
Pi
rH
jj;
m
Oj
en
4J
o
r-\
<A
K
Ti
ri'
0
t
r:
o
•
U
(D
r-\
(D
Cfl
tr
<A
CH
•H
r-r
o
rt
O
n^
>
M
,>>
0
a
V)
<-\
•J
>
t^
EH
•
o
rH
"oj
rH
>
Ph
o
03
O
^i
t:
Fh
'iri
E5
03
O
cj
,— '
«■
^
CJ
z=
u
O
•
«
•
W
QJ
IS,
a
cis 03
I---
•4
o
Crq;
^••H
O
+3
tz
S
l;^
<lj
^=5
o
•■
!CJ3
p]
^
i-q
o
t-5
U
m
^
i_d
1— 1
»
V-;
c/:i
..>
W
•
tl'
^
PI
*
m
s'
«3i
..
EH
rt pql
p:;'
...
^^
;>^
^i
%
M
EH
■
UJ
M
1^
o
H^
n
CO
p< ,r2,,p
Fm
M
!-'| H
m
!-H
F-i
c/a
M
•
r-q
^
Es;
^.
>
•
h3
.-1
1-7,
> ^
O
E'l
K
t>
pq
k A
M
3
n
v^
pq Khr-i
i3
^
'-3
CO
H-j
' 'i
O
3
1 H
o
•
o
M
n .Ml
i-i
F6
f,-l
•
Cj
•
t
*^'t
•
M
o
P
Ph
o
o
•
' "*
1-1
r^
C'5
O
H
CD
'co
s
;~i
1^
|h
o
Ph
IH
•
Ph
•
•
0
•
f-i
*
•
in
*
•
1-1
•
n
•
'^l
: T
•^-i
• ,1^1
r^l
1^
'T
o
■'-1
c:!-!
■A
Cj
o
C^
hT
o
CO
A
rn
t=
•
O
•
'■A ' *
•
r^i
o
>
•
:-H
«• »r
o
•
■^
Pi
• • as
• »
• • ••
Pi
• •
« „■ «'
CO
cb
• 0
o
cj
t:
»«
[3
• *
• •
eo
*•
• •
< 0
• ■
• 0
»• ••
Ph
• •
p:i
••
•
i
CD
rH
•
O
o
«
#
c\3
CD
c >
r'H
o
n
(.
i-:i
sr
ca
CD
CD
t:^
CJ
•
CO
k 1
+i
a
.:)
Pi
^l
•
^
"S
CO
•H
f;
•
Q
oS
o
C:
>a
•
o
o
A
•H
■P
HJ
•
«
CD
P
p
o
o
l-^
t>8
O
r^Cl
Ph
O
•
•
•
EH
w
•
',-i
rt
rH
O
O
CD
o
03
o
CD
fd
X
o
o
o
•^
•
fX
en
P-
.-cl
.iH
f!
fl
S
cj
O
-3
tn
CJ
o
o
M
CO
a
rt
05
•H
^
CO
CO
«
>-,
O
o
g
o
O
w
o
•=^ rt
o
o
^
U
u
<^
ri
Pi
r*"'
u
u
u
tfl
m
I
o
©
CD
H^
R
I— 1
v~\
r-1
!lO
Ph
c^
03
a
O
fe^
m
a
P4
»
n
(^
S
w
•
rH
•H
E-
o
o
o
Ph
QJ
O
^
o
Oi
■H
•H
o
S
rH
CD
W)
ri
CO
•
CD
W
s
^
o
(-H
Ci
th
Xi
<-*
>>
o
CO
+3
a
(^
CD
4^
^
GQ
tn
w
g
»^
CO
p
r-<
o
"cj
rH
+=
•H
4^
pq
PI
o
•H
•H
•ri
+^
^A
m
Pi
,o3
rt
cj
w
O
CD
^
Ph
t)-l
■3i
rd
pi
f^
p!
ffl
ci
CD
f-:
E^
ct3
_
-cJ
o
b
o
o
o
4J
CD
s^
CT
CD
r-l
CD
03
&
V.
W
'D
•
I-:?
PI
1^
p
ru
Th
■H
CD
U
CD
CD
li
rH
r:;
rH
•H
'-'
^'
-1-=
ri
t!
&
OJ
fn
Jh
I- J
o
E"
■c^
03
E
r-\
^Q
&
T)
•H
ri
'^
•
•
•
o
?H
,5
03
■>:
o
G
O
o
^ o
■H
rH
•H
C
CD
o
.+■■'
4^
4J
• • ••
• •
.. s
ci
• •
• •
"?.
• •
^
■A
<^
tt
o
o
• b
B«
• •
««
• •
p.;
6 J
Pi
^^
• •
• • Al-
CO
« •
CO
CO
O
rH
C\J
r^
^
ir>
UD
r—
CX)
o>
o
r-l
CM
r^
,
_-^
LO 1
CO
rH
I--
r.o
CT>
o
^
■^
1
rH
rH
rH
H
1
1 — '
rH
1
rH
H
rH
I'M
22<L6
^
•
^
1
•
+=
^-^
•
m-i
0
CD
^ J
•
'd
(D
(D
G
s
C."'
t
Vi
li
■ci
^M
^
0
I
(P
rH
e
r-
pi
0
0
to 0
!>5
<D
e •
^
•H
0
0
0
r-!
0
]
0
■'i
d
F-i
0 0
02
tH
0
0
+5
0
•
4=
?4
,'h to
45 (D
5J
1.
0 to
rH
CD
''i
•^
•
CD
',■'.
;~^
ri
V
4-3
rH
<X) 0
■H
Q)
H--'
p.;
6
•H
•in
rH
S^J CJ
'-■^
p
X\ ^c!
tl
-|J
•iH
'm
c.
t.
' 1
r>
0 fH
Th
0
T)
4^
4J
S oJ
r ,
r-(
T-i
r-i
't:
6
CD
fH
e 0
O
■H
'M
g.
0
f-i
• : 0
4^
4J
'd
■H C
>:
0
0
»..,
f? t
0
4=
g
« c\;
^(
CO
H^
1 — ;
6
•
0
•H 4^
>=
t- i
CO rd
r^
O
cti
0
c:-
rO
0
0
0
r^t
rH
'H
d (D
OQ "b
O
S s^
g'
0
•H
0)
0
g^
•H
•
C' rH
S 0)
0
0
rH
Fh
0
•
J-l
to
•H
cn
>1-H
0
CD
•H
■H
0
■d
•H
Cb
CD
fH :^
5i
C
rH +3
fH
0
0
<M
4J
CD
fH >
rH
f.
CD Cn
i: <u
o
^ p3
ElO
•H
C
I^H
•H
d
0 CT*
0
0
^:^
•H
CD Td
S
4J
0
0
•
0
=)H .i:^
r-.
U (D
4J
0) c!
■H
d
0
ID
0
•H
■d
f^i
0 m
^i:
& CD
m
Q)
•
Pi
CO
4^
'd ftH
(D
d
Ph
w
rH
r •
0
«k
0
td
CD
fH
(DO.
X
p
•
+=
O
U B 'ti
tH
c
^
0
!H
0
^' >•
CO
T^J C(-H
o
rt
CD 0 (D
CD
0
0
P
CO 0) rH
cd
CD
»
•
•
•
*
ID rH
cd
K)
CO
to
4^ 0 43
^1
•H
C(-l
0
',2;
>^
P
cti 0 p
e
w
UD
ivJ3
VjJ
UD
CO CD
«H
rH
rH
rH
r-^
Ch (D .H
4=
4^
4^
U
CC
•H CD
• H
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
■H CO
a
-1!=
*
=*=
C^ fH Cti
•
r
^
0
<i; 4^ jh
4^
' lU
^-It=
H|-
^H*
> s
rH
•H
r-:
0
■d
P*
4J
•
4^
>:
•
P4 tJ
■d -H •
rH
^1
0)
CD
<D
0) (D cti
0
P!
0
C
R
r^'
r-i
0
Jh
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
cd ^ 0
,1!
-P
0)
CT
w
S ■ri
0 0
^C-
«
M
■H
t!
r 1
u ',-;
ir^
0)
CQ
CO
CO
CO
02
H
«H
0:1
cti
Ct
cti
•H a r--~.
10,
■■; 0
U
FH
rH
ClJ
bH
LCA Ph
K^
t>
Cd
cd
Cj
Cd
Cd
S 4= EH
cd fl 0
;ri
0
0
0
■!J n 0
r^^
n Pi
CO
M
•H
>
UJ
r^i
0
0
0
0
0
0
fn
-S
S4 -H
0 c3
4^
(-1
r^
0
a)
^^
^- — a c
K^,
M .H M
O
fi
CD
CD
0)
1' 'd rH
;^ — .
t) -H
0
0
•-D •
s
to - >,
rH
U
CD
CD
0
CD
(D
fn a' t-3
Cm
HH
CD
(D
(D
> c-j 0
-^^
CD rH
r'
•H
n ■d
0
CD
n
-^ 0 &
0
0)
CD
CD
0)
CD
5 '"< 9
^-^
'
Ul
C/2
t/D
0 ^; P
LC-.
rl S
fin
4:>
■aj CD
0
rO
."?.
!r\ cL"! p
To'^'
CO
CO
to
CO
CO
>^, "
•
"
"
'*
"
*■
**
**
> •'«
■''
Tj ;h
^
LOf
CS o
B
r^
0) Vl
0
CT
Pi
0
rH
• • ••
• •
• •> ••
• •
>•
• •
• • ••
••
•t
• • ••
• •
«•
••
9*- ••. •.♦
• •,
"t
• «
• •
• ■
• •
• •
CD
IT
LT
LP
tr
-p
4^
l^~
rj
ri
O'
|V-
r^
7^
f-"l
0
rH
• • ••
"
• • WW]
■^
vo
h-
^
• ■ ••
••
*'
#• ••
"
"
"
•^
*■'•
ir
"
^'^
h"
CKI
0
CD
t:)
LT
OJ
C\J
OJ
rH
^■",
N-,
I
I
I
1
I
rH
rH
H
rH
<x
1^^
+^
0
h~
--^
-'-.^
■ — ^
^^
^
CD
O"
OJ
0:
OJ
OJ
r-i
rH
rH
r-i
rH
r-i'
r— 1
OU
K^
fV^
r^
rH
tH~\,
fP
^
rH
..
rH
r-i
rH
EH
CO
Cfl
"
'35
•ri
■ - t
[«
^1
^-^
M
W
^-^
d
Ph
■H
<u
c
fi
n
e
b
•
rr
n
fi
-^
s
r^
E
1-^
>
Erf
0
:z
^
0
^
0
b
0
0
E-i
a
Th
1-a
S
txj
0
Ph
o,
0
•
f-1
S
^
0
*
?-.
{ — )
t
CO
CO
I
4J
Ph
■^
0
Ph,
E^
+3
Q)
<;
^
w
s^
r"
CO
>
1-H
^
C/3
z:
n
H
N
pi
—
P-;
d
M
lg
tH
s
d'
•H
0
0
c!o
F-H
F'H
l53
CO
f:^'
S
(--'
B
0
rH
cd
n
(i.
ffl
ffl
S
0
0
1=3
l~^
^
^
<■;
§
s
v_^
B
0
;2;
^
I A
EH
•
CD
i-:i
0
C/3
W
0
b
to
CO
CO
'-C
3
w
w
tA
^
h
0
K^
tn
(-H
&
^2;
CO
n
n
1^1
M
EH
P
n
0
0
>■
K
C/3
rn
r 1
H
1^
::h
to
•«
O
0
»
1"^
<
f-i
0
0
,i5
K•^
i-H
1-1
'-I
•
>,
["^
1" H
o
.— .
' ^^
b
!-l
H
i-j
1 -t
CJ
0
0
1
n
?^,
•=1!
•
n
»
r ''
•
•
hi
1 "l
i-T
•
rn
Ci
•^
^
1
••
EH
•
1-3
(-)
l"^'
f^
•
0
i
M
, 1
Th
•
0
•
•
•
Ci
«
_)
N
i-i
!3
t--l
p
•• ••
• »
• • ••
••
1^
• • ••
>-7,
• •
• •
• • ••
• •
• •
F-1
?. .. ..
••
• •
••
Ci)
••
0
• •
■
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
«
0
0
0
0
•
U
■n
0
0
.
m
»
•
•
0
0
to
P
c
•
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
■H
•H
CO
to
EH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
^
^
0
0
•"ti
'd
4J
+=
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ci
<*
0
0
S
a
Ci
S
c
fl
0
0
cd
f-H
fH
rW
p!
O
!h
^
^<
0
0
0
0
0
ri
0
t:
r4
EH
EH
'S
t:!
Ph
^^
Cd
ct;
Rj
4^
4J
H-:*
4^
4^
p'
Cd
0
0
•H
o
0
c:>
0
CO
GQ
(/J
tn
CO
,^;
>i
^
0
0
0
rH
fH
^
Ph
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
u
u
c^
•H
■H
Ph
Ph
c/3
to
10
CO
ca
>
>
i>
l>
>
( 1
n
,—1
CO
4J
4^
t
•
^
•H
*H
•H
H
r-!
r-i
rH
r-f
-=3;
■ H
n
D
H-5
4^
k>J
:=!
^
;=i
Cl
oj
a
rj
,CC
cS
nJ
d
Cb
cj
0
(D
Ti
0
0
0
ci
e>
C!)
Ci
C!)
E
t\j
0
rH
rH
Pi
Ph
0
1-^
i-q
H^l
&
CV?
l-^
4^
4->
t
•
>-i
■^i
'd
-d
-d
nd
rO
-Q
-d
■=ll
^-r;
g
C!
•
•
•
'xi
r^
T.^
-d
-d
Ci .
'd
•
•
•
a
^
-p
4^
4^
0
0
0
0
0
H
rH
0
4^
0
,5
(D
q
CD
•• ••
• •
CO
• • ••
CO
• •
• •
EH
E-i
• •
• • ••
E(
• •
• •
EH
• • ••
e-i
• fe
*•
• •
!^ ,.
El
• •
CO
• •
• •
• •
Ph
• •
Ph
• *
S
K
P
rH
OJ
(sr>
-+
LT.
VO
r--
CO
cr
0
rH
OJ
r^
^
fC-
^
[.
f^i
C\J
OJ
CVJ
CJ
CM
00
0.'
00
OJ
.-^
1-^
r-^
K".
r^^
(^
fv-.
r^
-23£-
22^6
o
o
o
w
o
l-H
w
I— I
>
o
w
H
<^
O
o
•
p:
>
W O
>J
•
L rH
-p -H
rH
f!
S P
O -4^
rH fi
• O
-P
O CD
CC EC
■H O
CD -H
S
o u
=H Pi Pi
-P
^d -P
CD
CD
'J CD
p: tH
O C'j
■"d
p!
^ o
i-d -P P
ri o
O !'j'
<zj
•H
■p >^
PI -P O
0)
■ H
o
!«
•H
CG CD O
. ^
O -P
ft
f!:; •
rH O
'd 0)
-P m
m
CD
-p
-P
o ^
a)
CD
p!
CD Pi
Pi >•, Pi
•H Pi O
CD -P
-p >
rt
g
-P CD
!h
u a
•H
ct i_;
Ct O CfH
w
-P
CD .H
-P
•
Pi 4J
rH -P
M
-P Pi
•1-3
•
c
>-
CD m
ft tv^ W
s
O CD
^ fH
-p
O
iH'
ft pi
S -H PI
<^
^ a
fi (D
p;
o
ft
O •?=:
O rH -H
^
cn ^
o
CD
o 'd
O -H X
pT-T
^^Td
-p
Pi
o
Ph
O cti
O cn
pq
rH CD
tJ Pi
CS
-p
CO Pi CC
ft r-H »
CD ;d
ft
o
o K
-p pT
p) O
CD !n sH
•H ft
ft-d
J^
o O >-,
MOO
C
n3
CD
■H
E g
a -H
CD t)-(
^
TIJ M
W Jl^ -P
-d o
p;
o-j
c
CD tu
rt CD p
O rH H
- q o
o
r::
p:
.y E
-p -^ nS
+3 m
•H
o
ui
PI rCl O
!=:
fi tn
-P
oC;
■H
TO f^
Cti Cti O
CD CD
CD CD
Cti
•P
rQ
Pi
-d • rH
nd O
rH
TJ
cti
^0>
to o o
s ir^ ,o
P! O
o
(D
Pi
•H -H -P
O tv~\ .H
O Pi
•H
C«
CD
a? CD
^ -P
Ph~~~-. '.'^
Pi P
l>
•H
P
ft +^
-p ta -p
W LOi tfl
cn
>
o
e -p
CD p!
CD --^ O
CD .p;
o
tJ
o
O -H
CO pi CD
rt^ P
rt H
'^
Cli
o
O E
;ij C' CO
>i
•
■& u
E
c6 O
!-"-•
Q) tfH
o
o
4J
-p
Co
?!
*
r-.
o
*
to
U5
r^
k6
^
0)
rd
^^ — ^
-^^
cv
r-i
-p
o
^
ur\
■-^^
LO
nj
CD
^
L^.
n
^H
S
o
CO
\=4
o
E^
w
<
■^
M
1— 1
Is;
1— 1
CO
n
rt
I— t
CJ
■<
o
o
o
g
1
1
1^
t3
N
g
P
O
r1
CO
o
pq
o
-1
-~l
M
o
rt
H
' -?
I- .
'■^
r-H
o
p
.— H
n
o
I'j
f^
•-D
tH'
•
O
^
^
•
o
o
o
%
cd
cti
ft
ft
•
^
e
S
e
ft
EH
Pi
o
D
0)
"^
■H
<
o
O
Pi
g
-d
rH
p;
Pi
Pj
o8
^
■H
a
a
td
O
pi
>
O
o
•
FM
rCl
n
CO
ft
•
CO
tn
•
^
•H
>
•H
pi
•H
pi
fi
CO
CD
o
1-^
O
m
P!
W)
d
•iH
^^
Pi
•
o
,a
CD
0
+J
•P
O
m
>-:>
ro
CO •
Ph
H
•
..
CO
p
CO
(T\
o
>H
rj
■<
r— *
K^
K>
J-
^
^t
o
1
c^.l
•^82-
seiG
~St
82^5
O
n
E-i
O
CO
EH
h
o
o
t:!
(D
>
•H
(D
O
fi Q)
CD fn
S
fH
t(H a>
o >
0
m
0) >;
S rH
cti P-
C 0)
fH
u
o o
tH ^
id •
CD -P
(73
^ CO
C\3 -rH
3
cti
^
C! tl
§
O cti
•H
p! 'Ci
lb CD
+J
rH Ct!
cS CJ
•H -H
fH E
•P -H
to Jh
pi O
•Q V)
C -H
HH -CJ
Ln
^-^
(D
•^-..^^
-P -4^
CJ
ci5 ;:!
R o
To
•
LO
Q) t:)
I^
+J O
-~ — _
Oj <D
O
R U
t•'-^
5^
rt
EH
o
1
•H
1-J
M
<
^
I— 1
i-T
cl
(^t
•H
r-l
O
4J
o
t,^
n
■•o
rt
1-H
EH
rg
w
n
cn
^g
g
o
a)
FM
!2;
CO
s
+3
O
&
CD
t- ■-•
f^-t
id
rH
c3 ^
^
<U
+3
+3
•H
^
g
O
O
w
m
Pi
CD
o
CD
•H
-P
■P
-P
crt
•H
H
H
O
t^:
P\
O
(_>
rJ CO
•H rf
Ph o
^-3
H
rt
CD
n
P--I
I
rH
nl
CD
•H
rH
Ph
•H
-P
tH
M
:D
I
Ti
rt
■P
H
n)
Cl)
1
.d
CO
•
Ul
H
CD
•H
-P
CTJ
■P
C
0)
•H
ai
e
o
'<D
Cl)
CD
CO
C/J
*
*
*
-98t
*
*
*
:n
C/J
(D
CD
CD
CD
r!
pJ
H-
m
s
r+
0
■0
Tt
H-
(!)
M
M
W
1
'P-
CD
1-4
Q
3
c+
P*
0
1
CI
c+
1-t)
l-J
H-
H-
M
^
CD
I-)
W
3
tn
-^
M
fi
P
to
c+
c+
H-
^i
O
H-
t"!
''.J
M
M
O
td
O
m
pi
.J
P
H-
c+
c1-
H-
c+
O
Cf
3
CD
cn
m
o
H-
o
1--'
B
CD
;^
H-
c+
<r+-
CD
CD
9732
-387-
V
r
r
r
V
t'
r
t'
T
0
v->
C3
CT^
'^■n
P-
^_kJ
IVi
\-'
0 CO
r. .?
' ' ^ ^
O
H- o
D5
"i ^
^4 c-;- hd
CD CD W
J H- "j
0 " ^
hi)
" bd
CD
" "j
H- H- l-i
c+
y o
X^
^-^ CD
CD H- l-J
3 B CD
H- 3 M
0 P CD
0
0 X
0 X
c+ 3 O
t."
CD «
H-
O ►D
CD 3 o
CD "td lO
4 0^1 c+
3 0>1 .Q
<-i
cl-
0
■^ S
c+ CD <r^
CD
D'
•d
^-^ P
rr CD <-!■
l-i c+ t:J
CD (D
c+ CD fd
P CD
CD
3
CD CD
4
CD fi
C
M CD
JI3 H- CD
tn CD 3
*-i CD
P^
hH 3
cn
^ '5
pj i-s cn
^ M-
r>>
l-lj CO
■ij {u to
CD 0 to
y, to
p i-^ tn
CD
M tn
m
0 ct-
(D et-
O
f:; H-
O c-t-
3 c-b
3 3 ch
}-• 0 }-••
0 p C+-
CO
0 H-
4 H-
ch f-ci
o
\->- Pi
Ld
hj
.3 r-i-
0 ^
l\j 3 0
c1- c+
H-
-^ 0
0
fr 0
O O CD
pj
'd w
M
-f-'
P o
=< F cl-
^n:-i 3
CD 0
r;
3
>-+>
H- 3
fe;
i-J S
CD
3
CD
tJ
!<! O ^1
3 CD
OJ ct-
tn 0
3
^.
3
>»=■
H c+ (D
•
CD t-t,
o
cr^ 3
H- 3 P-
^ p- ;i;
-J h'- l-J
^ P
0
0
1-^ 1-j
h3
3 10 hi
P M
c+
c+ O
g T ^
0 CD 'J
~-- 0 ra
fd 3
3 •
l-i
CD
0
CD
i
p' C':
c+ O
i-J
fi^
t-i l-i 0
^jj 3 ►□
'P
3" ►Q
P-
■4 hO
• cy CD
p
H'
■-: 3^ CO
W l-i
-P' fd
p. 'p.
J
►i F
CD
CD fd
Id CD 3
^
F "^
O
CD cr.
to p
• C3 P
• Uj CD
CD CD
H
to CD
h-J CD
O H- O
P H'
r-'- X
• (-■ '-d
pu'^
fj' CO
hi c+
0
• to
3"
pJ CO
.^J^'^
p. 3
trf
CD H-
1-1, i-j
H- H-
. , ro
hb
'd ch
0
CD c+
O 0>3
O
S CD
o
CD
0
►t) 4
d-
CD
fd
f-J
o o
hi
P
- 3
P -.1
0
3" ct
^ 3
trf
4 'v^
'-i
to ch
o CO <;
n
c+
r/5
Mj H-
S^T
CD
^ M-
g
m
0
g ji; o
EU p
•
►^ o
c+ pj
Q CO
3
^ '-^
•
H-
E3 o- -;J
? "^^
CD H-
hi
t;i "^
CD
•
?r 0
3 P
• 1 1
1 1
3
Cj
t >
• N — y
..t
o
l-H
f:^' Ki
t"j
0
0
Ej
0
**
0
**
o
' ^
!-•
3-
o
0
0
P
0
hJ
^■^ ^^.
*~*
H- c-;
^— ^
f-; CD
'-^ pj
^-^p.
^-—^ (-Ij
ct- n,
X— N r-)j
'"^p
tl
o
p
^CD
9^
^ 0
td CD
^ 0
fe! CD
^ 0
a ►d
It- CD
o
\-'
p en
o
o
0
0
rt
0
t'.'
»i n
O
*-i
hi
L-i O
1-J ', -^
►^ i:3
"^ 3
1— »
i-j r"
hi ct-
CD ::
^ M
O
CD r:
o '":
CD r^
CD 5
0 t::.
CJ 2
CD 0
Hj H-
'-j
. 4
i-b
'r; ^d
l-j H-
h'j H-
I-+) h"-
■-1 p
Hj H-
^ 3
0 CT-
(D
?S§
CD
ct- P
O c+
CD c+
CD c1-
CO 0
CD d-
CD
hd
l-J cf
d
4
• b
•-i c+
l-i ci-
i-i cl-
« 3'
^i ci-
l-i U
fe
i-J CO
03
!^ -,
i-i
H-
f-i CD
H^ CD
^i CD
H-
i-i CD
hi Hj
CD CD
H-
• a
CD
CD
CD CD
CD CD
CD CD
3
CD CD
CD =<:
^
■S-
>-J
o
fi-
to
-£i
fi-
fi-
CD
fi.
P'
CD
03
IV
M
O
o
CD
o
o
3
0
0
•
CD
f
0
0
•
o
cp **
• • •• ••
M
o
•
ro
rv)
M
H
rv)
■-i 0
>^
Tl
O ^M
---^
ro
CD P
***^
fj
• "'''■^^-
I--
M
rv)
■*-— ^
M
0 ch
OJ
•
g"^
cr\
M
■p-
cw
-p:-
Ph CD
V,sl
>.>j
'^
v^
v^
^.^
yj\
>^
>jn
VJ1
■f=-
-pr-
Ui o
>
C/l
ai
" " s
" " '^
•^M
"
*j
W O
o
i-ti
'Td
0
0
bd
o rr;
1-3
t-"
lr<
0
0
1-3
t'"*
c! t:
1-1
l-H
n
g
p
t>^
l-H
M
o
1-3
1^
t .'
i- I
0
1-3
0
@
©
o
Ed W
1^
o
o
Ed
a
l-H
h3
0
Xk
9
o
fe
- I
H
t-3
O
— "
hH
bd
M
td
1-3 n
1-3
I'd
l?d
0
©
JO
t-d
h3
o t;
bd
g
fel
c!
h3
hH
cp
W
Q
?~" '
n
h-1
h_'
1-1
!>
>
®
tTd
^d
g
cp
w rr:
©
1-3
1-3
W
c;3
H O
1— (
n
"r^
h3
a
td
g
C/J K
"-=*
S
O
O
w
1-1
•
^d
W
•
!s!
S
K
^
0
o
W
h3
Q
"Tl
0
•
P
O 01
1-3
©
®
IH
51
•
P
i •<
I— (
'si.
►ts'
^
!>
h-J
\j4
05
• o
cp
H
, gJ
0
K
>^Jsl
»
1-3
W
w
Ch
•
>
<*
* H
^^
1-3
1-3
cn
M
O
o
h- 1
l-H
^
M
M
V,0
:t!
^
!z;
•
VjJ
ch
>vD
'v-nI
* C/3
•
Q
p
^
( j
^>J
-p'
* CJ
ro
^
-pr
•
o
as
^^
s
-p-
h^
h-i
•
W
"
o
o
*•
CO
Id
»
*
*
W
M
•
•
M
r —
HH
*
pH
^r>
'..0
•
0
Hj
'^
M
M
^.J
1-3
o
VJl
^
w
VJl
*
l-H
w
•
•
*
■ 0
H3
*
M
M
*
'^
M
v.O
V--1
'jri
*
*
*
*
•
i
CO
h3
i=d
o
W
o
o
td
hH
g
•—I
CO
«3,3S-
S'oeci'c.l Invostirations .and Acoiang of the -Indxistfial Relations
Commit tee
Deteriaination on P. "J, A. contracts as -orovided. in the resolu-
tion of the llrticnal Lb^oot 3oard
Pu.rsuaj.it to the reanest of Preside;it Franlclin D. Roosevelt that the
national Labor Board study the relationship- between the Havy Yards and
private shipbuilding concerns in regard to wages, hours of employment
and siuilar natters, the Board reported its findings liarch 22, 1934,
In paragraph five of the findings, the follovdng provision was set
forth.-. (Ref. P. 'W. A. folder, De-buty's Tiles) ^ . . ,
"5, That a Board upon which employees and employers are
equally represented be esto^blished to study wage problems
which arise from the estc?blislinent of tlie thirty-six (36)
hour weel: provided for in Sections 1 and 2 hereof, and
that it shall be a, ftuiction of this Board to equalize by
negotiation' an.y unfair competitive inequalization in wage
rates that nay exist as a result of the past application
in the Industry of the vra.ge and hour provisions of the Code
plus the present application of the hours and V7age rates
provided for in Sections 1, 2 and 4 hereof."
* - c '
The Prerident 'acce-oted the repqrt and accordingly instructed the
Directbr"'of the" Publib'Wotit's 'AcUnihlstl-ation'by letfer-oT llaT'ch 27, 1934.
In due course the 'S-oecial Board for Public IJorks, I.iay 9, 1934, passed
the following resolution: (Ref, P. U, A. folder, Deputy's files)
"Be It. Resolved, That. on. all .projects fiAaAced .with
funds allotcd by the Public Works Administration, where
the hours and v.'a:';^r,ates provided for in Bulletin No, 51
are in effect, such hours and ?/age rates shall remain
in effect until J\ily 1, 1934: Provided, That on July 1,
1934 end thereafter the hours of employment on such
projects shall be thirty-six per week or such other
hours per weeJr as may be authorized by the Administrator
for Industrial Recovery under the Code' for the Shipbuilding
and Shiiorepairing InduGtr;r, ■
"Be it Resolved further, That the wage rates on such
projects in private shipyards sha,ll be adjusted by the
aforesaid Industrial Relations Committee, such wage rates
to be determined by that Committee before Jime 15, 1934:
Provided, That in the event the said comnittee fails to
mc'Jce such adjustments shall be made by the National Labor
Board,
"Be it Resolved further, That the wage rates on shipbuilding
and shinrei"0,iring projects in -private shipyards financed
with fionds alloted by the Public Works Administration, where
Public Wor!.:s Adriinistration Bulletin No. 51 has not been
applied shall likewise be determined by the aforesaid Indus-
trial Relations Co.imittee whenever such adj-astment may be
9732
. ■ . -589-.
hereafter adjudged by cuch connittee to be necessary,"
The Industrial Relations Conmittee at meeting of May 16th, 1934,
received the foregoing re;olution and gave it consideration and study.
Again at meeting June 6th, 1934, the Committee proceeded fiirther with
the discussion 'and passed on the folloi-'ing resolution: (Ref,, Minutes,
Industrial. Relations Connittec Files)
"Therefore, be it renolved by recommendation of the
Industrial Relations Conmittee that all existing
contracts i^hich were entered into under the provisions
of P. U, A. Bulletin No. 51, and on vhich the hourly
wage rates prescribed in that Bulletin are in effect,
shall be completed in accordance with the hourly wage
rate provisions thereof, and it is so reoonraended,"
Investi£;ation regarding designers and loftsmen
The Code Authority at the request of iirivate shipyards building
Naval vessels requested an extension of Section 3 (c) of the Code to
permit designers and loftsmen to vjork in excess of the maximum hours
of the Code oh Naval vessels -under construction, A 30 day extension
was granted, Administrative Order 2-24, signed by W. .A, Harriman,
Administrative Officer, based on the reconnendation of the Industrial-
Relations Committee, effective November 5th, 1934, during which 30 days
it was planned to prcoerly investigate thir- subject.
The Industrial Relations Committee for its part passed resolutions
at the meeting of November 8th, 1934,. whereby a sub-conmittec consisting
of J, S, Ivic Donagh, Labor Member, and A. . J. Doyle, Secjretary, were to
proceed to the private shipyards building Naval vessels and malce an in-
vestigation of the actual conditions, (Ref, fiinutes, Industrial Rela-
tions Committee Files) Among the plants visited by this Committee \7ere
the follor-ing:
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Quincy, j.iass.
Electric Boat Company, Groton, Conn.
United Dry Docks, Inc. New York', N. Y.
New York Shipbuilding Corp., Camden, N. J*
, N.e\Tport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Va,
The sub-committee duly reported to the Industrial Relations Committee
at meeting .of Dcccmb.er 13th, 1934, This report is embodied in i.iinutes
of this meeting, (Ref. Minutes, Industrial Relations Committee Files)
f
The Industrial Relations Committee, after discussion of the subject,
passed a resol-o.tion (Ref, page 19, ]Iinutes December 14th, 1934) which,
among other things, recommended that a blanket extension of 3 (c) be not
granted. However, the Committee recognized there was cause for certain
exceptions and set forth a plan calcul!.atea to be- clastic in nature and
well fitted to the Industry,
9732
-3:30-
Investigptions of Comr)laints from the Gulf District
For a consideraole period of tine there wr.s much unrest in the
principal t)orts of the Gulf District, particularly in the repair yards.
The situation had been grooving steadily worse for a year.
The Conrnittee took under consideration at its meeting of November
8, 1934, several of these coraplairlts and on December 13, 1934, passed
the followin;g resolution:
"MOTION: That a sub-coranittee be apiDointed to proceed to
the Gulf Coast District, as soon as' possible, for the
purpose of investigating complaints in that area. That
the sub-committee be instructed to investigate complaints
noted in the agenda for meeting of December 13, 1934,
as "8 (d) New Orleans Overtime rates", "10 (a) Todd of
Ilobile", "10 (b) Alabama Dry Docks"; such other com-
plaints in the area as are pending before the Committee,
and such other matters as may be called to their
attention, initiating from that territory, T7hich the
sub-committee can handle on the same trip."
The Committee a,TDoointed via.s \filliam A. Calvin for Labor, James
Swan for Industry, p.s the sub-committee, and John Lane, Special
Assistant. (Ref. Minutes, Industrial Ftelations Covimittee Files)
•The sub-connittee "oroceeded to the Gulf District January 4, 1935,
arriving in Galveston, Texas, Janua.r;/ 6, 1935, and held a hearing on
three complaints against the Todd Galveston Dry Dock Company, which
had acauired the old Galveston Dry Dock Com-oany business and plant. A
full report was made to the Industrial Relations Committee at meeting
March 8, 1935, by William A, "Calvin, 'concurred in by James Swaij.. The
Industrial Relations Committee took action on each of these cases as
set forth in the Hinutes of this meeting.
The sub-committee then proceeded to New Orleans to investigate the
controversies pertaining to overtime. It was contended, in the
New Orleans District thpt double the hourly rate for overtime had been
paid for a period of years, but beginning 1933 mo'st of the yards had
paid one and one-half times the regular hourly ra.te for overtime. Hear-
ings were held, all of which is^duly recorded and set forth in the
meeting of the Industrial Rela.tions Committee of March 8, 1935, and the
action takeii by the Committee.
The sub-committee then proceeded to Mobile, Alabama, and held hear-
ings on several cases of complaints against the Alabama Dry Dock Company,
all of which was duly reported to the Conmittoe on March 8, 1935, as
contained in the Minutes of the meeting, together with action tal:en by
the Industrial Relations Committee.
The result of this sub-committee work was constructive and created
a good impression among both the Industry and Labor i-epresentatives in
the Gulf District. It is the Author's understpjiding that in each of the
ports visited that the principal operator's of the shipyards and
shiprepair plants were contacted by the Committee and also the principal
9732
rspresentatives of Labor. Tae suo-conudttee work in tjie Gulf District,
tosetj.ier wita the actions of tie Industrial Relations Com.Tiittee, substan-
tially ended L^e t.ireat of general strikes that had been pending.
Investigation of co.r.plaints of the Marine .Yorker s
Metal Trades District Co-u-ncj]^ Kew' JTork .with "niprep"i!ir plants of t
of taat area
At the meeting of the Coinmittee of December 13, 1934, this com-
plaint was presented and given consideration, a motion was passed to re-
quest that Mr. Herbert Bennett, President of the Marine Workers Metal
Trades District Council, supply satisfactory evidence to the effect,
that his Council's Conference Board iiad in fact been delegated and
authorized by the employees set forta in his letter. (Hef. Page 22,
Minutes Industrial Relations Coninittee File)
In reply the Marine lorkers I.ietal Trades District Council request-
ed a hearing before the Industrial Helationis Committee, which was grant-
ed and held January 24, 1935, in the Albee Building, lashington , D. C.
The entire Com^nittee was present, except Lawrence Y. Spear, Industry
Member, and there was al so present John Lane, Special Assistant to the
CDmmittee, Captain Henry "JilliaiTis, U. S. N. and H. Newton Faittelsey,
W.R.A. The Marine 'Jorkers Metal Trades was represented by Herbert Bennett,
President, and eiglit representatives. Transcript of this hearing is
filed in the Minutes of January 24, 1935, of the Industrial Helations
Cora.nittee. (Hef. Industrial Relations Comnittee File)
The Corainittee held a meeting on the saine day, January 24, 1935, and
recessed the following day, Jpnua.ry 25, 1935. On the latter day it
gave consideration and study to the subject hearing and passed the fol-
lowing resolution:
"ma, THEREPCR3, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Indus-
trial Relations Committee, recognizing the said
Conference Board as a properly constituted and
authorized agency for collective bargaining be-
tween the five ship yards and these groups of
taeir employees, directs each of the said ship
yards to receive, witnin fifteen (15) days from
date of this decision, the said Conference Board
as representing these employees for tae purpose
of collective bargaining, and to grant to the
said Conference Board axi opportunity to present
to each of tie five above named employers, in-
dividually or jointly as the parties may elect,
such matters affecting employee relationships
as may reasonably and properly be dealt with in
such meetings.
All Industry and Labor members were present, except Mr.
Lawrence Y. Spear for Industry; also pre-ent was l.ir. John Lane, Special
Assistant. All members voted affirmatively for tae resolution. (Ref.
Minutes, Industrial Relations COiTunittee i'ile)
9732
-392-
Tiie Commttbe receivsd a protest fr^m the Todd 3iiip;rard Corporation,
United jjry Docks, Inc. , Atlantic 3a?in Iron lorks, Ira Bushey & Sons,
and Brewers; Dry Dock ati,'ainEt tae Coin^mittee's action and as a result held
a hearing in New Y.rk City at 46 Broadway, March 1, 1935, and neard the
representatives cf the shipyards which had protested. All members of
the Coimnittes were present; also A. J. Doyle, Sxecutive Secretary and
John Lane, Special Assi strait.
Stenograi'ihic report of the hearing is in the Industrial Relations
Committee file known as X-3.
Meeting, of April 23, 1935 in Washington. All members of the Com-
mittee were present except Joseph 3. i.icDonagli for Labor.
T.?-e following a,ction was tak-sn:
"EESGLVED, that the Comm.ittee offer to each of
the following: Todd Sliipyards Corporation,
United Dry Docks, Inc., Atlantic Basin Iron
\7orks, Ira S. Bushey & Sons, and Brewer Dry
Dock, and to tho Marine Worlcers Metal Trades
District Council of t.ie Port of !-Iev; York and
vicinity, its services for tho purpose of de-
termining' by investigation the question of the
authority of the Marine Yorkers Metal Trades
District Council of the Port of Now York and • '
vicinity to represent employees of 'all or any
of the said Companies for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining, it being londerstood that
a Condi ti'on precedent to any sucn investiga-
tion oy this Committee is the prior agreement
of both of the parties to sucia investigation
to coopera-te fully v;ith the Conimittee, and to
make available to the Conimittee' s representa-
tives all records, data and information perti-
nent to the subject, and to a^bide by the Com-
m.ittee' 3 decision.
"B3 IT FJRTIES SZSOLVSD, that it bein^ incunbent
upon tiiis Corainittee to dispose of t.iese cases
promptly, each of the above-named parties be
advised tnat nis acceptance of rejection of the
above offer of the Committee must be in its
hands by May first.
"Without objection, the Secretary was directed,
in tne event that tne Marine Workers Metal
Trades District Council accepted the Coimnittee' s
offer and any of the shipyards noted declined,
or failed to make reply by the date set in the
resolution, to advise the Council that the Com-
mittee would receive a formal complaint or
complaints cliarging violation of Section 7 (a)
by those yards. Upon receipt of such complaint,
the Secretai-y should then call on the Company
concerned for a statement of its position, within
9732
. -595-
five days, as provided in the Plan for Adjustment."
r\ill corresnondence relating to this case if filed in the
Industrial Relations Committee folder marked Case D-1, Ilarine Workers
Metal Trades District Council of the Port of Nev; York and Vicinity.
The correspondence is coniDlete and instructive pertaining to the
apt)licr.tion of 7 (a) of the Act,
Investig' tion of the United Design Denrrtment, United Pry Docks ,
Inc. -'ith reference to chajigin.-.; designers from an hourly ^7age basis to
a veekly salary oasis
The United Design DeiJartment cane into "being by reason of a contract
between the United Dry Docks, Inc., 3pth Iron V/orks Cornorp.tion, and
Federal Shiiobuilding and Dry Dock CohToany, thereby the Design Department
V7as set up under W. F. Gibbs of G-ibos and Cox, for the puroose of
designing a class of 1500 ton destroyers, t'^o of each of this class
contracted ^ere to be built by e^ch of the shipjrards named for the
ITavy Department.
There v/as considerable unrest amongst the employees due to their
reduced earnings caused loy the enforcement of the 36 hour provision
of the Code, after the last extension of 3 (c) of the Code terminated
December 5, 1935, -^hich permitted the '-'orking of designers up to 44
hours.
At the suggestion of the United Design Department, the employees
held several meetings and considered a proposal by the company for an
increase of pay of 5fo and the change-over from an hourly ^Tage basis to
a salary basis of 40 hours per week. The employees voted in favor of
this and on January 2, 1935, the change-over was made.
In due course a complaint 'vas filed against the United Design
Department and they were notified by the Executive Secretary of the
Committee, Under date of January 24 a very complete reply was made by
the United Design Department, (Complete file, Industrial Relations
Committee) This reply set forth the full history of the situa,tion
including the minutes of the meetings of the e:iployees and in conclusion
set forth the following:
"(a) The question which must be decided in this matter
is whether the United Design Department is violating
the Code on account of placing certain of its enployees
on a weekly salary basis and ^-^orking 40 hours per week.
"(b) The United Design Department takes the position
that nothing in the Code reouires th-^t if a man starts
to work on an hourly basis, that he must continue to
work on an hourly basis so long as the Code is in effect,
"(c) The United Design Department n^iintrins thrt it
therefore has a right to change men from an hourly to
a salary ba.sis, provided that by such change, the men
are as '^ell or better off a.s they '"ould be under the
hourly basis.
9732
-394-
"(d) It is 'ivia.intain'ed tliat a.3 salaried employees
are not montioned in tiie Code, it follows taat
under .the Code, the nours of salaried emplbyees
are subjecl: to umtup.l contract between e.nployer
and employee.
"(e) Considered by these standards? t^ie change in
the status of the ..len from hourly to weekly
Dala.ry basis, working 40 hours, has placed them
distinctly better off than required by a strict
interpretation of the Code, including the rul-
ings protested by the Shipyards in respect of
overtime, in that the men receive the same week-
ly pay as tuey would on the overtime basis and
that there are other advantages, well known to
the men which follow from a salaried basis', in-
cluding excuses, for meritorious absences, etc.
"(f) finally , the proposed change was presented
to the men; a period of eight days given for due
consideration and the proposition voted on by
secret ballot with an overwhelming majority of
the men in favor of the pro oo sal. '
*
"(g) The changed basis carries out the wishes of
the Secretary of t-;e Eavy, and by speeding up
the. plans uelps to re-employ men in the eight
■ yards affected.",
Tliis case is i aportant in tlial it points out the inadequate provi-
sions of the Code in relation to employees' other' than those on the hour-
ly wage basis, and also the ei.iect of tue Code in tue delay of the work
under c:nstruction by the restriction to 36 hours.
9732
c. By-Laws
"By-Laws for administering and enforcing the Shipbuild-
ing Division of the ShiTjbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry" and "?y-L.?,'.'s for adrainistering and enforcing
the Shipret>airing Division of the Shi-Dbuilding and Shiri-
re"Dairing Industry" \"'cre submitted with the -DroTJOsed Code
of Fair Ccm-netition at the time of submission of the
Code. (Ref. Volume II, Code Record Safe, Exhibits I
and J , Armx. )
The original By-Laws as 'submitted were modified and apriroved
by Industry as per the folloiving excerpt: from letter of August
20, 1935, from H. Gerrish Smith, President,, National Council of
American Shipbuilders, to H. Ne'7ton Whittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Administrator. (Ref. Sxh. lT-1, A-dox.')
"By-Laws, Immediately after thfe Codn was signed by
the President of the United States a meeting was
called of all shipbuilders and shiprepairers v;ho were
proponents of the Code, the first meeting 'jRing /i-iel-cl- -on Aug-
ust 1, 1933 for the discussion and formulation of final
by-laws for the shipbuilding and shiprepairing division,
as some of the provisions contained in the original code
were deleted by the Administration from the Cod.e proper
but it was understood the nrovisions could be incorpo-
rated in the by-laws.
"The by-laws for both divisions were gone over and after
thorough discussion they were left with a drafting com-
mittee to smooth them up. This was done and on August
4th and .8th, at meetings of shipbuilders and shiprepair-
ers the by-laws were put in form for 'oresentation to
the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry on August 9th.
"At the meeting on August 9th, at which representatives of
the folloT/ing com-oanles were -present:
The Ma,ryland Dry Dock Comnany
The Pusey & Jones Corporation
Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Comnany
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation
Todd Shipyards Corporation
Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company
Kensington Ship^/'ard & Dry Dock Corp.
re'.Tport News ShiPouilding & Dry Dock Co,
Ira S. Bushey & Sons
lTationa.1 Coioncil of American Shipbuilders
the by-lar-s for both the shi-cbuild.ing and snipreprdring
divisions were finally ironed out and adopted, and made
effective at 12:01, August 14, 195..
9732
-396-
"It was the "belief of the pro-oonents of the Code that the '
adoption of the ty-laws was within their voviev. These hy-
laws v^ere submitted to all merahers of the Industry crior
to the election of a Code Authority,
"The first meeting with the TeiDuty Administrator v/as on
August 28, 1935, at which meeting much time was devoted to
going over the by-laws (effective on August 14th) to see
if they constituted in any way an amendment to the Code.
(See ILR.A. Release No. 540 of August 28, 1935).
"The meetings held on September oth and 11th were devoted
almost entirely to getting the by-laws in some form which
would be acceptable to Mr. Davis, and after a public
hearing held on Tuesday, September 26th, the Rules and
Regulations dated October 2, 1935, • supplanted- the orig-
inal by-laws of August 14, 1933,
"Answering your s-oecif ic question under (c) , the by-laws /■
were not put in force by the Code Authority but were
adopted by the Industry as shown above."
The By-Laws as revised by, Iq^dustry, effective August 14, 1933,
were the subject of a hearing August 28, 1933, (Ref. Code Record Sec-
tion). It was determined to change the title from By-Laws to Rules
and Regulations.
The Rules and Regulations were the principal subject of consid-
eration in meetings of the Shipbuilding Industry Committees (Code
Authority) held September 6, 1933 and September 11, 1935. (Ref. Min-
utes, Depaty's Files). They were further the subject of the hear-
ing of September 26, 1953, (Ref. Code Record Section) and meetings
of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code
Authority) held September 7, 1935, and October 2, 1953. They were
finally approved by the Committee at the October 2nd meeting. (Ref.
Minutes, Deputy's Piles) of which the following is an excerpt: f
"Mr. Smith raised the question ps to the propriety of hav-
ing the Rules and Regulations approved by the President of
the United States so as to become the "law of the land". Mr,
Davis reported that he had taken this matter up with Colonel
Lea and tha.c it was thought that the Code Committee had suf-
ficient PGWBi- under the code to enforce the Rules and Reg-
ulations as written and that the approval of our Rules and
Regulations would establish a precedent. Mr, Davis was of
the opinion, however, that if the Rules and Regulations
were fotmd to be unenforceable that he would again take
the matter up with the Administrator to have them approved
by Executive Order,
"Mr, Davis then suggested that the Rules and Regulations be
signed by each member of the Code Committee and this was
agreed to. • ■
9732
-397-
"The Rules and Regulations (Ref, Exh, L, ApT)x, )proraulgated
under the authority of the Code Co'Tiraitteo were then read and
upon motion 'by Joseph Haag, seconded by Robert Haig, the
follcYing resolution was adopted:
'RESOLVED: That tliese Rules and Regulations
having been discussed and agreed upon are
thereby adopted. '
A vote was taken by the Code Conraittee and all answered in
the affirmative,
"A poll was then taken of the Presidential Appointees
and they apriroved of the Etiles and Regulations as
adonted, "
It is the opinion of the Assistant Deputy (the author) that
the foregoing recounted advice was one of the two basic unfortu-
nate incidents that lead to the difficulties of the Industry under
the Code and the administration of it. As later history proved,
this instrument should have been immediately submitted to the
Administration for approval.
Both the By-Laws (so-called) and the Rules and Regulations
consisted, in fact, of two parts, "the first part pertained to the
National, District and Local Area Committees and their functions,
the second part to Trade Practices. The History pertaining to the
first part begins with page 177, under TitlR III, B, 5, Field
Organization,
The follcv/ing is an excerpt of the second part of the Rules
and Regulations as approved by the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Industry Committee (Code Committee) as approved October 2, 1933,
(Ref, EyJi. M, Appx. )
.."CREDIT BUREAU
The National Committee will organize and maintain a credit
bureau to collect and furnish information regarding the credit stand-
ing of any customer requesting credit from any member of the In-
dustry, Fnile due diligence shall be used to collect and impart cor-
rect information, no liability chall attach to any officer or employee
of the crc-dit bureau or of the Naticnal Committee or of the Code C m-
mittee for any errors in the information supplied,
"UNFAIR COlvrpSTITIVE PRACTIC~S
1. The Code Committee has the right and assumes the duty, act-
ing with the advice and asc-istancc of the various committees of the
shipbuilding and shiprcpaij-ing industry hcrcinDcforc provided for, to
make recommendations from time to time to the President of the United
States, through the Administrator of the Nation^s.l Industrial Recovery
Act 7/ith respect to mo difi cations of and additions to the code which
9732
-398-
it doems desirable for the Glimination of unfair competitive prac-
tices. But it is understood that no such provision, and nothing con-
tained within these or any rules and regulations, is to be so inter-
preted or so applied as to promote or permit monopolies or monopolis-
tic practices, or to eliminate or oppress small enterprises or dis-
criminate against them.
3. For the purpose of administering the provisions of
Paragraph 7 of • the Code, and subject to the provisions recited in the
foregoing paragraph, the following rules and regulations are adopted
and published for the elimination cf unfair competitive practices.
(a) Each member of the industry engaged in shiprepairing
shall promptly file v;ith the Secretary of the Code Committee a sched-
ule showing, for shiprepairing operations:
1. Minimum labor billing rates;
2. Minimum billing rates for the use of facilities
and of m.achine and pcv/er tools;
3. Minimum billing rates for the use of dr;- docks
and marine railways;
and shall certify that such rates, charges and prices are not below
the reasonable casts of suCh products or services including an adc-
ouato amount of overhead.
Ea.ch such schedule shall state the date upon which it shall be-
come effective, which date shall n'-t be less than thirty (30) days
after the date of filing such schedule with the Secretary; provided,
however, that the first schedule filed by aay member of the industry
as above provided shall take effect on the date of filing thereof,
and no rate, price or charge shown in any such schedule filed by any
member cf the industry shall be changed except by the filing of a new
schedule as herein provided.
Material supplied b}'- shiprepairers on repair contracts shall
be charged at not less than the prevailing delivered market price
plus a percentage determined as follov/s;
1. Ifhen such material is carried in stock by the ship-
repairer;
15 'o for v/arehousing, checking and
receiving, plus
Ib"^- for purchasing, accounting and
handling expenses, plus
ICj for profit.
2. 'Then such material is purchased for a particular job and
reouires processing or manufacture in the shipre-
pairers yard or on the ship:
lo'j for purchasin,;: , accovinting and handling ex-
penses, "olus
lO'j for proiit.
9732
.399-
3. When such material is -p-orchased as a completely manu-
factured article for a particular job and requires
no processing, or manufacture in the shiprepairer ' s
lOo for handling expense.
(Provailin^ delivered market price is the manufacturer's
list price less the putlished discount or price published
in any recognised trade .icurnal. Delivered price includes
transportation charges on material to the ship repairer's
yard. )
(b) "Except as hereinafter provided no member of the
industr," shall make any sale of any .product or service at
a price or en terms and conditions more favorable to the
purchaser than the inricc, terms or conditions established by
such memb'T in his schedule or sch-^aules in effect at the time
of such sale
"FOP 'IL SHIP-EP'IP.i:"^G EXCSPT IF TKS C?EAT LAKES
riST^.ICT, TI-C rOLLC^TII'G- GOi'QIv^IOiJS ("C" TC "I" .
T'CLusif;) .shall :^P?LY ,
(c'; Penc-in^ the establishment of reco^;nized cost account-
ing methods, ap-nroved ov the Code Committee, contem-olated by
Sub-section 1 of Suo-narp.-_-.rf>.ph (a) of para;;;:rar)h 7 of .the Code
and. unless othci-vise exi^ressly -orovided by .regulations for lo-
cal areas ap-oroved in v-ritin^; by the Code Committee, ^iddin^:
on shipreiD-ir work shall be restricted as follows:
l?hen bids are requested from repairers outside of the
port in v.'hich the snip is located, no oid except on Federal,
Stf.te, and i'unicipal v/ork below $7500 shall be submitted by
aixy repairer within or outside of .the port, but all v/ork be-
low ■?7300 shall be done on time and material basis in accord-
ance with the established schedule or schedules of the ship-
repairer in effect at the time or on an a^fi-reed "orice basis in
accordance vath sub-oaraf. raph (d) below. When the request for
bids is confined to rcxiairers v/ithin the port is which the ves-
sel is located, then no bids except on Federal, State, and
:.;unicipal v/crk bplo\7 $2-j00 shall be submitted, but a,ll v/ork
below fc500 shall be done on time and material basis in accord-
ance y/ith established schedule or schedules of the shiprepairer
in effect at the time, or on an Pi-reed price basis in accord-
ance with subparagraph (d) below. In the meaning of this para-
erapn "rc-oairers" refers to firms enga^^ed in the fenoral re-
pairing cr dr 'dockin^i: of vessels and the limitations on bidding
referred t? in this paragraph shall not be construed as applic-
able to contract 'jrs engr,ged in stiecie.l marine repairs p.nd who
do not engage in feneral ship repairs.
9732
-4C0"
(d) '.Then a ship ov/ner desires a luiniD siim price for a
repair job, and when the ship is located in the shiprepairer ' s
yard or when the owner has declared in writing his intention,
if the lump sum price suomitteci is satisfactory to the owner,
to employ said shiprepairer for the job, and not otherwise,
the shiprepairer may suomit a lump sum price prepared in accord-
ance v/ith the schedule or schedules of the shiprepairer in force
at the time the lump sum price is submitted. If the liimp sum
price so submitted is not satisfactory to the owner, the ov/ner
may have the worlc done on a time and material basis "by any ship-
repairer he may desire.
(c) In the prepara.tion of all /bids, in the determination
of all 1-ump sum prices, and in the billing of all time ^nd ma-
terial work, the shiprepairer shall use the follov/ing formula:
1. Man Hours required to execute the repair;
2. Eenuired hours for use of facilities and of machine
and power tools;
3. Ifeouired period of dr/ dock or marine railway use;
-. Materials reruired;
5. Sub-coutr^'Ct v/ork at cost plus 10 ■ profit;
". InsMrance at cost;
7. Profit.
Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall be converted into dollars by
apiolying the unit charging rr.tes specified in the schedule or
schedules of the shiprepairer then in force and alloivance may
be m.ade for the size of the contract of not more than 5o if total
is between $30,000 and $75,000; 7 jo between ■:7j,000 and ^100,000;
and 10 _. if over .tl0''',000.
(f) Every bid shall be suomitted to the ovmer at a speci-
fied time and place and shall all be immediately opened by the
owners in the presence of the bidders, and thereupon or imiiiedi-
ately thereafter a copy of the bid shall be filed v/ith the Dis-
trict Committee, of the District in which- the bids are opened,
together with an analysis sufficient to enable the District Com-
mittee to determine v/hcther the several items of the bid have
been established in s.ccordance ^.'ith the schedule or schedules of
the shiprepairer then in force, and v/ithout any rebates, refunds,
allowances, unearned discgunts or special services, direct or in-
airect.
(g) All labor, material, use of facilities, and of machine
or power to --Is, use of dry docks or marine railv/ays or other
eouipment, miscellaneous services, subcontracts, compensation
insurance and every other thing used in the performance of, or
in connection with time and material vrork, shall be charged for
and no member of the industry shall give or accept any rebate,
refund, a.llov/ance, unearned discount or specia.l service, directly
or indirectly in connection v;ith any work performed, or receipt
any bill for insura/nce v;ork until payment is made.
9732
-lUi-
(li) A sliiprepairer shall not revise his proposal because
of chanij;.es desired "b.y a shipowner until he has ueen awarded the
contract.
(i; All outside contrrct'-^'s used on shipreTiairin._ whether
selected "by shiprepairer or desi^^nated hy shipovmer and other
lahor (except the ship's regular crev/ and wor.'.cers on the per-
manent payroll of the shipowner) when Y/orlcin;- in any shipre-
pairer's vard shfdl he eraploved by and suoiect to the control
and direction of the shipre"oairer. A fee of ten percent of the
bill rendered by such contractor for the worlc performed while in
the repairer's yard shall "be ch:--.rged "oj'' the shiprepairer to the
shipovmer except in the case of i_,uarantee men and v;or].cers em-
■oloyed on special ..■or..c not ordinarily perforued "by the shipre-
pairer v.'ho Bhr.ll also "be under the control and direction of the
Shipretiairer when worTcin^ in his yard. Svery outside contractor
must furnish a certificate to the shipreppirer that he is fully
complying with the shi-D"building, and shiprepairing code a,nd v/ith
these rules and re;.ula.tions so far as they mry be applicable.
Otherwise he shall not "be cmployeo.. In case of dispute a ship-
owner who proposes an outside contractor shall "be entitled to
refer the dispute to the District Coraaittec but in the event
the District 3ormnittee is not able to dispose of the dispute,
appeal shall be allowed to the Code Coixriittee,
"lOR :iL Sr:iP3:2p.".i5.i-.TC' IN TKS GZE;.T l;ic;s LISTP.ICT
THE rOLLOV;i::G- P-.OVI SIGNS SHALL APPLY 11' LIAU OP
Sff>IL;;5A£^?APHS Xsl-^o ijAMPJI-;'. 1 .
F:llowinf.: the eGta"blishei. custom in the Great La^:es District
8.11 shiT)rGpair wor': shall be done on a tine and material basis ex-
cept as hereinafter provided and char/^es therefor shall be in ac-
corde,nce with the established schedule or schedules of the ship-
repairer in effect at the time. Estimates of prooaAole cost may be
made for t"hc convenience and assistance of customers but they shall
not be binding, upon the shiprepairer.
All laboi', material, ecuip-.ient, raiscellaiieous services, etc.,
used in performia- time and material vror'c, shall be charged for.
It shall be permissible for a chipre;'^airer to submit bids on
the fcllo'.ying classes of work:
(a) liuished pa.rts of machinery, ready
to install
(b; Complete units of machinery, ready
to install
(c) Boiler accessories, ready to install
(6.) "Boilers, air heaters, and stac;s in-
stalled as a complete ■onit,
(e) Boilers, lieaters, or stac''cs, ready
to install
9732
-402-
(f) Boiler furnaces anc/or complete set
of tubes, installed
( g) l''ev,' tanl"! to'os, including side tarC's
(h) Hull forcings, castinjr.s, fittings, and
prrts or units for null,
readj'" to install
(i) Any reconstruction of a vessel not in
the nature of a reDr.ir,
The ma:cimurn cash discount 6n "bills for repair v/or.: sh-all not
exceed l.V'i for payment in thirty days.
No labor of an outside contractor or other lahor shall be
allowed to work in an.>" ship repair yard, except when employed by
the OY/ner of the yard. Ship's re^jular ere./ may perform only such
work on vessels under^coing repairs at a repair plant as mif'ht be
done in the course of tlie vessel's re^^^ular operation. ■
(j) ViJhen cnmDctitive bids are invited shipbuilders will not
submit bids unless the invitation provides that bids shall be
opened in puulic axid no bidder shall revise his proposal until he
is definitely notified by the shipowner that he is the selected
bidder and other bidders a.re so informed.
(k) A schedule of credit terms will be adopted and published
by the Code Cominittee, subject to svich modii ications as from time
to time as the Code Committee may determine as a fair basis of
credit for the shiprepa.iring industry to be ap-olicable to all
credit extended by ;iny shiprcpairer after the date of adoption
and publication of such schetaile. The grantin . of more favorable
credit terms than those allowed by the credit schedule then in
force shall constitute unfair competition.
"SPECiriGATIONS , "
It in reco.2:nized by 'the Code Com..iittee that indefinite,
am.bif-uous a,nd unfair general clauses of specifications cover-
ing shipbuilding v/ork and shipTepair worfc "may leave room for
evasion of the provisions of Section 7 of the Code and of the
provisions of those rules and regulations adopted for the pur-
pose of administering that section of the Code. The National
Shipbuilding Committee, the local shiprepairing committees, the
district shiprepairing committees and the National Shiprepair-
ing Committee, v/ill bring to the attention of the Code Commit-
tee such general clauses of specifications as may, in their
opinion, have that tendency. From time to time, as occasion
may require, the Code Com^nittee will issue reg^jilc'tions v/ith re-
spect to such general clauses.
9732
-4n?-
ITOTE:- Proper provisions for the handling' of
questions anO, complaints arisin^^ lut of labor
conditions are nov/ Tinder consideration "by the
Code Connittec, and the wstional Recovery Ad-
ministration and Avill be incorporated in the
rules and regulations Avhen such provisions have
been adopted and a-nproved.
The above Eulcs and Peculations were
adopted by Resolution of the Code Coimnittee on
October 2, 1933, and are effective as of that date.
jIE!.I3E?.S ELECTED 3Y THE INDUSTHY
/s/ H. 3-. Smith, Chairman
/s/ Joseph Haag, Jr., President,
Todd Cr-- Dock
E;itC,ineerins & Repair Corporation
/?/ S. "7. ^axeraan
Vice PrcFident, Bethlehem
ShipouilcUng Corporation, Ltd.
/s/ Rc{^er '"illiaras
Vice President, Kevroort IJews
Shi-obuilding & Dry Dock Company
/c/ Robert Haig
Vice President, Sun Shipbuilding &
Dry Dock Comioany
/e/ U, H. Gerhauser, President, ,
;j-p.erican Shipbuilding Company
APPROVED:
/s/ 'Tilliaru H. Davis
JTational Recovery Administration
Renresentative
/s/ R. L. Hague
Industrial and Consumer Advisor
/z/ Joseph S. McDonagh
Labor Advisor
/s/ Henry Williams
Representative of the Secretary
■ of the 'ssayy
ATTEST:'
/s/ C. C. Knerr
Secretar^^, Code Coiiiittee
liJEMSE - S
/J'ROINTED
BY THE
PRESIDENT
OF THE
UNITED STATES
9732
-404-
Shipbuildint--; and Shiprepairing Incmstry
"schedule a
(for?/; of letter of assekt to the code)
(Date)
To The Secretary of the Code Committee
Room 661
Eleven Broadv/ay
New York City
Dear Sir:
The undersigned, desiring to become a member
of the Code of Fpir Competition for the operation
of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry,
approved by the President of the United States
on July 26 , 1933, hereby assents to all of the
provisions of said code and hereby agrees to
accept and abide by the terms and conditions of
the code, and to bear his proportionate share,
as determined by the Code Comjnittee, of the
expenses of maintaining the Code Committee and
its activities.
The address of the undersigned, until it shall
file with the Secretary of the Code Cominittee
written notice of change of such ac' dress, shall be as
set forth at the foot of this letter.
Very truly yours.
(Name of Firm)
(Name and Title)
(street and Address)
(City and State)
9732
The Code Authority with the cooperation of the District and Local
Committees, vhich are set forth in pages 195-1D9 hereof, promptly put
the lules and Reculations into effect.
The Report of the Secretary of the Code Authority as of Decemher
9, 1933, showing status of Firms Engaged in Shipbuilding and Shipre-
pairing with respect to the filing of schedules required under the
Rules and Regulations, Letter of Assent and Letter of Compliance is
summarized as follows:
Letters of Compliance 34
" " Assent 184
Lahor Billing Schedules 359
Tool " " 334
Docking Charge " 191
I
(Ref. Com.pliance Folder, Deputy's Files)
, Previous to October 24, 1933, there had been received 78 compliance
letters on a form, other than that attached to the Rules and Regulations.
(Ref. Compliance Folder, Deputy's Files) The final list of members of
the Industry as of June 11, 19,:'5, was 234, (Ref. List of Members, Deputy'
Files) which did not contain the many members of the Boatbuilding and
Boatrepairing Industry who 3ri;;inally reported to the Shipbuilding Code
Authority and included in the summarized list.
It is evident from the foregoing that the entire Industry sub-
stantially complied witn the filing requirements as set forth in the
Rules and Regulations.
The Shipibuilding ana Shiprepairing Industry Committee (Code Au-
thority) m.ade a n-omber of Interpretations of the Rules and Regulations,
listed as follows:
Meeting Novem.ber 6, 1933 (Reference: Minutes, page 4, Deputy's
Files).
. ■ .INTERPRETATION NO. 1,
November 15, 1933
RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section VIII
PAEAGRAPE (i)
Pertaining to Guarantee Men (Ref. Ezh. I-i, Appx)
Meeting January 4, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 5, Deputy's
Files) .
INTERPRETATION NO. 3,
January 4, 1934
RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section VIII
Paragraphs (c) , (d) f^ (e)
Main Contracts (Ref. Exh. 1-^3, Appx)
9732
. . -403-
Meetin^ January 4, 1934, (Heference: Miiiutes, juif^e 1, Deputy' a
Files) .
IKTERFHETilTIOW NO. 4,
January 4, 1934
RULES AIID REGULATIONS, Section VIII,
Paragraph (d) '
Lump Sum Price (Ref . Exh. 1^-4, Appz)
Meeting; January 4, 1934 (Reference: I/'inutes, page 4, Deputy's
Piles.)
INTERPRETATION NO. 7
January 4, 1934
RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section VIII
Paragraph (i)
- Pee -
(Ref. Exh. 1-7 Appx)
Meeting January 4, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 5, Deputy's
Piles).
INTERPRETATION NO. 8
January 4, 1934
RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section VIII
Paragraph ( i)
Compliance Certificate
(Ref. Exh. 1-6 Appx)
Meeting January 4, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 5, Deputy's
Piles) .
INTERPRETATION NO. 9
January 4, 1934
PULES AND REGULATIONS, Section VIII
Paragraph (i)
Exception Denied
(Ref. Exh. 1-9, Appx)
Meeting January 4, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 10, Deputy's
Piles) .
INTERPRETATION NO. 10
January 4, 1934
RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section VIII
Paragraph 3 (c)
Shipping Board Bureau Vessels under
Private Operation
(Ref.' Exh. I-IO, Appx.)
Meeting January 4, 1934 (Reference: Minutes, page 10, Deputy's
Piles) .
9732
IlITERPHETATION NO. 12
January 4, 1934
HULS3 Al^ RF.GULATIO.JS, Section VIII
Paragraph 3 (c)
Special Iv,arine Repairs
(Ref. E-d-L. I-IS, Appx.)
Interpretation by H. G-errish Smith, Chairman of the Shiphuilding and
Shirrepairing Industry Committee, and confirmed by inference at meeting
March 2, 1934 (Reference: liinutes, pa^e 6, Deputy' s Files) .
I NTE"'? ROTATION NO. 15
January 15, 1334
RULES MID IlEGULATIOrlS , Section VIII
Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e)
Shiprinr Board Vessels Under Private Operation
(Ref. E:-±i. 1-15, Appx.)
Unfortunately, the Rules and Regulations, not having been approved by
N.R.A.. the question of legality arose. Reference is made to memorandum
February 6, 10O4, to Geo. H. Shields III, Assistant Deputy Administrator,
Shipping Sectirn Tiv. I, from Ko-ward F. Ralph, Assistant Counsel. (Ref.
Rules and Regulations Folder, Deputy's Files) However, jao record can
be found where Industry vas advised of the contents of tne subject mem-
orand-oin until the letter of May 18, 1934, 'to H. Gerrish Smith, Chair-
man of the Code Authority, from H. Newton \rittelsey, Assistant Deputy
Adm.inistrator. (Ref. Rules and Regulations Folder, Deputy's Filea) .
I.'l eating. March 15, 1934, the Code Authority acted as follows: (Ref.
Pages 4, 5, and 6 !\'inutfs. Deputy's Files).
"Revision of Rules and Eegulations and Code
The Chairman reported that the Cods Committee had passed
a resolution on Iv'.arch 2nd. -laying on the table certain resolu-
tions pertaining to changes in the Rules and Regulations and the
Code. The three resolxiticns were taken off tne table and dis-
cussed. The resolutions r.r? as follov^s:
Resolution fl - 'That action be taken 'instituting
lump sura bidding on the Atlantic
Coast on Steamship work on a basis
of Labor, Material and seventy-five
percent Overhead on Direct Labor, - -
as a minimum price, plus Drydocking, -
to go into effect promptly and re-
main effective until such time as the
Code Comndttee decides otherwise.
Resolution tt? - That the limitations in bidding shown
in the Rules and Regulations under
Section VIII, socond paragraph of 2
(c) be increased.
9732
„408~
Resrlution #3 - Tnr.t the thirty d.-i^y provision as
to filing of rates "be eliminated
from Section VIII, Farafraph 2 (a).
The Clia.irman stated that tno following-
actions cou-la he taken:
1, Disapyrove the Resolution, or,
2, Approve the Resolution, or,
3, Pass them along to the Administrator
with comrnents,
Mr, R. L. Hague, the constiraers' re]3resenta.tive »
stated tuat if such resolutions were passed on to
the Aconinistration in the absence of his luwing statis-
tical data, especiall;> on Resnliition #1, he, as a con-
sumer, woulc- ha,ve to object to the formula set-up. Mr,
Ha£:ue stated th,-\t siace the operation of tnc Code his
hill for re;;airs reanged from 15 to ,30 "oercent higher,
Mr, Robert riaig stated that practically no one was
bidding the ciiarging rates estahlished in the Rules and
Regulations and t]it.-.t "by using them the estimates lool:ed
ridiculously high, A reviev; of a considerahle nuin"ber
of estimates indica'ted tliat the formula under Resolu-
tion Tfl seemed fair to "nis company,
Mr, Joseph Eaag was of the opinion that Mr, Robert
Haig's statement th^at the Rules and Regulations are
quite generally being broken was too 'broad.
Opinion v;as voiced tha.t the three resolutions
should he adopted and put into effect during the period
the code is rewritten "but Mr. R. L. rlague offered his
objection o:i behalf of the Steamship Owners as to #1
and ij=2; rs he did not .'-T.ow what the effect would be.
Mr, J. B.Yfeaver v/as of the opinion that the code
should be amended and rewritten as there are n lot of
loose ends v^hich coulc be rectified vmer- the code was
"being redrafted, Mr. Roger Williams in speaking of
the resolutions vra.s of the opinion that no action be
taken on them but stick to the ■•irovirions of the code
until the code is rev.'ritten and tlia.t it should be re-
written iiYimediataly,
Mr, Gerliauser su^^gested tlmt a sub-committee of the
Code Conunittee be apuointed to ainend t"ne code and he
therefore made the fnllov/iug motion:
"That the Chairman be enTpowered to appoint a com-
mittee to ForlT wifa the Administration represen-
tatives in redrafting the code, taking infcO accotait
the three resolutions tabled at the meeting of
March 2nd. , together with all the matters wnich
9732
-409-
have oeen discur>sed from time to tine and which
should "be considerRd in connection with redraft-
ing the cede and farther tn-'t the Chairman oe
authorized to euploy Counsel if found necessary, '
liotion T;as seconded by Roger '■I'lllinms and carried
aiid the Chairman announced he \.'Ould make these a'D-ooint-
ments T)rorat)tly. "
"Enles and RepiJ-lptions, Section YIII i
Prraif'Tai^h 3
The Connittee p.^ain took uv discussion of Resolu-
tion #3 tabled at the Coae liesting of March 2nd, a.nd
after discussion^ ¥.r, Rof^er Villiams moved, seconded by
I/Ir. Robert Hri^;;
That the thirty (30) days notice reouirement
for the filint-s.of schediiles of Billing R.ites
under section VIII, Parp^ra.^oh 2 of the Rules
and Retaliations be rescinded.
All 'lemlerc, voted in favor of this resolution and
the industry i-'ill be notified accordingly."
Meeting Ariril 24, 1924, the Code Authority acted as follows: (Ref.
Pages 13 and 14 Iiinutes, EeiTuty's Files)
"Status of the Rules and Reg^alstions
Effective lJ/2/33
The Chairman reported that the Code Authority
is in receipt of a comnixnication from a shiprepair-
ing firm as to the status of, the Rules and Regulations
'and requesting an interpretation as to 'whether failure
to comiDly with the requirements of the Rules and
Regulations incapacitates yards in this area from
bidding on any T'ork covered by Bulletin No, 3, Executive
Order TTo, 664C, issued from your office -^onder date of
March 19t,h, 1934, so long as they fail to live up to
■ the Rules? If they bid on such work are they liable
to fine and innrisonnent? '
In view of the action of t;ie Trade Practice
Coranlaints Comnittee in referring to the Code Authority
the ouostion as to the legalitj'' of the Rules snd
Reg-alp.tions and the By-La"s nreviously adopted for the
industry and which coinnittee asked the Code Authority
to secure a ruling from the Administrator as to their
legality, the following resolution was offered by
Mr. S. w, "./akeman and seconded 'oy Mr. Robert Haig.
9732
"Ths,t action on this ;;varticular request for
in*:er;'"'retation be deforred pending ruling as
to the legality of tlie Rules anc Regulations •
and Bj-Lav's a;nd "be iu further resolved tliat '
the inouirer should he so informed'
The motion was carried."
Letter April 30, 1254, to J-. 1, Weaver, Deputy Acijninistrator
from H. C-arrish Suith, Chairman, of the Code Authority made the follow-
ing request: (Ref. Rules and Regulations Polder, Deputy's Piles)
"T/ith the facts as submit ted aho-tto will you
please ohtain from the legal Division of the 'J.R.A.
an official interpretation as to the legality of
these Rules and Re^TLilations , and the validity of
tra,de racticc coiirolaints 'based on the Rules and
Rc;3ulacions as such."
The reply writ ten "by the au.thor v'as as follows:
"Iviay 18, 1934
Div. rl
"Mr, H. G-errish Smith
Chairmo,n, Code Authority,
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry,'
11 Broad\7ay,
New York, 'v. Y.
"Dear iir. Snith:
"In reply to your letter to Mr. J. S. Weaver
dated April 30, vjhich has just come to my liands ,
in regard to the Trade Practice Committee on
questions arising pertaining to the Code of Fair
■'Competition and Trade practice of the Shipbuilding
and S'niprepairing Industry,
"This matter was the subject of a letter I wrote
to Mr. Ar"ba B. Marvin on May 10 as follovrs:
'I am informed "by our Assistant Counsel as follows:
"1. Replying to yo-uj- question num'ber one it is o"b-
vious tho.t the Committee should not talce action on
complaints filed solely on the By-Laws that were in
effect for a few weeks in the summer of 1933 and were
wholly discarded and a'bandoned,
"2. Replying to your question num'ber two t'te.t Com-
mittee should only take action on complaints filed on
the Rules and Regulations as issued where such com-
plaints are "based on provisions within the Code,
9732
-411-
"In view of the fact tliat the Ind-astry is moving
ahead v/ith the nuv; shipbuilding code and that this
code .7/111 lesally covur ail of these questions and
provide prpper limitations for such matters as are
intended to be covered by the Rules and Htgilations
tiiat it would be unwise at this time to put these
P.ules and Ke.'i'tilations throtJgh for final approval
by the Administrator, The time required v.-ould
probably be comparable to the time of bringing the
code, through.
■"^e arc informed th:-t t.ie C«r.imittco working on this
Code sent out a questionnaire lately to the Industry
and tk-.t replies arq com.ing in particularly bearing
on the question of fair practice. In viev; of the
general sitioation it would appear that no good end
v;ould be affected oy notifying the Industry to limit
their c oiirp laint s withi.i t^ie provision of the Rules
a.nd Regulations that are -..iohin the ;■ re sent ship-
builders code, The virol.-. question must be more or
less involved in the -mind of the individual members
of the Industry, therefore, I would tnink that should
complaints cone through to the Trade Practice Com'-
.plaints Corjnittee on which they cannot legally act
that then the individur.l of the Industry malzing such
complaint could be so advised,"
'In order to give you a f-'orther idea in this matter
I quote from a memorandum by one of our assistant
counsels:
"It appears from an examination of the Rules and
Regulations of the s.bovt. Code tiiat some of the
provisions are ultra vires; tliat is, Deyond the scope
of a^it.iority granted the Code Committee by the Code of
Fair Competition. The Code carries no provision for
assessing members their joroportionate share of the ex-
penses of L,3intaining the Code Committee, Thes is no
provision in the Code authorizing the Code Committee to
promulgate rules and regulations nor to ap-.ioint agents.
The aixthority to mahe r-oles and regulations, to assess
members their share of the expenses, and to appoint
agents, a,re permissible, as they are necessary in-
cidents for the proper administration of the Code,
"In Article VII of the Rules and Regulations, captioned
'Credit Bureau"^, this Article is not founded on any
g^uthority granted by the Code, but I see no objection
to its remaining in the Regulations.
"In Article VIII, captioned 'Unfair Competitive
Practices", there is set out in the last two paragrapns
on page 8 items calling for ten (lO) per cent for profit
where material is carried in stock and where material is
purchased,. These two items do not constitute any part
9732
- 412 -
of cost and have no foundation under the Code to te
inserted in the Segulations. They tend toward -orice-
fixing, and it is suggested that they te taken out.
"In Article VIII, Section 3 (c), page 9, of the
above Rules and Regiilations, the alternative -oro-
vision restricting the submission of "bids "below
stipulated amounts "by members of the Industry, which
provision is intended to be teraDorary pending estab-
lishment of a cost accounting system, is in my mind,
an a.ttempt to legislate on the Dart of the Com^nittee.
I do not believe that any -oart of sub-section (a), Dara-
graph 8, could be the basis for such a TDrovision. I
feel however, that since it is a temporary provision
adopted pending establishment of a cost accounting
system, I see no objection to its remaining, so long
as it is satisfactory to the Industry,
"Sub-section (e) . page 9. The. fifth (5th) provision
under this sub-section calls for sub-contract wor^^ at
cost, plus ten (lO) per cent -Drofit. The words 'nlus
ten (10) per cent profit' must be stricken; and in the
seventh (7th) provision of this sub-section the word
'profit' must be taken out, as profit is no part of cost.
"On page 10 the first (1st) paragraph begins: 'Units
1,2,3 and 4 shall be converted into dollars,' etc. The
provision allowing five (5), seven and one-half (7i)
and ten (10) per cent for the various sizes of contracts
can only be justified as an allowance for overhead. If
this is true, the provision is all right. If, however,
these various percentage allowances are profit, then,
of course, there is no basis for allowing them to remain
in the Regulations.
"In Sub-section (i), :oa,ge 10, the nrovision that a fee
of ten (lb) per cent of the bill rendered by an outside
contractor for work performed while in the repairer's
yard shall be charged by the ship rerairer to the ship
owner, is in ray mind, justified as a. charge for the use
of any plant facilities.
"On page 11 the provision that the maximum cash dis-
count on bills shall not exceed one and one-half (l'^)
per cent for the payment in thirty (30) days, is a
most desirable -nrovision, and its proper place would
be iii the Code itself, as there is at the -present time
no provision in the Code upon which the Code Committee
can base this provision.
"The criticism just given relative to t"he discounting
of bills, holds true in regard to the next -orovision,
namely, that no labor of an outside contractor shall
be allowed to work in a ship repair yard, etc. I
believe this to be a desirable provision but its proper
place is in the Code,
"Sub-section (k) page 11. I see no basis wlaatsoever
for this ■orovision and helicve it to he outside the
scope of the Code Committee" '
"I hope the foregoing will be sufficient information
to em4e the Committee but if there are any other points that
you wish settled I will be very glad to have them answered.
"Very truly yours,
(Signed) H. IIEWTOM WHITTELSEY
H. ilewton ''liittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Administrator,
Shipping Section,"
"mJW:W
9732
-414-
The f oil o\7ing letter was rfritten:
"Hoveraber 16, 1934.
Eiv. 2
"Mr. K. C-er:'-ish Smith
Chrirman of Code Comnittee
Shipbuilding & Shiprepairing Industrj'^
11 Bros.dv/a:'-
Nev,' York City
"Dear Mr. Snith:
"I received fro;a Mr. Ti. C. Johnson, Local Area
Chairman of Galveston, Texas the following tele-
gram:
'AS LOCAL CHLUHILAIVT OF SHIP BUILDERS AilD SHIP
PJIPAIRSRS I ASK THi-lT YOU TJITE '/iS FRA.FKLY IF THE RULES
AED EECULil-TIONS ADOPTED 3Y THE CODE GOl.l'ilTTEE SFPEG-
TIVS AS OF OCTOJER SECOIO FII'lETEEIJ THIRTY THREE HAVE
EVER BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ADMIMT STRATI ON MI) II ANY
PEIJALTY CAN BE ASSESSED FOR VIOLATION OP SAI.IE STOP .
THIS IirFORlaTION IS VITAL AND l^IEEDED IN COmJECTION
UITH Il.iPGRTAlTT I'ffiSTING- OF' LOCAL AREA. '
"In reply I wired Mr. Johnson as follorrs:
'RETEL RULES AND PJlGULATIOrS ADOPTED OCTOBER SECOND
NIKSTEEN THIRTY TliREE Fu-iVE NOT BEEN APPRO^'^D BY AD-
MINISTRATION AND APj: OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT IN AITY
PROVISIONS TaiT .iRE NOT DEFINITELY WITHIN THE PRO-
VISIONS OF THE CODE STOP NO PEl^^ALTY CAIT BE ASSESS-
ED FOR AN ALLEGED VIOLATION TII/iT IS NOT A VIOLATION
OF THE CODE' .
"Very trulj'- yours,
"/s/ m^i
"n. Newton Whittelsey
Assistant Deputj'" Administrator
Div. 2, Sec. d. Group 3"
"IttWtGK
Meeting December 20, 1934, the Code Authority acted as follows:
(Ref. Page Minutes, Deputv' s Files)
"Validity of P-ules and Re(e:ulations
The Chairman read into the record a letter dated November
16th from Mr. E. N. Whittelse]'- covering exchange of telegrams
between the Galveston area and NRA in connection with the validity
of the Rules and Regulations. '• ' "
9732
-415«.
The Chairman at tuis point referred also to a letter dated May
18th, 19o4 from Mr. T/'hittelsey iivherein the validity of the Rales and
HeCTilations v-as commented upon hy Assistant Co-anr,el of NEA and the
Code Authority at tnis time endeavored to learn from Mr. IThittelsey
the legality of the Rules and Reguiations adopted October 2, 1933
as on the date of their adoption the Chairman specifically asked
Mr. W. H. Davis, Deputy Administrator at that time, as to the pro-
priety of having the Rules and Regulations approved by the President
of the United States so as to become 'the law of the land* to which
Mr. Davis stated that he had taken the matter up with Colonel Lea
and it was thought the Code Authority had sufficient power under
the code to enforce the Rales and Regulations as v;ritten and that
the approval of our Rules and Regulations would establish a pre-
cedent.
This matter of the contents of the Rules and Regulations
will be studied by the Committee acting on code revision and
nothing will be done at the present to have them approved by
the Administration as ori/^inally written."
Meeting Januj-n^ 17, 1S35, the Code Authority acted as follows:
(Ref. Page , Minutes, Deputy's Piles)
"This led to a discussion of the Rules and Regulations
adopted October 2nd, 1933
"Mr. ffhittelsey stated that these Committees are not recog-
nized by i..R.A. Tiie Code Authority argued that they should be
recognized by !^ R. A. because the Rules and Regulations had been
developed in cooperation with Mr. William H. Davis, our Deputy
Administrator at the time and that they had been approved by him.
"Colonel Rose stated that he was unaware of this fact and he
felt that the matter should be referred to him by letter in order
that he might definitely ascertain as to whetner the Rules and
Regulations have a legal standing or not. It was pointed out to
Colonel Rose that the Rules eaid Regulations had certain fair trade
practices incorporated in them and that although the matter had
been previously submitted to N. R. A. for a ruling as to legality
that it was felt the matter had never been definitely disposed of.
"The Cliairman was directed to submit this matter to the
Deputy Administrator for action."
In accordance with the foregoing, H. G-errish Smith, Chairman of
the Code Aiithority, in letter dated Janu^^ry 17, 1935, to W. W. Rose,
Deputy Administrator, set forth a statement regarding the Rules and
Regulations and made a request as per the following excerpts from the
letter. (iirf. Rules and Regulations Polder, Deputy's i'iles)
"The minutes of the meeting of October 2nd also contain on
on pages 2 rsid 3 the following statement:
9732
';.1r. Smith ■ raised the aueption as to the propriety of having
the Riiles and Regiilations approved by the President of the
United States so as to "become the "lav; of the land". i.Ir.
Davis reported tKat he hrd taken this matter uv with Colonel
Lea and that it wr s thoot'^ht that the Code Committee had s''J.f-
■' ficient power under the code to enforce the Rules and Regula-
tions as r/ritten and that the ap"Droval of our Rules aJid Reg-
ulations would . establirh a precedent. I/ir. Davis was of. the
o-Qinion, however, that' if the Rules and Regulations were fo^jJid
to be unenforceable that he would again take the matter up
with the Adininistra.tor to hrve them approved by Executive Order.
'Mr, Drvis then suggested that the RixLes and Reg-olations be
signed by each member of the Code Committee and this was agreed
to.
'The Rules ajod Regulations promulgated under the authority of
the Code Committee were then road and upon motion ^y Joseph
Haag, seconded by Robert Haig, the follo^ring resolution was
adopted:
"R^oOU/ED: That these Rules tjid Regulations having been
discussed and agreed urion are thereby adopted."
'A vote was taken ^y the Code Committee and all ans-vered in
the a-ff irmative.
'A poll was then taken of the Presidential Api^ointees and
the;'- approved of the Rules and Re:gulations as adopted. '
"In view of the circumstances concerning the preparation of
these Rules and Regulations consideration bj'- you with a view to
determining their validity is requeated. "
The author promptl;'- sent copies of the subject letter and a
memorandum to Rer^earch and Blanning and Legal Divisions, and to the Indus-
trial, Labor and Consumers Advisor^'- Boards for comments, but the sub-
ject of a^Dproval, even in part, of the Rules and Reg'j.lations proved high-
ly controversial. However, finally'' the memoranda from all but the Legal
Division v/ere received.
The case was made up including the memoi-andum to W, A. Harriman,
Administrative Officer from 11. Uewton Whittelse;^, Assistant Deputy
Administrator, and the proposed Adiainisti-ative Order, and was sent to
Angus R. Shannon, Jr., Section Co-'inrel, Divisionll. Mr. Shannon a.pproved
with cettain excei:itions, v/hich were incorporfted in the Order. The
memorandiim to the Administrative Officer was a-oiDroved by ^. W. Rose,
Deputy Administrator, a.nd tiie case Y/ent to Barton U. Murray, Division
Adininistrator. (The original Voluiae is filed in Rules and Regulations
Polder, Deputy' s Files) The Order provided as follows:
"i:OW, THSREPORE, the National Industrial Recovery Board,
pursua.nt to the aiithority vested in it hy Executive Orders of
the President, including Executive Order 5859, and otherwise,
does hereby order;
That the 'Administrative Rules and
Ectjulaticns' , adopted ty the Ship-
buildini, rnd Shipr-^jiairin^, Industry
Committee and published by said
Coranittee in paiiiphlet. foiTn, be and
are hereby a;);nrcved subject to the
exceptions oT the I'ollcvjin;;; pro-
visions;
(a) Delete the subject matter on
page one, the outsiae cover page of
the said pamphlet form.
(d) Delete the subject matter on page
three of said pamphlet form.
(c) Delete the Vv-ords 'and Trade
Practice' f?om the first paragraph,
line four of pa^e five of said
pamphlet form.
(d) ■ Delete the "second paragraph on
page 5 of said pamphlet form, together
with Schedule A therein referred to.
(c) Delete the period at the end of
paragr^h Article VI, Section 5 and
add the words 'and the National
Eocovery Administration' .
(f) Delete in entirety all pro-
visions beginning with Article IX and
further delete note below Article IX
of said pamphlet form..
(g) Delete the words 'and are effective
of th^t date' in the second line, page
12 of said pamphlet form."
The Division Administrator 'sent the case to the Review Division
for a pre-view, and Alvin Brown, Review Officer, by racmorandvun April 20,
1935, held that "This Order is not believed to be proper."
This created a serious situation. The District and Local Comr-
mittees provided for in the Rules and Re<^ulations and ap-oointed by the
Code Authority hAd been functioning since October 2, 1933, and had of
necessity used a considerable sum of money for expenses, therefore, it
was important to at least recognize these Committees.
The following memorandum was made by the author after a number of
conferences and shortly before I.Iay 26, 1935, and is attached to the
original Volume.
"This case was the subject of a number of conferences
with Idr. Jeffrey and Mr. Knight of Review after
0732
-418-
receipt of the memorandum from Review dated April 20.
"It was finally determined to eliminate all matter
pertainint^- to Fair Trade Practice in addition to the
matter that was to te eliminated by the Order as
originally drawn and attached herein, and further to
require in the Order that a Plan of Procedure for
handling Trade Practice complaints be adopted.
, "Further to amend Administrative Order 3-12A to
provide that the Distri.ct Gormnittees are appointed
District Trade Practice Cominittees to handle Trade
Practice complaints arising in the first instance
with the provision that the majority of the m.embers
in each District Committee shall constitute a quorum."
BY„L.AW5 as usually adopted by Code Authorities and approved
by NBA were never actually acted UToon by the Code Authority for the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry. Verbal requests were made
by the author from time tO' time that the Cede Authority adopt suit-
able By-Laws but the matter was delayed pending the submission of the
proposed amended Code.
Request wa.s made by letters a,s follows: (Ref. By-Laws Folder,
Deputy's Files)
"November 21, 1934
Div. 2
"lir. H. G-errish Smith, Chairman,
Code Authority for the
Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry,
11 Broadway
New York City.
"Dear Ur. Smith: Re: By-Laws'
"Enclosed please find seven (?) c«*pies of
pr-»posed set of By-Laws of the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry for your Code Committee.
"This matter v;as under discussion, you will
remember, several weeks ago, and you told me
that you would be glad to receive a proposed form.
"The form being sent to you is in general
conformity with many by-lav/s which we have passed
through for approval but of necessity arc modi-
fied in certain Sections. As far as I know there
is nothing in them that could be objectionable ta
your Code Committee.
3732
. . -419-
•'I hope you will take this up at your
next Code Coranittcc mcctine; and adopt the form
subject to such modification as your Code
Committee may consider necessary. There are
many reasons why it is unwise for a Code
Authority to take executive actions without
liaving duly adopted its by-laY/s and having
same approved by the Adminis '^ration.
"Executive actions taken by your Code
Committee might be successfully held to be
without due legal authority in the absence
of approved by-laws. In fact, resolutions
passed for the protection and benefit of the
Members of your Industry are more or less
open to attack and it ap;nears that each
Member of your Code Committee is individually
liable for the funds that have been expended
in the absence of pror)er by-laws to govern the
n,ctions of tlic Committee.
"Very truly yours,
"/s/ HM
H. Newton Wl-ittelsey
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Division 2, Section D, Group 3"
"HlTftY
CC : Administration Member
Secretary
Meetin=3 December 30, 1934, the Code Authority took the
followine,' action: (Eef. Page 14, Minutes, Deputy's Files)
"By-Laws - (Code Authority
(Trade Practice CoiiTTlaints Committee
"The Chairman ro;i:iorted that Mr. H. I'ewton Whittelscy
had forwarded to the Chairman of the Cede Authority
proposed bji-lawc covering the operation of the
Code Authority and also for the operation of the
Trade Practice Crmi^laints Committee and upon motion
by Mr. A. B. Homer, seconded by Mr. Roger Williams
both subjects wore to be referred to the Committee
on Code Hevicion for stuc'^y and report thereon."
F-orther requests were raa.dG by the author for adoption of
By-Laws of the usual form, but the matter v/as durther delayed by the
Code Authority pending the submission of the proposed amended Code.
9732
-420- ■
d. OTHSa - THZ 1TATI0KA.L COLITCIL OF AI-.ERICAI' SE IP-BUILDERS
The lI'\tional Coujicil of Ainerican Shipbuilders, the principal sponsor
of the Code, continiaed its activities throughout the life of the Code,
■aiid is so continuing at present.
The history of the formation of the Coujicil is as follo\7s: (Ref,
Pages 5, 6 and 7, Report April 1, 1030, l{ation3,l Co-ur.cil of Ame^'ican Shi-o-
tuilders Folder, Deputy's Files)
"The National Council of Aiierican Shroljuilders is composed of
corfTOrations engaged, in constricting and repairing, vessels and in
manufacturing engines, hollers and other accessories used in their
constmctionj rep.air, ond operation* In addition its membership
includes., as association nemhers, associations v,-hose iuerabers are
interested in ' the development of an Anerican built and owned mer-
chant marine; as associate members, persons, copartnerships and
cor;:)Orations respectively engaged in opera.ting vessels, or in design-
ing or financing their constraction or in insuring their builders
or repairers against the risl: involved in their construction or
rejpair; as personal members persons not included in the preceding
classes of membership but who desire to aid the Council in the ac-
complisliment of its objects and purposes; and as honarary members
persons vlio have contributed distin.'pj.ished service in either the
development of the art of shipbuilding or the promotion of an
Anerican merchant marine,
"The national Council is organized for the purposes of secur-
ing the cooperation of shipbuilders, ship repairers, manufacturers
of marine equipment and others in a 'onlted effort to laromote a
stable shipbuilding industry as the basis of an American merchant
mg.rine and to ii^prove the conditions under which the industry is
carried on. It is the outgrov.'th of other attempts to organize an
association to accomplish .the same objects, as appeo,rs from the
following statement:
"The Atl.antic Co.?st Shrobuilders' Association was organized
at the commencement of the World War to deal with abnormal labor
conditions th:,t developed during the war in the shipyards of the
Horth Atloiitic ports. It rendered valuable service to the ship-
building industry by preserving, so far as it was then possible,
noiTjal industrial conditions during that period of estraordinary
ship construction. At the close of the war the association con-
tinued its work and extended its activities by stud^^'ing proi^osed
federal and state legislation affecting snipbuilding and compiling
statistics relating to the industry for submission to legislative
committees.
"The New York and llew Jersey Di^^ Dock Association was organized
more than twenty years ago and is com.posed of corporations in the
port of Nev.' York which build and re-oair vessels. Its principal
activities are confined to subjects that are local in their rela-
tions to its members, although it has participated, in the study of
legislation affecting them.
9732
>-421-
"Ilie Pacific Coast Dry Dock Associ'ition -^s organized
about ten y^ars -VTO by the shipbuilders and ship reiDairers
on the Pacific Coast and performs for them service similar
to th.-it carried on'by the ilew York and llew Jersey Dry Dock
Asbociation.
"V/liile the Ivlerchant Hai'ine 3111 of 1920 "'as pending
in Congress, a group of shipbuilders organized the Cci-
mittee of Ir.erican ShiT)builders which studied the bill
and compiled and submitted to Congress information that
aided it when acting on the bill, and conducted a nation-
wide car^paif-n of publicity to create a public opinion
favorable to the merchant marine and shipbuilding and
cirected tne attention of the people of the United States
to the aid that tlxe bill, if enacted, v;ould render these
industries,
"After the enactment of the bill, the members of the
Committee of American Shipbailders disbanded, and, in
lb 21, incorporated the Council of Aiierican Shipbuilders,
Inc., •'onder the laws of the District of Columbia to
continue activities similar to those which had been
.carried on by the Committee.
"In 1925, when it became evident to members of
the Atlantic Coast Shipbuilders' Association and of the
Council of American Shipbuilders, Inc., that these
organizations and the two ary dock associa.t ions were
frequently performing similar work with a lack of ef-
fective coordination of effort, they thereupon dissolved
the Atlantic Coast Shipbuilders' Association and Council
of American Shipbuilders, Inc., and organized the
Kat ional Co'oncil of Junerican Snipbuilders to ^ct on sub-
jects that concerned the shipbuilding industry and the
manufacture of m?r inQ equipment as a whole, irres'De-ctivG
of the location of shipyards ana manufacturing plants;
but leaving to the local dry dock associations the
autonomy of confirming their activites to subjects of '
local interest,
"In 1933, the Board of Directors became impressed
with the demands uioon the Council and with the imnortpiit
and diversified character of its work and reali-^ed that
the scope of its service should be enlarged if the Council
were to render adequate service to snipouilding -and its
allied industries. Thereuoon the Board appointed a com-
mittee to make a'siirvey of the work of the Co-uncil and to
recommend such changes in its organization as would enable
it to r-'ore effectively accomplish the objects for which it
had been creat ed»
5732
--422-
"The Gcirattee , among otnpr things, recoramended
thp establishment of permanent and adeq-oate offices, the em-
ployment of a co'Toetent st.aff of assistants, and the election
of a practical and experienced shipbuilder as president
to formulate its policies and to carry on and suTDervise
" its '^/ork. Pursuant to the recommendations of thp Com-
mittep, the Co-ancil on April 1, 1929 leased offices
' at Ko. 11 I3roadi.7ay, New York City, employed a secretary,
a statistician and other assistants and elected the
undersigned as its president,"
The President of the Coun.cil, H. Gerrish Smith, "as the Chairman
of the Code Authority and S, Vif, "?r,keman , Vice-President Bethlehem
Shipbuilding Cornoration, Hober liaig Vice President S-'Jtn Shipbuilding
Company and 7. A, Gerhauser President Aiaerican Shipbuilding Company,
are members of the Council Directors and were members of' the Code
Authority. Homer L. Fergason, President of the iJe^TOort ."/p^s Ship-
building and Dry Dock Company is a member of _the Council Directors
and Soger './illiams Vice President of the sane company was a member
of the Code Authority. Further John D. Reilly, President of the
Todd Snipyards Corporation is a Council Director and Joseph Haa,?;, Jr.,
President of the Todd Dry Dock Engineering and Hepair Corporation,
Ltd., comiDleted the list of Industry members of. the Code Authority.
Other imiDortait shipbuilding members of the Council Board are
J. F. Metten, President New York Shipbailding Corporation, '.Yarren
Johnson, President Johnson Iron ,orks. Dry Dock and Shipbuilding
Company,. Inc., "i'. S. Newell, President, Bath Iron 'Torks, L. Y. Spear,
Vice President Electric Boat Comoany,- H. P» 3ro'-'n, President The
Maryland Dry Dock Company, and Lo F. Korndorff , President Federal
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Copjany.
The Code Authority did not delegate any of its duties or powers
to the Council, but it did set up Nat ional. Regional and Local Com-
mittees under the Roles end Regulations of which all siiipbuilding
members of the Council Directors were members on' some of the Com-
mittees. It was a i3erfect inter-locking directorate. In the opinion
of the author it was beneficial for the most part, although at times,
it appeared that decisions were ma.de in the meetings of the Council
Directors that suould. have been made in Code Authority meetings,
and Directors' meetings took the place of Cale Authority meetings.
The actual activities of the Council are well indicated in the
Report of April 1, 1935, (Erh. Q,, Appx. ) and by the Bulletins issued
from time to time, of the latter, those that v.rere most aiDplicable have
been selected and are £xa„ Q,-l to ^-11 inclusive. Appendix. These
documents contain considerable valuable informat ion on the Industry,
however, such items as employment, payrolls and the like, in some
instances, are based on a. certain number of firms reporting and not
on the entire Industry, therefore, care must be exercised in using
the data.
9732
-433-
The effect, of the Codp on the Ccmcil members w-?.s to tring them
into closer association, in the opinion of the -iicthor, pnd it is
■believed certain important trade practice provisions that failed
'•ith the ?.ules and Rp.?ra.lations, are heinr adiiered to hv n^n^'-
principal members of the Industrjr ti-irou-g-h -^ better understanding
brought about by the closer association xndaced by the Code.
5. Other Phases of Code Administrati nn nqt^covered above.
I'one that have not been recounted heretofore.
9732
-424-
CHAPTER IV - OPHIrTIOIT Or C0D2 FIlOVISIOIIS
A. Definitions
The definition as of May 26, 19G5, vas as provided in Anendment
No, 2, a-Tpfoved March 29, 1934, Administrative Order 2-9, signed ty
Hu^i;h S» Johnson, -Thich reads as follous: (pLef, Code Record Section and
Sxll. A, 'AppXa )
"A» The terra 'Shipbuilding: p:-id Shipreoairing Industry' means:
1. The building, fabricating, repairinf:, reconstructing, renodeling
ajid assembling of all vessels and floating marine equipment except:
(a) Wooden boats and vessels and 'jooden floating marine equipment.
(b) Pleasure boats and yachts, both nooden and/ or metal up to and
including one hundred rnd. fifty (150) feet in length over all.
2g The building v;ithin shipbuilding end shi )reppiring plants of
machinery, equipment oxid. other ship's oarts,"
The definition originally submitted in the -oronosed Code of Jiily
IC, 1933, paragraph 2 reads as follor^s: (Ref, Volume A, Code Record
Section and Exh, B-1, A^oox.)
"The terms 'Shipbuilder' and ' Shipreuairer' , v;hen used in this
Code, includes a person, partnership or coronration engfi4:;^ed in the
business of building, fabricating, repairing, reconstructing, re-
modeling, ond assembling oceajigoing, harbor rjid inlnjid water-way
vessels and floating marine equipment of everj'' tj'^oe above ten tons,
including the building irithin their -)lants of machinery, equipment
a,nd other ship's p.-^rts."
The definition a,s submitted in the revised Code the last day of the
open hearing, July 21, 1933, oart 1 read the srjne as vhen originally
submitted July 10, 1933, (Ref. Vol. Ill, Code Record Library, Page 1022)
The definition as ;orovided in the Code approved July 26, 1933,
read the sajne as originally submitted July 10, 1933. (Ref, Vol, I,
Code Record Safe and Pxii. A, Appx-,)
The aefinition of the Industry and the Members of the Industry was
contpined in the one paragraph quoted from the Code as submitted July
10, 1933, and as approved July 26, 1933. Tlie definition of the Industry
in this provision was by inftrerice only, Hov;ever, the situa.tion was
corrected in Amendment No, 2, heretofore auotede
The definitions as originally proposed end as approved July 26,
1933, as hereinbefore set forth included all vessels above ten tons
(about 30 feet registered length). However, the Boatbuilding and Boat-
repairing Industry desired a Code of their own and as this industry is
substantially concerned with the building and repairing of vessels
under 125 feet, in plants pp.rticularly adapted to such work, and as the
rank and file of the shipj^ards are not concerned with such vrork, this
definition was amended to permit small wooden vessel work and steel
yachts under the Code for the Boatbilding and Boatrepairing Industry,
which amendment was approved Aoril 24, 1934 by Hugh S. Johnson, Adminis-
trator.
9732 *•
-42 5~
The amended SM'^oouildin,",' cLefinition v.'orhec. v/r.ll except in re jar d
to Siviall 'oteel corxuercial vessels, Vifliica were leJ't londer the Shii-
ovdldin,;; Code. Such small slieol boats are "irir.ci •ally ouilt and re-
paired hy the 30c.tbuildin_, plants. The rbatbuilders ■.iro-iosed ar.
araenciiiient to their Code to "n'ovide that steel vessels u"5 to 12, j feet
rejistered length ^)e included in their eiinition. It v/as planned
to cA.just the iiiatter hetv/een the two Codes v/hen they v/ere revised
under the e>rpected new H. I. S. A.
1. Overla.p"un;';-
ITo serioviS o.ii j. iculties v/ere cncovjitered in, the operation
ci". the Code provisions from the overlaopin^; of Coc.es. There were
several instc^ncos of minor importance which are set forth "below,
Autouiotive Parts and Equi^jr.ient ivkviufacturers Code -
Chairnuji of the Shipbuildin ; Code Authority filed a "jrotest dated
February 14, 193.j, aj'ainst a pro:?osed amendment to this Automotive
Parts Code. (Eoi. Paje 9 Llinutes j''eb. 21, 1935, Deputy';^ Files)
The jroposed ainendiaent submitted 'oy the Automotive Parts
and Equipment Lltmufacturinj;;; Industry (Ref . JTotice of Hearing No. 142-P,
dated January 2-,' 193;5) is ez-icerpted as to lertinont provisions aifect-
in;2; ■fcj^s Shipbuildin^:; and Shi jrepairin^j Code as follows:
"The term 'Industry as used l^erein is defined to
mean the business of the jro&uction and/or manu-
facture and/or the sale as a laan^if acturer of
aiitornotive parts and/or equipment inclat.in;'';, but
v/ithout limitation, the following:
"(-:) Automotive Shop lauipment - Machine
tools and a"'oaratus designee, for and used in the
maintenance and/or rciair of a motor, industried,
marine or aircraft vehicle or internal combustion
enfiine ahc. usually sold for use in recondition-
in-- same, air com"Tres-oors of ten (lO) hjrse
•^jQwer and under for every pur^^ose and excepting
electric tools not exclusively ap licable to
motor car and internal combiistion en Ine repair
and/or recondition.
"(?) Internal Combustion Engines -
Internal Combustion Engines an 6: such .other
allied products as are natural affiliates
and/or parts thereof except
"(a) Aircraft Engines
(b) Marine Diesel engines anu Diesel
en^jines for rail cars and
locamotives
(c) Slow speed stationar?/ engines of
the oil well puirping type operating
outside the speed range of the gaso-
line engines produced by the neo-
bers of this division
9752
-426-
(d) Slovi and raediura speed horizontal and
vertical gas engines operating outside
the speed range of the gasoline engines
■oroduced by the me'nbers of this
division. "
Air conpressors of 10 horse po\7er, gasoline engines for nail
•Dropelling power or auxiliary purT30ses if mc'.de within Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing plants ^^ere under the ShiiDbuilding Code as approved, Part
1 of Section 1, as approved July 26, 1935, and as amended i.iarch 29, 1934,
Section 1, A, 2, rrhich is quoted as follows:
"The building within shipbuilding and shiprepairing
plants of machinery, enuimraent and other ship's parts,"
An open hearing '-ras held February 27 in 'iashington on the proposed
amendment. Later in Liprch Barton Yv. Murray, Division Administrator,
held a conference of the Deputies and Assistant Deputies concerned with
the overlapping of the proposed amendment. The Code Authority for the
Automotive Parts vras reauested to make up a complete list of items to
be included in the amendment, T-rhich it did do in part, but this was
not completed. It was proposed to hold a second open hearing when
the item lists were completed, but this open hearing did not come before
hair 26, 1935, (Ref, author's information)
Steam Engine Manufacturing Industry - The Question arose as to
steam engines built within shipyams. There was a conference held in
the office of W. "./, Rose, Deputy Administrator, on the subject, attended
liy those of interest. It wa-s substantially shown in this conference
that the engines built by shipyards v^ere marine engines and not the
type usual for stationary work as made by members of the Industry of
the Steam Engine Manufacturing Industry. As a result the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry was not disturbed in its jurisdiction over
engines built within shipbuilding plants. (P.ef, author's information)
Dredge and Floating Plant Code - Proposed - This proposed Code
contained certain definitions that were of a overlapping nature. A
protest was filed February 15, 1935, by the Chairman of the Shipbuilding
Code Authority. (Ref. Page 9 Minutes Feu. 21, 1955, Deputy's Files)
An open hearing was held on this proposed Code. It was pointed out
that Floating Marine Eouipment was clearly under the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Code. That the floating element of all such eouipment
was properly shipbuilding and was repaired in shiprepair yards, which
alone had the facilities. Nothin;- further came of the matter as the
Code was not approved prior to May 26, 1935. (Ref. author's information)
9732
-427-
B. ".7 AGES
The Code wage prvisions as originally approved are as follows:
"KI^xFII.iUi; WaC-E RAT£S
, "(a) The rainimain pay for labor, except apprentices,
learners, cpsanl rnJ. incidental labor, snail be at the
rate of fortv-five (45) cents per hour in the North and
thirty-five (35) cents per hear in the South.
"(1) Apprentices .and learners shall not be paid less
than the minir.ium wa^e after two (2) years of emplojinent.
"(2) Cfj.i.sal and incidentrl labor to be paid not less
than eighty (80) percent of the ;.iinimiaLi wage, the total
n-umber of such casual and incidental emploj^ees in any calen-
dar month not to exceed eight (3) percent of the total number
of skilled pnd seni skilled enployees during the same period.
"(b) The amorait of differences existing prior to July 1,
1933, bet'.TPen the i.7ar:e rates ppld vra-ious classes of em-oloyees
receiving more than the establisued rainin-om wage shall not be
decreased. In no event shall any employer pay an employee a
wage rate which will yield a less wage for a work week of
thirty-six (36) hours tLa:i such ermloyee was receiving for
the ssme class of work for a forty (40) hour week prior to
July 1, 1935, It is understood that ti.ere shall be no differ-
ence between hourly wage rates on commercial work and on naval
work, for the sa-ne class of labor, in the sane establishment."
Part IV, Paragraph (b) was modified by amendment No. 3, approved by
Hugh S. Johnson, Adninistrator, April 2, 1934, as follows:
"The amo-jjit of differences existing prior to July 1, 1933,
between the wage rates paid various classes of employees re-
ceiving more than the established minimum wage shall not be
decreased. In no event shall any employer pay an employee a
wage rate which will yield a less wage for a work week of
thirty-six (36) hours tha;i such employee was receiving for the
same class of work for a forty (^0) hour week "orior to July 1,
1933.
"Provided, however, that the hourly wage rates now pre-
vailing in private yards shall not be reduced because of the
increase in hoTirs, except rates resulting from the application
of Public works Administration Bulletin ilo. 51."
1. Effc-ct of Cojie Yfage Provisions
The Code wage provisions nad little direct affect upon the raising of
the wage scale throughout the Industry as a whole. The wage scales were
greatly increased, but this was due to the restricted weekly hour provisions
of the Code. These restricted hours res-olted in an insufficient pay envelope
compared with what the employees had received in normal tines, and caused
9732
-428-
labor unrest. Conspq aently the yards increased their -^ge schedules
beyond the requireiients of the '7age provisions of the Code, except
certain plants on the Pacific Coast --hich had not reduced wages from
the 1929^ scale. This rirtter is fully fet forth in the follordng .
articles on ^ages and hoirs,
2. Con-)liance '7i_th Code '."a-^e Rates
Referring to T:aragraoh (a) of the Code as quoted, the nini-ram
pny for labor of 45^? '"/as not a serious prohlen for the larger ship-
yards. They were for the nost opxt paying 40(2? -i.nd on?.y carrying a
small proportion of employment m this lo-est grade for common
labor, "^ (Hefo letter of Jmie 1:5, 1S34, from rl. Gerrish Smith, Chairman
of tne Code Authority, to J. L. V/e-ver, Deputy Administrator,
"Earnings of Em-olcyeeSj Paragraph 3''.
However, with the small reprir plmts the problem was more
serious and they complained that 4d^- for the north and 35c^ for the
south was pbove tn-t of competitive. I'ldustr-ies for the sam.e class
of labor. In the r-port uf the Research and Planning Division,
dated May 13, 1SL4, Serial No. 30-3. subject rinimim 7age Rates,
it was foyjid that of 525 Codes counted that 483 Codes enjoyed 40^
or below ar>d that there v're a i;otal of 501 Codes out of a total
of 523 Codes that were below tne .SnipDuilders 45v^ per hour for
the north.
Referring to oaragraph (l) of the Code as oaoted, no unusual
difficult^,'- arose.
Referring to paragraoh (2) of the Code as quoted, casual and
incidental labor, tliese terms were not 'veil ijnderstood. However,
there was no record of any particular difficulty in complying with
the provision, no doubt due to the fact that there is little labor of
this character employed by the shipyards that is paid the Code
minimum rate.
The Compliance Division's reoort of th^ Labor complaints filed
from the effective date of the Code to laj- 25, 1935, is as follows:
Date of earliest compl.Tint
Total docketed
Investigated complaints Adjusted
Ho iriola'i.ion found
Bookkeeping rejections
Compliance Division, or Regional
Office
On Hand, May 25, 1935 •
November 18, 1933
145
74
42
12
■ 11
6
The Compliance Division at this writin.:: does not have the breal-'-
do-'n of these labor comolaints for the f-oll period. Ho'-^ever, their
record from July 24, 1934 to '\'%r 1, 1935, has been made available to
the author and he has calculated from this report the following pro-
portions, which maj'- be taken a3 a general guide of complaints filed:
9732
-429-
Art. Ill - Hours 36.3;^
Art, III (r) Tailurf' tc p^.y overtime
earned 18.4/o
Art. IV Tair.ire to pay niaiin.jn ^^ages 39. 3^^
Art. IV (b) 7age differrntial 6»Ci1i
Rpference is nade to detail schedules of coraplaints handled "by
the Industrial Helr.tions Connittee s=t forth on pages 436 to 440 hereof.
(Ref, CoTOliance Folder, Depaty's Files)
3. Skilled aiid sei:i-skilled '.Tage Rates
Jo detail scaedule of skilled and semi-skilled ivage rates 'vas
submitted "ith the Code, ho-'ever, Ho-ner L. Fer.-guson, President of
the Iwvrport ITe^^s Shipbuildin;- and Dry Bock Ccroany, at the hearing;
of July 19, 1933, submitted three j^ira ^as on employment in shipyards,
(Ref. p^v:e 14 hereof and the graphs £:^:kibits G, G-1 and G-2. These
grrphs were b-sed on reports of 36 shipyai-ds iThich included the najor
shipbuilding plants of t le country)
Reference is made to Gr-^on G, ^vhich sets forth the proportion
of en^loyment as between s':illed, semi-skilled and -unskilled labor.
Skilled enployment for 1927 '.as 52^j, semi-skilled 27^^ and unslcilled
2lfo', for 1S29 skilled 50;;;, serai-skilled 27;^ and unskilled 23t; for
1931 skilled 5i;'., semi-skilled 27,1 and unskilled 22fo, and for 1933
skilled 4Dyb, semi-skilled 36;j and unskilled Id'/o. The percentages
for 1931 may be taiten as a good average 'vhen the shipbuilding -oiants
were building and repairing passenger or cargo tonnage. The figures
for 1933 represent the employment --hp-n the principal \TOrk was only
repair. In 1933 very ].ittle constiucti-n 'of ^diy kind was on the
ways. For 1935 the proportion of skilled and semi-skilled will tend
to increase beyond the proportion of 1951, under the influence of
the present Ifeval construction pro-ram as the --ork is of a -very special
high grade t-rpe. In fact tnere is a serious shortage of skilled ship
fitters at this writing ?nc^ these are the real metal shipbuilders.
There is also a shortage of '-'elders. All of the vjrincipal shipyards
have been running '-'elding schools and now some of them are -instituting
schools for ship fitters. '
Reference is made to Grajh G-1 on 'Vhich is sho'^n skilled labor,
earned rates; skilled labor, base r^-^tes; semi-skilled labor, earned
rates; semi-skilled labor, base rates; -onskilled labor, earned rates;
and unskilled labor, base rates. The earned ra,tes are the result of
an incentive system in' shipbuilding s-uch as piece work, 'fhich is a
world wide shipb-uilding practice. The following dat.a is'taken off of
the Graph referred to.
9732
r-430-
1957 1929 1951 1953 Pprcenta/;e of
reductions
in 1933
Skilled-E-"rned Rates
" Base "
76f;
77^
70^
77^'
69^
68r5
62^-(*
ll:r^
10-^ -
Semi-skilled-Earned Rates
" Base "
4?^
53^
48^
54(i
48^
46(i'
44,^
15:^0
Unskilled - Earned "
" Base "
4?^
40^
45c*
40^
42^
39(5
38{^
3d(^
io;5
Reference is made to the Graph Erliibit G-2, i^hich sets forth
the average ¥feekly w=ge and included the reduction in hours 'Then
the shipyards ran out of ne^7 construction dijring the depression period
of 1931 to July 1, 1935. The folloi7ing data is tiilcen off this Graph.
Percentage of
1927 1929 1951 1955 reductions 1951 to 1933
Average wage per week $30.85 $50.55 $50.50 '25,90 21^0
including reduction in
hours during period 1951 -
1955 (July 1)
Referring to the fore-^oing figures on hoth -'^age rates and the
average ?/age received, it is noted tha.t Tjhile the wage rates were
only reduced 10^"^ to 15-;o as "between 1951 and 1955 that the average
wage earned by the employees was red. iced 21;^ "because of the effect of
the fewer hours worked per week.
Reference is made to letter from Isador Lubin^, dateS. -Eeceniber ,5^._19'35,
to H. Newton ■.iliittelsey, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Deputy's Riles,
to which is attached dnta, ^7aich sets forth that the n-omber of e-raployees
in the month of October 1955 as 45,411 and the weekly payroll
$1,089,088, which is equivalent to about $25.^0 average per employee.
Reference is made to Bulletin 415, entitled Shipbuilding Wages
Highest of Durable Goods Industry, dated August 15, 1955, Exhibit V
hereof, to irhich is attached chart No. 1, entitled Average Hours
Worked per Week per Employee, Exhibit V-1 hereof, and attached chart
Ho. 2, Average Hourly Rates Per Employee , Erdiibit V-2 hereof, and
also attached chart No. 5, entitled Avera.ge weekly Earnings per
Employee, E;-hibit V-5 hereof. The scarce of this information is given
in this Bulletin as the Department of Labor.
Referring to chart llo, 2, Exhibit '¥-2, Average Hourly Rates per
Employee, it shotild be noted that this giaph is based on the reports
for each individual month and not for a period of time such as six
months or a year average, which was the basis for the Ferguson charts.
Exhibits G, G-1 and G-2. Average hourly rate per employee given on
chart No, 2 for July 1955 for shipbuilding is 56. 4^^; for January 1934
69.5!^ for July 1934 74. Ij/'; for Jan-aary 1955 756 anc^ for May 1955 75(zJ
(this is the last report). In this connection it should be pointed
9752
-431-
out that general nnniif acturing average nourly I'ates for the same
period were as follows: July 1953 42. 7(^; January 1934 53, 3(^; July
1934 55.65:?; January 1935 56. 'J^ and Lay 1935 57.1fJ.
Referring to Bulletin 415, £::hibit V, it is further set forth
that the next highest duro.hle goods average wage rr-.te for Hay 1935 is
72^, which was for the AutonolDile Industry --^Jid the lo'^est average
rate was ^2.16 for the Savmill Industry.
It is pointed out that the Ship"building Industry average hourly
rate increased from 5Dc4fc\as of July 1933 to 1^ as of Hay 1935, an in-
crease of 13.6^ or 33,3o The average wage scale for general manufacturing
was paid on prodViCts fcr the most part protected 'Dy the tariff, whereas
in shipbuilding the commercial deep sea ships must meet the competition
of the open markets of the -jcrld in the operation of such ships against
the vessels of ail otlier nations. (See page ■lereof - statement of
H. Gerrish Sraitxi, dated July 19, 1953)
The averaged earned rates for the years 1927, 1929 and 1931 have
been calculated by the author from the data talcen from the Ferguson
charts as follows:
1927 1929 1931
62.5{5 62. 85^ 62.9^
The average hourly rates for the succeeding years as taken
from chart No. 2, Exhibit V-2, are as follo'.7s:
1933 1954 ' 1954 1935 1955
July- 56.4^ January- 69.5^ July- 74.1rf January- 75^ May-75(^
The average wage of 62,8}^ for 1929 is taken as a bpsis for a
fair average wage under normal operating conditions. The average
wage of 75^ for Ma^'- 1955 is an increase of 13.2^ or 21^ over and
above the normal average wa,-;;^e rate of 1929.
The Code provision, part 4, paragr^h (b) , hereinbefore set
forth, provided to increase the average wage rates 11,1-^. However,
the actual increase from July 1955 to May 1935 has been shown to be
•'^5;fa, which is far beyond the Code requirements. Therefore, this ex-
traordinary increase of wage rates was not due to the wsge provisions
of the Code, but it was due to the restricted weekly ho'ir provisions
of the Code as will be set forth under title C. 1. of this Chapter.
Referring to schedales of wage rates. A fair schedule is set
forth in a letter from C. L. 3srdo, President of the New York Ship-
Voilding Corporation as of July 5, 1934, addressed to J. B. '.Teaver,
Deputy Administrator, vhich reads as follows:
9732
-4313-
"Replying to yours of Jaly 1st. At the present
time all our hourly rated prod active employees have
"been divided "into four n.r..jor divisions; nara^ly, un-
skilled; sprai-skilled, skilled arid specialistsj and
these four najor c.ivisions h-^ve teen further suh-
divided into first, second and third classes. The
rates applyin^; to each individu,Tl class are a.s listed
oelovT.
■ 1st 2nd 3rd
Unskilled . 55 . . 51 .45
Serai-skilled <, 67 .62 ,58
Skilled .83 .76 .70 .
Specialists 1,00 .94 .88
HThere are nine of oiir major departments working
on an incentive and piere ?/ork "basis, varying from
3,7^ to 35^9^ of the employees of these various
department G; and the ec-rnings of the. anployees
so employed is.rf. increased from ripprn^,.lrately 3/o to 20,t
depending upon their ahiJlty, ei'iiciency, etc,"
The foregoing rates riro substantially those paid hy the Industry.
However, the Ucw York Ghipbulidinc Corporation is now paying a still
higher rate of 5^ in accordance with the settlement of the strike.
Wage rates are often co':!!^" ed* on tr.e b asis of the "base skilled rate
and in this inst--^nije tlie Hew York Shipbuilding Corporation base
skilled rate is sn own as SSrf as of July 5, 1934, It is not uncoram.on
practice of shipyards to ac!just all rates otner than the common
labor r3.te by fixed ra^tio to the b-^se skilled rate.
There is set forth in Exhibit V-4, Appendix, General Shipbuilding
Rates in the Ifempton Roads District for September 1934, vrhich for
the most part is the general oractice there today. Further there is
set forth Exhibit 'V-7, Appendix., "Averse rates paid by private ship-
builders receiving contracts from P.'J.A. fund May 1935",
4. Code Provisions Requirin;:; the Ac',justment of ".7ages Upward
Referring to laragrapn (d) of the Code as originally approved
and as amended, the particular provision "in no event shall any em-
ployer pay an employee a vnge rate whic/i will yield a less wage for
a work- week of t-iirty-six (35) hours thaji such employee was receiving
for the seme cl^'Ss of ^Tork for a i.orty (40) hour week ;orior to
July 1, 1933",- created serious diffic\ilties on the Pacific Coast among
the smaller repair plajits. The ya.rds on the Atlantic Coast, Gulf and
certain major yards on the Pacific Coast reduced the wage scales
from the 1929 scale about 15,1 as hereinbefore set forth. This .pro-
vision of the Code had the effect of increasing wage rates 11,1}^ to
restore wages that had been reduced, Hov.-ever, in the San Francisco
Bay Area aJid in the Portland and Seattle Area th.e' small plants were
operat-ing under contract with the. Union,s, and under these contracts
did not reduce the 1929 wage; scales,
9732
-435-
The San Prancisco Ba;^^ Area plants appealed to the Code Authority
■■^or relief from this -orovision, but under the advice of the Deputy
it Fas thought that it v;as too early to oegin to amend the Code.
(Ref. liinutes reeting August ,-33, 19E5) The matter was later aoperled
in the Tall of 1953 to the Code Authority and on April 2, 1S34, it
was acted on hy the Indistrir.l r.elrxtions Co^Fiittee, -hich recommended
denial of the amplication. (P.ef. Minutes folder, Industrirl P.elations
Committee files) A forml Aoministrative denial of the application
was issued I.Icy 1, 1934, Administrative Order 2-15, si,-ned oy K. M.
Simpson, Division Aaministrator. Upon the issuance of t lis Order
the San Francisco 'Bsy Area plants apcealed .again and this time to the
Administration. As a result an open hearing was called for June 7, 1934,
It was clearly Trroiight out at this hearing that this provision
of the Code was acting to crush small Industries. It \vas testified
that the Bethlehem Shi-oLailding Conpaaiy at San Prancisco was paying
a base skilled rate of '-3^^, ^n.ereas the Union skilled base 'vage scales
being xjaid by the small i^lants was 84,5. Under the provisions of the
Code it wo-ald increase their scr.le to 93^^ (Ref, transcript of
hearing San Pr.-ncisco Bay Jtrne 7, 1?54) As a resalt the Adnini stration
issued and order r-hich reveised the previous procedure, and exempted
these plants from this provision o^^ the Code. The Order was dated
J\aly 5, 1934, No. 2-20, signed by C.E. Adnjas, Division Adnini stmtor.
In the Portland Az-ea the moderr.te size plants appealed to the
Code Authority for relief from this Code Provision as they were paying
a base skilled r^te on a Union agreement of 9Z<p . which had not been
reduced from the 1929 scale. The Code acted to increase this rate
to about $1.04. Comolaint -7as filed against five of the plants by
the Chairman of the Local Area Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Committee. Two plants made adjustment and the other three uaid the
advance scale beginning about October 20, 1933. They were the
Commercial Iron Uorks, Albina iingine and hachine lorks and the
".Tilliaraette Iron ajid Steel .'orks on rhom demand was made for restitu-
tion of the increase -oay from the effective date of the Code to
October 20. 1935.
These cases came to the rttention of the author in the Fall of
1954, vrho, after a thorough study of the subject, recommended that
exemption be granted. The cases were returned to the Compliance
Division throiigh the Division Adnini strtat or. Barton I. Murray. The
author was informed by the Compliance Division that they had been
returned to the Field and this was the last that was heard of them.
The Seattle cases, while known to be in the Compliance Division
and presumably to be in the Pield, did not cone to the attention of
the author. It is understood by the aitnor that those- plants having
Government contracts for the Department of Agriculture paid the P.T/.i,
wage scale, as the bids -.-^ere on that basir. , T'hich was equivalent to the
Code requirements.
9732
-4"4-
5, Maladjustment, vrith other Industries
The C.hairrmn of the Code Authority at the meeting of M-^.rch 2,
1934, reported ar, follov/s:
"The Chairman r.'^ported th.at a hardship was "being worked
on certain memhers of the Industry dae to the difference
of ho^^rs and wages provided in other Codes in manufac-
turinf: luate rials which ai'e also budlt in shipbuilding
■ and shiprepai Ling ys-ds 'vhen tids are asked from firms
operating under different Codes,"
Reference is made to Exhihit V-5, the same teing the setting
forth of the conflict as 'bctv.resn the Governnent and the Shipbuilding
Industry hy H, Gerrish Smith, Chairrvm of the Code Authority, dated
March 7, 1P34, and suonitted to Group 4 Code Authority Organization
called hy General Hugh So Johnson; the Adninistrat or, from M^-r ch 5,
1934, to March 8, 1954 inclu,:ive. Eeferoncs is a.lso made to the
general account of the meetings called hy General Johnson March 5
to March 8 cont-dned in the aetter c'^ted l!arch 9 from H, Gerrish Smith,
Chairman of the Code Aiithority to tlie Industry Kerahers of the Code
Committee, Exhibit V-o hereof,
6, Posting of Labor I^rovisinns
The Code Ai^ithority distributed ?,057 to 611 establishments,
(Ref. letter from. CGo Knerr, Secretary of the Code Authority to
G, A. Lynch, Administrative Officer, Sept, 32, 1934, in Labor folder,
Deputy's Files) No complaints were filed for failure to post,
7, DisTjlay of Insignia
Insignia were distributed with the Labor Provisions. There is
no record of the extent of their use,
8, Overtime Pay
The overti.ne pa.yment of employees who were permitted to work
beyond the weekly maximum hour provisions of the Code under exemptions
or stays at the rate of one and one-half, (l--) times the regular hourly
rate, became a serious problem to the Industry, for the reason that
the maximum- weekly hours were seriously restricted to 36 hours per
week. It was necessary for the shipbuilders to make applications to
the Administration for working beyond the maximum weekly hours for
emergency work, trial trips, draftsmen and loftsmen and in certain
instances of individual yards, vThere there was a shortage of certain
classes of labor; and it was necessary for the Administration to
grant such applications,
Af. an exemption from, or .stay of, the maximum hour provisions
of the Code was a temporary modification of a Code provision effective
for B. limited time in lieu of an actual ajnendment, such exemptions or
9732
-435-
stays had to be guarded l\y snitplilp conditions in order that employees
would not be v/crked excessive overtime. The only practical effective
means to p-uard this situation "7as ".Mat ma;'" be called economic in-
ducement, that is the proviiii on that time and one-half should be paid
beyond ma^iiuij^m "w-r-ekly ho:jj'Sj in order to induce the members of the
Industry to aire nore men iur.tead of ^Torking a small force undue
overtime.
Reference is mad^ to pages 326-354, inclusive hereof, Chapter
III, C, 3f, ilxe option 3 and StaySs Therein is set forth the protest
of the Shipbuilding ar.:! Ghiprepairing Inciuctry Committee against
provisions in e;cemptic;i aJid staj^- Orders requiring pa^nnent of overtime
beyond the maximum ueck.'y hmtr provisions of the Code and the request
for the deletion of such overtime pro>7isions from the orders. Adnini-
stra-tive Order 2-52, 'Thich denied the request, dated March 21, 1935,
signed by 77, A. Earriman, Administrative Officer, recommended by
Barton W. I'urray., Division Administrator; Division II, (Eef. Code
Record Section and Depiity's Fijes) ai.'.d excerpts from the memorandum
to V, W. Harrima,n, Administrative Officei- from H, Nei^'oon TiPnittelsey,
Assistant Deputy Adroi?d.stra,tor, approved by ¥. W. Rose, Deputy
Administrator, oxe set torth.
The memorandum just rei>rred to completely sets forth in the
volume the formal protest of the Code Authority and the argument 'by
the Code Authority to the Administration, It further sets forth
recommendations of the j)xi.visory Boerds, a resume of the individual
orders that carried the subject overtime provision and the reasons
for the necessity of protecting the situation by suitable overtime
provision, md fi:''ally recommends that the. request for deletion of such
overtime provision be denied. Reference is made to the Volume, Order
2-32, (?iled in Code Record Section and Deputy's Files)
Subsequent to the original protest of the shipbuilders and
request that the tlm.e ?nd one-half provision be deleted from the
certain Administrative Orders, but prior to the Order denying such
request, the Chairman of the Code Authority, Mr, H, G-errish Smith, .
requested an opoortunity of appearing before the llational Industrial
Recovery Board to present tlieir argument on the matter. This ap-
pointment -was duly arranged for March 6, 1935, and there appeared for
the shipbuilders Hr, H, G-errish Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority,
Mr. Joseph Haag, Jr., and Mr. 17, H, G-erhauser, members of the Code
Authority, and there ware present representing the Board, Dr, .Walton
H, Eamilton, Mr, Blackwell Smitb, and the assistant to Mr, L, C. Marshall,
Executive Secretary of the Board, Also present were W, W, Rose,
Deputy Administrator, and the author, H, Ke\'!rton ".Thittelsey, Assistant
Deputy Administrator, The shipbuilders presented tneir argument
orally, substantially as contained in letters of January'- 28 and
February 21, 1955, signed by H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code
Authority, to Z, Uewton '^littelsey, Assist.ant Deputy Administrator,
as contained in the Volume,- Order £-32, The members of the Board
heard the shipbuilders in a very sympathetic manner and gave due
consideration to the difficulties that the shipbuilders found themselves
9732
-456-
in« The raeiaorandum on the subject, later bound in the Volume of
Order 2-32, addressed to T7,.L, Harriman, Administrative Officer, from
H, Newton' Fnittelsey, A-gsista.it Deputy Administrator, was submitted
to L, C. MriTsh'allf Executive. Secretary of the Board, as setting forth
the pros and consof the subject.
The author received instructions to withhold., the order denying
the application in order to allow time for the matter to be considered
by the Board. Fin^.lly instructions were received by the author to
send the case forward and the order of denial was duly signed on
March 21, 1935, .
In view of the necessity to spread employraent and to -orevent -ondue'
overtime 'there was no other practical method suggested by the ship-
builders or others that would safegLvai'd the situation excepting the
requirement of. overtime beyond weekly hours.
The author w-^.s informed Ly J»'.To Hart, one of the Industry
members of the .Industrial ?.?:'"'-;« iona Com-mittee that the Shipbuilding
and Shiprepairing Industry Co.'raittee, (C-^-de Authority) proposed
to exercise its right to appeal Aojriinistr,"tive Order 2-32 to the
Industrial Appeals Bo:i-d of -c.he Kational P.ecovery Administration
and in consequence on April 5, 1S35, by letter to H, Gerrish Smith,
Chairman of the Code Aiuthority from H. Newton \?nittelsey, A'ssistant
Deputy Administrator, a letter was requested indicating the intent of
the Code Authority. (Pt'^f. Exemption Polder, Deputy's Files) In
reply the following letter was received:
"April 8, 1935
"Mr. H, Newton Fnittelsey,
Assistqint Deputy Administrator
Equipment Division'
1320 G Street,
Washington, D.C.
■ "Subject; Administrative Order 2-52
Denying request for ^deletion of time
and oneThalf for overtime beyond
• maximiora weekly hoiirs from Adrainis-
trative Orders,
"Dear Mr. l^hittelsey: . _ ■ _
._. . We Ijave your letter of Ajiril 5, l'j35 in
connect i.oij with the right to appeal from
■ provisions of Administrative Order 2-32 per-
j- . . - . , J- ,
taining to the pa'ment of time and one-half be-
yond weekly hours and in reply wish to inform you
that the Code Authority expects to appeal directly to
,■•. the Industrial Appeals Board the provisions con-
tained in Administrative Order 2-32,
"Very truly yours,
"/a/ H, Gerrish Smith
9732 "HGS; s Chairman"
-437-
The appeal of the snipbv.i.lders was dulj"" made imder date of
May 21, 13S5, to the Industrial Aopeals Board, This appeal very
completely set forth the ca,se on T^veaty pr',-^:es of raanuscript and ahout
twenty five pages of exhiliitb- (Rei, Protest Folcler, Dooiity's Files)
There was insufficient time for the natter to be put to hearing by
the Industrial ^ueals Soard before Hay 26, 1935.
9, Public Works Acninistration Contracts
There was an allocation of $238;, 000, 000 from the Public Works
Administration to the Fa'y Department for the construction of ITaval
vessels, Sonethinc=; more than one-half cf this allocation was let in
the form of contracts to the private shipbuilders in Aiigust 1933, which
was before the issuance of Po7cA, Bullstin 51, September 7, 1933, It
had been arranged bet-.vi&n the >".W. A™ and tne Havy Department that
these contracts should be carried out ui\der the provirions of the
Shipbuilding and Shipv€;cairin" Code as to w^^es and hours. However,
when the P<.^oA. Pulletin 51 vas issued, wh.i.ch provided a schedule of
wages and hours for contracts to be Vc'dd for o^it cf P.W. A, fuiids,
there was no exemption from such provisions for shipbuilding, which
had the effect of bringing future shipbuilding contracts xmder the
P.W, A. scares. In due course by order of the President accepting
a report of the ii-jtional Labor Boaxdj shipbuilding was -olaced under
the provision of -c-he Ghipbuiiding Code on and after July Ij 1934.
(Hef. Sec. 55 P.",T>A. B^illstin 51, dr,T ed Dec, 1- 1934, in PcTf.A.
Folder, Depj.ty's ?iles) This subject is dealt with more fully under
a following title of this chapter ''Hours",
9732
-433-
C. HOURS
The Code hour provisions as originally approved are as folloT7s:
"(a) Merchant Shipoiiildin.'^ and Shipre-oairing - IJo
em"oloyee on an hour rate nay rrork in excess of an aver-
age of thirty--si:: (36) hours per week^ "bo.sed upon a six
(S) months' period; nor more than forty (40) ho\irs dur-
ing any one vreelz^ If p.r^r employee on an hourly rate
works in excels of eight (8) hours in any one day, the
wage paid will 'be at the rate of not less than one and
one-half (l-^-) times the regu0.ar hourlj'- ra.te, hut other-
wise according' to the prevailing custom in each port,
for such time as may be in excess of eight (8) hours.
" (h) Shiphuildiiig for the United States Government
- No employee on an hourly rate may work in excess of
thirty-two (32) hoLirs per week. If any emoloyee on an
hourly rate works in excess of eight (8) hours in any
one day, the wpge paid will ue at the rate of not less
than one and one-half (l ■-) tiriss the regular hourly rate,
hut otherwise rccc. >'ing bo the orevaiiing custom in each
port, for such time as j:ia;^ he in excess of eight (8)
hours.
"(c) Exceptions - For a -oeriod of six (6) months'
exception may he made in the number of hoxirs of em;')loy-
ment for the employees of the shipbuilders engaged in
designing, engineering and in mold loft njid order de-
partments and such others as are necessarjr for the pre-
paration of 'olans and ordering of materials to start work
on new ship cons traction, but in no event shall the number
of hours worked he in excess of forty-eight (48) hours
per week, and in no case or class of ca.ses not approved
by the Planning and Fair Practice Committee provided for
in Section (8)."
Part 3, Paragraphs (a) and ?b) were modified by Amendment No, 3,
approved by General Hugh S. Johnson, April 2, 1934, as follows:
"Shipbuilding - No employee on an hourlj'' rate shall
be ;oermitted to work more than thirty-six (36) hours per
week. If an em^jloyee on an hourly rate works in excess
of eight (8) hours in any one day, the wage paid will be
at the rate of not less than one and one-half (li) times
the regular hourly rate, but otherwise according to the
prevailing custom in each port, for such tine as may be in
excess of eight (S) hours."
9732
-439-
"Shipre-opirinf; - Ho eraolojee on an hourly ra.te shall
"be permitted to voi'k mors tho.n thirt/-six (36) hovirs ver
week avernged. over a rieriod of si:c (d) months, nor more
than forty (40) hours during any one week. If pny employ-
ee on -nn hourly rr-te v/orks in excess of eight (8) hours
in any one day, the wap.'e j3aid -/ill "be r.t the rate of not
less than one and one-half (l-;,) times the regular hourly
rate, "but otherwise accordino to the prevailing custom
in ea.ch jort, for such time as riay "be in excess of eight
(8) hours."
1, Effect of Hour Provisions of the Code on Industry. •
The weekly hour provisions of the Code proved to "be uneconomic
and unduly restrictive end of very serious .consequence "both to the
Industry and to the employees. The effect on the Industry was to raise
the average wage scgle approximately 21>o a.bove the 1929 scnle ajid there-
"by increase the cost of commercial ships to a point inhere the ship owner
could not "b-u;;'-. It also raised the cost of the Naval "building program
estimated "by the author at approximately $45,000,000, whereps one of
the major plants of the Industry "buildi-.g a part of this program is su"b-
stpjitially making no money, or will find itself in the red. TJhile this
effect was going on with the siaipyard companies, the employees were re-
ceiving on an averpge 20^ less for their webkly ;oay than they would have
received if there were no Code, and during the sajvie period the emiDloy-
ment on new commercial ship"building was su"bstanti-rilly iil owing to the
prohiTDitive cost of "building commercipl vessels which resulted in a
restriction of em-iloyfjent of 230ssi"bly 15,000 to 20,000 men in the opinion
of the author.
Further during this particular time the Government itself provided
for its own ITav:'- yards a 40 hour week, "hich acted to deplete the trained
personnel of the shipyards, that had "been trained in the shipyard schools
and rt the shi^oyards' exi;)ense. Tlie competition fron the ITpvy yards wa.s
distinctl^T- unfair com'oetition under any common .sense view or fair play,
"buy it was not the fault of the iJavy De;oa.rtment, "but the im^oosed restric-
tive hours under the Code,
The historical acco-ont of the mazii'iura vaelcLy hour provisions of the
Code is as follows:
The Industry had "been worlcing on a 44 to 48 hour basis, which gave
the men a payroll, under normal conditions of operation such as in 1929,
of s,"bout $30,55 per week, . (Hef, Zxh, &r2, Appx.)
A fe'-' of the major shipyards operated after the year 1932 on a
40 hour basis on new construction, in res":'Onse to the request of Presi-
dent" Hoover, in the hopes of spreading employment. The shipbuilders in
presenting t'neir Code, Erdiibit B hereof, and in vie-^ of the best possible
spread of employment based on their experience, submitted a maximum hour
provision of 40 hours "oer week. There had been pat forwa.rd the theory
of still shorter hoiirs aaad, therefore, the shi^abuilders duly presented ■
the case of the ap-nlication of shorter "hourri than 40 hours per week on
this Industry. Reference is ma^de to the open hearings on the Code of
•■;732
-440-
July 19, 20 and 21 and specifically to the statements mr.de by Mr, Homer
L. Ferguson, President of the lle^Toort Ne'vs Shipbuilding a,nd Dry Dock
Coiapany. Mr. Ferguson is a ma,n of sAithority on shipbuilding, is inter-
nationally loioi.Tn and has been President of this cojipany for nany years,
is a f^raduate of Annapolis end was a i.ieijber of the Construction Ccr-os of
the Navy before going to Newport Ile-rs, Mr. Ferguson with his statement
submitted tl'.ree charts, E:diibits G, G-1 and G-2 hereof, based on the re-
ports from thirty--six of the better known shipbuilding and shiprepairing
companies. Further Lawrence Y. Spear, Vice-President tef the Electric
Boat Comijany, clearly set forth the -probable effect of restricted hours
below 40 hours per week and Mr, Spe.ar i'j another authority on shipbuild-
ing. (Hef. pa::es 14 to 20 inclusive of this history). Again Rear Ad-
miral E. S. Land, Chief of Bureau of Construction and Repair,' United
States Haw, fully set forth the "oosition of the Kavy Depa^rtment and
recommended the 40 hour week. (Sef. pa/;e3 26, 27 and 28 of this history).
What La.wrence Y. Sjiear indicated would be the effect of restricted
hours below 40 hours per week has fully come true and the exoerience
of such hours has proved to be basically uneconomic in this Industry. The
author makes no pro-ohecy a,s to the application of less than 40 hours to
other Industries because in some Industries the emoloyoes can make from
95% to 103^ of the vreeld.y ho-'ors, whereas in the shipbuilding industry
the em/oloyees can only make from 70'fo to QQf^, beca.use of the intermittent
character of the work erA the multiplicity of ana changing of the crafts
during the construction of the shro,
¥ith the foregoing referred to information "vefore the presiding
officer for the Aajninistrati'"'!, A. D. ITliiteside, Deputy, the final a,greed
form of the Code was submitted by the shipbuilders ai,t the termination of
the heari'iigs and it co;itainea the 40 hour provision. (Ref, Exhibit B,
Appendix)
The post hearint; conferences 'vere conducted bv General H\agh S.
Johnson, Administrator. !Io account of the conferences could be found
by the author. Therefore, it m'as necessary to go to two principals that
attended such conferences. Their irritten statements are set forth on
pages 58, 59, 60 and 51 hereof.
The sta.tement herein made by H. Gerrish Smith, President of the
National Council of American Shipbuilders and later Chairman of
the Code Authority, has been confirmed a number of times bj'- others
tha.t were present at these conferences. His account clearly sets forth
the manner in which the Government through the Administrator ihiposed
restricted hours on this Industry. Mr, John P. Prey, President of the
Metal Trades Department, American Pedera.tion of Labor in his statement
does not specifically mention weekly hours, but his sta.tement is of
value when read in connection \7ith the statement of H. Qe.rrish Smith.
The Industry soon learned the difficulties that it wa.s under due
to the restricted hours and as early as August -31, 1933, a formal xito~
test was filed with the National La,bor Board and on October 16, 1933,
C. L, Bardo, President of the Ne'- York Shipbuilding Corporation, add-
ressed a letter to General Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator of N. R. A. and
9732
-441-
Honorable Rotert F. \l&--;nev , Clip irmaii , Ilrtional L^bor Boa.rd, nhich T7as
acconpanied tj an . "Analysis ond Effect o ' the Ilrtional Industrial
Recovery Act as Applied aiT-d Interpreted in the Shi-nbuilders ' and Ship-
repairsrs' Code Approved July 2oth, 1953". (Eef. Lrbor Folder Deputy's
Files)
Excerpts from the letter fre as follors:
"October IGth, 1933.
"General Eugh S. Johnson, Administrator
national Recovery Adniniatration
Honorable Hob-:;rt F. TTrgner, Chairman
National Labor Board,
Washington, F. C.
"Gentleraen:
"Under date of xYugust 31, 1935, pursuant to instrixp-
tions received frora i.ir, I>e-:iey of the national Labor Board,
a formal protest, accomppjiied by a joint statement of fact
signed by the Chairman of the Shop Conmittee and by n^self,
was filed, -orotestin;^ ar^iainst the unreasonable restriction
of hours for ship^^'ard workers en:;;pged in government \T0rk,
and requesting that these hours be increased from thirty-
two to forty hours a weoh,
"The Shi^fouilders ' Code became effective on August 6th
and we hrve o;)erated thereunder since that date,
"The -oriraary purposes of the Act Mere to reduce -onem-
ployment, increc?se consumption, and utilize to the fullest
possible e:ctent the productive capacity of industry under
a so-called partnership agreement bet^jeen the government,
industry, labor and the consomer.
"As applied to shipbuilding, the Code has signally
failed to accomplish these resv.lts.
"Shipbuilders are large consumers of materials and
supr)lies. Thr3 shipyr-rd is the end of the economic trail
for all ra-T or finished materials bought either for in-
corporation in the shi;T or for use in the manufacturing
processes or the maintenance of the plant. The productive
cs.pacity of the olant should, therefore, be increased if
the pur ) OSes of the Act are to be accom'olished to the
fullest "oossible extent, instead of being restricted as
the Code does.
9732
-442-
"TJotwithstnjiding the 25fo increase in the hourly-
rates for hoTirl;^ rated en^loyees, vrhose rrtec rre now
7^0 higher than they have been any tine since the T.'ar,
under i/hich the hourly rated men are now receiving for
52 hcurb T70rk the srme a;nount they heretofore received
for 40, there is very f;reat dissatisf notion and unrest
in the forcer,, nith a, correspondinsj loss of productive
efficiency; all of v/hich is hein'; seriously reflected
in the oneratin;; results of the comoany, as evidenced
"by the statement showa on paf^e fc-ur of the acconpanying
brief, v/hich clearly sho'js a loss in ;iroductive effici-
ency as a:oplied to the Cruiser TUSCALOOSA of 4.1i;J in
June, with 1814 men working 313,300 -olan man hours, to
3.475^ completion in Septeuber, with 2657 men working
332,457 plant man hours; with an increase in pajToll of
$55,000 for the last month.
"To conclude, the operation of the Code unduly re-
stricts the consuming productive capacity of the Dlaiit
25fo, It restricts the productive capacity and earnings
of the employeea "oy a like percentage. It has not in-
creased employment, as the same nunber of men would have
been employed on a 40-hoLir week as are now employed on
the 32- hour week.
"There is attached to this letter an analysis which
has been prepared after a careful review of the entire
situation.
"T7e, therefore, urgently request that prompt and
serious consideration be given to a modif icr.tion of the
maximum weekly working hoiors, prescribed by the Shipbuild-
ers' and Shixjrepa,irers' Code, from 32 to 40 hours,, in
order that these intolerable ajid v.'holly \in justified con-
ditions may be removed and that the 'roductive and consum-
ing capacity of the plant and its v/orkers may be restored
to the basis established by mutual consent and in effect
prior to the adoption of the Code.
"Very truly /ours,
"1E¥ YORi: SIiIP3UILDII:G CORPOSATIOH,
"3y /s/ C. L. Bardo
C. L. Bardo
President."
9732
-443-
This aaalysis is a very comolcte and fair document accompanied
by four photostatic graphs. It clearly sets forth the effect of the
restricted hours or. the Indiistiy and rrritten hy those that have oroper
knowledge of the Iudur.tr;- and, therefore, have the ability to handle
such a sutjecte
This document is filed in the Labor Folder, Deputy's Files.
Excerpts from the Analysis are as follows:
"This stateme-^t is prepared for the -our^ose of
showing that the existing provisions in the Code of Fair
Competition of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Indus-
try, as ap-oroved by President Roosevelt on July 26, 1933,
in so far a.s they restrict the hours of labor forty (40)
hours per rreek, whether for nerchant or United States
Government Shipbuildihg, actually ojaerate to defeat the
objectives which the Industrial Recovery Act tras designed
to accomplish, in that:
"(a) No increase in em'oloj'-ment is effected.
"(b) Needless loss in buying 2:o^.7er results.
"(c) Actual decrease in consumption of industrial '
products inevitably follov/s.
"(d) Needless decrerse in loroduction is occasioned.
"(e) The full "oroductive capacity of the industiy
is not utilized. '
"(f) Insurmo'ontable obstructions are thrown in the
way of f oreigh commerce.
"(g) Unfair competitive advantages res-'jlt to other
einiDloyees in shipyards operated by the Governnent, and
in compara.ble trades.
"Every failure in this respect is directly op->:osed
to the declared purposes of this great National exijeri-
ment, majiy of vjhich are catalogued in the 1st section of
the National Industrial Recovery Act.
"1. Irii: PURPOSE OF tic: IIATIO'JAL INDUSTRIAL R'JCOVT.RY
ACT IS TO FRZZ BjSIli'ZSS, LIOT TO SHACKLZ IT.
"The recitals in the 1st Section of the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act are specific and significant. This sec-
tion reads as follows:
9732
-444-
*L national emergency productive of vrides-oread
ijineraployment and disorganization rf industry,
which hiirdenG interstate p.nd foreiija commerce,
affects the public ■•welfare, and underlines the
standa,rds of living of the American people, is
hereby declared to exist. It is hereby de-
clared to be the policy of Convgress to remove
obstructions to the free flow of interstate
and foreign commerce v^hich tend to diminish the
amount thereof; and to provide for the general
welff.re by promotiii" the orf^pni^.ation of indus-
try for the ouroose of coo-pern tive action pjnong
trade groups, to induce and maintain ignited
action of labor and manar-^enont under adequate
governmental sanctions eiul supervision* to elimi-
nate unfair competitivepm,cti6es> , to ;oromote the
fullest lossiblc utilization of the oresont ijro-
ductive cnrpacity of industries, to p.void undue
restriction of -.-production (except as may be tem-
porarily required), to increase the consi-un'otion
of indiistrial and yricu-ltural -products by in-
cropsin,;: - iurchasin>'.: -lO'^'er, to reduce rnd relieve
•unem'oloyment. to im'orove stp.ndards of labor, and
othen7is3 to rehabilitate iud-gstrv and to con-
serve natural resources, '
"In the attainment of these purposes, it was not intended
that private enterprise should be managed or directed by the
Government. On the contrary, in his address to the Chain
Store Executives on June 23, 1933, the Administrator said:
'The function of this Adj.iini strati on is not to
reach out a-iid control your industry, but for you
to come to this table and offer your ideas as t.o
what you can do to clear up the difficulties in
your industry ..• We are not here to tell you
hov/ to ruj-j :/our business. '
"This is in line with the stptement previously made by the
President when he signed the Nsitiona,! Industrial Recovery Act,
wherein the statement used above as a caotion occurs. He there
said: (See B-uIletin No. 1, pa^f^'e 3)
'We are putting in ^Ince of old princi-ples of
unchecked competition some nei-,' Government con-
trols. They must above all be im-oa.rtial rnd
just. Their -oumose is to free business - not
to shackle it - and no man who stands on the
constructive forward-looking side of his indus-
try has nnything to fear from theia, '
9732
-445-
"In the formulrticn of Codes, the conditions and
needs -neculiar to erch industry.'- are to be taken into
pccoimt, the iilpii depoiidiug for itn success U)on spec-
ialization, as opoosed to generalis; tion. In bulletin
llo. 2 of the liHA (ppge 2, sec. 6) the follo\7in-^; stnte-
inent is itrllcizedo
'It is net the function of thv; National Re-
cover^,' Adininistration to "orescrilie what shall
be in the codf^s to be submitted by associations
or groirjs. The initiative in all such matters
is erqjected to cone fron within the industry
itself.'
"The responsibility for the adjustment of the regulations
to govern the ma^inum hours of labor so as best to accomplish
the purposes of this legislation, rests prinrrily upon the
employers in each industry, who miderstand and observe its
operstions. In the srne Bulletin (L'o. 2, sec. 7 (a)) the
necessity of considering each inductr:^ inde;iendent of every
other,, is made the subject of special emphasis, as follov/s:
'Ba.sic code provisions relating to maximum hours
may involve p--,proprirte consideration of the vary-
ing conditions and rcquironents of the several in-
dustries a.nd the st'te of erriloyment therein. An
average worl: veek should be designed so fa.r as
"oossible to i^rovide for such a, S'oread of employ-
ment as '.'ill provide work so fnr rs pr-^ctical for
employees normally attached to the pa,rticular In-
dus tr;v". '
" 3 . THZ aHFJGTIOh" FRC^:! A 40-HC^IR WSEK TO A 52-HOUR ISEK
HAS CAUSED DISCOIIIIIITT AIZ) im^FriCISITCY.
Coincident with the effective date of the Code, the Man-
agement of this Corooration, ai'ter consijltataon ?.nd in coopera.-
tion with the t"o remaining mejnr shioyards, decided ns a
temporary measure, in the ho-oe of avoiding unrest a.nd the
disturbance of these hari.ionious Irbor relations, to increase
the rates of hourly paid employees 25^ instead .of the ll»2fo
authorized in the Code, in order that these emloyees night
enjoy not less thsn the srine weekly earnings under the Code
which they were receiving under the hours in effect immedi-
ately prior to July 1st. The hourly rates e.s thus estab-
lished under the 25^ increrse rre 7\yo higher thrn the high-
est hourly rates paid since the rea.djustment after the War
in 1921.
97S2
-446-
"In the utmost ..."ood fi.ith, the ilrnfig-ernent of this
Corporation promptly increase its force of vorkers,
from 1923 on J"ily Slot, to 2356 'oy Aufrast 31st, and to
2557 hy September 30th, while the productive shop hours
remained constant, a:id the pay rolls increased suh-
stantiflly $12,000 per T7eek, .without any corresponding
offset in productive output. At the same time there
was a noticeable decline i.a efficiency, as plainly ap-
pears hy reference to the following ccnparison of work
done - as determined hy Goveriimeut agents - with the
increa.sed hours and pcy.
Month
Com'oletion
Payroll
Total Man Ers. Plant No. Hen
June 1933 4.11 $180,735.83
July 1933 3.51 171,752,71
Aug. 1933 3.43 . 215,953.51
Sept. 1933 3.47
B35,749.52
313,000
312,000
309,783
332,457
1814
1923
2356
2657
^1
"This loss in efficiency is attributable to the
dissatisfactio.'i. of the e-noloyees with the uiireasonable
restrictions thpt have been olaced uoon their eo.rning
power, by the reduction of their worl' hours frOi.i 40 to
32 hour?, per vjeek. It presents en e-cceedingly serious
problem. A comisarison of the firnrures for September
with those for July, the month vihich preceded the ef-
fective date of the Code, shov.'s thrt slightly less work
Was p,ccoi.T)lished by 734 more men, working 20,457 more
mm hours, ;t r.n increased cost to the Cor'TOi-ation of
$63,997.
" 8 . THE BiT/IITG POTTSH BOTH OP TrZ EliPLOYEES AIID
StflPLOYSH IS SEHIOUSLY CUEIAILSD.
"The reln,tio7i between buying power as a^wlied to the
Corporation, and buying lower as apiilied, to the meii em-
ployed by the Company, is clearly set out in the figures
quoted below.
^
9732
-i-iV-
Year of Period
Arer-jre
Avr:re"re actual Total Total cost of
n-.mb-ir of ho.irs per
f(.:C.to'--/ ■ veek oer
erTolci'-eer-; emolovee
on payroll carir.--
d'^iring v^'-iod
period cover 3d
covered
fector^'- Materials,
payroll containers,
for fuel, and
period electric
covered energy used
during period
covered
1933:
Latest vfeek for
rhich data are
availclDle-ended
8/2S/33
January through June
1932:
July through Dec.
Jan. through June
Total
1931: Total
1930: Total
1929: Total
2232
32.15
2622
39.95
3124
40.25
5265
40.03
4194
40.15
4049
39 . 31
3208
4^.71
2768
43 . 54
65,133.80 43,382.51
39.95 1,668,504.52 1,709,847.25
2,500,835.55 2,591,897.55
3,563,807.11 3,767,973.07
5,064,642.57 6,359,870.62
5,043,910.49 3,459,248.77
5,331,095.30 8,797,401.87
4,460,615.81 5,968,863.01
"From this it \Till be noted that thro-oghout the period covered,
expenditures for material, 'r.'ith one exception, substantially exceeded
the expenditures for labor in the shipj'-ard.
^5 C? THE PRODUCTS OF 0TIT5R
" 9. SHIPYARDS ATtE LAP^'C CC'.-Sl'
IKDUSTPIDS.
For every dollar ex^Dended for labor in the shipyard, e:-rperience
shows - as indicrtcd by the foregoing anal^^sis, that substantially
another dollar is expended for labor in out'^ide industries, in the
preparation of meterials and finished products v.'hich are consumed in
the shipyard itself, either in production or in operation and mainten-
gj-ice. Or, to put it ?.r. another nay, for every hour of labor employed
in the sxiipvard in the building of a shi"D, an ecuivalent hour of labor
is reouired to be em-oloyed in outside anc' aioxiliarj'- industries. The
effect of placing an arbitrary,'' liifiit of
hours a, week u"oon the oisera,-
tion of a shipyard, instead of 40 hours, for a single shift, or 54 or
80 hours for a double shiffc of 32 or 40 hours respectively, is to de-
crease the productive demands upon outside industries to the extent of
25 percent., a"'ver;- substantial item xvhen the urgency for the speedy
augmenting emplo-'raent and buying power is contemplated."
The subject was brought to the attention of the President, who
requested the Zla.tional Labor Board study the relation between the Navy
yards and private shipbailding concerns in regard to wages, hours of
employment and similar ma,tters. Pursuant to this request the Chairman
9732
-448-
of the National Labor Borrd on Se-ptenber 22, 193?;, appointed a Sub-
committee to mal:e this stud". This Comnittee consisted of "William H.
Davis, De-outy Administrator, n. R. A. Chairman; H. G-errish Smith,
Chpirman of the Code Authorit'^, and, John P. Fre^?-, President of the
Metal Trrdes Department, American Federation of Labor. The report of
this Sub-Co.'imittee to the iJational Labor 3oard is on file in the Labor
Folder, DP'outi/'s Files.
Excerpts from this renort aire a^ follows:
"HOUaS 07 Eiv'>?LOYIv;S-'T
"The "orevailing hours of emplovnent in the Navjr Yards are fort"/
(40) hours per '-eek. In the privrte shipbuilding'; yards the prevailing
hours for employment are thirtj'- tro (?2) hours ner v;ee]c on G-overnment
(Navjr) shipbuilding and txiirt"'' si:c (u6) hours per Tveek on private ship-
building and on all shiprepairing, as provided in the code approved
July 25, 1933.
"The prevailing hours of emt)lo"T.ent in the private y8.rds on ship-
building and shiprepairing paid for out of Piiblic TTorks Administration
funds for G-overnraent departments other than the l»avy are thirty (30)
hours per v/eek under the Public Works Administration Bulletin No. 51.
"At the time the shipbuilding .ar.d shiprepairing code 'ts signed it
was intended bv the ¥FA, and expected by the industr;'-, that Havj^- -Yards
would operate on the hoars provided for in the code.
"These are the circumstances that led to confusion and discontent
of both management and labor in the industr^'-, and have brought aboiit
the discussion of the subject by the Execo-tive Coujicil and the refer-
ence to the National Labor Board.
"It is the opinion of the majority of members of your subcommittee
(Mr. Davis ;;,nd Mr. Smith) thr.t nothing less than a ujiiform nork-week
in all ship^rards, including Na\'y Yards, '''ill "out an end to this confusion
and discontent, iir. Frey does not d-isagree with this opinion a.s to
private yards, but reserves his opinion on this point only a.s to the
l^avy yB.rd.s.
"In the private shii^building ^rards the orevailing hours in 1929
mav be taken as fortv four (44) hours a week. In 1932 these hours were
cut to fortv (40) hours in the share-the-work movement, and in the same
year there wa.s £•. 'oercent cut ir. hourly v^age rates of fifteen percent
(l5t), so that on Jul.y 1, 1933, the paj^- envelopes were doubly reduced;
first, b]' the decrease in hou-'-s per week and, second, by the decrease in
hourlj/" rates.
"The shipbuilding and shiprepairing code reauires that:
'In no event shall any emplo^/er pay an emioloyee a wage rate
which vfill yield a less wage for a work-week of thirt]'- six (36)
hours than such employee was receiving for the same class of
work for a fortj^ (40) hour week prior to July 1, 1933. It is
9732
-441;-
understood thct there shall "be no difference bsf.'een hourljr
wage rates on commercial '/orlc rnd on nr.vnl v,'or!c, for the same
class of labor in the srine establisiiment . '
"The private shipbuilding yards that are \/orking on Na-'.'y contracts
have gone be^/^ond the provisions of the code rnd are -or.ying an hourly
rate which will give the same ppy envelo-ie for thirtr two (S?) hours
of work than the men receiver! for forty (40) hours of work on July 1,
1933.
"In spite of this, however, because of the shortener' hours, the
pajr envelopes still present the lean apoearrnce thev had on July 1,
1935, and represent a depression v/age to the men, This is the batds
of the comploint made to this Board oy repr'3sent<'?tives of several of
the larger shipbuilding slants.
"In the const-'^ction indri.str''-, to which the provisions of the
Public TJorks Act particularly appl-/-, erch cdnstraction project is
senarate from other construction projects so far a.s the emplovment of
labor is concerned; the hours of work on one construction project do
not directly affet the hours of work on another construction project.
In the shipbuilding and shi^ore-oairin?- industrv', however, the various
types of work above discussed may be going on in the ^lant at the same
time; giving rise to direct conflict of different hours of work in the
same plant .
"In anjr industry different woj:'k-''ee':s for the sajne class of labor
tend to create a competition for labor in which the "orojects operated
on the shorter -eek are at a disadvantage if tne oa-y 'oer hour is the
sajne, and the -orojects operated on the longer week are at a disadvantage
if the hourly rate is af justed to give an e aual pay envelope. In the
shipbuilding and shiprepair industry- the compeition is not only with
the Navy Yards but also with other incustries that employ the sajne kinds
of labor, aJid the difficulty is greatl^.^ exaggerated, as the experience
of the code authority has already definitely shown, by reason of the
fact that the code definition of the industr",^ includes 'fabricating' of
ships and the 'Building within the plants of machinery, eauipmert and
other ships' parts'. This is already giving rise to disputes as to
whether a fa,bricating pla.nt v/hich fabricates materials for ships is a
shipbuilding plant; and it has also given rise to artificial transfer-
ring of fabricating operations and of the building: of machinery, equip-
ment aJid other ships' parts to "olants which operate under other codes
on a forty (40) hour week and which are not shipbuilding plants. This
results in artificial and un.fair competitive co:ditions which is cer-
tainly very difficult, and ^osrhaps irapossiblf to control.
"RSCOI.Cg:iNrDATIOICS
1. That the national Labor Board recognize and declare that a
solution of the difficulties presented in the shipbuilding and shipre-
pair industrv demands a uaiform work-week for all shipbuilding and
shipre-oairing in all private yards, a„nd preferably also in the Navy
Yards.
2. That the National Labo-" Board recognize and declare that the
9732
■450-
IJevj'- Yard vages as fixed ty tlie ~fs.go 3oard of Hevievr unc-er the Act of
1862 cannot be eltered except by thpt Board and are not to "be a sub-
ject matter of discassion in the settleraei-it of the present difficult''-.
3. That for the -orurjose of ira'-.ediatel''- r/orl^ing out the problem of
hours and "ages in the shipbuilding and shi'orepairing yards, within
the above stated principles, by conferences and joint rgreements, a con-
ference be prom-otlv called hy the rational Labor 3oard of persons
representing:
(l)The e'Tolo,'[-e3s in the shioyards vho have complained
to the Borrd. (it being understood thr.t t'^^e Board
vill determine "hether the proposed representatives
ere truly and adeq-iiatel"'- representative of the em-
ployees in tiiB priva.tfc shipya.rds) .
(2) The inte-rnstional unions V'hose members are emT3lo->'-ed
in the ship,--prds, such representatives to be chosen
throngh the Lietrl Trar^eo Department of the American
Federation of Labor ai:d apnrovjd bjr the President
of the American P?de^ati&n of Lsbor.
(3) The shipyard or/ner.s, and
(4) The !'ationyl Hecovery Administration.
And that in addition thereto the Public "Jorks Ad-
mir.i strati or: and the Secretary of the Navy be in-
vited to be repreaented in the conferences.
4. That in its deliberations the conference shall be guided by
the facts established by this report; 03' the lorimari'- purposes of the
National Indiistrial Recovery Act as herein de^^in^6; by the need to
safegua.rd commercial business of the private ;^ards, having in- vieu
the permanent v/elfare. of both labor end capital in the industry, and by
those conditions \7hich vill lead to the maxim-om immediate emplovment of
men consistent ^.'ith the greatest speec of -tirogress on the new ships.
5. That the joint pgreement so arrived at be submitted to the
National Laoor Board for its ap'oroval and as a basis of its recommenda-
tions to the President.
"Respectfully submitted
.'illiam H. Davi s
H. Gerrish Smith
"Fote: This report has not been reviewed b''- Kr. FreAr, but his agree-
ment with the general iDlan is e:roressed in his attached letter of Octo-
ber 27, 1933.
9732
--^iSl-
"November 1, 19GS"
Pollo'7in>5- the raceiot of che forregoint^ reriort of the Sub-Conmittee
a conference T7s,r> held "u.:.;"ier th!> rairpices of the iiVtional Labor Board
end presided over by the Chairm&ii of the Sub-Cornmittee on I'ovember 13,
1933. At this conference all inf^i-e'-ted 'c-irtiec -ere reoreFented.
On December 5, 1053, a public heerin.?; ^"as held by the rational
Labor Borrd follor/ir.^; its acce'otance of the facts established by the
Sub-Committee rerjort. In addition to the ec t-^blichment of the facts
suv)plied by this report, witnesses vrere heard from all parties of
interest, who reouested to be ueard. (lef. reiDort of the Urtional
Labor Board, dated Mnrch 22, 1934, Djxiut-^^' s Files.)
Ko definite action was tai-cen by the I'ational Labor Boprd until
March 22, 1334, when recommendations euid findings were made as per the
following:
"H^TIjKiL LAJO'l EOAED
TrASHir:>rci!j j.c.
Larch 22, 1934
"EZG0::i;;3KDxiTI0"S TO TZ3 TjIIZ^ ^TV^Z CGUI'CIL
BY TZS i^ATIOl'ii.L L.l:0' jOaSD Ci;: S.:?L0'rE3
3fflLATI0tS II' TU. S..:i?BUILri;.G .JTD
Sinp^:PAI^:'I_"G liTlUSTlY
"Pursuant to the reov-est of Prasidei.t TrenJclin I). Iloosevelt that
the National Labor Borrd stud;'- tii? r-^lationship between the Naw Yards
and priva.te ^;hipbuildin^ concerns in re'_:.::.rd to wai^'es, hours of employ-
ment and similar Ti^.ttcrs, the Joard r.iakos the rccomnendations embodied
in this report.
"On September 22, 1933, a Sub-committee was cppointed br the Chair-
man of tnis Board as a fact-f i^iding bod'' to cetermino the eract orevail-
ing conditions with regard to this riestion. lliis Sub-Committee re-
ported back to the Board on Fovember 1, 1^53, er.bodyin- in its report
(copy attached) suustartiall" all the neces-ar"/ facts regarding the
prevailing situation.
"Pol] owing reneipt of this report a conference "a-s helcl under the
auspices of the Bo-^rd and presided a^er by the Chaarman of the fact-
finding Sub-comr.iittee, or. I-Toveiibe:.- 13, 1'=''33. At this conference all
interested parties were representee.
"On December 5, 1533, a public hearing wa:-'. held before the ITational
Labor Boarc follo'./ing its acceptance of the facts establisned by the
9732
-452-
Sub-committee report. In addition to the evidence suiDplied "by this re-
port, vatnesses were heard from all pa-^ties in interest who reauested to
be heard.
"¥IFDirGS
"The Board finds, on the "basis of all evidence suhmitted for their
consideration, that a work week of thirt]-- (30) hours and the Fahlic
Works Administration scale of v.'ajes is not practicable and feasible in
the Shipbuilding and Shi-nrei-)airin£: Industr^^.
"The Board recommends in the light of this finding:
1. That athirty-si:: (36) hour --eek be established in the
Industr;'- for all shipbuilding.
2. That for all shiprepairing an avern^ge of thirty-six
(35) hours per week over a six months' period be es-
tablished, and that the raayimu.-ii hoars in rn?/- one week
be established at fort.y (40) hours.
3. That the desirability of uniform hours in the shipjrards
nnd in the i^a\\y Yards be recognized, and in the event
that such eoua.lisation is not brought about within a
period of si:: nonths from the date hereof, the Adminis-
trg-tor of the Industrial Recovery Act shall review the
question of 'eekljr hourr in the shipyards.
4. Tha,t the hourly '.age rate'3 now prevailing in private
yards shall not be recu-ced because of the increase in
hours, (exceot rates resulting from the amplication of
?. T7. A. Bulletin i"o. 51).
5. That a Boavd. upon which employees and. erTolo'"'ers are
equally represented be estaolishec to stud3^ wage pro-
blems wiiich arise from the establishment of the thirty-
six (35) hour week provider' for in Section 1 and 2 here-
of, and that it shall be a function of this Board to
ec'Ualize b}'- negotiation anj- luifair competitive inequali-
zation in -'8-:^e raten that nay exist as a result of the
past application in the Industry of the wage and hour
provisions of the Code plus the "oresent application of
the hourrj and wage rates provided for in Sections 1, 2
and 4 h::reof .
"If or when there is set up in the Industry'- an Inciustrial Relations
Board approved "o:r the National Recovery Administration the foregoing
duty and functions shall devolve upon that Board."
"(signed) Robert ?. 'Tagner
Robert F. Tlagner
Chai rman
9732
^
-453"
"S. Clay Williams
L. C. :.iar shall
Ernest G-. Draper
Francis J. Ha"s
"Henry S. Dennison
George L. Berry
John L. Lewis
It is pointed out oj the author rith regrrd to the forei'^oing
findings, 1;h?t December 5, 1933, \7astoo early to have substantial data
on the extraordinary increase of the averaj'^e vrage rate.
The President a;Toroved the reconmendations of the National Labor
Board as per the follov;ing letter:
"TIE .7HITE HOUSE
T/ASHirGTOi:
March 27, 1934
"Hor.orr.ble Ha.rold L. Ickes, AQmii:istrator
Federal Eraergenc'^^ Adminirtration of Public 7/orks
TTashington, D. C.
"Liy dear Lir. Secretarj'^:
I have todaj'' aporoved the recom^nendation presented to
me b);- the National Labor Soard, pursuant to my request that
they stud;^/ the- re la.t ion ship bet'.'een the Uayy Yards and
private shipbuilding concerns in regard to v/ages, hours of
employment, and similar matters.
"Administrator Hugh S. Johnson has been directed by me
to effect the amendment of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
Code in accordance t/ith the findings aJid recommendations of
the National Labor Board.
"TThen these amendments a.re made and become effective,
you are directed to adjust the Public TJorks Administration
scale of wages, hours of employment, and similar matters
now prevailing for shipbuilding and shiprepairing, to cor-
respond with the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Code as
amended.
"Ver;,' sincerely yoars,
"(signed) Franklin D. Hoosevelt,
"PPJISIDENT"
In accordance with the foregoing. General Hiigh S. Johnson, Adminis-
trator, approved amendjnent To. 3 to the Code, dated April 2, 1934,
whereb-r the hours for building Naval vessels was made 36 hours per week
to corres'oond with the hours for comr'.ercial 'v/qrk. (Hef. Exh. A, Appx.
and Code Hecord Section.
In cue course a separate board for Pablic '.Torks on May 9, 1S34,
9732
passed the follo'.7infr resolution:
""wiaereas, 'oy the e'lxjrovrl of the rresirent of March 27,
19.34, of the reconmendetion of the i-'ational Labor Board rela-
tive to questions of hours and v-a;"-es in the Shi phuil dine; o,nd
Snlprepairing' Indartry confers upon the Industrial Relations
Committee of the Shiohuildin^ and Shiprepairiajj Industry/ the
duty of '^tud3'"ing T-a.^e problems arising from the establish-
ment of a t.urty-six hour veek in that Industry -
"3e it He solved, That on all projects financed v/ith
funds allotted b'' the Pablic "Tories Administration, '.'here the
hours and wage rotes provided for in Bulletin Ko . 51 are in
effect, such hours and ^"'a.re rates shsvll remain in effect
u-itil July 1, 1934: Provided, That on Jul;-- 1, 1934 and
thereafter the hours of employment on such -orojects shall
be thirty-six ;oer ^'feck or such other hours per week as ma"'
be authori'^ed by the Acminist lector for Industrial Recovery
"under the Code for the Sni-obuildin~ and Shi-'jreoairinte- Indus-
try.
"3e it Resolved fij.rt.'ier, Tlirt the ^ar;e rates on such
projects in private shioj^ards shall be e,oj\isted by the
aforesaid Industrial Relations Committee, such wage rates
to be determined b^/- that Committee before J-'one 15, 1934:
Provided, That in the event the said committee fails to
make such adjustment in ware rates b];- June 15, 1934, such
adjustments shall be made by the fetional Labor Board.
"Be it Resolved further, That the wage rates on ship-
building and shiprepairing projects in private shipj^-ards fin-
anced v/ith funds allotted by the Public "Jorks Administration
where Public works Administration Bi,illetin Wo. 51 has not
been applied shall likewise be determined by the aforesaid
Industrial Relations Committee whenever such adjustment may
ue hereafter adjudged bv such connittee to be nece-^sarj''. "
The Industriral Relations Committee for the Shi'obuilders in accord-
ance with the foregoinr resolution duly took rction on this matter and
addressed a letter to t'le Hon. Harold L. Ickes, Federal Administrator
for Public T'orks, recommending thct no rdjustment in vrage scales be
made on enlisting contracts under construction tiaat had been let under
P Y:. a. Bulletin 51. (Ref. ianutes June 7, 1934, Industrial Relations
C6mmittee)
The dissatisfaction of the em.ploj'-ees ^'ith the small Toay envelope
due to restricted hours wn s the cause of the Hev; York Shipbuilding Cor-
poration plant going on a strike March 27, 1934. Th.is strike continued
about seven weeks a^nd was finall"' settled by agreement between the In-
dustrial Union of Liarine and Shipbuilding Workers a.nd the company as of
May 11, 1934. The contract provided for an incres,se of 'opy on an a,ver-
age amounting to about 13;'b. (Ref. co-o;- of the contract referred to in
the Labor Folder, De-outy's Files) It hr s been x)reviously set forth
that this compan;'- had increp^sec the \?age scales 25o above that of July
9732
■ -455-
1933, ancl, therefore, r/hen this last increase came this company's
sG£'los stoot ap'proxinc'tely 53 > above the scale at the time of the ap-
provp,l of the Code.
5\irther other major shipj'-ards that had rrlsed vrage scales 25; J,
increased tlieir \'ir.r:e scales further 10\'o nhen it uas learned from the
findings of the ivational Laoor Board and the ap'oroval of the President
that the 40 hour '.-^ork r/eek would not he immec.iatl.y granted. Thus the
wage scales were enforced by the restricted weekly hours far above the
scales of 1929.
The matter became so serious tht t the Code Authority on April 24,
1934, passed the following resolution: (Ref. Minutes Code Authority,
Deputy' s Files)
"TIEBE70R:], i^m j3E IT HSSOLVjID: It is the opinion of the Code
Authority for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry that
the stcbilizrtion of the Industry, the elimination therefrom of
unfair competitive practices and the maintenance of harmonious
relations between management and emi^loyees, requires the esta-
blishment of forty hours a weak of eraplo-'-raent throughout the
shipbuilding branch of the industry,'- and an average of forty
hours a week over a. six months period with sufficient leeway
to permit a maximum of forty-eight hours of emiDloyment in any
one week for the shiiDrepairing branch. The Code Authority'-
recommends immediate approval of the above changes in hours
for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry."
The foregoing resolution was SLibmitted to the Administration by
letter from H. Gerri?h Smith, Chairman of the Code Authority to J. B.
TTeaver, Deputy Administrator, dated April 24, 1934. (Ref. Labor Fol-
der, Deput3'-'s Files)
Following the foregoing letter, Ivlay 2, 1934, H. Gerrish Smith,
Chairman of the. Code Authorit"'-, addressed J. B. TTeaver, Deputy Adjninis-
trator further, setting forth the situation in regard to restricted
hours in the shipyards. (Ref. Labor Folder, Deputy's Files) Excerpts
from this letter are as follov^s:
"After this hearing some minor modif ica.tions were made in the com-
mittee's report and £a public hearing v?as held before the National Labor
Board on December 5, 1933.
"Both the preliminarj'' report and the report submitted at the hear-
ing on December oth recommended a forty hour week and it is understood
that the National -Labor Board at a meeting sometime subseauent to the
hearings of December 5th voted in favor of giving the Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry a 40 hour week. The report was not signed, how-
ever, and after a considerable lapse of time the sub-committee was in-
formed that Congress might possibly reduce nav;'- j^ard weekly hours and
therefore that some lesser hours per week for the shipbuilding industry
should be adopted for the time being, than the 40 hours, as recommended.
All reports and findings up to Februar^r 12th strongly urged the forty
hour week for shipbuilding and still longer hours for repair work, but
9732
-456-
with a vier' to securing action tlie committee, after cona-uJ.ting with the
industr"-, ^ecomraended 36 hours instead of 40, but with e provision
'Tho.t the desiraoilit/ of unifor-m .lours in the shi-oyards
and in the xiav^,' yards te recognized, and in the event that
such eoualizrtion is rot browjht about witliin a period of six
months from the date iiereof, the Administrator of the Indus-
trial Recovery Act shall review the question of v/eekly hours .
in the ship^/ards. '
(This provision is in the report ■■ s finally a"m3roved) .
"All records in this office indicate that up to Febmaiy 12th
paraf=;rsphs #1 and #S of the ?indinf:s read as follov/s:
"1. That p fort5i' (40) hour '"eek be established in the
Industrjr for all shi'obuildin.^.
"3. Thrt in the event the hcurr in the i'avj;- Yard;- are here-
after reduced, then the hourr. for all shipbuilding 'may
be reduced by the Adninistrrtor to v.hatever level, not
below the new level in the lSi:i'vy Yards, is found by him
to be Dracticf ble a,nd feasible.
"The report, e.s finr.lly ap'^roved provided thirtv-si:: (o6) hours
for shipbuilding,, effective ps of April 7, 1^34.
"GOVEHM-;auT AKs^:i;:: to 30u~is ?3r "eek
"In the meantime the Independent Offices Appropriation Bill was
passed by Congress over the President 'e veto on riarbh 28th. This bill
contains a ver';'' si...5;nif icant prragr-'oh with- reference to wr.p^es of civil
em^Dlo'.^ees on Government '.7ork which restores 'the full weekly earnings
of such employees in •-'ccordance with the full time I'eekly earnings under
the respective ^.■pge • scheoules in effect on Juno 1, 1932: Provided, That
the re.';ular hours of lp,bor shall not be more tiinn 40 per week. ' "
"The Navj'- Department promptly established a forty hour week of
five days - eight hours e&ch, ;raid it is uiiderstood that imder this act
Nav^/' Ya.rd employees receive 48 hov.rs pa.3'- for 40 hours work.
"The reason that led to the redaction from 40 to 36 hours in the
reT^ort of the Us.tional Labor 3oard a'jpears to be no longer valid a.s Con-
gress has disposed of this mr tter in the le,?,! slat ion just referred to
and in view of the specific recommendation of the National Labor Board,
as approved hy the President, regarding hours, to wit:
'In the event that such eouali^ation is not brought
about within a period of six months from the date hereof,
the Administrator of the Industrla,l Recovery Act sha^ll re-
view the question of :''eekly hours in the sliipyards.'
"It is submitted that there is no longer eny occasion for delay in
authorising working hours in the private Shipbuilding Industrj?- to conform
9732
-457-
T,'ith those t}:?.t, obtain in the Government ITr.v:*,'' Yards.
"Another f&ct of great inportrnce and capable of a positive ciieck
is that the hours, as sjproved in over ninety percent of all Codes, a,re
fort"' or more per ''eek and that as far r.k ve nre rble to determine
there is onljr one code (cits-ide of the Shi'obaildin '■ Code) of ^n indus-
try perfornin^^ r.-orl: of ;\ similar charo-cter that is ror'iinj on less than
40 hours per vreek. '!
The confer'^ence of I'ay 7, 1934, held by General Hugh S. Johnson.
As a result of the resolution of the shipbuilders and letter of iiav
2,- 1954, from the Chairrasn of the Code Authorit^s this conference ^as
crlled by the AcLministrator. There vere present the following:
"Admi ni strati on
General Hugh S. Johnson
J. 3. 7eaver
a. H. Shields
H. ilenton ".Thittelsey
"Shipbuilders & Shipre'oairers
H. L. Teguson - Newport rev/s s/3 & D/D Co.
Robert Hai>; - Sun S/3 & D/D Co., fmd I.'eraber of Code Authority
C. L. Sardo - IJev: Yorlc Shipbuilding Cor|D.
Joseph H£c?g, Jr. - Robins D/D & ?.cpa,ir Co., and i.lember of Code
Authority
A. B. Homer - Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
J. T:. Powell - United Dry Docks, Inc.
K. Gerrish Smith - President, National Cou.ncil of American
Siiipbuilders and Hember of Code Authority;-
"I'ils.v^'- De-part men t
Assistant Secretary of the Hay/, heni-y L. Roosevelt
Captain 'AenT/ "illiams - Lember of Code Authority re\)re renting
the llavy Department
"Industrial Advisor'/ Board
i;r. Taylor
"Labor Ad visor?,/ Board-
er. I.Ic Grady
"Labor, Generall-/-
John P. ITre-y, President, i:Ietal Trader. Dept., A. P. of L.
Joseph Prajiklin, President of BoilerraaJcers end Iron Ship-
Duilders
Arthur Wharton, President of International Assoc, of
Machinists
Williajn LlcC-inn, Vice-Pres. of Internr tional Assoc, of Bridge
973^
-458-
anci Structural Iror. 7/orkers
Joseph S. i.'cDonagh, Lerislative Re^orssentative of Inter-
nation?,! Brothei'hood of Electrical T7orkers"
Fo T-ritten record of the conference could be found by the author,
who at thir, time had Intel.y joined the K. 3.. A. or;::ani zation. In fact
the author doec- not rememoer any stenographer being present taking
notes. Therefore, there was a letter addressed to Mr. H. G-errish Smith,
Chainnan of the Coda Authority, and a letter to i-'r. J. S. McDonagh,
Labor representative on tjie Code Aathorit;% both of v/hom were present
at the conference. The letters requested an account of the proceedings
as aa.ch remembered sajne or had a record of ssme. In reply Mr. H.
Gerrish Smith wrote to H, Newton Taittelsey, Assistant Deputy Adminis-r
trator, on SeTjternber 30, 1935, and Mr. J. S. I.iCDonp.gh dictated a reply,
copies of Loth are fouiid in the Laoor Folc'er, Deputy's files. They
are later referred to herein.
The conference was opened by the Administrator, General Hugh S.
JoliiiEon, then Mr. H. G'?rrish Smith presented the request of the ship-
builders ai'id outlined the difficult^- tii.at they found themselves in due
to the restricted weekly hours, following closely the matter contained
in his letter of May 2, 1334^ to J. B. leaver, Demity Administrator,
heretofore referred to. He w;,,s followed by i.Ir. C. L. Bardo, President
of the Nevr York Shipbuilding Corporation, who submitted considerable
data and graphs, the p'o.rport of v/hich v/as to prove that the increase
of employment expected was not being eff ..cted as the restricted hours
were delating the v;ork on the Ifeval program, and greatly increasing
costs for both Haval and Commercial v.'ork, thereby further restricting
emploj'-ment. '^'■e also submitted the Clovercale and Colpitts report. (Ref.
Labor JTolder, De-outy's Files)
Mr. Homer L. jTer-giiEon, President of the Newoort News Shipbuilding
and Dry Dock Cora-oan;' spoke on the raatter of double shifts. He set
forth the generrl conclusion that it was not practical in shipbuilding
to employ m.ore thanone and one-third shift; rlso that in a 36 hour week
and 8 hours per day that only 4 hours could be worked on Fridav, that
in shi'obuilding it reauires epproximatel;/- one hour to get the shipyard
into operation and one hour to close dovm and, therefore, in the 4
hours on Friday only two productive hours v/ere gained, vrhereas there
was a paj'^roll for 4 hours.
Other speakers for the shipbuilders were Iv'r. J. ". Powell, Presi-
dent of the United Dry Docks and Robert Haig, Vice-President of the
Sun Shipbuilding Company; also A. P. Homer, representing the Bethlehem
Shipbuilding Corporation was present with considerable data and graphs.
Wage scale data T/as submitted and the uneconomica,l situation set forth.
The lack of commercial contracts was discussed due to the resulting
high cost from the higher scales to which the shipbuilders had been
forced bjr the restricted hours. Further it was set forth there would
be a shortage of skilled labor, v/hich wp.s commented on ^oy Mr. John Frey,
President of the Metal Trades Department, American Federation of Labor.
Reference is made to the letter of H. Gerrish Smith, dated Septem-
ber 30, 1935, of ^7hich the following is an excerpt:
9732
"The neetinrc \7f.p devoted to a &i scar-sion of a 40-ho'ar
week for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry. Strte-
ments were made by H. G-erish Smith, C. L. Btrdo, H. L. Ferguson,
J. T7. Powell, and 'lobei-t Hrig.
"A direct rooaest v'ar- mp.ce for e 40-liour week for both
the Shipbuilding and Shi p:"epr.i ring Inductrj^' \'ith mors lati-
tude under weekly hours on Shi ore-o-i ring. Tae discvission
was long, with contijiued objections on the cir.rt of labor' to
any extension of hours in Shipbuilding.
"G-eneral Jolinson made a renarlc at the beginning of the
conference that if the Shipbuilding and Shi;5repairing era-
"ployees \7anted longer hour's he v.'ould give it to them in a
minute and suggested getting a poll of employees. He also
said he would like to have his own people cneck up on some
of the statements that were made. The final outcome of the
meeting v^as that Generr'.l Johnson would send someone to the
plants to make a study of the situation. C-eneral Johnson
seemed to recognize full:'- the force of the arg-oment for a
longer work week on Shiprepairing and also that there are
many bottle necks in Shipouilding that shoixld be opened up.
General Johnson stated taat Mr. Henderson of the IV'.H.A.
Research Division would stud",'' the data presented at the
hearing. H. Gerrish Smith offered to cooperate on behe.lf
of the Industiy or any stady that General Joiinson might
wish to initiate.
"I contacted the Research Division several times and
was informed that they v.ere making a studj/" of this situation
and that a report •'■rs ultimptel;,'- made to General Johnson,
the character of which I './as unable to ascertain."
The conference closed s'o.bstantiallj'- es outlined in ivir. Smith's ac-
count, i.ir. Leon Henderson, Chief of the Reoea:L-cn a,nd Planning Division,
was present d-uring the latter 'lalf of the conference.
Reference is made to the following nemorandum, copv of which was
sent to the author by Colonel G. A. Lynch, AdmiKistr-^tive Officer with
other papers pertaining to the 4-0 hour Question.
"May 16, 1934
"lEMCRAlIDUIvI
TO GSi^lR^ Hugh S. Johnson
FROM Leon Henderson
SUBJECT Petition of Code Authority of Shipbuilding and
Shiprepairing Industry to establish a 40-hour
week, and, further leeway for repair workers.
"I see no reason to grant the reouest. The division could
write for you a 50 page report, but the net would be the same. No.
9732
-460-
All the competent oi:)inion ^'e lia.ve co:as"'alted r,u'OT-)ort your gen-
eral attituc.e to tlie, re. ue^'t .
"The onl;- vr.lif- reepon for increasinj; tlie liourp '"ould
be einer^^ent need of the saips u''' the ila^T- De'oartnent .
"3ottlenec':s: Gertainl',- there are jot tlenec]:?. TS-at a 40-
hour r."e-3k, thro-a^hout, would not eliminrte these - the re-
lation shi-'js V'OuIg still 1)3 preserved. Yet the report sub-
mitted oy the i'ev York Shi^oailding Co. sti.tes '"here is no
advanta-^e in xirvii:g the longer "eek period in one or tv;o
diepartments if it is not "oermitteo in all. '
"P.emecy for "iottlenechs: (l) Cverti"e, r, ith time and half
time pa;/. Tids is coi tenolated b" tiie Code.
(2) I-O'ible-shif ts. There is an a.d-
mitteo loss in e """ec jivene-'^, out sone .^^ards are using the
second Sidft. It seiims to oe r. ..uestior of mnna^ement.
"Shorte.~e of S':ille; -..en: There seems to De no actual shortage,
no strtistical snortrge, and no oos'='ible shortage, exce-ot for
anglesmiths. The ureau of Labor Statistics ftirnished Deputy
T^eaver '"'ith a trbulation slio-'ing that this shortai~e rfould not
occur until i'arch, l'JS5, .cuic then onl" for about 60 aigle smiths.
"An artifici.^1 shortage may exist, due to the selecti-
vity of the ?ni-iyarc3. I "eel that this ^ives us no reason to
interfere in the labor i.narket.
"If a real shortrge develops, overtime pay paid exemp-
tions, rather tlian a 40-.'iour '-/eek, is sufficient. The In-
dustrial Relations Committee has handled siriilrr ouestions.
"Workers rnd tae 40-_Iour "."eek: i\To doubt those emplo'^ed v/ish
the longer neel-z. The A.?, of L. unions oppose it. I do not
favor E, vote bein^ taken on the matter. Ed !'cG-rs.dy and Johr
Prey oppose it.
"P.7.A. ?ro,iects; I ctdled P^A and found that are solution
ha,d been n)as~ed providing 'that on July 1, 1934 and thereafter
the hox^rs of enplo'-ment on such projects shall be thirtj^'-slx
per week or such other hours per "eek as ma^"" be au-thorized by
the Administrator for Industrial Hecover"- "jnder the Code for
the Shi-obuilding and Siii'orepairing Industrv. ' I ?,sked about
the 40-hour r^'eek and got the su<ggestion that bottlenecks be
handled &• time and half-time for overtime.
"gUESTIOi'S
"Do vou feel under the circumstances that v/e need (1)
to send an industrial engineer to the :^^arc.s, or {2) to talce
973<
— 4C1—
a vote of the workers?
"I have a dignified, r/eightv, doc^omented report you can
have if you desire - which I doubt.
"Captain Tfilliams, of the Navy, tells me that most of
the claims of the shipbuilders are pretty firJiy. The Ivavy
would like to have the ships - but Secretar^^ Sv.'anson has
given order to go along with your decision. Admiral Land
(?) would like to talk to you once more vaicn j'ou are about
read;^'- to decide."
"/e/ Leon"
T7ith reference to the foregoing memorandum the author points out
the following.
That time and one-half for overtime was not the solution of the
bottlenecks for each application for an exemption or stay to permit
overtime work was stubbornlv contested by certain Advisor^'' Boards as
the record of the cases under Exemptions and Stcj'-s in this histor;;'' fully
discloses. That in regard to the shortage of skilled men the data re-
ceived from Isador Lubin, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, sets forth
that, in 1933 there were 255 wage earners in the ]?edere.l ¥avy yards on
new Kaval construction, in January 1934 there \7ere 2393, in July 1934,
8992 and finally in October 1935 there were 24,69'^. That is the Navy
yard's demand was 24,445 men. The increase of emplovment in private
yards was from 28,432 as of July 1933 to 43,411 in October 1935, an in-
crease of 14,979 men, or a total increase from July 1933 to October
1935 of 39,424 men for both Navel and private shipyards. This is what
the shipbuilders tried to point out, estimate and prophesy becpuse they
alone-had the knowledge and ability to figure the man hours required to
build these Naval vessels and the"/ alone understood fully the high class
of craftsmanship that would be required on these, the most complicated
ships for any Navy.
Not onl-"- has it been necessary'' to run •iTelding schools in the prin-
cipal shipyards eind Nav?,'- yards, but skilled fitters (who are the real
shipbuilders of a steel shipyard) are impossible now to obto,in. Not
only are the private shipbuilders no'T training ship fitters, but the
writer knows of his own knowledge that the Philadelphia Navy yard is
doing the same thing. It war, ridiculous to point to 10,000 boilermakers
that may have been out of work and expect them to attempt to do the work
of a skilled ship fitter or e:qDect an ordinary/ electric welder to do
ship welding without much schooling and tests of his work at a cost of
about $75.00 per man.
That apparently the memorandum rscominended the poll be not taken
cf the shipyards to determine the desire of the employees and it was
not taken, and the need of sending Industi'ial Engineers to the yards
9732
was questioned and it mb.s not done, although the shipbuilders under-
stood c?. thorough investigation wrs to be made including these two items.
That the refsx-ence in the nemorcndum to Captain Henry TTilliamr of
the Favir is replied to \)v a letter from Captain T^illinms," dated December
23, 1935, addi'esred to the author as follows: (Ref. Labor Folder, De-
puty' s Files)
"Dear Mr. 7;1ii ttelse-r:
"You are entirely/ right in --aving that I urged consis-
tently a 40 hour reeh for the ship^.-ard3. In the ijreliminr.ry
hearings on the Code, vou \.ill -find that the ¥avy Department
representatives all urged the larger week, and in all sub-
sequent heariri~s i held the same attitude. There is amDle
record of that fact and if you care for any dociunents on the
subject, I can supply them.
"I had pT-eviou'^ly seen Leon Henderson's memorandum and
report and I can tell -^ou that an intelligent analysis of it
does no credit to the coriectness of the reoort nor' the
authenticity of the conclusions. It was in no "ay construc-
tive.
"I remember my intervie-,", but have never been a ble to
decide just what I told him that led him to make such a
statement. However, my princi-oal jurpose, which was never
accomplished, was to arrange to have G-eneral Joh-nson see
the Chief Constructor before rendering a decision. He
preferred to see tne Ld?oov people r^^or information on ^/hich
to base his decision.
"Sincerel^' yours,
"/s/ Henry Williams
Henr-"- TJillianis"
The Research and Pla.nning Division made a repo:^t entitled "Pro-
posed Amendment to Permit 40 nour week". (Ref. Labor Folder, Deimtv' s
Files)
It is the author's understanding that the f\inction of the Research
and Planning Division was to reall]'- make research and ^lans whereby the
operation of a Code would be for the grer test good for the greatest
number affected by it. In this report there is little evidence of re-
search and no thought of the economic effects of the recommendations is
set forth, or even considered, on the Ind-ustr/- members as a whole, or
the employees of the Industry as a whole, or the consuraers, who are
the ship-operators of the ilerchant Marine and tne Javy Department.
On the contranA the report was apparently based on the blind as-
9732
-453-
sunption thpt the consimer can be made to pa}'-, and the eiToloyer will be
able to pay, for any uneconomic increase in cost of constri.xction or re-
p?ir of ships induced by rny rertriction of hours. There is no evi-
dence in the report that this subject, so vital to the plants back of
the Ivierchant iiarine and the i^avj/', was given any research or study at
all.
Farther the figures of 55,100 eLTolo^^ment for 1929 and of 37,700
for l.Iarch 1934 were set up in the report to prove there woulc^ not be a
shortage of labor. They apparently failed to learn from the hpyy De-
partment that by this time it had taken on some adcUtionp.l 7000 men
not included in the 37,700 and might reauire a total of 25,000 men for
the neu Naval shipbuilding in iJaVjr yards, not take an"' note of the
graphs submitted by the shipbuilders "'hich sho'^ed the further em.plo^/-
ment necessary to complete the Hav;,'- contracts in private yards.
October 1935 the shipbuilding and shiprepairing employment v/as
43,411 and in Nay;/- yards on ne'? construction v,'a,s 24,590 making a total
of 58,101 as against the 1929 employment of 55,100 ("3mplo'"-ment index
101.3) rhen there vas verj' small emplo''ment on nevr vessels in the iJavj'-
j'^ards. That.ig there vera some 13,000 men more e-roloved October 1935
than nere in the Industry in 1929 and still the re^^ort represents
there would not be a shortage of labor. This heav:,'" incre-^'se of emplo^r-
ment for new lisval '"'ork only helped seven ririvate shipbuilding plants,
and the Federal A'avy yards. (Sef , letters vTith attached data June 11
and December 3, 1935, from Isador Lubin, Commissioner of Labor Statis-
tics, Labor Folder, Deputy's Files)
The report is apparentl'^ based solel-^ on emplo^^ment in the plants
building the Kaval contracts, whereas there were only 7 such plants in
th.e ca.tegor-'- and the balance of 234 plants of the Ind'astry were evi-
dently not considered. This balance of 227 plants emplo^'-ed a large
proportion of the 23,432 men employed in Julv 1933. This emplo3''ment
was principally on repair work as merchant shipbuilding li£i.d substantially
stopped during the low period of the depression and there was very little
new Faval construction on the waj^s of the ;orivate shipbuilders at this
time. These members of the Industi^/% which did not have LTsval con-
tracts, were left to struggle without consideration, v/ith the restricted
hours, that were an effective ba.rr to any new commercia.l contracts as
business improved and drove repair work into foreign plants.
The report was based on the tiieorj'- of spreading the emTjloyment in
the private ship3'-ards building ifeva.1 vessels which was about 9200 men
in March 1934, whereas the increase of em-oloycient of the larger part of
28,432 employees then on cominercial repair work was not given considera-
tion. In the private yards three out of four men at this leriod were
not on Naval work.
Ko adequate account was taken in the report of tne general dis-
satisfaction of the employees at this time due to the insufficient
amount in the pay envelopes. It was a time when something had to be
done to remedy the situation and without delay. There already was a
major shipbuilding strike a.t the ifew York Shiiobuilding Plant at Cam-
den, H. J., substantially waiting on the determination of the applica-
tion for the 40 hour v;eek for settlement. Either wages or hours had
9732
—464—
to go up. The report acknov/lcdges that the employees preferred the
longer hours.
Ho account "7£,£ teZzen of the steep climb of the average hourly
wage rate alrepc,y at 69.5({ as of Januarjr 1934 as against 52.8;^ as of
1929 end Trap forcer', ivo to VSy/ oy re<^tricted hours. (Ref . "oage 499 here-
of)
The report states thpt "the above assumes there i s no soecial rea-
son ^rhj the 'Sa.-vf should want deliveiy at the earliest posF.ible moment."
T7hereas Assistant Secretary Henry L. Hoosevelt of the Fav^'- personally
attended this conference and the report states that the Kav;'- Department
supDorted the request for the 40 hour a;pplication of the shipbuilders.
Further, Admiral Land at the open hearing of July 19, 1933, pages 97
to 102 of the transcript and -oages 25, 27 and 28 hereof, stated, amongst
other things, that "in connection vdtn txie Question of the 40 hour v/eek
as proposed by the Code the ITrvy Deprrtment is of the opinion tha.t this
is reouired b-;'- the Industr-'- and that anjr recuction in the working hour
below this will interfere undul^'' v/ith the pro-iner progress of the Navy
building program as well as with the normal shipre'oairing activities of
the i'av^i- yards and private shioyrrds. " And Admiral Land further stated
that "the Ifevy shipbuilding iv. ray jud7:ment is the most difficult, in-
tricate, complicated t^''pe of shi'obuilding that there is in the world,
it reouires more exiDerieiiCe, lao^-e technical engineering staffs and more
shill in design and co".^ r c-acticn than any other tj'-pe of shipbuilding in
the v.'orld. "
In fact, to the auchor's knowledge ever;" time the Favv spoke, it
via.s for the earliest oostjible completion of the L'ava.l vessels in pri-
vate yards. '^he record O"^ the "orogress of these vessels indicates that
substantially the entire ilavaJ building program in private yards is
dela3''ed due to the restricted ho^irs and the shortage of sliilled labor.
(Ref. Records of the Na.v^,'' Department, Reports Folder, Deput^'-' s Files)
The report refers in several lol'-'ces to the "time and one-half" pro-
vision of the Code as the solution of the shipbuilders problem. The
facts are that the weekly hour provisions of the Code are mandatory and
there existed no time and one-half provision in .the Code that would per-
mit the shipbuilders to exceed the riaxiraum weeklj'- hours. A violation
of the Code woulcJ have jeopardized their Uaval contracts. Further, to
the author.' s knowledge, ever''- application made for an exemption from
the maximum weekly hours was most difficult to get throu^;h for approval
due to the adverse memoranda of certain Advisor;'- Boards, which, apparent-
ly worked on the policv, that, the' shipbuilders having been downed bj?-
imposed restricted hours, fthey should be kept dov,'n irrespective of the
economic results.
Further the re-^ort failed to filvly cite the fret that the Federal
l^sy~f yards had been definitely established o'n a 40 hour per week ba.sis
by the Congress, and that the shipbuilders complained tha.t the differ-
ence between the Havy ya,rd work-vreel: a-nd the -private shir)builders' v/ork-
week acted to draw tiie skilled men from tae priva.te shipbuilding plants.
It also failed to set forth that if the Government in prescribing for
its own shipbuilding adopted the 40 hour '.eek, as the minimum that it
could economically o'perate on, that in all fairness the G-overnment
should so adjust the Code provision to "permit the priva.te shipbuilding
9732
-4B5-
industry to operate on n like 40 iionr v;ee':l7 basis.
The Ko,vy Depr-.rtment set forth its position in re.<^ord to the 40 hour
week by letter from the Actin-'^ Secraterj'- of the lie.vy Heniy L. Roosevelt
to the Administrator Oa"" L", H. A., General Hugh S. Johnson, as follows:
"13 June 1934
"i'lj'- d.ear General Johnson:
"Question ha'- been raised as to the views of the Navy
Department in regai'd to the Question of maximum 'weekly hours
of "rork fixed in the Code of luiv Practice in the Shipbuilding
Ind.ustry for buildin.5 of naval vessels. The Havy Department
is deeply interested in the hiurs of mot',: allowed, in the
shipj'-ards, bec;u^:e on that is di recti;- dependent the -period
of construction and the diate of -olrcing these vessels in
active service rith the Pleet. The "oublic interests renuire
that these vessels join the Fleet at the earliest date
pro.cticable. As you will remember at the time consideration
was being given to this ouestion diuring the formulation of
the Code, the stuc.ies made in the I'dvy Department indicated
that it would be necessarjr to allow hours of vfork up to 4C
per week to -permit the -ork to be carried alon^^; at a normal
rate of progress to completion at a res.sonably early date.
This view was expressed at the -public hearings by re-presen-
t.atives of the i-av;,'- Department.
"Question having arisen anev/ on this subject, it seems
proper to mal'ce a. statement of the present situation as viewed
by this Department,
"Pollov/ing the passage on 28 iiarch, 1934, of the Inde-
pend.ent Offices Ap-pro-oriation J.ct, the ila-v3'- Department in con-
formity with Section 23 thereof reduced the v/ork week for its
field service from 44 hours with 48 hours pay to 40 hours with
new hourly wages to give the same '"efekly wage as before. The
Iva-vj'- De-oartraent is the largest emT)lo3'-er affected by this law
end tne em-oloyees are largely men in the shi-pbuilding and ship-
repairing trades. .
"The so-called 'Dallin- ;;er Amendment' and the 'Vinson-
Trajnmell' Act authorizing new construction reauire the as-
signment of at least 50fo of nev? construction of naval ships
to navy yards, vav^r jrards and private shipbixilding and ship-
repsaring yards s,re,' therefore, competitors for the same
classes of skilled labor, of -jhich there is no great sup-ply.
"Under the Sliipb-uilders God.e private ship^-ards are res-
tricted to a m.axim-ura work week of 35 hours. Thus the -orivate
shipb-uilders are subjected to an ineo-ualit;"- and handica-p which
should be removed as the-"- are an important adj-onct to the
cQ-'Juitrj^ and particularl"^ to the national defense. This would
9732
-456-
be remedied by .F;ranting to private shipyp.rdr the srme hours
per week a-s in the nav.]/- :fE:vd.?. There is tmrest among the
men in the private shipyard.?, "ith a seriour stri':e in one
yard, onl"/ recentlr ssttled. This unrest is likely to become
more serious and if not ''llevirterl ra-'^/''- result in a so-called
' scara^oin'i; of labor' from the -orivtte yards because of the
differential in h'^.trs.
"The contrpctr; for each of the naval vessels in the nev;
building projTam both und.er the regulr.r apr)ro"orip.tion and
under the K. R. A. approxTrir.tion contain a provision \'rhereby
the contractor agrees ' thet from the beginning he ^rill i-iro-
secute the work \7ith the utmost vigor and dispatch end will
make every possible of fort, I'/ithout reference to the other-
wise normal rate of progress, to acconrolish the na^-im-ujn
rmount of work within tne first and r.econd year. ' Desoite
this provision caid other considierations, the progress on the
ship construction b"- the private builders has been much less
than estimated and the number of men it has been iTOssible to
employ due to delays in the early stages of construction has
not come up to expectations..
"Building combatant ships for the Ife^r/ uncier present
conditions requires more highly skilled mechR,nics end
technical workmen tiian ev-..r before. This is brought about
by the natural evolution of the art in connection with
highly developed installations; it is particularly ad-
centuated by the Treaty restrictions on displacements,
placing a premium on excellence of design and particularly
on weight-srving. Designing, building, and fitting out
naval vessels of a. combatant type therefore involve a
greater degree of skill and technioue and much more care-
ful inspection than lias ever obtaineci before.
"The foundation stone of the shipbuilding program
is speed of construction; increased emplo-Tnent is dependent
upon this. Fot onl'^ do the public interest reauire the
earliest practicable completion of the iva.vy shipbuilding
program from an employment point of view but the public in-
terests also reouire the earliest practicable completion of
these vessels from a National point of viev/. The reasons
are obvious. From a naval point of viev.', the completion of
all vessels under construction is desired at the earliest
practicable date. Progress in private plants has not been
satisfactor;;^ to the ilavy, and the Navy Department has been
definitely advised by Secretar3'' Ickes that the progress is
not satisfactory to the Public "orks Administration. A
meaJis for accelerating the naval shipbuilding is to increase
the hours of labor from 55 to 40 in the private TDla.nts.
"Sincerel-'' yours,
"/s/ H. L. Roosevelt
"Acting Secretary of the Navy"
9732
-457-
" General Hu^h S. Johnson,
Administrator -for Indiistrial "ecovery,
Department of Comnerce,
T7aEhington, JD. C." • ,
The applicption of the shipouilcers for the 40 hour ''■eek thus pre-
sented, PS hereinbefore set forth, T'as neither granted or denied by
Genercl Hugh 3. Joh:inon, Administrator. For a considerable time after
the conference of Ma^- 7, the shipbuilders hoped for a favorable decision,
but finally gave it up.
In the meantime the proposed amended Code being preiDcred by the
shipbuilders "as helc bpc!:"in order that it might contain the 40 hour
Tjrovision. This situation continued throiighout the Summer of 1934 and
on October ?9 and December 27, 1954, the author addressed the Cheirman
of the Shi'obuildinj Code Authorit'', Mr. H. Gerrish Smith, e^nd called
his rttention to the recoTinendation of the National Labor 3oard. to the
effect that "the desirabilit'' of uniform hours in the shipyards and in
the Favy Yards be recognised, and in the event that such eoualization
is not brought about rrithin a period- of six months from the date hereof,
the Administrator of tlie Industrial Recovery Act shall reviev: the ques-
tion of Treekly hours in tue shipj'^ards. " (Hef. page 528 hereof)
It V7as desirable, thrt tr^e furthsr consicierrtion of the 40 hour
reek be considered b^- the Administration in conjunction v.'ith other pro-
blems u:ider the Code, such ns Fair Trade Practice 'Drovisions, and the
shipbuild.ers v/ere urged to suom.it taeir prorjosed amended Code. Ho'Tover,
the)'- had become so d.isheartened and 'vere so satisfied in their ovm
minds that relief v/ould not be granted to them from the restricted 36
hour provision, that they resisted every elifort made to induce them to
make another effort to obtcin 40 hours.. Reference is m.ade to a letter
dated June 15, 1934, of first importance f rom H. Gerrish- Smith, Chair-
man of the Code Ai^thorit^"' to J. B. T'eaver, Deputy Administrator, ^7hich
is copied in full ■■onder Chapter V - Recommendations - hereinafter.
Thus the situation continued throughout tlie Fall of 1934 and until May
25, 1935. (See pages 5'^S and 250 hereof )
9732
-463-
Econonic Effect of the Hourl-^^ Provisions of the Code on the Industry
There has beea heretofore r.et forth uncer the title of Wages the in-
crease of the aver-'f^e T'ar^e rates iro'n 56,4'^ as of July 1933 to 75^ as of
luay 1935, and it har "been shown that the avera:;e r.-a-je rate for 1S29 vas
62, 8r}, 5\irther it is shoT:n that the increa,E;e of the average v;age rate
during the B-^riod referred to 'vas 33;© alDOve July 1933 and 2lfo above 1929>„^
It has further been shoim that the restricted hours caused serious
unrest due to the snail pav envelope as conpareo. to that of the employees
under the nornal conditions of operation of 1929, for the employees un-
der the impetus of the I^aval building progrtjii expected andc demanded an
a-veraft'e pay envelofie sonev/hat con-oar -ble v-ith that of 1929. It has been
shorn that this dissatisfaction resulted in a major strike at the plant of
the Nev; York Shipbuilding Cor-ooration of March 27 to i;ay 11, 1C34. That
the shipbuilders a railed for a 40 hour reei-: and attended a conference of
May 7, 1934, pjid as no such relief was granted, the I'ew York Shipbuild-
ing Corporation v.-ar further forced to incr -ase its scale 13% above the
original increase of 25yo on the rates of July 1933. Also, that other
major shipbuilding plants increased their scales a further 10;a beyond
the original increase of 25)o, '-hen no decision vran rendered by the Ad-
ministrator. The Industry as a rhole lollo'-ed the major ship'^ards as is
evidenced by the increar,e of the average vra,:i;e to 75(t as of hay 1935, for
the Industry as a whole.
The economic effect of these restricted hours u-oon nevr commercial.
shiT)buildin;^; is subftantially a? follovrs:
Avera.';e merchant shix)building costs breaJ'dovm to 45^ material,
45;.S labor and. 10'J> othr-r charges, (overhead) (Ref, page 19 hereof, state-
ment of LaT.'renco Y. S-oe,\r July 19, 1033) It is assumed by the author
that the 1929 average Tra-;e scale of 52. S'^ ^-as a fair wa^e sqale for the
Industry, is still 5,7^ above the avera-^e ri^ge scale of industries as a
T'hole ;;ay 1935, i-vac above the 1926 shipbuilding average rage scale, and
that the uage scales of 1926 vere the goal to be accomplished by the
national Industrial Recovery Act, (llef. pages 497,498 and 499 hereof)
Then the a,vera";e rage scale of May 1935 of 75^ was an increase of 21^0
over the fair base scale of 1939. Talring the labor uroportion of com-
mercial shipbuilding costs as 45Jj, an increase of 21>i in wage rates
v'ovlL6. be an increase of 9.45^1 in labor costs. Then 45Jo i-)lus 9.45-;!^ equals
54,454.
It reo>'-ires substantially one hour to get a ship^z-ard into operation
and one hour to close it do"n. Therefore, a 40 hour reek mav be assumed
at five days of sir. hours each of TDroductiverork, or thirty iDroductive
hours. Horever, on a 36 hour "eek, four hours must be worked on Friday,
rhich results in only t^'O -oroductive hoiirs on that day, so that the
productive hours luider the 36 hour bufis is 26 hours per reek. Labor
costs, therefore, rill incrense in the oroportion of 30 to 25. Applying
this -orooortion to the 54.45^o labor costs it m;ak.es ajiothfr increase cost
cf 6.3fa to the labor coats.
The overhead cost ite:.i of lO^j incr .a.ses in inverse proportion of the
productive hours of operation, that is as 30 to 26, therefore, the over-
9732
-469-
head cost increase is 1.5'j. The totnl of the foref;oing increase cost is
9.45';b plus 6.3';o plus loSi, eouals 17.::;5,^. That is where the cost of a
ship is tal'e-n at 100^ on the 1929 r^erage v-^.-e scnle and 40 hoiirs TDer
vreek, the cost nould he 117. o5j on a ship htdlt on the present averaf^e
rage scale and 36 hours -oer ^ee^i. However, the increase cost of over-
head ahove sho\¥n is too io\7, for nnny -factorc cone in, difficult to
account for, in a sinple calculr.ticn kucj^ p.;: the author has set :forth.
The writer wa;5 iniorned hv one ox the leading shiphuilders that
increase cost of the "ouilding of a 12,500 D. W. Ton oil tajiher, due to
the 36 hours, .acco;rding to their calculations vas 17.5^b. It must further
he borne in r.iind in the .cas^ of passenger vessels of the finer type that
the inahility to rork hi^ihly skilled uen the full 40 hours is a serious
drawhack and delay of construction, and, therefore, further increase costs,
as there is a decided shorta^-^e of such nen. It nipy be fairly taken that
the restricted hourl"-' provision of. the Code increased the cost of new
corar.i.ercial shipbuilcing from 15f5 to 25yo according to the t]/pe of the ves-
sel.
Taking the exar.iple of a 12.500 D. 1. Ton oil tanker, a fi^ire of
$125 per D. .U. Ton mav he assu:ed the -orice asked hy xiinericrJi rhip
yards. Therefore, such a vessel vrould represent an investnent of approx-
imately $1,560,000. If the price is corrected in the ratio of 100^ to
117.5^0, the price vrould he $1^340,000 for the sa"ie ship huilt on a 40
hour week. The difference is $220,000 in the price of the ship. This
$220,000 must he anortized over a period of 20 years, the economical
life of a vessel, vhich vould nake an erctra ainortization charge of
$11,000 -oer year. Interest and inrur.rnce may he talcen at lOfo per year,
which would mrke another extra ?11,000 charge. Therefore, this vessel
must earn an additional !>22,C0C ner year over and ahove what she would
have had to e&j-n if she "as huilt on a 40 hour per week provision.
It is evident to an-' fair thinking na:a that .no ship owner or cor-
poration v/ould he willing to pi; ce co-trrctc. under such a hurden or
could operate such a ship in cor:peticion with the world's market, or
could even finance such a husiness through env conservative hankers.
The facts are that no 5u:h ships '-ere ordered during the life of the Code,
which imposed the 36 hour -orovirion. Reference is made to page 3 f here-
of, and it is noted that comj-ercial shiphuilding in the United States ■
for 1930 and 1931 averaged approximately^ 250,000 gross tons oer year,
whereas in ir33 in tnc very depths of the de-ores s ion the tonnage for mer-
chant ships shrank to 31,000 tons and in 1^34 instead of this husiness
increasing in the same proportion as the other Durable Goods Industries,
it actually rhranlc to £-zi average of 25,000 tons. This was during a per-
iod when England .built approximately 500,000 tons, Germany 100,000 tons, .
France 100,000 tons, Ita.iy 45,000 tons and Japan 125,000 tons and the
World total was 1,200^000 tons.
Therefore, the restrictive hour provisions of the Code were absol-
utely,'- a haj-r to the construction of new commercial shi-ohuilding. It
directly follows that the 15,000 to 20,000 men that may have 'oeen em-
ployed under the normal increase of this commercial shipbuilding com-
parable to the increase of other Durable Goods Industries were not em-
9732
-470-
ployed and the.t the Code acted directly to greatly restrict employment.
Further since last Sprinr", A^rhen the Codes rere declared invalid,
there ha.ve heen placed contracts, for six oil tanlters, v/hich is only the
"beginning of r. Ir.rge fleet that must he huilt and should ha.ve oeen
started on the turn u^ of the depres=:ion from 1933. To arrive at the
approximate pav that "ill he received by the additional men euployed on
this work it may he ass^oiaed that these six contracts present approximate-
ly 75,000 D. W. Tons, If the contracts '"ere placed in Y±evi of "better
economical r.'eek:ly liours a price of $110 per ton may be assumed, and there
rould be a total price for the six vessels of approximately $8,250,000.
Applying the 45^5 labor cost to this figure of $8,250,000, there will "be
a pay to the employees of $3,70n,000s which v/otild not have been avail-
able in all TDrobrbility if the Code had continued vit'ii the restrictive
hours. Further the la"bor aT)]5lied.to the material that \7ill go, into these
ships will be ar)ioro:;inately another $3,700,000.
Competent axithority has stateo. thrt r35U,000 to 500,000 gross tons
for the AiUcrican Ivierchant Marine must be built yearly if the replacement
of the old tonna£.:e is to be nalntained, r>,s is being maintained with the
Merchant fleets of Great Britain, Je-^doxi ;• nd other Iiaritirae Countries.
Any uneconomical barrier set ud under the lav, such as these restrictive
hour provisions, would thus be .contrary to the welfoxe of all the people.
The effect on comnercial repair work was even more serious, but it
is difficult to clearly estina.te. Repair work on ships for the most
part must be done in the a^-i-ickest -^oscible tine and the men that work
on the repair work, due to the intermittent chsiracter of the work, must
work some weeks up to 48 hours, in order that they ^-^ill get aji s.verage
work xveek that will give then a reasonable "ojiy envelope. The men on
such work on the 36 hour basis onl?'- netted about 29 hours or lost 20>^.
If they were -oenutted to work up to 48 hours at tines they night make
approximately 38 hours tier week.
The increase cost for shiprepairing under the 36 hour "provision
considerably exceeded the incrf5,n,Ke shov'n for neif shipbuilding under the
36 hour provision. The limitation of 36 hours with the permission to
work 40 hours a,t times, but avcra,":ed to 36, proved to be a great burden
and interference v:ith the normal o-ocration of this business. It v/as so
difficult to adJTist this business to these restricted hours that both
the cost of labor and of overhead rose to exorbitant figures beyond the
control of the shiprepair industry and to the great detrinent of tlie
consumer. Jobs f tarted could not be finished b" the sajie crew, crews
were too often chsn-ed, vrith the usual loss of tine and effort of such
changes. This interference ran into tens of thousands of cases.
Steamship owners rebelled, so^ie tried to do their own repair work,
others took the vrork to foreifgn yarc) s , and no vfork was done that could
be put off, all to the direct restriction of the business and employ-
ment. The eiroerience proved concltisively that the application of the
shipbuilders for a 40 hou.r week \Tith a tolerance of 48 hours vras ab-
solutely necessary' for the proper econor:ical o':)eration of the business
and for the benefit of the men employed.
9732
Sconoaic Effect of 'lAestrictef". V/n gkl^ Hours on I'f-.val Shipbuilding
Progr;^:i Ccntracted to Private Shipya:--c.s
The data on contracts received fron the ]i;?xy Department has heen
sumiai-ized by the author for contracts -olaced te^innin^ Decenber 1932
and including the 19'65 prOf^ram, which a:iou:-.ts to $264,049,500 of Kaval
combat ships.
The follonin:;: calculations ret forth by the author arc intended to
indicate the true trend of the econonic effect of restrictive weekly
hours and not as calculations absolutel;''- accurate in all detail. Only
the ITavy Departnent \70uld nave the data available for accurate evalua-
tion of the respective shi-os of the saiie clasr, in order to r.ialce an
accurate conrjarison. Even in such calcul-itions the llavy Departnent
would have to depend upon certain infornation received fron the ship-
yard bidders. The author understands that the lls.vy Department has made
no figures public as to the econonic effect of restrictive vreekly hours,
if they have nad.e such calculations.
It is knoi-Ti that they evaluate conoetitive bids vith utnost care
in order to deter;'ine the most advantageous bid, but this does not
necessarily mean that vessels contracted in different years and on mod-
ified designs exe directl"'' coriparable unless special evaluations are
made for the -tjarticular -ourtpose. However, the trend of increased price,
increased hourly wa{';e scales and increa:-.ed avera;';,'e v'a.9;e scales stand
out definitely under the action of the restrictive weekl"'' hours of the
Code. Therefore, the follovring data s ct up fron Navy Departnent in-
fornation and the calculations nicde by the author are of value in set- •
ting forth the definite trend and a noasure of the cost of such unecon-
omic restrictions in a Code. (r^ef. IT-'.vy data and calculations in llavy
Reports folder, Deput^'-'s rileE)
In order to set forth the increase or decrease of the contrrct prices
for ships of the sane class ds contracted fron year to '-ear, there is
listed hereafter all the contracts. It is Dointed out that contr.act s of
the ITavy Depai'tnent ere made on the bar is of either a fir.ed price or an
ad-justnent price, jidjustnent price' contracts are in (; eneral drawn v/ith
the provision that the prices are tb be adjusted for changes in the
cost of labor and naterial. If labor and natcrial during the building
period increased in coirt, the adjustnent price provision would be ad-
vantageous and added a safety factor for the shipbuilder. Therefore, in
all cases the adjustment -orice bid was beloi.7 the fixed price. It i^lll
be noted in the following figures that all the lat'er contracts were on
the adjustnent price bo.sis, ' This nay have been influenced by the Vin-
cent Act, which provided" that any net -orofit over lOfo earned by the
shipbuilder on a given contract should be on.id over to the G-overnnent,
All the 19Z5 prograia '■'as on the 3r..justnent price basis, whereas some
early contracts, for instance of the lP3o progrfn, were on a fixed
price basis.
In order to naJce conparison the adjustnent price bid nade by the
shipbuilders for the early contracts, has been used, which in each
case is lower than the fixed price, but the adjustnent price bid was
9732
-472-
cvif.entl"'- not considered ss dvnjitrgeo-as to the ITavy "by the Navy Depart-
nent. Belo'i tlie list of each class the calculations are set forth for
the change percent. The lists r.re as follc's:
IIAVY COjiTRACTS
(a) Aircraft Carriers
Year- Plant
Class
Price
Remarks
July 1933 ITeATiDort Ke\7s S3»"- 35D.
II II II ' II II
Aug, 1935 Bethlehen S3. Corp.
CV 5 $19,000,000 Adjusted .
Price
CV 6 19,000,000 Basis
CV 7 20,737.000 Adjustments
$58,737,000
20.737.000 ^ ^^
19,000,000 '
(li) Heav;/ Cx-uisers
Year Plant
Class
Price
Remarks:
Dec. 1932
Aug. 1933
Sethlehen SB. Corp.
II ti II
CA 39 $8,196,000 Fixed Price
CA 40 11,720.000 " "
$19,916,000
11,720,000 ^ ;-
8,196,000 '
For the 1934 Progra-ine the lo'-^ "bids vrere $13,889,000 Fi^ed Price and
$12,889,000 adjustnents. All "bids nere rejected due to price and the
vessel orc'ered "built at the philed.elphia ITavy Y'aru, If the low Fixed
"bid had heen accepted the f insures voLild have sho'Tn 13,839,000 _ -i ^Qr?'
8,196,000 " '"
for chpjige of 1934 over Decen"ber 1932 and 15,889.000 „ nr^n-/ -p -\ota
11 720 000 - ^"^^'^ ^°^ ^■'^'^
over 1933 '
(c) Lijsht Cruisers
Year
Aug. 1933
II II
Aug. 1934
II II
Plant
Ee\T York SB. Corp,
II II II II
II II n II
Nevroort llev/s SB.c-. DD.Co.
II It
Class
Price
Remarks
CL 42 $11,677,000 Fixed Price
CL .43 11,677,000 Adjustment
bid
$11,495,000
CL 46 11,975,000 Adjustment
CL 47 11,900,000 Less $250,
000 for plans
furnished
adjustments
CL 49 13,196,000 Adjustment
Oct. 1935(1) " " "
(l) All original "bids submitted vere rejected due to price, and invita-
tions to "bid readvertised. The llavy did it:: "best to hold the cost down
9732
-473-
even though the ship"builders vrere held within 10'/5 net profit by the
Vincent Act,
13,196,000 - .
n .4P5.nnn ^^ '°
11,495,000
(d) Suljinarincs
Year
Plant
Aug. 1933 Elect.Boat Co.
Aug.
1934
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
Sept. 1935
M
11
Tl
II
II
II
11
Class
SS 174(1
SS 175
Price (5)
) $2,770,000
2,770,000
SS 176
SS 177
SS 178
2,387,000
2,387,000
2,387,000
SS 182
SS 185
SS 184
2,497,000
2,497,000
2,497,000
$20,192,000
Remarks (^5)
Class Ill-
Bidders
l.Iod.of Dept.
Plans - 1317
Tons Adjust-
ment hid (3)
$2,521,000
Adjustments -
Class I-Dept.
Design-Fir.ed
^Drice hid for
3 ships
$2,867,000.
Bids for 2
ships. Fx.Pr.
(2)' $3,100,000
iid3.2,587,000
Adjustments-
Class II -
Bids for 2
ships Px.Pr,
$2,937,000
Adj. (4)
$2,717,000
(5) Propelling Machinery no
(6) The 1933 hids were for
other yeajs are .used.
Adjustments (4) 2 ■> 717. 000 =
" . (3) 2,521,000
t included.
two ships therefore hids for two ships for
108^ "Used in further calculations"
Fix Price
II 11
(2) 3.100.000
(l) 2,770,000
:: 112f. "Hot Used"
(e) 1850 Ton Destroyers
xear
Plant
July 1933
tl II
T.evr
It
York
tl
SB.
II
Corp.
It
II II
II
tl
It
It
II It
II
11
n'
It
II 11
Bethlehem
SB.
Corp
Class-
DD 356
ED 357
DD 358
DD 359
DD 360
Price
$3,775,000
3,775,000
3,775,000
3,775,000
3,896j000
Remarks
Class IV Fixed
Price-Bid for
Adjustment
was
$3,670,000
Class II less
ea.
9732
^An-^^
(e) 1850 Ton Destroyers (con't)
Year Plant
July 1933 Bethlehen S3. Corp.
It M II II II
Class
Price
ti
II
II II
II
Aug. 1934 Feder;il SB. & DD. Co.
11
ti
II
II II
Sept. 1935 Bath Iron Works
n II II II II
DD 361 $3,896,000
DD 362 3,896,000
DD 363 3,896,000
DB 381 4,096,000
DD 382 4,095,000
DD 394 3,882,500
DD 395 3,882,500
DD 396 3,883.500
$50,523,500
Remarks
$112,500 due
plans
furnished.-
Bid
idjustment
$3,542,000
Adjustments
less
$150,000 ea.
for plsns
furnished
Adjustments
4,096,000.0
115:J
3,542,000
*
(f) 1500 Ton
. Destroyers
Year
Plant
Class
Price Remarks
Aug. 1933
United DD. , .Inc.
DD 364
$3,400,000 Adjustments-
II II
tt II II
DD 365
3,400,000 Include de-
tail i.7orking
plains
II II
Bath Iron YJorks
DD 366
3,429,000 Adjustments-
Less
II 11
M It II
DD 367
3,429,000 $152,500 ea.
for plans
obtained from
another con-
tractor
II It
Federal SB.& DD.Co.
DD 368
3,410,000 Adjustments-
Less
II II
II II II II
DD 369
3,410,000 $200,000 due
to pl.ans ob-
■ tained from
another con-
tractor
Oct. 1934
Bethl alien SB. Corp.
DD 380
3,784,000 Adjusted
Price
II II
II II II
DD 382
3,784,000 Class II c
II ti
United DD. , Inc.
DD 384 ■
3,430,000 Ad juste Price
Class
II II
11 It II
DD 385
3,430,000 I-Dept. De-
sign
Nov. 1935
Federal SB. & DD. Co.
DD 397
4,000,000 Evaluated
bid
II II
11 II 11 II
DD 398
4,000,000 $3,753,500-
II II
II II II II
DD 399
4,000,000 Adjustments
9732
(f) 1500 Ton Destroyers (con't)
Year Plant Class Price Remarks
Sept. 1935 Bethlehem S3. Corp. DD 400 $3,675,000 Adjustnents
" " " " " DD 4ol r-', 67 5, 000 "
(Union PlrJit)
4.000.000 - llQfo
3,400,000
(j;) Sumnary of Contracts - Decein"ber 1932 to 1955 Inclusive
Class Doc. 1953 July 1935 A-.^. 1934 & 1935
Aircraft Carriers $33,00O,0u0 $20,737,000
Heavy Cruisers $8,196,000 11,720,000
Light Cruisers 25,354,000 57,071,000
Submarines 5,540,000 14,652,000
1850 Ton Destroyers 50,6^.4,000 19,839,500
1500 " " 20,470,000 53.773,000
$8,196,000 $129,77'J,000 $125,077,500
Dec. 1932
tfi
1935 Incl.
Aircraft Carriers $58,737,000
Heavy Cruisers 193916,000
Light " 60,425,000
Sutiaarines 20Jl92,000
1850 Ton Destroyers 50.523,500
1500 " " 54^2:5 COCO
3264, 049,500
The sum:.iary of chamje oercentages aiid the avnra,3e increase percent
is as follov7s:
Sumnary of Oham-e Percents.ges.
Class
Aircraft Carriers
Heavy Cruisers
Light Cruisers
Submarines
1850 Ton Destroyers
1500 " "
'703;.
708^ 1 5 r llBfi
If the Heavy Crr.isers' afA Sub::n.rines' percentages are omitted as ques-
tionable, the calciJ-atior: beco.es 457-/. _!_<!: = 114.2/3
Then (114,2-;^ /■ 118;^) ^ 2 ~ 116. l/o ^
9732
Percenta,-OE
Remarks
109^0
Change
1933 to 1935
143^.5
1932 to 1933
115;^
1933 to 1935
108;^
1935 to 1935
• 115;.;
" " 1934
113^^
" " 1935
-476--
An Averatj-e increase of 16/j is talcen for cli.a:ag:e from 1933 to 1935 in-
clusive.
As the increase in price rnay "be affected lay 'botii the cost of lalior
and material, therefore, natrrial rmst be .segregated. The follorring
T;7holesple price i.-dexes for "metal anc nctal "oroducts" is tal:en fron '
the "Survey of Chir-ent Business", Department of Coranerce, Bureau of
Poreign and Donostic Coniierce, v/hich is based on data J"ro'n the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. These indexes are as follOTTs:
( i ) Wliolesele Price Inrexes for H?-teri_al
Metal and iietal Products
Dec. 1932 Jjqvej^933 Eov. 1934 ITov. 1935
79.4 ' 82.7 86.2 86.9
Change fron Dec. l'^32 to I.ov. 1933 is 82.7 ~ 104-^
79.4
Change from :^oy.l933 to ITov. 1955 is 86,9 - 105^,f-
82.7
The month of November follov/inf- 'the bids for 1933 - 1934 - 1935 is
assumed as the trie vYien the •: verage of orders for -..laterial would be
placed for contracts oi the respective years.
In the follc-ang calculations IS^j has been deducted from the per-
cent of vfage rate advances for the reason that nage scales of the
private shipbuilders were iBduced 15}o belo\7 the 1929 rates. According
to the re-^ort of t]ae sub-con!uttee to the national Labor Board (Hof.
page 522), IIo\7ever, average vaige rate for the Industry only reduced
(Eef, page 499 hereof) for 1933 - 56.4(5 - 89,555 ^ 10.5^0 decrease,
" 1929 - 62o8rf
but the su.b-coinnittce no doubt set forth the actual red'-ictions made
by major shipyards r/ith '-'hich ■^fe are iierc concerned. The 1929 rates
have been used as a standard in this ch-T^ter as that of a felr wage
rate and sonevrhat above the 1926 rats.
In the comparison of tiie contract "orices the figures on the heavy
cruisers are the most outstanding in the differences. It, hovever,
should be b orne in mind that the original bid vfas made and the con-
tract let in December 1932, on a falling r.arket as to both labor and
material and eft er the 15,? red\iction from the 1929 wage rates was put
into effect, farther it was a newclesign and it is possible that on
the final development of the plons, the ships* cost proved to be
greater than was estimated originally. Therefore, the increase shown
hereinafter for this class a-'pears too high to charge solely to the
effect of restricted hours.
Increase r)ercenta,Te costs due to Restrictive hours
(,i) Dec. 1932 to 1933 change
9732
-477-
( ref. (Tj) ) = 14-3.^ s increase of , 43)5
Lees material increase ( ref, (i) ). ' 4^
xj^ 0
Less previotis reductions in \fcge'
scales belovr 1229 r?.tes ' 155o
Net increase due to restrictive hours rJid
other un'mo" 'n con:".itionr, ?A)'j
The increase of costs, which v.-ere inflxienced "by the increa,se of
2Gfo in rase scales (Hef, Keport sul)-coi-nnittee to the National Labor
Board, pare 518 hereof), due to the change fron the pro-QOsed Code pro-
visi6n of 40 hours to the approved Code -nrqvision of 52 hours for
Naval Ehiphi.iildin-^ ?jid included in tlie contract figures for the 1S33
prograii, are calculated as follous:
(k) Increase percentage on 1953 contracts (aver:vj:e) •
Increase in wage scales A".i/;;p.st 1933 2b^jo
Less -orevious reductions in na,ge scale helow
1929 rates 15-:^
lO^i
Increase in overhead ■ ■ ' ' ' '
40 hrs. X lO/i - 12,67^ « increase 2e5^
' 32 "
Net increase due to restricted hours 12.5^o
The increase of costs for .the 1954 and 1935 prograus over and
above the co;.t of si.iilar vessels -contracted for the 1953 progron are
calculated as follo^'s:
(1) Increase percentage on 1954 -and 1955 contracts over 1955 contracts
Increase (ref, (h) ) " 16^
L«ss increase for Material (rfef, (i) ) 5;3
Net increase due to restrictive hours , (in-
cludes increase of overhead) ' II70
( in ) Total increas e Sec. 1952 to 1935, 'inclusive
Increase Dec. 1952 to 1935 (ref. (k) ) 12.5^
" 1953 to 1935 ( ref. (l) ) _ 11.0^
Net increase due to restrictive hours (in-
cludes increase of overhead)., 25,5;3
(n) Increase cost of Naval contracts for 1935 - 1954 and 1935 due to
uneconoaical restrictive hears,
9732
-478"
Contrr.ctr; for le^K ( ref. (£•) )
$129,776,000 X 12.5;;; ( ref. (';) ) :: -$16,222,000
Contracts for 1934 and 1935 (ref. („:) )
$126,077,500 :■; 23.5,^ (ref. (l) ) ~ 29.52S.000
Increase clue to restrictive hotirs of Code $45,750,000
The Ccxlculction of 23, 5-;? (P.ef, (n)' ) for the increase cost of ITaval
vessels of 1C34 and 1935 Torograri corrpares reasonably nith the calc^ila.-
tion for increase cost of 17,25;^ for connercial vessels of a plain type,
such r,s an oil taaiker, or the ranf^e of ISfj to 25;o for commercial vessels
from the "olain to the finer tToes. (.Hef. pa^^e 549)
Moreover, the calculations set forth "by jlr, La'Trence 7. Spear,
President of the Electric 3oat Conpan:', Jul:"- 19, 1933, for the 30 hour
v/eek, if interoolated for the Co(3evee!c, shovr that the shipbuilders
Plainly set forth r/hat has actually hoppened under the ■onecononic Code
hours, farther the Spear calculations clearl^^ indicated in 1933 the
uneconomic 'ohasc of restricted hours helou 40 hours "oer reek on this
Industr-''-.
?ut-are lilffect of Uneconomic Restricted Hours
In lopkin.'j for-.yard it is evident, the shipbuilders have been
left i7it;i a very serious nroblem on their hpjids, and this includes the
employees, oecause the t:o interests are so closel'' allied one cannot
benefit or lose vdthout the other 3,t the s.ijie tine,
i'ro:i the iiavad shiobuildinf' 'ooint of viei?, reference is made to
the 'vTalsh Contract Bill before Congress in the last Session, ■''hich is
expected to be up a.;;ain this -^ear. The provision of this Bill ■'^ould
reciuire the shipyards bidding for the ILaval vessels to adhere to the
restrictive reekly hours of the Code, effective liaj?- 26, 1935, If. ".
this co-mes about the ITavy Departi.ient may expect to pa,.y in the futxire
spproximat.el;': .2Z,5'}o more for its vessels than it \70\xld have had to pay
if there had been no Code,
Referring to Commercial shipbuildin.r^, the maintenance of the
herchnnt S'leet for foreign trade and the building of this fleet, is a
continuing problem ovfing to the difference fn cost of constniction of
ships -uiider the rrage and living conditions of foreign countries as com-
pared to the conditions in this country. It is proposed oy some, by
means of subsidy, tp compensate for the difference in cost of construc-
■tion as bet^;een iiierican Bud. foreign yo,rds. Therefore, the condition
exists vrhereby a Code adninisterec liy one De-)artnent of the Government
has acted to substantirall^' increase the Ji;-'.erican cost of construction,
??hich increase is to be coroensated'by "subsid"/, that another Depart-
ment of the C-overirient is to pay, because of the arbitrary imposition
of restrictive weekly hours.
9732
-479-
It \7ill not "be e asy to rectify tlie situotion in re;.;ard to Naval
vessels or Corm-.icrcial vessels ajid "brinr; tl .3 InaustryLtabk' to; its ^-poBition
of 1929, If the yards can go on a r^jasonaole weekly hourly "basis, such
as the Automobile Indiirtr-' enjo-^'ea, 4''' hours per reek vrith 48 hours
for pealc conditionr,, ii '.'ill ro: ovc -o-rt of this increase cost. It
will not, horrever, curt t-.ie condition of r.n rvora.jie hourl^r rate, which
was forced hy restrictive hours, 31;j cihove the 1929 average rate.
(Ref. page 499 hereof)
Referring to page 549 hereof, the increase effoct of the average
wage rate is set forth a s 9,45^, the incrpase due to 25 instead of 30
hours effective onerationas 6«3->, the increase of l«5f^ ^or overhead,
and the total of 17,25fi for plain commercial vessels. By calculation,
the 9,45?J is 54-5 of the total increase o^" 17,25^i. If this 5A:fo is ap-
plied to the Navy shiiDhuilding increare of 35.55u it will give 12,7/j of
increase costs that will still remain on lJa:-ry vessel constrtiction even
if the restrictive hours are reaoved. There vril.l also remain the 9,45)0
on Commercial shiplsuilding of the plain type.
It certainl;;- vdll he a management p^.'oblem and one in T/hich tne
employees must join to adjust the situption, Tliere is hope in the sice
of the pay envelope, which was only $35 average Octooer 1935, whereas
it was more than $30 per week in 1929. ■ (P.ef. page 497 hereof) If the
average wage rate and the hours worked can he adjur-ted again, so that
the average employee receives $30 per week, he certainly would he tetter
off, and it would save the ila.vy Department t]ie 23.5}^ and eliminate the
extra ordinarj^ cost of tne 15}a to 25;o on Commercial shipouilding arid
prohahly the 25^,o to 40^^ on Com.: ;ercial ship repair.
Thus the economic effect of applicrtion of Code hours is set
forth. There is no douht, there is an economic low limit of weekly
working hours for each a--.d every Industry, Industries immediately div-
ide into those that are suitable for multiple shifts and those that are
not. Shipbuilding is not, Ind^istries that fjre suitable may have a low-
er economic limit thaia shipbuilding. It is regretable that the Research
and Plajining Division made no adeqiiate study of this paraiaount question,
when the shipbuilders apr)lied for relief at the conference of May 7,1934,
hereinbefore set forth, (Ref, page 536) for the restrictive hours did no
one good, but every one harm concerned with the Industry. The Adminis-
trator apparently relied on the Research cjid Planning Division in this
matter.
Interpretations, Exemptions and Stays requested by the shipbuilders
are set forth on pages 277 to 354 incK\sive hereof. They consisted of
an interpretation of Section 3 (c) of the Code, a group of miscellaneous
exemptions recuested because of the shortage ;of certain classes of labor,
extensions of Section 3 (c) of the Code pertaining to designers and
loftsmen, stay of Section 3 (a) and (b) pertaining to emergency work,
stay of Section Z (a) and (b) pertaining to trials, and exemptions
pertaining to the San Francisco 3ay Area from Section 4 (b) of the Code,
as amended, all as listed on r)a':;e 290 hereof.
9732
-480-
The Code did not -orovide any elasticity in the nar.inun neekly
hour provisions, such as -nermispion to -.'orh oeyoncL such ^'eel;!^- hours
if tine and one-half was paid, rlthouch certain Af'-visory Boards and
Divisions referred to the payment of tine and one-half "by shiphuilders
as a solution of their restrictive hour jrojlen, jn.stas though the
Code ^7ould -oernit then to ericesd the ^ eekly hours vithout sta],'"s and
exemptions, \7hich rrere raost difficult to get through according to the
ejrperience of the author »
The extension of Section 3 (c) fron tine to tine was necessary to
permit designers and lof tsraen to ei:ceed the ma::imun weekly hours in or-
der to hasten the ^iroc^re::,s on the designing of the llaval program, which
was being perfon'ied "by the private shipbuilders, and not by the IJavy
Deioartment, The l\favy yards building such ilaval vessels worked from
the designs nade by the private shipbuilders, so that the extension of
this section was necessary not only for the increase of eraploynent in
the private shipyards having llaval cont-<';.ct3, but also for employment
in Federal IJavy yards building part of this program.
Emergency work was not -nrovided for in the Code, whereas such
work is alwavs necessary in the repair of ships, conseojiently stays
had to be granted fron tii:e to tine.
Dock trials and sea trials, particularly for new vessels, are
performed unde: difficult conditions with respect to crews, which
must be particularly trained for tlis work. Ships must go to sea and
stay at sea for such trials and it is quite impossible to control the
hours of these special crews beyond rrhat is required by the national
Marine Laws,
The ezenpti.on pertaining to the San jFrajicisco Bay Area of Section
4 (b) of the Code, as anended, was to rectify a very unjust o^^eration
of the Code, which acted to criish the snail industries,
2, Unusual Provisions such a.s Tolerances
The onl"/ provision in the Code providing a tolerrjice is that of
Section 3 (b) as amended, which provides that employees in shiprepairing
sholl not be permitted to vrork more thaia 35 hours per week, averaged
over a period of six months, nor more thoji 40 hours per week. In
other words the 40 ho\ir nrovision is the tolerance over and a-bove the
36 hours. This tolerance -as auite inadenuatc and while it partially
relieved the restrictive 36 hours it was far short of a tolerance that
the shipbuilders reall:"- needed. They should h -ve had at least 48 hours
for shiprepairing, which the Autoiaobile Industry had for its unusual
peak conditions. Reference is nade to ^oages 551 and 552 hereof, which
set forth the operation of the shiprepairing part of the industry under
the Code,
3, Industry's Compliance v^ith the Code
The Compliance Division's report of the Labor complaints filed
from the effective date of the Code to I'lay 25, 1935, is as follows:
9732
-481-
Dnte of esxliest complaint November 18, 1933
Total docketed 145
Investigated complaints Adjusted 74
No violation found 42
Booldceeping rejections 12
Complisince Division, or Regional Office 11
On hand, .May 25, 1935 6
The Compliance Division at this writing does not have the hreak-
down of these Lahor complaints for the. full period. However, their
record from July 24, 1934, to May 1, 1935, has "been made available to
the author and he has calculated from this report the follovjing pro-
portions, which may be taken as a general guide of conplaints filed:
Art. Ill - Hours 36.3^
Art. Ill (a) Failure to pay overtime earned 18.4^0
Art. IV Failure to loay minimum vrages 39,3?o
Art. IV (b) Wage differential 6. OS
100. o;.
Reference is made to detail schedules of conplaints handled by
the Industrial Relations Committee set forth on pages 436 to 440 hereof.
(Ref. Compliance Folder, Deputy's Files)
4, Maladjustment with other Codes
The Chairman of the Code Authority at the meeting of liarch 2, 1934,
reported as follows:
"The Chairman reported that a hardship was being worked on certain
members of the Industry due to the difference of hours and wa^es pro-
vided in other Codes in manufacturing materials which are also built in
shipbuilding and shiprepairing yards T?hen bids are a sked from firms op-
erating under different Codes."
Reference is made to Esiiiibit V-5, the same being the setting forth
of the conflict as between the G-overnment and the Shipbuilding Industry
by H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Aiithority, dated Larch 7, 1934,
and siibmitted to Group 4 Code Authority Orgsnization called by General
Hugh S. Johnson, the Administrator, from iiarch 5, 1934, to Uarch 8, 1934
inclusive. Reference is also made to the general account of the meet-
ings called by General Johnson harch 5 to iiarch 8 contained in the
letter (5ated iiarch 9 from H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Code Auth-
ority to the Industry rieT.ibers of the Code Coriiiittee, Exhibit V-6 hereof,
5. The Posting: of La.oor rrdvisioTis
The Code Authority distributed 2,057 to 611 establishments. (Ref.
letter from C, C. Ilnerr, Secretary of the Code Authority to G. A. Lynch,
Administrative Officer, Sept. 22, 1934, in Labor folder, Deputy's Files)
Ho complaints were files for failure to "oost.
fi. Display of Insi.g.riia
Insignia were di-stributed with the Labor Provisions. There is no
record of the extent of their use.
9732
D. OTHER LA30P. PHOVISIOITS
1, F.eduction of Chilo. La'bor . , " ■.
Reference is made to tne letter of June 15, 1934, from
H. Gerrish Snitli, Chairman of fie Code A-J-thority, to J. B, Weaver,
Deputy Adninistrator. (Ref . Exh, U Hereof-, and Code Authority General
Folder, Deputy's Files) The f ol] o'/ing is an excerpt:
"ilo child lator or s^reat shop conditions ex-
isted, T-recluding any gain in this direction."
2, Extent of Home fforh Activities
ITo hone rorl: existed in the Industry.
3. Hancica'pried Worhers
Tliere was no iDrcvir-ion in tlie Code for handicaprjed wor'-ers,
however, it has heen the custon of the Inr^ustrj'' over a loeriod of -'■ears
to looh out for nen injured ar.d unahle to co^itinue their previous oc-
cupation, such nen were used, on casual and incidental la'bor, uatchnen
service, etc.
4, Ar)iorentice and Ler.rners
The Code provisions were generally adherred to. The major
plants have for pany years conducted adequate schools for the training-; of
young employees, the snail plants rhi"' e not conducting schools for this
purpose, have for years ts.ught young eniDloyees and given them a fair weekly •
wage.
5. OToeration of other Lphor pnovisior-s
Operation of all laoor provisions of the Code have heen set
forth. ' _
6. Strihe at the Plant of the ITev,' York Shi-ohuildinp: Corporation.
Camden. New Jerse^,^
The attention of the Adnini strati on was called to the unrest-
ful condition of la.hor on Qctoher 16, 1933, ty letter from -Mr, C. L. Bardo,
President of the Eew York Shipbuilding Corporation, to General Hugh S.
Johnson, Administrator, and the Hon.- Rohert F. Uagner, Chainnan, I'ational
La'bor Board. (Ref. Pages 512, 513 anc" 514 hereof) There was attached to
this letter an "Ancalysis and Effect of the "ational Industrial Recovery
Act as Ap-olied and Interpreted in the Ship'builders ' Code". (Ref. La'bor
Folder, Deputj''' s Files) The letter protested against tne unreasonable re-
striction of the h^urs against the ship bu.ilders and requested 40 hours
per weekr
It has heretofore been set forth under the tile of Wages that
the average pay envelope for 1939 \ras $30.55 (Ref. page 497), whereas the
average raay envelope for 1935 dropped to .^23.90.
9732
-4S.3-
Under tlie influence of restrictive hoxirs a;ad in si^ite of the' increase
of aTjproxinatelj'- 25^0 in the \'ra.ze rates the lov or'.y envclo'ie continued, dur-
ing the period the national Lator Board rras e:caninin^?; into the natter as
recounted from pa^^es 521 to 55G hereof.
The situation drag^-^ed out fron month to nonth, "but on Harch 27, 1934,
a group of /len at the plant stracl- for higher r.'ages. The plant T.'as cD.osed
dorm in order to prevent possible dai^.a'ie to the I^aval vesr.els huilr in,'^ and
because the progress of the vrork vas badly interferred rith. Efforts of
conciliation rrere nade, but the strihe dragged on.
On April 24, 1234, .the Shipbuildinr^- Code Authoritj^ requested the In-
dustrial delations Committee to use its efforts to settle the strTce.
(Eef, Minutes of the Leeting, Deputy's Tiles) Hov/ever, the Industrial
Relations Co^riittee had not been properly set \xp '-ith regard to its Rules
and Reg-alations at this time and vi&s mt in a position to take effective
action.
On or about hay 1, 1934, J. B. TTeaver, Deputy Adninistrator, and
Captain Henry Uillians, (CC) United States ITavjr, ^-ent to the plant of the
corporation at Canden, l^.e^i Jersey, anc" ■ lade every effort to settle the
strike by mutual agree'ient as bet^-een the men and the shipj^ard. The men
at this tine -i^.d been organized into p.n i.idustrial vmion entitled "In-
dustrial Union of I'arine and Shiiobui^ ding "^orlrers of America". Honever,
no settlement rra.s agreed u-oon as the question of the 40 hour week was
before the Adninistration.
The conference of I'ay 7, as heretofore set forth, before G-eneral
Johnson on the 40 hour peek was expected to solve the nroblem by giving
the men increased "oay due to reasonable 'r'or^ung hours. Under the 3S hour
week the nen were making approximatelj* 71 hours per week on new con-
struction and under repair work were making approxi- lately 29 hours per
week.
Evidently the shix) building company gave up hope of obtaining the
40 hour week for on Kay 11, 1934, it signed a contract ^/uth a representa-
tive of the Union whereby the average T)!^y '''as increased approxi:'mtel3'' 13;o.
A cops'- of this contract is in the folder labeled lTe:j York Shipbuilding
Corporation Strike, Depxity's Piles. There is also in the sane folder a
copy of the constitution and the b3''-laws of the Industrial Union of l.terine
and Shipbuilding TJorkers of America, dated October 5, 1934, as received
by Mr. C. L. Bar do.
The increa.sed wa,ge rate sonevhat increased the pay envelo"oe, but it
was still considerably below the average earnings that the -len ma,de in
1929 due to the continued 36 hour I'jrovision, The contract aJ.so provided
for certain restrictions in regard, to employnent, and. tiiat it should .con-
tinue in force for a rseriod-of one "/ear, and thereafter in full force and^
effect fron ye8.r to year, uialess either ;oarty gave tlie other thirty da3'-s
notice in writin- of its intentions to terminate the agreement.
On A^^ril 8, 1955, a ilegotiating Committee of the Union, Thomas
Gallagher, Chairman, conferred, with R. S. Campbell, G-eneral "'anager of the
I'lew York Shipbuilding Corooi-otion, in re~ard to a ne-'* contract. Tlie trans-
9732
-434-
cript of this conference an-i". all other papers referred to under this
title T'ill he found in the lle^ York Ghiphui'.ding Comoration Strike
folder, Dep\it7's ITiles. The Union representative suhmitted a me^orandxMi
consistinfi of fifteen demands proposed to he incorporated in a new and
modified contract beginning liay 11, lCo5, The denands r/ere explained hy
the Union representative.
Under date of A^oril 9, 1935, the shipouilding coimoany addressed the
Negotiating Connittee b::,6. set forth its position in regard to the proposed
ner contract, April 11, 1955, the Union addressed the shi-ohuilding com-
pany and ga^-e formal notice of the termination of the current contract
on its eicpiration date, Hay 11, 1955-
On April 19, 1935, the author vras a,dvised hy the representative ' of
the llavy Departraent, Captain J-Ienry r;illiams (CC) United States llavy, tliat
there was liable to oe a serious lator disr)ute at the >Iew York Shipbuild-
ing Corrjora-tion plant at Canden, The a.i-.tiinr discussed the matter with
Mr. Arthur 0. TTliarton, Chairman of the Ind\ifti'ial Relations CoFioittee,
who agreed to send I,Ir. J„ 17o Hart, a m..'?nber of the Industrial Relations
Committee, and Lr, Joim 'Lf.\e, Special AbFistant and Inv/cstigator of the
Committee, to the Car:den ■c"'ant t-o make an investigation and report back
to the Industrial Relations Conr.iittee, On that sane date the author
addressed A. J. Doyle, Executive Secretory of the Industrial Relations
Committee by letter and made t..ie request that liessrs. Hart and Lane be
sent to Camden the first thinf, the following morning, April 20, and that
this Committee be rerdy to report back to the Industrial Relations Commit-
tee meeting called for the following !?aesday, April 23. This letter was
written upon the request of Ur. Arthur 0. Wharton, Chairman of the Com-
mittee.
Farther, the aiithor early on the morning of April 20 wired the New
York Shipbuilding Corporation and the Negotiating Committee for the Union
that Messrs, Hs,rt and lane would call on them to receive first hand infoi^
mation in regard to the situation and requested 'their respective cooper-
ation. Mr, H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman of the Shipbuilding and Shipre-
pairing Industry Coum.ittee, also was advised of this move b^r telegrajn on
•the same morning, Aioril 20.
The Hew York Shipbuilcing Corporation had under contract at this
time two of the 600 foot light cruisers desigm.ed by them, known as ves-
sels CL-40 and CL-4r., and four 1S50 ton destroyers known as DD356, DD357,
DD358 and DD359 a,nd designed by them. Pour of the same class of vessels
were under contract of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corapan;'- from the designs
of the IJew Yor!' Shipbuilding Corporation.
The Sub-Committee of the ■ Industrial Relations Committee made a
verbal report of the situation at the Camden yard at the meeting of the
Industrial Relations Committee April 23, ] 935, This verbal report was
confirmed by menorand^am dated April 24, 1935, copy of which is in the
Deputy's files. Amongst other things the report set forth that the total
employ^ient was 4569 of whom 4337 were classified as productive and 4011
were emplo3'ed on an hourly rate and tliat the payroll of the company was
approximately $125,000 per week; that the employers were of the opinion
that approximately 75^ were affiliated with the Union, and there was
9732
-485-
attached a copy of the letter from tlie Union notlfyin/^ tlio comT)any of its
intention to torninate the current contract. The report further stp.ted
as folloT.'s: (-The numhered para^rauhs are tc'ren fron the demands inade hy
the Union) •
■"■Jlr. Canphell, General Manager of the Company, stated that
he ■■conferred with the Nei'^otiatinf Co-Tiittee of the Union, and
discussed the nodiiica.tions nentioned in the fore^r^oinr lettor.
Thej'- are, oriefly, as follows:
'1. As long as there a.re Uni'^n nerahers availa-hle
who are qualified to do the rork required, no non-
union men shs.ll "be hired. In the event thnt there
■ are no such Union men availahlc, non-Union men ma.y
he hired, hut they shall oe ren-aired to join the
Union within two (2) weeks after the date of their
enplo^^ent,
'2. Elinination of piece wor;-;, "bonus a.rd contract
systems. All men to he paid by the hour Vvdth the
exception of salaried employees.
'3 Rates. All johs to he cl.assified as sl:illed,
semi-skilled or unskilled, and •vith the exceptions
noted, helow, to he paid for at tlie standa.rd rate
for the class in v/hich it is assi-Tned. All johs
which are now paid for at SS^i? or less, shall he
classed as ■•onskilled; all johs which are nov: "oald :
for at hetween 5&?rrf and 67,/ shall he classed as
seiii"skil? ed; all johs which are paid for at he-
tween 67-V and 83(^ shall he classed as skilled.
The standard rates for unskilled, se-..ii-skilled and
skilled johs shall he 63ii, 77 and 95(.) respectively'-.
'Exceptions: All men who are now paid more than
83^ per hour, also all salaried men shall receive
an increase of 15fo» '
"Ilr. Camphell informed the suh-coramittee tl^at it was im-
possihle for the Hew York Shi-ohuildir.g Company to agree to
such demands, and refused to entertain the thought of incor-
porating these requests in a new agreement,
"Hr, Ealtwasser stated that the Company could not ac-
quiesce to these demands, to do so would force the Com^anj^
through economic necessity, to close its ^^lant,.
"He strted that the Comppjiy op-rated at a loss in 1934-,
and, for the first three months of 19S5, showed a loss of
approximately $126,000. He estimated that if these dema:nds
were agreed to, the loss to tne Company v.'6uld amount to
over $1,000,000 and on the contracts . still' 'to he .complete
ov?r-er three-year period the loss .■'-ould he Q^ero3, 000,000,
9732
-486-
"i.'r. I'"altvasser inforiaed the subconmittee that the ra.tes
of pay of the l-i'err York ShiiDbuilclir.g Corn-nany are higher, on an
averaf:e, than at l-Tevrnort iTe'"s Ehip"bu.ildina: Company, and Fore
River Ship Coupany of Q,n.incy, liassachusetts. He quoted statis-
tics, emanating from the United States De-nartment of Lahor,
which i'ldicate thai; in 90 of the largest industries the aver-
age, hourly earnings are less than in the ShiphuildJ.ng Industry.
In January, 19')5, the average hourly rate in these industries
was 75 cents per hour, while in the Shipbuilding Industry the
average was 82.3 cents.
"The suTD-comnittee was advised that a meeting of the In-
dustrial Union was held on Saturday, April 20th, The attend-
ance was reported as between 1,500 and 1,900 members. The sub-
com.mittee './as told that the members extended a vote of confi-
dence to the negotiating Board in their demands on the Company.
"¥e ha,d a conference with the negotiating Board, of the
Union, lie feel that there is e. divided opinion amongst the
members of the Board as to whether a strike is advisable at
this time, ,but a serious situation majrdevclop if the members
of the Union feel that there is a possibilit3'- of enforcing
their demancs.
In the discussion at the meeting it a.pneared that paragraph one of the
Union's demands was the ;-;ain stujnbling block at all efforts of negotiation.
It was a.pparent to the writer that if the 'Sexj York Shipbuilding Corporation
agreed to such provisions th; t it would certainly be liable to be charged
with violation of the code. The author discussed this with Ca-otain Henry
Williams (CC) United States Havj'-, and members of the Committee. He later
took the ma.tter up with his Deputy, W. W. Rose, and Colonel Rose and he
went to see the Division Adininistrator, Barton W. Hurray. The Division
Administrator expressed the opinion tl^at it I'as purely a matter of ex-
planation aiid thci,t the author could so, handle ihe m.atter.
Consequently early in the raornin^; of Aioril 24, 1935, the a,uthor ad-
dressed a letter to the Hew York Shipbuilding Corporation and in this let-
ter, after setting forth paragraph one of the Union's demands, closed the
letter with the following paragraph:
"This is to advise th.'it if .you should carry out the -oro-
visions of the above paragraph (1.), you would be liable to
the charge of viola,tion of the Code of Fair Com-oetition for
the Shipbuilding and Shi-orepairing Industry and Section 7 (a)
of the national Industrial Recovery Act, and, therefore, place
your Kavj." contracts in jeoj^ardy."
At the same time a letter was written to the l'egotia,ting Committee
of the Union in which the final parcigraph of the letter to the New York
Shipbuilding Corporation was quoted. Both letters were delivered to
Control by the author after having been submitted to Colonel 17. W. Rose,
Deputy, ilr. Donavan of Control duly passed both letters and- mailed them
registered, special delivery.
9732
r
-187-
The suli-cornTnittee of the Industrial Relations Comittee returned to
Camden on April 24 and upsd their "best efforts to arrive at a settlement
of the situation, all of which is told in a second report, April 27, 1934,
of this sub-co!*imitte6, xvhich had heen joined liy llr, W. A. Calvin, repre-
sentative of Labor on the Industrial Relations Committee.
Under date of April 25, 1935, Thomas Gallagher, Chairman of the ne-
gotiating Committee, addressed the a\i.thor "by letter and set up argumpnts
to the effect that the ejrplanation made in the author's letter to the
New York Slaipbuilding Corporation of April 24 should not have "been made.
Copies of the Gallagher letter were sent to the national Lahor Relations
Board and to the Executive Secretary of national Recovery Administration,
and others. The au-thor drafted a reiily to the letter to the Union in
which he pointed out th?,t at least 1000 men in the employ of the Hew York
Ship"building Corporation were not mfenbers of the su''oject Union, "but were
memPers of the American Federation of LaPor, or not men"bers of any Union
and that if the shipyard discharged men 'oecause t'aey did not join the sub-
ject Union they most assuredly would place themselves liable to a charge
of violation of the Code.
However, representatives of the Union came to TZasai'igton and exerted
their utmost pressure in the matter. On April 30 I;Ir. Barton ¥. Murray,
Division Administrator, advised tne author that the matter woiild Pe before
the National Industrial Recovery Board the following morning and instruct-
ed the author to sv.pnly him with a memorandum covering the subject. This
was done by memorandum to the Division Administrator from the author, dated
April 30, to which all pertinent papers were attached. Additional copies
were supplied to Ilr. Murray for the information of the members of the Board,
The subject duly came up the follo'-^ing morning, I'ay 1, 1935, before
the national Industrial Recovei-y Board. It i s verbally understood by the
author that Ilr, Hurray had no opportunity of submitting the author's mem-*
orandura of April 30, or the attached pertinent papers. The discussion
ended, so the author understands, by 3. resolution or understanding that
the letter of the author of April 24 to the New York Shipbuilding Corpora-
tion be disavowed. In accordance a letter was written to the New York
Shipbuilding Corporation for the National Industrial Recovery Board and
copied as 9, release, No, 11159. The disvowal was contained in the closing
paragraphs as follows;
"The above statement made by Hr. TJ'hittelsej'' wa,s unwarr8,nted
and is hereby disavowed. If occasion should arise for a gover-
nmental interpretation of such an issue as is referred to in
I.'r. ■yTiiittelsey' s statar.ipnt, this inter^Tretation would presumably
be made by the appropriate labor rel.ations board or committee —
this under ei:istirtg orders of the President,
"It will be appreciated if j^ou give this present letter
the same publicity that was given lir, TJhittelsey' s statement."
To all thoroughlj'- conversant r-ith the situation this 'last letter v/as
tantamount to a ticket for a bad strike. Hovrever, the strike did not
effect the emplo^'ees of the drafting department. li^Arther the letter of
April 24, written by the author, was brought to the attention of li!r.
Francis Biddle, Chairman of the national Labor Relations Board, who issued
9732
"488"
a press release dated Tiay 2, 1935, On the sane date i.Ir. J, F. Metten,
Pxesident of the Jle" York Shipbuilding Corporation issued an open letter
to the employees; .also on the same date Colonel ¥, U. Rose, DetDuty Admin-
istrator, addressed the Division Administrator, Barton ■?. Murray, as
follows:
"With reference to the ahove named release, copy of rhich
is attached hereto, it should he noted that the letter from
■ lir. H, II. TJhittelesy quoted therein was written ^-dth the fall
knowled{5e and approbation of the undersigned as Depiity of the
Section. The disavov/al is therefore eqiially apt)licable to
him an;'- blame attached thereto is hereby assumed."
Under date of iiay 3 I'r, Barton T7. liurrajr, Division Administrator,
by memorandum instro-cted the author to malce & further report on the matter.
In accordajice tliererith under date of I'ay 6 the author addressed a. mem.o-
randum to Barton TJ. Kurray, Division Adniristraitor, maJ:ing such report.
This report chronologically set forth the happenings loading up to the
v/riting of the subject letter of April 34 to the !Tew Yorh Shipbuilding
Corporation- by the author and also set forth other pertinent facts in
connection yith the IJev.- Yorl: Shipbuilding Corporation dispute. This mem-
'ora,ndum .is with the other papers referred to herein in the folder marked.
ITd'w York Shipbuilding Corporation Stri]:e, Deputy's Files,
'■ ■ Jhirther a,ttempts were made by the sub-com:iittee of the Industrial
Relations Committee,, which are set forth in their report dated i;ay 6,
■ 1'935. Said report set forth, amongst other things, that the sub-committee
had been advised; that a stril'e vote would be taken at a mass meeting to
b6 held Saturday, i;ay 4, end. slso advised by the shipbuilding companj'' that
if the vote vfas in favor of a strTre that the plant would be closed, that
the mass meeting was held on Hay 4 and that the discussion lasted three
and one-half hours,, that a secret ballot was ta^::en and when complete the
votes were taken b;'- the employees' comm.ittee to some undisclosed destina*-
-tion, and the employees' co^oiiittee announced tlu\t the results of the ballot
would not be made p\iblic, but would be used for future negoti-ation, and
that on Sunda;-, I'ay 5, the employees' committee announced through' the press
that the tabulation c'isclosed an overwhelming majoritj'- in favor of the
strike.
May 9, 1S35, a conference was held between the company a.nd the Ne-
gotiating Committee for the Union. It v;as suggested by the company that
the questions be submitted to the Industrial" Relations Committee for the
Shipbuilding a,nd Shiprepairing Industry, but, the negotiating Copimittec for
the -Union refused to accept this plan, tfnder the same date Executive " ■'
Vice-Preside'.it of the Shipbuilding company, I'r. C. k. Kaltwasser, formally
referred the dispute to the Industrial Relations Committee by letter.
Under the sa le date Mr. J. P. lietten. President of the ¥ev York Shipbuild-
ing Corporation, a-ddressed the enployees an open letter to iThich was at-
tached a forn of contract made in a manner that could be signer! ty the
individual men.
973S
-489-
On Hay 10 tlie press carried a:i article to the effect tlirt the shit)-
yard workers v^ere ordered to striate at mid-nirjht Hay 11, which vras Sat-
urday, (j'ro-i tlie date of April 25 tintil Au{^ist inclusive the principal
presr, articles were cliprjed and Till "be found in the '.'ew York Shipbuild-
ing Corporation Strike folder, Deputy's files) The author v/as informed
that tne strij:e -.-as effective theff oLlowing llonday morning, May 13, and
'^as enforced oy a heavy pickehed lir^^
5732
-490-
The May edition of the "Shipyard TCorkers Voice" V7as issued at
this time, -'hich according to the "publicr tion was issued hy the ship-
yard unit of the Communist Par+y neinters, '-'ho worked in the shi-oyard.
It carried the injunction to Join the Comrranist Party, vote for the
candidates that surjoort our strike, vote straight Communist and other
matter of the same nature, A copy of this is in the files referred to.
Under date of May 14 the Chairman of the Kegotiating Committee
addressed the Ne^ York EhiiDtuilding Conooration in regard to further
negotiations, which ^as duly ro-olied to hy the New York Shipbuilding
Corporation under date of May 1 V "by letter signed by C. M. Kalt'-Yasser,
Executive 'vice-President, Th? author was informed that nothing much
came of this plan^
May 15 the Presic'ent was requested to intervene in the strike by
reriresentatives of the urioiu According to newspaper publication they
also called on the Secro'uary of Labor.
The shipyard paid off the men for the previous week about May 14
and had a 'ballot urinted on the back of the checks. The Union men were
instr^acted rot to vote these ballots. However, the bank report of
May 23 received l^y the writer through the Secretary of the Industrial
Relations Goinmibtee was to the effect that 100 men voted "no", 300 to
400 "no vote", and 3200 voted "yes" for returning to work.
On May 19, accortMng to newsnaper advices, the Union offices
intended to extend the strike to other shipyards building Naval vessels,
which would affect the P-:i,th Iron Works at Bath, Mpine. Bethlehem Ship-
building Corporation at Q,uincy, Massachusetts, Electric Boat ComDany
at New London, Connecticut, and the Ne^Tport News Shipbuilding and Dry
Lock Com-oany at Ne-iDort News, Virginia; and Toossibly others. Strike
ballots were taken at some of the plr.nts, but nothing serious came of
the matter.
Under date of May 23 the Mayor cf Camden, New Jersey, Hon.
Pederick Von Neida, addressed the New York Shipbuilding Corporation
and under date cf Kay S5 Mr-, J, P. Metten, President, replied. The
■Dicket lines continued and were effective. It w.-is reported to the
author Jiine 7, 1035, that a representative of the Union took the matter
up with Senator Nye.
Reference is made to the clip-oing of the Congressional Record,
dated September 10, 1935, whi^h recounts some of the history of this
matter from May 9 on. The remarks were made by the Hon. Charles A.
Wolverton in the House of Representatives, Priday, August 23, 1935,
which began with an account of a letter dated May 9, 1935, which he
addressed to Hon. H. L. Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
introducing members of the Union. The Congressman also gave a letter
addressed to the Hon. Carl Vinson, dated June 6, 1935, Chairman of the
Committee of Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, and another letter
to Hon. William Connery, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on Labor,
House of Representatives, dated June 6, 1955.
Hearings were subsenuently ordered by the Labor Committee of the
House and a special committee was appointed to conduct the hearings.
9732
"491-
The hearing was for the nurnose of pscertainirit'?; whether any direct or
indirect TDor^er or- authority existed UJic'er the, terms of the shiphuilding
contracts that would enable the, Secretary of the Navy to intervene in
the strike. The nnnlysi? \;heii completed vas submitted Jvixe 25, 1935,
to James Mullin, President of the Lucal No, I of the Ca./nden Union and
other officers of the Union; also a CQ-oy was submitted to the Mayor of
Camden, There is no mention of a co oy sent to the shipouilding comiDany.
The Hon. Charles A. w'olverton under dj^te of July 26 addressed
another letter to the Sub-Conmittee of the House Committee on Labor
investigating the Ne^" York Shipbuilding Corporation strike situation.
The strike continued to drag on. July 5, July 9, and July 12 the
New York ShipDuilding Corporation published full T5age articles in an
effort to disseminate information in regard to the strike and on July 15
an article was published setting forth that the Ca:/iden County Committee
of the Department of New Jersey, American Legion, would conduct a fair
vote of the yard. This was atteraiDted but could not be brought to a
fair conclusion due to interference.
On July 19 the shi-obuilding comiaany issued a notice auoting the
Mayor of Camden as follovfs; "since it seems imrjossible to get any •olace
on the old agreement, or on any of the new ones suggested, I recommend
that they be scrax^-oed — all of them. Let the men return to work and
within ten days ballot to select the men ^iho are to represent them in
collective bargaining," "Then let these repre.senl^atives of the employees
confer ^ith the officials of the plant and reach a new agreement," "It
is simnly a recommendation on ray part and it is my final one."
The comx)any in this notice of July 19 accepted the nlan and stated
that the plant would be or>en at 7:40 daylight saving time Tuesday
morning, July 23, and that at the end of the third day of emioloyment the
comiDany "-ould advance to the em-oloyees, who desired it, a certain per-
centage of their anticinated earnings for the puriDOse of meeting
emergencies. Again on. July 23 -orinted notice was issued of the proposed
opening of the plant.
It was reported to the author on July 23 by a member of the
Industrial Relations Committee that the plant was duly opened according
to plan on the morning of July 23, that the Mayor of Camden was present
and a picket line of 20^)0 persons, mostly unknown and not em-ployees of
the yard, that about 200 of the old e.^i-oloyees went through the gates,
in addition to the 250 that had been regularly going through for
maintenance work. The llayor of Camden tried to talk to the picket line,
but they would not hear him. The first day there was no violence re-
ported. However, oy the third day, July 25, a number of the men were
injured by the stone barrage according to the newspa-per report and many
women appeared in the picket line, principally from Philadelphia. In
fact the line was made up, according to reports, of those out of employ-
ment in Philadelphia,
The press reported July 26 that Mr. J. P. I'letten, President of the
New Y'ork Shipbuilding Corpora.tion, was before the Sub-Coraraittee of the
Labor Committee of the House and testi-fied. The heavy picket line
continued and all further efforts of putting the plant into. operation
9732
were given up. August 4, accordiiiie: to -nrffss reports, the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, H. L. Roosevelt, ^^as before the Sub-Coranittee of
the House, Labor CoinFiittee, n.nd testified, pjid it was reported in the
nre.ss August 8 that the Uavy had given the shiioyard trrenty-four hours
to end the strike, to vhich they replied.
The strike '-as no'.^ running into the fourth month and the IJavy pro-
posed an arbitration or-sis, which ■'•'as refused by the Union according to
the press reioorts of August 13. The controx'^ersy continued very
acrim'oniously, and it was reported in the -oress Au^nast 14 that Merabers
of the House Sub-Committee accused the Yl-'-yy pnd Laoor Departments of
surrender to the lie'" York Shipbuilding Corporation. August 15 the Sub-
committee of the House renuested the President to act and on August 21,
according to press " eports the President was talcing an active part in
the matter.
August 22, according to the Congressional Record, page 15286, the
President issued an Executive Order to -naVre effective arbitration to
settle the strike. This Order set up "The Camden Board of Arbitration",
composed of Rear Admiral Henry A. Wiley, United States Navy, retired,
chairman, Robert Bruere, of New York City, and Colonel Jrank P. Douglass,
of Oklahoma City. Section 2 of the Order reads as follows:
"Sec, 2. The Board shall proceed immediately to investigate,
hear evidence, and make findings of fact with a view to
formulating, within 60 da,ys, arbitration awards '-'ith respect
to the- following issues in controversy:
"(1) The matter of piece work or of incentive work;
"(2) The matter of adjustment of wages;
"(5) Matters relating to employment and working
conditions ''hich have been in dispute in con-
nection with the renev/al of the agreement
between the parties of Hpy 11, 1934; and
"(4) Miscellaneous questions -r-hich have oeen the'
source of dispute in connection. with the recent
stoppage of i^^ork at the Canden, 11. J. , yard of
the New York Shipbuilding Corporation.
"Provided, That the Board, notwithstanding generality
of the foregoing language , .shp 11 not entertain any
request by Local No. 1 of the Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America for a
preferential or closed shop, out in lieu thereof
shall include in its award a provision that the
New York Shipbuilding Corporation will not fill any
vacant or ne^ positions with other persons so long
as employees who have been, employed since Auf^ust 1,
1933, are available, are competent, and 'billing to
accept the sane positions."
Section 3 of the Order provided that the shipbuilding company and
the Union accept b^r August 27 the plan of arbitration. Both parties
after considerable controversy did accept the plan within the time
limit set,
9732
-493-
It is here ■oointed out that the E'cecutive Order under the foregoing
Section 2 set forth tn.'it the Bcird shall not entertain any request by
the Union for a prefere-itial or closed shop. The preferential shop was
the subject of Paragraph I of the Union's fifteen original deinandsc
(See Exh, T, ApiDX , ) It '^=13 the clause,, the author believed, if followed
'oy the shi-iyard '-'culd ■ m^ilre thorn liade to be charged in violation of
the Code, and it -'as the clause referred to in the letter of the author
of Ar)ril 24, 1935, to the shir)building coiir^any.
Reference is made to the arbitration award of the Camden Board of
Arbitration, dated October 12; 1935, The award recotmts the following:
That the Board "as organized August 24 and the shipbuilding comDany
and the Union filed separate written agreements to abide by the award
and further that the shipbuilding company agreed to employ all men on
the payroll Hay 11, 1935, who made apolication, and the Union filed also
with the Borrd esi agreer^.cnt tc terminate the strike immediately. On
August 27 the shi"obuilding company and the Union joined in a further
agreement setting forth fourteen questions to be determined by the
Board. (The ^jress reported August 28 that 'the fifteen weeks of the
Camden shipyard strike had terminated and the men went back to work,
and that the picket line nrd been withdrawn)
Tne report of the Aibi-cration Board further sets forth that
numerous conferences and forraha hearings of the issue were held, and
assisting the Board were Messrs. Telfain ICnight, Counsel, and V/illiam
A. Mitchell, Technical J^dviser, snd that the hearings were completed
October 11, 1935.
The Arbitration Board, amongst other things, -orovided the following:
That the award shall continue in effect during the building period
of the seven ilaval vessels contracted 'fith the ITav^r Department.
That retroacti-"-e to Aug^ast 29 piece work be increased 5"i and that
hourly rates be increased 5fo, and that the era-oloyee on Tjiece \7ork shall
be Daid in any event his hourly earnings.
That the classification of emDloyees should be as set forth,
(This classification is the same as was in effect by the Hew York Ship-
building Cornoration)
That the regular working week should be 36 hours, \mless changed
by the mutual consent of the r)a,rties and that any overtime 'work beyond
8 hours daily or 36 hours weekly be compensated at tine and one-half,
and that powerhouse men, watchmen were exempted from the overtime
provision.
That there should be no wage differential paid on night shifts,
or for dangerous, or lay-out work, '
That comr»laints or disputes in tne first instance should be taken
UP with the foreman of the Detiartment concerned and if not satisfied,
witn the Industrial Relations Manager of the corporr-tion and if adjust-
ment is not satisfactory, the complaint or dispute may be submitted to
9732
an Adjustment Bof^rd.
That an Adjustment Board of tr/o inerabers and an impartial Chairman
shall be set up within one '-.'eek, one rerj-resentative to renresent the
Union, one representative to represent the corporation, and that the
Secretary of Labor be requested to designate the impartial Chairman,
also that one-half the expenses of the impartial Chairman shall be
borne by the company and the other half by the Union.
A plan v;as set forth for the guidance of the Adjustment Board,
(Admiral Wiley r^as appointed the impartial Chairnan) and the Arbitra-
tion Board is no'7 functioning in the plant of the Ner? York Shipbuilding
Corporation.
The Plan contained the folloi^ing:
"The Adjustment Board in malting decisions in respect to individual
or collective complaints, disputes, or grievances, shall be governed
by limitations and provisions of the Executive Order No. 7154, incorporated
by reference herein; and further shall be mindful of the rights of the
stockholders and of the duties imposed by law upon the directors of the
New York Shipbuilding Corporation. The Adjustment Boprd shall also be
mindful both of the rights of orj^anized labor and of the rights of
individual employees as established \)y laws." "The Corporation shall
not discriminate in any way against any of its employees because of
membership or non-menbership or of an"" activity on behalf of any union,
or labor organization, or association p-f workmen or employees; nor shall
the Corporation discriminate against any employees because of race,
creed, or color; t^-^**- *;<.**^**^ii
Thus the Camden Arbitration Board provides that the Corporation
shall not discriminate between Union and Non-Union men and, therefore,
shall not require any employee to join a union a$ a condition of employ-
ment. Under paragraph I of the Unioo's demands the. shipyard would have
been required to have insisted that all men join the subject union
within a period of two weeks, which v;as the particular clause of the
demands made the subject of the author's letter to the New York Ship-
building Corporation of April 24, 1935.
If clause No. I had remained out of the way, it is well within the
realms of possibility, that the shipyard and the Union would have
arrived by negotiation at substantially the sane results as were fina.lly
determined by the Camden Board of Arbitration. In fact, there probably
would hot have been a strike, but if a strike did occur it '^-ould have
been of short duration^ This strike cost the employees approximately
$1,875,000 in pay, or approximately an average of $40.00 per man. It
may have cost the shipyard more than $500,000 in fixed and maintenance
charges. It cost the Navy more than the fifteen weeks delay on
necessary Naval vessels, and without redress, AH this waste may have
been avoided.
9732
-495-
E. Administrative Provisions
1 . Investi£;ation of Records
The Code contained no model Code previsions for the
investigation of records or other provioions of like character.
Kowcv-r, the Rules and Seg'Jilations, adopted
October 2, 1933, by the Code Authority, provided for certain in-
vestigation of records and certain other subjects set forth herein-
after in this charter. As hereinbefore set forbh on page 39fi hereof,
these Rules and Rct^ulations were not submitted by the Deputy to the
Administration for necessary modification to make them unforceable and
approvable.
While the Cede Authority was advised Hay 18, 1934,
by the author, that only those provisions of the Rules and Regulations
v.'ithin the ;iroviriions of the Code had force and effect, (Ref. pa^c
and 412 hereof) r.hese Rules &nd Regulations arc referred to here be-
cause they indicated the desires of the Industry, in view of the lack
of adequate provisions in the Cede, and the„^ were the actual pro-
visions i^overnin-^ the Inilustj.y for a period of ten months after their
adoption by the Code Authorit;y.
The record is quite imcomplete, for under the Rules
and Regulations the complaii 'os were handled principally by the Ship-
buildiritg Counitteo for C^hipbuildint^ complaints, and by the Local Ship-
repairing Committee for Shiprepairin,'] complaints. The author was in-
formed that no regular reports v.'erc made from these Committees to the
Code Authority, except in such complaints tliat the Committees could not
adjust. These Comiaitttcs ceased functioning on such complaints shortly
after the author joined IIRA.
The Rules and Regulations provided in Section II-2:
(Ref. page 397 and Exli. U. Appx. )
"It. shall be the duty of the Shipbuilding
Committee to obtain from emr)loycrs and deliver
to the Code Ccmmittee such reports in respect
to \;a-ics, hours of labor, conditions of en>-
ployment, number of ei:iployces and other matters
pertaining thereto as may be necessary, or as
may be required by the Code Corar.iittec to keep
the Code Committee informed as to the operation
and observance of the Code by the Shipbuilding
Industry."
The Code Committee collected information in regard to
wages, hours of labor and other pertinent records from time to time and
the information v/as forwarded to the Administration and distributed to
the Industry. V.c attempt v;as made to duplicate the v<ork of the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, v;hich regularly obtained from the Shipbuilding
Industry reports as to the hours v.'or'icd, the number of employees and
the payrolls. The information that was collected was usually for
specific purposes, for instance the number of employees on llaval
9732
shipbuilding contracts, certain scales of rajes, etc.
The Secretai-y of the Shipbuilding Committee also
made reports to the Code Authority/ concerning assent to the Code and .
filing of billing rates beginning October ?1, 1933, and endin^^' April 4,
1935, in total number of 27 re-norts. (Ref. He-oorts Folder, DeT^uty's
Files)
Further reports were received by the Code Authority
from members of the Industry that exceeded the maximum hour provisions
of the Code on Emergency work. Befcrence is made to page 91 hereof,
excentB of Liinutes of the Code Authority meeting of November 8, 1933.
The Code Authority in this matter recognized the necessity of proper
control. Therefore, it provided that duly certified reports on
approved farms be immediately made to the Code Authority on all
Emergency work. The forms were duly printed and the reports were re-
ceived regularly, having been made out promptly as such Emergency work
was undertaken. These reports averaged aporcximately fifty per month.
There is in the Reports Folder, Deputy's Filesj reports for the month
of December 1934, complete except that six of these reports have been
withdrawn to be inserted in the A;opendix of this History. Reference is
made to Exhibit I-2A.
2. Oollectior, of 3tatAstics
Collection of statistics was not delegated tc a
confidential agency. Statistics from time to time over a period -^f
years had been collected by the Secretary of the National Council of
American Shipbuilders, J.tr. C. C. Knerr, Secretary and Treasurer.
Mr. Knerr was made Secretary of the Shipbuilding Committee. He was
also Secretary and Treasurer of the Code Authority and bonded as
Treasurer. He had no affiliation with any members of the Industry.
The' Code made no special provision in regard to this matter.
2 • Liquidated Damiagcs
!^o Code or Rules and Regulations ^Jrovision.
4. Other
The Code as amended provided as follows:
"Sec. 8 '(a) To effectuate further the policies
of the Act, a Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing ladustry
Committee is hereby designated to cooperate with the
Administra-tor as a. Planning and Fair Practice agency
for the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industry.**** Such
agoiicy rrsiy ■ frrm time to time present to the Adminis-
trator recommendations based on conditions in their
industry as they may develop from time to time which
will tend to effectuate the operation of the pro-
visions of this Code and the policy of the National
Industrial Recovery Act. ' "
9732
-49 7r-
"(b) Such agency is also set up to cooperate
with the a.Orninistrator, in rnaicing investigations
as to the functioning and the observance of any
provisions of this code, at its own instance or
on coT^iplaint by a.ny person affected, and to re-
port the same .to -ohe administrator.''
'■'(d) Such of the provisions of this code as
arc net required to be included therein by the
Natio-.:al ladustr^cl Hecovery Act mc-y, v/ith the
appro-i'al cf the President, be modified or
el3:ninated as changes in the circun!:'.tancGs or
exporience irj,y indicate- It is contemplated
that from -time to time supplementary provisions
of this code or additnonal codes 'will be sub-
mittc'd for the apj.rcra.1 of the President to
prevent imfair competition in price and other
uniair ar.d a.cstructivc coraT3ctitive practices and
to effectuate the other pui-pcscs and policies
of Title I of the National Industrial Recovery
Act consistent with the provisions thereof."
The Shi--.-build.ing and Shiprcpairing Industry Committee
(Code Authority) in carrying cut its duties under these provisions of
the Code had two rr,ajor ].;c-rleiis, '.no that rf Restricted Hours and the
other Trade Pract:; c^s^ Tt duly reported to the Administrator the effect
of these restricLed ho^ors a.s has hereinbefore been set forth under the
title "Hours" and askei for relief. It also developed under the
guidance of the Deputy Administratcr the Rules and Regulations herein-
before set forth, beginning page 325 hereof.
F. Price and Accounting Provisions
The provisions in the Code arc as follows:
"To accomplish the rjurpose con-
tcirgplated by this Act, the members
signatory to this code agree that the
following jDractices are hereby declared
to be unfair methods of competition:
"(a) To sell any product _;s) or
service(s) below the reasona.ble cost
of such product( s) or servicei^s).
"(l) For this purpose, cost is de-
fined as the cost of direct la,bor plus
the cost of materials plus an adequate
amount of overhead, including an amount
for the use cf any plant facilities em-
ployed as determined by cost accounting
methods recognized in the industry (and
approved by the acrurdttcii constituted for
Vn.e enforcement iDf'' this code .as- provided
in Section 8 (a).
3732
—^93-
"(b) To give or a,ccept rebates,
refunds, allowances, unearned dis-
comits, or special services directly
or indirectly in connection with any
work, performed or to receipt bills
for insurance v.'ork until payment is
made . "
Certain sections of the Rules a.nd Regulations were
designed for the purpose of administering the above provisions of the
Code, that is, to set forth methods suitable to the Industry.
Over a period of years there liad been very severe
competition in shipbuilding and even more severe in shiprepair vvork.
The possibility of enforcing Fair Competition Methods in regard to
bidding, was the impelling motive of the Industry to make application
for the Code. The shipbuilders submitted under the title of By-Laws,
at the time the Code was submitted, their conception of such unfair
methods of competition, but these provisions were not made part of the
Code at the time of approval. However, they were finally worked out
as the Rules and Regulations as recounted liercinbefore, beginning on
page 396 hereof, but were not submitted for the approval of the
Administration as is also hereinbefore recounted.
The shipbuilders thought for some eight months that
all provisions of the Rules and Regulations had force and effect and
the reports on the filing of prices clearly indicates an effort on their
part to abide by the provisions.
It should be pointed out in this connection, that a
considerable number of the interpretations adopted November 15, 1933,
and January 4, 1934, by the Code Authority (Rof . beginning page 254
hereof) was for the purpose of clarifying certain indefinite points aot
previously clear in the Rules and Regulations.
1. Price Filir>vx
The Code contained no provision for price filing.
However, the Rules and Regulations, Section VIII, paragraph 2, pro-
vided as follov7s:
"For the purpose of administering the
provisions of Paragraph 7 of the Code, and
subject to the provisions recited in the
foregoing paragrajsh, the following rules
and regulations are adopted and published
for the elimination of unfair competitive
practices.
"(a) Each member of the industry en-
gaged in shiprepairing shall promptly file
with the Secretary of the Code Committee a
schedule showing, for shiprepairing opera-
tions:
9732
-49 9~
"1. Mininuni labor billing rates;
"2. ''inimur.i billing rates for the use
of f^,cilities and of machine and
pcv/er" tools;
"3. i'linimum billing rates for the use
of dry docks and ma.rine railways;
and shall certify that such rates, charges
and prices are not below the reasonable
costs of such products or services in-
cluding an adequate araoun'^ of overhead."
The Secretary of the Shipbuilding Committee
reported to the Code Authority a final total of price filings as
counted by the author as follows:
Labor Tool Drydock
Billings • .3jl lings Billi.igs
454 4ri 235
The final list of members of the Industry was
234. The excess filing on the first two items was due to withdrawals
and new prices fi]ei. The record is not definite enough to accurately
check back, but it serves its purpose by clearly indicating comi:)liance
by the Industry as a. v/hcle.
Heference is made to the case of the Brev/er
Dry Dock Corarjany charged with filing prices below cost, as set forth
ia Minutes of Mooting of the Code Authority October 25, 1933, page
hereof and Meeting of October 30, 1933, page 87 hereof. Also J. Larson
charged with the same. (Ref . Meeting January 4, 1934, page 98 hereof)
Reference is made to Minutes of Meeting of the
Code Authority,, Fovembcr 8, 1933, page 91 hereof, pertaining to
"Delinquency in Piling Schedules", v;hich indicates the Code Authority
was insistent that schedules be filed.
The effect on the Industry was bencficia,l.
a. Waitin,;^ Periods
The Code contained no provision, however, the
Rules and Regulations provided as follov;s:
"Each such schedule shall state
the date upon v/hich it shall become
effective, v.'hich da-te shall not be
less than thirty (30) days after the
date of filing such schedule with the
Secretary'; provided, however, that the
first schedule filed by any member of
the Industry as above provided shall
take efx-cct on the date of filing
9732
-GOC-
thereof, and no rate, price or charge
shown in any such schedule filed hy
?ny member of the industry shall "be
changed except "by the filing of a
nev/ schedule as herein provided.*
The Industry adhcrred to these provisions
until it understood such provisions of the Rules and Regulations were
without force and effect.
2. Emergency Price Basis
No Code or Rules and Regulations provisions.
3. Accounting Systems or Cost Systems
The Code as set forth herein'bef ore in Section 7 (a)
(l) provided for cost accounting systems recognized in the Industry and
approved "by the Code Authority.
The principal Ship"building and Shiprepairing mem'bcrs
of the Industry had for a long ;oeriod of time, to the author's knowl-
edge, adequate cost accountiiig systems. This was necessary, because the
"business of the Industry is • "btaincd for the most part on firm bids,
which are made up for each itidividual new ship or repair job contract,
unless the repair is of minor nature. There is nothing in the record
to indicate that the Code Authority attempted to standardize on any one
particular cost accounting system, as all members of the Industry of
practical necessity followed the Code provisions, and all systems were
substantially comparable.
4. Administrative Price Policy
The Administrative Price Policy was not followed,
but it was the intention to incorporate it in the proposed amended Code,
the account of which begins on page hereof, and it is there shown
that the Code Authority resolved to reTrritc the Code on March 2, 1934.
5. Classification of Consiuner
Ho Code or Rules and Regulations provision.
6. Price Differential
No Code or Rules and Regulations provision,
a. StoTj-Loss Provisions
No Code or Rules and Regulations provision.
7. Terms of Payment
No Code or Rules and Regulations provision,
-.e'-'erencc is made to the subject of unearned discounts in Minutes of
Meeting of Code Authority October 30, 1933, page hereof.
9732
-501-
8. Cooperatives
: r>o Code or Louies e,nd Regulations provision.
G. Trade Practices '
The Code provided under Section 7, title "Unfair
Methods of Competition,^ that unfair methods of corapetition v/ere to
sell Ijelow cost and to give or accept rebates, etc., as set forth
under sub-section F hereof.
While these arc the only Code provisions, the
Rules and Rei^lations under Section VIII ?/cnt into considerable specific
details on the folloviir.g subjects:
The filiUt-, of billing rates for labor, material and
use dry-dock facilities; the effective date of such filing; the manner
in v/hich the charges for material from stock or purcha.sed for the
purpose of the particular job shall be made up; that prices or terms
should not be more favorable to a purchaser than the filed prices; that
bids for repair v/ork shall not be submitted below certain specified sums
and other such details rcgarc.ing repair bids;
FurtJier, that a certain formula of items for iiaaking
up the repair bids be follo^.'cd; that certain specified discounts may
be made on bids cf $50,000 s.nd up; tliat bids shall be submitted at the
specified time -and place of the opening, and imraediately thereafter a
cc-py be filed with the District Committee; that all labor, material
and use of facilitiea^be charged for; that no member of the Industry
shall give or accept rebates, refionds, etc. ;
Further that bids sha'' 1 not be revised because of
changes desired by & shipowner until he lias awarded the contract; and
that on all contract work performed by outside contractors there shall
be charged a fee of IC^j. Certain other provisions are made vdth re-
gard to the Great Lakes to a;nly in lieu cf certain of the foregoing
provisions.
Further under Section IX "Specifications" there is
set forth, that indefinite, ambiguous and unfair general clauses may
leave room for certain evasions of Section 7 of the Code and that such
specifications shall be brought to the attention of the Code Committee.
Reference is made to the Rules and Regulations,
Exhibit M, Appendix, and beginning on page hereof.
The Compliance Division , Record us as follows:
Date of earliest coriiplaint ivlay 36, 1934
Total docketed 6
Investigated corjoliints adjusted 3
(l) IJo violations ^Tcund 3
(l) These com^olaintr, according to the author's information.
9732
"DOS-
Were on the Hules and Reeulations, for at this time they were known to
be without force and effect in all provisions that were without the ■
provisions of the Code. (Eef. -oage -ilO hereof)
1 . Cl'^.ss A Trade Practices
The only Class A Trade Practices provided in the
Code was that of Section 7 (a),' "to sell any productCs)' or service(s)
below the reasonable cost of such -jroduct(s) or service(s)".
Authority:
The following car.:e to the attention of the Code
Lightship #86 - General Ship and Engine
Works char :;ed with submitting bid below cost.
(Eef. Minutes of I.IeetintiS of the Code Author-
ity of October 30, 1933, and March 15, 1934,
, . Deputy's Piles)
2. Class 3 Trade Practices
The only Class si Trade Practice provided in the
Code was that contained in Section 7 (b).
"(b) To £:iive or accept rebates,
refunds, allov/ances, unearned dis-
counts, or special services di-
rectly or indirectly in connection
with any worl:, performed or to re-
ceipt bills for insurance worl: until
payment is niade."
There is no record of ai:iy complaints filed
against any member of the Industry charging a violation of this pro-
vision.
following:
Th-e Rules and Regulations contained the
"(b) Except as hereinafter provided
no member of the industry shall make
any sale of any product or service at a
price or on terms and conditions more
favorable to the purchaser the.n the price,
.terms,, or conditions established by such
member in his schedule or schedules in
effect at the tine of such sale."
There is no record of violation of this pro-
vision during the period when the Industry understood that the Rules
and Rcg'olations had force and effect.
The Rule's and Regulations also contained a pro-
vision, Section VIII, 2 (c), which placed a low limit on repair bids
that may be submitted.
9732
-503-
Reference is riiade to Minutes of Meeting of the Code
Authority January 4, 1934, pa^e 98 hereof, which is as follows:
"Rules p.nd Regulations, Section VIII ,
Farai^Ta'Vn g. (c)
"On bids for repairs to Barge Socoixv S19
'Jekoosoa L Peterson' and 'McFilli9,ns'
ccnpanies suhiaittcd firm bids on job
amounting to less than $2500. and on Tug
Socony 18, 'United Dry Docks Inc.', 'Union
Engineering Companj'', and 'Atlantic Basin
Iron Worlzs' submitted firm bid on Job under
$2o0C and on S/S Intictam the Sun Shipbuilding
& Dry DocJt Company sabmittcd a firm bid on
job amounting to less than $'^500. These firms
were cited, to the Code Conmictee as violating
the above section of T;he Rules and Regulations.
In several instances the repairer lias aclcnowl-
edged violation and has stated that same have
been committed in error.
''The Code Co.iiiiittee ruled tha.t as this is
the first instance of such violation in each
case tiiat r-o further action would be taken
by the cortjmitteo upon r/nese specific vio-
lations b -it thp b a repetition of a violation
under this, section would subject the repairer
to iiabi!!lty of a penalty and that these
particular yards should be so informed."
H. 0th jr Provisions
Fo other Code provisions.
1. Hedge Cla,use
V.o Code or Rules and Regulations provisions.
9732
-504-
CIIAPTEH V
?dCC0M!iLin3ATI0iTS
A . ( 1 ) Unc-esirable or UaRnforceable Provisions
It is recorffinended ty the author that the Code and the amend-
ments be rewritten in their entirety. The Code was the second one
approved and at the earl;/' date of Jv.ly 26, 1933, and was not of form
and substance in many parts to conform to ac'jiiinistration policy that was
developed within six months thereafter. AiTiongst the undesirable features
of the Code as amended are the follo^.Tin^:
Article I, Lcfinioions - This article as amended ixicluded u:ider
the Shipbuilding Incaistry sr.iall steel vessels ?/hich properly belong
under the Soatbuildin^- Code, also tl^e definitions a.re most incom-plete.
Article II, General Ref^^ilations (Labor) - "Incomplete as to the
reclassification clause, safet;/ and health clause, anc. the -lostin;; of
labor provisions clause.
Article III, He,v,ulations of. Hours of work as amended - Restriction
of the Industry to 3 C hours per weelc. It W3,s clearly set forth in the
hearinf',-s by Homer L. Fer'iison, President of the Nevraort liews Ship-
building and Dry Dock Comjany and Lara-ence Y. Spear, President of the
Electric Boat, the effects of restricted hours below 40 hours "Ter Vireek.
(Ref . pages 1^.-, lb, IG, 17, 18, 19, and ^^0 of this history) Further,
Rear Admiral Z. S. Lane., Chief of the Bureau of Construction and
Repair, United States lla-vj, fully set forth the "oosition of the Navy
Department and reconanend s. 40 hour v/eek. (Ref. pages 25, 27 and 28 of
this history) The result of these restricted 3'" hours per week has
been to increase \uiduly the overheac orai'in.i, on comniercial v;ork, with
the result ths,t new comi'icrcial contracts have been substantially
barred and the increase of employment hoped for under the Code has
been defeated, except for the increase that was due to the new Naval
building Drogram. r^-is Code history is replete with the experience
and difficulty of the Industry \7orking uiider these restricted hour pro-
visions. Just why 30\"i of Industries v/ere given 40 hours or better and
this Industry was restricted to 35 houi'S is not understood.
Article IV, Minimiam Tifage Rates - The. minimum wage of 45j^ for the
north is too high as compared to other competitive Industries for the
same character of labor. The author investigated the record of Re-
search and Planning Division on 533 Codes and found that 189 Codes en-
joyed Z'd^ or below and 483 Codes enjoyed 40j^ and below and there were
501 Codes out of 523 below the Shi'^ibuilders and alco the Boatbuilders .
(Ref. memorandum to W. W. Rose, Depv.ty, dated May 25, 1935, from the
author, Deputy's Files) The casual and incidental labor clause should
be eliminated. The clause providing: for 40 hours oay for 36 hours of
v/ork should be qualified to exenipt those yards on the Pacific Coast
which held the 1925 tc-'i929 wage scales without deductions. This
clause acted to promote monopoly and to oppress small enterprises.
(Ref. San Francisco Bay case, Depiity's Files, Portland Area cases,
Compliance Division Files)
-505-
Article V, Prohibition of Child Labor - This clause should be re-
written and mt under {-;eneral labor regulations as it is incomplete.
Article VI, Arbitration of Exisuing Contracts - This should now be
eliniinated.
Article VII, Unfair Methods of Competition - This clause was
ouite incoiuolete and iLrpossible of enx^orcement e.s drawn in this In-
dustry. The Rales and Re-ulations apjroved October 2, 1933, were in-
tended to inal:e this article effective j but as has been shown under
Cha-3ter III C R.iles and Re^-^ulations in uhis history, they were not
submitted to the A<.'J.rinistration by the Deputy, and consequently the
entire Fair Trade Practice xirovisions failed.
Article VIII, Administration - The set up of the Code Authority,
as this -Drovision v-as amended, was satisfactory insofar as a central or
national Code Committee co'old be. Hov/ever, there v^as a distinct lack
of proper Code ac ministration in the regions of the country. At least
five division Code Authorities :-:-hould be located on the Korth and South
Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Great La'-os, Here a,];ain the Rules and
Regulations tried to su7:i;-)ly the ori\,'&.nization necessary, but the Ref;ional
Committees established under these Rules and Re,:^ule.tions lacked the
usual authority conve/ed by Code provisions.
(2) Desirable Code Pi'ovisions
A "Revised Code" should contain the follov;in^:
Article I - Purpose.
Article II - Definitions - Eliminate all pleasure boats and yachts
of v/ood and iietrl raid also all mete.l or composite vessels less than
125 feet registered length. (Ts,ke on where Eoatbuilders leave off)
Define the terms "vessel", "em:)loyee", "employer", "members of the
Industry", "Act", "Admi:iistration" , "emer.'.ency v/ork" (as defined in
Administrative Order 2-29, reference }:-29 Appendix), "ap-?rentice" ,
"learner", and "calendar Day",
Article III - Ikrtici^aticn-Proyide ■ sxiitorble pj:r.v4sir.ns. with regard to
Boatbuildinjj end Boatrepairin;.- Code; nrefera,blv based on employment
under the respective Codes.
Article IV - General Labor Provisions - Provide provisions for 7 (a),
child labor, reclassification of einployees, safety and health and posting
of labor provisions.
Article V - Hours of Work - Provide for an average of '-i-O hours per
week with permission to work up to 48 hours, but to b'e'^averaged within 3
months not to exceed 40 hours, and a n'laximuiii of 8 hoiirs work in any one
calendar day, except as otherwise provided.
Provide that no employee that has been permitted to work no re tlian
40 hours in any one v/eek shall be c'ischarged or laid off before his
employment period shall average not to exceed 40 hours per v/eek.
9732
-506-
Provide that employees should "be permitted a rest period of not
less than 8 hours "between the termination of the last hour worlied in any
calendar day and the beginning of the first hour worked in the succeeding
calendar day.
Provide that any time v;orl:ed by any employee in excess of the weekly
or daily maximum hours or during the rest period shall be paid for at
the rate of one and one-half times the hourly r8,tc, but that overtime
shall not be compounded.
Provide exceptions to the foregoint; as follows: to persons employed
in managerial or executive capacity; to those employed as watclimen,
firemen, engineers and oilers in power plants of the shipyards, which
may be permitted to work DS ho^irs in any one week and not more than six
days in seven; to employefiS v^/hen they are eiiiployed on emergency v/ork,
to employees that are employed in testing installations and trial
trips; to employees on designing, engineering and mold loftsmen on new
contracts .
Article VI, Minimum ¥a;g es - provide for '±0(f; per hour in the North
and 35j^ per hour in the South, set forth the line of demarcation between
the North and So\ith.
Provide for a"oprentices and learners at not less than 80,^ of the
minimum wages and not more than 10',j of the total employees.
provide for clerical, office emoloyees and watchman the minimum
rate of _jl4 per week.
Provide for physical and v.ientally handicapped and a clause setting
forth that minimuna rates shall ap'oly irrespective of v;hether an employee
is actually on a salary, tiine rate, piece-work, or other basis. (Ref.
complete set of labor provisions as outlinec^ in the Voluntary Agreement
Polder, Deputy's files)
Article VII - Trade Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition -
Provide Trade Practice Rules,' open price provisions, and cost and price
cutting provisions in accordance with latest policy.
Article VIII - Administration - Provide .for a National Code
Authority and at least five (5) Division Code Authorities, elections
and powers of the respective Code Authorities, mandatory contributions,
eliminating the liability of Code Authority members, and expenses of
adimnistering the respective Code Authorities.
Article IX - Industrial Relations Committee - Make provisions in
accordance with Administrative Orders 2-21, 2-22 and 2-23.
Article X - Provides for Trade Practice ConTplaints Conraittee and
Plan.
Article XI - Modifications - Provide suitable provisions in accord- -
ance with lafe^st polisy.
9732
-507-.
Article XII - luonopolies - Provit.le suitable provisions in accordance
v/ith latest policy.
Article XIII - Effective Date - provide suitable provisions.
S. Corj.iliance with Code
It is recom-ended Code hours be uuch that the Inc.ustry can coniply
with them in the n-oduction of its product and not be restricted to the
extent that costs are abnormally increased, aiid work delayed, thereby
preventing new Coivuaercial shipbuil('-in': and f.rivin;-:; shiprepairin ■ to
lorei^n yards. Zeferenca is uiade to the schedule of complaints on pajjes
435, *:-37 and <:38, and record of Commercial Shipbuildin-r; of page 3 f
hereof.
C . Limitations on Production, Llachinery, Shifts, etc.
JIo such limitations v/ere -provided in the Code and none a.re recom-
mended.
D . Possible Code C onsoli.i'ations
No code consolidations are recor.tiended.
S. Helations of the Government with -Incustry
It is recomiaended the.t the Government does not substantially im-
pose uneconomic restrictive ho-ors of 3'. hours :ier weel: on an Industry
as is shown on paz-jes 58, 59 and GO hereof, especially v/hen 90',j of the
durable .^oods industries v/ere allowed reasonable hours of 4-0 "oer week
or better .
It is further reconiiiended that v/lien an InJ.ustry under the guidance
of a Deputy of the Government sxdopts ?air Trade Practice Provisions,
that, that Deputy imi.iediately s\ibmit sucli provisions to the CT-overnment
for approval ana modification as necessary to 'jive them legal effect and
thereby enable enforcement. (p.ef . page 455 hereof)
It is further recom.iended that when an Industry appeals from a
provision that has ;iroven restrictive in actual practice over a period
of six months or more and when this is substantiated by the opinion of
an independent department of the Goverruvient, such as the Ilavy Department,
that the subject be given sufficient depth of study to the end that the
problem of the Industry may be properly understood and decision rendered
on the facts insteao. of no decision rene.ered at all. (Pef . Account
of hearing May 7, 193^.-, before General Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator,
under Chapter IV, Hours, hereof,, and reports of the Research and
Planning Division on the "40 hour week" ;.mde subsequent to the hearing
just mentioned and filed in the Labor folder. Deputy's Piles)
It is further recoLi.iended that when the Government asks an Industry
the question "V,1ic.t consti-uctive ^^^ains liaye been accomplished so far
through the operrvtion of the Code" , and v,'hen the Industry has been
"oolled and when the result of this ^oll is contained in a letter to a
;732
-5C3-
Deputy of the Government and vrtien this De^iuty ha.s turned it over to his
superiors, tht.t somethin', br done to cotrect the conditions plainly
set forth in the letter. The letter ic as follows:
I' June 15, 1934
"I.Ir. J. B. '.Veaver, Deputy Acini nistra.t or
Industrial Recoverv Ar'ai+inistration
Investment Biiildinj
Uashinjton, B. C.
"Dear Mr. Y'eaver:
Replyin:3; to your letter of May 12, 1934 askin,?; what constructive
Cains have been acco..Toli?,ued so far thro a; h the operation of the Code
of Jair CouToatition cjid Trade Practice for the Khipbuild-in^ and Ship-
repairin^:. Industry, and with further reference to our letter of May IG,
1934 you are informed that the Industry has been canvassed to obtain a,
consensus of opinion upon the subject.
"Contracts placed xinder appropriations authorized by the Public
Wori:s Section of the national Industry Recovery Act have given work to
several shipyards .
"Suim-.iarized, the coivaaents submitted below pertain to the o"^3eration
of the Code itself.
"Hours and Brn'oloyment
1. The reduction in hours has not increased em-oloyment as a whole
in the Industry cJid has retarded production.
Increases in employment on repair work and for v;ork
in 'jro.'^ress v/hen the Code went into effect were later
offset by a slov^fin,:; down in production because of
shorter hours on new naval contracts placed in
August 1933; by a decrease in volume of work due to
inability to secure nevif conxiercial contracts and
by the loss of a considerable amount of business
for foreign account.
3. Present hours arc out of line with other industries and with
Havy Yards emjloyin^ simila.r labor.
3. A shorta;-je of skilled labor has been felt and is continuaJly
jrowinc. Kavy Yards on -l-O hours are drawin-;; skilled labor
away Irom private jcards on 3G hours.
"Earnin.-:,s of Dnnloyees
1. r/ages per hour have been increased - 30^, on Shipbuilding, and
20;j to 25, J on Shiprepairing.
973Z
-509-
2. Heduced ho\irs per week have prevented increased earnings in
■oroportion to increc:.sed livinf^ costs and hcove actually
decreased earnings on repair v.'ork.
Due to tile intermittent character of repair work
enviloyees have not been alDle to avera^^e the num-
ber of weekly hou-rs lermitted in the code.
3. Minimum wau^e ho.s had little effect, as miniinur.i wajes were
already coi.rparatively hirjh and the 'ercent of cominon labor
in the industr.,- is very snu.ll.
"Fair Competition and Trade Practices
1. Cut tiiroat coi.vpetition and ruinous prices have not been
eliminated as compliance is unenforceable.
2. There has been no ^rice stabiliz-. tion to offset increased
labor costs.
'Labor Conditions
1. IJo child labor or sweat shop conditions existed, precluding any
jain in this direction.
"General
1. Ki;~h Costs due to viu.re increases have practically eliminated
merchant shipbuilding (corrauercial vessels), thereby reducing
employment .
2. Shorter hours and limited earnin^'S have causeo. labor unrest
in the Industry resultin'_; in three iriajor strikes.
3 4 Government is operatinr^ ''lavy Yards on a 40-hour week, thereby
itself in effect, violatin,;;, the Code Hours which it has im-
posed on the Shi :)buildin;'j- s,nd Shiprepairing Industry.
"Jrom the above, it is apparent the^t no constructive groins have
resulted from the operation of the Co^-e. It lias had on the contrary
an adverse and retarding effect upon the Indn.stry which is of very
serious consequence to its members.
"Vex-;^ truly yours.
"/s/ H. Gerrish Smith
H. Gerrish Smith
Chairman"
An Industry under such C-ovemnent treatment I'lay become so dis-
heartened and so disgusted that it will not even do those things which
9732
-510-
would be beneficial for it to do, as has 'oe--ya tlie case since the
sioiiLuer of 193'..
It is proper to point out that this Industi-y builds the first
line of National defense, the IJavy, £uid the principal sup ort of
the foreign coninorce, the Uerchant marine, virhich forms the necessary
supjort to the Navy. It built the ships that sank the German Submarines
ana the J3, 000, 000, 000 v/orth of com.-ercial vessels that carried the
food to the Allies. It is a r;Tatter of National concern that this
Industry be kept in c healthy condition, for no amount of money spent
by the Government 'for ITavy shi-os in Ilavy Yards can tcJce the place of
what this Industry did in the Tforld Yifar.
It is the sole reservoir of brains and skill to build ships, that
the Government may call upon in time of need, and is maintained without
cost to the Government. Even the Government, in buildin.^- that part of
the present Ilavy pro.^rauiae bein;-;; nov; constructed in Government Navy
yards had to draw heavily on the skilled ineclianics trained by the
private shipbuilders, but it )rovided for itself <.-0 hovjrs per v/eek,
vrtiereas it imposed 5o hours per v;eek in the Industry.
The ic.entical men, the buidinfi, brodns, to the Imov.'ledge of the
author, thcit built every Destroyer that scnk the German submarines and
trained the personnel that built the Emert_,ency Fleet Corporation mer-
chant ships called on and appealed to the responsible officer of the
Government for relief from restricted workin;;; hours, but no decision
was rendered. HoV;/ever, at the sajrie time the automobile Industry,
built up behind a hi{;^h tariff wall and sellin;^ to the greatest potential
market ever conceived by m£,n, v/as granted 40 - 3S hours.
Today this Industry is bein,-; shacld.ea to 3G hours by certain
provisions in the T/alsh Government contracts bill before Congress. The
memory of America is sometimes very short and in some things its
ignorance is astounding.
97S2
-oil-
3 . ADi.lI ins THAT! 0H y?.!IBER'S '.TCRT
IIATIONAL 3r:C0VE?.Y ABKIIJISTRATION
WASKIIIGTCN, D. C.
45 Broadway
New Yorlc City
June 25, 1935
'Mr. H. Newton Wliittelsey
Assistant I'sputy Aiministrator
Equipment I)i vision, IsfRA
1520 a Street, N. W.
VfasMn.'^ton, D. C.
Suoject: Coc'-e History for the Shipbuilding and
Ship repa i r i n; : I nc uii t ry
Dear Mr. liTliittelse?;-:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 2-. th instant referring to
the above subject and v^ould refer ', .. vou to' W letter of the I2th
instc-nt which accounts for uiy not reporting/ x'urther on this subject to
date .
As the correspondence since my appointment as Ad.-iinistration
Member of this Code Auohoritv \?as carried on by the Code Authority
v/ith your office, and as all business transections at the Code Authority
meetings were conducted by your ;~ood self, I can only re;'Dort as an
observer and recite ray 'Tersonal observe.tions which are as follov/s:
I. G-eneral information - Conrplete records on file in Washin^^ton.
II. Histoi-y of Code f oruTiilation - Complete records on file in
■Jashin^gton.
III. A. - Code AtJiiinistration - As a clearin ■ house for distributing
information to the Industry of correspondence and instructions from
Washington, the Code Authority seemed verj' efficient, but there was a
complete lack of sympathy with the spirit of the Act and the resentment
of the several members a'jainst wh-at they termed "-government interference"
was evident at almost every point. There was a lack of cooperation, par-
ticularly as ap'olied to the labor provisions of the Code.
The constcJit criticism of the actions of the several boards in
Washin;,ton in thorou:,hly laiown to you. It is unnecessary for me to
refer to specific insto.nces as they are a, natter of record in your files.
B. - Organization - All records on file in TTashington.
9732
6. Discussion of operation of the Code Authority' as an
industry £;overnin:_, body- The apparent lack of 6-esire to govern
seeraed evident.
D. Administration of Coc'e - Ai^iencljnents, etc. - Full documentary
records on file in Washin;;ton,
v. Recouu.iendations - Jail record of recommendations by the Deputy
Ad^idnistrator and the Assistr.nt De ^xty Auninistrator for Code revision
and the necessity thereof on file in Uashin,:,'ton .
Under the circumstances I feci that a fxirther detailed report by
me on this particulea- code T/ould be "onnecessary a,s the records of this
Industry oirin;^ the period of Code Administration and the files in
■i(7ashin,:-;ton are a complete history of this Ino.ustry.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Francis S. Lee
prancis Z. Lee
Acaainistration Member
FEL:DM
9732
VI. Personnel
-513-
1 . Division AdjTiini strator
K. M. Siiiipson
C. E. Mams
Barton '.1. Lfarray
2. Deputies
A. D. Xiiteside
lillinra K. Davis
J. B. .Verver
'.7. 1. Hose
3. Assistant Deputies
George II. Siields
H. Newton '.Tliittelsey
■l- . Aides
C. 3. Edgecomb
Beverly Coleman
Don Hunter
5. Le^^al Advisers
Howard Ralph )
Julian Johnson)
Patrick Conway)
Howard Hal oh )
Keith Carl in
Thomas IJ. Vauglian
Stanley K. Fuld
An^us H. Siieiinon
6. Labor Advisors
Dates Connected with Code
October 1933 to June 1934
June 1934 to Auguct 1, 1934
August 1, 1934 to liay 26, 1935
July 1933 to August 1933
August 1933 to February 1934
February 1934 to August 1, 1934
August 1, 1934 to I.iay 26, 1935
October 1933 to April 1934
April 24, 1934 to Way 26, 1935
February 1934 to August 1, 1934
AUt,U3t 1, 1934 to January 1, 1935
January 1, 1935 to May 26, 1935
November 1933 to March 29, 1934
to March 29, 1934
March. 29, 1934 to October IQ, 1934
Octooor 10, 1934 to January 9, 1935
January 9, 1935 to April 13, 1935
April 13, 1935 to May 26, 1935
Cctojer 1, 1934 to May 26, 1935
H. K. Brunck
H. M. Gates
H. L. Branson
Cong-'jmer Adviser
W. H. Edmonds
Mc CI el Ian 3^j.tt
8. Research and Plannin.- Advise
July 1933 to October 1934
October 1934 to December 1934
December 1934 to May 26, 1935
March 1934 to September 1934
September 1934 to May 26, 1935
1. E. Cross
P. P. Evans, Jr.
Jur.e 1934 to January 1935
January 1935 to. May 26, 1935
9732
Industrial Adviser
-514-
9732
C. L. Fries
C. S. Surlingliam
Lutlicr 3ecker
December 20, 1933 to August 15, 19 34
September 4,1934 to Septei.iber 10,1934
Sexotember 10, 1934 to May 26, 1935
1 0 . Adifd ni stration Member
lilliajii E. Davis
Arba B. liarvin
Francis E. Lee
September 9, 1933 to February 16,1934
February 16, 1934 to October 27,1934
November 27, 1934 to Way 26, 1935
11. Advisers to Code Authority
Consumers Advisory Capacity
Hobert L. "lague
September 9, 1933 to ifoy 26, 1935
Labor Advisory Canacity
Joseph 3. IvIcDonagli
Septe.iiber 9, 1933 to May '26, 1935
Representative of the
Secretary of tlie ITavy
Captain Henry L. '.Tiliians
U. S. N.
Se-nember 9, 1933 to May 26, 1935
(GC)
-515-
AUC'KOR'3 CZP.TIFICATIOII
This is to certify, tlir.t this History of the Code of pair
Conroetiticn for the Shi-^builo.inj; OJic. Shiprepairin:; Industry va.s comr-
piled by the undersi^^ned, aiid the stono'jrapMc work Y/as-.TreIl_perf cr^e'd
by Jane U. Conway, Secretary.
F. rewton m^ittlesey (Si.-iied)
E. ITewton Vfiiittlesey
Assistant Dei<uty Section Director
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of Revie* of the
National Recovery Admiristration. The pertinent part of the Executive Order reads thus:
The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical
information and records of experience of the operations cf the various trades and
industries heretofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the ef-
fects of such codes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and
other related matters, shall make available for the protection and promotion of
the public interest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of
Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and policies
put into effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out
his functions under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of
the Division of Revie*.
The study sections set up in the Division of Reviesv covered these areas: industry
studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies,
legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous studies, and the writing of cede his-
tories. The materials which were produced by these sections are indicated below.
Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned below are scheduled to be in mimeo-
graphed form by April 1, 1936.
THE CODE HISTORIES
The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and administration of the
codes. They contain the definition of the industry and the principal products thereof; the
classes of members in the industry; the history of code formation including an account of the
sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations and hearings which Aere held, and
the activities in connection ,',ith obtaining approval of the code; the history of the ad-
ministration of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority,
the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of compliance or non-coapliance,
and the general success or lack of success of the code; and an analysis of the operation of
code provisions dealing ,vith wages, hours, trade practices, and other provisions. These
and other matters are cinvassed not only in terms of the materials to be fcund in the files,
but also in terms of the experiences of the deputies and others concerned with code formation
and administration.
The Code Histories, (including histories of certain NRA units or agencies) are not
mimeographed. They are to be turned over to the Department of CoJimerce in tj-pewritten form.
All told, approximately eight hundred and fifty (850) histories will be completed. This
nuEber includes all of the approved codos and some of the unapproved codes. (In Work Mate-
rials No. 18, Contents of Code Histories, will be found the outline which governed the
preparation of Code Histories.)
(In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not carried to
final approval, there are in NRA files further materials on industries. Particularly worthy
of mention are the Volumes I, II and III \vhich constitute the material oflicially submitted
to the President in support of the recommendation for approval of each code. These volumes
9768—1.
r
- li -
set forth the origination of the code, the sponsoring group, the evidence advanced to sup-
port the proposal, the report of the Division of Research and Planning on the industry, the
recommendations of the various Advisory Boards, certain types of official correspondence,
the transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent matter. There is also much offi-
cial information relating to amendments, interpretations, exemptions, and other rulings. The
materials mentioned in this paragraph were of course not a part of the work of the Division
of Review. )
THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES
In the work of the Division of Review a considerahle number of studies and compilations
of data (other than those noted below in the Evidence Studies Series and the Statistical
Material Series) have been made. These are listed belo#, grcuped according to the char-
acter of the material. (In Work Materials No. 17, Tentative Outlines and Summaries of
Studies in Process, these materials are fully described).
Indust ry Studies
Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of
Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Economic Survey of
Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The
Fertilizer Industry, The
Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes
Fishermen and Fishing Craft, Earnings of
Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act
Part A - Competitive Position of the United States in International Trade 1927-29 through
1934.
Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration.
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes.
Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes.
Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the
Iron and Steel Industry, The
Knitting Industries, The
Leather and Shoe Industries, The
Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the
Men's Clothing Industry, The
Millinery Industry, The
Motion Picture Industry, The
Migration of Industry, The: The Shift of Tv.-enty-Five Needle Trades From New York State,
1925 to 1934
National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35
Paper Industry, The
Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Railway Trans-
portation, January 1923, to date
Retail Trades Study, The
Rubber Industry Study, The
Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan
Textile Yarns and Fabrics
Tobacco Industry, The
Wholesale Trades Study, The
Women's Neckwear and Scarf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on
9768—2
- iii -
Women's Apparel Industry. Some Aspects of the
Trade Practice Studies
Coniniodities, Information Concerning: A Study of NRA and Related Experiences in Control
Distribution, Manufacturers' Control of: Trade Practice Provisions in Selected NRA Codes
Distributive Relations in the Asbestos Industry
Design Piracy: The Problem and Its Treatment Under MRA Codes
Electrical Mfg. Industry: Price Filing Study
Fertilizer Industry: Price Filing Study
Geographical Price Relations Under Codes of Fair Competition, Control of
Minimum Price Regulation Under Codes of Fair Competition
Multiple Basing Point System in the Lime Industry: Operation of the
Price Control in the Coffee Industry
Price Filing Under NRA Codes
Production Control in the Ice Industry
Production Control, Case Studies in
Resale Price Maintenance Legislation in the United States
Retail Price Cutting, Restriction of, with special Emphasis on The Drug Industry.
T;aie Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classification for
comparison with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes.
Labor Studies
Cap and Cloth Hat Industry, Commission Report on Wage Differentials in
Earnings in Selected Manufacturing Industries, by States, 1933-35
Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries 1933-1935
Fur Manufacturing, Commission Report on ii7a.^03 and Hours in
Hours and Wages in American Industry
Labor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The
Part A. Introduction
Control of Hours and Reemployment
Control of Wages
Control of Other Conditions of Employment
Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act
Materials in the Field of Industrial Relations
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933
Puerto Rico Needlework, Homeworkers Survey
Administrative Studies
Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Con-
ditional Orders of Approval
Administrative Interpretations of NRA Cedes
Administrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA
Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) of the NIRA
Approve Codes in Industry Groups, Classification of
Basic Code, the — (Administrative Order X-61)
Code Authorities and Their Part in the Administration of the NIRA
Part A. Introduction
Part E. Nature, Composition and Organization of Code Authorities
9768—2.
Part
B.
Part
C.
Part
D.
Part
5).
- iv -
Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities
Part D. Code Authority Finances
Part E. Summary and Evaluation
Code Compliance Activities of the NRA
Code Making Program of the NRA in the Territories, The
Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning
Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation
Part A. Executive and Administrative Orders
Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes
Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes
Part D. Administrative Provisions in the Codes
Part E. Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7(b)
Part F. A Type Case: The Cotton Textile Code
Labels Under NRA, A Study of
Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of
National Recovery Admini"=•^ration, The: A Review of its Organization and Activities
NRA Insignia
President's Reemployment Agreement, The
President's Reemployment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the
Prison Labor Problem under NRA and the Prison Compact, The
Problems of Administration in the Overlapping of Code Definitions of Industries and Trades,
Multiple Code Coverage, Classifying Individual Members of Industries and Trades
Relationship of NRA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government
Funds
Relationship of NRA with States and Municipalities
Sheltered Workshops Under NRA
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program
Legal Studies
Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition
Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce
Commerce Clause, Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship Under the
Delegation of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, with Reference to Federal Industrial
Regulatory Legislation
Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of
Federal Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of Taxation and the Spending
Power
Government Contract Provisions as a Means of Establishing Proper Economic Standards, Legal
Memorandum on Possibility of
Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of
Intrastate Activities Which so Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them Under the Com-
merce Clause, Cases on
Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions
Post Office and Post Road Power — Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regula-
tion?
State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation History and Analysis
Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of Variation in
Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws
Treaty Making Power of the United States
War Power, Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor?
9768—4.
1\m EVIDENCE STUDIES SERIES
The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court
casec. After the Schechter decision the project jvas continued in order to assemble data for
use in connection with the studies of the Division of Review. The data are particularly
concerned with the nature, size and operations of the industry, and with the relation of the
industry to interstate commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for
more than one-half of the total number ol ffcrkers under codes. The list of those studies
follo*3:
Automobile Manufacturing Industry
Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry
Baking Industry
Boot and Shoe .Wanufactr.ring Industry
Bottled Soft Drink Industry
Builders' Supplies Industry
Canning Industry
Cherrical Manufacturing Industry
Cigar Manufacturing Industry
Coat and Suit Industry
Construction Industry
Cotton Garment Industry
Dress Manufacturing Industry
Electrical Contracting Industry
Electrical Manufacturing Industry
Fabricated Metal Products Mfg. and Metal Fin-
ishing and Metal Coating Industry
Fishery Industry
Furniture Manufacturing Industry
General Contractors Industry
Graphic Arts Industry
Gray Iron Foundry Industry
Hosiery Industry
Infant's and Children's Wear Industry
Iron and Steel Industry
Leather Industry
Lumber and Timber Products Industry
Mason Contractors Industry
Men's Clothing Industry
Motion Picture Industry
Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico
Painting and Papsrhanging Industry
Photo Engraving Industry
Plumbing Contracting Industry
Retail Lumber Industry
Retail Trade Industry
Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry
Rubber Manufacturing Industry
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry
Shipbuilding Industry
Silk Textile Industry
Structural Clay Products Industry
Throwing Industry
Trucking Industry
Waste Materials Industry
Wholesale and Retail Food Industry
Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus-
try
Wool Textile Industry
THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES
This series is supplementary to the Evidence , Studies Series. The reports include data
on establishments, firms, employment, payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship-
ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports.
They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in usinf the
aata, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of
the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series:
9768—5.
- vl - V
Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry Fertilizer Industry
Business Furniture Funeral Supply Industry
Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass Container Industry
Carpet and Rug Industry Ice Manufacturing Industry
Cement Industry Knitted Outerwear Industry
Cleaning and Dyeing Trnde Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer, Mfg. Industry
Coffee Industry Plumbing Fixtures Industry
Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry
Cotton Textile Industry Salt Producing Industry
Electrical Manufacturing Industry
THE COVERAGE
The original, and approved, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources suf-
ficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to con-
solidate and index the NRA files containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in ex-
tensive field work, (d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of govern-
ment, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, (f) to conduct
approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comprehensive
summary report.
Because of reductions mads in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of
access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the pro-
jected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of
the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the
coverage of other studies; and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the
files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be cared for under other
auspices.
Notwithstanding these limitations, if the files are ultimately consolidated and in-
dexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accesslbio
and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information
concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation.
L. C. Marshall,
Director, Division of Review.
9768—6.
.■;;»..■ 3
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11