3

1 issued under section 208 of the Labor-Management Rela2 tions Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 178), is in effect. If, while an 3 injunction issued under this section is in effect, an injunction 4 is issued under section 208, the counting of the one-hundred5 and-sixty-day period referred to above shall be suspended 6 until the injunction under such section 208 is discharged pursuant to section 210 of such Act.

7

8

“(b) (1) Any employee (the terms or conditions of 9 whose position of employment are governed by the agree 10 ment entered into between the employer and the labor 11 organization which resolves a strike or lockout described in 12 subsection (a) (1)), who performs work or services for his 13 employer during the period of one hundred and sixty days 14 required by subsection (a) (1), shall perform such work or 15 services pursuant to wages, hours, and other terms and con16 ditions of employment of the last agreement between such 17 employer and labor organization prior to such strike or 18 lockout.

19 "(2) Each employee shall receive additional wages for 20 perforining work or services described in subsection (b) (1)

21

17

at a rate equal to the difference between the wage provided 22 for that employee (or that employee's position) under the 23 agreement which resolve the labor dispute and the wage

24 such employee actually received for performing such work or services.

25

1 "(c) The provisions of the Act entitled 'An Act to 2 amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the juris3 diction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes', 4 approved March 23, 1932 (29 U.S.C. 101-115) shall not 5 apply to any injunction issued under subsection (a) (2). "(d) For the purposes of this section

6

19

7

"(1) the term 'interrupt normal shipping' means (A) a refusal to load cargo aboard a ship (or to permit the loading of cargo aboard a ship) at a port on the west coast if such cargo is destined for use in Hawaii

or any United States Pacific island, (B) a refusal

to unload cargo from a ship (or to permit the unloading of cargo from a ship) at a port on the west coast if such cargo was shipped from Hawaii or any United States Pacific island, and (C) a refusal to operate (or to per

mit the operation of) a ship from a port on the west coast with cargo destined for use in Hawaii or any

United States Pacific island or a ship from Hawaii or any United States Pacific island with cargo destined for a port on the west coast; if any such refusal was a cause of a ship leaving the dock facility in Hawaii or any United States Pacific island or at a port on the West

Coast more than forty-eight hours after its scheduled time of departure, or a cause of cargo from Hawaii or

any United States Pacific island not being unloaded at

7

8

9

10

11

5

any such dock facility at a port on the west coast for at least forty-eight hours after the ship carrying such cargo arrived at such facility;

"(2) the term 'strike' has the same meaning as it

has in section 501 (2) of the Labor Management Rela

tions Act of 1947; and

“(3) the terms ‘employer', 'employee', and 'labor organization' have the same meanings as such terms have in sections 2 (2), (3), and (5), respectively, of the National Labor Relations Act."

SEC. 3. The provisions of section 209 (a) of the Railway 12 Labor Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of 13 this Act unless a strike or lockout in the longshore or mari14 time industry on the west coast is occurring on such date 15 of enactment, in which case such provisions shall take 16 effect on the fifth day after such date of enactment.

Mr. JARMAN. I will ask Mr. Matsunaga to proceed and to introduce his associates for the record.

STATEMENTS OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII; HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII; AND HON. HIRAM L. FONG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. It is customary congressional courtesy for a witness to thank the panel for providing him the opportunity to testify. But I assure you that my expression of appreciation this morning is no empty formality. In order to hear from members of the Hawaii congressional delegation, and business and public officials from Hawaii, you have listened to my fervant pleas and worked this hearing into what is surely one of the businest schedules of any subcommittee on Capitol Hill. For this I am truly grateful.

I can assure you also that H.R. 7189, the "Hawaii and U.S. Pacific Islands Surface Commerce Protection Act of 1973," proposes to meet a most urgent need: the continuation of ocean commerce between the west coast and Hawaii, and between the west coast and the U.S. Pacific Islands.

You will hear, either through testimony or written statements from those with first-hand knowledge, about the impact of shipping disruptions on the Pacific Islands. For my part, I cannot overemphasize, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, that the effects on my State of Hawaii are truly devastating. To avoid repetitive testimony, I will not delve into details.

The devastating effect on Hawaii and its people, I believe, can be readily seen by a mere recitation of facts and events from very recent history. During the 18-month period ending last December, Hawaii was deprived of mainland shipping service for a total of 179 days-1 day out of every 3.

During the major west coast dock strike in 1971-72, a survey of small businessmen in Hawaii showed that more than 80 percent of those surveyed had suffered from the strike. More than 30 percent had been forced to let employees go. Hawaii's unemployment rate in February 1972 rose to 6.5 percent-the highest since statehood and higher than the national average.

Consumers, too, felt the pinch in that same strike. Some items of necessity like rice, salt and toilet paper disappeared from market shelves completely; and believe you me, Mr. Chairman if you wish to start a rebellion within any American community, just try denying them salt and toilet paper. Öther products in short supply skyrocketed in price.

Even more frustrating to the people of Hawaii was the fact that, except for 3 of those 179 days, no one in Hawaii was directly involved in the disputes that caused the stoppages. We residents of Hawaii were innocent third party victims.

Consequently all four Members of Hawaii's congressional delegation have searched for a workable solution to this problem. We have with us this morning Mrs. Mink, to my right, a cosponsor of the measure, Mr. Won Pat, a cosponsor, and Senator Fong, who is a sponsor of a similar measure in the Senate. Our joint suggestions for voluntary agreements between management and labor for the protection of Hawaii have not been accepted. It is clear to us that legislation is the only way to obtain that protection.

Hawaii's situation is unique. No other State can be crippled so swiftly and so completely by a severing of its ocean shipping lifeline. The entire Hawaii congressional delegation has therefore drafted and introduced legislation which responds to Hawaii's unique needs. In doing so, we have taken pains to ask protection for Hawaii only against dangers Hawaii has no powers to deal with alone. The bill in the House in H.R. 7189. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both bills would exempt Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands from any west coast dock or shipping tieup for the first 160 days of such a tieup.

H.R. 7189 is not intended to plow virgin ground, for it follows a clear precedent: both management and labor have long voluntarily exempted military cargo from a strike or lockout for indefinite periods.

Furthermore, the bill would not interfere with the normal process of free collective bargaining. The exemption provided in the bill would affect only about 3 percent of the total man-hours involved in the operation of the west coast docks. This means that neither labor nor management involved in shipping dispute would be perceptibly affected in the bargaining process by exempting Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, which H.R. 7189 proposes to do.

The parties to the dispute which resulted in the 134-day stoppage in 1971-72 are now negotiating a new contract. The existing one expires in less than 4 weeks. Even if a strike is averted, it appears that the new contract will be for a relatively short term. Other maritime union contracts will soon be expiring. In some cases, a few dozen men could virtually sever the lifeline to 800,000 Americans living in Hawaii. For too long, Hawaii's citizens have lived through tieups, or the threat of tieups, over which they have no control.

The people of Hawaii are united behind H.R. 7189. Today's witnesses, and the statements of support which the subcommittee will be receiving, will provide ample evidence of this. I urge this distinguished subcommittee to respond to an urgent necessity and act speedily to approve H.R. 7189.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration. I would now like to yield to my cosponsor, Mrs. Mink.

Mr. JARMAN. The committee would be pleased to hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much. I would like to join and underscore the testimony just presented by my colleague, Congressman Matsunaga, and to most especially state my own personal appreciation for your providing us this opportunity to be heard on what is a