13 Convention.* In short, while H.R. 1517 would not even apply to the truly "bad apples" in terms of vessels with substandard employment conditions, there is an internationally acceptable and approved standard by which a port state may appropriately exercise authority with respect to complaints involving working conditions for foreign seafarers on foreign flag vessels temporarily in its waters. In this country the Coast Guard is the agency which has been authorized to exercise such authority. That authority does not involve or require the application of our own domestic labor relations laws, such as contemplated by H.R. 1517. The standards established by ILO 147 are international, not domestic, standards. By its ratification of ILO 147 more than four years ago this country has made a commitment to adhere to the standards and procedures set forth in that Convention. Enactment of H.R. 1517 would attempt to apply domestic standards and thus would effectively constitute a breach of, that commitment. One point that should be noted here is that despite the seemingly hyperbolic and anecdotal descriptions offered by proponents of H.R. 1517 regarding alleged substandard conditions on certain foreign vessels, the fact is that over the past four years there have been only a handful of complaints, at best, filed with the Coast Guard with respect to purported violations of ILO 147. The absence of widespread complaints speaks for itself. V. The Bill Would Have Adverse Economic and Trade Ramifications Because most vessels require port and shoreside services of varying kinds they tend to be extremely susceptible to labor disruptions. Depending on the type of vessel, the actions of a *The Convention also establishes various minimum standards 14 few pickets in denying the services of tugboats, longshoremen, fuel suppliers, etc., can effectively immobilize a ship and prevent it from reaching or departing its berth. There are few other industries which are so sensitive to labor disputes. The maritime unions in this country have a long record of causing disruptions on the waterfront. During just 4 days in December 1958 they managed to tie up 128 foreign flag ships and thereafter continued sporadically to immobilize individual vessels until the court battles leading up to the 1963 Supreme Court decisions. H.R. 1517 would give them the license to return to the waterfront and attempt to shut down ship operations of their choosing. The wisdom of allowing this kind of activity in a country which is the world's preeminent trading nation is highly questionable, particularly when internationally about 80% of its liner trades, 99% of its bulk trades and 100% of its passenger trades are handled by foreign flag vessels. The real losers, if H.R. 1517 ever became law, would be American importers and exporters, including farmers, American passengers interested in enjoying uninterrupted vacations sailing from U.S. ports, the ports themselves, and indeed American consumers generally. All benefit in one degree or another from the availability of the efficient, reliable and reasonably low cost oceanborne transportation services which are presently available without disruption or interruption. H.R. 1517 would significantly impact on those services and for that reason alone should not be supported. Conclusion It is respectfully urged that H.R. 1517 be rejected in its entirety. APPENDIX Extracts from Opinion by Justice Clark in McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U.S. 10 (1963) (Footnotes omitted.] A corporation organized and doing busmess in the United States beneficially owns seagoing vessels which make regular sailings between United States, Latin American and other ports transporting the corporation's products and other supplies; each of the vessels is legally owned by a foreign subsidiary of the American corporation, thes the flag of a foreign nation, carries a foreign, crew and has other contacts with the nation of its flag. The question arising is whether the Act extends to the crews engaged in such a maritime operation (Id. at 12) While here the Board has violated no specific prohibition in the Act, the overriding consideration is that the Board's assertion of power to determine the representation of foreign seamen aboard vessels under foreign flags has aroused vigorous protests from foreign governments and created international problems for our Government. (Id. at 16-17) Six years ago this Court considered the question of the application of the Taft-Hartley amendments to the Act in a suit for damages "resulting from the picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen under foreign articles while the vessel [was] temporarily in an American port." Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, supra, at 139. We held that the Act did not apply, searching the language and the legislative history and concluding that the latter "inescapably describes the boundaries of the Act as including only the workingmen of our own country and its possessions." Id. at 144. (Id. at 18) A-1 (Id. at 18-19) It is contended that this case is nonetheless distinguishable from Benz in two respects. First, here there is a fleet of vessels not temporarily in United States waters but operating in a regular course of trade between foreign ports and those of the United States; and, second, the foreign owner of the ships is in turn owned by an American corporation. We note that both of these points rely on additional American contacts and therefore necessarily presume the validity of the "balancing of contacts" theory of the Board. But to follow such a suggested procedure to the ultimate might require that the Board inquire into the internal discipline and order of all foreign vessels calling at American ports. Such activity would raise considerable disturbance not only in the field of maritime law but in our international relations as well. In addition, enforcement of Board orders would project the courts into application of the sanctions of the Act to foreign-flag ships on a purely ad hoc weighing of contacts basis." This would inevitably lead to embarrassment in foreign affairs and be entirely infeasible in actual practice. The question. therefore, appears to us more basic; namely. whether the Act as written was intended to have any application to foreign registered vessels employing alien seamen. A-2 We continue to believe that if the sponsors of the original Honduran law N. M. U. is prohibited from representing (Id. at 20-21) The presence of such highly charged international (Id. at 21-22) 69-954 A-3 69-954 - 93 (130) |