1 - American Memory

232
The Governor wishes to express his appreciation to the Committee on behalf
of the people of Guam for the consideration which it gives these views.
Submitted on behalf of the Governor of Guam by :
EuoKXE L. STEWART, Esq.,
Special Counsel for the Qovemor of Ouatn.
STATEMENT OF ROBEBT E. GBUNSKY, PBESIDENT, HAWAII
EMPLOTEBS COUNCIL
My name Is Robert R. Grunsky and I am president of the Hawaii Employers
Council. The Council Is made up of 650 members in Hawaii and the Territory of
Guam covering the entire spectrum of business activity in these Islands. The
Council provides the forum for Industry in industrial relations matters. This
statement is submitted on behalf of the Council members.
The Council strongly endorses and supports H.R. 7189 and urges its passage
by the Congress of the United States.
We have testified during the hearings of the Senate Merchant Marine Sub-
committee held in Honolulu on January 19, 1972, on the Impact of shipping
strilces on business, costs, and on employee layofTs. Therefore, we do not Intend
to present testimony at this hearing on the need for protection for Hawaii and
Guam from the crippling effects of shipping strikes, but request that our testi-
mony before the Senate Merchant Marine Subcommittee, referred to above and
attached hereto, be incorporated as part of our testimony In support of H.R. 7189.
We also endorse and support the evidence of the need for legislative relief set
forth in the booklet put out by the research department of the First Hawaiian
Bank entitled, "Hawaii, the Most Vulnerable State In the Union."
The Council in its position as a labor relations expert representing employers
In collective bargaining will confine its testimony to the questions:
(1) Will H.R. 7189 create undue interference with collective bargaining rights
of the parties?
(2) Is H.R. 7189 anti-union legislation?
Admittedly, we are not one of the parties directly affected by this proposed
bill so our testimony can only be viewed as expert opinion. We do, however, deal
with one of the major unions, the ILWU, for the stevedoring operations In
Hawaii. Any time some employees are working or some employers are not shut
down by a strike, there is an impact at the negotiating table and some stresses
occur on both parties.
The question Is would this create undue interference with the collective bar-
gaining rights of the parties or unduly Impede or block the collective bargaining
process or the right to strike. We contend It would not.
Only 3%' of the total longshore man-hours in West Coast ports are devoted
to handling commodities bound to or from Hawaii. Of the total man-days worked
by seagoing personnel on U.S. flagships out of West Coast ports, only 7.8% ' are
worked in the Hawaii trade.
It should be noted that In the recent 1971-72 longshore strike and generally
in all previous shipping strikes, the parties have continued to supply military
cargo to Hawaii and Guam. This has been a substantial amount of freight, so
the actual impact of H.R. 7189 on the collective bargaining situation Is much
less than the 3% of longshore man-hours and 7.8% of seagoing man-days be-
cause of the past practice of continuing shipments of military cargo.
If a shipping .strike .situation affecting Hawaii or Guam should develop during
time of peace, a very sensitive situation could develop between the civilian com-
munity and the military should the union grant any special favors of supply to
the military. H.R. 7189 would practically eliminate this problem.
There can be no question that this is a de minimis situation as far as impact
on negotiations between the employers and the unions on the West Coast is
concerned. We, therefore, content that H.R. 7189 in no way creates any undue
Interference with the collective bargaining rights of the parties because:
(1) Hawaii and Guam shipping traffic is de minimis In terms of over-all West
Coast shipping traffic.
(2) The 160-day strike exemption would merely constitute an extension of the
historical practice of continuing freight service during strikes to the military of
Hawaii and Guam in time of war.
(3) "Partial operations" which this bill provides Is an alternative onder the
present Taft-Hartley emergency strike procedures.
^ See page 3S of "Hawaii, the Host Valnerable State In the TInlon," by First ECawmllaa
Bank, Honolulu, Hawaii.