1 - American Memory

256
modlHes as well as other specialized services for the carriage ot antomobUes and
raw sugar, fuel oil and molasses in bulk.
Matson's present fleet consists of 15 vessels Including two hl^ capacity, higji
speed container vessels originally placed Into service in 1970 plus two equally
modern trailer vessels commonly referred to as roll-on roll-off vessels which were
added to our fleet In 1978. The current book value of Matson's Investment, in-
cluding capitalized lease values, approximates $186,600,000.
In addition to Matson, the State of Hawaii is served from U.S. Pacific
Coast ports bv U.S. Lines, three common carrier barge operators, and two
proprietary barge operators. In the Guam trade, service is provided by Matson,
U.S. Lines and until recently Pacific Far East Lines.
Matson is a member of the Pacific Maritime Association, a west Coast
employer group, which negotiates, on behalf of its membership, collective bar-
gaining agreements with longshore and offshore maritime unions. The organiza-
tion and structure of the PMA. including Us voting procedures. Is set out in
an agreement which Is filed with the Federal Maritime Commission for their
approval pursuant to Section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916. With enactment of
this legislation the PMA's participation in the collective bargaining process
would continue to be governed by the existing approved agreement.
The PMA has previously testified in opposition, to this legislation. Matson's
appearance in support of this legislation is reflective of the fact that we have
a different constituency than the other members of the PMA, all of whom
are entirely or primarily engaged in the foreign commerce. As previously
indicated Matson's operations are concerned solely with providing service to
and from the major domestic offshore communities or areas embraced by the
bill. Matson's constituency—its rate paying consignees—expect Matson to sup-
port this legislation which they as residents of those communities view as a
means of being freed of their role as hostages to collective bargaining decisions
made by non-residents on the Pacific Coast.
Those opposing this legislation, both management and labor, claim that its
enactment and operation would weaken the economic bargaining power of each
or conversely strengthen the other party's position and thus adversely affect
the collective bargaining process. If that process is to be substantially affected
by this legislation, either labor or management must realize from it some
advantage or disadvantage that will be substantially detrimental or helpful to
the interests of the other; it is clear that this will not be the result of the
legislation.
All collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the PMA must be ratified
by its membership. Of the 130 members of the Association who are qualified
to vote on questions Involving shoreside or longshore labor, only Matson is
solely involved in providing service between the U.S. Pacific Coast and the
U.S. Pacific islands specified in the bill. The votes available for casting on such
questions total 699, of which only 50 are held by Matson; on questions involving
the offshore unions, that is, shipboard personnel who are involved in the opera-
tion of the vessels, the votes available to be cast in respect to such questions
total 31 of which only 3 can be cast by Matson. Under the provisions of the bill,
the governor of Hawaii for example Is given permissive authority to seek an
Injunction for the purpose of bringing about a resumption of ocean carrier
service between the State and the ports of the U.S. Pacflic Coast. Because of
the permissive nature of such authority the bill does not guarantee that there
will be no Interruption in such service as a result of a Pacific Coast longshore
or off.shore union strike; but if and when the governor elects to obtain such
an injunction, Matson and competing carriers wou'd then resume operations
while the balance of operations at Pacific Coast ports would continue to be
strike-bound. In view of its minority voting position within PMA, It is clear
that Matson would not be able to translate the financial benefits of such resumed
operations into a determinative control over the timing or substance of the
collective bargaining process or the uIMmate resolution of the dispute.
If the governor acts and Matson resumes operations, what then would be
Matson's negotiating stance within PMA during such period of resumed opera-
tions? Under Section 2(b) (2) of the bill, Matson will be obligated to pay retro-
actively the addtional wages represented by the difference between the wage
provided for employees under the agreement resolving the labor dispute and the
wage such employee actually received during the period of resumed operations