1 - American Memory

19
I wanted the delegation to be aware that the manner in which this
had been submitted to this subcommittee would thrust it right into
that jurisdictional dispute.
Mrs. MixK. May I respond further on that ? With respect to the leg-
islation before the Education and Labor Committee, it was in the
nature of an amendment to the collective-bargaining process. The
issues of compulsory arbitration, the establishment of procedures
whereby agreements were binding upon the parties and all of that
related to the procedures by which these strikes would be settled.
The crippling strike legislation and all of these concepts were in
the nature of revisions or suggested revisions to the procedure. We did
not wish to get into that very dif&cult situation of trying to come up
with suggestions which impinged upon the collective bargaining proc-
ess which in my view is properly in the jurisdiction of the Labor
Committee of which 1 happen to be a member.
This bill seeks only the exemption of cargo, the exemption of Com-
merce with respect to Hawaii. We felt that that was quite different
from seeking to change the collective-bargaining process which I would
have to say would be properly before my own committee in the labor
field. This is why the other bill which goes to the collective-bar^in-
ing agreement we felt would be property before the other coimnittee.
I hope that answers in part some of the questions that you have raised.
Mr. MATSUNAOA. I might also point out, Mr. Harvey, that the ques-
tion was cleared with the leadership and the bill was referred to this
committee after consultation with the leadership.
Mr. H.\R\T.Y. Again, I thank the gentlemen. The difficulty is that
it gives use the impression of an incomplete bill—a bill that pertains
only to the length of the period of injunction; is that correct?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. The bill would amend the Railway Labor Act,
as the gentleman knows, to provide for a 160-day exemption for Ha-
waii, from any interruption of commerce between the west coast and
Hawaii. In the event that a Taft-Hartley injunction of 80 days is
invoked, then the 160-day period is extended by 80 days and will not
continue to run until such time as the moratorium under Taft-Hartley
has expired.
It does in a way relate to Taft-Hartley in that respect. Of course,
if Taft-Hartley is invoked, the conclusion is inescapable that we will
not need this act in order to keep commerce between the west coast
and Hawaii at its normal rate. If a Taft-Hartley moratorium is de-
clared, of course, commerce will be returned to normal and the pro-
visions of this act would bo suspended.
Mr. HARVET. I wish to thank the gentleman from Hawaii.
Senator FONO. Mr. Harvey, may 1 say that the Taft-Hartley Act
has proved very ineffectural in stopping strikes involving Hawaii.
While the Taft-Hartley Act has been in existence we have suffered
as you have seen by our testimony.
Almost one-third of the time in the period from mid-1971 to the
end of 1972 our shipping was struck and the Taft-Hartley Act did
not prove effective. There are certain national emergency require-
ments for invocation of the Taft-Hartley Act, and even when it is
invoked, there is only an 80-day cooling-off period.