gotlata for Loeal 46 CIO, the Alesha Sal
mon Industry circulates a letter in his
favor, stirring up doubt as to the legiti
. mary ofJDowneyfs leadership and Local 46
A/eV« Mar gaining rights; and follows this
i.p threats of not operating if the
nims r)o*'3j.fct in their so-called unrea
r-o .0. demands-*■ This seems equivalent to
ih.: .-r'-c-rang Lc.jpJ. 46 mentors with starr*
ti':* unless they gut away from Downey*
,V‘- a'wCitude oontrasts sharply with
:-r dealing with the
cj I U£T * frr. ul: - statement of facts the
-.•AST op.ej&tors poss the question* 'Why
should -the salmon industry do business with
alleged Communists? and continues thus*
SHp4 q4^eti°n* Unfortunately, the law is
.$n that oase also* Employers cannot
jgpfuile to negotiate with a union on the
grounds that it is Communist-deminated**1
BSFU leaders hare no complaint against the
AS I fbr observing this law; but they, and
I may add, every loyal citizen of Amerioa
way justly resent the determined opposition
given the BSFU at every turn in its efforts
to eecure certified bargaining rights by
the ASI* For instance, even after pledge
cards had been circulated and signed in
ample numbers to get the NLRB to order an
election to determine jurisdiction, the
industry in collaboration with the commun
ist-dominated AFJ fought for and secured
the order ef an overall election rather *
than wne limited to resident fishermen* as
the Bering Sea Fishermen preferred.
This amounted to a severe defeat for
the patriotic forces in as muoh as the fav
orable outcome of the resident eleotion was
virtually certain, while that of the over
all election extremely doubtful. There was\
n'o laW^- against the ASI favoring a resident
eleotien-to make sure the patriots could
establish themselves; and patriotism it
would seem dictated such a polioy.
The ASI pursued the opposite course. It
persisted in that course, even to the vio
lation of federal law by flauting the ‘NLRB
Auling to deal with both unions equally
pending the election.and building up unduly
the numbers of non-residents to insure
ESFU defeat when it came off. Resident
union leaders would like to see the ASI
pose themselves the following questions and
and follow them with an answers vTFY SHOULD
THE ASI PREFER TO DO BUSINESS WITH ALLEGED
COMMUNISTS AND VIOLATE FEDERAL I AW TO SUP
PORT THEM? WHY DID THE ASI TRY TO DISCREDIT
DOWNEY LAST SUMMER, WHOM THEY ACKNOWLEDGE
AS THE LEADER OF TH$ ..ANTI-COMMUNIST FORCES?
WHY. DID .THEY CAUSE LOUIS R. HUBER TO LOSE
BIS JOB AT BOEINGS <LN SEATTLE FUR Y<RITING
THE FACTS LAST SUixftaER'L STRIKE IN A MAGA
ZINE NAMED THE PROGRESSIVE? • >
• .Coming baok to, Looal 46 AFL and its ba£*
gaining right«< what the ASI eould and
should have done was to ask the NLRB whethe
Looal 46 had lost its bargaining rights
simply beoause it changed its affiliation
from CIO to AFL* That, it seems, was etriot
ly a legal and .technical question, which
depended for its answer on the legally con
stituted authority interpetiag, the Taft
Hartley Act# It did not do se#
In fighting the battles of Communist
dominated AFU# it was found guilty of an.
unfair labor practice# Ip fighting -^he
battles of Atkinson it lays itself open
to the oharge of another unfair labor pra
ctice# in meddling into the internal af
fairs of Looal 46# At the same time it
shows its contempt for the NLRB in still
another way by ignoring it in the express
field ef its competence# hyjporitically
asserting great respeot for/fehp.t agency#
Let us consider the case .fpV Local 46
AFL# The reasons for the change of affil
iation were fourfold! 1# Roy Atkinson
showed by his conduct the previous year
that he was unfamiliar with fishing pre
blimi# 2# Re oould not oolleot members' ur •
paid olaime from ‘the AS I# dating from 194£
and amounting to about #5#000;- 3#.He
showed no disposition-or ability to v;in
a fair deal for the cannery workers#
4# The BSFU went AFL and were effectively
supported by its international# the SEA
FivKbRS* 1 NTERNATIONAL UNION# Resit^n"
oannery workers felt it was to their ad
vantage to be of the same affiliation and
get effective support#
This change in affiliation was recog
nized by all concerned, even by the A3I
itself whioh signed the 1961 contract with
Local 46 AFL# Ne rival faction with Local
46 was apparent at the time of the change
ef affiliation# It was recognized by both
Agnes Sohlosaer, a former Local 46 agent
and engaged at that time >y Libby, MeNei": .
it Libby as a personal manager, and by Mrc
D.'C#Conniok, who ran unsuccessfully again
• Downey for t^e agent1s position#
. K The Industry* e part in the trouble
’*. that followed was felt by uni©n„leadefs
to have been considerable, inasmuch as
the Industry not onlyreleased Miss Sdh
losser to campaign.actively in favor ©f
Tfr# D.C.Conniok against Downey but also
is strongly suspected of paying her .tra
veling expenses, and continuing h«r
ary# Furthermore, Libby, McNeill r. Ifi bnv
after having returned home striking can
nery workers, who were backing Downey, re
fused to bring them back when the' canne:.y
workers* contract was signed* but ‘delib«r
ately brought back others unfavorable t*3
him ana usea some of them as their toslc;
Tio aisaiiecT; Local 4b members from their
leader# Thus they released Teddy Brink
and another native from the Kuskokwim
district frem work to travel with Miss
Sohlosser to campaign in favor o|T Mr.
D.C.Conniokj but also were reported fur
ther releasing them from work after the
election had gene against Connick to work
around Bethel and the Kuskokwim stirring *
up dissension and dissatisfaction with
Downey*8 leadership. Union leaders feel
r fairly oertain that the Ind&stry or one
,ef the operators paid their expenses, as
well as their salary during that time*
* The vete in faror of Downey was 232
against 132 for Conniok, despite the faot
that most of the cannery workers who were
sent home for backing Downey in the strike