On Feb. 27, 1952, The Alaska Salmon
Industry* Ino* addressed a letter to Bris
tol ifey Resident Cannery Vforkers and their
friends* Its purpose was to tell them of
thO* confusion that exists relative to the
proper utjion with which the Salmon Indus
try'!^ to, negotiate the 1952 Bristol Bay
resident oannery workers* contraotj and
to* suggest that the people directly in
terested—the workers themselves—discuss
this situation and decide among themselves
wjiyt union they want to belong to and who
th4y want to represent them,
the situation was already highly
3,nfhlye4 even before the injeotion of
Jijri Roy-^tkinson, Regional Director of the
and -now has become even mere so, I
thipk t^j' proper in the interests of faisv
negil- And an enlightened deoislon that the
following facts be stressedi
1, 3>he oommunist issue iB at the very
hdt^om,df this labor dispute*
> ■ )?•'# jJiiti Downey is the leader of the *
Hivj^cojkmunist forces#
'%;2t Tlii Alaska Salmon Industry has sided
y4$fi 't)ic’ (Communist forces against Jim
jpoviiey ^nd the patriotic forces#
f id# Ipo ward off successfully the commun
ist; party followers* attempt to take over
in Bristol Bay# Resident fishermen and
cannery workers must stand together#
5# The injeotion of Roy Atkinson into
the controversy is calculated to effeot a
split in the resident ranks# solid up till
now# and distract from the fundamental
issue of communism# and give the Alaska
Salmon Industry something comparable to a
company union#
60 This split would Spell defeat for
residents as workers and for America in
it? national defense efforts#
f, T-I.y COMCiUSYON IS I RESIDENT CVAUHERY
WOTKYC? CV/ IT TO THTTiS3LV.ES AS WORKERS
and to tbttr own country as citizens to
STICK FY JPi DOVOTY AND LOCAL 46 AFL.
•/
ine prooi oi 'cue ursp pnree ab
rery easy# All I hare to do is to read to
you from a pamphlet entitled HTho Bristol
Bay Di8put0,, a frank statement of facet
presented by the Bristol Bay Packers0 On
page 4 and following of that pamphlet un
der the oaptions "Purge 9$/Communists from
C5IO important factoro Bristol Bay unions
purged by CIO? we read* get a clear
picture, let* s go back to th® CIO purge
of 134/9 when several unions vere thrown o.vi:
because of alleged Commun3.pt doninat- onc
Among the purged unions waps the larger
union groups in Bristol Jlny*
well as non-resident. The Alaskapi shewn©;
Union (AFU) oomposed of $iphopieny: tend®:,
men, beachmen and culinary workerpi./ficth
resident and non-residency and local 4$
(Bristol Bay Resident Cannery Workers •
Union) were both affiliated With ahd"a
part of the International Fished©*}. ah4
Allied Tforkers of Amerioi. (UOTA)» IEAM
was expelled from the CIQ iphlWS) beoauee
of alleged Communist domination. J/ipal 7*
the non-resident cannery wprkers union*
was expelled at about ths.'|a$p
the same reason* iy- - - ''
Then came the maneuvering for power*
The International Longshoremen1 s and Ware
housemen* s Union (HMJ) vijidar the leader
ship of Harry Bridges,, slpda,found guilty
of perjury* had been purgpd^rom the CIO*
It immediately Bought to a^orV JF^WA an*
Local 7* Referendum Ballots Were takoa*
Local 46 Bristol Bay Resident,Cannery
workers* The AFC and Local 7\ the non-re
sident cannery workers* all voted to
affiliate with Harry Bridges* IWJ.j The
Bristol Bay Residents voted by about 7C’X>
8 to join the Bridges* group*
Thus* Harry Bridges* who already Jornln-*
ated the Seattle and Pacific Coach: v.'afce:-;-*
front* seised oontr.,1 rf the fishing 'n*
dustry in Bristol ley, This camo a
shock to many people* Alaska new^'p^yo's^