government officials# missionaries# and
ethers made strenuous efforts to cause rfr*
" i r\<**;[■.a to break away from the IUJU* This
v.‘:\r:- wr.s ruoce83ful* In. the summer of
. /fin Downey of Dillingham was choseh
•v-.l. * a^ciiib of tne group on an anti-Bri
-\’c* n-Ji's Downey also attempted to di
vu- resident fishermen from the Frid
ge •-./hcd a?'-•, He organized a new unioi
ei\i > • li fc:w Bering Sea Fishermen’s
Vj. c the time of the CIO purge,
v .v < l^orouB stand a gainst Com
ic. . •. a> c*e serves credit for it* It
wat i*j.v '•ship which enabled residents
to escape Bridges' domination in 1950*
But jurisdictional disputes with power
ful labor forces are not settled that s.im
ply# The AFU in 1961 flatly refused to re
oognire the resident group headed by Dow nej
It demanded that the Salmon Industry bnargai
exclusively with the Am as it did in the
past when there was no Bering Sea Fisher
men^ Union#
This demand was leistered by the IIWu
and by Harry Bridges. The ultimatum was
direot: No boats, supplies or boat orews
oould m^ye from Seattle until an exclusive
eontraot was granted the AFU. , ,
This was when the-'NLRB,'’established for
the purpose of settling and Adjusting ..just
such disputes, couldrh&W'stbpped in. But
it did nothing*. • '*
There could be no salmon packing^in;
Bristol Bay unless ships, cargo ahd crew,
could sail from Seattle, They absolutely
could not sail without the oonsent of the
ILWU, Operators, resident fishermen, and
workers faced a Bristol Bay season that
would go down as a oomplete loss* Either
the Industry signed with the Altf or it
would hare been forced to shut down for
the season*, It signed with the Aill and the
ships sailed.
Resident fishermen under Downey were no’
happy with this turn ef events. This was
perfectly understandable*
Up until that time, the fishermen* mem
bers of the BSFtJ* had olalmed to ha Inde
pendent* In a aero-hour effort to gather
strength and enlist outside support* Downe;
caused the union te beoeme affiliated with
the Sailors TTnien ef the Baoifio* AFL* The
Sailors* Union is under the leadership of
Harry Lundeberg of San Francises* anti
communist and a sworn enemy of Harry Bridg
Thus Bristol Bay became the battle front «s
a long-burning feud between two warring ;r.
fhotions headed by Lundeberg and Bridgee•,,
Here we hare the ASI. frfcnkly admitting
those three facts* .(l). The Communist issue
is at the very bottpm of this labor disput
(2) Jim Downey is the leader of the anti
communist forcesj (3) The AST has sided wi
the Communist forces against Jim Downey
and the patriotic foroes*
That was the situation last yea r* That
it still is the situetion this year let mfe
read fuzthor from that same frank statemen
ef facua* I qncfce, ”The struggle between
Harry Bridges* ILhU and harry Lundeberg*s
ATL rai’.or-* Union for control of the Pac
if5 j Coart waterfront continues. All indi
cations are that Bristol Bay—and control
ef fishermen and cannery workers—will
continue to be one of the important battle
front# in thi# desperato struggle f< r
power between two warring faction# • And .V
appears that the situation will grow worco L
as th# 1952 season approachesi" 4
By way of comment ? eu me acid, (a) thAre
existed.& jurisdictional dispute between *
’ the AFU and the BfFU which had bnen oa’*ri*d
1 to the' Nl<RB, (b$ the NLRB. had ruled tnal
the dispute should be settled by an crer
ail ejection, (o) and, that pending the
election the ASI weuli hare to deal equally
with' both unions# When the AFU flatly re
fused to recognise the BSFtT it was flautirg
the ruling ef the NLREs when Harry Bridges
bolstered the demand hy threatening to step
all mcronenv of boatsr supplies and boat
crews to Bristol' Bay.- ho wt s- flatting the
* geverngienb agency ruling* and furchermore,
,JaQted illegally Inasmuch as the API while
under his domination was not technically
in affiliate ef the 1I3VL# And when the ASI
signed an exclusive central with me ajtj#
by Its own admission it violated federal
law in supporting a Communist dominated
union against an admittedly loyal and pat
riotic union# I said ffby. its &wn admiaeien"
for on page f6ur of, its fraifejil'.satomeat -
we reddJ# “ "ttfcions aj*e ,$ffilijped.-with other
labor: groups’ and £h oase of .dispute jre .
opera: tors 'hare nothing to day about1 whioh
union is to be •exclusively recognised and
wh£Joh< is not# That is entirely within the
domain1 of the NLRB and we would be violat
ing federal law if we attempted to inter*
fere.#" They did intorfore and thereby by
bheir.'Own admission riolated federal law*
Xt*rfds for this reason that the A5I was
found guilty ef an unfair labor praotio®
by the NLR3# They had refused to abide by
the ruling to deal equally with 9eth unions
pending the election* ' '„0.*
B Furthermore# they admit . it waf *y
Btheir own unfair labor practice in refusing
to obey the NLRB ruling to treaij both unions
equally pending the election# that they
foroed Downey Into the Luudet, erg *eamw and
brought upon themsolres the larger juris
dictional dispute about whioh they are new
flamenting as though they were the innocent
victims. Their disloyalty te an agenoy of
their own government in the face of Com
munist power brought it upon themselvesj
and they are gripped in the clutohes of
their own Frankenstein*
P Then the AST went am to olaim that th#
immediate trouble in which they found them
selves in Bristol Bay was a Jurisdiotienal
dispute between two unionsj when as a mat
ter of faot it was a dispute between the
8? ASX and BSFU for fa voring exclusively a
Communist dominated union erer a loyal
th and patriotic union, contrary to the ml*
ing of the NLKB violating federal law in
the process*
The AST In its frank statement of fact*
triec to blame the NLRB for its being forced
bfco Bign an 9x0 lusive contract with the com
munist doninr.te'l APTT» Te this Thoms P*
Grahem, Jr*, Feg5onal P.irecter of the NLPB
I’epliek.* nThe Nuti^nal Lubes' fylaaionB
Bears. never rvteps inir? disputes urvle^s a
ease has fo.miG.lIy been filed with v.«»o 7.n