programs, respectively.26 The Board had previously ruled that this exemption applied only where the services were performed on a farm by an employee "of the tenant thereof, or of the owner of such farm." 27 That ruling was reversed in the light of Federal court decisions which held that the controlling factor was the nature of the work performed on the farm and not the status of the individual for whom the services were performed.28

Decisions of State Courts

Noninterference by court in internal administration of union affairs.The Supreme Court of Florida, in Harper et al. v. Hoecherl, reversed a decree of a lower court granting an injunction at the request of a Government contractor, prohibiting a union from imposing fines on members using spray guns instead of paint brushes.29

The

The plaintiff had filed a bid and received a contract to paint certain United States buildings on an Army project. After filing the bid he entered into an agreement with a union with which he had had dealings for several years. In the union contract was a stipulation that spray guns could be used on the work only with the consent of the union. The union bylaws, enforceable by a fine levied on the offending members, prohibited members from using spray-painting apparatus. Prior to the filing of his bid, the contractor had received notice from the Government that brush bristles were scarce and that, wherever practicable, spray guns should be used. The Government contract provided that either method of painting was acceptable. bid, however, was submitted on the basis of the cost of spray-gun labor. After the work on the Government project had been begun, the Army officer in charge of construction directed the use of spray guns. The union, when requested by the contractor to permit its members to use spray equipment, voted contrary to his request. Conferences between the parties involved failed to bring about any settlement of the issue. The contractor then made separate agreements with two union members to perform the work with spray guns, promising to pay any fines which the union levied against them. Before the union assessed any fines, he sought a temporary injunction, which was later made permanent, restraining the union from levying fines against its members.

The contractor charged that the union was delaying production by refusing to comply with the directions of the Army officer. The court, however, was unable to find evidence that the work was being impeded, and it also noted that no action had as yet been taken by the union which would so impair the plaintiff's rights as to give him a basis for equitable relief. It indicated also that if the contractor desired to use spray guns, he could avail himself of nonunion labor. The principal point decided was that the internal administration of union affairs rested with the union and its members, and that, in the ordinary case, the courts will not intervene in such disputes. Membership in a union is not compulsory, and since a member agrees

36 Em. T. 443; I. R. B. 1943-10-11436 (May 25, 1943).

27 S. S. T. 125 (C. B. 1937-1, 397).

2 Stuart v. Kleck (1942), 129 Fed. (2d) 400; Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States (1942), 125 Fed (2d) 775, certiorari denied, 63 Sup. Ct. 31 (Oct. 12, 1942).

214 S. (2d) 179 (May 21, 1943).

to the rules when accepting membership, the courts have usually refrained from entering into internal disputes "unless such rules and bylaws, or the methods resorted to for enforcement, are unreasonable, immoral, contrary to public policy, or in contravention of the law of the land." Likewise, a third party who may be injured by punitive action which a union may wish to take against a member for violation of union rules normally has no standing in court to seek an injunction against sanctions which the union is authorized to impose.

Effect of subsequent court decisions on continuing injunction.— A union in New Jersey filed a petition in equity to terminate an injunction which had been issued to restrain peaceful picketing,* at a time when it was lawful to enjoin such activity. Vacation of the decree was sought on the ground that since its issuance the United States Supreme Court had ruled that peaceful picketing may not be restrained. Further, New Jersey had since passed a law (Acts of 1941, ch. 15) prohibiting such injunctions.

31

In dismissing the petition, the court pointed out that the proceeding was in effect a bill of review and brought after the expiration of the period in which an appeal could be taken. Only the presentation of newly discovered evidence or some special equity will give the court power to review the original proceeding. The court stated that newly discovered evidence had not been presented so as to authorize it to exercise its discretion to vacate the decree." It also held that it did not consider new matter to have been presented by the judicial decisions which changed the state of the law.

30 Hersh & Hershkowitz v. United Retail Employees of Newark, N. J., Local No. 108, (May 10, 1943).

- N. J. Ch. Ct.

31 Carlson v. California, 310 U. 8. 106; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; A. F. of L. v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321.

32 Cf. United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106; John Simmon Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U. S. 82; Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin, 245 U. S. 198; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 242 Fed. 924.

Earnings in Ship-Construction Yards, Fall of 19421

Summary

THE level of earnings of shipbuilding workers, partly because of the nature of shipbuilding employment, is among the highest found in American industry. In November 1942, first-shift workers in private yards engaged wholly or primarily in new ship construction had average hourly earnings of $1.044, exclusive of premium pay for overtime. Within the industry, the highest level of earnings, $1.135, was found on the Pacific Coast, the next highest, $1.048, on the Atlantic Coast, and the lowest, 90.7 cents on the Gulf Coast. The averages for the Great Lakes and Inland regions were but 2 cents apart, 99.4 and 97.4 cents, respectively.

Straight-time hourly earnings, on the basis of data from identical yards, increased by an average of 11 cents between the spring and fall of 1942. Most of this increase was due to the wage adjustments made in the four wage-stabilization agreements concluded at the National Shipbuilding Conference in May 1942. In addition to establishing a uniform minimum rate of $1.20 for first-class skilled mechanics in all four regions, thereby eliminating the 5-cent differential formerly existing in the Gulf region, the conference also granted a general increase of 8 cents an hour to all other workers in the Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Pacific regions, together with increases in the Gulf Coast region ranging from 9 cents an hour for workers with rates up to 69.5 cents an hour to 13 cents an hour for workers with rates of $1.07 an hour and over. These increases became effective between April 1 and August 1 in the various regions. The conference also deleted from the original zone agreements the provision for adjusting wages in accordance with changes in cost of living. Provision was also made for periodic wage reviews, the first of which was to be made about June 1, 1943. Similar reviews are to be made annually thereafter. Increases in earnings in identical yards over and above those provided for in the stabilization agreements may be attributed largely to the upgrading of workers, and in part to the acceptance of the stabilization program by a greater number of yards.

A sharp increase of more than 16 cents in average hourly earnings between the spring and fall of 1942 in identical yards in the Inland region, which is not subject to the wage-stabilization program, was due largely to general advances in wage rates in this region to levels broadly comparable with those found in the stabilized areas.

Prepared in the Bureau's Division of Wage Analysis by Willis C. Quant under the direction of Victor

S. Baril.

Scope and Method of Survey

The present comprehensive study of shipbuilding wages represents the continuation of a series of such studies inaugurated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1936.2 The last detailed study of the industry was made during the spring of 1942, shortly before the National Shipbuilding Conference in May of that year, which resulted in broad wage adjustments in the industry. The present survey was made during the fall of 1942 and reflects, therefore, the wage changes provided for under the stabilization agreements which went into effect during the summer of 1942. This study was designed to provide. basic data for the appraisal of these wage changes, and to serve the needs of governmental agencies charged with the responsibility of developing the shipbuilding program and stabilizing wages in the industry.

The current survey was limited to privately operated shipyards engaged wholly or primarily in the construction of new vessels of 5 gross tons and over. Yards engaged in the construction of smaller vessels, commonly referred to as boats, and ship-repair yards were excluded from the survey. Some construction yards also do repair work and boat building. Data relating to such activities, however, were excluded, whenever possible, from the scope of the present survey. The wage data presented in this report are based on pay-roll_information for the pay period ending nearest November 15, 1942. Full utilization was made of the pay-roll data submitted semiannually to the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act. These data were very carefully analyzed and, where necessary, supplemented by information obtained at the yards by experienced representatives of the Bureau. The field investigations were concerned very largely with the clarifying of occupational classifications and class designations within occupations, indicating first-shift workers, and, in the case of yards having incentive-wage systems, prorating incentive earnings so that these earnings could be reflected in the average straight-time hourly earnings of the workers covered in the survey.

Altogether 86 privately operated shipyards engaged wholly or primarily in the construction of new ships (5 gross tons and over) were surveyed. In the selection of these yards full consideration was given to such factors as type and size of yard, type of craft under construction, geographical location, and corporate affiliation. The sample is believed to be fully representative of private ship-construction yards.

The wage data presented in this report relate only to first (day) shift workers. The data for such workers reveal accurately the basic occupational and wage structure of the industry, since practically all occupations are fully represented on the first shift. Furthermore, data for first-shift workers are not distorted by shift differentials. Extra earnings from premium pay for overtime were also eliminated.

Earnings and Hours in Private Shipyards, 1936 and 1937 (Serial No. R. 788); Earnings and Hours in United States Navy Yards, 1936 (Serial No. R. 809); Earnings and Hours in Private Shipyards and Navy Yards, 1936 and 1937 (Serial No. R. 845); and Hourly Earnings in Private Shipyards, 1942 (Bulletin No. 727). The results of the semiannual surveys made by the Bureau between May 1937 and May 1941 for the use of the United States Maritime Commission have not been published.

In a few instances, workers found in important occupations occurring only on the second or third shifts were included in the study. In such cases, however, extra earnings resulting from shift-differential payments were eliminated so that the figures presented for these workers are average straight-time hourly first- or day-shift earnings.

As a result, the average earnings presented in this report are straighttime hourly earnings exclusive of premium overtime and shift-differential earnings.

No attempt was made to cover all occupations found in the shipbuilding industry. Two basic factors were considered in selecting occupations for coverage: (1) The importance of an occupation in terms of number of workers employed, and (2) the strategic importance of an occupation in the occupational structure. The occupational coverage actually obtained is comprehensive in scope, as approximately 90 percent of all first-shift workers in the yards surveyed were employed in the 60 occupations for which data are presented in this report.

Definition of Regions

Shipyards must of necessity be situated either on the coast or along some navigable stream or body of water, because of launching and delivery requirements. The industry today is widely scattered along the three coasts, the Great Lakes, and the inland waterways of the country. Any analysis of wages in as widely scattered an industry as shipbuilding must necessarily be made on a regional rather than an industry-wide basis. For purposes of this study, the regions used are those of the shipbuilding wage-stabilization program, namely, the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts, and the Great Lakes. The remainder of the country, where shipyards do not come within the scope of the stabilization program, will be referred to as the "Inland" region.

The areas covered by the four regions, as defined under the stabilization program, are—

Atlantic Coast: The tidewater ports of the eastern part of the United States from the eastern tip of Maine to, but not including, the northern border of Florida; and also, specifically, the Hudson River inland, to and including the industrial area of Albany, New York, and the Delaware River inland, to and including the industrial areas of Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden, N. J.; the Chesapeake Bay; and the James River inland to and including Richmond, Va.

Gulf Coast: The tidewater ports of the eastern coast of Florida and of the Gulf of Mexico, bounded on the west by the Rio Grande, and also, specifically, the Mississippi River inland, to and including the industrial area of New Orleans, including Lake Pontchartrain; the Houston Ship Channel inland, to and including the industrial area of Houston; and the ship channels of the Neches and Sabine Rivers.

Pacific Coast: The tidewater ports of the western part of the United States from the Mexican border to the Canadian border, and also, specifically, the Sacramento River inland, to and including Sacramento, Calif.; the San Joaquin River, tributary to the Sacramento River, inland to and including Stockton, Calif.; the Columbia River inland, to and including the industrial areas of Portland, Oreg., and Vancouver, Wash.; and the Willamette River, tributary to the Columbia River, inland to and including the industrial area of Portland, Oreg.; and the Puget Sound area.

Great Lakes: The industrial areas of the American lake ports on Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario; and the connecting waters between the Great Lakes.

The fifth region, referred to in this report as the "Inland" region, includes yards situated primarily on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and their tributaries, excluding those in Southern Louisiana and Mississippi. These yards, as previously stated, are not covered by the wage-stabilization program.