The Daily Alaska empire., 1948-05-07
Meeting at BOO P. M., May 3, ls4,

Mir Newmarket
 Garter: There are a few more points to clarify. We are here only as a fact finding committee. We only | want the facts. MT. Albright, are you the spokesman for these long i shoremen?
 Albright: I think l had better.
 Carter; The Juneau Lumbers Mills 1 is still in existence.
 Albright; Our contention is that when new company takes over a plant it takes over the contracts.
 Carter: There is a decision on that. Read it.
 (The decision of the NL.R.B. on page 27 of these minutes is read to Mir Albright.
 Albright: Any kind of work that is let out must be perfomerd ac- cording to the contract.
 Carter: But the N.L.RB. says that in the absence of any agree ment between the employer and the union, the purchaser is not bound.
 Ninnis: Explain to him further about the Juneau Lumber Mills be- ing still in existence.
 Carter: The Lumber Mills still exists as company Albright: But the new company bought the plant and took over the operation of the business.
 Ninnis: If the Juneau Lumber Mills still exists your contract is with them.
 Garter: We are trying to get your reaction to this case. Albright: I think if we read all the facts in that case we would find it is not a parallel situation. There might be some particular reason that caused this decision. Tn my experience when any new company comes in they take over the old contracts.
 Garter: The company says that they did not take anything over but the plant and equipment. They did not take over the assets and ac- counts receivable of the company nor any of the contracts.
 Albright: If we had the complete case we might find the reason for this decision.
 Carter; There is another point we want to clarify. The company claims that these barges are to be used, during the process of loading, as storage. The loading is intermittent and not continuous work. When they have an order they package the lumber and use the scow as storage space.
 Albright: They claim that float ing equipment is storage space? It would be cheaper to have the long shoremen load It is something that they have interjected. It would not stand up in an arbitration case.
 Carter: We just want you to know. We still understand that you consider the work from the bull rail to the boat is your work, for tne longshoremen, and that is part of your contention and not only the old contract?
 Albright: We think the old con- tract gives US jurisdiction and that we have jurisdiction under the Maritime Code to do this type of work I think their argument is irrelevant. I am being frank.
 Carter: We are just trying to bring out the facts. If we ask some questions that are irrelevant you can answer or not as you like. Any further questions?
 All None.
 Garter: Well, boys, I think we understand both sides and you have been very helpful. We are anxious to have this settled. However, we are not telling you what do do. We are just trying to find out the facts.
 Albright: Was it the company's l idea to bring suit?
 Carter: No it was my idea.
 Albright: The lawyer said there | was a serious doubt as to whether this court was qualified. If we had done this, even if the City Council ] paid the costs, the company would | file a demurrer and the case would | be right back where it is now. but it might have looked as if the union and the company had connived.
 Carter: That was not the sugges- tion of the company.
 Hendrickson: We only thought the court might give jurisdiction.
 Albright: The union would have been stupid to put themselves in that position.
 Hendrickson: I have had phone calls, even from the loggers in Ket- chikan. It is going to bust all of them.
 Albright: The longshoremen has only few hours work day. If this case is settled the company will have to pay every day of wages that has been lost. If the company has good lawyers they know where the pressure is coming. On the gyppo loggers.
 Hendrickson: I understand the wages are the best on the Pacific Coast.