Friday, April 2, 1948
THE FISHERMAN
Page Seven
Final Tuna Share Briefs Presented
llllllllflifflM^
Union Argues For Halibut Share Basis
JN this second brief submitted by the UFAWU we shall first briefly summarise the main points made in our first brief and examine what modification in regard to each point may be necessary as a result of hearings held by the Board. Further, before we present our conclusions, we shall consider the case presented to the Board by the Vessel Owners' Association—both in their brief and in the hearings before the Board.
A.   CASE PRESENTED BY THE UNION:
J   There Is no justification why halibut vessels changing to tuna.
trolling should get a boat share after such change higher than that long established for such vessels in the halibut fishery and contained In the signed agreement between the Union and the Association.
We now contend that no evidence, statistical or otherwise, has been advanced by the Vessel Owners to warrant any modification of our attitude on this point. A very natural desire for a higher boat share has been expressed but such expressions of desire do not constitute either evidence or valid reasons justifying changes.
Since the Union is not asking for a change in the traditional share basis for the vessels affected whilst the vessel owners want changes, we contend the onus lies on the Association to prove their case.
2 "Any radical departure from the halibut share basis may easily lead to an unsettling effect and serious disputes and loss of Ashing
time and earnings not only in the tuna fishery but also in the halibut fishery."
We welcome the fact that all representatives and officers of the Association who appeared before the Board stated that they consider that the boat share of 20 percent of gross for halibut fishing is quite fair and that any different basis worked out for tuna- trolling by halibut vessels would not in any way affect agreements for halibut fishing.
In view of the attitude taken by the Association on this point we are content to withdraw our argument.
In previous negotiations as also at the hearing we have never assumed the position that we are unwilling to consider a share basis agreement designed specifically for tuna trolling and no other type of fishing. Indeed during the hearing we have put forward some suggestions along such lines. However, any concrete proposal must be justified and shown to be equitable on its own merits. No such proposal has been advanced by the Association during the hearing.
3 Both in* Seattle and Prince Rupert signed agreements between the Vessel Owners and Union In these  ports provide that a
halibut boat converting to tuna trolling continue on the halibut share agreement.
This is admitted by the vessel owners. This being so it emphasises our contention that the onus is on the vessel owners to prove a case for making any changes. 'They must prove not only why £una fishing is a matter of equity requires a higher boat share than halibut fishing, but also why such higher share is necessitated for a boat sailing from the port of Vancouver and not from the ports of Seattle and Prince Rupert though halibut boats from these major ports will all be fishing side by side on the same grounds.
4 We have stated that 'a reduction in the number of men does not increase the wear and tear of the boat or place any increased
costs upon it."
This argument has not been refuted by the Vessel Owners. Instep at the hearing the statement was made that the halibut share percentage was really not so much a fixed percentage as a constant proportion between the boat share and a man's share. ti   In our brief we examined how the existing share basis for salmon
seining differs from the halibut share basis and showed that in spite of the fact that on the surface the two seem completely unlike each other, yet on. closer examination a salmon seine boat really gets 22 8/11 percent of the net stock as a boat share so that a halibut vessel, getting 20 percent of the gross stock as a boat share, is getting a comparable and usually some higher proportion of the catch than a salmon seine boat.
We stated "The main difference between the two methods is that for salmon the vessel owner gets a fixed percentage for his seine and in any one year may get more or less than what the repair and replacement of the seine actually costs him, whereas for halibut the vessel owner does not take this gamble, but is assured of re-> placement of all lost or condemned gear by the crew.
"The nature of the gear required for tuna fishing is such that the halibut share basis would be more practical and more fair and equitable than an arrangement based upon the same principle used in establishing boat and gear share for salmon."
Our argument on this point was not denied by the vessel owners. However Mr. Harold Christenson at the hearing stated that to consider only the salmon seining was inadequate. Share methods for .all types of fishing should be compared, including trawling. For this reason we devote further consideration to this aspect of the discussion.
Share Basis for Salmon Seining:
We have already explained this,   Recapitulating briefly: All expenses  except grub are deducted from gross stock first before boat share is calculated.
Boat and gear are then given 4 shares out of 11 from the net stock (i.e., 36.3 percent of net stock).   This is made up as follows; 2% shares for boat — 22.7 percent of net stock 1H shares for net  — 13.6 percent of net stock The vessel owner is responsible for all costs of gear losses and replacement.
The usual crew is 7 men. However, if less men are employed the crew still divides up equally 7 shares out of 11 of the net stock regardless of the number of men on the crew, which for a few small seiners may be as few a3 4 men.
Share Basis for Shark Net Fishing:
In this type of fishing the basis is similar to salmon seining:
All expenses (including ice, oil, gas) except grub are deducted first from gross stock before boat share is calculated.
According to the standard Seattle agreement which is applied also in our fishery, "the vessel owners shall furnish all nets and material necessary for the maintenance."
Boat and gear are then given 33 1/3 percent of the net stock.
The agreement does not specifically divide this 33 1/3 percent into a boat share and a gear share as is done in the salmon seining agreement. However, the standard practice when, as sometimes happens, the nets are bought in partnership by the crew or some of its members collectively, is that the 33 1/3 percent of the net stock is then split into 20 percent for the boat and 13 1/3 percent for the gear. These percentages are not dependent in any way upon the size of the crew on the particular boat.
Share Basis for Trawling:
In this type of fishing the share basis whilst showing some similarity to the previous methods considered also introduces features entirely different from the other agreements considered.
Final briefs presented to Mr.  L. H. C. Phillips, chairman
jf of the arbitration board set up to determine the tuna boat
| share for the past two years, are printed on this page. Parties
■ involved in' the> arbitration are the United Fishermen and Al-
H lied Workers Union and the Fishing Vessel Owners' Associa-
|j tion of B.C. The Union argues on behalf of its tuna fishermen S
11 members, that the boat share should be the same as irv the U
jj halibut  fishery, 20 percent of  gross stock, while  the  Vessel j|
B Owners claim that the boat share should be 32 percent of the B
B net stock (after deduction of gross stock expense).
The arbitration award, which  will be handed  down  some =
H time this month, will be binding on both parties for 1946 and §§
B 1947 operations. Seven percent of gross stock is being held in J
B escrow until the award is made, at which time it will be divided
- according to the terms of the arbitration decision. The award B
H will not necessarily apply to 1948 tuna fishing.   Terms of this B
| year's   agreement   will   be   decided   during   negotiations   be- B
B. tween the Union and Vessel Owners later in the year.
llll«ll!UI!illlll!!»!!!<illlllllHllllillllll!^^
Complete
Optical
Service
Pitman Optical House
605 W. Hastings
MArine 0928
All expenses (including ice, oil, and gas) excepting only grub are deducted first from gross stock before boat share is calculated.
The vessel owner is responsible for provision of all nets and gear and replacement of same whether lost or worn out.
Boat and gear share are then calculated as follows according to the standard Seattle agreement, which is applied also in our fishery:
"The boat share is based on the number of fishermen aboard the vessel as follows:
(Based on the net stock.)
4 men   including  Captain, Boat  and  gear  share 40%
5 men  including  Captain, Boat  and  gear  share 37%
6 men  including  Captain, Boat  and  gear  share 35%
7 men including Captain, Boat and gear share 331/3%" (Clause 5, Agreement, Otter Trawlers' Union. Local 53. Seattle). I am not aware of any standard practice of dividing this share
percentage as between boat share and gear share.
Here we have as an important new feature a variation of the boat and gear share  dependent on the  number of crew members.
It should be noted however, that whilst the percentage of net stock for boat and gear share increases as the number of men declines the proportion boat share to one man's share is not constant and falls as the number of men declines.
Share Basis for Tune Fishing With Live Bait Tanks:
The Board :s aware of the fact that there is a signed agreement between our union and the association governing the share basis lor this type of tuna fishing.
As is the case for most share agreements and practices in our fisheries the terms of this agreement were taken over completely from the existing agreement" in Seattle.
Whilst such experimentation as has been conducted by Vancouver vessels in putting on live bait tanks has not turned out well to date, the agreement is signed and would immediately apply to any Vancouver vessel that put tanks on.
Under this agreement all expenses such as oil, gas, ice, bait, are deducted from gross stock before boat share is calculated.
The vessel is responsible for provison and replacement of all gear.
As for trawling, there is then provided a sliding scale of percentages for boat share with the important difference that this scale varies in accordance with capacity of the boat to hold and store tuna, whilst in trawling it varies with the number of men aboard. To the writer it appears that where a sliding scale is found necessary for determination of the boat share in any fishery the principle applied in the tuna tank boat agreement is more equitable and logical than that in the trawlers' share basis.
The boat share agreement for tank boats provides: ''Each vessel operating under this agreement shall be entitled to .i boat share based upon the sum of its overall length and breadth. This boat share shall be a percentage of the part of the gross stock left after gross stock expenses have been deducted from the gross stock, based upon the following scale: Combined length and breadth up to but not including: 73ft.—27% „ „       „      „    73ft. to but not including:   76ft.—28%
„ „       .,      „    76ft to but not including: 79ft—29%
„       „      „    79ft. to but not including: 82ft—30% „ „       „      „    82ft. to but not including: 85ft—31%
„       „      „    85ft to but not Including: 90ft—32% „ „       „      „    90ft. to but not including: 95ft—33%
„ „       „      „    95ft to but not Including: 100ft.—34%
„ „       „      .,   100ft to but not including: 105ft—35% .
105ft. and up .............. —36%
"Vessels using refrigeration shall be entitled to 3 percent in addition to the foregoing - percentages and vessels with facilities for holding fish in brine shall be entitled to additional boat share above the base percentage for refrigeration amounting to 1 percent for each l/5th of the carrying capacity of the vessel that is stored in brine, provided, however, that no vessel shall be permitted more than 40 percent boat share under this provision."
(Clause 4, agreement between UFAWU and Vancouver Vessel Owners' Association. Signed July 15th, 1946.)
Share Basis for Halibut Fishing:
The share basis for halibut fishing differs from all the types of agreement reviewed above in two vita] respects, which make entirely meaningless any simple comparison between the traditional 20 per cent a halibut boat gets and the 36.3 percent taken by a salmon seiner or the 33.3 percent taken by a boat shark-net fishing or the 33.3 percent to 40 percent taken by a trawler.
FIRST—only on the halibut basis is the boat share percentage taken off the gross stock before such major items of expense as gas, oil, bait, ice are deducted.
SECOND—only on the halibut basis is the percentage exclusively a boat share: for all other types considered the percentage that goes to the vessel owner is a boat and gear share. «
If, to the share a halibut boat gets for a season, there were added gear costs during the season and this total were then calculated as a percentage of stock, after expenses other than gear and grub had been deducted from the gross stock there would be very little if any disparity between the halibut percentage and the others.
The question this Board has* to decide is what would be a fair and equitable share basis to apply when a halibut vessel converts to tuna trolling.
Neither party contends or could with any reason contend that we should apply the basis employed in salmon seining or shark-net fishing or trawling to solve this problem. Comparison with these fisheries has been introduced to show that in spite of the fact that each type of fishing has worked out share agreements suited to its peculiarities and ba~ed on experience and often on past conflicts, there remain so many similarities between them that the relationship between boat and gear share to value of the catch is remarkably alike.
The-Union contends that a fair and equitable share basis to apply to halibut boats converting to tuna trolling is the halibut share basis, fiist because the crew members if not the same in number after such conversion are usually the same men; second because there is too little experience as yet of tuna trolling by halibut vessels to determine what special methods of boat share determination would be more suitable. Again we contend the onus is on the vessel owners to justify and prove  the  necessity for a change.
B.   CASE PRESENTED BY THE VESSEL OWNERS:
1   The Vessel Owners' reply to   our case by   declaring that tuna trolling by halibut boats is an entirely different type of fishing than halibut fishing.
We admit that and ask the vessel owners what fishery would give the closest comparison? The answer given by the vessel owners to our question is—salmon trolling and tuna trolling by regular salmon trollers' boais. We are willing to agree with this also but before proceeding to examine the significance of this answer we wish to quote the exact words of the vessel owners' brief of October 31, 1947.
"Many of ihe boats engaged in tuna fishing recently, are fair sized salmon  trollers who usually make their own arrangements as
See UNION TUNA BRIEF—Page 8
pilllllBIIIIIIM^^
Vessel Owners Seek 32% Of Net Boat Share
The Union has consistently refused to admit any great difference exists between halibut and tuna fishing. Following the same line of reasoning, the Union contends that there should be no change in tke boat share percentage when a halibut vessel fishes tuna.
The same Union has signed a share boat agreement for salmon seining which provides a boat share two and a half times a fisherman's share. If the Union proposal for tuna were accepted the vessel, when operating on tuna, would receive very little more and on occasion less than a fisherman's share.
It may seem odd that halibut fishing conditions and share should be so important to a tuna arbitration so therefore some explanation of this condition is in order.
Shortly after the 1944 Area 2 halibut season tuna appeared off the British Columbia coast in much larger numbers than heretofor. The majority of the vessels investigating this new fishery were halibut boats. In 1945 tuna appeared much earlier and more abundantly than ever. The first vessels on the grounds made very good trips. At that time no agreement existed anywhere for vessels trolling for tuna. It was considered advisable to establish a working agreement as soon as possible for what appeared to be a promising new fishery. Both the union and the vessel owners agreed that they were faced with something new in the fishing industry and yet they felt that some other fishing agreement could be used as a yardstick or basis from which to work. The halibut agreement was chosen for several very good reasons. Most of the vessels fishing tuna are halibut boats. Since the days of dory fishing 30 years ago the halibut share boat agreement has txisted with no major changes. Obviously this condition would not have prevailed unless the fishermen and vessel owners considered that share basis to be fair.
A survey of halibut boat shares and crew shares was undertaken. For fifteen trips of vessels, 6 men and ever, the boat received from a high of 2.73 crew shares to a low of 1.75 crew shares, i.e.' 2.73 to 1, and 1.75 to 1. Pour trips made by the smaller halibut boats were also checked and an overall average for the 19 trips showed the proportion of boat earnings to crew earnings to be 1.93 to 1.
Tuna Fishing Different from Halibut
Tuna fishing differs to a very great extent from halibut fishing.. When a halibut vessel goes trolling for tuna a crew of four men is ample. With proper gear and boat equipment no more than three would be necessary. Therefore fewer men share in the catch. Halibut fishing is an operation entailing much labor and requires many men and a great deal of teamwork. It is possible on the bigger halibut boats to carry a larger crew, run more gear and in this way produce more fish. This is not practical on tuna. The number of lines which can be handled efficiently are limited. The type of gear and work involves of necessity the number of fishermen required for an economically sound fishing operation. A good return from halibut fishing is practically assured owing to conservation and good prices. Tuna fishing on the other hand, is a very risky business. The 1946 and 1947 seasons are proof enough of this statement.
A vessel properly rigged for tuna fishing and equipped with modern safety and fishing devices such as radiophone and direction finder, represent a considerable investment. The overhead expense for insurance, repairs, upkeep and depreciation is an everpresent burden to the vessel owner. These expenses continue whether the boat is fishing or tied up.
It is definitely not the desire of the vessel owners to establish a share basis which would be excessive and therefor unfair. However, the owners contend that there is no point in taking their boats out fishing when they feel that an adequate return for the boat is not forthcoming. Fishing, as practiced on this coast is a business entirely different from any other. All of the vessel owners, at one time, were fishermen.
They have worked on deck and on the smaller halibut boats they continue to do so. As a result, they are intimately acquainted with their crew members and understand their problems. A fishing trip is a cooperative venture and the risk is shared by all, including the boat.
In all phases of the fishing industry, under conditions which have ■been established by trial and error over a period of many years, the boat earns considerably more than the crew member. For halibut, as mentioned above, the proportion, taking into consideration all sizes of vessels, averages out to 1.93 to 1. When salmon seining the boat receives 2% crew shares. While on beam trawling the boat share amounts to 40 percent and in many cases the crew for trawling is about the same as for tuna. When a vessel is under charter, as tender, the charter rate per day exceeds even the highest paid crew member by nearly three to one even during the winter months when boat earnings are at the lowest point in the year. From the above it may be noted that the 20 percent halibut boat share provides the lowest boat earnings as compared to crew earnings in the fishing industry.
On page 2 of their opening brief the union states: 'Tn the opinion of the fishermen there is no reason or justification why the boat share for tuna trolling should be any different than the long established basis existent in the halibut fishery."
In this statement the union evidently accepts the halibut agreement as sound and fair. However, it is perfectly obvious that a 20 •percent boat share on tuna v/ith the smaller crew would by no means provide the same proportion as applies in a halibut settlement. The vessel owners are not asking for more. They wish to establish under agreement a boat share percentage that will assure the same ratio of boat shares to crew shares as exists in the halibut fishery. The owners, after working out the share basis from every angle and allowing for the peculiarities of the fishery, are firmly convinced that in order to effect the same proportion of boat earnings to crew earnings existent under the halibut agreement they would be entitled to a share amounting to 32 percent of the net stock.
In July 1945, after a number of boats were already fishing tuna a temporary arrangement was negotiated between the vessel owners and union which, entitled the boat to a share equal to 32 percent of the net stock. At that time Mr. W. Rigby, secretary of the Union, wrote a notice to the fishermen as follows:
"This arrangement for share division and settlement outlined below was agreed upon for this season at a meeting held Friday, July 27, at which the crews of the boats "Optu," "Antler" and "Gibson" were present. Since it has proven impossible to get a large enough meeting sufficiently representative of the men, no agreement binding upon all boats has been signed and it Is intended as a result of the experience gained this year to review and discuss the whole situation ire the autumn with a view to concluding a signed agreement acceptable to all concerned."
It so happens that 1945 was the only year in which consistently good trips were made on tuna. Throughout the season a complete record was made of every'trip showing .the boat name, number of crew gross stock, expenses (grub not included), boat share percentage (all boats did not take the same percentage), gross boat share and igross crew share. Twenty-one boats took a share of 32 percent. These vessels carried different sized crews. Eleven vessels had a crew of three, ten vessels a crew of four and one boat had five men. The twenty-one boats received shares in the amount of $12,762.36.. The fisherman's share totaled $7,263.12. The average boat share for these twenty-one trips is equal to 1.75 crew shares. It is fairly well established that if we are to evolve a workable agreement for tuna we must assume that the tuna fishery is different from any other and that it See VESSEL OWNERS—Page 8
PAc, 8945 - 3927 125 MAIN ST., Vancouver
MARKS BROS.
ELECTRICAL MACHINERY & REPAIRS
BOAT WIRING GENERATORS MOTORS CONTROLS PULLEYS BRUSHES