Evening star., 1934-05-29
CONFER T0AvERT
4 STRIKE IN STEEL
Wagner and Union Talk
Over Pr0bIem-U. S. Is
r Denied Injunction.
(Continued From First Page.)

IContinued From First Page)
declared fatty that the Norris anti
junction act prevents him from is
suing an injunction in a labor dispute
on the basis of briefs, arguments and
affidavits. He held that testimony
| by witnesses with opportunities for
! the litigants to croSs-examine.
The fact that the Government was
party to the litigation did not
change the decree of the law, court
held.
1T is contended," Judge Nields
said, that the act is not applicable
to a suit wherein the United States
| is complainant. The act deals with
labor disputes. It is immaterial who
the complainant may be If labor
dispute is involved and the defendant
is party thereto.
| Coercion Charged,
"The bill further charges that the
defendant was guilty of acts Of CO.
ercion and intimidation against en-
| ployes when they were exercising or
seeking to exercise their right of elect
| ing representatives for the purpose OF
| collective bargaining.
The defendant, therefore, was a
party to a labor dispute. BY reason
of such acts the bill prays for relief
against the defendant.
"As this is a case involving or
growing out or labor dispute and
defendant is a party to that dispute
against whom relief Is sought, this
court is without jurisdiction to issue
a temporary injunction in such case
unless the testimony of witnesses is
heard in open court with opportunity
Tor discrimination.
Rule Invoked.
| obviously, the case is controlled
by the rule repeatedly announced In
this district and circuit, that a pre-
liminary injunction Is never granted
where the pleadings and affidavits
disclose that the plaintiffs conten-
tions in fact and in law are seriously
disputed.
THE case illustrates perfectly the
propriety Of the procedure prescribed
by Congress and the futility of con-
siderlng motion for a preliminary
injunction in cases of his kind upor
ex parte affidavits. Not only is there
conflict of material facts but there
are serious and intricate questions Of
law involved, particularly the ques-
tion as to the constitutienality of the
national industrial recovery act"
The Governments bill sought an in.
junction to restrain permanently thu
Weirton company from interfering
with the balloting of its employees fol
collective bargaining representatives.
Argument which began April 80 wa:
on the Governments motion for &
preliminary injunction, which il
claimed should be granted in ordel
to provide temporary relief" imme.
diately pending final disposition of tn,
issue. The preliminary injunction va.
| sought so the National Labor Boarc
could conduct an election immediate
ly at the Weirton plants, Government
counsel said. The argument consumec
five days.
The company employees about 13,00(
men at Weirton and Clarksburg, w
Va, and Steubenville, Ohio. Its de.
| fenSe in the suit carried a challeng,
Of the constitutionality Of the indus
trial recovery act and scores of in
volved points of law. Several hundred
afidavits covering factual issues wer,
submitted by both sides.
The Government maintained tn,
Weirton emplcye representation plal
did not constitute an adequate ar
rangement for collective bargaining a
guaranteed by section Ia of the N.
R. A. Its aftidavits purported to shov
coercion of workers at the ballotin
last December and company influ
ence in the formation of an employ
organization.
Weirton Co. counsel denied ther
was any coercion but admitted EN-
ployes were advised to vote for repre-
sentatives employed by the firr
rather than for non-employes VIII
were members of the Amalgamate
Association Of Iron, Steel and Til
Workers.
On the constitutional issue the com
pany took the position that Congress
can not regulate commerce not Of al
interstate or foreign nature, that II
relationship with the workers was no
part of interstate commerce. an
that, therefore, any Interpretation
which would bring that RELATIONSHIP
under provisions of NJ I. r. AS sectio
Ia made it unconstitutional.
Hearing Declared Necessary.
Company attorneys also challenge
the legal status of the National Labo
Board and questioned its right to in
terfere with the employees ballotine
They further contended that unde
the Norris anti-injunction law of 1873
the Federal District Court is prevente
from granting a restraining rule in
labor dispute without first hearin
witnesses in open court.
The Governments rebuttal OF tn
latter contention was an assertion tina
the act did not apply to a case y
which the Government is mVolVeo
Government attorneys also main
tanned that the company is prevente'
from raising constitutional question
because it signed the steel mdustr
code under the recovery ACT anu az
cepted its benefits. Weirton counse
repiied that the code and the &C
would be forced upon the company
ANYHOW. and that the voluntary sign
ing was no argument against its po
sition. =.
In defense of afidavits offered 7
show undue influence and coercion o
employees prior to the election, IN
company countered with contradlctor
papers and contended it had broker
down virtually every Government
argument of that nature with sworl
retractions. Several company am
davits were presented to rebut Gov
ernment charges that the Welrto1
plant management gave a party 10
women employees on the eve OF tn
election and that two guests 'passe'
out" from the effects Of liquor,
The Weirton attorneys told Tn
court the company is breaking pro
duction records and that an injunc
tion would disrupt not only its owl
plants. but the entire steel industry.
DECISION PLEASES WEIR.