Evening star., 1959-10-28
Union Argument
Against Injunction

The union CONTENDS that the
contents of these affldavits are
insufficient to bring the case
within the reach Of the Labor
Management Relations Act. It
points out that the scope il.
is limited to situations which
will imperil "the national
health or safety" The union
says that the country, despite
the strike. is prosperous, and
that a comparatively small part
of the steel output is needed
for national defense work and
that the steel required for
health" in order to meet the
needs of hospital construction
and the like is very limited in
deed. Moreover, asserts the un-
ion, if the United States needs
more steel for any particular
defense use or uses the union, so
far as it has power to do so,
will cooperate patriotically in
seeing that the necessary sup
ply of steel is forthcoming
Furthermore. the union shows
that there is still a good-sized
inventory of steel on hand, that
steel is available from foreign
sources, and that any conten-
ton that the industrial dispute
with which we are concerned is
imperiling the safety and health
of the Nation is unrealistic be-
cause there is no immediate
threat of harm.
That portion of the unions
argument that centers atten-
ton on today's calm rather
than on tomorrow's approach
ing storm is not well taken. e.
How far into the future may
the United States and the
courts look? The act contains
no definition. But there is tes-
timony in the record that the
current supplies of steel are
very rapidly diminishing. Nor
does the proffer of the unions
assistance to get a plant or
plants open help much here.
The steel industry is too vast
and too complicated to be seq
mented so as to make such a
desirable result practicable.
The affidavit of DR.. Raymond
]. Saulnier, chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers,
comments cogently on the
unions suggestion that there is
a selective reopening of a small
n u m ber of mills to meet
national defense needs.
Other atlantis are cabinet
officers or the heads of Govern
ment departments. It is true
that some of the statements in
the affldavits represent conclu-
SionS on facts rather than
statements of present facts and
of necessity they contain some
element of prognosis. These
witnesses were entitled to look
to the future for the act itself
so looks. Moreover, as was nee
essarily admitted at the argu-
ment before this court, these
cabinet officers and department
heads speak as experts in their
fields of governmental opera
tions. AS experts, the aff1ants
were entitled to state conclu-
sions as well as facts for the
benefit Of the court below. The
court below was entitled to
weigh their testimony in a
different light from that of a
witness who testifies that a
motor car was or was not on a
portion of the highway where
it did not lawfully belong.
The affidavits referred to
contain strong statements in
dicating that the effect of a
prolongation of the present
strike would definitely imperil
the national health and safety
and that disaster must ensue if
the strike continues.
We have examined carefully
the contents of the affidavits
submitted by the union. Vari-
ances as they exist between
these aff1davits and those of
the United States are created
largely by different avenues of
approach. We find no variances
in the aff1davits basically ma
terial to the findings made by
the court below or to the issues
with which we are Immediately
concerned.
On a review of the entire
record we conclude that we
cannot say that the findings
made by the court below are
clearly erroneous.