*1 OF UNITED STEELWORKERS AMERICA v. STATES UNITED et al. 7, Argued
No. 504. November 1959. Decided November 1959. - . Goldberg 3. argued petitioner. Arthur the cause for on With him the were E. Feller brief David and Bernard Dunau.
Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for the Attorney United him on brief States. With were Rogers, Doub, Attorney General Assistant General Barnett, Slade, Wayne D. Seymour G. Samuel Farber E. and Herbert Morris-.
Per Curiam. Attorney in General obtained sought District Pennsylvania Court for Western District of an injunction against industry- the continuation of an wide industry of workers pursuant strike basic steel to Management § 208 of the Labor Act, 1947, Relations 61 Stat. 155, 29 S. granted U. C. 178. certiorari, We post, p. 878, to review the judgment the Court of Appeals Circuit, for the Third 2d 676, F. affirming the District In pertinent Court. part, provides 208§ that if the District Court—
“finds that ... threatened or.actual strike or [a] lock-out— “ (i) affects an industry entire or a substantial part thereof engaged trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or among communication the several or States with foreign nations, engaged-in the " production goods for commerce; and “(ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national health or safety, it-shall have jurisdiction enjoin-any such strike or lock-out, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders . may be appropriate.”
The arguments of the parties here and in the lower courts have addressed themselves in part considerable propriety of the District Court’s exercising equi its question strike in jurisdiction enjoin once table argu had been made. These findings set forth above ranged widely into broad issues óf national ment's have availability policy, labor of other remedies the effect of a labor on the collective Executive, bargaining consideration of the conduct of the process, parties dispute to the labor in their and con negotiations, jecture as negotiations course of those the future. Congress passing We do believe the statute injunctions intended that the issuance of depend should upon judicial inquiries of this nature. Congress was not parties’/ positions concerned with the merits of the or the conduct of their negotiations. purpose Its basic seems to have been to see that vital should be resumed or continued for a time further efforts while were made to *3 dispute. carry settle the To out purposes, Congress its carefully surrounded the with proceedings procedural "detailed devices and limitations. public The report of a inquiry, board of the political exercise of and executive responsibility personally by the President in directing' the commencement injunction proceedings, of the-statutory provisions looking adjustment toward of dispute during injunction’s pendency, and the limited duration of the injunction, represent a- congres sional determination policy of factors in involved the dif ficult problem of national emergency strikes. This con gressional determination policy factors is of course binding on the courts.
The statute imposes upon duty the courts the find ing, upon the evidence adduced, or strike lock whether out meets the statutory conditions of breadth of involve ment peril to the national safety. health or We have accordingly reviewed findings the-concurrent of the two lower courts. Petitioner here findings contests the that the continuation of the strike would imperil the national health and safety. The parties dispute the meaning of statutory health”; term “national the Government country’s general comprehends
insists that the term health; urges its that well-being, petitioner economic meant. simply physical citizenry health of the is We the judgment need not resolve this for we think question, amply supported ground below is on the the strike imperils upon the national Here we the evi safety.* rely specific dence of the strike’s effect on defense we projects; pass need not on the Government’s contention broader, in safety” “national should be given context . application. construction and regard *The evidence in this is reflected in the District Court's findings (a), (b), (c), of fact Nos. (d), as follows: “(a) required top military Certain items of priority steel missile States, programs by any operat- United are not made mill now ing, any inventory imports. Any nor available from or from further delay resumption of steel would result an irre- supply weapons trievable of time in systems loss essential plans to the national defense United States and its’allies. “(b) planned program space activities under direction Space of the National Aeronautics and has been Administration delayed by the delayed strike further and will be it is if continued. project MERCURY, Specifically, pro- the nation’s manned satellite gram, highest has priority, delayed by has been delay reason of buildings opera-, construction of to its essential program important security tion. This nation.’ Other planned space programs delayed delay will be threatened by a continuation of the strike. “ (c) shipbuilding program Nuclear Submarines and the naval other submarines, including construction, than modernization, new conversion, by. inability have been affected reason of the to secure *4 boilers, compressors, component parts requiring and other steel. industry indispensable Products of steel are to the manufacture' delay production irreparably of such items and injure in their will imperil safety. national defense and the national “(d) Exported products’are support steel vital to the of United States, overseas use of and for the NATO allies and similar bases security groups. strike, collective permitted The steel if to continue, seriously impair programs, imperiling will these thus the national safety.”
43 of reopening that a suggests The petitioner .selective specific fulfill mills would suffice to of the steel some a designed provide defense needs. statute n emergency; in we cannot construe remedy times of public either formulate a require it to the United States industry satisfy of the affected its reorganization of closed complete defense needs without reopening unfeasibility facilities, or demonstrate court a There is no room in the statute reorganization. such requirement petitioner impose for this which the seeks on the Government. that, opinion provision question
We are of applied here is not violative of the constitutional limita a prohibiting exercising powers leg tion courts from powers capable islative or nature, being not executive exercising solely judicial conferred “the upon court power of the States.” Keller v. Potomac Elec. United Co., 428; Power S. Federal Radio Comm’n v. U. 261 Co., General Elec. 281 S. 464. Petitioner contends U. constitutionally the statute invalid because it not set of lawful or unlawful up any does standard con-.. management. But the statute part duct on the of labor or recognize public does certain in the unim rights to have vital peded time industries safety. national health or It makes the United States of these Cf. United States v. guardian rights litigation. Co., U, Sanitary American Bell Dis 315, 370; Tel. 128 S. States, trict Chicago v. United S. 405. The U. availability judicial in the of an relief, common form injunction, depends findings, fact, judicially on to be made. judicially, Of the matters decided there is no review other agencies of the Government. Cf. Gor States, don v. United Wall.. S. 697. U. We conclude that only statute entrusts the courts the determination of a “case controversy,” on which judicial power any can operate, containing ele-
44. capable only legislative ment or executive determina- tion. injunc- We do not find that the termination of the time, machinery tion after a specified established in an attempt a peaceful obtain settlement of the under- lying dispute during the injunction’s pendency, detracts from this conclusion. result that the judgment of the of Appeals Court
for the Third Circuit, affirming that of the District Court, is affirmed. Our mandate shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered. and Mr. Justice Harlan: Mr. Justice Frankfurter In'joining the Court’s we opinion note our intention to file pur due amplification course an upon views issues which- could not be prepared within involved time limitations imposed by the necessity a prompt adjudication in this case.
Separate opinion Mr. Justice Frankfurter Mr. concurring Harlan, opinion Justice dated 7, Court November 1959. ' action,
This by the States United for an under Act, § the Labor Management Relations 1947 (61 Stat. 155,-29 178) S. U. C. was commenced by the Attorney General at the direction of the President of the United States the District Court for the Western of Pennsylvania -1959., District on October 20, The strike which was the concern of the action of a arose out labor dispute between petitioner, the collective bargaining agent of the workers, arid- the steel companies, and was nationwide scope. The began strike- July 15, on days fifteen the contracts between steel com- after panies petitioner expired. On 9, 1959, October President created Inquiry the Board of provided by §§ and 207 of the inquire Act to into the issues involved in *6 dispute. The President deemed a the strike to affect “substantial part of ... and industry,” concluded if allowed to that, continue, imperil it would the national “health safety.” and On October 19 the Board submitted its which concluded: report, parties have failed to “[T]he reach an agreement and prospects early we see no for an 'cesmtioa^Qf the strike. The point any Board cannot single any consequence issue of upon whatsoever which the jn parties agreement.” are The report President filed the with the. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and made its public, 206, contents accordance with § Attorney ordered'the General to this action, commence reiterating pronouncements his former that the continu- n ance' of a strike constituted threat to the national health safety. stipulations
Pursuant of the the District parties, Court heard the case 21 it affidavits. On October on. granted injunction. Its stayed by order-was Court of Appeals for the Circuit, pending Third court’s final determination petitioner’s appeal. On October it affirmed the decision of the District Court (one judge dissenting) granted stay an additional petitioner enable to seek relief here. On October 28 Court denied the motion of the modify States to United stay. On October 30 granted we certiorari, set the argument for November 2, and extended stay down pending disposition. final a curiam per opinion In on 7, November this Court affirmed the decision of the Court Douglas Appeals, dissenting. We noted Mr. Justice our intention to set forth at a later time the grounds for agreement our with the Court’s disposition-and delay (cid:127)announcement of the result until such statement could prepared. challenged grounds: on three injunction were not entitled to find the lower courts
(1) District Court’s upon which the emergency, 208, existed; (2) even jurisdiction dependent § under failed to exer- if the District Court emergency existed, 208, it under discretion, open § claimed to be cise grant sought by or not to the relief United whether if unassail- States; (3) even was otherwise it have been denied because 208 seeks to able should duty scope outside the charge the District Courts with a exercisable under Art. “judicial Ill, § Power” Constitution. provides that the District “shall.have
Section 208 Court jurisdiction enjoin” “threatened or actual strike or if “(i) lock-out” the court finds that affects an entire *7 industry or a substantial in . part engaged thereof . . commerce ... in engaged production goods for commerce; (ii) if permitted continue, to oceur or to imperil will the national health or safety . . . .” The District found, here, Court and was not contested that the strike satisfied the first condition in that it affected portion substantial of the steel industry. Petitioner urged, however, that courts had no basis lower concluding that it satisfied the second.
In finding its of fact No. the District Court described four impediment instances of serious to national programs defense as a result of existing prospective, procurement problems due to the programs strike. The affected included the missile, nuclear submarine and naval shipbuilding, space programs. Each of these find- ings had, as the Court Appeals found, ample support in . the affidavits submitted by States. According United to the affidavit of Thomas Gates, Jr., Acting Secretary S. Defense, delays in delivery of materials critical to the
creation of- the Atlas, Titan systems and Polaris missile become so day severe each additional of the strike had would result'in an in equal delay project completion; “significant and a portion of the steel specified pro- curement composition contracts is of a not common to usage commercial nor available from existing civilian inventories exercise of allocation or eminent domain powers of the Government. . . . programs in [TJhese many require cases sizes special many and shapes, of which can be only by fabricated having firms a long experience their and the necessary special facilities n therefor. . .
The affidavit of L. Hugh Dryden, Deputy Administra- tor of the Space Aeronautics and Administration, stated; in some detail, space projects, including tracking cen- ters, engine rocket test stands, and-other critical facilities, were, at the time of the hearing Court, District already subjected delays of as much as seven weeks, longer delays anticipated from the continuation of the strike. The affidavit of A. Luedecke, R. the General Manager of the Energy Atomic Commission, stated- that delays minor in projects at had, the time of its making, already been experienced in programs critical -of. the Energy Atomic Commission, and that if the strike should continue into 1960 “there an appreciable would be effect upon the weapons program.”
In view of such demonstrated unavailability of defense materials it is that, petitioner irrelevant contended and the' United States conceded, somewhat excess of 15% of the steel industry remained unaffected the stoppage, *8 only and that about gross of the steel product is ordi- 1% narily allocated production. to defense
However, petitioner also contested the sufficiency of the affidavits on ground they that present did not the the. facts giving rise to the emergencies asserted with sufficient particularity to justify the findings made. This objection an raises issue which was essentially for the trier of fact, and the two lower courts found the affidavits sufficient. judiciary
It is not the canvass for theBfcppetence responsibilit^only cabinet rank, officers of below President, they that of the to which for matters speak oath, express opinions under set forth directly surely these affidavits. them Findings upon based “clearly cannot be said to be erroneous.” Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., (a).
Moreover, under trier of facts § 208 the these was called upon judgment already to make twice made President of once he United States: when convened Inquiry; and once when Board directed the he Attorney to commence this action. His General reasoned judgment upon based facts presumably we. have summarized, and it for findings is not us set aside with them. The judgment consistent President’s is not controlling; duty § 208 makes it the court’s to “find” the requisite jurisdictional fact for itself.' But the dis- charge duty of its disregard District Court would reason give due weight previously to determinations made by the President, all, who after is, ultimate constitu- tional executive repository assuring safety Nation, upon judgment whose the invocation of emergency provisions depends.
The petitioner next findings asserted made were insufficient as a matter of law to support the .District Court’s jurisdiction Conceding under 208. that peril to the national peril defense is to the national it safety, peril asserted that the safety which is made jurisdiction by element the court’s part (ii) of (a) § 208 must result from the substantial character of the effect upon an industry required by part (i), and that if it does not so result a District Court is without power to enjoin the stoppage any part of it. Alternatively, urged the jurisdiction which is conferred the sec- tion is limited against to relief such part of the total stoppage isas found to be the cause fact of peril. *9 Petitioner claimed that as matter fact of the procure- the ment embarrassments found courts the below were result not of the entire steel even stoppage of sub- stantial of part it, only closing but of a “handful” of hundreds of plants affected; and that therefore the entire industry-wide enjoined strike should not have been under either construction of 208 which asserted.
In first place, requisite against fact was found petitioner’s, contention. The Court Áppéals of found he steel industry is too vast and compli- too “[t] segmented” cated to be so as to existing alleviate the and foreseeable peril to the national defense mere' of a reopening plants. few It expressly upon relied affidavit Dr. Raymond Saulnier, J. Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers of Federal Government, before .was both lower courts. Dr. Saulnier stated that:
“Steel is produced through closely interrelated processes separated that often cannot be techni- cally or- economically production to allow ‘needed’ . . . omitting while ‘not items items ... satisfy order defense re- needed.’ ‘[I]n quirements from standpoint grade, size, alone product, and it would necessary reactivate 25 to 30 hot rolling together mills blast supporting furnaces, electric, and Bessemer, hearth and open vacuum-melting furnaces. Additional facilities for pickling, heat coating, treating, cold shear- finishing, ing, cutting, testing,' the like would also be required. reopen To plants these for products steel only requirements meet defense totally impracticable. problems would be The scheduling the tonnages involved, plus limited difficulty start-ups cost technical shut- ” downs would appear to be insurmountable.’ Court, as did this them, lower courts had before Nathan, the economist conflicting affidavit of Robert *10 fact was not bound to But the trier of the Steelworkers. petitioner’s weighty, of prefer arguments, the however against the views economist, estimable, as however advisers their economic in the land and highest officers necessary securing defense the for' regarding means materials. of finding the Court a refutation of
Nor was it of “needed” petitioher here, as did that Appeals suggest, to problem might opened purposes. facilities be for all in advance one of months self-evidently programming is for defense every specialized commodity purposes, needed of effort project would'require which itself months and obvious delays effort entail. Other such would basis' Upon less what difficulties are not formidable. assuming plants be be reopened chosen, would to plants of be determined? Accord- number could needed particular to what of ing standard would the regulated? probleriis of of of complexes plants What for required and the cost of and time overhead, cost of intra-company planning practicality to determine such giant complexes partially-restricting operation of major producers? as those of the normally charged is with No doubt a District Court of a decree duty independently details shaping simple sitting equity when controversies that involve factors, far less relatively is, few factors — less interrelated than in number, complicated less qualified But a. is not to devise the case us. court before industry an as to assure schemes the conduct of so necessary It securing defense materials. competent judgment existing sit on the distribution industry factors in the an integrated conduct of ascertain segmented whether can be view its pri- for the supply exclusively, reorganization or' even. marily, government-needed materials. Nor is it able readjust adequately to reweigh the forces of economic competition within the industry or to appraise the rele- vance of such forces in carrying out a program defense for the Government. Against assumptions all such competence, finding of the Court of Appeals was amply supported by the record.
Even without such a finding, however, petitioner’s contention would fail. There are controlling reasons for concluding that § 208 neither imposes upon the United States, as a condition for securing injunction, the bur- den establishing peril proceeds shown from the unavailability of á “substantial particular number” of facilities, nor limits the scope of the court’s injunctive process part to such of the total stoppage appears *11 be the cause in peril. fact of the
First, on its face § 208 states separate criteria, two both of which must be satisfied before injunction may against issue a strike, it states no other relationship between them than that both proceed must from “such strike.” No other relationship suggested is legis- history lative of these emergency provisions. is, There accordingly, no foundation for the drastic limitation on their scope which would be if imposed petitioner’s con- tention had been that a adopted, District Court is without jurisdiction unless the abstract quantitatively .substantial character of the effect of the stoppage is found to be the peril. cause fact of the legislative
The history confirms what the provisions themselves amply reveal, that this portion of Taft- Hartley'Act contains a dual purpose, on hand the.one alleviate, at least temporarily, threat to the national safety; health or and on the "other to promote settlement of the underlying dispute of industry-wide effect. The former purpose is to be accomplished by the injunction, whatever additional remedies the President command pursuance of the Congress grant-in
seek and the returned to Con- the matter be of 210 of the Act § full, in the event of report gress by the President with injunction period. . failure of settlement within accomplished by the command latter is to be purpose every effort to “make parties dispute 209 that § by the ballot differences”; secret adjust and settle their the last reference to by 209 with employees provided § action-by further finally by companies; offer of hold, To to 210. pursuant and Congress the President that a District Court alternatively urged, petitioner is stoppage which only part of the total may enjoin would at best peril, in fact of the be the cause shown to stulti- alleviating peril, while only purpose serve to effect settlement designed fying provisions underlying dispute. upon the Government evidentiary burdens
Second, the adoption of either have resulted from which would tend to by petitioner would urged of the constructions ex- of the Act. It designed effectiveness cripple the proportion strikes of tremely doubtful whether States be available United information would par- enable to show that a reasonable time to within- particular facil- placed were critical orders ticular States available; whether United longer ities no reorganiza- effect a theoretical time, could, within such program so as to demonstrate to procurement of its tion successfully it cannot be conducted -without a court that *12 particular reopening facilities. if narrowly, not to be construed as Finally, 208 is § led to the merely exception policies were an which in injunctions disputes the use of labor restrictions on (1932), 47 Stat. 70 Act, embodied the Norris-LaGuardia Totally policies 101-115. different led to §§ 29 U. S. C. provisions of emergency, of the national enactment provi- legislative history the 1947 The of these Act. replete sions is with evidence concern of both the proponents and the of the bill to opponents deal effec- tively large-scale, stoppages with work endanger which . public stop health or or safety. prevent public injury, To both and management brought labor were within injunctive scope were-subjected and both power, the command to every adjust “make and effort settle . .” preamble their differences . . § 209. The succinctly Act states purpose:
“Industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of commerce . .. . or can substan avoided tially if employers, minimized employees, labor organizations . recognize each . . above all under law that party any right neither has its relations any other engage acts or practices jeopardize public health, . safety, interest. . .” Labor Management Act, Relations (b), 61 § 136, 29 Stat. S. C. 141 (b). U. power Norris-LaGuardia Act had limited the injunctions
the federal courts employ to affect labor disputes. The purpose that Act was rigorously to define the conditions under which federal courts were empowered injunctions to issue in industrial controversies employers between employees, to devise procedure for safeguarding the intervention of the federal judiciary in the course of private litigation. It is not without significance this Act was found to de- prive a of jurisdiction federal court to issue at the behest of the operator. Government as industrial United States United Mine v. America, Workers Moreover, U. S. 258. preamble -as the to the Norris- indicated, Act LaGuardia policy formulation of statute made 1932 “under economic prevailing Congress conditions.” at different times and for different purposes may gauge the demands of “prevailing economic
54 differently
conditions” or with reference to considerations merely Congress outside “economic has conditions.” Here of must appraisal parties made the that the interests both Nation. overriding be subordinated to the interest of the are Mr. Brandéis The of following observations Justice apposite: I both
“Because have come to the conclusion that of a and a of the common law State statute right declare of com- United States industrial their to the limits of push struggle batants to I be un- justification do not wish to self-interest, of or moral attaching any derstood as constitutional from right. rights All are derived sanction to exist; above society they in which purposes community. condi- rights duty all rises to those industry may tions be such that developed without engaged struggle it cannot continue their judges But it is not for danger community. to the is it exist, whether nor to determine such conditions permissible contest their function tó set the limits situation and new to declare duties legislature This is function of the demands. rights limiting group individual which, while processes aggression defense, substitute justice the more method of trial primitive Deering, Press Duplex Printing Co. v. combat.” (1921) (dissent). S. U. designed machinery for provide
These sections were comprehensive interest the commu- safeguarding policy collective nity, promote national They must be full effect bargaining. give construed they protections to the seek to afford. statu- regard final contention with
Petitioner’s tory peril safety appears standard of must have been that the United States resort to other than this Act to meet peril modes relief the national part created in substantial stoppage industry, of an *14 peril can said to exist or be In such be threatened. befpre urged: (1) substance the petitioner that United States has powers 1950, under the Defense Act of Production 798, App. Stat. the of U. S. C. exercise which would, during the course of these proceedings, have even permitted to shortages it alleviate- the critical which in fact resulted or threatened to strike; result from the (2) that States failed to peti- United to reveal tioner plants might or to courts what have' been reopened peril as to so remove to national defense. already In light apparent of what have said, we it is of judicial neither these is relevant matters required by determination The remedy § 208. available to independent States these is provisions United under powers possessed by of other it and is encumbered by any upon burden it to seek to persuade or enable the defendants to effect a piecemeal alteration of conduct their jurisdiction. to avoid the court’s Because the District Court’s to peril of the- finding safety resulting national from impediments the-pro- to ' grams for national was defense itself to satisfy, sufficient the requirement (a)(ii), it is not necessary §208 to' determine perils whether defense scope exhaust of “safety”, statute, as used in this toor consider its find- ings regard peril to the national health.
Having decided that the strike one was a created emergency within the terms of the statute, next question whether, upon, finding alone, the injunction for “eighty-day” which the prayed Government issued, should have or whether the District Court was exercise conventional discretionary function of equity balancing conveniences as a. preliminary to injunction. an issuing petitioner The argued that under the Act a District has Court “discretion” whether
(cid:127)56 a national though even “eighty-day” injunction,
(cid:127)issue judge that the found. It district emergency argued such “discretion.” that he had case did hot consider exer- judge it that if the district did Alternatively, argued injunctive it, cise “-discretion” he abused broad he this case. granted justifiable relief was.not hindering contention that' the relief had the effect ' a dis- voluntary rather than settlement of promoting the. hundreds unnecessarily coercing of thousands pute, junction, only an in part small employees, when assertedly strike, non-injunctive remedies, o'r other available, have well equally and would drastic, less were do public safety. threat We not think averted the necessary upon the speculative to'embark consideration discretionary judge the district in fact made whether *15 if he that and, did, whether determination determination, justifiable. that under national conclude the We emergency Management of the Labor Relations provisions judges it is Act not for exercise “discre- conventional “eighty-day” injunction upon tion” to an a withhold balancing of conveniences.
“Discretionary”
given
is exercised
a
jurisdiction
when
injunctive remedy
policy
is not commanded as a matter of
a
by
judge-made
Congress,,
is,
but
of
as
presupposition
left
is
the
law,
judicial
discretion. Such
case
Congress
The purpose
expressed
under
statute.
of
ordinary equi
of this statute precludes
scheme
this,
In
table discretion.
we think the role of
respect
,
under
is
the District Courts
this statute
like the role
Appeals
provisions
under
Courts
for review
of.
of
them of the
various
agencies,
orders
administrative
Labor
such
the National
Relations Board.
C.
U. S.
has
if
(e). This Cour.t
held that
the Board’s find
§ 160
n
ings
sustained,
remedy
thought
are
it
appropriate
Assn.,
Dyeing
must be
Labor Board v.
enforced.
Bradford
In emergency provisions the Labor Management Act, Relations with Congress particu- has larity described duration of the to be granted and the of specific nature collateral administra- tive procedures which are to be set motion its upon issuance. think compelling We the conclusion that Con- has gress thereby manifested that District Court is not to its indulge judgment regarding own the wisdom Congress the relief has designed. Congress expressed its own judgment and did not it to a leave District Court. The statute legislative embodies a determination that the particular relief appropriate described is emer- when is it gency, Moreover, pri- one "found to exist. is a mary purpose of the to stop emergency Aet the national at if eighty least days, would be defeated court an injunction were left discretion to withhold thereby permit emergency has continuation of period found exist. The is hope that within injunction voluntary dispute settlement will labor be reached, and to bargaining that end the compels statute parties between the during voluntary that If no time. settlement period injunc- concluded within tion-; the report President is to so that Congress body may further draw upon legislative its constitutional powers. How else can specific these be viewed directions but procedures provided in the are, view Congress, way emergencies meet the which come *16 within.the statute? It is' a to negative not for court the direction of Congress because of its own confident prophecy “eighty-day” injunction the. ad- the procedures- ministrative upon which it will not follow. voluntary induce dispute, settlement of the or are too a way drastic dealing with it. are persuaded by
We also that, the fact before is statute invoked, there must be Presidential deter- that, mination the “eighty-day” injunction promis-' is the ing arising method for from dealing emergency dispute. labor that whenever provides Section “opinion” President of the that a strike lockout will create a national emergency, may appoint he a board inquiry, which report containing shall submit to him relating dispute positions facts and the of the parties it. Upon receiving report the President “may” direct the Attorney enjoin petition General the strike or is undoubtedly lockout. It of the factors one in the Attorney President’s decision to direct General act that he considers such-an the best avail- able course to emergency. relieve the Such decision the President jurisdiction invoke the courts’ to enjoin, does, as it involving, not susceptible ordinary elements judicial proof nor within general range judicial the' experience, is not competent within scope exercise of equitable “discretion.” It may be that assumptions on the basis of Congress legislated were, ill-founded or have been experience. invalidated It be that the considerations on the basis of which the President his exercised judgment invoking legis- lation will be wanting found by hindsight. These are not matters within the Court’s They concern. are not rele- vant to the construction of judicial § 208 nor to its They enforcement. certainly do not warrant the Judi- ciary’s intrusion into by Congress exercise and the President of their respective powers responsibilities.
The Hecht Bowles, Co. v. S. 321, heavily U. relied on, dealt with quite a different There situation. we held that the application of the Administrator of the Emergency Price Control ofAct 1942 for an injunction of violations of that Act might refused, in the exercise of the District Court’s “discretion.” But the scheme of statute Hecht v. Bowles was significantly different from that of the statute this case. The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 provided that the District
59 at the grant, Court should Administrator’s application, permanent temporary injunction, restraining “a or order, emphasized other order.” Court the alternative jThis an “other order” as im- provision character of for the withhold an parting to District Court discretion to injunction. Manage- 321 S.,U. at 328. Under the Labor given jurisdic- ment Relations Act the District Court is be enjoin tion to “and make such other orders appropriate.” thus ad- Congress provided jurisdiction ditional an not alterna- power grant injunction, to the in- may only tive to it: an supplement an “other order” junction, may Beyond it. this difference supplant Price Emergency are the considerations under the that, not, here, as it does 1942, an’injunction Control Act of did designed relief bring play carefully prescribed into other the which it was by Congress to alleviate the cause of evil the duration purpose correct, statute to nor was injunction specifically limited as this case. strong There in Hecht v. Bowles the not, therefore, has resolved Congress here that showing we have for the form of relief question appropriate Court statute is meant and the to-correct, condition the application there the Administrator’s concluded that juris- ordinary equity judicial appeal relief was In Hecht diction and “discretion” of the District Court. might that there recognized v. Bowles itself the Court agencies governing statutes administrative “other federal agencies take mandatory . . make it those . S., are to exist.” U. when facts shown action certain situation under In this describes the at 329. essence Act. Management Labor Relations finally petitioner’s to the ontention We come (a) of the Labor District -grant Courts enjoin jurisdiction to Management Relations Act of “judicial Power” grant is not a strikes such as this one Constitution, Ill, 2,§ of Art. meaning within beyond power Congress and was therefore confer on the District are proceedings Courts. What “Cases” *18 “judicial and “Controversies” and thus within the Power” by proceedings is to be at the what determined, least, were at of recognized the time the Constitution be tradi- English of tionally power within courts and systems. by they American Both what said judicial by they and implied, Judiciary what the framers.of them, merely Article gave outlines what were operations judicial system the familiar of the English its this manifestations on side of the ocean before the powfer play only Union. Judicial could come into matters as such were traditional concern of the courts only they at if ways Westminster arose in that “Cases”, expert to1 the feel lawyers constituted “Controversies.”
.
at
Beginning
early
least as
century
as
sixteenth
the English courts have
injunctions
public
issued
to abate
Case,
nuisances. Bond’s
238 (1587); Jacob Hall’s
Moore
Case, 1
1
169,
(1671);
King
Ventris
Mod. 76
The
v. Bet
terton,
Baker,
5 Mod.
3
(1696); Baines v.
Atk. 750,
142
1
Mayor
Bolt,
Amb.
(1752);
158
5
London v.
Ves.
129 (1799). See also Eden, Injunctions (3d
ed. 1852),
II, 259; Blackstone,
Vol.
(12th
Commentaries
ed. 1795),
old,
Vol.
166.
IV,
This
settled law was summarized in
by
1836
the Lord Chancellor in the statement
that “the
Court of
Exchequer, well as this
as a
Court, acting
court
well,
has a
equity,
established
jurisdiction, upon
pro
’
by
ceeding
way of
to prevent
information,
nuisances
public
harbours and public roads;
and,-
short,
prevent
generally,
public
Attorney-Gen
nuisances.”
v, Forbes,
eral
2 M.
years
& C.
133.
123,
And two
later
that,
recognized-
Court
“it is now settled,
a court
of equity may take jurisdiction in cases
public
nuisance,
by
information filed
the attorney general.” George
town v.
Co.,
Alexandria Canal.
N.W. 672 The jurisdiction given the by (a) .. District Courts § 208 Management Labor Relations enjoin Act to strikes creating national emergency a jurisdiction is of a kind that has traditionally been public exercised over nuisances. The criterion for judicial peril to health or action — safety much like upon those ordinarily which courts —is Injunctive have acted. relief traditionally given by is equity upon a showing of such and the as peril, court, was traditional, acts at request of the Executive. There can therefore be no that, doubt akin being jurisdic- thus long historically exercised,
tion the function to be per- (a) District under is formed Courts within “judicial contemplated by Power” as Art. Ill, 2,§ Congress may upon and is one which confer 'the thus surely courts. It not touch the criteria does for deter- “judicial is mining what Power” a permanent one, longer be issued last no days. than eighty power Congress Given the to vest enjoin in the federal absolutely, courts function power granted of' the change does not the character professional competence of a court for undermine Congress its exercise that has directed the relief to be tempered. controlling
These constitutional considerations were to be abstract sought petitioner through diverted discussion about the necessity Congress legal to define rights power Congress and duties. The to deal with public interest does not derive nor is it limited from, as by, rights' parties. Congress may and duties between enforce impose obligations duties-and to the Nation as it has so whole, obviously Manage- as done the Labor congressional ment Relations Act. Such is not to power to a juristic be subordinated sterile dialectic. Douglas,
Mr.' Justice dissenting. like this cases, one, charged impor- Great are so tance and feeling that, Mr. Justice Holmes once *20 (Northern States, Securities Co. v. United remarked 193 197, 400-401, U. S. dissenting opinion), they apt are generate law. need, therefore, bad We to stick closely to the letter of the law we enforce in order to this keep con- from, troversy being shaped by the intense interest which public rightfully the has in it. The which Con- statute, gress authority guarded pass, speaks had in narrow Management terms. of the Labor Relations Section gives § Act, 155, 176, 61 Stat. 29 U. S. C. power inquiry the aid of a of President invoke board opinion that a whenever he is strike or lockout will imperil safety.” national health President, “the or appointing inquiry in in stated: case, board of percent
“The strike has of the nation’s' closed supplies shutting practically mills, steel off all new Over steel and about 500,000 steel. workers together in 200,000 industries, workers related deprived families, their of their usual have been support. supplies means of steel are low and Present resumption production require will of,full-scale (cid:127) production quickly If some is resumed, weeks. upon economy endanger
severe effects will health of the nation.” economic plain It the President construed the word public well-being “health” to include the material or wel- Attorney fare of the Nation. When General moved under an 208 for in the District .Court based opinion on the and the President conclusions inquiry, challenged board union the conclusionthat safety” imperiled, “the health national as those words are used Act. The District Court found otherwise,-stating ways five would, which the strike if permitted imperil continue, “the health safety”:
“(a) required top priority Certain items of steel military programs missile of the United States are by any operating, not made mill now nor available any inventory imports. Any from delay fromor further resumption of steel would result supply in irretrievable loss time in *21 defense to thé national systems essential weapons and its allies. States plans of the United space activities planned program “(b) of the National Aeronautics under the direction delayed by has been strike Space Administration Spe- if it delayed further is continued. and will be the nation’s manned project MERCURY, cifically, national highest which has the program, satellite delay in con- priority, delayed has been reason operation. its buildings essential struction important security This program planned space programs will be de- nation. Other delay by a layed or threatened with continuation of the strike.
“(c) Nuelear Submarines and the shipbuild- naval ing program than new submarines, including other construction, modernization, have conversion, inability been affected reason of the to secure boilers, compressors, component and other parts re- quiring industry steel. Products of steel are the. indispensable to the manufacture of such items and delay irreparably injure their will imperil safety. national defense and the national “(d) Exported products sup- steel are vital to the port of the bases and for the United States overseas use of allies similar security NATO collective groups. strike, permitted continue, The steel if seriously impair programs, imperiling will these thus safety. “(e) A continuation of the strike will have the adversely ultimate effect of affecting millions of small business enterprises, directly almost all of are or indirectly dependent upon products steel and most of which lack the resources to stock large inventories. In addition, it will have the of idling effect millions of workers and a large proportion facilities *22 industries dependent upon steel for their continued operation. Manufacturing directly industries' de- pendent on mill products steel account for the em- ployment of approximately 6,000,000 workers and normal annual wages and totalling approxi- salaries mately $34,000,000,000; The products these in- dustries are at valued over- $125,000,000,000. The health,will imperiled be if the strike is per- mitted to continue.”
Here again it is obvious that “national health” was construed to include the well-being general economic or welfare of the country. The of Appeals, Court in sus taining the was injunction, apparently of the same view. This seems me to be an assumption that is unwar ranted. I’ think Congress, that when used the words “national health,” was safeguarding heating homes, the delivery of milk, protection and the hospitals, like. The industry, closely coal physical identified health of people, industry was the in paramount the de on bates this measure. The industry coal is indeed cited on the Senate in side illustration of the need for the Rep. 105, measure. S. No. 1st Cong., Sess., p. 80th 14. There were those in go who wanted to far so Senate as to strikes “in utilities key outlaw Nation-wide in protect industries” “public order to' welfare.” 93 Cong. A1035. was, indeed, Rec. Reference made to strikes industries “like among coal or steel” those to be barred in “the public interest.” Ibid. But did not go Senate that far. The only Senate bill reached peril where there situations health “national 1 safety.” The House bill went further and included cases where was peril public health, safety, there to “the
1Legislative History Management Act, of the Labor Relations (G. 1948), I, pp. P. O. Yol. 276. its version prevailed, view
or interest.”2 Senate light is thrown by the Some being adopted Conference.3 two between those standards —if on the wide difference the fol- in their usual to be taken words are sense — House: lowing colloquy on the floor country I that believe “Mr. KENNEDY.. in a a strike certainly position combat should people. safety affects the health and I have the the President must Therefore, feel stop strikes. I am power step those everything bill, in this position opposing wrong. things but are certain the bill that are there going I the President to have the not see how do affect power stop strikes that will the health *23 in under listed safety people procedure the the. I he have power.. section 203. think must that agree you any providing “I that .bill carefully the injunction position should consider striking rights the and sure that their union make n in are I think that those cases Federal protected. dispute perhaps until is settled seizure would in manner. equalize possible burden the fairest gentleman “Mr. not admit OWENS. Will have third word there? It ‘interest.’ that we is not use instead Could we better the word ‘welfare’ . in the ‘interest,’ because the word ‘welfare’ occurs just is as broad as ‘inter- Constitution? It word practical. est’ and more “Mr. KENNEDY. two proposal embraces -the separate things, safety. health and Because my is these remedy two, opinion, drastic are suffi- I apply remedy cient. we should when believe 2Legislative History, I, sufra, 1, pp. Yol. 214-215. Note 3 Rep. p. 510, Cong., Sess., H. R. 80th 1st Conf. No. 64. 4 Cong, Rec.- 3513. safety, the strike affects health or but not welfare interest, anything. mean I would (cid:127) not in an interfere automobile strike because while
perhaps that affects national does not interest, safety. affect health and
“Mr. gentleman agree, OWENS. Does stronger ‘welfare' and in line with the idea? President’s ' “Mr. ‘in- KENNEDY.. No. Both ‘welfare’ They terest’ are too indefinite. anything. could cover I apply except not have the law cases where would the strike affected health and safety.” gives read into “health” that word such “welfare” To a vast do it 'only reach that we should under the most , compelling necessity. must of the his We be mindful Debs, 158 re tory, legislation. 564, behind this U. S. In 584, easy precedent stands as ominous for the use of the Free-wheeling Attorneys in labor disputes. General used obtain compelling public, demands to help of protests eourts of labor. The stilling against practice revulsion and it led ulti deep, mately Act, enactment Norris-LaGuardia 47 Stat. 29 U. S. deal, course, C. 101.5 We with a § later Congress pro by. (b) and an Act that sets aside
5 For injunctions discussion of the abusive use in labor blanket controversies, Allen, Injunction Organized Labor, see 28 Am. L. *24 828; Chafee, Inquiring Mind, p. 198; Dunbar, Rev. The Government Q. Injunction, 347; Frey, Injunction: 13 Rev. The Labor An L. Exposition Menace; of Government and its Judicial Conscience Lane, Virginia; Pepper, Injunctions Civil War in West in Labor Disputes, Rep. 174; Royce, Labor, 49 A. B. The Federal Anti- A. Laws, Court, L. Q. Trust Supreme 19; 5 N. Y. U. Rev. Stimson, Q. Injunctions, The Modern 10 189. Pol. Sci. Use Congress On the Norris-LaGuardia Act and what intended to by it, Norris, Injunctions Disputes, Marq. abolish see in Labor 16 L. 157; Rev. Witte, Anti-Injunction Act, The Federal 16 Minn. L. Rev. 638. Congress has created Con-
tanto the earlier Act. What But should hesitate to conclude refashion. we gress can of the meant to restore the use Congress broad all-inclusive whenever that disputes in labor welfare, impaired. The words concept public much safety” or narrower. health used —“national —are , speak how to when in the Act knew Congress same in policy all-inclusively. spoke it declaration in Act, 1947, Management speaks Relations the Labor (b) is a declaration There broad terms. any any its relations with right has párty “neither practices jeopardize or which engage other to acts interest.” 61 Stat. 136. The public safety, health, or of a . . . interest” cover five titles “public words far-. Yet, Congress measure. when came reaching regulatory in- jurisdiction of courts to intervene strikes to define the , confining in more restricted lockouts, spoke terms, injunctions' judiciary impending where there is peril safety.” to “the national health or That narrow only reading is, indeed, squared oné that can be explanation an-injunction Taft’s of the use of Senator ' strike, only a strike situation. The he must not said, substantially industry,” (cid:127)affect “an it must also entire “imperil safety, health or condition which, if anticipated, Yet, it is will often-occur.”6 “national 6 Cong. Rec. 6860. said in like
Senator Smith vein: provide “Furthermore in title II bill we for the extreme- of.the paralysis. industry-wide cases which threaten national To meet an injury stoppage of some kind cause health or safety 140,000,000 people, transportation strike, such as a or a up machinery strike, special set coal we have which will enable the Attorney General, initiative, petition on his own the courts to walk-out, prevent either a shut-down or a until the mediation 93.Cong. processes had time to function.” Rec. 4281. have *25 injunctions public welfare, health” includes the will issue any important industry whenever is involved—whether any group it be steel or automobiles or coalor of industries agreements where one union makes collective for each componént of the unions. judicial is
It fact of which we can take notice that great steel in its broadest reach have a impact Machinery processing on “national health.” for hospitals require surgical needed; food is instruments; refrigeration dependent steel; is on. and so Whether on shortages imperil there are such the “national health” is not this record. shown But unless these particularized findings are made no case can be made out founding injunction impending peril on “national health.”
Nor this broad when it is can sustained solely safety.” on rested “national The heart Dis- of the ' finding phase this, trict Court’s on of the case is in its required top priority statement, “Certain items of steel military programs 'missile are United States by any operating, any made mill now from available nor inventory imports.” findings, already or from Its other quoted, generalized. are also One find in cannot type quantity record the or of the steef needed for defense, plants products pro- the name of the at which those are plants duced, or the number or the names of the that will reopened military have to be to fill need. We do years ending know that for one and a half in mid-1959 shipments purposes of steel for defense accounted for shipments less than of all the from all the steel mills. 1% produce If 1,000 men, or 5,000 10,000 men can men, departments the critical amount the defense what need, authority is there 500,000 to send men back to work?
There can be no' that the steel strike affects doubt portion industry. “substantial” Hence the first re- But we (a) of 208 of the Act satisfied.7 quirement *26 production a fraction of the of only do know that do industry know, to defense needs. not goes struck We industry necessary of the is to however, what fraction portion.8 knowledge that produce that Without fashioning of a decree that incapable District Court is protect the national and still safeguard “safety,” will rights reopening a selective of a few mills labor. Will adequate be to meet defense needs? Which mills are solely these? it be to them for practical reopen Would purposes they reopened defense or would have to be for purposes all civilian as well? This seems to me to be necessary is type inquiry before a decree can all safeguard rights parties. be entered that will (a) gives “jurisdiction Section 208 the District Court to enjoin” the strike. There is no command that it shall enjoin only of the strikers when or or 100% 1% 5% engaged imperil of them are acts that the national 10% “safety.” dealing equity practice are here with We years history has several hundred behind it. We can- lightly Congress assume that intended to make the (a) provides: Section 208 “Upon receiving report inquiry from a board of the President may Attorney any petition direct General district court of having jurisdiction parties enjoin the United States such continuing thereof, strike or lock-out or the and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out—
“(i) industry part engaged affects an entire of a substantial thereof trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among foreign engaged nations, the several or with or States production goods commerce; for “ (ii) permitted continue, imperil if or to occur will the national safety, jurisdiction enjoin any health or it shall have such strike continuing lock-out, thereof, or the and to make such other orders appropriate.” shows, statement, supra, as does the President’s record accounting mills for at least Nation’s steel 15%- operation are unaffected the strike. are still in judiciary federal a rubber stamp the President. His findings are and I great weight, along entitled with my Brethren insofar accept “safety” them as national concerned. But it is the court, not the that is President, entrusted III shape Article of the Constitution to fashion the decree.' If a federal court is to do it must it, act in its traditional not as a manner, military commander ordering people willy-nilly, to work nor as the President’s Administrative Assistant. If the court is to be .federal an merely stamping' automaton an papers Attorney General presents, judicial higher function rises to no level than IBM Those grew up machine. who equity and know its great history should never tolerate that mechanical conception.
An appeal to the equity jurisdiction of the Federal District Court is an appeal to its sound discretion. One historic feature of equity the molding of decrees fit the requirements of-particular cases. See Brown v. Board Education, 349 294, U. S. Equity 300. decrees are not like the packaged goods this machine age produces. They are only uniform they seek to do equity in a given case.9 should We hesitate long before we
9Equity has contrived its always remedies and preserved has flexibility elements of expansiveness may so that new ones invented, or modified, old ones requirements every’ meet the ease. Union Chicago, R. Co. v. Co., R. I. P.& R. S.U. Pacific 564, 601. And thé extent may grant to which the Court or with aid, its hold and the molding manner of its remedies be affected public interest involved. Morgan, United States v. 307 U. S. 183, 194; Exchange Securities & Comm’n Realty v. United States Co., 434, 310 U. S. 455. There is in variety fact no limit to the equitable applied remedies which can be to the circumstances of a particular Pomeroy’s Equity (5th case. 1 Jurisprudence ed.) 109. § equity may, by An court term, trial for a just limited determine required how much relief is situation, to meet the thereby avoid unnecessary any hardship parties. of the Equity McClintock on ed.) (2d 30; Pomeroy, supra, principle 116. This Has been §§ applied by g.,' times, Court several e. injunction where an was Congress injunction
conclude that
intended an
to issue
against
inactivity
when
500,000
only 5,000
workers
10,000
the total
imperils
“safety.”
of.
That
sharp
would be too
break with traditional equity
practice for us to
unless
accept,
statutory
mandate
were
unambiguous.
clear and
In situations no more
clouded with doubt than the present one we have refused
statutory
to read a
authority to issue a decree as a com
Bowles,
mand
it. Hecht
to. do
Co. v.
Plainly authority there is District pro- the Court to “safety” tect injunction. the national issuance of an But there is in this nothing record to sustain the conclu- .sion that it is to send men necessary 500,000 back work to give the defense all steel it department the needs for the “safety.” Nation’s If more men sent back work are than necessary are needs of country, fill defense other objectives being are served those specified than objectives? statute. What are What these.other right serving authority do courts have in them? do What place we great weight have to of this on the labor, byit backs when great bulk of those affected nothing goods necessary have to do for' “safety” Nation’s in the sense word? military of that injunctions long cudgels Labor were used as broad —so scope,. so in application indiscriminate as to be once “a curbing dubbed ‘scarecrow’ device for the economic pressure strike.” See Frankfurter and The Greene, Injunction Labor (1930), pp. 107-108. The evils crop of up that grew during regimes those in some different respects from those generated by prob- this decree. The lems of vagueness, uncertainty, judicial detailed supervision that made police equity courts out courts present are not here. But the same indiscriminate level- ing of those within and those is present: without law injunction applies all the force of Federal Gov- against men nothing ernment whose work has to do with military inactivity as against defense well those whose imperils safety.” the “national It is confined precise at present evil which the isAct aimed. Like the injunctions old labor brought discredit to federal *29 74 injunction this is blanket broad all-inclu
judiciary work scope within its men whose has noth sive, bringing defense of the ing whatsoever to do with the needs Nation. to use statutory has, of the Being wide standard injunc all Brandéis, words of Mr. Justice the vices mili-, active, tion is used property which “to endow with tarit which make it power would dominant over men.” v. Corrigan, See Truax 257 U. S. 312, 354, (dissenting I opinion). cannot that Congress Believe intended the courts, injunctions federal bludgeon issue all merely workers because the labor few them is in interest “national safety.” needed goes Labor back to under present injunction work the. on terms dictated industry, not on terms that have been fair industry.' found and to labor The steel industry exploits'a advantage: tremendous produce steel mills
“Our can months all nine the country metal use in a year. can That means a three-month- strike the companies nothing coste annual sales, picks up Sam Uncle tab for the. half their out-of-pocket strike losses the form .of adjustments., of eventual tax industry’s “The any final insurance against acute pinch financial certainty that the President will step have emergency a.national the Taft-Hartley under Act stockpiles whenever steel shrink, to the dariger level. This takes much of the bite out the union’s on pocketbooks assault producers.”10 the steel
This is a matter equity should take into consid- eration. For a chancellor sits do equity. years ago
Some struck Court down unconstitu- tional state making statutes arbitration labor disputes
10Raskin, To Wrong, Prove Karl Marx Was Magazine, N. Y. Times 25, 1959, pp. 12, Oct. 84. Court, 522; Co. v. Industrial
mandatory. U. S. Wolff *30 that, Kansas, Dorchy v. S. 286. Those cases U. held compulsory arbitration violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One only guess can adjudication what institutions of might we have in this today experiment had that given field been a chance. experiment, however, survive, The did not and we have had experience little with it.11 Collective bargaining today mediation are the norm, except for the period of time in injunction which an is in By force. the terms of 209, however,.any injunction.rendered may not con longer days. tinue than 80 permits The Act thus injunction in narrowly restricted duration and confined by requirements of the “national health safety.” or we uphold When this we force men back to work when inactivity their has no relation to “national safety.” health or Those whose inactivity produces the peril to “national health safety” which the guards Act against only those should in injunc be covered tion. The rest —who are the majority vast 500,000 on strike —should be treated as employers are treated. They should continue under the regime of collective bargaining and mediation until they settle their dif ferences or' until Congress provides different or broader
11 was Rep. stated in S. No. Cong., 80th Sess., pp. 13-14, It. 1st machinery reference to the new settling disputes: labor exigencies “Under the of war the Nation did utilize what amounted compulsory through arbitration instrumentality of the War Labor system, however, Board. This emphasize unduly tended to the role Government, employers and under it and labor organizations solving tended to avoid by their free col- difficulties bargaining. lective It is difficult to system see how .such could af operated be compelling .without to make indefinitely Government decisions on jssues which in normal times should’bfesolved economic play théTíee' 'of economic Dishman, forces:” And see The Public Emergency Interest Labor Disputes, 45 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1100 (1951). assume all the steelworkers are
remedies. When we that only producing steel for defense when truth fraction óf those are, fulfilling them we are the dreams of who sponsored the bill in their House efforts have failed Congress legislate broadly. so
Though it unlikely, possible is that, had District consideration, given Court the problem the it de- it serves, only could have found that to- way remove peril safety caused the strike was to issue the injunction. blanket It broad, would be found impractical only part to send of the steel- workers back to case, work. record however, devoid position.12 evidence sustain that Further- there is more, no indication that the District Court *31 ever even possibility. considered such a I unwilling am to judicial take notice that it requires of the workers 100% produce to the steel needed for national defense when of the output is devoted purposes entirely to uncon- 99% projects. with defense nected The of under trier fact our judicial-system federal the District Court —not this Court nor' the of Ap- Court peals. No finding by was made the District Court on feasibility of a limited reopening of the steel mills and not, as the concurring opinion is. suggests, province of the of Appeals Court to resolve conflicts the evidence-that before was the District Court.
I would reverse this decree and remand the cause to the District Court particularized for findings13 toas how the
12 opinion Such an by was stated in an affidavit the Chairman of Advisers; of only. Council Economic but that is conclusional There been sifting has no of the facts to determine whether defense practical be needs can sending satisfied means short of all men back to work. 'particularized findings necessary The are illustrated those in Steelworkers, States v. 202 F. 134: United 2d “At plant company its Dunkirk engaged then in commerce goods production and in the commerce, for primarily of in the ‘heat imperils steel strike the “national health” and plants what reopened need to produce the small quantity of steel (cid:127) for “safety.”14 now needed the national There also would be open inquiry for findings any questions pertaining to “national health” in the sense in narrow Act uses those words.
exchanger, pressure prefabricated vessel and pipe industry’; threatened all, strike would not have affected or a part, substantial industry. of that major- A part plant’s of the production Dunkirk carry was to out company contracts the Energy had the Atomic prime Commission specialized and certain of its contractors to furnish articles completion which were essential of the Commission’s program produce for construction of facilities needed atomic bombs for the exchanger national defense. These were essential articles heat production heavy shells used in 'the operate- of water needed . capable gas nuclear producing reactors materials, fissionable con- verter assemblies.and other critical items all which could have only potential been obtained elsewhere after other sources had been equipped produce would, Resort them. to other sources conse- quently, delay correspondingly set have involved months back program construction of the'Commission weapons fissionable materials and atomic vital national defense. part threatened strike have affected substantial of the would industry imperiled weapon the national atomic and would have safety.” involve, “safety” exampié, for the need The factor well replacement equipment on An railroad trains. affidavit Secretary of Commerce states': *32 continuing availability supplies
“The of most these steel is vital safety, they production to the health are for nation’s and used as personal including surgical heating necessities, instruments, refrigeration equipment, preparation and articles used transportation, preservation food. is also to the Steel essential light power, provision and transmission of services, mining sanitation and in the construction and industries.” argument But the that neither that Government oral conceded “safety” “safety” aspect any aspect apart from mili- nor other . tary presented by findings record, since there are no defense is showing purposes may those the extent to inventories for other supply. be in short