of the significance of the infiltration. If evidence existed in any individual case of conscious furtherance of Communist aims, denial or revocation of security clearance and discharge, was clearly required. In the absence of such evidence, other remedies were indicated-as a minimum that workers be enlightened as to the fact of infiltration and its significance, and that AEC contractors decline to deal with unions determined by AEC to represent security risk because of the questionable loyalty of union officers.

It was believed that if atomic-energy workers were aware that a union was foreclosed from acting as bargaining representative because of loyalty questions relating to its officials, and further were aware of the significance of Communist infiltration and also of their ability to secure representation through noninfiltrated unions, such employees would voluntarily sever their relations with the infiltrated organization. The possibility that adoption of such a policy might have certain immediate repercussions was considered, including the possibility of a strike over the issue. It was decided, however, that this risk should be taken and that unless UE officials acted to clear up the question which existed as to their loyalty, positive and definite written instruction should be issued to General Electric forbidding recognition or continuance thereof of the UE on loyalty grounds.

In the meantime two other developments occurred which are pertinent here: (1) In June the NLRB found a separate unit appropriate for journeymen pipefitters employed by GE at the Government atomicenergy locations. This was viewed as a precedent for eventual separation of all segregated atomic work from the Schenectady area unit previously certified for all GE plants. (2) The company guards assigned to atomic-energy operations, whose inclusion under the UE contract had been a matter of considerable concern to the Commission, were excluded from UE representation by unilateral action of General Electric effective April 1. This action was taken pursuant to the guard provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act and at the express request of the Commission.

By September some of the permanent structures at the new KAPL site were nearing completion and preparations for transfer of some of the atomic energy work to the permanent location were under way. On September 27, 1948, the AEC addressed a letter to General Electric directing that the company not recognize the UE as bargaining representative for employees at the new Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. Since the new laboratory was not yet in operation, the effect of this instruction was to maintain the status quo (i. e., not allow the UE to extend its representation to the new installation) unless the question of loyalty involving UE officers was resolved. Concurrently, the Commission opened up to atomic energy employees throughout the program the opportunity for representation by unions in respect to which loyalty questions did not exist.

General Electric promptly advised the Commission in a letter dated September 28 of its willingness to comply fully with the Commission's instructions regarding nonrecognition of UE at the Knolls Labora tory. Two days later, on September 30, UE International President Albert Fitzgerald filed a letter of protest demanding that the Com mission withdraw its instructions to General Electric. Responding to Mr. Fitzgerald on October 6, the Commission reviewed its reasons

for issuing the instruction and proffered to the officers of the UE the opportunity to participate in a fuller exploration of the issue, with the understanding that the UE officials would be expected to give full and candid statements concerning present or past affiliations of any kind with the Communist Party or Communist-dominated organizations. When no reply to this letter had been received by October 22, the Commission addressed another letter to Mr. Fitzgerald summarizing developments and again proffering to UE officials the opportunity to explore the loyalty issue with the Commission. The Commission released the text of this letter to the public the same day and instructed General Electric to place a copy of the letter in the hands of each employee at the Government atomic energy plants at Schenectady. On October 26, 1948, Mr. Fitzgerald rejected the Commission's offer to participate in further exploration of the loyalty question concerning the UE officers. On November 1 the Commission directed the General Electric Company to

withdraw and withhold recognition from the UE in respect to any employees of General Electric Co. engaged on work at AEC-owned or AEC-leased installations in the Schenectady area or engaged on atomic work which is defined as classified by the AEC and being performed by the General Electric Co.

The September 27 instruction to General Electric and GE's acceptance thereof at least temporarily had banned UE from representation at the new Knolls Laboratory. The instruction of November 1 continued this ban and also required the Company to withdraw and withhold recognition from UE in respect to other General Electric employees performing AEC work in the Schenectady area. This included employees at the Peek Street location and several smaller locations at which atomic energy work was currently being performed. General Electric immediately notified UE and the employees accordingly, and UE has not acted as bargaining agent for any employees on the atomic-energy projects at Schenectady since that date. The Commission's letter of September 27 to General Electric and ensuing correspondence with the company and with the United Electrical Workers is reproduced in appendix 9 of the Commission's Fifth Seminannual Report issued in January 1949, a copy of which is at

tached herewith.

The UE on October 26, 1948, filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a bill of complaint (Civil No. 4427-48) against the AEC and the General Electric Co. asking for an injunction ordering the Commission to revoke its instructions to the General Electric Co., and for a permanent injunction restraining the Commission, among other things, from "in any way interfering with, or in any way causing or inducing a breach of the national contract between the General Electric Co. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America;" from "in any way interfering with, modifying, nullifying, or in any way affecting the existing certification of UE Local 301 as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees at the Schenectady plant of the General Electric Co.;” and for damages "in the sum approximately of 1 million."

On November 26, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the UE's complaint. On the same day General Electric filed a similar motion, taking the position, in substance, that as the Commission's contractor it had been their duty to comply forthwith with

93039-52-pt. 2-2

the security instructions issued by the Commission. These motions were argued on March 24 and 25, 1949. On April 25, 1949, Judge Letts of the district court sustained both motions to dismiss for the following reasons:

The action of AEC of which the plaintiffs complained was authorized by the Atomic Energy Act; the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the act in that the complaint seeks to control executive action committed by law to the discretion of the AEC, and this court will not interefere with the exercise of such discretion; the complaint contains no sufficient allegation that the action of the AEC, complained of, was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; no substantial constitutional question is presented; the Administrative Procedure Act is not applicable to the case. (Informal memorandumunpublished.)

The formal order dismissing the UE complaint was issued by the court May 5, 1949. This order was appealed by the UE on May 27, 1949 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Subsequently, the UE obtained several extensions of time to file their appeal brief. Ultimately, however, on August 17, 1950, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation filed by the UE and the Department of Justice. Copies of the complaint filed by UE and the motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Department of Justice are enclosed with this letter.

Concurrently with its action against UE, the Commission acted to exclude the United Public Workers, CIO, from possible recognition as the representative of certain employees of the Argonne National Laboratory at Chicago. UPW Local 210 was at that time engaged in organizational activities at Argonne. As in the case of UE, information was available concerning alleged Communist affiliation or associa tions of important officers of the United Public Workers. In view of these circumstances, the Commission on September 27, 1948, addressed a letter to the University of Chicago, as the contractor for Argonne, directing the university "to continue to refrain from recognition" of the United Public Workers at Argonne National Laboratory. UPW's organizational activities at Argonne ceased upon announcement by AEC of this order. The Commission's letter of September 27, 1948, to Mr. W. B. Harrell, business manager of the University of Chicago, is reproduced in appendix 9 of the attached semiannual report. UPW was later expelled from the CIO on charges of Communist domination (Communist Domination of Certain Unions, S. Doc. 89, 82d Cong., 1st sess.).

Not mentioned in the above chronology, but pertinent to any evalua tion of the measures taken in the UE case, are the following develop ments: The nonrecognition orders of September 27 and November 1, 1948, were accepted without incident by atomic energy workers at Schenectady. The KAPL employees remained without representation until May 1950, when NLRB elections were held throughout the General Electric Co. including three units of the KAPL operations. In the meantime the UE had walked out of the CIO convention at Cleveland in November 1949, in the face of an expulsion resolution, which was adopted by vote of the convention delegates the day follow. ing the walk-out (resolution No. 58, Proceedings of the Eleventh Constitutional Convention, CIO). Shortly thereafter the UE's juris diction was given to a new CIO union, the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers (IUE). In the meantime, also.

the officers of UE had filed non-Communist affidavits with NLRB and the UE thereby secured access to NLRB procedures.

Both UE and IUE were placed on the ballot by NLRB for the KAPL elections of May 1950. In the production and maintenance unit, out of 411 eligible voters, 284 employees voted for IUE, 30 voted for UE, and 26 for "no union." In the tool and diemakers unit (41 eligibles), 35 voted for the International Association of Machinists, 2 voted for UE, none voted for IUE. In the truck drivers' unit (21) eligibles), 17 voted for the Teamsters Union (A. F. of L.), 1 voted for UE, none for IUE.

In its decision of April 26, 1950, defining the bargaining units for the GE elections of May 1950 (89 N. L. R. B. 726), the National Labor Relations Board conditioned any certifications that might issue at KAPL as follows:

The record shows that the Atomic Energy Commission has established certain security requirements applicable to labor organizations, and to their officers, as a condition of their being recognized as the representative of employees at the employer's atomic energy operations at the Schenectady works. We have been advised generally by that Commission of the scope and purpose of these security requirements. Accordingly, any certification resulting from elections herein directed on behalf of employees of the atomic energy operations will be conditioned upon compliance, by the certified unions, with the security requirements of the Atomic Energy Commission, a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of that Commission. [Italics supplied.]

The Board has since adopted the policy of inserting the security proviso, italicized above, în certifications of bargaining representatives, at atomic energy installations as requested by AEC.

AEC security policies and practices in the area of collective bargaining developed over the period since 1947 were codified in a General Manager's bulletin issued in May 1951. The substance of this bulletin was published in the Federal Register for September 17, 1951. Copies of this publication are enclosed.

We are not able at this time to suggest any specific approach for legislation of general applicability nor to offer principles or statutory language which ought to be embodied in any legislation of this type. We have outlined our own AEC experience rather fully above in the hope that this will be of some help to you, particularly as regards posible avenues for further study or inquiry. In this connection, the mportant elements in our action against the United Electrical Workers may be summarized as follows:

(1) The action represented a particularized approach to a particuar problem and was fitted to the specific facts of the situation.

(2) There was a decision by the responsible Government agency hat the risk in the particular situation was inconsistent with national security and that positive steps were required to eliminate this risk. (3) An essential step was to provide to employees and the public uthoritative information regarding the question of loyalty which existed in the specific situation and authoritative advice regarding he significance of this in terms of

(a) Known Communist aims and purposes in the infiltration of trade-unions.

(b) The importance to the national security of the work carried on in the specific bargaining unit.

(4) Specific assurance was given to employees as to the welcome to be accorded any bargaining representative that they might select which was free from Communist affiliations.

(5) The union officials involved were given every opportunity to be heard in their own defense.

Also of significance is the bearing of such action on the union's access to NLRB unfair labor practice processes.

If we can be of any further assistance to your committee in its inquiry into this problem please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely yours,

Enclosures:

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,
GORDON DEAN, Chairman.

1. Fifth Semiannual Report of the AEC.

2. AEC Security Policies and Practices Relating to Labor-Management Relations (Federal Register).

3. UE Bill of Complaint.

4. Motion to Dismiss Complaint.