Special Message to the Congress on the Labor Dispute at Oak Ridge.

To the Congress of the United States:

Pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, it is my duty to report to the Congress concerning the labor dispute which recently existed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The important facts concerning the dispute may be summarized as follows:

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is Government-owned. Some 2,350 persons are there engaged in important atomic energy research, but not directly in production of fissionable materials or weapons.

The dispute was between the Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, and the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The Corporation operates the Laboratory under a cost plus fixed-fee contract with the Atomic Energy Commission. The Corporation also operates two other important plants of the atomic energy installation at Oak Ridge. The Council represents some 900 employees who perform maintenance, operating and service functions at the Laboratory.

The recent dispute resulted from the failure of negotiations concerning both wages and working conditions. These negotiations were begun with the predecessor contractor in the latter part of November 1947 and continued with Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation beginning February 9, 1948.

It is clear that there was a difference in objectives sought by the Council and the Corporation. On the one hand, the Council desired to preserve differentials over the two nearby atomic energy plants as to wage rates and conditions of employment--differentials which have been in existence in the Laboratory since its beginning. On the other hand, the Corporation desired uniformity of wage rates and conditions of employment and the elimination of the Laboratory differentials.

In a union meeting held Sunday, February 29, the employees voted to strike unless settlement were made by Friday, midnight, March 5, and this intention was reaffirmed by another meeting on the night of March 3. Accordingly, on March 5, I issued Executive Order 9934, creating a Board of Inquiry pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act. At my request, both parties agreed to maintain the status quo until March 19.

On March 15 the Board of Inquiry submitted to me its first report. It found the existence of a labor dispute at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and it advised me of the facts of that dispute. It further found that grave danger to the national safety would result if the operations of the laboratory were interrupted.

Thereupon, at my request, the Attorney General on March 19 instituted an action and obtained an injunction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. This order enjoined both the Corporation and the Council, and all persons in active participation with them, from engaging in any strike or lockout or from interfering with normal continuance of work, or from making any change in terms or conditions of employment other than by mutual agreement.

On March 24 I reconvened the Board of Inquiry. Negotiations between the parties continued, with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. On May 18 the Board of Inquiry submitted to me its second report, stating that the position of the parties remained unaltered and the dispute unsettled.

On June 1 and 2 the National Labor Relations Board conducted a secret ballot of the employees to ascertain whether they wished to accept the final offer of settlement as stated and made by the employer. The employees, by a vote of 771 to 26, rejected the employer's last offer. On June 7 the National Labor Relations Board certified to the Attorney General the results of this election. On June 8 the employees at a union meeting took action looking to a possible stoppage if the injunction were lifted and if the employer unilaterally placed in effect the terms proposed in its final offer.

On June 10, pursuant to Section 210 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the Attorney General moved the court to discharge the injunction. The injunction was discharged on June 11.

During this period, the parties continued negotiations, with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. On June 15 the parties reached agreement on the terms of a new contract.

All parties to this dispute and the Government agencies concerned complied with all legal and procedural requirements of Title II of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.

A number of additional facts concerning this dispute are set forth in the first and second reports of the Board of inquiry. Copies of these reports are transmitted to the Congress with this message.

Both parties are to be commended for achieving settlement of this dispute without an interruption of work.

The dispute at Oak Ridge has raised some question, nevertheless, as to the sufficiency of present collective bargaining methods in atomic energy installations.

This question is somewhat different from others which have arisen in the past. On the one hand, it is clear that the national security and the development of the beneficial arts and sciences are bound up with the progress of our atomic energy program. Thus, every dispute which threatens to seriously impair that program imperils the national health and safety.

On the other hand, it is equally clear that the progress of our atomic energy program requires the support and drive of broad sectors of the American economy. In order to encourage such support, the Atomic Energy Commission has lodged in its contractors a large measure of responsibility and authority. The progress of the program is equally dependent upon the full and willing support of the men and women who work in atomic energy plants and laboratories.

Under these circumstances, it is imperative that the most successful techniques of the collective bargaining process should be adopted for the atomic energy program.

The objective should be twofold. The parties should continue to enjoy the maximum of voluntary action and freedom of choice. Secondly, the public interest must be protected at all times.

I believe that special study should be given to the problem of peaceful and orderly settlement of labor disputes in Government-owned, privately-operated atomic energy installations, such as those at Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Los Alamos, New Mexico; the Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois; and others.

I propose, therefore, to establish a commission composed of men having expert knowledge in the field of labor relations, to study this problem and to make such recommendations as they may find necessary. The commission should explore the question whether any special legislation should be enacted to protect the national interest without depriving management or labor organizations of the initiative and freedom necessary for the progress of our atomic energy program. The commission should study ways and means of adapting to the atomic energy program the best of our experience in the complex field of labor relations. The commission should concern itself also with special aspects of the problem, such as questions of bargaining representation, uniformity of working conditions and wages, and procedures for grievance handling.

The commission should concern itself, in short, with the broad code of conduct which should be observed by management and labor in their relations with each other in this vital program.

In appointing this commission I shall request the advice of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy both as to the membership of the commission and the specific questions to be studied.

I believe that the report of this commission, which should be submitted as soon as possible, will be of great value in guiding contractors, labor organizations and the Government in this new and vital field. I am confident that this is the best avenue to follow to achieve and maintain that proper balance between freedom and responsibility which is the tradition in all our economic relations, including those between management and labor.