Order and Adjudication issued by the Defendant Lilienthal on September 27, 1948, and any other Order of the Commission.

17. Prior to the issuance of this purported Order and Adjudication of September 27, 1948, there was no adequate notice or hearing whatsoever before the Defendant Lilienthal and Defendants Strauss, Pike, Waymack and Bacher, members of the Commission, in respect to this purported Order and Adjudication, as required by law. This arbitrary, unilateral ex parte action by the Defendant Commission is in flagrant violation of the stated provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Title 42, Sections 1801-1819, United States Code Annotated, as well as the stated provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Title 5, Sections 1001-1011, United States Code Annotated, as well as the fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which provides in part:

"No person * * * shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

18. Defendant Lilienthal, individually and acting as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, did on or about October 22, 1948, threaten to take further action against the Plaintiffs to deprive them of their contractual rights contained in the National Contract with the General Electric Company, as well as their fundamental rights to organize and bargain collectively as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Defendant Lilienthal threatened to take this illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action in a letter sent to the Plaintiff Fitzgerald, General President of UE. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and marked Exhibit “D”.

19. In the letter of October 22, 1948, Defendant Lilienthal threatens that he and his fellow Defendants, acting in the name of the Commission, will take immediate action to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights under the National Contract. In said letter Defendant Lilienthal threatens to immediately order the Defendant Company to disregard, nullify and destroy the existing Certification of the UE Local 301 as the exclusive collective bargaining agent for the Company's employees at the Schenectady plant. Defendant Lilienthal in said letter, also threatens to deprive the individual Plaintiffs, Rodd, Collins and McAleavy, as well as all other individual members of UE at the Company's Schenectady plant, of their right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land to join and belong to labor organizations and to bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing.

20. The actions of the Defendants are violations of the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff unions and their members to organize into trade unions and bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing as to wages, hours and other conditions of employment. These rights are protected and secured to the Plaintiffs, as to all working men of this country, by the Constitution of the United States, and in particular the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendmants thereof. The actions of the Defendants place a prior restraint upon the exercise by the Plaintiffs of their fundamental and inalienable rights to engage in the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, these rights being guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States of America.

21. Defendant Lilienthal, acting as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, has threatened to take these illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions in the imminent future, unless the officers and representatives of UE and of UE Local 301 make certain professions to them concerning their political, social and economic beliefs and opinions.

This requirement that the officers and representatives of UE and of UE Local 301 confess by word or action to their politics, social and economic beliefs and opinions is in violation of the rights guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. This constitutes the placing of an unlawful condition upon the exercise and enjoyment of constitutional, statutory and contractual rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs.

22. The attempt by the Defendants to force the Plaintiffs to so confess by word or action to their politics, social and economic beliefs and opinions is in violation of and deprives the Plaintiffs of their rights and privileges as inherent in their membership in the UE as guaranteed in the Constitution of the UE, which states in part:

"All persons whose normal occupation is in the Electrical, Radio, and Machine Industry, and in conformity with Article 3 Jurisdiction' are eligible 93039-52-pt. 2

for membership to the UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), regardless of skill, age, sex, nationality, color, religious or political belief or affiliation."

23. The Atomic Energy Act of 1947 provides in Title 42, Section 1818, that the provisions relating to judicial review in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Title 5, Sections 1001-1011, shall be applicable to any agency action taken by the Atomic Energy Commission. Said Section provides as follows:

"(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1011 of Title 5 which provide when sections 1001-1011 of said title shall take effect, Section 1009 of said title (relating to judicial review) shall be applicable, upon the enactment of this chapter, to any agency action under the authority of this chapter or by any agency created by or under the provisions of this chapter. "(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, no provision of this chapter shall be held to supersede or modify the provisions of sections 1001-1011, of Title 5.

"(c) As used in this section the terms 'agency action' and 'agency' shall have the same meaning as is assigned to such terms in sections 1001-1011 of Title 5, August 1, 1946, c. 724, Sec. 14, 60 Stat. 772.”

24. Title 5, Section 1009 of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, United States Code Annotated, provides in part as follows:

"(a) Any person suffering legal wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof."

"(e) So far as necessary to decision and where presented the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of any agency action. It shall (A) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (B) hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; (5) unsup ported by substantial evidence in any case subject to the requirements of sections 1006 and 1007 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of any agency hearing provided by statute; or (6) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations the court shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and due ac count shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. June 11, 1946, v. 324, Sec. 10, 60 Stat. 243."

23. For some time prior to September 28, 1948, and at all times thereafter the Defendants, acting in concert, engaged in an unlawful plan or conspiracy to deny to the Plaintiffs and each of them their rights and property under the law and the contract rights, properties, privileges and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the Constitution of the United States of America, as more specifically set forth herein. This unlawful plan or conspiracy results and threatens to continue to result in the illegal deprivation to the Plaintiffs of their contracts, rights, properties, privileges and immunities, guaranteed to them and secured to them by the Constitution of the United States of America.

26. In pursuance of said plan and conspiracy the Defendants engaged in the unlawful activities set forth in Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. Paragraphs 14-21 are realleged and repeated herein with the same force as if fully set forth herein.

27. The aforesaid conspiracy and activities of the Defendants, if not restrained by this Court, will deprive the membership of UE of their rights under the Constitution of the UE and the Constitution and statutes of the United States to elect officers and representative of their own choosing, and will impose on the membership of the UE the dictates of the Defendant government officials and the General Electric Company as to who should constitute the officers and representatives of the membership of UE, and thereby substitute a governmentcompany controlled union for a union controlled by its membership.

28. The arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional purported Order and Adjudica tion contained in the letter of September 28, 1948 (Exhibit "C") as well as the imminently threatened actions contained in the letter of October 22, 1948 (Es

hibit "D") have created and will continue to create, unless corrected and set aside and restrained by this Court, irreparable and serious damage and injury to the Plaintiffs. The actions of the Defendants are in direct conflict with and in violation of the contractual rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs set forth more fully in Exhibit "A". The actions of the Defendants threaten immediate and irreparable injury to the contractual rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs, and in particular threaten the immediate destruction of the rights of UE to a check-off of union dues and the rights of Plaintiffs and the membership of UE employed at the Company's plant in Schenectady to a guarantee against discrimination by agents of the General Electric Company because of union activity, regulation of hours and working conditions, wage rates, overtime payments, paid holidays, traveling time, traveling expenses, seniority in transfers and reduction of forces, continuity of service, leave of absence for union activity, maternity leave of absences, vacations with pay, and grievance and arbitration machinery, as provided for in the National Contract.

The actions and threatened actions of the Defendants will, unless unrestrained, destroy the statutory and constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs to organize and represent the employees of the General Electric Company at the Schenectady plant as well as the other Company plants.

The arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Defendants threaten to destroy the constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and the 600,000 American workers represented by UE to organize and bargain collecrtively through representatives of their own choosing.

29. Plaintiffs have suffered damages to the extent approximately of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000).

30. No adequate remedy at law exists whereby the Plaintiffs may obtain relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray:

1. For an injunction ordering Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, to revoke the purported order and adjudication of September 28, 1948;

2. For a permanent injunction,

(a) Restraining Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, from in any way interfering with, or in any way causing or inducing the breach of the National Contract between the General Electric Company and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, and from issuing any further orders or directions, or in any other way affecting the said National Contract, or the rights of the Plaintiffs and the membership of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America under said National Contract.

(b) Restraining Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, 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 Company.

(c) Restraining Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendant General Electric Company from in any way interfering or conspiring to interfere with the rights of the workers in the electrical manufacturing and machine industry to organize and to bargain collectively through United Elec trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America as the representative of their own choosing;

(d) Restraining Defendant General Electric Company from in any way violating the National Contract with United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America pursuant to any purported order or direction from the Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner

T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

3. For a declaratory judgment to be issued by this Court

(a) That the purported order and adjudication of Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, of September 28, 1948, is null and void and of no force and effect, and is in contravention of the rights of the Plaintiffs and the membership of the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America under the National Contract between the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America and the General Electric Company and the Constitution and Statutes of the United States; and

(b) That the threatened orders and directions of Defendant David E. Lilienthal, individually and as Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and Defendants Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Waymack and Robert F. Bacher, individually and as members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, as contained in the letter of October 6, 1948 are illegal and in contravention of the rights of the Plaintiffs and the membership of the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America under the National Contract between the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America and the General Electric Company.

4. For damages in the sum approximately of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars. DAVID SCRIBNER and ARTHUR KINOY

11 East 51st Street

New York 22, New York

LEON NOVAK

271 State Street

Schenectady 5, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Dated: OCTOBER 26, 1948.

EXHIBIT D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), CIO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. DAVID E. LILIENTHAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

Civil Action No. 4427-48

MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOW COME the defendants, David E. Lilienthal, Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis L. Strauss, Sumner T. Pike, William W. Way mack, and Robert F. Bacher, Members of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and move the Court to dismiss this action on the grounds that:

1. The complaint and first amended complaint fail to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted;

2. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in that the complaint seeks to control executive action committed by law to the discretion of the Atomic Energy Commission, and this Court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion;

3. Plaintiffs have failed to exercise the administrative means offered by the Commission, thereby precluding any judicial relief;

Or in the alternative for summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In support of this motion, the Court is respectfully referred to the affidavit of Walter J. Williams, Director of Production of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and the exhibits attached to this motion, as well as the defendants' memorandum of points and authorities.

Of counsel:

H. G. MORISON,

Assistant Attorney General,
GEORGE MORRIS FAY,

United States Attorney,
EDWARD H. HICKEY,

MELVIN H. SIEGEL,

Special Assistants to the Attorney General.

Walter J. Williams, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. He is Director of Production of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) and, in such capacity has general familiarity with the atomic energy work being conducted in the Schenectady Area by the General Electric Company pursuant to its contract with the Commission. The facts set forth below, given upon information and belief, constitute a general unclassified description of the foregoing work and of its importance to the atomic energy program.

2. The contract between the Commission and the General Electric Company, No. W-31-109-Eng-52, covers the activities carried on for the Commission by General Electric Company in both the Hanford and Schenectady Areas. It is a cost-reimbursable type contract under which the Government reimburses General Electric for all direct and indirect expenses arising out of the work, with a nominal fee of one dollar.

3. The work performed by the General Electric Company in the Schenectady Area falls into three major categories: (a) research and engineering development work in support of the Commission's plutonium production program at the Hanford Works; (b) research, engineering development, and construction work involved in establishing the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, together with a new-type reactor and associated equipment, which represents a major effort of the Commission in exploring the feasibility of producing useful power for both military and civilian purposes; and (c) research and engineering development in support of other Commission-wide atomic energy programs:

(a) The Hanford Works, located in the State of Washington, is the only large-scale plutonium production facility in the United States. In order to assure continued progress of this country's plutonium production program there is being pressed forward urgently a major research, engineering development and construction effort at the Hanford Works. This effort includes among its objectives the improvement of methods of operation of reactors for producing plutonium, the construction of additional production facilities, and the more efficient utilization of reactor fuel. A significant portion of this effort, upon which depends the plutonium production program, is being supported directly and immediately by the research and engineering development work in the Schenectady Area. Any continued slow-down or interruption of this supporting work in the Schenectady Area would have serious adverse effects on the common defense and security of this country.

(b) The new Knolls reactor and associated equipment is one of two reactors now being designed especially for the study of high temperature operation and the production of power. (A different type of reactor but for a similar purpose is planned at the Commission's Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago.) The design of both these reactors is directed to the problem of power generation by nuclear fission but by different methods, and both are expected to yield important data leading ultimately to the design of a reactor