CONTENTS Page Introduction by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. Letter from Senator Hubert H. Humphrey to Mr. Gordon Dean, Chair- man, Atomic Energy Commission. Letter from Mr. Gordon E. Dean to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey ----. Exhibit A-Atomic Energy Commission, security policies and practices relating to labor-management relations--- Exhibit B-Correspondence concerning Atomic Energy Commission labor Exhibit C-United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America et al. v. David E. Lilienthal et al., bill of complaint; United States Dis- Exhibit D-United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America et al. v. David E. Lilienthal et al., motion to dismiss; United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Columbia. Exhibit E-Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1949 proceedings, relat- ing to expulsion of United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of COMMUNIST DOMINATION OF CERTAIN UNIONS INTRODUCTION This is the second in a series of Senate documents dealing with the problem of Communist domination of unions. The first document contained the reports of the trial committees of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, expelling certain affiliated unions on grounds of Communist domination. This present document is the reply of the Atomic Energy Commission to a series of questions put to it by the chairman of the subcommittee. It is particularly significant because it shows in detail how an agency, sensitive from a security standpoint, dealt with the problem of a Communist-dominated union in projects under its direction. In addition, the Atomic Energy Commission has appended to its reply the basic documents related to actions which it has taken in respect to this problem. The Commission's answer refers to the expulsion of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America by the Congress of Industrial Organizations. We have included in this document that part of the CIO Convention Proceedings of 1949 relating to the expulsion. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. OCTOBER 25, 1951. GORDON E. DEAN, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Nineteenth and Constitution Avenue, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: You may know that the Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations, of which I am chairman, is attempting to develop legislation dealing with the problem of Communist-dominated unions. In advance of hearings, we are attempting to collect and analyze as much data on this problem as we can get. I have therefore asked a group of representative spokesmen from the ranks of labor, management, government, and the public to respond to a series of broad questions. I am enclosing a copy of these questions. I would appreciate getting your judgment with respect to these questions. I know, of course, that the Atomic Energy Commission has banned the United Electrical Workers as the collective bargaining representative in plants supervised by the Atomic Energy Commission. I think it would be helpful to have as much detail as you can give us with respect to the measures that the Commission has taken to eliminate the United Electrical Workers from atomic energy plants. Have comparable measures been taken against other Communist-dominated unions? Your experience and judgment on this critical problem will be of great value, I know, to the subcommittee. Sincerely yours, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations. (1) Is there an effective legislative approach to the problem of Communist-dominated unions? (2) Can you suggest the principles or statutory language which ought to be embodied in such legislation? (3) Can you suggest avenues of inquiry which the subcommittee ought to pursue, particularly those avenues which have not already been studied by other committees? ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Washington 25, D. C., December 14, 1951. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR HUMPHREY: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1951, requesting (1) our comments on a legislative approach to deal with the problem of Communist-dominated unions, and (2) an account of the measures taken by the Commission to eliminate the United Electrical Workers Union (UE) from atomic energy plants. We will discuss the UE case first. As background for discussion of this case, it might be well to note that normal collective bargaining practices were deferred on the wartime atomic energy project for reasons of program security. After the war, concern still existed as to whether proceedings under the National Labor Relations Act could be carried forward without endangering the security of restricted information. The War Department in 1946 authorized NLRB proceedings at Oak Ridge, but on a trial basis only. This situation remained unchanged until the fall of 1948. Following its assumption in January 1947 of responsibility for the program, the Commission and its staff devoted considerable thought to labor problems in relation to continuity of production at vital AEC installations, including the problem of Communist-infiltrated unions. On January 16, 1948, in a special report to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the Commission declared as one of its objectives in respect to these problems the "development of procedures to assure that all participants in the program are loyal to the United States, including those whose participation involves the exercise of negotiating and disciplinary authority over bargaining units This objective resulted in the Commission's action the following September directing certain of its contractors to withhold recognition from two unions, the United Electrical Workers and the United Public Workers, in respect to employees engaged on classified atomic energy work. * * Under the Manhattan Engineer District, certain atomic-energy work was carried on under contract with the General Electric Co. in its private plants at Schenectady. Subsequently, there was an interim transfer of this work (and employees engaged on it) from the company's private plants to Government-owned installations with the principal location on Peek Street in Schenectady pending construction of a new Government plant on the outskirts of the city to be known as Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL). In its private plants, General Electric, pursuant to a Wagner Act NLRB certification, recognized the UE as bargaining agent for its organized employees. The parties construed the NLRB certificate and the labor contract as applying to employees located in the Schenectady area, including both existing plants and new plants. Consistant with this construction, UE representation and the existing labor contract were recognized as applying to Peek Street. General Electric employees engaged on classified atomic-energy work at Schenectady had, of course, been subjected to the usual security clearance procedures required by the Atomic Energy Act. With regard to UE as the continuing bargaining representative of these employees, the alleged Communist infiltration of this union had for some years been the subject of investigation by various congressional committees and had received considerable public discussion in the press and elsewhere. In the background, the objectives of Communist infiltration of labor unions were well established. For example, these objectives were reported on by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in a report entitled "The Strategy and Tactics of World Communism" issued in 1948. Also, by way of example, there was published evidence of the ability of Communist elements in unions to impede defense production in America during the period of Russian-German collaboration early in the last war in House Report No. 1 Seventy-seventh Congress, 1941. At the time of our review of the situation, UE officials had not complied with the non-Communists affidavit provision of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. Our first step in evaluating Communist influence in UE Local 301 at Schenectady was to trace the line of authority exercised over employees by union officials who were not employed on the project and did not have AEC security clearance. For this purpose, the UE's written constitution was relied upon. Secondly, all available information relating to the membership in or identification with the Communist Party of individual officials was brought together from congressional and other Government sources. On the basis of this information, it was concluded (1) that there might exist circumstances at Schenectady conducive to Communistinspired action adverse to the atomic-energy program and the Nation's security; (2) that such action might take the form of a political strike or other organized sabotage; and (3) that an effective safeguard against such action would be the removal from line of influence over employees on atomic-energy work of representatives of undependable oyalty. The situation of atomic-energy employees who were subject to representation by a Communist-infiltrated union was carefully analyzed at this point. It appeared that such individual employees might be (1) consciously furthering Communist aims, or (2) unaware of the nfiltration, or (3) of the belief that the infiltration could be purged Defore action adverse to the national safety occurred, or (4) unaware |