The opinion of the court was delivered by: COOPER
Plaintiff brings this action under the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. §§ 176-178), to enjoin a strike by the defendant unions which commenced October 1, 1964. On that day, a temporary restraining order, pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was issued out of this Court. The restraining order expires at 8:00 p.m., E.D.T., on October 10, 1964. We now deal with plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction heard in open Court on October 8, 1964.
The defendant unions had contracts with the employer-defendants. The contracts expired September 30, 1964. On October 1, 1964 the defendant unions went on strike. Plaintiff claims the result of this action, if continued, will paralyze shipping activity along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from Searsport, Maine, to Brownsville, Texas.
On September 30, 1964, the President of the United States found that the threatened strike if permitted to occur, will affect the maritime industry substantially and imperil the national health and safety. On that same day, the President created a Board of Inquiry (as provided by the Act herein-above referred to) and directed its members to inquire into the issues involved in the labor disputes which led to the strike. On October 1, 1964, the Board members reported thereon to the President who thereupon directed the Acting Attorney General to institute this action.
By proper stipulation, the parties agreed to have this Court consider as sworn testimony, on this application for a preliminary injunction, the affidavits comprising the moving papers of plaintiff and the affidavit offered in opposition to the application.
As we see it, what follows is the essential fact matter here presented.
The Report to the President by the Board of Inquiry
The report dated October 1, 1964 to the President of the United States by the Board of Inquiry created by executive order dated September 30, 1964, pursuant to authority under Section 206 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (61 Stat. 155; 29 U.S.C. § 176), revealed these salient observations on the labor dispute involving ILA and the maritime industry engaged on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts:
(a) At the time of its appointment, no strike actually was in progress, but ILA threatened to strike at the end of their collective bargaining agreement on September 30, 1964. "The threatened strike has now materialized and shipping on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts is at a standstill."
(b) This dispute encompasses the entire Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and involves all ports in this area from Searsport, Maine to Brownsville, Texas.
(c) With respect to the same ports and as between the same parties, there exists a history in the last decade of failing to reach agreement in negotiations; injunctive relief had to be resorted to.
(d) The areas of disagreement were not narrowed despite the substantial effort by concededly neutral bodies. The principal issues were manpower utilization, income guarantees, pensions, union participation in hiring practices.
(e) The Board concluded, "The rigidity of positions on many of the main issues, plus the complexity of items concerned with related crafts, makes the possibility of an early settlement most remote."
Testimony of Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus R. Vance
It is his testimony that under the emergency presently existing and in order to participate in the defense of the Free World, the United States maintains American armed forces and provides support to the armed forces of other nations, overseas. Supplies therefor must be ship-transported. "Any interference with the movement of essential cargo and personnel by ocean transportation would seriously jeopardize the discharge of the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and imperil the national security."
While the union has voluntarily agreed, and honored its agreement, to meet major problems in handling military cargo, its commitment does not enable the Department of Defense to carry out all its essential functions involving movements at those ports.
It is also his sworn testimony that the Department of Defense must rely so heavily on the availability of cargo-carrying vessels, that delays in deliveries of military cargo urgently required would prove hazardous in the extreme.
The Secretary agrees with the Acting Secretary of Commerce that the strike's impact "could seriously impair the nation's over-all defense position."
Testimony of Maritime Administrator Nicholas Johnson
The Administrator calls our attention to certain vital statistics involved here: The population in the areas serviced by the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts ports, which service all but the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast areas, constitutes about 84% (1962) of the total United States population; that employment is extremely high in selected industries - food, chemicals, primary metals, machinery (including electrical) transportation equipment - located in such areas and serviced by these ports; that of the total United States exports and imports (roughly 110 million and 80 million tons respectively of dry cargo each year), 80% moves through the ports here involved.
Of particular significance is his testimony that as a result of the strike virtually all longshoremen in the areas affected failed to report for work on October 1, 1964, with the result that 197 ships were tied up on that day and 262 on October second.
Since movement through West Coast ports would prove impractical under the tie-up resulting therefrom, the strike "would bring about complete dislocation of the Maritime industry . . . adversely affect the national economy, with attendant peril to the national health and safety."
Testimony of Acting Maritime Administrator James W. Gulick
The proof from this witness reveals that the principal function of that department is the development of a United States merchant marine (under the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 46 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) powerful enough to carry domestic, export and import water-borne commerce, and capable of ...