Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., et al and Charles Sawyer. The Steel Seizure Case Records, 1952
Collection Number: 5365
Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation & Archives
Cornell University Library
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Title:
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., et al and Charles Sawyer. The Steel Seizure Case Records, 1952
Repository:
Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation & Archives
Collection Number:
5365
Abstract:
Motions, transcripts of proceedings, judicial opinions and briefs produced for or
by the District Courts, Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Co. et al. vs. Charles Sawyer.
Creator:
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
Sawyer, Charles
Quanitities:
0.5 cubic feet
Language:
Collection material in English
In the latter part of 1951, a dispute arose between the steel companies and their
employees over terms and conditions that should be included in new collective bargaining
agreements. Long-continued conferences failed to resolve the dispute. On December
l8, 1951, the employees' representative United Steelworkers of America, CIO, gave
notice of an intention to strike "when the existing bargaining agreements expired
on December 31. Thereupon the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service intervened
in an effort to get labor and management to agree. This failing, the President on
December 22, 1951 referred the dispute to the Federal Wage Stabilization Board to
investigate and make recommendations for fair and equitable terms of settlement. This
Board's report resulted in no settlement. On April 4, 1952, the union gave notice
of a nation-wide strike called to begin at 12:01 a.m. April 9.
The indispensability of steel as a component of substantially all weapons and other
war materials led the President to believe that the proposed work stoppage would immediately
jeopardize our national defense and that governmental seizure of the steel mills was
necessary in order to assure the continued availability of steel. Reciting these considerations
for his action, the President, a few hours before the strike was to begin, issued
Executive Order 10340. The order directed the Secretary of Commerce to take possession
of and operate most of the steel mills throughout the country. The Secretary immediately
issued his own possessory orders, calling upon the presidents of the various seized
companies to serve as operating managers for the United States. They were directed
to carry on their activities in accordance with regulations and directions of the
Secretary. The next morning the President sent a message to Congress reporting his
action. Cong. Rec. April 9, 1952 p. 3962. Twelve days later he sent a second message.
Cong. Rec, April 21, 1952, p. 4192. Congress has taken no action.
Obeying the Secretary's orders under protest, the companies brought proceedings against
him in the District Court. Their complaints charged that the seizure was not authorized
by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provisions. The District Court was
asked to declare the orders of the President and the Secretary invalid and to issue
preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining their enforcement. Opposing the
motion for preliminary injunction, the United States asserted that a strike disrupting
steel production for even a brief period would so endanger the well-being and safety
of the nation that the President has "inherent power" to do what he had done power
"supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions.
The Government also contended that in any event no preliminary injunction should
be issued because the companies had made no showing that their available legal remedies
were inadequate or that their injuries from seizure would be irreparable. Holding
against the Government on all points, the District Court on April 30 issued a preliminary
injunction restraining the Secretary from "continuing the seizure and possession of
the plant... and from acting under the purported authority of Executive Order No.10340."
103 F. Supp. 569. On the same day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's
injunction.
Since the issues raised, 1. Should the final determination of the constitutional
validity of the President's order be made in a case which had reached only the preliminary
injunction stage in the lower courts, and was the secure order within the constitutional
power of the president were constitutional questions which it seemed best to decide
promptly. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on May 3 and rendered its decision
on June 2, 1952. By a 6 to 3 ruling they held that the President has no authority
under the Constitution to seize private property of industry by executive order on
the grounds that a work stoppage is imminent as a result of a labor dispute and that
continued operation of the industry's facilities is necessary because of a national
emergency.
Summary: Include motions, transcripts of proceedings, judicial opinions and briefs
produced for or by the District Courts, Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court in
the case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. et al. vs. Charles Sawyer.
The collection includes the motion for temporary restraining order filed by Republic
Steel Corporation (1952); official transcript in the case of "Youngstown Sheet and
Tube Company, et al. vs. Charles Sawyer", District Court for the District of Columbia
(1952); transcript of the proceedings before Judge David A. Pine, District Court for
the District of Columbia (1952); opinion of Judge Pine on issuance of a preliminary
injunction, "Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, et al. vs. Charles Sawyer" (n.d.);
and memorandum filed in United States Court of Appeals by Charles Sawyer motioning
for a stay of execution on the preliminary injunction (1952).
Also included are numerous Writs of Certiorari and briefs of Amici Curiae given before
the Supreme Court, including briefs of Amici Curiae submitted by the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the Order
of Railway Conductors of America, the United Steelworkers of America, the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, Evert Lyman (attorney, State of California), and American
Legion Post No. 88, Norman, Okla.
Also included is the official "Opinion of the Court," of the United States Supreme
Court (1952). Other documents relating to various aspects of the case include an address
by Clarence B. Randall (president, Inland Steel); and speeches by Richard M. Nixon
and Hubert H. Humphrey, before the U.S. Senate (1952).
Access to the collections in the Kheel Center is restricted. Please contact a reference
archivist for access to these materials.
This collection must be used in keeping with the Kheel Center Information Sheet and
Procedures for Document Use.
INFORMATION FOR USERS
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., et al and Charles Sawyer. The Steel Seizure Case Records
#5365. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University
Library.
Names:
Lyman, Evert
Randall, Clarence B.
Sawyer, Charles, 1887-1979
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (U.S.)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
Congress of Industrial Organizations (U.S.)
Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen
Order of Railway Conductors of America
Republic Steel Corporation
United Steelworkers of America
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
Subjects:
Labor injunctions. Steel industry. United States.
Iron and steel workers.
Nationalization. Steel industry. United States.
Strikes and lockouts. Steel industry. United States.
Trade-unions. Iron and steel workers. United States.
CONTAINER LIST
Container
|
Description
|
Date
|
|
Box 1 | Folder 1 |
Proceedings in District Court for the District of Columbia
|
1952 |
Box 1 | Folder 2 |
U.S. Supreme Court: Briefs as amicus curiae
|
1952 |
Box 1 | Folder 3 |
U.S. Supreme Court: Briefs on writs of certiorari
|
1952 |
Box 1 | Folder 4 |
U.S. Supreme Court: Opinion of the court
|
1952 |
Box 1 | Folder 5 |
Miscellaneous articles
|
1952 |