The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

September 1955 CINE TECHNICIAN 133 WE wrote to the British Film Producers Association on the 16th June expressing our particular concern that despite previous applications a number of A.C.T. feature members have received increases neither in their minimum graded salaries nor in their working conditions since the B.F.P.A. -A.C.T. Agreement was signed in 1947. We therefore requested a further meeting stressing that there was more than one way by which satisfaction could be obtained, namely, salary increases, higher overtime and other premium payment ceilings, or a combination of both. The meeting was duly held on the 28th July. The B.F.P.A. listened to our case without comment and said they would meet us again on the 11th August after they had consulted their Executive Council. I feared the worst when at this second meeting Sir Henry French opened up by saying I had made A.C.T.'s case at the previous meeting in a very moderate and persuasive speech ! True to form the compliments led to complete rejection of our claim. The B.F.P.A. case was that there was no limit to what any A.C.T. member might earn if minima remained at their present figure and that therefore the present rates imposed no hardship. Secondly, they considered very strongly indeed that it was completely wrong for members in the higher salary brackets to be entitled to payment for overtime and other work outside the normal working week. A.C.T.'s Case Our case to the B.F.P.A. was a simple one. A.C.T.'s agreement has operated for the past eight-and-ahalf years during which members in grades up to £13 8s. 4d. per week have received three increases totalling approximately £2 a week, and members above that figure but receiving not more than £25 a week have received two increases totalling approximately 30/-. Those over £25 a week have received nothing. These members include not only those who work in grades with minima of over £25 a week but also, of course, technicians on personal salaries of over £25 a wee1.1: who work in a grade the minimum for which is £25 a week or below. Further, we stressed that those in grades of a minimum of over £22 10s. Od. a week received no payment for overtime whatsoever and those in grades with a minimum of £22 10s. Od. and below but receiving a personal salary of over £30 per week receive no overtime payments. Incidentally, as our The General Secretary Writes: B.F.P.A. REJECTS OUR CLAIMS members concerned informed us, it is in many of these grades where most overtime has necessarily to be done. Further, these same grades are worse off than other members when it comes to work on Saturdays, Sundays and Declared Holidays and night work. Unfair Discrimination A.C.T.'s case clearly was that these three circumstances, no salary increases, no overtime payments and less satisfactory provisions for Saturdays, Sundays, Declared Holidays and night work, involve unfair discrimination against the key technicians responsible for the production of British films as the grades concerned clearly are. Those primarily responsible for the quality and reputation of British films, and in fact some of the people without whose skill British films could not be made, have been deliberately picked on by the B.F.P.A. to receive no financial benefits over the past eight-and-a-half years, during a period when the cost of living has risen 50r/r, the efficiency in the production of British films has substantially improved, there has been considerable economy in the costs of production and film production itself is more profitable. This last statement is clearly highlighted from the recent Annual Reports of the companies controlling the two main producers of British films, Associated British with a record trading profit of £3 million last year and the Rank Organisation with a consolidated trading profit of nearly £9 million, an increase of over £1 million on the previous year's figure. Even they can't claim it's all due to ice cream sales! For all these reasons we have had over recent years an excellent case for the increases which our members in the lower salary brackets have received, but if it is justified for these 90% to receive increases, as of course it is, it is fundamentally wrong and unjust to exclude the key 10%. As we told the B.F.P.A., we hold that a substantial salary increase is justified but fully appreciate that there are alternative routes of getting to the same destination. We would consider accepting a settlement of either a substantial salary increase or the upward revision of the clauses in the agreement which fall particularly harshly on the technicians concerned or, of course, a combination of both. On the same day as the B.F.P.A. granted increases of seven and a half per cent to several thousand of the employees in film production — we do not cavil at these completely justified increases, on the contrary we congratulate those concerned on a successful campaign — they insult their key employees by summarily dismissing their claim. One thing is certain, the B.F.P.A. have not heard the last of the matter. I marvel at the patience of our members in tolerating such an unjust position for so long. This article has been written before the B.F.P.A. 's rebuff has been discussed by our General Council or our Feature Branch, but I am confident of full Executive support for any action which the members concerned decide to take in order to halt the callous indifference which the B.F.P.A. is displaying towards those primarily responsible for the increasing prosperity of its member companies, and also to obtain overdue increases for the rest of our members. A.C.T.'s solicitors have amalgamated with another firm and henceforth the firm will be known as Pollard, Stallabrass, Beuselinck & Martin. In addition to their London Office a Branch Office has been opened at Harley House, 215 Shenley Road, Boreham Wood, Herts. Naturally all applications for official Union help and advice must continue to go through Head Office, but the Branch Office will obviously be of use to members living in that vicinity and to any members who may wish to go to the firm for their own private business.