Jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture Industry : hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first-session, pursuant to H. Res. 111 (1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

f 10 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIOXAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. No other request ? Mr. Kaiiane. Not that I know of. This request wasn't made by the prockicers. This was an arbitration that the National War Labor Board ordered. Mr. McCann. That is what I understand. Up to this time there liad been no refusal on the part of anyone to arbitrate any matters { Mr. Kaiiane. I don't believe 1 know of any occasion where arbitration was brought up before that time. Mr. McCann. I see. Mr. Kahane. And, as this report will show — I will read the report— the statement; that is better. Mr. McCann. All right. Mr. Kahane. Arbitrator Tongue issued a purported award in which he attempted to establish set dressers as constituting an appropriate bargaining unit and in which he attempted to designate painters' local 1421 as the collective-bargaining agent for that unit. The lATSE promptly appealed from that decision, asserting that the determination of bargaining units and of bargaining agents was an exclusive function of the National Labor Relations Board, and that consequently the arbitrator's decision w^as a nullity. On February 26 the CSU demanded compliance wd^h the award by 6 p. m. of that day, under threat of economic action. On the same day, the lATSE officially advised the ])roducers that if, pending its appeal, they recognized 1421 as bargaining agent under the award, its property men would refuse to work w^ith any set dressers not members of lATSE. The producers thereupon, and on the same day, promptly appealed to the War Labor Board. Mr. McCann. In other words, you were on the spot between the two unions, both of whom demanded and gave you no chance to do anything except have a strike, no matter which way you want % Mr. Kahane. That is right. Mr. McCann. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is suggestive of the building industry in New Jersey, where four unions demanded the right to unload and three demanded the right to install the material, and all four of them threatened to strike if the person owning the material didn't employ each to do it, Mr. Kearns. That is the pattern again. Mr. McCann. Proceed. Mr. Kahane. By the time the matter was reached, the strike of March 12, 1945, had been called. In accordance with its established policy of refusing to pass on controversies while a strike was in progress, the National War Labor Board refused to pass on these petitions. On February 27, 1945, immediately after filing their petition with the National War Labor Board, the producers filed with the National Labor Relations Board an employei-s' representation petition in which they requested the National Labor Relations Board to determine the appropriate unit in which set dressers belonged and the collectivebargaining representative of such appropriate unit. The National Labor Relations Board acted promptly upon that petition, consolidating it for hearing with other petitions previously filed by painters' local 1421 with respect to other employees, and a hearing was commenced by the National Laboi Relations Board on March 7,