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)

14 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES On December 20, 1945, the arbitration committee of the A. F. of L. issued its award. It pointed out : The investigation revealed that a large portion of the work has been in dispute over a long period of years. Records supplied from the tiles of the American Federation of Labor, including numerous agreements previously entered into, were made the subject of committee examination and study ♦ * *. An analysis disclosed that three principal methods of solution could be utilized, i. e. : (rt) Strict adlierence to craft or vertical lines of demarcation in the motionpicture studios. (b) Establishment of an industrial or horizontal union throughout the industry. (c) A division of work designations within the industry patterned after previous agreements, negotiated mutually by the various crafts. After careful and thorough study, the committee unanimously agreed that the latter plan is unquestionably the best method of approach. It is the committee's considered opinion that such procedure affords tlie only solution to a most difficult and complex problem. In deciding the controversies between the carpenters and the lATSE, the committee said : The committee rules that the division ofwork agreement entered into between the United Brotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada on February 5, 192,5, and known as the 1926 agreement, be placed in full effect immediately. It then stated the division of work, in the language of the 1926 agreement, which gave the carpenters' union jurisdiction over certain carpenter work, including specifically, among other things, "trim and millwork on sets and stages" and "construction work on exterior sets," and which gave the lATSE jurisdiction over, among other things, the "erection of sets on stages, except trim and millwork on sets and stages." It was out of the foregoing award that a disi)ute arose which grew into the current motion-picture strike which began on September 12, 1946. However, before discussing that matter in detail it should be noted that while the jurisdictional award of December 26, 1945, settled many of the jurisdictional controversies between the lATSE and the unions belonging to the CSU, such as the award to the painters' union of jurisdiction over the set decorators, which jurisdiction had been claimed by the lATSE and had been expressly granted to local 44 of the lATSE in its charter, nevertheless with respect to some jurisdictional controversies the award neither settled nor attempted to settle these areas of dispute. With respect to machinists, the award did not settle the dispute between the lATSE and the International Association of Machinists. We may appropriately digress a moment to discuss that problem. Cinema Lodge No. 1185 of the International Association of Machinists (referred to herein as I AM) was, it will be recalled, a member of CSU and a party to the 1945 strike. Although it was formerly afFdiated with the A. F. of L., it had withdrawn from that federation prior to the end of 1945, and is still outside that body. On April 5, 1945, the producers notified IA]\I that, because of its breach of its contracts, such contracts were terminated. Similar action was taken at the same time with respect to certain other CSU unions. In the contract between the producers and the lAM, which was in effect on March 12, 1945, and which was so terminated on April 5, 1945, there was a closed-shop provision covering the job classifications of