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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 15 employees represented by the lAM, but the job chissifications specified in the contract were not accompanied by job descriptions. Prior to INIarch 1945, lATSE unions had claimed the right to do some machine work, but the producers had been able, by one means or another, to avoid serious consequences in the numerous clashes over jurisdiction with respect to machine work. However, the operation of the studios during the 1945 strike created a new problem. During this strike the lATSE furnished machinists to the producers, Avho became employees and retained that status for at least the period of 9 months, during which the strike was in progress. They claimed and with a good deal of justification, that 9 months of service in a studio of one of the producers gave them a better claim to employment in any vacancies that might occur in such studio than the claim of some machinist who had not theretofore been regularly employed in such studio. Since the machinists who worked during the strike were not members of the lAM in good standing, if the producers entered into a closed-shop contract with the lAM following the strike, they would have been precluded from offering employment to employees to whom the producers had incurred moral, if not legal, obligations. The difficulty of the position was emphasized by the silence of the December 1945 award with respect to machine work in the studios. The award gi'anted to the lAM only "the manufacturing of motionpicture machines"' which had reference to the manufacture of projection machines, and although the producers use projection machines, they are not manufactured in the studios. Much of the work done by machinists is done in the repair of cameras, the repair of laboratory machinery, the manufacture of mechanical devices for special effects, the repair of machinery and equipment used in connection with the taking of motion pictures, and general maintenance work about the studios. As far as the executive council committee award was concerned, jurisdiction over this work was left wide open. As early as January 1946 the teamsters' union had made claim of the jurisdiction over automotive mechanics, a job classification which had been included in the lAM contract that was in effect prior to March 12, 1945. As early as February 1946 the lATSE claimed jurisdiction over machinists who did work in the servicing of cameras and also claimed jurisdiction over machinists who serviced laboratory machinery. The lATSE pointed out that the executive council committee award with respect to other classifications established the principle that the lATSE should have the right to service equipment operated by IxlTSE members, and urged that such principle should be applied in the case of machinists. In March 1946 the A. F. of L. issued a charter to Motion Picture Studio Cinetechnicians Federal Union No. 23968 (hereinafter called Federal Union) , covering most of the classifications theretofore claimed by lATSE ; and thereupon lATSE withdrew its claims to the jurisdictions claimed by Federal Union. The Federal Union, it should be observed, unlike most unions affiliated with A. F. of L., was not chartered by any international, but received its charter directly from the A. F. of L., signed by all the international officers who compose the executive council of the A. F. of L. During the spring of 1946, therefore, while the producers were willing to, and did, recognize the lAM as the collective-bargaining