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.
16 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
agent of employees in the machinists' classification, they were not willing to grant the lAM a closed shop, and thus precipitate the crisis which was building up by reason of the claims of the lATSE and the teamsters' union arising out of the failure of the executive council committee to make any award in respect of machine work in the studios.
Mr. McCann. I don't find anything up to this time which gives any reason to warrant, or justify, or excuse, any claim of the teamsters' union for representation there. Was there anything anywhere in this report that gives a historical background for the teamsters' claim that they should represent part of those em])loyees that the lAM claimed to represent?
Mr. Kahane. No ; unfortunately, the award is silent about machinists'' work, except to say about construction of motion-picture machines. The machinists had withdrawn from the American Federation of Labor, and that fact was commented upon in the report of the arbitrators.
Mr. McCann. Do you think their withdrawal from the American Federation of Labor was responsible for the council failing to give them the consideration that they should in this report?
Mr. Kahane. No: they said not in their report. They said they regretted that the lAM had withdrawn from the American Federation of Labor and that they were hopeful that before long they would reconsider and again belong to the federation.
Mr. McCann. But they left them on bread and water in this report.
Mr. Kahane. They did not dispose of the jurisdictional question involved.
Mr. McCann, They didn't give them anything.
Mr. Kahane. No.
Mr. McCann. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Kahane. The lATSE machinists' union and the Federal Union which succeeded to its claims, early in 1946 demanded that the producers put some of their members to work when there was need for additional machinists. They asserted that failure to do so would be discrimination against their members and in favor of lAM; and hence an unfair labor practice. In an attempt to avoid the coming crisis, the producers did, in March 1945, return to work some 31 members of Federnl Union. That is 31 throughout the industry.
Mr. McCann. Now, just a minute
Mr. Price. That should be 1946.
Mr. McCann. You mean in the spring of 1946 ?
Mr. Price. Not INIarch of 1945.
Mr. McCann. That should be March 1946?
Mr. Kahane. Yes ; the date is wrong.
Mr. McCann. The sentence should read, "In an attempt to avoid the coming crisis, the producers did, in March 1946"
Mr. Kahane. Yes ; the date is wrong.
Mr. McCann. Now, there was no effort made by the producers at this time to have this matter adjudicated by the National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. Kahane. That came later, sir.
Mr. McCann. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Kahane. In the spring of 1946, the CSU made threats of economic warfare if the producers were to em])loy machinists other thau members of I AM, and also in the spring of 1946 Los Angeles Central