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.

38 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Off the record, please, sir. (Discussion off tlie record.) Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may we have 5 minutes' recess? Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (Short recess taken.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will now come to order. Mr. IVIcCann. Mr. Kahane, I want to ask you another question in regard to the permittees. I think we have developed it fairly fully, but I want it a little bit clearer. Now, the reason that you used permittees was because of the strike that existed, was it not? Mr. Kaiiane. That is really an interunion matter. So far as the producers w^ere concerned, they wanted workmen to do the job. Whether the union was going to issue permit cards or take them into the union was their concern. Mr. McCann. I see. Now, before the strike of 1946, I assume that is the one we are talking about here, did they issue permit cards, eithei' the carpenters or the lATSE? Mr. Kaiiane. I don't know if they issued permit cards or whether they had the men — for example, in the 1045 strike, grips did carpenter work and prop men did carpenter work and prop men did painting work. Mr. McCann. But those were men who belonged to the lATSE doing work that had been done by different trades, were they not? jSlr. Kaiiane. That is right. Mr. McCann. In 11)40, with the great shortage of personnel, permittees came in and did a great deal of the work which had previously been done by tlie members of the conference who were on strike ; that is correct — is that right? Mr. Kahane. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Now, I believe counsel have been willing to agree that there are better than a thousand of those men working on permits now. I believe that is what they said in there; is that correct? Mr. LuDDY. I would rather check and get an accurate answer from my people. There are none of them here now, and I would not want to say. I want to be accurate on it. Mr. McCann. That is fine. I am passing a question that has been suggested by Mr. Cobb, and I will go on to the next question. Referring now to the July 2, 1946, agreement which you designated the "Beverly Hills treaty," I note that it was signed for the producers by Mr. Pat Casey. What was Mr. Casey's authority to act for the producers on July 2, 1946? Mr. Kaiiane, Mr. Casey was and had been for many years the representative of the producers in mediation and negotiation of labor difficulties. Mr. McCann. Was he an employee of the association of the producers? Mr. Kaiiane. No, sir. Mr. McCann. By whom was he employed ? Mr. Kaiiane. He was employed by the presidents of the companies in New York. Originally Mr. Casey did theater labor relations work and then look on the tlieater and studio labor-i'elations work, but his original activity was in New York, and then it extended from New