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 41 What was the position taken by the producers with respect to this so-called clarification of August 16, 1946 ^ Mr. Kahane. We had to agree that the Cincinnati directive called for the three-man committee to go to Hollywood and resolve any questions of jurisdiction that had not been resolved in the first 30 days of the 60-day period. It said that they should settle all unresolved jurisdictional questions within the following 30 days, and then all of the parties, including the producers, had agreed to accept as final, binding, and conclusive, the decision rendered by the arbitrators. They had no continuing jurisdiction to make interpretations, or to make clarifications, or to do anything else. The only power that they had was the power that was conferred voluntarily by the men who went before the council in October — in March — and agreed to it. Now, that wasn't March. When was it ? Mr. LuDDY. October. Mr. Kahane. Yes, October. In other words, Mr. Walsh submitted himself to the jurisdiction of that committee for a particular purpose. We felt that inasmuch as we had agreed to accept that award as binding and conclusive, that we intended to do it that way. We thought that the viewpoint of the lATSE was correct — that no one consulted us — they had no further hearings in any place to discuss the award. The producers were not notified of any arbitration hearing to clarify the directive, and so far as^ we know, no one else was. The lATSE was not, and here was a man by the name of Hutcheson, apparently taking advantage of his position on the council of the American Federation of Labor, talking to the three-man committee and apparently getting tliem by some means or other to issue what he saw fit to declare a clarification of a directive that was supposed to be final and binding. Well, we would not have any of that. ]\Ir. McCann. I have one more question from Mr. Luddy. The set erectors' local was set up after the award of set erection was made to the lATSE, was it not? Mr. Kaiiaxe. Well, yes; as I say, it was after the directive had been issued. Mr. McCann. And until tliat time, the matter, as I recall it, was done by another group i Mr. Kaiiaxe. By lATSE men — grips, and property men. Mr. McCaxn. a special union was set up to take over this work. Now, I have two or three questions that have been suggested from the public that I am going to ask you, I will accept questions, if they are intelligible, from anyone that may help us in this inquiry. Mr. Kaiiaxe. I will be very glad to answer any questions. Mr. McCaxx. Was pressure from the lATSE responsible for the ]3roducers' failure to recognize local 1-421? Mr. Kaiiax^e. Well, that could be answered yes, if you mean by that were the producers in the position where, if they yielded to the 1421 group and recognized their jurisdiction despite the conflicting claims of the lATSE, and without waiting for a National Labor Relations Board decision to make a determination, the only governmental agency which has jurisdiction to make such a determination. If we had thrown our lot with the 1421 as they wanted us to. we probably would have found ourselves without cameramen, without film