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.

80 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Price. At the NLRB headquarters, the regional headquarters in Los Angeles. I^Ir. Keauns. It is an important thing. I think we better put that in the record. Mr. McCann. I think that the decision of the Board m this case should be received in evidence, sir. If you will furnish it to me, Mr. Price. Mr. Price. I have it here, sir. Mr. McCann. This is the decision ? Mr. Price. That is the decision. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, this report is 32 pages long, mimeographed, single spaced, and I would like to move that it be received in evidence as an exliibit without being read until counsel has a little more time to digest it. Mr. I^ARNS No objection to that. Mr. McCann. This will be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. Reporter, will you please mark it? (Whereupon the report was marked "Exhibit No. 9" and filed with the committee.) Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at this time I think that it is a sound deduction to say that the lATSE was wrong in requiring these people who had performed a task for a number of years to surrender their jurisdiction, and that the Board by its findings so found. Let's proceed to the next point in dispute. What followed that, sir ? Mr. Casey. They were then, I think, on strike when this decision came down. Mr. McCann. Did that stop the strike ? Mr. Casey. No, sir. Mr. McCann. Tell us why it didn't. Mr. Casey. That I can't tell you, why it didn't. The strike went on because — I believe the decision was appealed, taken to Washington. I don't know that it has ever been settled. Mr. McCann. Did the Society of Interior Decorators or the men in there ever get their jobs back? Mr. Casey. Not until, I believe, they changed their affiliation — some of them. A lot of them liave never gotten their jobs back. Mr. McCann. And they never got their jobs back unless they changed their afHliation to the lATSE ? Mr. Casey. That is correct. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, right there I am not clear on this situation. After this election where they plucked the ballots, so to speak, by fellows that were and were not working, I don't get clear in my mind what was the result after the NLRB had declared the election over and bona fide. Mr. McCann. The election was won, Mr. Chairman, according to Mr. Price, by the representatives of the Society of Interior Decorators, wliich had become affiliated with the set designers in local 1421. Mr. Price. Local 1421 won the election. Mr. McCann. They won the election by 53 to 51, and the reason there were more votes cast than there were jobs was because there was a strike by the painters' union, as I understand it, over the refusal of the company to permit the continuation of this work bj^ the Society </f Interior Decorators. Mr. Price. No, sir ; that is not right.