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)

136 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Who was that sent to? Mr. Price. Local (U4 of the painters. Mr, McCann. I see. Mr. PincE (reading) : Septkmber 11, 1946. From: Arch Reeve, public information committee, motion picture industry. To : Mr. Joseph F. Canibiano, international representative of United Brotherhood of Cari)enters and Joiners of America ; Mr. 0. A. Spronl, president of local 946 of the brotherhood; Mr. J. W. Vance, recording secretary of local 946. Gkntlemkn : Today, we, as representatives of the major motion picture producing studios in Hollywood, met with you and other representatives of the above unions pursuant to your telegraphic request. At that meeting you advised us that, unless commencing with 6 a. m., on September 12, 1946, all construction and erection of sets in our studios be performed by members of local 94t), all such sets would be declared "hot'' and would not be further liandled or processed. The basis of your request was stated to be a clarification order issued by a three-man committee appointed by the executive council of tlie American Federation of Labor, the contents of which are liereafter referi'ed to. Our reply, wliicli we promised to make promptly to your demands, is as follows : At a meeting of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor held in Cincinnati in October 1945, in settlement of the then existing strike, it was agreed that if the luiions involved could not settle existing jurisdictional questions lietween themselves, a committee of three members of the executive council should investigate and determine all such questions, that all parties concerned, including the producers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Emplo.vees of the United States and Canada, would accept, as final and binding, the determination of the committee. In carrying out the above, the executive committee of the American Federation of Labor appointed a three-man committee composed of three international vice presidents. According to the language of the committee, after exhaustive hearings and investigation in Hollywood they, on December 26, issued a directive to be final and binding on all parties. Such directive set forth that the lATSE should have jurisdiction over the erection of sets on stages, except trim and mill work, which latter work should be performed by members of your iinion. The directive specifically i-equired that erection of sets on stages be under the jurisdiction of the lATSE, and only trim and mill work be given to carpenters. It was based upon this directive that the division of work was put into effect and has since been strictly adhered to. Thereafter, under date of August 16, 1946, the same committee Issued an interpretation of its previous decision without notice to the parties to the former dispute, in which it stated that "the word 'erection' is construed to mean assemblage of such sets on stages or locations. It is to be clearly undei'stood that the committee recognizes the jurisdiction of construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners' jurisdiction." We have been advised by Mr. Richard A. Walsh, president of the lATSE, that it is the contention of the lATSE "that this so-called clarification was issued without authority and in violation of the Cincinnati agreement to which this International Alliance, yourselves, and the other international unions involved were all parties. * * * jf the committee's decision as originally rendered is not fully complied with by you, this International Alliance will take such action as may be necess;iry to protect its interests." As a result of these conflicting demands made by you and by the representatives of the lATSE, we, as employers, are placed in a position oi" having to determine a jurisdictional question that can only be settled by the unions involved. In view of the fact that the directive of December 26, 1945, was stated to be final and binding upon all parties concerned and that this position was reiterated to us by I'epresentatives of the American Federation of Labor at subsequent