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 253 Mr. Birthright. Well, we don't have tliat here. Mr. TiNSDALE. Your memoranduui of August 16, 1946, does not read that way? Mr. Birthright. No. Where did it come from? Mr. SoRKEiLL. If you want to hang on again, I will read the wliole thing. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Birthright, 1 think the important thing is what you actually meant and not the language actually used. I think you have told lis very plainly that you meant your first directive of December to be final and binding, and that any language in any clarification did not change the meaning of that. Is that true? Mr. Birthright. That's right. Mr. TiNSDALE. There is no question about it, Mr. Birthright, but that this memorandum of August 16 directs the parties to comply, but at the same time in the purported copy of the August 16 memorandum which has been received here on the coast, it has the following language in it — and I want to say here that, contrary to Mr. Murphy, we are very much interested in the language of the actual memorandum, because it is only from the language that we have anything on which to act. Going back to the language which is in your purported copy of your August 16, 1946, memorandum, "The A\ord 'erection' is construed to mean the assemblage of such sets on stages or locations. It is to be clearly understood that the committee recognizes that jurisdiction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners" jurisdiction." Now, I don't think there has been any question in anyones mind here that since .i'anuary 26, 1946, the erection of sets — I say again "erection" — was the jurisdiction of the lATSE. But there has been a question as to the meaning of the term "erection," and we were given to understand in your memorandum of August 16, 1946, that you defined the term "erection" as follows : "To mean assemblage of such sets on stages or locations." And that there was a distinction between erection and construction, and that you define erection as meaning assemblage, and then you went on to say it was clearly understood that the committee recognizes jurisdiction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. The only question here is where construction stops, or what is erection and what is construction work. Is it generally understood that construction should be performed by carpenters, and erection — as you have defined it — to be assemblage — the work of the lATSE? Do I make myself clear? Mr. Birthright. Yes. You make yourself clear, but I don't know where you got that. Mr. TiNSDALE. That language is all in your memorandum of August 16, 1946? Mr. Birthright. No. Mr. TiNsDA-LE. Do you have a copy of the memorandum that was sent out here by Mr. Green's office? Mr. Birthright. No. Mr. TiNSDALE. You don't have a copy of President Green's letter to Hutcheson? Mr. Birthright. No ; I read it over — what he said. Mr. Skelton. Brother Knight, this is Skelton of the carpenters. We would like to ask you one question. Did you clarify the directive on August 16 with another letter saying that you had? I want to know if the language is correct that he sent out. Mr. Birthright, i have read you what we sent out. Mr. Skelton. I am referring to the clarification that referred to erection, meaning assemblage. Mr. TiNSDALE. Mr. Birthright, I am sorry to keep interrupting, but apparently there is a ditference in the language of the memorandum which you have before you and the memoranda which we have. Mr. Birthright. I have no memoranda. I have the full actual report. Mr. TiNSDALE. I see. You were aware that, subsequent to the August 16 action, President Green sent a letter to Mr. Knight, as I understand it, and to President Hutcheson and President Walsh, and to Eric Johnston, and accompanying that letter was a memoranda dated Chicago, III., August 16, 1946. Mr. Birthright. August 16, 1946? Mr. TiNSDALE. Yes ; over your purported signatures ; and it is the language from that memoranda which we have been quoting to you and attempting to find out if it is in the memorandum before you, or if it is not before you. Mr. Birthright. Not what you read. (Voice became inaudible.)