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)

274 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Sec. 2. All millwork and carpenter work in connection witli studios. Sec. 3. All work in cai'penter shops. Sec. 4. All permanent construction. Sec. 5. All construction work on exterior sets. Division of work — International A li;iiice of Theatrical Staire Employees and Motion-Picture Machine Operators oi the United States and Canada : Sec. 6. Miniature sets. Sec. 7. Propertj building. Sec. 8. Erection of sets on stages, except as provided in section 1. Sec. 9. Wrecking of sets, exterior and interior. Sec. 10. Erecting platforms for lamp operators and cameramen on stages. This decision is applicable to the motion-piclure industry and none other and is not to be construed as interfering with or disrupting any jurisdiction otherwise granted the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America by the American Federation of Labor. Now, ]Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we had but 30 days in which to hand down this decision. We went over all of the previous agreements that had been entered into down through the years, and we found out, if I may use just common parlance, we were sucking on a lemon that was approximately half a century old then. It is something tliat has come along with the entertainment industry, and there are numerous records in the American Federation of Labor showing how many jurisdictional disputes there had been in that field, and we did discover that on February 5, 1925, an agreement liad been entered into between the representatives of local union Xo. 1G92 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the lATSE. That agreement of February 5, 1925. was commonly known as the 1926 agreement, and has the exact language which was placed in the directive handed down on December 2o, 1945. Now, Mr. Chairman and counsel, we did that because we felt that if the carpenters and the stage employees back in 1925 could get together and reach some kind of a common imderstanding on an agreement, surely that kind of an agreement would be well worth while and could be entered into our decision of December 26, 1945; but shortly following the issuance of the decision we learned, much to our suri)rise — but it did not alter our opinion — that the agreement of February 5, 1925, had been repudiated by the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and it has been stated that the representatives of local union 1692 were either expelled or suspended by the union for having entered into such an agreement. And therein lies the difficulty that ensues, even unto this day. Mr. McCanjst. May I ask you, sir, a question with respect to that section 8 under the title of lATSE, where I believe your section 8 reads, "Erection of sets on stages" ; is that correct? Mr, DoiiERTY. That is right. Mr. McCann. What do you mean by that, sir? Mr. DoiiERTY. We gave to the lATSE the same jurisdiction that they had in this February 5, 1925, agreement, which meant that they had the authority to erect or assemble sets on stages, except as provided in section 1. Section 1 told the carpenters and the lATSE that all trim and millwork on sets on stages belonged to the carpenters. Now, I think, in fairness to the committee, Mr. Chairman and counsel, it should be said here, since this seems to be the crux of the whole situation, that under no circumstances — under no stretch of the imagination — did this committee intend, by having handed down this