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 317 Mr. DonERTY. It is definitely stated, Mr, Chairman and Counsel, in ;]ie decision. Howev'er, yesterday I made it crystal clear in behalf of my two colleagues here that under no circumstances did we expect that the representatives involved in the seven unions would break faith and that they would arrogate unto themselves work that was rightfully not theirs. We assumed, Mr. Chairman and Counsel, that everyone identified with the jurisdictional dispute would act in good faith, because of the agreement that was entered into at Cincinnati, Ohio, during October of 1945. Under no stretch of the imagination — I think I am repeating this from yesterday's testimony — under no stretch of the imagination did we intend that work that was rightfully the jurisdiction of the carpenters be taken away from them, and by the same token, Mr. Chairman and Counsel, we did not mean that work that was rightfully the jurisriction of the lATSE should be taken away from them relative to the erection of sets on stages and locations. Mr. McCann. Did you believe, your committee Mr. Kearns. Are these the same questions? Mr. McCann. Same question from Mr. Luddy. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. McCann. Did you believe, your committee, after it had handed down its award in December 194."), within the 30-day period provided for in the Cincinnati agreement, had any further authority to act without the consent of all parties ? Mr. DoiiERj'Y. Well, now, I would call that an ambiguous question. I think it can be answered this way, however : that the committee had completed its work with the handing down of the December 26, 1945, decision, and then, after the executive council had met in Chicago during August of 1946, the committee was instructed by the executive council to bring in a clarification. Mr. McCann. Another question by Mr. Luddy : What do you understancl the word "assemblage" used in the clarification document to mean? Mr. DoHERTY. Putting together anything that is on the sets, stages, locations, that should be put together by the lATSE. Mr. McCann. What did your committee mean when, in the December 1945 decision, it said, "the 1926 agreement be placed in full force and effect immediately?" Mr. DoHERTY. Mr. Chairman, I think we have explained that over and over and over again, but out of courtesy to the Chair, whom I respect, and the committee — and it is almost to the point of admiration, sir — I will repeat once more what we meant. We meant that the agreement entered into by a local — ^I believe No. 1692 — of the carpenters and the lATSE, under date of February 5, 1925, known as the 1926 agreement, we believed that that was fair, just, and equitable, and the executive council committee used that agreement as a basis or a pattern for handing down its work jurisdiction on lines of demarcation as applicable to the lATSE and the carpenters' union. They learned later — and that is all in the record many, many times — that the carpenters' union had repudiated, by expulsion or otherwise, the officers of the local union of the carpenters involved. Mr. McCann. These questions are proposed by Mr. Price, who represents industry. At the Miami meeting of the A. F, of L. council