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 335 written too much, that they were sorry they had written anything outside of the first directive and stopped there. Mr. McCann. Did they indicate at whose requests or upon whose insistence this basket of words was written? INIr. Murphy. Whether it was done directly or not, we certainly oot the impression at whose instance it was done. I think everybody in Hollywood knew that before we left. Mr. McCann. Do you recall the opening remark which this committee made when you gentlemen came to their rooms or wherever you met them ? Mv. Murphy. As close as I can remember, in the first place, may I say we were very gratified and a little surprised that the committee met with us. We didn't think that that would happen, and we were very pleased when they did meet with us, and as I remember the opening of the discussion, they pointed out pretty clearly that as far as they were concerned that their committee was appointed to sit in this arbitration that had been agreed to by the parties involved and management for a period of 30 clays, and at the end of the period of 30 days that, as far as they were concerned, their committee was dissolved automatically because of that limitation, and no longer existed. Mr. McCann. Do you recall, without trying to put in a specific quote here, that the statement was made to you that they met only as individuals and not as members of a committee? Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir ; I believe that was said. Mr. McCann. And do you recall the fact that they specifically said that their work as a committee was terminated when they made their decision of December 26, 1945? Mr. Murphy. That was the understanding that I had; yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Now, tell me this : Did you bring up the specific instance of a complete structure being erected upon a stage in your discussion with these gentlemen, and did they give you an interpretation of the proper union to do that work under this decision ? Mr. Murphy. Well, as I recall it in this discussion, I think I pointed out that some of the rules that used to apply in the picture business and the conditions that used to apply years ago had changed somewhat; that in years gone by most of the sets were constructed in a different way — they were flat pieces — and now that actual sets were constructed on the stage, and that sometimes or during some period of time that there had been, we thought, a need of revising the rules that governed this jurisdiction to change it, and if my memory serves me — I am not positive of this, but I think that Gene Kelly, in the eli'ort to ascertain exactly what was meant by this, I think that Gene was the one who said some sets are built completely on the stages, and did they mean that that work was to be allocated to the lATSE, as the directive pointed out, and to the best of my knowledge they said yes, that the^^ meant those sets were to be erected, with the exception of mill and trim work, as stated in the directive. ilr. McCann. Are there any questions that anyone desires that I should ask Mr. Murphy that have not been asked? I want to excuse him when he is through, and I don't want to have anyone feel, on any side here, that they are being neglected. Did the December 26, 1945, decision take any work away from the carpenters? Mr. Murphy. Actuallv, from the conversations and the meetings where I was present, I would say that it took away work from car