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 347 Mr. McCann. I wonder if you will do me the favor at the recess, sir, to secure the exhibit from the reporter. Mr. Somerset. He has it right behind there. I would like to Mr, McCann. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to read from an exhibit which has been received in evidence for reference purposes only, that portion on page 50 of volume IV which is entitled "Screen Actors Guild Meeting at 8 : 30 p. m., October 26, 1946, at Hollywood, Calif." Mr. KJEARNS. No objection. Mr. McCann (reading) : Mr. Kelly. I hope I don't talk too long, but I would like to say quite a few things. First I would like to explain a few things to Brother Mattison. First, on the question of impartiality. If any of you have ever been to Brooklyn, you know how the referee feels and what he is in for. We must insist up here that there is complete impartiality. However, we must also insist that there is a state of mind existing on this side of the table. This state of mind comes after a long and close survey of a lot of factual statistical evidence. No. 1, we went to Chicago, a very naive group, as Mr. Barrett so put it the other evening, and we found out some things in our naive way. We met the three arbitrators, and we asked them how about their claritication of the record. As I said the other night, the three arbitrators told us that they meant the lA should do this work on stages. We said, "Why should the lA do this work on stages?" And they said, "They should do this work on stages because it is an amusement industry, and we feel tliey should do it." I am one of the fellows who went to Chicago suspecting and smelling a producer rat behind the walls. I wasn't convinced of a thing. When I went in there I was knocked off my feet a lot more than you were when they told us very clearly that no matter what the clarification said, or no matter what interpretation you put on a package of words, that this was to rest under the purview and jurisdiction of the lATSE. This eliminated for me the producer collusion, and so forth, which I honestly went there suspecting. I felt that they were throwing you two guys at each other's throats, figuring they would have something. Perhiips I was naive in that. But I suspected it anyway. We further pressed them. We said, "This clarification, do you mean it to change anything?" I must go through all this — I know it is getting trite, but I must have you understand this, first, on the basis of impartiality. So we pressed them much further than we did on the phone — Herb and Jim and Mattie and Roy — we pressed them much further. So no man came back from Chicago that was in that room not convinced that the lA shoald have the work. However, we did feel that after the other night — and on your own admission it was a fair meeting — we did feel, when you threw your little bombshell in, Herb, we felt that, well, we have to get them together and see whether they lied to 10 men in a room. "Let's pretend we have this thing in a court. Let's say it is in a court. First I want to ask Jim Skelton, because he is a pro in these matters : Is there any construction on a sound stage that is done by carpenters? Isn't the permanent construction done on the sound stages by carpenters? Mr. Skelton. Yes ; but it says the sets. Yes ; they do, on the construction work. Mr. KixLY. I just wanted to know that in case we get garbled later on. They Impressed us very much with the idea that anything done on the set, outside of trim and aiillwork, was to be done by the lA — clarification or no. We kept Insisting and reiterating that no matter what happened, no matter what the clarification said, does that change it. Now, we said, "Do you gentlemen understand the trade-union history of Hollywood? Do you understand what you mean when you say the 1926 agreement? When you say the 1926 agreement, you are saying something that we all know." We asked Mr. Hutcheson just to make sure that he knew it. We found out pretty quick that he did know what the 1926 agreement was. This is not a question of impartiality. If you had us in a court, no matter what our feelings are in this matter, we would have to swear under oath that we were convinced — under oath, mind you — that we were convinced that this work should go to the lA. Now, further, on Thui'sday night, in trying to