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 349 I have the utmost respect for these three gentlemen. They said something about memory. Yes, movie actors' memory happens to be a very definite characteristic of our profession. Also, 1 would like to corroboi-ate something they said. They came in a meeting and talked to us on subjects they themselves said they would like very much to forget. For that I can certainly agree and sympathize they should. At the same time when we went into that meeting, knowing in advance of the fact that every word said to us in Chicago — every single thing that happened to us — must be reported factually to our membership ; that is why we were sent there. We went in with the definite knowledge we were going to remember everything that was said. It was further impressed on our memories, more than on theirs, as someof the things they said were such a bombshell, as evidenced by the reading of Mr. Kelly's statement. We only knew there was apparent dissension and disagreement as: to the meaning of both the directive of December and the August clarification. It was, therefore, the first time wo learned that therehad been no misunderstanding as to the meaning of the December directive, and that the only dissension concerning that directive was over the reluctance of one of the participants to agree to the award after it had been made. Therefore, it struck us with quite an impact. A thing that would further make us remember as clearly as we have, sir, is that we made it very plain to these gentlemen — we all apologized for being repetitious in our questioning — we told them that we had entered that room com^^letely neutral, concerned only with the fact this was a jurisdictional dispute and our belief it should not be allowed, to close the studios and throw 30,000 people out of work. Now, sent tliere by our membership, if we understood them correctly, we were sent there to back and endorse the principles of arbitration, and according to what they told us, one man, and one man alone, was deliberately flouting the very principle of arbitration we were there to support. That is why we apologized to them for repeating our questions over and over again. They assured us our understanding was correct. We then left that meeting, sir. W^ went into a meeting of our own, Imowing we would have to report it. We always went in and reconstructed what had taken place, each one of lis contributing to all the things, until we had the story correct. One of tlie reasons I happen to have the story perhaps a little more at hand is because I was elected by our committee as spokesman. Anyone could have been it. It fell to" my lot to be the spokesman, and several times to tell the story. I made the report to our board and membersliip. We went to see Mr. Green, and Mr. Green, in substance, corroborated what they had told us. He told us he had learned of the possibility of their resigning, and it was his understanding that their award gave the jurisdiction to the lATSE. A few hours after that, all in the same day, we saw Mr. Hutcheson, and Mr. Hutcheson in effect — not in the same tone of voice — corroborated what the gentlemen had told us. Mr. Hutcheson said, "Yes; those three blockheads — " and I want to digress and say we do not concur in his opinion when he used that term.