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 411 Supposing the dispute concerned the meaning of that agreement and the A. F. of L. executive council certainly had the right and authority and nobody else had the authority, but the governing authority to resolve that jurisdictional issue which arose from that, it did so in this instance by directing the same three men to resolve the question. Now, in this hearing there has also been a lot of discussion of the obligation of the A. F. of L. to settle its own jurisdictional disputes, and the A. F. of L. has been severely criticized for not settling them. It seems to me that should one on one hand find fault with the A. F. of L. for failure to settle those jurisdictional issues and on the other hand question the right of the A. F. of L. executive council to act when it does attempt to settle a jurisdictional issue, which it did in this case, is unfair. The issue had arisen after the December 1945 directive. Mr. Reagan says it should be formally placed in arbitration and set for arbitration, that is the thing that I said and Mr. Reagan said it again, and we say it in good faith, but if they have a dispute which has arisen as the result of any directive where it can't be settled, we have to interpose the supreme authority, the A. F, of L. council did impose its authority, and the clarification resulted, and I think this point is very important, too. The producers especially, it seems to me, are in no position to question the action the A. F. of L. executive council has taken. They have stood upon the theory that they had bound themselves only to the original directive — to the Cincinnati agreement — and that is the position the producers have taken all through this dispute. The position they have taken throughout this dispute is that they have got nothing to do with this controversial jurisdictional dispute between unions, and they have gone under the idea that they don't care who does the work, it is up to the unions themselves to decide, to make their ow^n decisions, and the producers w411 abide by them. On that basis of that position that they have taken throughout this thing, it seems to me they are estopped from coming in here and saying the August clarification has no authority because the authority of this committee ceased after 30 days from December 1945. The A. F. of L. reestablished the committee and conferred authority upon it. Now, I think in this hearing the three-man committee's testimony has substantiated the correctness of that view on this thing. They have under oath resolved the doubt that existed in my own mind as to the authenticity of the August clarification. They stated emphatically that they did write the August clarification and that it did not change the December directive but simply explained what they had meant by the December directive, and they testified emphatically that the construction placed by the carpenters by Mr. Walsh and by the producers — by Mr. Casey for the producers — was erroneous, and that, to me, is the essential part of the question. Now, I w^ant to say when and how I got actively into this thing. I took no part in it from September, when it first began, until — I forget the exact date; it was, I think, after the turn of 1947 in January, it may have been before that, it may have been in December — I don't recall when I entered into it actively. I myself went to the conference of studio unions. I did so without any official invitation to do so. I did so because I had been watching the suffering of the people who worked for the movies, I have engaged in it as a citizen. As Mr. McCann stated the other day in defending my right to testify here, I did interest myself in this, the suffering of the people interested me