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)

498 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES assigned Sorrell approved the assignment and said that if he was O. K. and liked the work and wanted to stay on it he would take him into the painters' local G44. Since Republic's practice in the past had been to assign 724 laborers to pot washing, Republic had followed its past pi'actice in this case. However, it had also been the practice of 644 painters after about 30 days to take such men into their local and local 724 accepted their transfer and did not claim jurisdiction over the work. Sorrel was reminded of this fact and immediately advised us that he would accept Utterberg into the union, which he did and all trouble was avoided. Jtjejisdictional Disputes in Studios of RKO-Radio Pictures, Ino. AUGUST 16, 1947 January 18, 19^ — No. 44 versus No. 728 On January 15, Mr. DuVal, representing local No. 44, complained that we were using No. 728 men to operate electric fans. He said that his local used to do this work and still claimed it. He said that local No. 728 also claimed it. It was agreed by R. Simbro, of the electrical department, M. C. Martin, of miniatures, and Mr. DuVal that this work was moved from miniature department to electric when the big wind machines were moved (about January 1942). I called Carl Cooper this information and he advised that we leave this work with No. 728 men until the entire jurisdiction should be ironed out. February 2, 194/, — No. 40 versus No. 728 Ray Simbro called to state that a portable fan was being used at Pathe to ventilate stage. Question arose as to whether lATSE or IBEW electricians had jurisdiction. It is our understanding that both claim this. We decided to use a No. 728 man. August 23, 1944— No. 728 versus No. 40 Mr. Dennison, of local No. 728, complained that we were using local No. 40 men on the two new blowers when they were being used for special effects. Checked with V. Clarke, who agreed with me that this was No. 728 work. Arranged with Earl INIiller to use a two-card man on these machines, which should satisfy both locals. November 20, 1944 — No. 728 versus No. 80 Earl Miller called to say that grips were operating light booms on stage 9. Called D. Thomson and Miller in and showed them correspondence on this subject in which we contend this is lamp operators' work. Agreed to remove grips and tell lamp operators to operate booms. February 27, 1947— No. 44 versus No. 468 Set Erectors and No. 946 Cappie DuVal called to inform me that when bars are built and they are not part of the set they should be build by local No. 44. If a back bar is part of the wall, it should be built by set erectors. He wants us to revert to the Casey decision between No. 946 and local No. 44. I advised him that I could make no changes in our set-up because the Casey decision had nothing to do with work between locals No. 468 and No. 44. June 29 and 30, 1944— No. 40 versus No. 695 Al Speede, of local No. 40, called to register a complaint regarding the manufacture of new sound cables by lATSE men and called attention to the division of work agreed to in 1936 between IBEW and lATSE. Stone, Dunn, and Meehan discussed the matter and agreed that Speede was correct. Work on the project was halted with the idea of making it a spare-time job for men who carried two cards. Harold Smith of No. 695 called and complained that his men were taken off the work. He stated that he had not been a party to the 1936 division of work and only recognized the jurisdiction set forth in the duties contained in the 1941 agreement. He agreed that since the work was halted he had no basis for a complaint but that if the work, when done, was by other than lATSE men his union would not stand for such action. He gave the names as follows of men who had previously done this work : Harman, Anderson, Haughton, Abarr, Turner, Christy, Teague, and Kelly.