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 499 Stone and Dunn discussed Smith's stand on the matter and agreed that this work would be done by Christy, Teague and/or Kelly, who are two-card men. July 13, 1944—^0. JfO, No. 165, No. 33 {stage hands), No. 659 We were planning some television tests in collaboration with Don Lee Broadcasting Co. So many unions made conflicting claims on jurisdiction that matter was dropped. October 9, 19U—No. 40 versus No. 78 Mr Speede of the IBEW protested against our plumbers doing welding. We refused to change this. Speede admitted that plumbers could do welding on "plumbing work." No one agreed, however, on a definition of -'plumbing." Octoier 19, 1944— No. 40 versus No. 44 (props) Mr. Speede protested use of a No. 44 effectsman or a laborer (local not identified) operating a gas-driven air compressor used in connection with miniature shots at RKO ranch. We refused to concede jurisdiction to No. 40 on this. November 24, 1944— No. 40 versus No. 728 Mr. TiNDALL of local No. 44 protested our use of local No. 728 men to "maintain" stage-lighting equipment. These men were only cleaning and polishing lamps. Protest withdrawn. December 11, 1944 — ^o. 40 versus No. 44 Speede laid claim to operation of gas-driven compressors and water pumps used in connection with special effects. No change was made by us. December 11, 1944 — No. 40 versus No. 78 Speede laid claim to operation and maintenance of our refrigerating plant, air-conditioning units and steam-heating plants. We used No. 40 men for all electrical work in connection with such equipment and plumbers for nonelectrical work. August 8, 1944 — No. 44 versus No. 946 RKO Studio Club was loaned some set units representing a courtroom to use in staging a play. Some minor repairs were made on them by prop makers. Skelton registered a protest. Note that this was not concerned with production. November 20, 1944 — No. 44 versus No. 946 The ship sets for Spanish Main were built by No. 946 carpenters. During shooting we had the foreman and several carpenters stand by. Mr. DuVal protested and demanded that we remove all stand-by carpenters from the set. We refused. February 7 to February 17, 1945, inclusive — No. 946 versus No. 44 and No. 80 Whenever a prop maker or grip used a mill machine the carpenters in the mill stopped work. Mr. Skelton stated to Mr. Stone that he would not allow us to install any new woodworking machinery in prop shop. September 26, 1944 — No. 44 versus No. 946 Mr. DuVal of local No. 44 protested our use of carpenters in laying carpets. Mr. Sproul of local No. 946 agreed that this was not carpenters' work and we transferred this work to prop men. Later, Mr. Skelton of No. 946 complained about this but after some discussion agreed to stand by decision of Mr. Sproul. August 23, 1944— No. 40 versus No. 728 Both local No. 40 and local No. 728 claimed the operation of two new portable blowers. It was finally agreed that if primary purpose of blower was ventilation a No. 40 man would be assigned but if primary purpose of blower was for creating wind elfect a No. 728 man should be used. Neither local was very happy over this matter. November 20, 1944— No. 728 and No. 80 Dennison of No. 728 had, by letter dated July 26, 1944, attempted to switch handling of light booms to local No. 80 (grips). We considered this "feather bedding" and refused to comply. June 30, 1944— No. 40 versus No. 695 Mr. Speede of local No. 40 complained re our use of members of No. 695 to manufacture sound cables. We agreed he was right. Mr. Smith of local No.