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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

500 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 695 called and stated that he did not recognize division of work dated 1936 and that this work was properly that of No. 695. Problem solved by use of twocard nieu. February 23, 191,5— No. 728 versus No. 40 Earl Miller and A. T. Dennison called at my office. Dennison raised ob.1ection to our use of IBEW men installing and connecting about 300 light sockets which are part of Show Boat set on stage 7. Dennison threatened to pull No. 728 men off lot if we did not give them this work. I tried to reach F. Carothers with no success. We got Carl Cooper and Al Speede to come and look at job with Dennison, Miller, and myself. Both claimed the work. May 12, 19 47 — No. 23968 machinists versus No. 40 Mr. Shiffman advised Mr. Miller that he should not have any local No. 40 men doing welding. I told Mr. Shiffman that he had no .iurisdiction over welding and that it was a "tool of the trade" and therefore anyone could do it. Mr. ShiiTman threatened and said that we had better not do it as Mr. Brewer said that it was under the jurisdiction of the lA. Mr. Shiffman said that he could get us welders if we needed them. I told Mr. Shiffman that this man did welding before the strike and as far as I knew there was no reason why he could not continue to do welding. August 12, 1946 — local No. 4^8 set erectors versus No. 946 carpenters Joe Singleton was in Saturday and marked some sets that were moved onto stage 5 and said that these sets were not to be erected by the set erectors because they were made in the mill and were made fi-om flats. The reason that they were built in the mill was that there was not stage space available until Saturday for their erection. Originally, set was supposed to have been placed on stage 10 but 10 had a standing set on it. It was then contemplated that it would go onto stage 5. Stage 5 did not become available until Saturday morning because up through Friday night they were shooting the Falcon picture. Auffust 14, 1946 With regard to the building of some sets from August 12, 1946, as indicated in the above note, Messrs. Brewer, Singleton, Goldberg, Barry, and myself had a meeting at which time it was decided that we would in the future, try a system whereby the steward from local No. 468 and the steward from local No. 946 would meet regarding anything that might appear to liave a jurisdictional problem. On the strength of this, the sets that were held, as aforementioned, were released and the set erectors were then told to set the sets up on stage 5. April 17, 1947 — local No. 44 versus No. 468 set erectors Mr. DuVal called to advise that we were repairing a locomotive in the mill. It is his work, he claims, and if they continue to repair it in the mill local No. 44 will not handle it. I told him I would check. April 18, 1947 I called Joe Singleton this morning to advise him that Cappie DuVal had demanded the repairing of the locomotive, as above, and he said that there was nothing he could do ; that if Cappie demanded it, we should give it to him. April 23, 1947 — No. 44 versus No. ^68 set erectors Cappie DuVal has just called and advised that on stage 10 and in the mill we are making half-size buildings. Cappie claims that this is strictly against the jurisdictional award from the lA and he would like to have it corrected immediatel.v. I talked with Bob Thompson who tells me that in the past this work has been wholly controversial and every time it has come up we have always given it to the carpenters, despite the complaint of Cappie DuVal. The reason it was given to the carpenters was that it was not a miniatui'e, in the true sense of the word : it is merely half size, wliich is perspective. I contacted Mr. Singleton who said that it is definitely Cappie's work and he has no objection to local No. 44 continuing the operation. April 23, 1947 Singleton just called to advise that since this job is perspective he is now claiming it.