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 501 April 24, 1947 — No. 44 versus No. 468 set erectors Cappie DuVal called me at 9 o'clock this morning to tell me that unless we got local No. 44 men on the forced perspective job on stage 10 by 10 a. m. today that his men would have nothing further to do with the set. Walter Daniels, Harold Barry, and myself, at a meeting, all agreed that this work should be done by set erectors, but in view of the lA jurisdictional award within the lA there was nothing we could do about it except assign it to No. 44. I called Carl Cooper this morning and asked him about this forced perspective on stage 10 and. Carl Cooper told me that Cappie comes into the picture where the forced perspective begins — that is, Cappie is supposed to build all buildings at less than normal scale and that we would have no trouble with the set erectors. July 29, 1947— No. 468 Set Erectors versus No. 142I Set Designers Joe Singleton advised today that he is going to request his set erectors not to work on any more plans that come down from the art department. As to the reason why, he said that Mr. Brewer had told him to advise us of the above. Juhj 30, 1947— No. 468 Set Erectors versus No. I421 Set Designers Mr. Singleton came in to tell me that his men would not work on any new plans. The only plans they would work on would be the plans that are on the bench right now. October 20, 1944— No. 44 versus No. 946 Mr. DuVal of local No. 44 came in to protest the presence of carpenters with a shooting unit (ship set on stage 9). He claimed that carpenters were not permitted with shooting units. Called H. Barry who said that due to complexities of set it was advisable to have carpenters (who had constructed it) there. Later Barrett of local No. SO called but did not seem to be upset about this matter. Left carpenters on set. April 25, 1946— No. 644 and No. 946 On April 23, 1946, Skelton issued an order to the carpenters not to touch the set on stage 14 at Pathe. Complaint : Carpenters should install parquet floors. (Note. — The floors had not yet been laid, and they had just assumed that parquet was to be laid.) They jumped the gun in this instance. The painters said they would not work on this same set pending decision of the carpenters. The decision of the studio was to put in a presswood board floor in lieu of the parquet, as called for in plans and specifications. Skelton's attention was called to the change. He relented and today lifted the order not to touch set. May 8, 1946 — No. 946 versus No. 468 Set Erectors versus No. 44 Re Jurisdictional dispute on picture No. 555, set 12, at Pathe : Bookcases : Skelton claims that bookcases, although a unit built in the mill, should be set up on the stage by carpenters. He also claims that the hearth of the fireplace should be built by carpenters. Our position regarding the bookcases was that in view of the fact that it was a completed unit, it should be turned over to the set erectors for setting up and the carpenters would then put on the molding, or casings, after the set was sef up. In relation to the above set, Cappie DuVal called and said that the fireplace, if we are making it practical, should be fireproofed (or lined with asbestos) and the running of the pipe for the fire, or gas, should be done by prop makers because of its practical nature. May 9, 1946 Ruling on the Pathe jurisdictional problem on picture No. 555, set 12 : Mr. Casey went out and looked at the set and decided that the line-up of bookcases was set construction work: That the installation of the flreproofing and the pipe for the practical fireplace was the work of local No. 44, propmakers. The unions have been so advised and the dispute has been settled. June 3, 1946 versus No. 468 Set Erectors At the Pathe lot the mill built a unit which was a fake kitchen cabinet. It was built in the mill because it was considered all trim. This fake kitchen cabinet was to be set up by set erectors and the carpenters objected. Mr. Casey ruled that it should be set up by carpenters and the dispute ended.