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)

502 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES June 5, 19Ji6 — No. 946 versus No. 468 Set Erectors This morning we moved some stairs from the ranch to Pathe. These stairs were used in the same picture on the ranch and were to be installed in the interior of a house for another shot. The stairs were set up by set erectors. The carpenters objected and said it was a "hot" set, claiming that the stairs were not complete ; that they would not permit any of their men to finish them as long as the set erectors had set them up. In the afternoon Mr. Pelton was called and he contacted Mr. Cooper who said that if Mr. Skelton would agree, the grips would take the stairs down and set them up so the carpenters could finish the work. Mr. Skelton replied that he would have done this as of yesterday but today he was standing on his right to have the carpenters do the entire job. Mr. Cooper relented and gave in to the carpenters' desire. The carpenters then took the stairs down and put them up and completed the stairway. This entire procedure made it impossible for the company to shoot on the following day according to schedule, but they were fortunate enough to rearrange the schedule so that they didn't lose any days as idle time. May 31, 1946— No. U Cappie DuVal was in today to complain about the sewing of miniature sails by the finishers in the drapery department. He felt that these people should be paid the miniature rate of $1.80 per hour for working on these sails, the reason being that it was a convenience to us to have these women work on the sails rather than force us to have a sewing machine in the miniature shop so that a miniature man could do the same sewing. I asked him the question as to how many hours we should pay at the $1.80 rate. I also told him I didn't think it was fair that we should pay the $1.80 rate all day for for working 1 hour. I also suggested to him that this could lead to much padamg of the pay roll in that the work of making sails could be spread to all the people in the department so that all of them would get the higher rate. He thought the suggestion had some merit and suggested that we take it up at the negotiations meeting next week. June 10, 1946— No. 44 versus No. 946 Cappie DuVal complained about telephone booths being set up by carpenters. Harold Barry informed me that we have always done this work with carpenters and that we have always completed the telephone booths in the mill — that is, we have always put the sides and tops on. No change. June 25, 1946— No. 44 versus No. 946 I understand that Cappie DuVal was in and told the drapery department to put a stop-work order on stage 4 on which a judge's bench is built. Will investigate this tomorrow. June 26, 1946 Investigated the above-mentioned matter and found that Cappie DuVal was in and told Frank Millington not to set up the draperies. He also told Syd Fogel that the set was "hot" as far as the property men were concerned. I looked at the set. The bench was built separately but put on a raised floor and tied into the floor by carpenters. This, in effect, makes the bench and floor one piece and therefore part of the set. Cappie DuVal's claim to the judge's bench is that it is similar to a bar and a desk and that local No. 44 should have built it. June 28, 1946 Cappie lifted the hold on this set. The work will progress normally (?). August 16, 1946 — No. 44 versus No. 946 Cappie DuVal came in and complained about a bar that was being built in the mill by carpenters. He said it was a prop and should be built by local No. 44. In order to maintain our position on having the bar built in the mill I told him that our position has always been to build bars in the mill. Cappie still insisted it was a prop and in the course of argument said that the studio had the right to determine whether it is a prop or not. I told him, in view of that light, the studio had determined that this bar was not a prop and it was a part of the set in that it was attached to tlie wall. He advised hat he would take the matter up with the lA.