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 503 Twentieth Centuet-Fox Film Corp. Beverly Hills, Calif., August 16, 1947. Mr. VicTOB Claeke, Producers' Association, Hollywood, Calif. Dear Vic: Pursuant to the discussion at the meeting held yesterday, enclosed find copy of the jurisdictional disputes and complaints which have arisen at our studio from the start of the first strike until the present date. Should you need any additional information kindly contact this office. Kind regards. Sincerely yours, Ed Colyee. Assistant to Fred 8. Meyer. Twentieth Centuky-Fox Film Corp. August 16, 1947. jurisdictional disputes and complaints Listed below are several of the many jurisdictional disputes and complaints which arose at our studio between March 12, 1945 (the start of the first strike), and up to the present date. 1. Merry-go-round. — On February 11, 1946, a dispute arose between local No. 40 and local No. 44 as to who would operate. The merry-go-round was wired and hooked up by local No. 40, and because of the extremely intricate wiring and hook-up, a local No. 40 man operated. 2. Oasoline-driven Jioists. — On February 9, 1946, we were using said hoist to control the movement of a sailboat on our Sersen Lake, and which was being photographed. An argument arose between locals No. 40 and No. 44 as to who should operate the hoist, and it was decided in favor of local No. 44, as the sailboat was considered a "prop." 3. Mechanical horses {electricaU}/ operated). — Approximately in February or March of 1946, we rented two mechanical horses from Metro, and they sent a local No. 44 man (Metro employee) to operate. Local No. 40 wanted one of their men to turn switch on and off, and local No. 44 man refused, claiming that he was responsible for the "prop" and also for the safety of actors. Decision in favor of local No. 44. 4. Fomitains (rigging of same when used for photographic effects). — A dispute arose between locals No. 44 and No. 78 (plumbers) as to who should rig the fountain. Local No. 78 claimed the fountain was practical and local No. 44 claimed the rigging because of the fact that the spray would be photographed — therefore it was an effect. Because both sides threatened the set would be "hot," work was stopped, and Pat Casey came over, inspected same, and ruled in favor of local No. 44. 5. Gravestones and china cabinets (huilding of). — In August of 1946 some gravestones and a china cabinet were built by local No. 946 in our mill, which brought a complaint by local No. 44, who claimed the items were "props." Inasmuch as the items were already completed, the matter stood, but local No. 44 claimed that in the future they would build them. 6. Dimmers {operation of). — From time to time there has been an argument between locals Nos. 40, 728, and 44 over the operation of dimmers that have a rheostat to control the generator. If on stage, and the dimmer is to control lights, we use local No. 728. If it is to control mechanical "props," a local No. 44 man is used. 7. Maintenance and servicing of sound trucks. — At our studio local No. 40 has repeatedly complained that local No. 695 should not do this type of work. This has never actually been settled, and to the present date local No. 695 has performed this Mork. 8. Amplifiers { sound). — This is another issue between locals No. 40 and No. 695 which has never been settled and the work is performed at our studio by local No. 695 men. 9. In March of 1946 locals No. 40 and No. 44 disputed the rights of each other to operate gas-wind machines and gas-driven pumps. These items are operated by local No. 40 men. 10. Railivay baggage car. — In June of 1946 a railway baggage car was to be completely remodeled, renovated, and repaired. This meant new siding, addi