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 509 Our history is a record of constant struggle to build and defend a clean, democratic, autonomous organization, and to exercise tlie American right of collective bargaining. It is a record of striving against great and sometimes fantastic obstacles. ^ ..,.,. , ,. The committee has been told that this studio strife is a jurisdictional dispute. Mr Kahane pointed out that thousands of the industry's oldest and most skilled workers have been out of work for 20 months in the past 21/2 years.' Mr. Freeman stated his belief that the studio trouble arose out of a struggle for power among national union oflScials.^ But I say that a distorted view has been given the committee by management representatives, and I believe I can show why the employers have cast themselves in the role of innocent and helpless third parties caught in the middle of a fight between two powerful union groups. The following facts about local 1421 will demonstrate why the committee needs to dig deeper for the real explanation. Over 400 members of our union have endured and stood together through the hardships of this 3-year struggle. We have met frequently, elected our own officers and representatives. Our affiliations with our national union and with the conference of studio unions • are wholly voluntary. We have had access to every document and every available fact bearing on the long controversy. Every important decision of these 400 men and women has been the result of their own democratic vote — often by secret ballot. We have received orders from no one. These facts simply do not fit into the employers' theory of two conflicting union dictatorships — Walsh v. Hutcheson. And that is why the experience of the designers, illustrators, and decorators is worth telling and why it merits the committee's consideration. We shall tell it as simply and directly as we can. Our footnotes refer to documents or sources of direct evidence by which our statements may be verified. A few words are necessary to explain why this group of artists formed a union and became a part of the CSU. As the motion-picture industry developed, during the 1920"s, into a large-scale, impersonal, corporate business, the need for collective bargaining became evident to art department workers. The studios frowned on organization in our departments and showed their displeasure by discrimination against those who talked organization. Six designers were discharged by MGM studio for no other reason than attending a committee meeting in a private home where the possibility of organizing was discussed.^ Between 1928 and 1933 the art department workers tried, through a socialprofe.ssional club, and then through union affiliation with the scenic artists, to establish minimum standards of wages and conditions in their work. The employers refused recognition. In 1936 a new attempt was made and a committee of designers inquired as to the proper and etfective affiliation which could be made within the American Federation of Labor. The lATSE informed this committee it had no place for the group.* The Scenic Artists Local 621 of the Painters Brotherhood offered membership. A large proportion of art-department employees joined the scenic artists local in 19.37 and took part in a strike of several studio crafts that year for recognition and for contracts. The officials of tlie lATSE tried to break that strike by claiming jurisdiction, recruiting strikebreakers, and publicly vilifying the leaders of the striking crafts." The lATSE attack on the strikers was partially successful and, although local 621 emerged with an interim agreement in the strike settlement, the local fell apart when the producers withdrew recognition in the poststrike negotiations and insisted on retaining the strikebreakers. The designers came together again later in 1937 in an independent guild and after more than a year of negotiation, this organization — Screen Set Designers — • secured the first art department contract. Thus, in 1939 and after about 11 years of effort, we secured our first fruits of collective bargaining. A circumstance which aided us at this time was a weakening in the control of national officers over the local membership of the lATSE. The scandal of corruption and racketeering in the lATSE national office was begining to break 1 Testimony of B. B. Kahane in current hearing. ^Testimony of Y. Frank Freeman in current hearing. ' Refer to Mr. Idris Lloyd, then chief draftsman at MGM Studio, 4716 Berryman, Culver City. ^ Refer to Frank J. Drolik, set designer, 5922 Carlton Way, Los Angeles 28. B Refer to files of Daily Variety, May 1 to July 15, 1937.