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)

526 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES pediency. If the producers had put the representation issue to the test in the lirst place, they would have been in a strong position to refuse any claims of the lATSE. When the issue first arose, the Nation was in the trying phase of World War II, and it is extremely doubtful that the alleged power of the self-confessed patriotic lATSE to close the theaters of the producers could have been exercised. As a member of the AFL, bound to a nonstrike pledge for the duration of the war, an issue of representation could hardly have provided sufficient provocation for the lATSE either to call out its own decentralized patriotic members or to marshal the power of official or public opinion in support of its position. By submitting so readily to the wishes of the lATSE against the obvious will of the individuals involved," the producers truly raised a monster which has continued to plague them sorely down to the present date. We hnd, therefore, that the basic root of the present strike is to be found in the ill-feeling which developed out of the 1945 strike. Proceeding to the present controversy, the next point of discussion must be the December 26 directive. Prior to the award of the three-man committee, work had been resumed in the studios and a less provocative document from the hands of the jurisdictional arbitrators would have done much to heal the wounds which remained from the 1945 strike. In every other instance, the lATSE gracefully accepted its losses in jurisdiction which followed the award. It seems safe to assume that the committee had no intention of upsetting the industry with its finding with respect to on-set construction. It had been appointed to promote peace and not discord with its deliberations. It selected the most convenient formula for minimizing the adjustments in jurisdiction which were to be made by it. Of the three alternative bases for settlement available to it, the committee ruled out the recommendation of a vertical union, or a horizontal combination on craft lines, and selected the least controversial basis for settlement, respect of former agreements, and accepted practices in the industry. In the light of the tremendous complexity of organization within the production sphere, it may reasonably be arirued that the very brief on-the-spot investigation of the committee was less than adequate tor a satisfactory treatment of the issues. But it is clear that the committee did a satisfactory job in practically all of the matters which were submitted to it for review. From the start it was handicapped because its agenda did not include all of the issues then in dispute among the unions. In spite of these handicaps all but one of the issues which it attempted to settle were successfully resolved to the satisfaction of the parties to the agreement. With respect to the controversy over set construction, however, there is no indication that the committee specifically intended to make any finding in the matter, for the struggle over set construction rose out of general provisions regarding carpenters' jurisdiction and not out of a specific finding on the subject. When the award was promulgated, the implications with respect to set construction came as a blow to all parties, chagrin for the carpenters, pleasant surprise for the lATSE, and complete confusion for the producers. It is true that the committee was not without a basis for its finding. The 1925 agreement was consulted by the committee as a guide, and the allocation of work between the carpenters and the lATSE incorporated in that agreement was reaffirmed. Unfortunately the 1925 agreement's provisions did not correspond with the accepted practices of the industry in 1945, and consequently when the old allocation of construction work was invoked again in the tense atmosphere following the 1945 strike, an explosion was the inevitable result. The arbitration award of the three-man committee was conceded to be the last word on jurisdiction pending the establishment of penuanent industry arbitration machinery for jurisdictional problems, and it was so out of line with reasonable expectations on this issue of set construction that renewed strike was unavoidable. As far as the provisions which were made a matter of dispute are concerned, with the exception of the CSU, all parties in the trade agree that it clearly transfers on-set construction from the carpenters to the lATSE. But except for the lATSE, none of the parties interviewed regard this particular pronouncement of the "three wise men" as logical or expedient. The issue of set construction is generally regarded as having gone to the carpenters by default regardless of the provisions of the 1925 agTeement ; and, in the light of established legal opinion in many other matters such as real estate, this view is soundly held. As our second finding, therefore, we maintain that the determination of on-set jurisdiction in the December 26 award was contrary to established practices and customs of the industry and also contrary to the general frame of reference with which the counuittee approached its task. While it is impossible to go into the minds of the committee and impossible to elicit an unequivocal statement from