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 527 them at this date in view of the storm which has hurst since the original publication of their award, it seems clear that the transfer of the set-construction jobs was inadvertent and unintentional, regardless of the interpretation which might be drawn from their words to implement such a transition. Two possible criticisms of the carpenters' refusal to accept the award can be, and have been, advanced. First, they never liad a legal claim to the on-set construction, in view of the 1925 agreement ; and, second, the.v failed to abide by their agreement to accept the findings of the arbitration committee. In view of the remarks above about the relative merits of agreements and practices as matters of justice, it is clear that we regard the first argument with skepticism. Usage and custom are as much determinants of legality as a written instrument whose administration depends upon circumstances as well as verbiage. It has not been anywhere denied, even by the lATSE, that tlie carpenters did this work for many years. No evidence has been submitted that the carpenters' performance of on-set construction operations was a matter of dispute prior to the award. This does not imply that there was no friction or dispute between the carpenters and lATSE locals on other matters, but the resurrection of the 1925 allocation of set construction followed the award and did not precede or invite it Undue emphasis on the refusal of the carpenters to abide by the provisions of the award seems more justified by a passion for literal interpretation than a consideration of the merits of the case. The award on set construction ran counter to the whole philosophy underlying the approach of the three-man committee, so that an appeal to its application in favor of either party could be made in view of the ambiguity of tlie award's provisions. Neither an experienced practitioner of industrial relations nor a student of social dynamics would expect that a mandate which violated the basic predilections of a group affected by it could be enforced by any means short of force. Unions are associations which find their root in one of the most powerful social forces of our day, the urge to protect a job. Until every means of defense has been exhausted by a union leader to safeguard what is widely regarded as the legitimate work of a large group, he cannot return to his group on acceptable terms. To be sure, the carpenters seized upon a tenuous pretext in arguing that the award was being misconstrued by the producers ; for. granting the ambiguity of its provisions, the award certainly leans most heavily in the direction of the lATSB. For this element of opportunism and expediency, the carpenters are to be condemned, but the issue does not begin or end with this particular fact. By the admission of the producers the decision to interpret the December 26 directive in favor of the lATSE did not rest upon abstract considerations of justice. The lATSE received the allocation of work by virtue of its superior power over the producers largely because of an ability to embarrass the producers financially by calling a strike among the motion-picture projectors. Power politics and not equity, therefore, set the tone for the determination of this as well as other matters in the Hollywood industrial-relations arena. It has been pointed out that the nurture of this present distress is to be found in the producers' acquiescence to the lATSE on at least one other occasion (the decorators' representation issue). The end result of that unfortunate excursion away from sound union-management relations is the present struggle for power with the producers themselves in the middle. What the cost of these measures will eventually be can be estimated by one small part of the total, $7,000,000 in severance pay to replacements in 1945. Our third finding of fact therefore may be stated thus. The carpenters refused to accept the allocation of work laid down by the committee in its December 26 directive for reasons otlier than the alleged ambiguity of the terms of the award. The carpenters appealed to the general framework of the award and not its specific provisions. Insofar as their rejection of its terms was based upon accepted practices, and insofar as the basis for discrimination against the carpenters in the administration of the award rested upon punitive threats by the lATSE, their position was morally defensible. The carpenters' position is further strengthened by their acceptance of the December directive under protect until the eventual arrival of a clarification of the award in August 1946. The strike of the CSU for wages and hours in July of 1946 has a minor bearing upon the dispute under review. According to the MPA, this dispute was the result of jurisdictional factors. Although a strong jui'isdictional rivalry between the International Association of Machinists and a Federal local of the AFL had existed until the end of June of 1945, the fact is that this issue was settled to the satisfaction of both parties on June 28 by reference to the NLRB.