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 529 penters and painters irrespective of their occupation in the studios, it may be called a lock-out. The question of definition is in any case subordinate to the general circumstances involved in the whole situation. Since the members of the CSU i-espected the picket lines of the carpenters and painters, one further question may be explored in this matter of definition. The authors ai'e anxious to avoid the use of loose terminology, particularly when no clear-cut usage of the tei-ms can be invoked. But the weight of evidence seems to indicate that the .supporting action of the conference locals other than the carpenters and painteiis may justifiably be called a sympathetic strike, rather than simply respect of picket lines. Our final finding of fact covers the period from September 26 through April 16. Except for one telegram from the MPA to the CSU on November 15 there was no official di.scussion of issues between the producers and the CSU. The telegram which was sent in November will be discussed later in the section devoted to explicit criticism of the producers' interpretation. At this point it will simply be observed that we find no evidence of an effort by the producers to bargain in good faith with the members of the CSU, until the invitation to open negotiations on April 16. We define bargaining in the accepted use of the term to include frequent meetings of the parties, face to face across a table, for the discussion of the conditions of employment. It is clear that the CSU repeatedly sought such conferences but that no such conferences were arranged. The conclusion of a bargain is not essential to the conduct of bargaining, though obviously the former cannot ensue without the condition of the latter. Regardless of the apparent futility of such procedures, meetings are necessary to establish the fact that collective bargaining was practiced. No such meetings took place. The burden for this deficiency must rest with the producers and not with the CSU. Before proceeding to a criticism of the arguments of the parties to the conflict, outlined in the preceding sections, a summary of our own conclusions and findings of fact is in order. It should be borne in mind that our conclusions are based not only on the views of the disputants but on the advices and interpretations of informed spokesmen familiar with the ramifications of the current Hollywood situation. After the following sections of detailed criticism of the interpretations of the producers, the CSU and the lATSE, we shall review the interpretations of those parties whose views may be classified as expert because of industry associations or other connections with the parties involved in the 1946-^7 controversy. By way of review, therefore, we have found the following salient facts : 1. The 1946-47 strike arose directly out of the antagonisms which developed in the 1945 strike. 2. The provisions of the December 26, 1945, award which gave rise to the controversy over set construction were contrary to accepted practices in the motion-picture industry and contrary to the general intent and purposes of the AFL arbitration committee. 3. The carpenters refused to accept the allocation of work indicated by the December award because of other considerations than the alleged ambiguity of the terms of the award. 4. The strike in July of 1946, which has been portrayed as jurisdictional by the producers, was cimcerned with economic aims. 5. Because of pressure from the lATSE, the producers refused to apply the same tests to the clarification of August 1946 which were applied to the December award. 6. The carpenters and painters violated the no-work-stoppage clauses of the interim agreement of July 1946 to which they were signatories. 7. From September 1946 to April 16, 1947, the producers failed to indulge in collective bargaining with the CSU to expedite settlement of the present controversy. The above summary does not constitute an exhaustive list of all the circumstances which we have considered as factual. But the foi'egoing list does embrace the important controversial points about which there is a considerable difference of opinion. The inability of the disputants and outside parties to effect a settlement is largely determined by a lack of agreement on tiie above list of fundamentals. The acceptance of the above findings by all of the three parties would involve a compromise by each on certain points. It is our considered opinion that such compromises are a necessary preliminary for the successful rationalization of the outstanding issues and the inauguration of a new era of sound unionmanagement relations in the Hol]ywo(Kl production sphere. 67383—48 — vol. 1 85