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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 639 idea that the carpentry work was to be taken away from the carpenters. Isn't that correct ? Mr. Price, I think you used the word "expressed," which is the word I quarrel with. iMr, KJEARNs. Read the question. (The question was read.) Mr. Kearns. Well, I think, in view of your testimony you stated here, it wasn't your intention ; isn't that correct ? Mr. Knight. Not to take away from the carpenters or any other craft that was historically theirs, is the words that were used; historically their work and they were doine;. Ml'. Kearns. All light. Thank you, Mr. Knight. I will hold the question as being valid. TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. MANNIX— Resumed Mr. McCann. ^Ve will change it just enough to conform with that, now. Mr. Mannix, it has been testified here — you have just heard it — it was not the intention of the three-man committee to take away from the carpenters any wf)rk which was historically theirs, which had been done by them over the years, I will now ask j'ou the question whether or not until 1945 the carpenters were those who did the set erection work in the studios in Hollywood? Mr. Maxnix. I believe they v:ere. There was certain sets in the studios that have always been in dispute, whether they were propmaking sets or carpenter sets — that has been our great trouble — the start of the jurisdiction, the work between propmakers and carpenters. But I want to answer this question as you asked it, because it refers to — -I went to Miamr, as I started to answer before, in January, and appeared before the American Federation of Labor committee. Just as this award had been made, Mr, Dan Tobin, president of the Teamsters Union, in that meeting, asked me a direct question. He said, "Is the work assigned here, has that previously been carpenters' work ?'* I said, "Yes, Mr, Tobin." He said, "About how many men will it affect in the studios ?" I said, "It is very difficult for me to answer." I said "It is somewhere between 300 and ooO men." That was at the time, that was in January 1946, 1 believe. Now,' at that time I made the statement before the American — I was just as astonished when the directive came out as anyone else. I made the statement there, and I believe Mr. Walsh Avas at the meeting and Mr. Eric Johnston was at the meeting, Mr. Frank Freeman, and it was understood at that time — I do not know whether Mr. Knight was present at this meeting, and Mr. Doherty Mr. McCann. Just a minute, Mr. Knight, were you present at this meeting ? Mr. Knight. I was. Mr, McCann. You were ? Mr, Knight. Yes, Mr, Mannix. I made the definite statement there, and that is all I can say about that meeting.