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)

658 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Since the producers had continued after September 11 to allocate the erection and construction of sets on stages (exclusive of mill and trim work) to lATSE members, most of the sets in process on stages in the studios were within the terms of the carpenters' notice of September 11 ; that is, in the language which has been employed here, they were sets which the carpenters termed "hot sets." 6. Since at that time the producers were still allocating mill and trim work on sets on stages only to carpenters ; and since the carpenters were refusing to do such work on sets erected and constructed by members of lATSE ; such sets were standing incomplete and could not be completed while such situation continued. Mr. Kahane testified at the hearings before the unemployment and if called would testify here that "We (the producers) were at a point where we had to either close down the studios or operate." 7. Sometime between September 17 and September 22, the producers' labor committee recommended to the producers that the studio cari^enters all be referred to the so-called hot sets to do trim or millwork in connection therewith. All of the major studios were represented on the committee which made said recommendation ; and all of such studios accepted it. 8. The producers did not in general or as a policy have trim or millwork done on sets on stages by anyone not a member of the carpenters' local 946 until all or substantially all of the members of that local had left the lot as in this statement described. 9. The recommendation of the producers' labor committee and the instructions given to the supervisory personnel who actually activated the instructions were not to "discharge" the workers, but upon their refusal to "request them to leave the lot for failure to do assigned work." 10. In many cases these instructions were not followed to the letter by supervisors, and the workers at some levels were told that they were "laid off," "fired," "dismissed," "terminated," and so forth. The records of the employers, however, in general bear the notation "requested to leave the lot for failure to do assigned work." No person entitled to severance pay on discharge received it. No person so treated was dropped from the list of workers enrolled in group-insurance programs if he continued to tender his premiums. 11. Mr. Kahane testified at the hearing with respect to unemployment compensation, and, if called, would testify here, that by the processes herein described the producers intended "to clear the decks of all men who refused to work" and that the producers "hoped" the men would refuse to work "because if you had some of the men doing the work and some not — had both groups in there — I was fearful of violence in the studio." 12. The procedure as followed in the various studios is described as follows in the decision of G. L. Funci, referee of the division of appeals for the Los Angeles district of the department of employment. State of California, in a decision of May 13, 1947, in the matter of the claims of Marvin Burman et al. Said description is substantially accurate : "The claimants whose appeals are herein consolidated are all qualified to work as journeyman carpenters in the motion-picture industry. On the day they last worked prior to filing their claim, they were assigned by a superior to work in their trade on a set in the studio of the particular employer. The work which they were requested to do was work to which they and their fellow union members were given the exclusive right by the December award. As an example, one group of carpenters was ordered to hang a door on a set, concededly an operation within the meaning of the term 'trim work on a set,' as used in the December award, allocating such work to the cari>enters. However, the work they were ordered to do was to be done on a 'hot' set, as that term is herein defined. On this account, the claimants, in accordance with the established policy of their union, refused or failed, within a reasonable time, to do the assigned work. Immediately thereafter, in most cases, the claimants were instructed by superiors to call for their wages at the proper place and to leave the employer's premises, taking their tools with them. None of the claimants have worked for the employer since that time. "The bulk of the claimants involved in this case were separated from their work in the mass lay-off of September 23, 1946, but separations prior thereto followed the same general pattern. The events leading up to the receipt of the final check and/or notice of separation varied individually, and the interpretation placed upon such events differed as to each claimant. Thus, some were ordered to a hot set immediately on reporting for work. Others were engaged in other tasks when so ordered. Others were told to wait in the studio woodworking mill