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.

858 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCanx. At that time did you or did you not have a local of set erectors ? Mr. Walsh. We had a local of studio mechanics in which the set erectors are. Our organization might have a local union that would be called stage employees and were stage employees. We would have front-light operators, fly men, property men, and so forth, in there. The studio mechanics is a similar local. Mr. McCann. Now, which of the two locals that you had established or given charters to from the lATSE were you required by the A. F. of L. to cancel ? Mr. Walsh. Locals known as painters and carpenters. Mr. McCann. Those were two separate locals, were they ? Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Now, what session of the council or the AFL required you to cancel those charters ? Mr. Walsh. That was done at, I think, two or maybe three sessions. Mr. McCann. Was this the action of the council? Mr. Walsh. The council. Mr. McCann. They required you to cancel those charters, and you did so, as I recall ? Mr. Walsh. We did with quite a letter of explanation. I think if you would like to take the time to listen to that letter, it would be interesing. If not, we will just go ahead with it. Mr. McCann. I would rather not take the time. You did cancel out with your letter of explanation. Tell me this : Have you ever maintained that the lATSE is entitled to perform all of the functions that are performed by the lATSE and by the carpenters, by the painters, by the lAM, by the plumbers, rather than just the functions that had been performed by you in the past? Mr. Walsh. We have and do now claim that the entire jurisdiction of the studios should come under the lATSE. Mr. McCann. But you never have had them, have you ? Mr. Walsh. Yes; we have had it in the beginning, when we were the only people in the motion-picture studios. The motion pictures came from the legitimate theater. The people who first started to make motion pictures graduated from, let's say. from the legitimate theater. When they did, they took the mechanics they knew in the legitimate theater and brought them into the motion-picture studios, and we run the studios for many years. Mr. McCann. It is correct that you have maintained in the past that your union should have the exclusive right to organize all the workers involved in the motion-picture studios? Mr. Walsh. That is correct ; yes, sir. Mr. McCann. You claim that also for the actors? Mr. Walsh. No; we don't claim it for the actors. We don't claim it for the musicians. Mr. McCann. You exclude two gi'oups. Well, was there ever a time in the life of your union that you ever constructed houses, buildings, or stages, or did carpenter work incidental to the building of a movingpicture studio ? Mr. Walsh. We didn't claim the construction of the moving-picture studios. We are theatrical workers and stage emplo3^ees. We want