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)

936 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IVIr. McCann. It ma}' be received for reference purposes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The charge referred to will be foimd in the files of the committee.) Mr. Ryan. That concludes all the pending C cases I have. I will noAv take up the closed cases. The first closed case is 21-C2377, filed against Universal Pictures. Inc., by Studio Utility Employees, Local 724, of the American Federation of Labor. It was filed on January 31, 1944, and alleges 8 (1) and (2) violations of the act. The disposition of that was that it was withdrawn. It was withdrawn February 17, 1944. Now, that type of case, Mr. McCann. I didn''t know whether or not to include it because it had no formal action taken on it at any time, and it was withdrawn without any formal action. I wasn't sure, but I thought I had better put it in. Mr. McCann. It is all light. Instead of asking that each separate paper be received as a reference exhibit, I will let it go until you finish with that group of papers. Mr. Ryan. The next case is 21-C-2416, a charge filed against Lowe's, Inc., by the Building Service Employees International Union, Local 193, AFL, on Jul}^ 5, 1944, amended July 14, 1944 and again amended on March 8, 1945, alleging (1), (2) and (3) violations of the act. It was dismissed for lack of merit on Julv 14, 1947. The next is a series of cases, 21-C^2483 'through 21-C-2492. They follow chronologically. The charges were filed against Universal Pictures Co., Inc., and certain other major and independent producers who are named in the charges. It was filed by the Screen Players Union on February 8, 1945, and alleges 8(1) ancl (3) violations of the act. It was withdrawn on June 4, 1945. The next case is 21-C-2508, a charge filed against Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., filed by an individual employee on April 26, 1945, and alleged 8 (1) and (3) violations of the act. It was withdrawn by the individual on April 16, 1946. The next case is 21-C-2510, a charge against Paramount Pictures Corp., by an individual named Robert Magginetti on May 7, 1945, alleging 8 (1) and (3) violations of the act. It was dismissed for lack of merit on May 31, 1946. The next is a series of cases 21-C-2521 through 21-C-2529, filed against Columbia Pictures Corp. and eight other major producers, Avho are named in the chai-ges. It was filed by the Screen Set Designers, Local 1421, of the Painters Union on May 28, 1945, and amended on October 4, 1945, alleging 8 (1) and (3) violations of the act. It was withdrawn on April 15, 1946, with no formal action having been taken. The next series of cases begins with 21-C-2533 through 21-C-2542, against Columbia Pictures Corp. and nine major producers and one i]idependent producer, filed by the International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1185, on June 5, 1945, alleging 8 (1) and (3) violations of the act. It was withdrawn on April 15, 1946. The next series of cases begins with 21-C-2546 through 21-C-2554, against Columbia Picture Corp. and eight other major producers, filed by the Painters Local 644 on June 15. 1945, alleging 8 (1) and (3) violations of the act. It was disposed of by withdrawal on April 15,