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 1003 Mr. McCann. In your previous testimony, Mr. Sorrell, you made the statement that you w«re offered $56,000 at one time in the office of Pat Casey, who had left the room, to accept a 10-percent increase for your union. Is that correct ? Mr. Sorrell. Tliat is correct. Mr. McCann. Who made you that offer ? Mr. Sorrell. I was told not to tell at the time. But it was Willie Bioff in Pat Casey's office. Mr. JNIcCann. Now, you stated the other day before this committee that you had authority from your international union to settle the issues involved in this strike. Have you that authority with you ? Mr. Sorrell. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the authorization be received in evidence and reproduced. Mr. Kearns. No objection. The evidence is authentic, Mr. Counsel. (The document referred to is as follows :) Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of Amebrica, February 7, 1947. Herbert K. Sorrell, Business Agent, Local Union 644> Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, Los Angeles 5, Calif. Dear Sir and Brothek: This will confirm the teleairam sent you February 7, 1947: February 7, 1947. Herbert K. Sorreix, Business Agent, Local Union 644^ Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, Los Angeles 5, Calif.: I now believe the time opportune to demand of the motion iiicture producers, final and complete settlement of controversy within motion-picture industry on all questions of jurisdiction, wages, hours, working conditions and signed closed-shop contracts with clause designating necessary machinery for arbitration of any and all dispute in future, and I therefore authorize you to act as representative of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America in adjusting all disputes jurisdictional and otherwise as well as negotiating wages and signing contracts insofar as members of our brotherhood are concerned. When acting as such reresentative of the brotherhood of painters, you should give consideration to any other crafts in tlie studios that may in any way become involved in any settlement reached. L. P. LiNDELOF, General President, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America. Fraternally yours, (S) L. P. LlNDELOF, General President of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America. Mr. McCann. I would like to ask Mr. Pat Casey to take the stand. TESTIMONY OF PAT CASEY— Recalled Mr. Kearns. You have been sworn, Mr. Casey. Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I would like, at the suggestion of counsel for the producers, to note that the testimony of Mr. Sorrell that has just been given was given at the request of the producers. They thought that there was an inference here in the testimony the