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)

1048 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Almost immediately, Mr. Hiicheson informed us he would not ac- cept this decision, notwithstanding his prior agreement. Work stop- pages followed. In view of this situation, we turned again to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, which was in session in Miami, Fla. We met with the council, including Mr. Hutcheson and two members of the arbitration committee. Mr. Walsh was also present. We informed the council that Mr. Hutcheson had repudiated the arbitration committee's award, and asked the council whether it would stand back of the decision. The discussions brought out clearly that the award, in connection with the erection of sets on stages, took away jurisdiction from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and transferred it to the lATSE. The question was asked as to how many jobs would be transferred from the carpenters to the lATSE. E. J. Mannix, of the MGM Studio, replied that there were approximately 350 jobs involved. Mr. Mannix further stated that the award would make it necessary to change certain studio operations, since set erection work, for many years clone by carpenters, would now have to be allocated to lATSE. Mr. Mannix explained that although this meant additional costs to the studios, the producers would abide by the award in accordance with their agreement. At the request of the council, we then left the meeting, and a few hours later were informed by Mr. Green that there would be no change in the arbitration committee's award. Accordingly, upon the producers' return to Hollywood, the studios continued to operate under the award. The producers and the striking unions entered upon negotiations for contracts to replace those which had been terminated in the early stages of the strike. These negotiations were conducted by the producers' labor com- mittee. The strike having been settled, the special authority granted me to take all steps necessary to settle it was, at my request, terminated in June 1946. Consequently, labor negotiations were handled by the labor committee, which consisted of a representative of each studio. In mid-August 1946, I received a letter from Mr. Hutcheson to the effect that the arbitration committee had issued a so-called clarifica- tion of its award, by which it purported to interpret the words "erection of sets" as used in the December decision. This interpreta- tion was, in effect, a reversal of its original decision. I transmitted a copy of Mr. Hutcheson's letter to the producers' labor committee. The producers' labor committee was advised by counsel that the arbitration committee was without authority to clarify, interpret, or modify its award, and that its power to deter- mine jurisdiction has been exhausted when it issued its decision on December 26, 1945. The lATSE, which had agreed to abide by the decision, was insisting that the producers continue to carry out the original award. I then attempted, through Mr. Green, and also by communicating directly with Mr. Hutcheson, to arrange a meeting between Mr. Hutcheson and Mr. Walsh to try to resolve the controversy created by the so-called clarification. Mr. Hutcheson refused to meet with Mr. Walsh. On September 12. 1946, at the request of the producers' labor com- mittee, a meeting of the presidents of the producing companies was