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.

1066 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Johnston. I thought they felt they coiihl not afford to close down. Some of the companies, and one in particular, I believe, had no produce to how. If the studios closed, they would have nothing to show. They had no inventory, no product to show around the country. The result would be very deleterious, so far as their financial condi- tion was concerned. It is quite different than the ordinary business that can close where probably the only expense involved is a few top executives, the rent, and perhaps a few pieces of fixed overhead. But in the motion-picture business you have a tremendous overhead which constantly goes on, whether you are closed or open. Mr. Kearns. What was the rate of production at that time when you were forced to those decisions? Mr. Johnston. I cannot tell you, Mr. Kearns; I do not know. Mr. Kearns. Would it be greater than it is right now ? Mr. Johnston. Yes, I think it was greater than it is right now. Mr. Kearns. Do you have any questions, Mr. Owens? Mr. Owens. Yes, I would like to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Johnston. I am coming in here a bit fresh, Mr. Johnston. I do not know all of the background of this situation. Mr. Johnston. I hope you are just as fresh as I am. Mr. Owens. But I am certainly interested in the subject matter. I particularly marked one thing you mentioned here during the couise of your talk where you said you would require unions to arbitrate. Just what did you mean by that ? ISIr. Johnston. I think we should have legislation demanding, re- quiring that all contracts between employers and employees have a provision in the contract requiring arbitration of jurisdictional dis- putes; arbitration of the clauses of the contract. Not only jurisdic- tional disputes, but any term of the contract. Now, that is quite different than compulsory arbitration. I am not for compulsory arbitration. Compulsory arbitration means that you must have a compulsory settlement of wages, hours, and working con- ditions. In other words, a compulsor}^ settlement of the contract itself. I am opposed to that. But when a contract has once been entered into, then it seems to me the contract should contain within it clauses which will be deter- mined by an arbitration group. Any other type of contract, Mr. Owens, that we enter into is enforceable in the courts. In other words, it contains within it the germs of its own enforcement, but a labor contract is not that way. It is true, a labor contract may be enforceable in the courts, but it is a long process. The plant is closed down for months and maybe years waiting for it to be determined. No business and no group of men can take that; financially they cannot take it. Furthermore, in a free country—and I hope we always remain this way—you cannot make a man work against his will. Therefore, it seems to me, we should have in all labor-management contracts, a provision recjuiring arbitration of the terms of the con- tract that has been entered into. It is the same thing as though we went to court to enforce an ordinary contract.