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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1073 again contain a provision for the final adjudication of disputes aris- ing under the contract. Mr. Owens. If we are going to go tluit far we would not have to tell them to put it in the contract; we would just simply say in the law that all contracts are to be interpreted to have that provision in there. Mr. JonxsTOX. That is all I am suggesting to you. Mr. Owens. In that way we woidd not be telling them what they have to have in their contracts. Mr. Johnston. That is exactly what I am telling you. Mr. Owens. Just how would that cure your proposition ? You have trouble out there. Is this trouble with ^-our jjeople a matter of juris- diction concerning dues, or is it respecting work, or what ? Mr. Johnston. I think in the final analysis it is regarding dues, but, of course, it maj'^ be both. If there was a provision in the contract by which we could set up an arbitration coilmiittee to settle these juris- dictional disputes before there was any trouble, before they could strike, usually these things can be settled in a few days, if they are taken in time, but if you wait for weeks or months, they become solidi- fied and jelled, and it is very difficult. What I had proposed, and what Air. Sorrell agreed to, was that there would be a provision in all future contracts setting up a permanent paid arbitrator, to be paid partly by the union and partly b}' manage- ment ; that the unions, if a dispute arose as to whether the soap bubbles put in the bath tube should be put in by the plumbers' union or should be put in by the cleaners' union, that immediately the unions would have 10 days to settle the problem themselves. If they did not settle the problem, it would be certified to this paid arbitrator who, within a period of 20 days, would make a final adjudi- cation of the problem, and his decision would be binding upon all parties involved. The dispute has not been jelled. There are a lot of recriminations between all parties involved, but when you let a problem such as car- penter work or trim work go for a period of 20 years, as it has in Holly- wood, then there are all kinds of recriminations, dislike, and hates between the parties involved. In many instances, as a matter of fact, in my contacts in Hollywood, they themselves did not know what the difficulty was. I talked to leaders in Hollywood who themselves ascribed certain reasons for the strike, which I am sure had nothing to do with the strike, simply because of previous hates, prejudices, and previous positions. Those things must be avoided, in my opinion, and the only thing to do is to settle them at the time they occur. Unless the union involved agreed to this arbitration, which I think they might at some future time, but unless they agree to it, I think Hollywood is in for continual jurisdictional problems over a pro- tracted period of time. Taft-Hartley law or no Taft-Hartley law. ]\Ir. Owens. When we were talking last year I recall somewhat the same situation. I said: ''Why camiot we ari-ange to have that arbi- trator a Federal man, have them go to him ? Wliy do you have to have your own paid men there handling it?" I think there we had some disagreement also; did we not ?