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.

1076 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. And you had them during the time the Wagner Act was in effect ? Mr. Johnston. Right. Mr. Owens. And you still have them now ? Mr. Johnston. We still have them now. Mr. Owens. In other words, the new law did not have a thing to do with causing them ? Mr. Johnston. That is right. Mr. Owens. And up to this time because it has not been utilized, it has not had anything to do with changing them ? Mr. Johnston. That is right. Mr. Owens. But you feel even a more stringent law should be passed to take care of this situation? Mr. Johnston. This is onl}^ my personal point of view. I am not speaking for the industry. As I testified before your committee a year ago, in my opinion you are going to have to have eventually some form of adjudication of the contract within itself. You mentioned it a moment ago and a very excellent suggestion it was. I think that should be done. It is a quick, simple, easy method. It is not compulsory arbitration in any form, shape, or manner. I think if your law had contained such a provision, we could have settled this strike in Hollywood by this time. Others may disagree with me, Mr. Owens. I am simply giving you my opinion. Mr. Owens. I think the words you use "final technical adjudica- tion" would describe it. Finally placing in the law a statement that there would be a sentence in the contract to the effect that there would be a construction of that contract by an arbitrator to make a final decision in the matter, would be the proper way. Mr. Johnston. Right. As a matter of fact. I presented to you a year ago a tentative wording for such a provision. You probably will find it. I probably testified for the Committee for Economic Development, the CED, and that was their recommendation. Mr. Owens. Thank you. Mr. KJEARNS. Mr. Johnston, I want to thank you for your fine testi- mony. I also want to commend you for the decision you made at the time you made it, and for holding to that decision to the present date. I think you were perfectly right, and I believe had that happened, there would have been peace today. We will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m., at the expiration of the noon recess.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will please come to order. Mr. McCann. Mr, Chairman, the first witness will be Mr. Paul Dullzell, president of the Actors and Artistes of America. Mr. Dullzell, will you take the stand over there, hold up your right hand and be sworn, please ?