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.

1098 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES and will not try to recall, specific, exact words that j^on quote from somebody else's minutes and try to compare them with my general recollection of what Mr. Goldberg reported to me. Mr. McCann. Do you independently recall that it was planned that by 9 a. m. Monday all carpenters would be cleared out of the studios? Mr. Rathvon. No. Mr. McCaxx. Do you independently recall that after the carpenters were cleared cut they were going to clear out the painters? Mr, Rathvon. No; but I would like to say if those were decisions taken I probably knew of them at the time. I do not recall now. Mr. McCann. On September 23,1946, at a meeting of the producers labor committee between 2: 30 and 4. p. m., it is reported in the minutes that the lawyers said: We can't refuse to bargain when told of consequences. Carpenter situatioa may or may not have been an unfair labor practice, but painters, electricians, etc., could have no cause for unfair labor charges for dismissing them for failure to perform work required. Were you advised by Mr. Goldberg of what the laAvyers said on that occasion? Mr. Rathvon. I believe I was. Mr. McCann. At a meeting of the producers labor committee on September 24, 1946, at which Mr. Goldberg is shown to have been present, it is stated: Brewer, Cooper, and Harris in at 3 : 30 p. m. Do you know Mr. Brewer ? Mr. Rathvon. Yes; I do. Mr. McCann. Is he an otKcer of the lATSE ? Mr. Rathvon. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. The narrative continues: Brewer stated he thought it advisable to have clear understanding with the studio representatives as to how his people proposed to handle the labor situation in the anticipated forthcoming struggle. Was that reported to you by Mr. Goldberg ? Mr. Rathvon. I don't recall. I will repeat again: If that is what happened, I have little doubt but that he reported it to me. It was his custom following his labor meetings to come into my office the following day and tell me what happened. Mr. McCann. Did he follow that custom throughout these rather trying times? Mr. Rathvon. Yes. Occasionally there were meetings which he felt were not important enough to report, but, in general, it was his practice to come in and spend a few minutes with me on the morning following meetings to give his report and impression. I felt at the time they were very full and adequate reports and gave me suthcient background to form my own company's policies in these matters. I again say to you I cannot compare those recollections in detail ,with somebody's reported minutes Avhich you read to me. Mr. McCann. Was Mr. Goldberg your duly authorized representa- tive, and what he did was in carrying out the policies of your company ? Mr. Rathvon. Yes. Mr. McCann. You had confidence in his judgment and authorized any action which he took?