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.

1108 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ferred to use economic strength, I am afraid we will have to talk to Mr. Hutcheson first. Mr. Rathvon. I would recommend it, sir, Mr. Owens. That is all. Mr. Kearns. Do other counsel have any questions ? Mr. McCann. Yes, sir; they have a few question which I will sub- mit to Mr. Rathvon. These are questions, Mr. Rathvon, submitted by George E. Bolen, counsel for the painters. At the Easter meeting, 1947, in New York, were Mr. Brewer and Walsh present ? Mr. Rathvon. No. Mr. McCann. Did you discuss with him the advisability of re- opening negotiations with the carpenters? Mr. Rathvon. No. Mr. McCann. Are you aware that E. J. Mannix testified in Los Angeles that the proposed negotiations with the companies were dis- cussed with Brewer and Walsh ? Mr. Rathvon. I know they were informed after the decision was taken at our meeting on Easter Sunday that we would open negotia- tions with the carpenters. I know that Mr. Schenck and Mr. Mannix informed Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer of that fact on that same day. Mr. McCann. They did so after your meeting ? Mr. Rathvon. After we had taken the decision Mr. Schenck and I think it was Mr. Mannix, as a committee were told to go and inform Mr. Walsh of the decision we had taken. Mr. McCann. Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer did not come into your meeting at all ? Mr. Rathvon. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Did you know that carpenters were brought in from RKO's 40-acre lot on September 23, where they had 3 weeks' work to do, and were ordered to work on hot sets? Mr. Rathvon. No. Mr. McCann. That testimony I believe, Mr. Rathvon, is in the Mr. Rathvon. I was going to say I presumed that had happened, but you asked me that question in such a way that I had to answer as I did. Mr. McCann. I wanted you to know that in the previous testi- mony—and I did not recall it was RKO—it was testified that car- penters were brought in from places where they had 3 weeks' work to do and were requested to work on hot sets and when they refused to work on them they were promptly laid off. Did you know that they were laid off? Mr. Rathvon. I know this, and 1 would like to elaborate on my answer slightly. When you have to make one of these decisions be- tween the horns of the dilema, that is, lean one way or the other, you have to take certain steps in the incidents that are created for you to make a move. If, in the process of meeting a situation, we actually took a carpenter and assigned him to a hot set after he had been work- ing Ion some other set that was not hot that might very well havie been a maneuver in this procedure that would simply hasten the final decision of how we were going to go. It might be a very ragged procedure which would take weeks to meet the issue with every em- ployee.