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.
MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1111 Mr, Rathvon. It was a matter of months. Mr. McCanx. Approximately 8 montlis. Mr. (twinx. So that they had been operating under the original decree in making all of your new arrangements if Mr. Rathvox. AVith considerable difRcuhy because of the reluctance of the carpenters to live up to it; but we were operating. Mr. McCaxx'. I am trying to do this for the benefit of the other members of the committee and to straighten out something in the mind of Mr. Rathvon, as well. Mr. OwExs. Might I add, Mr. Chairman, that the thing I was most interested in and which was glossed over very rapidly was that the directive said a certain thing and that there was a clarification later. Anything else does not mean much unless we have both the directive and the clarification. Mr. McCaxx'. They are both in the record. Mr. OwEX's. Coukl we find out in just what substantial way the directive was changed by the clarification? Mr. McCaxx^. Yes, sir; the directive—and I will leave it to Mr. Rathvon to correct me if I am making an erroneous statement—the original directive assigned set erection to the lATSE, which meant from 300 to 350 jobs the carpenters had done from 15 to 20 years being' transferred to the lATSE. Now, the clarification came out, and it stated that the language pre- viously used did not mean what it sounded like, but that they meant that the assembly of sets should go to the lATSE, but set erection went to the carpenters. That is in substance what the clarification meant. ]Mr. OwEXS. In other words, they admitted it was ambiguous in the first instance? Mr. McCaxx. Yes. Mr. Ratiivox'. May I interrupt, sir? There was no question of am- biguity. Mr. OwExs. No question about that? Mr. Rathvox. No question of ambiguity at all, sir. Mr. OwEXS. If there were no question of ambiguity, then there would be no need for clarification ? Mr. Rathvox'. I know, but there was still no question of ambiguity. Air. OwEXS. Neither latent nor patent ambiguity ? Mr. Rathvox. Neither. Mr. Kearx\s. It should be noted on the record that Mr. Hutcheson demanded clarification. Mr. Rathvox'. You can call a reversal of decision a clarification if you choose to do so, in order to save face, and that was the only reason it was called a clarification. Mr. OwEX'^s. You understand, Mr. McCann, as a lawyer, certainly there could not be any clarification if there weren't a latent or patent ambiguity there somewhere. Mr. McCaxx. I understand that, sir. Mr. Rathvox. I woidd not describe the basic situation as Mr. Mc- Cann did either. Mr. McCaxx. I would be glad for you to correct it. I was trying to make a statement which he would understand. Mr. Rathvox'. I am not trying to accuse jou of deceiving, sir. I say, I would describe it diffeientl}'.