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.

1134 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kahane, you heard the reading of these minutes this morning about the agreement entered into on November 13 between the grips and the carpenters? Mr. Kahane. Yes, sir. Mr, McCann. Now, at that time, at the time of the controversy between the lATSE and the carpenters, was it not an issue between the grips of the lATSE and the carpenters, with respect to set erection ? Mr. Kahane. That is true. The grips were members of the lATSE. Mr. McCann. And they were the ones tliat the conflict lay between at the time this matter was turned over to the three-man committee for consideration ? Mr. Kahane. They were one of the groups involved. Mr. McCann. Was there any other lATSE group involved in set erection other than the grips ? Mr. Kahane. I think the propmakers were. Mr. McCann. Did the grips do any of this set-erection work that you have talked about prior to the decision of the three-man com- mittee ? Mr. Kahane. Not for a number of years prior to that decision. I came to Hollywood in 1932. I would say that from 1932 on that work was done by carpenters and not by lATSE members. Mr. McCann. In other words, set erection was done from 1932 on by carpenters, and not by the lATSE? Mr. Kahane. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Has industry recognized and operated at all under the contract which was entered into between the grips and the car- penters on November 13, 1945 ? Mr. Kahane. No, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I think that is vitally important. I don't know whether you heard it or not. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. McCann. Mr. Kahane just testified they have not recognized the agreement tliat was made between the carpenters and the grips on November 13, 1945. Under the directive of the American Federation of Labor the un- ions themselves were given 30 days in which to adjust these contro- versies. On November 13, two of the unions, the carpenters and the grips, did adjust their controversies. Mr. Kahane. We understand that a contract was entered into be- tween local 80, which is a local of lATSE, but that contract was never signed and consummated by the international organization. It is the international organization with which we deal, and not a local. There- fore, that was not an agreement which was binding upon anybody except that local out there. Mr. McCann. In other words, at that time the local of the lATSE, the grips, did not have autonomy and were not able to make a con- tract that was binding? Mr. Kahane. They may have had local autonomy on certain issues, but so far as the producers were concerned, our contracts were made with the international organization—the top level. We would recog- nize any contract made by the international, but not by one of the locals.