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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1147 Mr. Kahane. I do not know how I can answer that question. It seems they all want to get me to state that there was a contract for a closed shop for 2 years which I will not say. Mr. McCann. Did you put them back to work ? Mr. Kahane. They were put back to work; yes, sir. Mr. McCann. The Beverly Hills agreement provided, did it not, that all crafts were to go back to work Wednesday, July 3, 1946. Mr. Kahane. That is right. They were all to go back to work without discrimination. Mr. McCann. Was it the understanding and agreement that this applied to the carpenters? Mr. Kahane. Yes. The carpenters were among those. Mr. McCann. Did the carpenters go back to work under this agree- ment ? Mr. Kahane. They went back to work. Mr. McCann. Did the carpenters remain at work under this agree- ment, and if so until when ? Mv. Kahane. Until about September 1946, September 17 to the 23d. when they were laid off for refusal to do assigned work. Mr. McCann. You commenced your tesetimony with the meeting of September 11, 1946. Had not your committee considered and discussed your course at the previous meeting on August 22, 1946? Mr. Kahane. Well, if you mean did we have meetings after this so-called clarification was handed down to discuss what we should do about it, we certainly did. We had meetings almost every day and every evening. Mr. McCann. From the time you got the 6iarification until the September 23 incidents? Mr. KLvHANE. Yes, sir. As I stated before, we were in communi- cation with Mr. Johnston and were attempting to get Mr. Hutcheson in a room. Mr. McCann. Had you not been in communication with Mr. Walsh on and prior to August 22,1946 ? ]\Ir. Kahane. I think Air. Walsh was in Hollywood around that time when Mr. Brewer was there. We talked it over, of course. Mr. McCann. Had you not previously received an ultimatum from Mr. Walsh? If so, please state the facts. Mr. Kahane. Yes; there was an ultimatum, if you want to call it that. Mr. McCann. Will you please state what it was ? Mr. Kahane. Mr. Walsh took the position that if the producers, having agreed to the December 26 directive, would now repudiate that directive and agree to the so-called clarification, that he would see to it that so far as his men were concerned they would not work in studios, they would not work in theaters and they would not work in exchanges. He considered that so-called clarification a nullity, of no force and validity, and that he was not invited to appear before the council to discuss any alleged clarification; that the committee was without power to do anything, and that if we saw fit to recognize it we would do so at our peril. Mr. McCann. Referring to the meeting of September 3, 1946, did you communicate with Mr. Eric Johnston as therestated?