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.
1148 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kahane. I do not know what the meeting of September 3 is, sir. Mr. McCann. On September 3, 1946, if I may refresh your recol- lection, you held a meeting of the labor board and at that time it was decided to communicate with Mr. Eric Johnston [handing witness a document]. Mr. Kahane. Is the question did I communicate with Mr. Johnston ? Mr. McCann. Keferring to the meeting of September 3, 1946, did you communicate with Mr. Johnston as therein stated ? Mr. KL\HANE. I am quite sure that we talked to Mr. Johnston at that time. Mr, McCann. Do you recall what you said to him ? Mr. Kahaiste. No ; I do not, but it was probably something to the effect that "Here we are again between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand we are told by the carpenters and painters that if the lATSE works on sets they will call them hot and they will not work on them; on the other hand, the lATSE will say if we refuse to carry out the original directive and undertake to carry out the new clarification, so-called, they will not give us men." I think I made my own recommendation as to what I thought we should do and I think we got clearance from him on talking to the presidents of the companies to see if they confirmed our viewpoint. Mr. McCann. There is a final question from Mr. Cobb, and if you cannot answer it you may say so. Was there not a continuing contract between the companies and the carpenters beginning with the basic company agreement of 1926 and periodic extensions d<|ivn to and including the Beverly Hills agreement of July 2, 1946 ? _ Mr. ZoRN. I think that is a legal question. Mr. Kahane. I think that is a legal question. Mr. Owens. I think, Mr. Chairman, that question is entirely out of order. We have here a directive issued by three arbitrators after a complete hearing of all the facts which sets aside every other prior agreement, except for fraud, as I said. There has been no showing of fraud here of any kind that I can see. There is even no charge, is there, Mr. McCann ? Mr. McCann. There is no charge of fraud. We are just giving the facts for what they are worth. Mr. Owens. Why should we waste time giving facts on a directive that is as clear and explicit as it can be after three men have rendered it, following full and due hearing, and then have retired from the scene, which is all they can do. Mr. BoDLE. There is one fact, I think, that Mr. Owens has not taken into account which I would like to bring out at this point. That is that the jurisdiction of the original committee was to settle disputes which were not settled between the parties. Now at the time of the Miami meeting—and the minutes so show—the members of the three- man committee stated they did not try to do anything about this dis- pute between the grips and the carpenters, which revolved around the question of set erection, because agreements to that effect had been entered into. They made a statement for the record at that time that that agreement was binding and that the terms of the award which they handed down were not to contravene that agi-eement.