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 1149 • Subsequently Mr. Kni«rht made the statement that is recorded in the minutes which Mr. McCann read this morning that he had talked to Mr. Walsh about the frrievances between grips local 80 and the carpenters, and that Mr. Walsh had stated that the agreement was approved and was in effect. So if Mr. Walsh had stood by his statement at that time this dispute could never have arisen, because the whole dispute with regard to set erection was settled by the terms of the agreement between grips local No. 80 and the carpenters. Mr. Owens. I am not talking about Mr. Walsh or any individuals. I am thinking of a great number of workmen. I would like to have you tell me whether or not in the words of that directive they did use the word "erection" ^ Mr. BoDLE. That is correct, but the committee made the statement for the record at the Miami meeting of the executive committee Mr. Owens. What date was that ? Mr. BoDLE. I don't know the date of that. Mr. Owens. Was that after the directive or before? Mr. Bodle. That was after the directive. Mr. Owens. I am not interested in what the committee said after the directive, because they had no right to say anything, unless there is fraud charged. Mr. Bodle. But. Mr. Owens, you know that an arbitration board cannot go beyond the boundaries of the dispute that is submitted to it. Mr. Owens. But in there they discussed the 1926 agi^eement and used the word "erection." It was challenged a month after, between then and the last part of January, and nothing was done about it in that time. Within 30 days, even if you were to grant that they have 30-day jurisdiction as courts have in which to consider errors and set them aside, they refused within 30 days after it was called to their attention; is not that correct ? Mr. Bodle. But, Mr. Owens Mr. Owens. Is not that correct? Mr. Bodle. That is correct about the 30 days, but this is the point. The disputes which were submitted to them for adjudication were dis- putes which were not determined or settled by agreement of the parties. They had no jurisdiction, in other words, to pass on this question of set erection because it had already been agreed to between the parties. Mr. Owens. But does not your directive say set erection risht in there? Mr. Bodle. It uses those terms; yes. Mr. Owens. And they tried to change that to assembly 8 months later? Mr. Bodle. They tried to clarify what they meant by set erection. Mr. Owens. I still say exactly what I said to Mr. McCann and I am afraid I will have to stand on it. jNIr. Levy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot let Mr. Bodle's statement about what he understands to be the facts go unchallenged. I want the record to show that the statement made by counsel, I think Mr. Cobb's associate, or Mr. Sorrell, is not tlie fact." The matter of the local 80- local 946 agreement involves two factors which Mr. Bodle ignores. 67383—48—vol. 2 8