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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1155 Then it says further: William Green, president of the A. F. of L., explained that the unions of car- penters, stagehands, and painters had agreed to abide by the decision of the committee named by the council and have ended last year's strike on that basis. Under these conditions, he said, the council saw no reason to reopen the issue. I happened to be in Hollywood at the time and was leaving for the east. Mr. Walsh was in Miami. Mr. Walsh was informed that the council had decided not to take any action, probably because, as stated from the Miami minutes, the report was given to the executive council for information only and there was no action that the executive coun- cil could legally take. Mr. McCann. That answers the question, sir. That is what I was trying to find out. I could not see any basis, after reading the record, for the statement which 1 believe Mr. Zorn attributes to Mv. Johnston and which 1 do not question at all, but which I did desire, if there was any documentary evidence to support, to have in the record. Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Johnston simply testified that after they left the inner chambers of the executive council, after they had been in there, Mr. Green came out and said the council was taking no action, and they would continue to keep the December 1945 award in effect. He did not say anything about what the coimcil in its inner circles had done. Mr. Kearxs. Now, Judge Levy, I did not mean that they had to go back and report to the coimcil. I said they were not held responsible for their decision to a person like Mr. Hutcheson, president of the international, or Mr. Walsh, or anyone else with the international. Mr. Levy. That is correct, they were responsible only to themselves. Mr. Kearns. They did not have to go back to their bosses? Mr. Levy. That is correct. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, there was a statement made by Mr. Levy. He did not answer the question and then he did answer, I be- lieve, in his statement where he said it was unprecedented in the ar- rangement for the appointment of those three men. That is true. If it was unprecedented, then there was no precedent in the A. F. of L. for the appointment of men as arbiters in that case to report back to the council. Mr. Levy. That is a fair assumption. ]\Ir. OwExs. That is what you meant by being unprecedented ? Mr. Levy. Part of it; yes, sir. I mean the fact that the employers and the executive council of the American Federation of Labor and six or seven autonomous international unions would all agree together to call off the existing strike by a directive of the executive council, and would agree to put their jurisdiction, as someone expressed it, on the table and let three persons determine for good or evil what that jurisdiction was and where it would go. That, I say, was to me, from my knowledge of trade-union affairs, quite unprecedented. Mr. Owens. In other words, it made no difi'erence whether it was three vice presidents of the A. F. of L. or just Tom, Dick, and Harry? Mr. Levy. That is correct, except that all the parties agreed it would be a three-man committee selected by the executive council of the American Federation of Labor for that purpose. Mr. Owens. To be regulated by an agreement or by law with respect to arbitration as a general rule, which we understand is absolutely binding and not even subject to court review unless such an arrange- ment is made ?