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)

1158 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Mr. Doherty, may I interrupt you at that one point? Mr. Doherty. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. When you say you knew the directive would not be acceptable to the carpenters Mr. Doherty. I did not put it that way. Mr. Kearns. You had no idea of that when you were writing it, that it would not be acceptable ? Mr. Doherty. No, sir; we had no idea whatsoever that it would not be acceptable to the carpenters, or anyone else, but if we felt they could get together themselves and reach a gentlemen's agreement and set up definite lines-of-work demarcation, that there would be peace and tranquillity in Hollywood, instead of all this strife and turmoil that has existed out there. Let me again repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this is not something new. Jurisdictional disputes arose with the development of the industry itself. We actually moved in on something that was not a year or so old, but probably half a centuiT old because there have been inter- union jurisdictional disputes in Hollywood since the very inception of the motion-picture industry. Now, getting back to the clarification, I noted yesterday, Mr. Chair- man, in your well-prepared statement to the press or rather the statement that you issued at the opening of yesterday's hearing, read- ing from page 2 you say in part: Therefore, I am disposed to find that the three vice presidents of the Amer- ican Federation of Labor made an earnest and sincere effort to arrive at a fair and equitable determination of the rights of all of the members of the unions involved in the jurisdictional strife in Hollywood, except as to the members of the International Association of Machinists. For the record, I would like an exception to be noted because our committee very definitely did hand down a work demarcation in our decision applicable to the International Association of Machinists, and I now refer to the directive of December 26, 1945. I am reading from page 6 thereof: International Association of Machinists: The committee rules that the follovping language found in the American Federation of Labor, Boston, Mass., convention proceedings, October 6 to 17, 1930, pages 353 to 354, is applicable to the International Association of Machinists. 1. It is understood by both parties that members of the lATSE are recog- nized to have jurisdiction, to have charge of, to adjust and operate all pro- jectors and all appliances connected therewith. 2. It is understood by both parties that members of the I. A. of M. are rec- ognized as having jurisdiction over the processes in the manufacturing of motion-picture machines. 2. (a) It is agreed that members of the I. A. T. of S. E. shall have jurisdiction over the setting up and taking down of motion-picture machines in such places as they are used for exhibition purposes. 3. It is agreed by both parties that when temporary emergency running repairs are necessary, the operator will make such repairs that are necessary to keep machine in operation. The committee rules that the above work division be placed in full force and effect immediately. This decision is applicable to the motion picture industry and none other. It is not to be construed as interfering with or disrupting any jurisdiction otherwise granted the International Association of Machinists by the American Federation of Labor. The committee takes cognizance of the fact that the International Association of Machinists has discontinued its affiliation with the American Federation of Labor and expresses the hope that reaffiliation will soon take place. So that we did hand down, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, a work division applicable to the lAM.