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 1163 I am a little like Mr. Owens here with respect to the date and the clarification. Which do you tliink it would be better to go by, the clarification date or the original date? Mr. DoHERTi'. The clarification was an addendum to the original directive, and both must be considered together. Boiling it down, let me put it this w^ay : The car])enters did not agree with the original directive of December 26,11)45, because they lost some 350 jobs, as we were later told. Then when we handed down a clarification in August the next year, the stagehands disagreed, because it was upsetting something that happened in the original directive, so we were condemned on both sides for trying to straighten out a most unusual situation. Mr. Landis. Under the new law, I wondered if it would be better for the National Labor Relations Board to try their hand at it. Per- haps they would probably get in the same shape you got in. Mr. DoHERTY. That would be my observation, yes, Mr. Congress- man. As a matter of fact, I am rather startled that the cure-all Taft- Hartley Act hasn't done something about this Hollywood jurisdic- tional dispute up to now. Mr. Landis. I thought it took so many days to take care of it and that there should be something done through the National Labor Relations Board. ]Mr. DoHERTY. I understand there are some legal questions in- volved. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Congressman, but this difficulty goes back beyond the enactment of Public Law 101, the Taft-Hartley Act. Therefore, because of the legal involvements, it is now most difficult for them to now go before the National Labor Relations Board, Frankly, I am not very optimistic about this hearing here now. I don't think you are going to accomplish anything. The amiable chairman of this subcommittee is such a fine gentle- man, that I wish him every possible success, but while I am not a pes- simist by nature I am frank to confess I do not think he is going to . accomplish a thing by these extended hearings. Mr. Landis. Not unless the National Labor Relations Board comes back in the picture and decides it. Mr. DoHERTY. That may be the answer. Mr. Owens. There was just one question brought out by that inquiry made by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Doherty. I believe you did say before if you had to do it over again you would make the finding exactly as you did originally? Mr. Doherty. In all probability, yes. I will say this now for the record, although it is a little late, if we ever hand down another decision—and I pray to God Almighty that I do not have one of these jobs thrown in my lap again—but if it ever happens I will make certain that any decision I hand down will never find me crossing a "t" or dotting aii "i" thereafter. That will be the decision, come what may. Mr. Owens. I think you have made that quite clear as to why you did that. But with respect to your slight innuendo about Public Law 101, I asked some questions of ^Slr. Johnston yesterday why they did not go to general counsel who might be able to take care of the situa- tion, and he said he would have to leave that answer for the lawyers. We are waiting for the lawyers to explain that. Perhaps they will explain it.