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.
1164 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. These questions are submitted by Mr. Zorn: "Is it not the fact that the so-called clarification was intended to take away from the lATSE set erection work which had been given it under the December 26,1945, decision?" Mr. DoHERTY. No; that is not a fact. We changed the original directive in section 8, which had to do with the erection of sets on stages and location, and used the word "assembly" as Mr. McCann pointed out yesterday. The basic objective was to find some happy medium, some basis of accommodation whereby those 350 carpenters could be put back to work. That was our basic objective. But to say we wanted to take away the set erection from the lATSE after we had given it to them, is not so. Mr. Ejearns. You had no intention of that? Mr. DoHERTY. No, sir; and we had no intention of displacing any- one in the motion-picture industry—carpenters, stagehands, or any- one else—in our original decision. Mr. Kearns. All right, the second question: "Did not Mr. Hutcheson protest and refuse to accept the December 26,1945, decision because it gave this set-erection work to the lATSE ?" Mr. DoHERTY. I believe that is a true statement, Mr. Chairman. He protested vociferously. Mr. Kearns. The third question: "Did not the three-man committee at Miami unanimously refuse to change the decision on Mr. Hutcheson's protest?" Mr. DoHERTY. There was no change made at the Miami meeting of the executive council, none whatsoever at that time. The change came at the subsequent meeting of the executive council held in Chicago in August of 1946. Mr. Kearns. Therefore, is it not true at Miami there was no question that the lATSE was given set erection and not set assemblage? Mr. DoHERTY. I think that is a true statement. Mr. Kearns. No. 5 : "Is it not true, therefore, that the clarification was in fact a change in the original decision?" Mr. DoHERTY. Apparently when we dotted an "i" or crossed a "t" it was a change in the original decision and the clarification did make some change. Mr. Kjearns. Yes; it made some change. No. 6: "Is it not a fact that Mr. Hutcheson is a member of the execu- tive council and that Mr. Walsh is not?" Mr. DoHERTY. I think that was brought out over and over again in Los Angeles. It is worth repeating and answering here. Mr. Kearns. These are Mr. Zorn's questions. Mr. Doherty. Everyone knows that Mr. Hutcheson is the first member of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, and that Mr. Walsh is not a member of the executive council. Mr. Kearns. These questions are submitted by Mr. Cobb, and I hope I have better luck in reading your writing. Mr. Cobb. All I ask is that the chairman please do not call on me to try to read it myself. Mr. Kj:arns. All right. The first question is this: