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.
1166 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. DoHERTY. Is that on sets and stages ? Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. DoHERTY. The trim and millwork was definitely given to the carpenters. Mr, Kearns. Yes; I remember reading that. This question is from Mr. Levy: Did you riot know in Miami in January 1946 that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America had claimed to have repudiated the so-called '26 agreement ? Mr. Dohertt. I think that is a fair question, and I believe that is substantially true; that Mr. Hutcheson had then told us that the agreement was repudiated. I believe the local union officers were either expelled or put out of the union at that time—I am not sure. Mr. Kearns. Nevertheless, did you not refuse to reverse, modify, or clarify the December 26 decision ? Mr. DoHERTY. At Miami in '46 ? Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. DoHERTY. We made no change whatsoever. Mr. Kearns. I think that answers that question. Mr. Doherty, was the committee informed that the 1925 agreement had been in vogue and in effect from 1925 up to 1933? Mr. Doherty. I do not recall that, Mr. Chairman—that anyone told us it was in full force and effect up until 1933, as was related here yesterday. I do recall somewhere in that voluminous testimony in the records your committee has from our committee, that a number of agreements were mentioned by the various witnesses. There was a 1919 agree- ment, a 1920 agreement, and a 1926 agreement that we operated from, and there were later agreements. There were all sorts of agree- ments but they are just so many sheets of paper in the motion-picture industry. Mr. Kearns. I only have one more question to ask of you for clari- fication. Your committee was asked to settle jurisdictional lines out there after they could not agree themselves; is tliat right? Mr. Doherty. Tliat is a correct statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. As we went through the hearings in Los Angeles we found that the decision and the controversy settled down or leveled off on this question of set erection; that is, the disposition of that work to the carpenters or to the lATSE. Yet at the same time the testimony was it was never the intention of the committee to take any work away from the carpenters and give it to the lATSE. In other words, it was purely an interpretation of the three-man committee as to what set erection was and who it was to be done by. Mr. Doherty. No one dictated that directive handed down by us on December 26, 1945. It was ours. We accept full responsibility, Mr. Chairman—the then three vice presidents of the A. F. of L. We may not ha.ve done the right thing. We think we did, but no one dictated that directive. Let me say, too, that we have not been implicated in any so-called collusion. There have been lots of meetings behind our backs. Per- haps it was just as well that we were not there. I heard some meetings mentioned here again yesterday. At Los Angeles I heard about the Beverly Hills meeting, I believe it was.