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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

1174 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. Or do you know whether or not the directive which was arranged by all of the unions was to supersede any existing contracts? Mr. Balabax. That is a technical question. I am not familiar with it and am not qualified to answer that, sir. Mr. Freeman for our company could. Mr. Owens. We will wait for Mr. Freeman on that because it ap- pears to me it would be difficult for you to be answering these questions if you did not know these facts. Mr. Balaban. I do not know that, sir. I doubt if any of the presi- dents in New York—possibly one or two—are familiar with that. Mr. Owens. It is good they have assistants, is it not? Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Smith ? Mr. Smith. No questions. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Balaban, I note you agreed originally with Mr. Johnston that the studios should have been closed down, then you changed your mind about it, is that correct? Mr. Balaban. Yes, sir. Ml'. Kearns. Were you in favor at that time of appointing an arbi- trator to make the adjustments out there ? Mr. Balaban. Would you repeat that, sir? Mr. Kearns. Were you in favor of appointing an arbitrator to make the adjustments out there in the labor dispute? Mr. Balaban. I do not think that question was ever discussed by us in New York. Mr. Kearns. You knew it was considered on the coast at one time by the industry ? Mr. Balaban. I would not know that, sir. Mr. Kearns. The industry agreed to pay the arbitrator? Mr. Balaban. I do not. Mr. Kearns. You feel that Mr. Hutcheson has been unfair to the industry on the stand he has taken regarding this? Mr. Balaban. From all I have heard and read in the last few days we do feel that he has been unfair, and I am surprised, because we have always had a high regard for Mr. Hutcheson. We have negotiated with him over the years under the basic agreement and have had no trouble at all. We were very much surprised when early in 1945 we were unable to come to an understanding with him on the jurisdictional questions. It is not the man that I knew for many years. Mr. Kearns. To the best of your knowledge none of the other pres- idents of the producers agreed with any union to keep the studios open, regardless of the pending strike or the pending lay-off of the carpenters? Mr. Balaban. We had no contact with any other union. Congress- man. Mr. Kearns. You had no agreement? Mr. Balaban. We had no agreement or contact with them here at all. We did meet Mr. Walsh once or twice in the 2 or 3 years on this matter. Mr. Kearns. All I am asking is there was no meeting of the presi- dents where they made any such decision? Mr. Balaban. To make what decision ?