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.
MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1219 had o-iven them pernianent jobs. The strikers were not doing it and we had to get other men to do it. Now as I understand the act the rights of those men are protected, we cannot throw them out on their ears without violating the law. That is one problem. Suppose for the sake of argument this matter had been submitted to the National Labor Relations Board Mr. Owi-:ns. Now, don't do that. Just tell me what you did. Mr. ZoRN. The things that were motivating in my mind and among the reasons why we advised our people not to bring an unfair labor practice change before the Board were, first, this first complication. The first complication involved the legal considerations. They had replacements who were doing this work. Suppose the National Labor Relations Board—and this is my thinking on the thing and this is what we explained to our people—if the National Labor Relations Board had decided, for example, that that work belonged to the car- penters and not to the lATSE, what would have happened to the men who had been hired in the meantime ? Mr. Owens. You know that. Mr. ZoRN. I do not know the answer to that because those men have rights. In my thinking on the Taft-Hartley Act you cannot separate out this problem: A determination of work jurisdiction as being dif- ferent or distinguished from a question of representation. If you have a group of men on the job who want, for example, the lATSE to represent them and the Board should make a work juris- dinctional determination saying that that work belongs to the carpen- ters, I think you are in a terrifically complicated work situation which I do not see the answer to. Now there were other considerations IMr. Owens. Now the lATSE and the others have not attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board, have they? Mr. ZoRN. No; because they- Mr. BoDLE. They have, Mr. Owens Mr. Kearns. Just a moment. Mr. ZoRN. Basically there are two proceedings pending before the National Labor Relations Board now. Mr. Owens. When did they invoke them? Mr. Zorn. Not by the employers, but there is one proceeding still pending before the Board. Mr. Owens. When was it filed? Mr. ZoRN. About 2 months ago. Mr. Landis. Mr. Owens, just a minute. I would like to clear up that point before you leave it. Mr. Owens. I am not going to leave it; I am coming back to that but I want to stay with the last August matter. Mr. Landis. I want to bring out the fact that he has said they did not want to use the Taft-Hartley Act because they were afraid they would decide tlie carpenters would get the work. Mr. ZcRN. I have not completed that, Mr. Landis. Mr. Owens. I will not leave that. I want to go back to where the act was passed in June, the steps you took between June and August, and what you did after that.