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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1243 Mr. SoRRELL. I said he gave this story, but he did. not tell you why we were forced to withdraw from the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Owens. Well, I knew that myself, whether he told me or not. Mr. SoRRELL. He did not tell you that the 3-day strike was ended by the promise that tlie War Labor Board, which was established here in America to take care of these things, why that was ignored. Mr. Owens. He so testified, Mr. Sorrell, whether you heard him or not. He testified that the War Labor Board came in and made that promise, and so forth. Mr. Sorrell. He did? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Sorrell. Well, it did not sound like that to me. It sounded ver}' much the other way to me. Of course, you are a lawyer, too, are you not? Mr. Owens. That is right. ]\Ir. Sorrell. Well, maybe you lawyers understand each other better than we painters. We want the facts drawn right out there, because we are not smart enough to find the hidden meanings unless they are in the written word. jSIr. Owens. I was insisting that he give the facts to us, and not just his conclusions. Go ahead, now. You were on the strike. IVIr. Sorrell. We submitted arbitration machinery to the producers and they gave us a counterproposal which we did not like so well. I think Mr. Skelton drew it up. We did not like it so well, but we said we would accept any kind of arbitration machinery for jurisdictional troubles because we do not think men should fight among themselves as to whom they pay dues to. It is our belief that the men who are working want to work, and we represent the workers. We are not interested in the high marble halls, the top flight of the A. F. of L., at least I am not. I am interested in the guy that makes a living. Tliey told us they would not sign any contract with anyone unless they put the arbitration machinery in for jurisdiction. They did not sign with us. They did sign with the lATSE. This strike that was perpetrated over the 77 set decorators, who were all our people and who the lATSE wanted Mr. Owens. There is a point. You said the lATSE signed a 5- year contract back in 1944, and you said that did not have a thing to do with 3'our dispute between you and the other unions. Do you differ from Mr. Zorn in that respect? Mr. Sorrell. Yes. We did not sign anything in 1944. The idea was to give us a 5-percent raise in 1944, and we agreed to go along on the contract we liad, if they would add the 5-percent wages, al- though our contract had expired. Mr. Owens. Oh, then you did go along? Mr. Sorrell. We always went along. Mr. Owens. Except that you posted working conditions rather than agreeing to a contract ? Mr. Sorrell. We continued with the working conditions under the contract that was signed in 1942, with the exception that there was a 5-percent gratuity given to us without any signature on a contract. Does that make it clear to you ? Mr. Owens. Yes, it does. In other words, he is right about the point, there isn't any confusion. You had your agreement, and they had their agreement.