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.

1248 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. Don't come to any more conclusions, Mr. Sorrell. Sup- pose I tell you I have looked at the record quite thoroughly, so don't come to any more conclusions. Mr. Sorrell. I judge by the questions you are asking me that you don't Mr. Owens. You just answer the questions and don't come to any conclusions as to what I know about it. I think you would be sur- prised. Mr. Sorrell. I heard you say did it make any difference what union the average man pays his dues to, and the average man thinks that way. Mr. 0\\T5NS. You heard me say what ? Mr. Sorrell. What difference does it make who you pay your dues to should not cause stoppages of work, or something to that effect. I don't know if that is exactly correct. Mr. Owens. I guess you were hearing things there also. Go ahead. Mr. Sorrell. However, that man was fired. This went into effect by a vote of our union. Several machinists were fired, and a lot of painters were fired. Mr. Kearns. What do you mean by a lot ? Mr. Sorrell. Oh, I judge maybe a couple of hundred, maybe more. You see, whatever the lA says, the producer does. Mr. Owens. But you said you were not going to proceed with that work until that man was reemployed? Mr. Sorrell. That is right, on any of these studios with techni- color. Mr, Oavens. And they took you at your word ? Mr. SoRREi^. That is right, they fired our people. I told them, "Look, as a union we cannot stand for this, but any time you submit it to the NLEB—because we can't; if we submit it to the NLRB they will file an intervenor and in the course of a yeiar or so, by the time the NLRB gets around to it, there will be no more lAM. But if you will agree to go to the NLRB for relief and abide by their judgment, we will send the painters back to work." They agreed. Then went to the NLRB. We filed unfair labor practices, and the producers had to pay all of these men who they had fired, and reinstate them on the job. Do you get the implication there that we might have been right ? Mr. Owens. It was an unfair labor practice ? Mr. Sorrell. That is right, we must have been right in that case. I only give you this as an instance: We had this continually. There has been a lot said here about Hutcheson, "the big bad wolf" Hutcheson. Believe me, Hutcheson couldn't pull a corporal's guard of carpenters out of that studio if things were unjust and he was the big bad wolf he is pictured to be. Mr. Owens. I notice you said the only time you actually proceeded legally you did get justice. Mr, Sorrell. We proceeded legally all the time, but justice is so slow coming. Mr. Owens. I am talking about the procedure you described up to this point. The first time you actually went through with any pro- cedure you did obtain justice?