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.
1258 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. ZoRN. D-o-u-d-s, and their regional attorney. I cannot think of his name at the moment. As a matter of fact, it is my recollection it is probably in the rules of procedure. I will dig them out and bring them over to you. Mr. Owens. I do not think you will find it in the rules of procedure, Mr. Zorn. Mr. ZoRN. I agree with you it is a bad practice. Mr. Owens. You attorneys will have the Board all mixed up here before you are through. Go ahead, Judge. Mr. Levy. On September 30, 1946—that is after the beginning of the September 1946 strike—a charge was filed by the local unions af- filiated with the Conference of Studio Unions, case No. 21-C-2901. That included, among others, the carpenters union, local 946, and the painters union, local 644. That charge was filed against the com- panies and it was alleged in that charge that the employers were en- gaged in a conspiracy and a course of conduct for the purpose and with the effect of denying to the members of said undersigned labor organizations the rights and benefits of the National Labor Relations Act, and that they conspired—mentioning Eric Johnston, Edward J. Mannix, B. B. Kahane, and others—with certain representatives of the organization known as the lATSE. The regional director to whom that charge was presented after in- vestigation refused to issue any complaint, finding that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings, September 30, after the September strike. An appeal was taken by the petitioning unions, and upon such appeal Hon. liobert N. Denham, general counsel, rendered a decision on January 6, 1948. Mr. Owens. 1947? Mr. Levy. 1948, this year, sir. Mr. Owens. December 6, you said. Mr. Levy. I am sorry, January 6, 1948, in which general counsel affirmed the regional director's findings, dismissing it. Mr. Owens. You do not mean he affirmed the regional director, be affirmed the attorney. Mr. Levy. I have a photostatic copy of what he did, and I will give it to you precisely. Mr. Owens. Because it was his own man who had charge of the issuance of the complaint, and he would have jurisdiction over his own employee, but not over the Board. Mr. Levy (reading) : National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C, January 6, 1948— a letter addressed to Pestana and Esterman. They were the attorneys for the Conference of Studio Unions: Matter of Columbia Pictures Corp., et al., case No. 21-C-2901: Gentlemen : Your appeal from the regional director's refusal to issue a com- plaint in the above-captioned case charging a violation of sections 81 and 85 of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly considered. Like the regional director, I find there is not sufficient evidence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time. You were correct. Very truly yours, RoBEBT N. Denham, General Counsel.