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 1279 Mr. Kearns, Yes; you have that privilege. Take your time. Mr. Cobb. Now, with the document before the witness, will the com- mittee kindly permit my questions to be asked ? Mr. McCann. May I proceed with the questions and read them over, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kearxs. If he has the document now. jNIr. McCann. He has it in front of him. Was it not a contract for 2 years ? ]\rr. BoREx. I want to read the end agreement here. ^Iv. Kearxs. The witness has the right to read the agreement. ]\Ir. McCax^x. Certainly; I was not trying to crowd him. Returning to the questions, was it not a contract for 2 years? Mr. BoREX^. I have looked this over. I think that is a legal ques- tion. The paper speaks for itself and that is the way I am going to answer the question. Mr. McCaxx. The paper says it is a contract for 2 years, does it not ? Mr. BoREX. It does say it is a contract for 2 years, but it is not a fully executed contract by each individual member of the Producers Association. Mr. Kearxs. Who signed it? Mr. BoREX\ Pat Casey and Herb Sorrell. One of the disputes we had with these unions was that they wanted to hurry up and get these contracts finally executed. It is a highly legal thing. I think this ought to go into the record, that we paid retroactive wages back to January 1,1946, under this agreement. Mr. OwEXs. Can't we have that in the record if it is not already in the record? Mr. McCax'x. If it is not in the record, Mr. Chairman, I will ask that the Beverly Hills agreement be put in the record at this point. ]\Ir. Kearxs. I am pretty sure it is in the other record. Mr. McCax'X. It think it is, but I am not sure. Mr. BoREX. This is why I answered this, and I am not trying to be cagey. It says: My Dkar Hekb : Pending the completion of contracts between the individual unions, members of the C. S. U., and the major studios, these minutes (copy attached herewith) shall constitute an interim agreement. Sincerely yours, Pat Casey. Now, there is a lot of legal argument about this thing, and I am not qualified to answer that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. jMcCaxx. We will receive that in the record at this point and have it reproduced. ]Mr. BoREx. And also the letter from Mr. Casey should be in the record, too. (The data referred to is as follows:) Pkodtjcers Committee July 2, 1946. Mr. Herrb3{t K. Sorrell, President, Conference of Studio Unions, 4157 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles 5, Calif. My Dear Herb : Pending the completion of contracts between the individual unions, members of the CSU, and the major studios, these minutes (copy attached herewith) shall constitute an interim agreement. Sincerely yours, Pat Casey. Chairman, Producers Committee.