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 1287 Mr. TuoHY. I do not believe that was discussed about whether the local teamsters would go through the picket lines or not. It was whether we would be allowed to go through the picket lines, that is, be- cause of the mass pickets and the fact that they would try to stop our people from going through the picket lines. ]NIr. McCann. And Mr. Beck said he would send in help to your studio local ? Mr. TuoHY. That is right. Mr. McCann. Did you advise Mr. Beck of the trouble you w^ere hav- ing with the studio local of the teamsters ? ]Mr. TuoHY. We had no trouble at that time. The strike was con- templated at that time. We had gone through a series of them and I said, "Another one seems like it is coming up." Mr. McCann. Now, Mr. Tuohy, did you meet with the directors at any other time than the occasion I have mentioned prior to the strike? Mr. TuoHY. Do you mean the directors of the producers' associa- tion ? Mr. McCann. Yes, sir. Mr. Tuohy. Now, if you are speaking of 1946, as I stated, we had had a number of meetings regarding our wage negotiations. ]Mr. ]\IcCann. I do not mean with respect to the wage negotiations, but with respect to the cooperation which the teamsters would give to the producers and the lA in the event the incidents planned for the 23d of September resulted in a strike. ISIr. TuoHY. Those discussions came up at the time we were meeting with him regarding negotiations when we were asked about what we would do. In fact, I think we insisted that they keep the studios open and not throw all the other people out of work that were not interested in the strike and that we would do all in our power to help keep the studios open. Mr. ]McCann. On the 23d day of September, which was the day, I believe, that the incidents were planned for, the record shows that you and Mr. Clare attended a meeting of the Producers Labor Committee. Do you recall what took place at that time ? Mr. TuoHY. No; if you could help me out a little bit as to what went on up there I might be able to help you. Mr. McCann. I want to ask you if you recall a statement made by Mr. Benjamin at that time at that meeting. Mr. Benjamin expressed belief that, "Even though NLRB might decide producers had en- gaged in unfair labor practice there was a good chance the Board might not assess any back pay." Do you remember that ? Mr. TuoHY. No; I do not. ISIr. JSIcCann. I can understand why you would not, because it in- dicates the lawyers did not come in until 5 : 40 p. m. at that meeting. JMay I say for the record it seems the lawyers were there at the begin- ning, and apparently they must have gone out, because the minutes shown them as coming back in later. But at the very beginning it states: Lawyei-s said we can't refuse to bargain and told of consequences. Carpenters' situation may or may not have been an unfair labor practice, but painters and electricians, etc., could have no cause for unfair labor practice charges for dis- missing men for failure to perform work required. Do you remember that discussion ?