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.

1300 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. TuoHY. No, that is not so, Mr. McCann. The machinists or the automotive mechanics at MGM studio did not report for work for those 3 days, and that, as I stated before, was reported to me that with that old equipment out there they could not last very long without repairs. Mr. McCann. No further questions. He says he finds he is wrong about that. This question is from Mr. Cobb: Did the teamsters recognize the contract between the companies and the carpenters and other crafts dated July 2, 1946, called the Beverly Hills treaty ? Mr. TuoHY. Mr. McCann, I can only repeat what some of the rest of them said here yesterday. We were only interested in getting the unions back to work and calling off the strike. It was my under- standing that it was just wages, hours,, and conditions that were to be considered. In fact, that is all I heard there that day. There was nothing said about any agreements. Whether the details were to be drawn up later or not, I do not know. When they reached an understanding on the increases and the con- ditions, the meeting broke up as far as I was concerned. I left at that time, very happy that the men were going to return to work the follow- ing morning. I know nothing about any other portions of any agreement. Mr. McCanx. Do you recall the statement was made that the "con- tract is for 2 years"? JNIr. TuoiiY. Our increases were for a period of 2 years, with the reopening on January 1, as was stated here yesterday, for an increase comparable to the cost of living. That Avas for a period of 2 years, the wages and conditions that were agreed upon. Mr. JNIcCann. Mr. Tuohy, the document read in the record yester- day that was executed by Mr. Casey and by Mr. Sorrell after the Beverly Hills ti-eaty, had in it four words, "Contract for 2 years." I think that is the shortest contract I have ever heard except the con- tract "I do" in the wedding ceremony. Sometimes people are bound by that for 50 and 60 years. I just wondered whether or not "Contract for 2 years" is not about the shortest contract I have heard mentioned. They did go back to work under that agreement the next day, did they not ? Mr. TuoHY. That is right. Mr. McCann. Now, there is another question by Mr. Cobb: Did you know that the carpenters were working under the Beverly Hills agreement? Mr. TuoHY. No; I would have no way of knowing that. Mr. McCann. You just knew they went back to work? Mr. TuoHY. That is right. Mr. McCann. No further questions. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Tuohy, I want to thank you for coming here and making your contribution. Mr. TuoHY. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Sorry we had to keep you so long, Mr. Tuohy. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Brown, international president of machinists.