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)

1302 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr, Kearns. No objection. Proceed, Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, off the record I must ask for some in- formation. Yesterday you interrupted Mr. Sorrell because of his use of certain language. I want to cooperate fully. I did not know the rules when I prepared this statement, and I have some remarks or terms used which Webster uses in defining men who violate their obli- gations and are expelled; or others use behind the picket lines. He defines them as scabs and strikebreakers. Is that objectionable? Mr. Kearns. I have made a policy out in Los Angeles and here where I requested them to be referred to as undesirables or something like that. Mr. Brown. Deserters, traitors ? Mr. Kearns. No; let's not use traitors. Mr. Brown. Undesirables ? Mr. Kearns. Undesirables is all right. If you want to consider them undesirables, that is all right. Mr. Brown. The International Association of Machinists has a big stake in these proceedings. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity to testify and to assist in making the record sufficiently informative with respect to the rights of our members and the rights of our union. With the 1945 strike in the moving-picture studios was terminated during October 1945 by directive issued by the A. F. of L. executive council it was our understanding that every striker was privileged to return to work without prejudice to either himself or to his union. I believe the I. A. of M. members returned to work on or about Oc- tober 31, 1945. It likewise is my recollection that as our members re- turned to their shops and garages they found them clean—that is, all the undesirables and strikebreakers had been removed, which was in keeping with the conditions under which the strike was terminated. The said strike was terminated so the involved parties could in an orderly way by a meeting of minds try to settle their jurisdictional differences. At the time the 1945 strike was terminated, the I. A. of M. was affiliated with the A. F. of L., and I was a member of the A. F. of L. executive council. The A. F. of L. executive council created an arbitration board con- sisting of three A. F. of L. vice presidents and directed they hold hearings and arrive at decisions to settle the differences between the involved unions. Please bear in mind that the said arbitration com- mittee was charged with the responsibility to settle disputes and not to create additional jurisdictional disputes. The I. A. of M., as I recall, was involved in only one jurisdictional dispute with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, hereinafter referred to as the lATSE. This dispute was in a machine shop operated by the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, hereinafter referred to as M-G-M. As I recall there were about 22 machinists in that shop, 14 of whom were I. A. of M. members. Yet 9 of these 14 were required to either hold additional membership in, or pay for work permits to the lATSE. I desire the record to show that the I. A. of M. is positively opposed to a practice that requires a union worker, as a condition of employment, to hold membership in more than one union. Such practice is indefensible and is a disgraceful and damaging blot on the record of organized labor.