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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1303 During the arbitration committee hearings when the I. A. of M. rep- resentatives were testifying, the representatives of the lATSE were not permitted to be present, and when the lATSE representatives were testifying tlie I. A. of M. representatives were not permitted to be present. By this most unusual procedure neither party knew what the other party was saying to support their respective claims. If the democratic procedure prevailing during these hearings had been practiced by the A. F. of L. arbitration committee, I am confident the said committee would have rendered different decisions. On December 10, 1921), the I. A. of M. and the lATSE entered into an agreement to only apply when disputes between the two unions developed over work on a moving-picture machine in moving-picture theaters. The said agreement never was intended to apply to cameras, machinery, and mechanical equipment used in connection with the making of pictures in moving-picture studios. The language con- tained in the 1029 agreement plus the fact that the I. A. of M. did not establish contractual relations with moving-picture studios until 8 years later in 1937, and the further fact that no representative of the lATSE ever did, as far as I know, attempt to try and apply the 1929 agreement elsewhere than in a moving-picture theater should be suffi- cient proof that the A. F. of L. arbitration committee grossly erred when they used the said 1929 agreement as a basis for their decision. At the moment I wish to digress from this prepared statement and say that we are told from time to time that we should respect the sanctity of agreements. With the same token, I say that an arbitra- tion committee, when they are charged with the responsibility of try- ing to settle a dispute, has no right to proceed to attempt to interfere in work operations that are not in dispute. For the life of me I am at a loss to understand how we can respect so-called sanctity of agreements and decisions when that arbitration board violated their duties and reponsibilities as arbitrators. Unfortunate!}' there was no machinery available to correct the gross error they committed. I do not say it was intentional. I do "say, however, that if that committee had conducted hearings where the representatives of the two contending parties were present, and if either party strayed from the facts and circumstances, the other party could have brought them back on base, I say there may have been a different decision. I have just passed 43 3^ears of continuous membership in the labor movement and during that period I have never heard of a case where an arbitration board, especially dealing with jurisdictional disputes, would not permit the other party present when the opposing party was testifying. I am inclined to believe that the reason the board made that de- cision is because the representative of the lATSE insisted on having the agreement entered into a])plying to theaters, to apply to the studio. I have a copy of the board's decision and I ask you to pay close attention to this one provision: It is agreed that members of the lA of TSE shall have jurisdiction over the setting up and taking down of motion picture macliines in such places as they are used for exhibition purposes. The term "exhibition" means a moving-picture theater.