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)

1306 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Chairman, some witnesses during these hearings have suggested compulsory arbitration to settle differences arising during the life of a contract and not settled at the conference table. The I. A. of M. favors voluntar}'^ arbitration and many of our agreements contain a voluntary arbitration clause. In the light of experience we oppose compulsory arbitration. In more than a few instances new and in- experienced members acceded to management request for a compulsory arbitration clause in their local union agreements, thereafter disagree- ment over issues rapidly multiplied. This especially was true of dis- crimination cases. Management at the conference table showed no disposition to be influenced by facts and circumstances. Therefore, it became necessary to refer many cases to arbitration, which if fairness prevailed, could liave been settled at the conference table. Arbitration proceedings are expensive and very few local unions are financially able to finance compulsory arbitration when management takes advantage of a compulsory arbitration clause such as w^e have experienced. During his opening statement, the Honorable Carroll F. Kearns, chairman, Hollywood subcommittee, stated: A careful analysis of the testimony, heretofore received, indicates that the jurisdictional strife in September of 1946, which had continued to the present time, in the Hollywood studios is pi'obably the result of collusion between the producers and the lATSE. I share the chairman's view. It is difficult to understand how anyone can read the proceedings of a previous hearing held in Los Angeles, September 2, 19^:7, without sharing the chairman's view. I am firmly convinced that when the 21 strikebreakers were re- turned to our shops and garages in violation of the understanding we had when the 1945 strike was terminated that the producers antici- pated the machinists would immediately walk off the job, establish picket lines and thereby involve the entire moving-picture industry in another work stoppage. I wish to digress for a moment to say that when we received word about those 21 undesirables I submitted a proposition to our executive council to ascertain if they would grant strike sanction because we received word some of our people were quitting and would not work in that atmosphere. Secondly, management broke faith. They were interrupting a so- called status quo situation that followed the termination of the strike. Our executive council granted us that sanction. The Hollywood local did not take advantage of it. They were waiting and hoping that the matter could be settled in an orderly way, and they should be complimented for their patience because they worked in a most undesirable atmosphere. Wlien this did not happen, members of the carpenters' union and painters' union were subjected to treatment which union men cannot long endure. It is my observation that the producers appeared de- termined regardless of consequences to arbitrarily change work prac- tices to the penalty of the carpenters, painters, and machinists to benefit the lATSE. In conclusion I charge the producers are responsible for all the losses suffered by all parties in the motion-picture industry which has continued from September 26, 1916, to date.