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)

1308 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Before I leave the witness stand I want to try to correct a misunder- standing;. Several witnesses, unintentionally have referred to the I. A. of M. leaving the A. F. of L. The I. A. of M. was suspended— suspended from the A. F. of L.—because the membership elected to defer payment of the per capita tax and because of the repeated state- ment which is a reflection ujDon our organization. I might say our convention aired our differences witli the A. F. of L. The convention recommended to the membership that the organization will continue to defer payment of per capita tax until we could enjoy something other than a stepchild status. The A. F. of L. officers knew that that was unfinished business until the membership acted upon it, because our organization is one of very few which does not give the convention authority to make decisions. All the convention can do is recommend, even in changing the laws. Those recommendations go back to the membership printed on a ref- erendum and are distributed so that every member of the organization has an opportunity to vote. But before the membership could vote on that question we were suspended from the American Federation of Labor. Several refer-ences have been made to an A. F, of L. union of machinists Avhich was established. The reference has been made to the A. F. of L. not wanting to sign a union contract with us. I think you should know this—this so-called iniion of machinists chartered by the A. F. of L. was chartered among machinists who were expelled for violating their oath of membership; expelled for violating a policy of local union 1185. For approximately 12 years local 1185 had the policy where they would respect a picket line regardless of whose picket line it was. That charter was also given to applicants for a union to those who were hired to go in and work behind the picket line. Now the members of local 1185 could have had the benefit of a closed-shop contract; if they would have deserted our organization, the union of their trade, and cast their lot with the machinists' union organized by the A. F. of L. to furnish a haven for strikebreakers; but the members of 1185 fortunately come from a different stock. That is where they were denied a closed-shop contract. That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions you desire to ask I would be very happy to answer them, but when you go into details I think you believe testimony can be more informative if it comes from someone who has been right, at the scene of the controversy, such as Mr. Wayne. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. Brown, I want to compliment you on this well-prepared statement. I want one thing cleared up in the state- ment on page 2, where you refer to the situation whereby members of the I. A. of jNI. must have cards in another union in order to perform their work. Do you have proof of that? Mr. Brown. That is the information I am furnished by Business Representative Wayne. Mr. Kearns. He will furnish that ? Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Kearns. What you have referred to here you have substantial proof to show for it? Mr. Brown. If it is not available at the moment he can get it. In fact, it was common knowledge of everybody who worked in the