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.
1320 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Brown. I don't know that I know what you are talking about. Mr. Owens. I understand what you mean. The first thing is you did agree to be bound bj^ it? Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Owens. Then they had hearings? Mr. Brown. May I qualify that statement ? Mr. Oavens. Well, you have been qualifying them. Mr. Brown. I agreed to abide by a decision, lliat was providing it was arrived at on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Mr. Owens. Mr. Brown, when you go before a court and submit your case to the court, do you have mental reservations each time you do that ? Mr. Brown. I differentiate between a court and committee of trade- unionists. Mr. Owens. Might I say, whether you know it or not, in the history of labor movements the arbitrator is always considered to be even beyond the court. His decision has always been considered to be binding and trustworthy. Are you aware of that fact? Mr. Brown. JMr. Owens, may I ask you a question this time ? Mr. Owens. Yes, I will deviate from the usual piactice. Mr. Brown. What redress does anyone have when an arbitrator has disregarded all the rules of fair play and has not made a decision to cover a particular dispute and strays far from that in his decision and creates additional disputes'? What redress does the other fellow have? Mr. Owens. I am going to bring you right into that matter in a few minutes. I am going to bring you right into that question. I understand now you did agree to that? Mr. Brown. Yes; that is true. Mr. Owens. Then thej' held their meetings, did they not, and heard some testimony or some evidence from the various unions? Mr. Brown. That is correct. Mr. Oavens. After they did that they issued a directive? INIr. Brown. Correct. Mr. Owens. Now right there, what part of that directive that they issued Avas not agreeable to you at that time in December 1945 ? Mr. Broavn. The directive did not deal Avith the one and only dis- pute. The clirecti\"e incurred the opposing union or defending union from making claims when heretofore they had made no claims. Mr. Owens. That was not the question*! asked. Mr. Brown. I did not understand your question, then. Mr. Oavens. What part of that directive told you to do certain Avork and ke]3t certain work from you ? Mr. Broavn. I would like to repeat again the dispute was at the M-G-M shop, a small shop. Mr. Oavens. I am talking about the directive. Mr. Brown. I am coming to that. Here is the directiA^e: It is understood by both parties that members of the IA are recognized t<i have jurisdiction, to have charge of, to adjust and operate wil proj-^ctors and all ap- pliances connected therewith. That had nothing to do with the machine shop. It is understood by both parties that members of the I. A. of M. are recognized as having jurisdiction over the processing in the manufacture of motion-picture raachines.