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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

1324 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Brown. When the directive was issued it was my information the lA was contending for the work in those booths, which we had always done. Mr. O^VENS. What did you do about it? Mr. Brown. I am coming to that. Our local representative ap- proached the management of the studios. Mr. Owens. Is he going to testify later ? Mr, Brown. The business representative or the brother who was then business representative is not business representative now. He protested to the management. Mr. 0^VENS. You do not know that, do you ? Mr. Brown. I know that because Mr. Wayne, who is here now. knows that the former representative did protest that the directive changed work operations where there was no grievance and which was not referred to the arbitration committee. Mr. Owens. Did you have anything in writing in that protest ? Mr. Brown. I don't know whether he made a personal call or did it in writing. I couldn't say. Mr. Kearns. He will be on here himself. Mr. Owens. I might say the only thing we heard so far was the carpenters who made some objections. Did you knoAv that they had a meeting during that month, I believe in Miami, in the month of January, where these things were discussed? Did you attend that meeting? Mr. Brown. No. Mr. Owens. Did any of your men attend that meeting? Mr. Brown. No. That was subsequent to our suspension and of course we were not entitled. Mr. Owens. ' Can you account for the fact that you were grouped with other A. F. of L. unions in this consolidated union group there? Mr. Brown. Mr. Owens, I believe the meeting you are referring to was called by Mr. Green, president of the A. F. of L., or direction of the A. F. of L. executive council. We were not invited. Not because they dislike us—I hope they don't dislike us—but because we were not afliliated. Mr. Owens. They might not dislike you, but you were certainly left out; Avere you not ? Mr. Brown. In other words, we got the raw end. Mr. Owens. I was wondering how you happened to be mixed with a group of other A. F. of L. unions. Is that called the CSU? Mr. Brown. Will you repeat that again, please? Mr. Owens. You vrere jointed with'a number of other unions, A. F. of L. unions, in tlie CSU; were you not ? Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Owens. How did that occur? Mr. Brown. That was formed some years ago. When we were suspeuded from the A. F. of L. it so happened that the carpenters and painters, for reasons best known to themselves, did not want to desert us and we did not desert them. Mr. Owens. They did uot desert you temporarily, but you did feel deserted after the directive came down; is that correct? Mr. Brown. No. We are still a part of that Conference of Studio Unions.