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.

1328 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. We don't want to waste time. Mr. Owens. When a man says it is favorable to his position, I think he should know what he is talking about. Mr. Brown. I made the statement Mr. White was here, who could give information with respect to that case; and that Mr. Wayne is here, who was at the scene of the controversy and had the details which I did not have. Mr. Owens. In other words, the charge you filed is based upon what took place since September of 1946 ? Mr. Broavn. It is based upon my conclusions. The conclusion arrived at was based on the experience our people had in Hollywood. Mr. Owens. That is all. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, do you have questions? Mr. McCann. Questions by Mr. Zorn, Mr. Chairman. Is it not a fact that your organization voted not to pay the per cajDita tax to the A. F. of L. because of Mr. William Hutcheson's continual refusal over the 3^ears to abide by jurisdictional decisions of the A. F. of L.? Mr. Brown. That is not true. Mr. McCann. That is all you have to say, sir. We will proceed to the next question. In your experience in the A. F. of L., has Mr. William Hutcheson ever abided by any jurisdictional decisions in favor of the I. A. of M. and against him ? Mr. Brown. I am not familiar with what Mr. Hutcheson has been doing or what he has done. I have no way of knowing what his individual acts are. Mr. McCann. Question by Mr, Levy: Will you please produce a copy of the local constitution and bylaws referring to picket lines? Mr. Brown. I personally do not have it. Possibly Mr. Wayne may have one with him. If he does not have it we can arrange to have one sent to the committee. Mr. McCann. That is fine. Question by Mr. Levy: Isn't it a fact that for several years the carpenters' union disregarded the juris- diction of the JAM and in that disregard deliberately— I can't make out a word here, Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy. I will read it from this. Mr. McCann. If you don't mind, will you come over here and tell me what the word is ? Mr. Levt. "And in that disregard deliberately enrolled and repre- sented machinists." Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman Mr. Levy. The question is not over yet. Mr. Kearns. He has the right to continue the question. Mr. McCann. Finishing the question. I will start it over, and we will strike that first part: Isn't it a fact that for several years the carpenters' union disregarded the jurisdiction of the lAM and in that disregard delibei*ately enrolled and represented machinists engaged in the erection, installation, or repair of machinery?