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)

1332 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES anything that any of you has offered as an exhibit yet. If you want that offered as an exhibit, I shall be happy to do so. If you want the article Mr. Brown wrote an an exhibit, I will be glad to move that it be received as such by the committee. Mr. Levy. I want it in. Mr. McC'ann. Mr. Chairman, I move that the article by Mr. Brown be inserted in the record at this point. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The article is as follows:) [Machinists Monthly Journal, January 1947] Your Job and Mine the i. a. of m. and the a. f. of l., 1914—1038—1945—? By Harvey W. Brown, International President Inquiries from new members who have joined the machinists' union following January 194(5 warrants this resume of the union's differences with the American Federation of Labor executive council. First, our new members should know that while jurisdictional differences do exist between our association and several A. F. of L. organizations, the real issue which caused the general membership to instruct the executive council to defer payments of per capita to the A. F. of L. was tlie fact that the A. F. of L. executive council denied to the machinists' union the same services and cooper- ation which are available to all other A. F. of L. unions. In order that our new members will have a thorough understanding of this casp. it is necessary that they know something about its background. Ever since its formation, the" A. F. of L., when charting national or international unions, has prescribed the .iurisdiction of such unions. Un occasions, when the juris- diction of an A. F. of L. union was challenged or ignored by another A. F. of L. affiliate, the A. F. of L., in convention assembled, announced the jurisdiction of the union which was requesting relief. The carpenters' union is one of several unions which has disregarded our jurisdiction and enrolled and represented machinists engaged in the erection, installation, or repair of machinery. The machinists' union registered a com- plaint with the A. F. of L. against the carpenters' union, and, during the 1914 A. F. of L. convention the delegates, by unanimous vote, declared: 1914 A. F. OF L. DECISION 1. That the carpenters' union has never been granted jurisdiction over the making, repairing, erecting, assembling, or dismantling of machinery. 2. That the carpenters" union shall discontinue trespassing upon the ma- chinists' union jurisdiction. 3. That tlie president and executive council of the A. F. of L. shall render every possible assistance to the I. A. of M. in protecting and preserving its juris- diction over tlie building, assembling, erecting, dismantling, and i-epairing of machinery in machine shops, buildings, factories, or elsewliere, where machinery may be used. The carpenters' union ignored the A. F. of L. convention decision and con- tinued its acts of trespassing upon the jurisdiction and raiding the membership of the machinists' union. 19.S8 A. F. OF L. COUNCIL ACTS During February 1938 the A. F. of L. executive council, while in session, re- viewed the history of the dispute over the erection, installation, and repair of machinery, and on the basis of A. F. of L. convention records instructed A. F. of L. President William Green that, if and when called upon by an interested party, he should issue official confirmation of the machinists" union jurisdiction. Presi- dent William Green conformed with those instructions and the following are reproductions of telegrams he issued :