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.

AlOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1335 An agreement between the machinists' union and the oiieruting engineers' union was consummated October 12, 1926. Tlie said agreement provided that the machinists' union is recognized as liaving Jurisdiction over the building, assem- bling, erecting, dismantling, and repairing of engines and machinery of all descriptions used in any kind of service. othp:r raiders follow Approximately at the time the carpenters' union served their threat on the A. F. of L. officers, the operating engineers evidenced unwillingness to conform to their agreement with the machinists' union, obviously because of their knowl- edge that the A. F. of L. president was not permitted to issue an official con- firmation of the machinists' union jurisdiction, regardless of which union was contending for the right to represent machinists. The general president of the operating engineers' union in 1942, after the said agreement had been in effect for approximately 16 years, served written notice abrogating the machinist-engineers' agreement. That arbitrary action to nullify the said agreement clearly indicates the oi^erating engineers recognize that the agreement, when applied, protects the trade rights of the machinists' union. The streetcarmen's union and the machinists' union entered into an agreement October 25, 1928. The said agreement provides that all employees working in garages, car barns, and stations, who are working at machinists' work, shall be represented by the machinists* union and such employees who were then mem- bers of the streetcannen's union shall transfer to the machinists' union. THE STREETCARMEN, TOO When members of the streetcarmen's union learned that the A. F. of L. presi- dent was no longer privileged to issue official confirmation of the machinists' union jurisdiction, they proceeded to violate this agreement, and, finally, the genei'al officers of the streetcarmen's union made known to the A. F. of L. execu- tive council that they would no longer conform to the machinists-streetcarmen's agreement. Why? The streetcarmen knew that if they respected this written, signed agreement with the machinists' union that many thousands of machinists and auto me- chanics employed by local, interurban and long distance transportation com- panies would no longer pay monthly tribute to the streetcarmen's union for the privilege of working at the machinists" trade. Because of our experience with the streetcarmen's union we endeavored to have the A. F. of L. executive council agree that President William Green be privileged to issue a statement officially confirming the machinists' union juris- diction over work performed in connection with equipment operated by local or interurban streetcar or bus companies. The carpenter protested our request be- caust^ he realized that, if approved, it was only a matter of time when he no longer could forestall A. F. of L. official confirmation of the machinists' union jurisdic- tion over the erection, installation, and repair of machinery; therefore, the cai*- penter's objection was sustained. Meml)ers from every section have repeatedly asked, "On what basis of reasoning does a carpenter believe the economic influence of his 'trade, composed of men skilled in the fashioning, fitting, joining, and erecting wood materials, is in jeopardy when machinists members of the I. A. of M. erect, install, and repair the machinery they build? There is no direct relation between the work of a carpenter and macliinisfs work. The carpenters' union has jurisdiction over those who cut down the trees and in the sawmill where the tree is cut into various shapes and lengths, the planing mill employee, and the carpenter. This is as it should beā€”from the forest to the finished carpenter's job. Strange as it may seem, this same carpenter contends that the machinist, after building machinery, 7nust remain in the macliine shop and not follow the ma- chinery to the site where it will be used to erect and install this machine-shop product. The i)osition of the carpenters' union in this matter aids and abets the urogram of the unTriendly machinery manufactiwers who for years have at- tempted to weaken our economic influence in the shop.