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)

1356 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES A truce was called in Pat Casey's office late in October. It was agreed that we would take the controversy to the two international presidents of the unions involved, which was Harvey W. Brown, of the International Association of Machinists, and Richard Walsh, of the lATSE. It was agreed they would go to New Orleans in November 1944, at which time the American Federation of Labor would be in convention and these two .gentlemen would be present, and that the matter would be resolved there, or an attempt would be made to resolve it. We were told at that time there should be no reason when the dis- pute between the lAM and the lATSE could not be resolved and that the lATSE did not want any machinist work, but that, so long as 1185 was a member of the Conference of Studio Unions and would not get out of the corner of the painters, that no agreement could be had and that if troubles arose the machinists would have to take their chances with the lATSE. That is the general condition that has existed from that time to the present. At the time the carpenters and painters were laid off, the lAM, according to the terms of its own bylaws, which had been in existence since 1938, were confronted with a ]Dicket line around the studios estab- lished by the carpenters and painters. Pursuant to those bylaws, the members of local 1185 refused to vio- late those picket lines, and have done so until the present time. During the 2 years from January 17, 1946, until January 8, 1948, when I was not the business representative, but was continued as a member of the executive board of local 1185. and again pursuant to the directive issued on December 26, 1945, at which time the directive came out, our people continued to work in the studios apparently under the terms of the directive. Because of the terms of that directive, the lATSE Mr. McCann. May I stop you right there? Was it not one of the decisions of the Cincinnati conference that all those on strike should be returned to their positions? Mr. Wayne. That was the understanding we got on the coast. Mr. McCann. Secondly, was there not this in the Cincinnati agree- ment, that the producers would take care of the replacements in the studios? Mr. Wayxe. I don't know that they were to take care of them. The machinists, along with the other crafts involved, were to return to the studios in a status quo and as the matter had been on March 12 of 1945. When our people returned to the studios, all those who had re])laced them during the strike situation were i-emoved from the machine shops and our people were not required to work with any of those replace- ments until April. Until April, there were 21 machinists of various categories brought into the shops over our protest. We decided to continue to work despite this violation of our jurisdiction to see what might develop. I think it was in April or May the Central Labor Council of Los Angeles ])assed a resolution declaring that all work performed by the International Association of Machinists in the studios was to be de- clared "hot," and that no A. F. of L. union working in the studios would handle any of our work.