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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1361 Mr. Kearns. Will the gentleman yield there once again ? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Kearns, The reason j^ou did not object was because you wanted to have jobs, was it not? Mr. Wayne. Had we ruled out a dual card in view of the circum- stances that existed, we would have ruled our members out of our organization. jMr. Kearns. Because they would have been taken by the other organization ? Mr. Wayne. Because the other organization seemed to be the stronger at that point and would have taken those men. Mr. Owens. That is a fine statement. In other words, the testi- mony you have given and the testimony of the preceding witness— it would appear the argument you really have is with another union, or the union you were formerly affiliated with, and your own men. You are now venting yoiw —we will not call it spite, because you might feel you have a legitimate contest with them—but you are testifying against the producers who are the employers here with respect to this matter; at least, the preceding witness. Isn't that true? Mr. Wayne. I do not get your question at all. ]\Ir. OwTNS. You heard Mr. Brown testify the argument has been with the A. F. of L. with respect to interfering with the jurisdic- tion of the lAM, didn't you ? Mr. Wayne. Yes; but our protest in this instance is against the lATSE insisting they have jurisdiction over machinist work and insisting that members of our organization, the machinists' organ- ization, carry an lATSE card to perform machinist work. Mr. Owens. Mr. Wayne, let's see that we understand each other correctly. Your men accepted an lATSE card. Mr. Wayne. Yes. Mr. Owens. Why? Mr. Wayne. We were in the organizational stage of our union in 1937, as the result of the strike situation. During that strike situ- ation certain of our members were given lATSE cards in order that they might work in this particular shop at M-G-M studios. The machinists were not officially on strike. They had been respecting a picket line set up by the painters' organization. It was at that time not contrary to our bylaws that a man work behind the picket line, due to the fact that we were in the formative stages of our organization. Mr. Owens. Your organization is quite a number of years old, isn't it? IVIr. Wayne. Our local union got its charter in 1936. j\Ir. Owens. But then you are regulated bj^ the rules of the inter- national, are you not? Mr. Wayne. Under our international organization, when a local lodge is established and a charter issued, it carries with it local autonomy. We make our rules within the constitution of our inter- national organization. But because of the future conditions that might exist in a given industry or territory, we are allowed the further right to set up bylaws and submit them to our international organization for approval. *