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.

1362 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Therefore, every local of our international does not have the same set of bylaws. Mr. Owens. You do have this: If you do not have a certain by- law in your own constitution and bylaws, then you do have your pro- vision that anything that is not contained in yours, you are other- wise guided by the international organization; is that true? Mr. Wayne. That is correct. Mr. Owens. Did you have anything in your bylaws which told the men they could work behind the lines while there was a strike ? Mr. Wayne. Not at that time. Mr. Owens. Did the international have a provision in its bylaws that that was not to be done ? Mr. Wayne. I do not recall that it had. Mr. Owens. Mr. Brown says it has. Mr. Wayne. That is the general practice of union people, not to work behind the picket line. Mr. Owens. Then the bylaw that was in the international would be supposed to be guiding you in '37, would it not ? Mr. Wayne. That Ts right. Mr. Owens. But you did not abide by it, did you ? Mr. Wayne. I say, I am not sure it was in our international con- stitution at that time. Mr. Owens. Mr. Brown says it was. Mr. Wayne. I will not refute him, but I do not recall it. Mr. Owens. So that at that time you were going behind the lines and your men were taking the cards from the other union in order to do it, and you were not discharging them for it; is that true ? Mr. Wayne. On that construction, it is true. Mr. Owens. So that is exactly the same thing that happened again in 1945, is it not? Mr. Wayne. No ; because at that time we had a local bylaw which prohibited it. Mr. Owens. But you just agreed with me that where you did not have a rule to the contrary in your local bylaws, you were guided by your international bylaws. Mr. Wayne. That is right. Mr. Owens. Then your international bylaws, according to Mr. Brown, did have such a provision ? Mr. Wayne. I did not agree to that; I don't know that that was in there. Mr. Owens. Mr. Brown said they did have such a bylaw in the international. Mr. Wayne. Mr. Brown said so; I did not. Mr. Owens. If Mr. Brown says so, it is correct, is it not? Mr. Wayne. I said I would not refute it. Mr. Owens. Assuming that to be tr-ue, tlicn, there was no difference between the 1937 and 1945 situation, was there ? Mr. Wayne. That would be true. Mr. Owens. In the one instance you called the men strikebreakers, and in the other instance you did not call them strikebreakers; is that correct ? Mr. Wayne. I do not recall using the term at all, so far as I am concerned. ' Mr. Owens. Mr. Brown did use the term.