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 1365 Mr. Wayne. Yes. The machinists were then affiliated with the A. F. of L. Mr. Kearns. Was the lATSE a member of the A. F. of L. ? ]\[r. Wayne, To the best of my knowledge. Mr. Ke^vrns. I would like to ask a question of counsel on the lATSE at this time. Was that a common policy back as far as 1937, that the A. F. of L. permitted any operation whereby two cards were necessary for a man to work? ]Mr. Levy. I became counsel for the lATSE in November of 1941. I cannot speak with personal knowledge about the situation prior to that time. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, might I say there has been no testi- mony that two cards were necessary. This gentleman did not say he had any such personal knowledge. Mr, Wayne. I said 1185 had a union closed-shop contract with the motion-picture producers; that 1185 would have jurisdiction over all machinist work. Someone imposed a condition that there should be an lATSE Local 37 card for a machinist to work in that machine shop. That necessarily follows, then, that it was required to have two cards there, Mr. KJEARNS, Then, Mr, Counsel, I would like to have this infor- mation: Mr. Boren is in town, I would like to have him get it for the record here, I would also like to have it from the record of Mr. Green's office, if Mr. Green, as president of the A. F. of L. was aware of that situation back in 1937. iNIr, McCann, Mr, Chairman, I have not been very successful in communicating with Mr, Green, as you well know, I called him, for example, in regard to the records which we have introduced today, and about which you had called him about a month before, I was turned down on that, I wish, if it is possible, if you have any re- quest to make of Mr, Green, that the Chairman do it, Mr. Kearns. Mrs. Locher, you make a note of it, and I will do it, ]\Ir. INIcCann, I do not think I would get any satisfaction from Mr. Green on any subject, ]\Ir. Waesh, Why don't you ask me that information about our organization, whether we had two cards or not? Mr, Owens, I want to complete with Mr, Wayne, first. Mr. Walsh. Now you are talking about president Green and everybody else. Mr. Owens. You made a general statement. Where did you acquire your knowledge? Did you get it from first-hand, or from someone else ? Mr. Wayne. From our members who first held the two cards and still hohl them. Mr. Owens. Then you never received any personal information that your men could not go in and do the work with their own cards? Mr. Wayne, I was not the business representative at that time, I never got any direct communication from any other union that that would be the requirement. But when people I was talking to daily or weekly at our meetings every wieek said they had to carry two cards to work, I took that as bona fide information.