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.
MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1369 Mr. McCanx. Didn't the agreement between local 1185 and the pro- ducers provide that— The provisions of tlils agreement are predicated upon the understanding that local 1185 is a part of the JAM. an affiliate of the A. F. of L., and that upon any change in such status the producers shall have the right to cancel this agree- ment? Mr. Wayxe. I think that was the language in one of the contracts we had with the producers. Mr. McCaxx. Did the producers ever notify your union—and this is my question—that as a result of your disaffiliation the pro- ducers were exercising their right to cancel the agreement ? Mr. Wayxe. We were never so notified. Mr. McCaxx, To get back to Mr. Levy's question now: Didn't the constitution of the CSU provide that only local unions affiliated with the A. F. of L. are eligible for membership in the SCU—article 3 ? ^h\ Wayne. It did. Mr. McCaxx. In the treaty of Beverly Hills on July 2, 1946, was it not agreed by your local that the matter of representation of ma- chinists would be decided by the NLRB ? JSIr. Wayxe. I was not present at that meeting, but it is my under- standing all parties agreed to be guided by the decision of the NLRB on that matter of representation. Mr. McCaxx. Isn't that proceeding now pending? Mr. Wayxe. It is. although there has been an intermediate report. Mr. Kearxs. Pardon me there. Did you consider that report in your favor as Mr. Brown did ? Mr. Wayxe. We did. Mr. Levy. The one that he said was in his favor, didn't he take an appeal from his local ? I do not have time to write it out. 5lr. Owexs. I will ask the question. That comes as rather a sur- prise. I should have asked you that before because I intended to. In substance what W'as the decision and who, if anyone, appealed from it, or rather asked for review by the Board? Mr. Wayxe. The appeal was taken on the point—and I am just speaking from memory. The intermediate report found there were no unfair labor practices and we made an exception to that finding. The balance of the report was satisfactory to the machinists. Mr. Ovexs. In other words, the examiner found in your favor as to representation ? ^Ir. Wayxe. He did. Mr. Owexs, He found there had not been an unfair labor practice and you api^ealed that to the Board? Mr. Wayxe, That is right, and in that matter restored the people to their jobs and made them whole. Mr. Owexs. Perhaps someone may have a copy of that decision. iMr. ]McCaxx. The decision is here and the gentleman who repre- sented them there has it. in case you want to ask him any questions. Mr, Levy. May I set the record straight with just a word? Mr. Wayne unintentionally made the mistake. There is no decision on the representation matter at all. When he says that the representa- tion was decided in favor of Machinists Local 1185, he makes an unintentional error.