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.

1370 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES That matter has not yet been decided and there is no election yet. Mr. Owens. Having heard Mr. Wayne testify I believe it would have been unintentional. Mr. Levy. That is right. Mr. Owens. Because his testimony has been very fine, in my opinion. Mr. Bodle. May I correct that testimony, too: Mr. Wayne was further in error than he realized. The intermediate report finds the producers were guilty of an unfair labor practice and ordered their reinstatement with back pay. Prior to the time the matter actually went to hearing the producers agreed or offered to compromise the unfair labor practice by the payment of back pay if the men would be willing to waive their right of reinstatement. That is the fact with reference to the unfair labor practice. Mr. Owens. It just reversed itself. I think we better wait until we see that. Mr. Wayne. It think it is already in the record. Mr. McCann. May I proceed with the questions ? Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. McCann. In the treaty of Beverly Hills on July 2, 1946, was it not agreed by your local that the matter of representation of machinists must be decided by the NLRB? I believe you have an- swered that. Mr. Wayne. That is right. Mr. McCann. Isn't that proceeding now pending? You have answered that. These are still Mr. Levy's questions: Did the 21 men displace any of your members? Mr. Wayne. I do not recall that they did. Mr. McCann. Did the men in the M-G-M shop work on props? Mr. Wayne. They did. Mr. McCann. In view of President Green's telegram of March 16, 1945, would you say that the CSU strike during war was a bona fide A. F. of L. picket line ? Mr, Wayne. I would. Mr. McCann. These questions are from Mr. Bodle: Were the 21 men employed in the machine shop in April 1946 and who were not members of the I AM, employed in the jurisdic- tion which the lAM had prior to the 1945 strike and which was given back to them in the settlement of the 1945 strike ? Mr. Wayne. They were. Mr. McCann. If so, do you consider that the employment of the 21 men was in violation of the decision of the three-man committee and the assurances of the producers that the status quo would be maintained? Mr. Wayne. I think it was in violation. Mr. McCann. Who insisted on the employment of the 21 men? Mr. Wayne. I cannot say positively who it was that insisted. Mr. McCann. Did you protest their employment? Mr. Wayne. It was protested by our office. Mr. McCann. What was the reaction of the producers to your protest ? Mr. Wayne. Again this took place while I was not in official office. I cannot say what the reply was but I do know they were not removed.