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.

1382 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES the various craftsmen in the moving-picture industry. And you ask who oi;r Los Angeles man would be to handle this matter with the committee. I am sure you will recall the action of the executive council in Cincinnati was that the trades and representatives of the theatrical stage employees should be given 30 days in which to endeavor to reach a mutual understanding, and if unable to do so, then your committee was to, within the next 30 days, take up your work. I do not know what date you consider the first 30 days' work would begin, but inasmuch as it took some little time to get matters straightened out in reference to the reemployment of men on the same basis, that is, as of March 12, the conference between representatives of our organization and the lATSE did not get started until last week, and whether they will reach a mutual un- derstanding or agree to disagree by December 3, I am not in a position to say. I will say, however, that we have no representative in Los Angeles to whom we would refer the matter of presenting evidence to your committee to estab- lish for our organization jurisdiction over the work that we claim. I did not understand at our Cincinnati meeting that your committee was going to meet in Los Angeles. In fact, if I recall correctly you. Brother Knight, was one who stated you could not go to Los Angeles, and I am in that position now. It would be impossible for either myself or any one of our general oflBcers at the general office to be in Los Angeles on December 3 to meet with your committee. It is perfectly proper, of course, for your committee, if it desires, to go to Los Angeles and look over the situation, as no one coiild complain against that, but it will not be possible for representatives of our organization to be out there and present evidence to substantiate our claim for jurisdiction, and I would request that before your committee reaches a conclusion that you give us an opportunity to appear before you, either in Washington, D. C, or perhaps you could arrange to have a hearing a few days ahead of the meeting of the executive council in Miami, at which time we would be glad to participate. In any event, I trust you will not reach a conclusion until representatives of our organization have had an opportunity to be heard. Fraternally yours, William L. Hutcheson, General President. Under date of November 20, 1945, communication addressed to my- self, general president of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. De^e Sir and Brother: This will acknowledge receipt of yours of November 15, in reply to mine of the 5th, both having to do with the committee appointed by President Green for the purpose of adjusting jurisdictional disputes among the several organizations involved in Hollywood. I recall Brother Hutcheson asking the question if this committe should meet or hold hearings in Hollywood. The answer was, as I recall, that that was up to the committee. I also recall stating I did not want to go to California and I asked when the 30 days started. The answer was, "Today." That was the day of the com- mittee's appointment. After adjournment. I asked several about that, Pi-esident Green being one of them, and I believe Secretary-Treasurer Meany, and they all appeared to feel that the 30 days started upon that time. At any rate the committee met later in the afternoon and decided to go to Hollywood in 30 days, but due to certain conditions they all could not be there until December 3. I agreed 30 days from the day of the committee's appointment was rushing things, as the strike was not settled that day. However, we are giving them 8 or 9 days' leeway, which should take care of that. Notwithstanding all this. Brother Hutcheson, the committee will not pass upon the particular items of work in which you are interested, at least until such time as you have had an opportunity to defend the position of your organization. With personal regards and fraternally yours, Fbjjx Knight. Now. Mr. Chairman, the directive, as it is referred to, was dated December 26, 1945. The first knowledge that we, the general office of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America had of the findings of this committee, was a notice of the press, an article of news iti the press.