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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1395 Mr. Chairman, that takes us down now to the x\u<?ust meetmg, 1946, of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor held in Chicag-o, 111.: President Green called to the attention of the exocntive meeting that at the last meeting of the jjeneral conncil a general disonssion was engaged in upon a resohition wiiicli was hronght to the attention of the conncil by Vice President Hutcheson regarding the Hollywood situation and tlie council decided tluit tlie matter he lieid in abeyance and in the meantime he would make inquiries as to how the award of the committee of tlie executive conncil working in Hollywood. He stated he. delegated regional director of San Francisco, Brother Daniel B. Flanagan, to make a survey of the situation and Hie a report with the council. President Green stated that Brother Flanag-an complied with the request and has submitted the following I'eport. Mr. Kearxs. That report has already been submitted in evidence, Mr. HuTCHEsox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will save me the trouble of reading it, and will not fill up the record. Mr. McCanx. Mr. Chairman, I think it is rather essential in con- nection with that, for Mr. Hutcheson to tell us about anything else which took place in Chicago, if he knows of anything. Mr. Kearxs. Oh, yes. Mr. HuTCiTESOx. Mr. Chairman, I have just turned over the report of the representative, and was going to proceed from there. President Green stated that Brother Flanagan had supplemented that report with exhibits such as communications from the representative of the electrical workers, the brotherhood of carpenters, and the plumbers and steamfltters. President Green stated that two organizations and seemed to be still objecting, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the International Brotherhood of Electrical AVorkers: that the objection of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was based upon the interpretation of "running repairs." President Green stated the electrical workers are willing to accept tlie in- terpretation of Vice President Knight of the committee that the lATSE will not accept such interpretation. Mr. ]McCaxx. May I ask at that point: Was that an interpretation given after the December 26, 1945, decision ? Mr. HuTciiEsox. Mr. McCann, not being the gentleman that made the interpretation, I could not answer that question. Mr. ^IcCann. Well, it would seem by implication, Mr. Chairman— and I do not believe it appears in the record definitely—that the inter- pretation of Mr. Knight's must have been after the December 26, 1945, decision. Yet, I do not think there appears in the record any- where the exact date that the interpretation was given. Mr. OwExs. Wasn't it August 16,1946? Mr. McCaxx. No, it was before the August 16 clarification, sir, because this that he is reading from is before August 16. Mr. HuTCHESOx, Mr. Chairman, I did not want to be short with Mr. McCann, but my understanding agrees with the thought you just expressed. Naturally, it followed December 26,1945. Naturally, it was prioi" to the August meeting of 1946, that I am now reading from. Naturally it was before that, because at that meet- ing of which T am now reading the minutes, President Green read the statement I just I'ead. Mr. :McCaxx. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Laxdis. One other question. Was the directive given by all three members, was it unanimous?