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 1403 Vice President Knight contended that is what the committee has said. Vice President Hntcheson denied that the committee had done so. Vice President Hutcheson referred next to the last two paragraphs of the clar- ification report and asked the committee if it is the committee's interpretation or finding as giving to the cariJenters all carpenter work. Vice President Knight stated the committee says so there. Vice President Hutcheson stated if that means all carpenter work, that is O. K. It was regularly moved by N'ice President Lewis that the interpretation be placed in the records of the council, and the council thank the committee and Vice President Hutcheson for the abatement of this controversy. Vice President Hutcheson expressed the opinion that the producers should get a copy of this interpretation. Vice President Lewis pointed out that it becomes the oflScial record. Vice I'resident Knight stated that Vice President Hutche.«ion brought this in here and now it is a matter of i-ecord of the council, and he stated he thought the secretary of the federation should send sufficient copies out to Hollywood to everybody concerned. The Chair ruled that the motion offered by Vice President Lewis would be recorded in the minutes as a substitute for the motions that were pending. Now, Mr. Chairman, right there let me say this: It is not in these minutes, because, as I stated, they do not record all discussions that take place in the council meeting. The question of the propriety, j^ou might say, or the right, of the executive council to instruct or request of the three-man committee to make an interpretation of their decision or directive—whichever they please to call it—was not a proper procedure. However, in the dis- cussions it was pointed out that there had been precedents established in the jjrocedure of the affairs of the American Federation of Labor. Two precedents were cited. One was a question that had arisen be- tween the engineers and the teamsters in the building trades depart- ment of the American Federation of Labor. It was pointed out that that question was referred to a committee of three who were members of the executive council of the building trades department of the American Federation of Labor. That com- mittee consisted of Richard Grey, representing the bricklayers, now the president of the building trade department; the president of the elec- trical workers, Mr. Dan Tracy, who is now again president of the electrical workers; and your humble servant. The three of us held meetings, in which the engineers and the team- sters submitted their briefs and statements as to why they were claim- ing the work at issue. After hearing them, by unanimous agreement they made a fuiding—or decision, if you please—and submitted it back to the executive council of the building-trades department. It was passed on to the two contending organizations. They accepted it, if my memory serves me correctly, within the next year, or probably 8 or 10 months thereafter. The teamsters came to the committee of three and asked that we give an interpretation of our decision. We listened to what they had to say and gave them a clarification of our decision. They accepted it. It is a matter of record, I believe, in the building-trades department, but the two organizations have followed it ever since. Mr. OwEXS. Before you pass that, Mr. Hutcheson, do you have the terms of the original agreement by which they held their meeting, as to whetlier it was supposed to be final and binding ? Mr. HuTCHESOx. I do not have with me, Congressman—the copies. I am just citing now from memory.