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.
1404 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. That would be very important, in my opinion. Mr. HuTCHESON. They merely agreed the committee of three would be selected, and they would accept their finding. Mr. Owens. I do not mean important to us, but important to the body that would ultimately have to make the decision in the matter. Mr. Hutcheson. I cannot answer that, because I do not have the records before me. Mr. I^ARNS. Could you furnish those records ? Mr. Hutcheson. No. Mr. Kearns. Didn't you hand down a written decision ? Mr. Hutcheson. They are records of the building-trades depart- ment, and I question—and, in fact, I know, I am a member of that council—I know the secretary does not keep back minutes. It is pos- sible in the records of the department that the findings ,of the com- mittee I just referred to are no doubt on record. Mr. Kearns. You did not hand in any written report as a member of the committee that was going to decide this ? Mr. Hutcheson. The committee of three ? Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. Hutcheson. I believe our report was written. It was very brief, though—I might say that—because that is the practice pf build- ing-trades men. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Owens, unless we had that in writing it would not mean much, would it ? Mr. Owens. In the agreement that was made at Cincinnati, as I understand, it had the words included in there that the decision was to be binding upon the parties as finally adjudicated. Mr. Hutcheson. I think that same language is used in the case I am referring to; if not the same words, meaning the same. Now let me go a step further. Another precedent was established within the executive council of the American Federation of Labor while the machinists were still in affiliation. The controversy was between the machinists and the hoist- ing engineers. A committee was asked for by President Brown. A committee was appointed from the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, a committee of three. They brought back their report; and, as I recall, it was understood that was to be accepted and binding on the two contending parties. At the next meeting, as I recall, of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, Vice President Brown, who was then a member of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, asked for a clarification from the committee of three who made that report, and the executive council complied with the request and requested the committee to bring in a clarification of their report; they did so, and it was accepted. So, going back to August 16, 1946, that discussion came up in the executive council, as I have related. It is not recorded in these min- utes because of what I have said about not making the minutes ver- batim. Those two precedents were cited and accepted by the council, and the council from that discussion came to the conclusion that they had a perfect right to ask this committee for a clarification.