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.

MOTIOX-PIGTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1415 Mr. HuTciiEsox. All right, but he has to admit he is not a Commu- nist in order to become a member of the brotherhood. Xow, Mr. Chairman, going back to the question asked by Congress- man Landis, or I guess it was Congressman Owens': I could not answer tliat question yes or no, Mr. Chairman, like you sometimes have to do "when you are in court and on the witness stand and insist that you say yes or no—you can hang yourself either way. I cotild not answer that question directly without going into considerable detail. These hearings, as I understancl, become public. I do not really think it is going to be helpful to the situation and unless I am forced to do it, I would prefer, Mv. Chairman, not to go into that detail at this time, for that reason. I do not think it would be helpful to the C'onnnittee and I do riot think it would be helpful to the general situa- tion. My one purpose in being here is trying to be helpful. Mr. OwEXS. I am not insisting on an answer, Mr. Hutcheson; I told you that before. Mr. Hutch Esox. Now, Mr. Chairman, the last thing I just read here showed the basic agreement was extended to 1941, March 14. On March 25, 1942 : The agreement of the 29th day of November 1026 between the unions named therein and the producers named therein, and subsequently extended from time to time, the last extension being for a period of 5 years from the 14th day of March 1036 to the 14th day of March 1941, is hereby renewed from March 14, 1941. for a jperiod of 5 years and 7 months, to October 13, 1946, between the parties who are now signatories thereto, subject to all the terms and conditions thereof, and to any agreement between the parties now signatories thereto, which have been made since the 20th day of November 1926. Mechanics' wage scale and working conditions which were agreed upon as the minimum scale for the motion-picture studios at Los Angeles, Calif., and vicinities, parties to the motion- picture agreement of November 29, 1926, with subsequent revisions, additions, and amendments with particular reference to the amendments dated November 27, 1941, are hereby declared and agreed to be extended until O -tober 13, 1946, unless changed or amended and shall continue under the rules ' f procedure and the motion-picture agreement of November 29, 1926, affecting the parties now -signatoi-y. Approved: Pat Casey, Chairman of the Producers' Committee. William L. Hutcheson, Chairman of the International's Committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, getting back to the statement about the agree- ment I referred to as being the 1925 agreement, that was not accepted. I have shown here by the evidence that in 1926 there was a basic agree- ment entered into. Let me say when the basic agreement was entered into the provisions as read here were tried to be followed. Mr, OwExs. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a few questions to clarify that? Mr. Kearxs. No objection. Mr. OwExs. "VYlien you say the agreement of 1925 was not accepted, what do you mean by that, Mr. Hutcheson? Mr. HuTCHEsox. The agreement I read here awhile ago. Mr. OwExs. You mean was not accepted l)y the A. F. of L. ? Mr. HuTCHESox. Was not accepted by the brotherhood. I showed by my evidence, Mr. Congressman, that our local, then 1642, made the agreement in Los Angeles, and the international re- jected it and told them, ''Nothing doing." They, by their obstinacy,