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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1421 Mr. McCann. The 1025 agreement, sir, according to Mr. Cam- biano, according to Mr. Hutcheson, was never approved by the inter- national president. The charter of the people who tried to make the agreement was taken away from them and it was never put into effect. Yet the three-man committee adopted the entire distribution of work in the 1925 agreement and took it word for word in their directive. In the testimony presented by :Mr. Walsh to the three-man commit- tee he makes the statement, according to this record: This is signed by the local unions out here and signed by our local out here also. TTiis is the agreement we worked under from 1926 until we went on strike in 1933. Mr. Owens. Mr. McCann, could anyone but a court under due pro- ceedings make a decision as to whether you are correct in the state- ment about the 1945 decision that their decision was to be final and binding and conclusive? Mr. McCaxn. All I am saying, sir, is that the men themselves said they thought it was in effect; that they wrote the directive upon the representation that it was in effect and and they did not know until a long time afterward that it had never been put into effect. Mr. Owens. Aren't they in the same category as a jury which brings in its verdict? They are then discharged and that is the end. Mr. McCann. Well, that calls for a conclusion, Mr. Chairman. It means an interpretation of the directive of the Cincinnati meeting. If you will take a look at the directive of the Cincinnati meeting it says "Until final decision by the committee." Mv. Kearns. Does that answer your question, Mr. Owens ? Mr. Owens. No. Mr. McCann just made a statement about the final paragraph of the Cincinnati meeting. Mr. McCann, do you have that final paragraph? Mr. McCann. The final paragraph directs a Mr. Owens. Read the language. Mr. McCann (reading) : That all parties concerned, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Association of Plumbers and Steamtitters of the United States and Canada, the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Pai>erhangers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America, and the Building Service Employees Interna- tional Union, accept as final and binding such decisions and determinations as the executive council committee of three may finally render. Mr. Owens. Well. Mr. McCann. "They finally render." Mr. Owens. Wouldn't December 20, 1945, be the final decision? Ml". McCann. That, sir; is a matter of judgment. Mr. Owens. For a court. Mr. McCann. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. And no one else. All right. Mr. Kearns. We will recess for a few minutes until the witness returns. (A short recess was taken.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order, please. 67383—48—vol. 2 -25