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 1427 Stay and consider. Finally it was sujigested that the meeting stand recessed and that tlieir re[)resentatives of the lATSE meet with the other representatives of the other international organizations. That was done. Finally it was decided to have a subcommittee of the representatives and see if some understanding could be reached. While that committee was in session a message was couA'eyed to us that if we could arrange whereby the lATSE could be induced to realHliate with the group comprising the basic agreement, that the producers would agree that all organizations affiliated with the basic agreement from that date on would have a closed shop in the moving- pictures industry in Hollywood. Now I am discussing, Mr. Chairman, the situation with the presi- dent of the lATSE. The first question that came up was the con- troversy between the lATSE and the electrical workers. We learned the reason for that meeting or the calling of that conference was the threat and the action that had been taken by the lATSE in closing down some show houses in the central part of the country, like Chicago, St. Louis, and in that area, if my memory serves me correctly, because of the supposed controversy with the electrical workers over the opera- tion of theaters. In the conference of this committee the then president of the lATSE and the then president of the electrical workers reached an under- standing whereby each of them would send a representative to Holly- wood to investigate the situation and see if they could reach an under- standing which the two of them would recommend be accepted. Next, the then president of the lATSE spoke to myself about fol- lowing the same procedure in reference to matters that would not be easil}'- or readily adjusted between the lATSE and ourselves. He agreed to name a representative and I did the same thing. That was in December. In January 1936, I think at an executive meeting held in Miami, I wrote a letter to Mr. Casey, dated January 4,1936: Dkar Pat : At a conference this date with George Brown of the lATSE and his representative, Steven Newman, Board Memher Muir of onr organization and myself, it was agreed that the contents of tlie agreement as entered into between local representatives of the lATSK and members of our organization in 1925 would be the method of establishing conditions in the studios under the recent arrangement as between the producers and the organizations signatory to the agreement in regard to putting into effect the closed shoij. Board Member Muir will be unaltle to return to Los Angeles until the latter part of February. In the meantime he is writing our repre.sentative Mace, giving him this information and also giving him our interpretation of what the agreement is, in substance, which is: That members of our organization do all carpenter work. I think, perhaps, ]Mr. Chairman, that letter might help answer the question of the Congressman about a meeting with—he said—George Brown. I think this answers his question. Now, Mr. Chairman, in furtherance to that on March 2, 1936—I am feorry this is irrelevant. This is addressed to Mr. Carruthers, who was the secretary of a labor group. It has to do with the understanding reached between the two groups in November and December and has nothing to do with this other than just seeing that the amendments, and so forth, were put on.