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.
1444 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Still continuino- with Mr. Le\\y"s questions: Was the local 1692 request for approval of the February 5, 1925, agreement in writing to the United Brotherhood ? Mr. HuTCHESON. I don't remember that, Mr. Chairman, but I will answer this way: Any agreement entered into, like that was entered into between that local and a local of another organization, must be approved by the general office before it is recognized as being operable. Mr. Owens. Why would that be, Mr. Hutcheson ? Mr. Hutcheson. Why would that be? To follow the procedure of the constitution as made by referendum vote of our members. You could not let 2,700 locals, as we have in the brotherhood, promiscu- ously enter into an agreement with a local of another organization and agree to give away some of the work covered by our jurisdiction. Mr. Owens. You say your constitution covers that ? Mr. Hutcheson. Our constitution covers that, certainly. Mr. Owens. What section? Mr. Hutcheson. I could not tell you offhand, but it refers to the fact that all agreements entered into must be approved by the general office. Mr. Ow^ENS. I would be interested in seeing that in your constitution. Mr. Kearns. You mean any local that enters into an agreement must have the approval of the general council? Mr. Hutcheson. That is right; and the same way with bylaws. Mr. Owens. I would like to see it in your constitution. Mr. Hutcheson. I will bring it to you tomorrow if that is agreeable. Mr. Kearns. Yes, let us proceed. Mr. McCann. This question relates to the one asked before: What was the date of the request? Mr. Hutcheson. What request? Mr. McCann. The question before w as: Was the local 1092 request for approval of the February 5, 1925, agreement in writing to the United Brotherhood ? Mr. Hutcheson. I do not recall what date it was. Mr. McCann. Was the refusal by the United Brotherhood to ap- prove the agreement and its' direction to abrogate the same, in w^ritten form ? Mr. Hutcheson. I think it was. That is my memory, if my memory serves me right, because that would be the usual procedure. Mr. McCann. What was the date of that action? Mr. Hutcheson. I could not say. Mr. McCann. Were the charges brought against local 1692 in writing ? Mr. Hutcheson. Wliat charges? Mr. McCann. I cannot answ^er questions directed to me. Mr. Levy. Well, let me Mr. Kearns. Just a minute, you reread the question and I will rule on it. (Question reread.) Mr. Levy. The witness testified that charges' w^ere brought against local 1692 for entering into this agreement, in February 1925. Mr. Kearns. Now, just a minute. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman, am I going into a discussion with the gentleman over here?