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.
1460 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Do you recall the question ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Yes, I do. That was in the matter of the dispute between the lATSE and the studio unions relative to the set decorators. Mr. Tongue had held a hearing there and neither the producers nor the lA favored the decision as made by Tongue, and consequently took the case in to the National Labor Kelations Board. It was therefore some months. I made at least two trips to Wash- ington on those hearings and nothing materialized. The men finally got dissatisfied to such an extent they were compelled to strike in order to protect their own jurisdiction that was granted them in their own particular interest. It may be interesting for you to know that when the decision was handed down by the National Labor Relations Board it was in favor of local union 1421, the set designers local union. Mr. McCann. Off the record, Mr. Chairman. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. McCanjst. Continuing with Mr. Levy's questions—— Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up something there. That was the National Labor Relations Board that later upheld your theory ? Mr. LiNDELOF. That is correct. Mr. Owens. In other words, the arm of the Government that had charge of that particular matter at that time ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. As I recall his testimony, Mr. Chairman—and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong—when the War Labor Board sent out its men to investigate this thing the producers and the lA re- fused to participate in the War Labor Board hearing, as I recall it. Then they did appeal from that and proceeded to also file with the National Labor Relations Board. Is that correct? Mr. LiNDELOF. That is correct. That is already in the testimony. Mr. ZoRN. A correction of fact there, Mr. McCann Mr. Kearns. Just a moment. Mr. McCann. You may correct it with the witness later if there is any error there. Mr. ZoRN. It is your statement. Mr. Levy. Yes, I would like to correct it, too Mr. Kearns. Then let's have it w^ritten down. I do not want to have these interruptions on the thing. Mr. Levt. I say I would like to correct it with the witness later. Mr. Kearns. Very well. Mr. McCann. If there is any misstatement of fact, Mr. Chairman, we want it corrected. We are trying to summarize our impression of what this witness has said. Continuing with Mr. Levy's questions: Didn't you receive from President Green a telegram on or about March 16,1945, similar to the one received by Mr. Walsh? Mr. LiNDELOF. I believe so, yes. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, the telegram that is presented has been received in the record now two or three different times. Are you familiar with the telegram that has been read? Mr. LiNDELOF. I am. Mr. McCann. And you received one like it?