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 1463 Mr. LiNDELOF. Well, that is a question. I know we will disagree on that. This final and binding, we find it in courts and we find it in arbitration and also in jurisdictional disputes where those words are used and they are not carried out. There is further consideration given to the set-up. Mr. Owens. That is true, Mr. Lindelof. In other words, it may be brought into court for an interpretation and for evidence to show there was a mistake made and that it should be either abrogated or modified in some way. Don't you think it is a colossal mistake for the leaders of labor to try to change it themselves, to change it in a meeting where they do not have the parties appear a second time to present their case ? They just make an automatic change without calling the parties in ? Don't you think that was a big mistake ? Mr. LrxDELOF. No; I quite disagree with you, Congressman, for this particular reason. I probably would in some instances, but not in this one, because here the matter was coming before the central body, the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, who had appointed this committee. I would say this, if that body had ruled that it could not be brought up there for amendment or clarification, I would go along with the decision of that body. Mr. 0\\^:ns. That body, first of all, did not say it was to be brought up, did the}^? Mr. LixDELor. Yes, but it was. Mr. 0^\'EXS. I say they did not sny it was to be brought up. They used the words "final and binding" in their statement, didn't they? Mr. Lindelof. Yes. ]Mr. Owens. And when they finally did bring it up, they did not appoint a new arbitration board or they did not have a new hearing before the executive council, who could not have known as much about it as even those three men, after they had some hearings, and made their change without any additional testimony from the other parties involved, isn't that true? ]\Ir. Lindelof. Yes, but we must take into consideration the fact that one of the parties in there—I cannot state this as a fact—but it has been testified to here, and otherwise, that one of the parties was not given proper opportunity of presenting his case. Mr. Owens. That may be true, but, as I said, if that were brought up to a court to complete the case in accordance with the law, that might be fine. But clo you think it presents a very good picture to the American public to show the leaders of labor making a change in their own final agreement in that way and causing the difficulty that has arisen since that time? Mr. Lindelof. It might cause criticism, but after all they did bring it in to the final court, the highest court that there is within the American labor movement, and that is the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. jVIr. OwKNs. Well, I guess we are not going to get veiv far, are we? Mr. Lindelof. No; not on that question. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the statement of facts as given by Mr. Owens on a trifling matter. I think the record should show that the American Federation of Labor's council in Chicago did not act without addditional evidence because Mr. Green