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.

1470 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES else who is supposed to be familiar with labor procedure and who represents labor as Mr, Flanagan does. Mr. Owens. What is his official position ? Mr. HuTCHESON. He is what is termed as one of the general organ- izers in the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Owens. So we have his statement coming in, but you just did not ask the men to go back to their own testimony prior to December 26, 1945, to go over the testimony they had and issue a clarification based upon what happened back at that time ? Mr. HuTCHESoN. No. Mr. Owens, You had Mr. Flanagan bring in a report of what was happening currently ? Mr. HuTCHESON. Mr. Congressman, I tried to get it in your mind that there was no evidence or anything of that sort presented. It was on the basis of asking for a clarification of the three-man committee: What did you mean in your directive or your decision ? Mr. OwENS. In other words, they disregarded Mr, Flanagan's com- pletely ? Mr, HuTCHEsoN. Well, I wouldn't say they disregarded them. They listened to it being read, certainly. Mr. Owens. All right, that is all. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at this time may I clarify the record and show what actually took place? Mr. Kearns, Pertaining to Mr. Flanagan? It is in the record, is it not? Mr. McCann. No, sir; it has been misrepresented repeatedly in the questioning here. I have been trying to correct it so that Mr. Owens would know what took place. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Green sent Mr. Flanagan out there, he sent him out there as the result of complaints which had come to him with respect to the operation of the decision of December 26, 1945. The record in our hearing in Hollywood shows Mr. Flanagan went to all of the unions affected by the decision; he discussed with each of those unions the effect of the decision on them, and how well satisfied they were with the decision, and whether or not the decision had taken from tliem any of the work which they had done. Mr. Owens. Just a moment, please, Mr. Counsel, that is being taken down. What do you know about what Mr. Flanagan did other than what you were told by someone? Mr. ]\IcCann. Mr. Flanagan testified before us. Mr. Owens. I say, what do you know otherwise than what Mr. Flanagan told you? Was there any testimony taken before Mr. Flanagan ? Mr. McCann. Mr, Chairman, I am trying to clear something up when Mr, Owens was not there and I was, I am trying to make the record clear. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, the testimony of Mr. Flanagan is in the record. I suggest instead of you getting high-blood pressure let Mr. Owens read the testimony. Mr. McCann. That is fine. Mr. Owens. I said it would not mean a thing to me. Mr. Kearns. All right, then, let us cancel it. The testimony is there, you read it if you want to. If you are not concerned you do not have to read it.