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 1499 I do not think there is anybody, whether they be qualified in Holly- wood or any place else, that would have done a better job. The proof of it was that studies ran under it for 8 months. There was no question about what was set erection. There was no question about Avhat was mill and trim work. The mechanics who were doing the set erecting went in and did the set erecting, and the mechanics who Avere putting in the mill and trim work put on the mill and trim work, and they knew just what it was. There was no reason for sending Flanagan in there. I don't know what he reported or what he saw or anything else. I heard of no violations of the agreement. The only thing I heard was that the carpenters were not pleased with it. Well, neither were we, but we did not set it aside. Now. let's see what happened with this clarification. Section 8 says: "The erection of sets on stages." They say they did not mean the erection of sets, they meant the assembling of sets. AYell. any sclioolboy knows the diiference between erect and assem- ble. You get a little Erect-0 set at home under the tree when you Avere a little shaver and you start erecting; the set is already made. Xow they come down to section 10, which says: "The erection of platform of lamp operators and cameramen on stages." The word ■"erection"'' is used in section 10 and I don't think you can find in the ■clarification lianded down by these men where they changed that to say "assembling" of platforms. Just what did they mean? They don't know themselves, I don't think. If we have the right to erect platforms and they are willing to say go ahead and continue to erect platforms—platforms are sometimes 30 •or 40 feet high; you make them out of 2 by 4's and 2 by 6's and all types of lumber; we use hammers, saws, cutalls and everything to make them Mr. OwExs. Mr. Chairman, don't you think in the last sentence of that so-called clarification when they said the parties were following the directive of December 2(), 1945, that they knew what they-were saying? Mr. AValsii. Oh, they knew, all right. What they were trying to do was to see if they couldn't get along together on the council. They were not trying to settle that. I want to say I think the committee did a good job, even Avith the clarification and tried to keep their face clean by the last paragraph and by other Avords in there. I really think they tried to do a good job on it. But this all sinuners doAvn to just one thing so far as I can see it. AVe could go on here with the hearing for another G 3'ears. It seems down to this: AVe all agree to arbitrate something. Re- gardless of the form of arbitration used this Avas what was done. We agreed to arbitrate it. We agreed when it was finished it would be fiiuil and binding and nobody could change it. The executive council could not change it, I could not change it, and the convention of the American Federation of Lal)or could not change it. I heai-d the able counsel of the committee say the other day, when he read fiom paragraph ;"). |:)age 2. the end of it—he read the names of all the organizations and then he said, "Accept as final and binding