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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1501 Mr. Kearns. Any questions from counsel ? Mr. McCann. These questions are presented, Mr. Walsh, by Mr, Bodle, counsel for the painters. Isn't it true that you claim jurisdiction over all work in the making and taking of motion pictures ? That is, all mechanical work? Mr. AValsh. I so stated on the record. Mr. McCaxn. Isn't it true that the lATSE in March 1946, in viola- tion of three-man decision, refused to work on cameras repaired by- members of I AM ? Mr. Walsh. The lATSE has never violated the agreement, to my knowledge. I^Ir. McCanx. Isn't it true tliat the lA in April '46 demanded the replacement of members of the 1AM by members of the A. F. of L. machinists' union ? Mr. Walsh. I have not the facts on that, I cannot answer it; I don't know. Mr. McCaxx. Isn't it true that the work which the lAM was doing at that time was work which was traditionally theirs and which they were given by the three-man directive? Mr. Walsh. I would have to answer that in the same way: Any work that was given to them, I understand the machinists went back on the jobs, and that they are back on the jobs today. Mr. McCaxx. Isn't it true that from 1926 on the actual construction of sets in the motion-picture studios was done by carpenters? iSIr. Walsh. No, it is not true. Some of the work was done by carpenters; some of the work done by the lATSE; some of the work was done under open-shop conditions. Mr. McCaxx. The minutes of the producers' labor committee ^Ir. OwExs. Just a minute; may I ask a question ? I noticed before you used the word "carpenters" interchangeably, meaning that your men were also carpenters in some sense. Mr. Walsh. Our men do carpentry work. They may do it under another title and they may do it under the title of "carpenters." For instance, in the stage theaters, we call them stage carpenters. Mr. OwExs. So when you say "carpenters," 3^ou mean the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners? Mr. Walsh. AVhen I answered it just now, I meant the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. Mr. I^ARxs. Mr. Walsh, at that point, isn't it good to clear the record of the fact that lots of times the carpenters had cards in your union, too, because many times there was work available in fields where you had jurisdiction and they got appointed there when there was not work in the carpenters' field ? Mr. Walsh. In Hollywood people hold many cards for employ- ment purposes, for their own benefit. In my own local union in Brooklyn, N. Y., we have a fellow who has three cards there. You don't have to have them. He gets three shots at the bag. He can get a job as a motion-picture operator one day, a studio mechanic the next day, and he can work as a stage employee the next day. I only have a stage employee's card, and I am confined to just work- ing on the stage. 67383—48—vol. 2 30