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)

1524 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES statement is self-explanatory and is transmitted to you as a matter of information. It is sent you by direction of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. Fi'aternally yours, William Green, President, American Federation of Labor. I think, Congressman Landis and Congressman Owens — ^I am not sure whether Congressman Kearns is familiar with it — I think we ought to read Mr. Walsh's response, because I think that indicates quite clearly the official position of the lATSE. In view of the charge of collusion, I think this gives an answer, Mr. Owens. How did Mr. Green happen to enter into the picture? Mr. Levy. I assume that Mr. Green, as president of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, having directed the three-man committee to make what he called a clarification, but what was in effect a probable reversal of its earlier decision, decided to send the communications. Apparently it was felt when Mr. Hutcheson sent the communication on August 18, that that was not enough. Therefore, 9 days later, Mr. Green sent the communication. But he had no jurisdiction in the premises, as I shall point out in Mr. Walsh's letter: September 19, 1946. Mr. William Green, President, American, Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir and Brother : Receipt is hereby acknowledged of your letter of August 27, in which you enclose a paper described as "a statement of clarification" prepared by Brothers Knight, Birthright, and Doherty who, in December 1945, constituted a committee of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor and rendered a decision which was final and binding in the .iurisdictional disputes then existing in the motion-picture studios in Hollywood, Calif. It is difficult to resist the pressing temptation to discard restraint in expressing my opinion of this document, and the circumstances that brought it about. By the terras of the very directive of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, which created the committee at Cincinnati, it was expressly provided that such committee shall "investigate and determine within 30 days all jurisdictional questions still involved." The committee itself was keenly aware of this expressed time limitation placed upon its authority to act. On numerous occasions during the course of the hearings which were conducted in Hollywood, the committee members alluded to the fact that under the directive its decision had to be rendered within a period of 30 days. In the minutes of the seventh session, when the lATSB appeared, Chairman Knight stated at page 8, "The committee has come out here and we have 80 days to make an investigation and determination and decision." Again, at page 9, when I inquired whether the parties would be afforded an opportunity to rebut the case presented by the other sides. Chairman Knight responded, "We don't anticipate any rebuttals because it cannot be done in 30 days." Later, when I urged upon the committee that more than one representative from the lATSE would be necessary for a proi>er explanation and physical demonstration of the work being performed b.v members of our organization on the occasion of the inspection visit to the studios, I was emphatically reminded by Chairman Knight, "Time is valuable in this case under our directive." The committee's determination by the very terms of the directive became its final and binding decision. No continuing authority was vested in the committee or in its members, collectively or individually, and when the decision was filed its powers and functions ended. The present so-called clarification therefore constitutes an attempt by a committee no longer possessed of power or authority to change its official decision and as such it is a complete nullity. The executive council itself at the January 1946 meeting in Miami which I attended pursuant to invitation, declined to modify or clarify the committee's