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)

1526 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Section 1 provided that the United Brotherhood of Cari)enters and Joiners of America should have jurisdiction over all trim and millwork on sets and stages. Unquestionably, if all that was allocated to the lA was the assemblage of sets, there would have been no necessity whatever to except from its scope of activity trim and millwork on sets and stages. Trim and millwork are not involved in assemblage, but they are involved in erection. It is apparent from the decision of December 26, 1945, that it was the over-all purpose and intent of the committee to allocate to the carpenters the carpentry work on permanent constructions, such as buildings and studios, and to a limited extent only on temporary structures such as sets on stages. The limited jurisdiction assigned to the carpenters with respect to sets is that of performing the trim and millwork thereon and the construction of exterior sets. Jurisdiction over the making of miniature sets, the making of props, the erection or making of sets on stages with the exception of trim and millwork and the wrecking of all sets, whether exterior or interior, and the erection of platforms for lamp operators or cameramen on stages was assigned to the lA. If any ambiguity was involved in that decision — and we say emphatically that there was none — it cannot be resolved by the gross distortion of commonly understood language which the defunct committee has now indulged in, language which moreover was not even that of the committee itself, but employed by the parties themselves and embodied by them in their 1926 agreement. For the sake of harmony and a peaceable relationship between the parties in the motion-picture studios, the lA entered into the 192G agreement setting forth the respective jurisdictions of the carpenters' union and of the lA. The lA in that agreement made important concessions to the carpenters' union by agreeing to relinquish some of the jurisdiction which it had traditionally held both in fact and under prior agreements. The jurisdiction relinquished, however, went not one iota further than to give to the carpenters' union the right to construct exterior sets and to perform trim and millwork on interior sets. This entire matter was discussed at length by me and others at the hearings before the committee, so there is no excuse or possible claim that the committee misunderstood. Mr. Kel\rns. Which committee? Mr. Levt. The committee of three of the American Federation of Labor. The unwarranted, illegal and futile interpretation placed upon the December 26, 1945, decision by these individuals constitutes an intolerable encroachment upon the rightful jurisdiction of the lA. Organization of the workers throughout the entire moving-picture industry is directly attributable to the indomitable efforts exerted and at considerable expense incurred by the lA. We have been the spearhead of the opposition against the concerted and repeated attempts of commimists and CIO organizers to capture the industry away from the American Federation of Labor. If the so-called clarification were enforced, it would seriously weaken and undermine the established effectiveness and strength of the lATSE. Neither the unions nor the producers can possibly live in harmony under this purported clarification. Instead of maintaining peace where disputes have been rampant, it would rekindle the dying fires and muddy the formerly troubled waters in Hollywood and thus lay this entire field wide open to the unholy conspiracy to cripple the American Federation of Labor in the studios. After I attended the meeting of the executive council in Chicago in August 1945, you gave your assurance that a committee would be appointed to investigate the subversive activities threatening in the Hollywood studios, but to date no action on that has been taken by you. Instead, the council's actions have given sustenance, confidence, and courage to those elements in the studios which have thrived on internal controversy. On behalf of the lATSE, I vigorously protest this recent action of the executive council and of the three individuals who, unlike their subscription to the original decision, do not even sign their objectionable statement as a committee. They signed it as individuals. Because of the circumstances bringing it about, this action reflects discreditably upon the American Federation of Labor as a whole. It is a complete nullity and shall be ignored by us as will any future gratuitous interpretations