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 1527 which have for their purpose the deprivation of the established and recognized jurisdiction of the lATSE under the December 26, 1945, directive. We shall exi>ect the producers, the executive council, the labor organizations, and all other parties to comply fully with the December 26, 1945, decision, as originally rendered. That was their agreement in Cincinnati and they must live up to tlieir word. The carpenters no more than the alliance should be permitted to eat their cake and have it, too. In conclusion, let me say that it was of course recognized by me that the Cincinnati directive was a startling and unusual procedure in the American Federation of Labor, but the lA agreed to abide by that directive, to show our sincere desire to establish prompt and permanent peace in Hollywood, and in the justifiable expectation that when the executive council directed that the committee's decision, to be made within SO days, was to be "final and binding," the executive council meant exactly what it said, and that at least the executive ■council itself would abide by its own agreement. Now, however, an attempt is being made, nearly eight months later, to modify the decision, and that atempt is not even honestly and directly made by way of specific amendment, but is being made dishonestly and indirectly by way of a so-called interpretation or clarification. I regret to say that that attempt has made a mockery of the directive, and has shown to me that the novel procedure adopted by the executive council in Cincinnati for adjusting this jurisdictional dispute has proven to be an utter failure, and primarily, if not solely, because the council itself seems to be ready to ignore or violate its own determination. Fraternally yours, Richard F. Walsh, International President. Mr. Owens. I am constrained to say, after hearing the words "functus officio" in there, and hearing the clarity and logic of that statement, that I would certainly have thought it was done by a very clever lawyer, a fine lawyer, if I had not heard the gentleman testify and realize that it was his own language. ]Mr. Levy. I want to say this. I think it is fair to say both for Mr. Walsh and for his counsel, that the ideas, many of the phrases, if not most of them, were Mr. Walsh's. The legal terminology I will have to take responsibility for. But do not get the impression that Mr. Walsh has not got a mind or manner of expression of his own. He certainly has. Mr. Owens. I realize that. The "functus officio" in there Mr. Levtt. Was not Mr. Walsh's. I would suppose that should have closed it up, but on April 18, 1947 — and this comes to this committee for the first time — another letter is received by Mr. Walsh Mr. Owens. Just a moment. Did Mr. Green reply to that? Mr. Levy. No, sir, except that he acknowledged receipt of it. On April 28, 1947, William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, wrote to Mr. Walsh again as follows : The executive council at its meeting held here in Washington, beginning April 21, 1947, gave special consideration to reports that a large degree of confusion and uncertainty had arisen in the minds of many directly interested in the Hollywood jurisdictional dispute, as to the scope and meaning of the clarification made by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright and Doherty of their previous decision in the dispute, which I sent you under date of August 27, 1946. I am. therefore, submitting to you the executive council's clear, definite, and simple interpretation of the clarification referred to. The interpretation is as follows : "Jurisdiction over the assembling of sets on stages was awarded to the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada: jurisdiction over the construction of sets was awarded to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America."