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)

1528 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES By direction of the executive council I am calling upon all organizations interested and affected to comply with this interpretation of the clarificatinn of the decision rendered by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright and Doherty. This communication is sent you by direction of the Executive Council of the Americau Federation of Labor. Fraternally yours, WHiUAM Green, President, American Federation of Labor. Mr. Owens. That was dated when? Mr. Levy. April 28, 1947. Neither Mr. Walsh nor the lA were invited to be present when this additional future interpretation was undertaken. Api:)arently it was felt by the executive council, with Mr. William L. Hutcheson a member of it, that perhaps the clarification of August 1947, maybe in view of the point which Congressman Owens indicated, that the committee in its clarification said you must live up to the original directive, was not adequate for the purposes which they had indicated. So they wanted to make it an interpretation upon a clarification upon a decision upon a directive. On June 25, 1947 — I hate to impose this on you, but I think you have to know the facts — Mr. Walsh wrote in response to that most recent interpretation. This has not been presented to this committee before : Dear President Green : I am impelled to condemn as completely invalid and wholly unconscionable the executive i^ouncil's recent so-called interpretation of the purported August 16, 1946, clarification of the decision rendered on December 26. 1945, by the Executive Council Committee of the American Federation of Labor on the Hollywood Jurisdictional Controversy. As stated to you in my letter of September 19, 1946, the so-called clarification was itself a complete nullity. I pointed out at that time at great length the reasons why that was so and I need not repeat them now other than to state that to date they have received no refutation and in truth have been vindicated by circumstances thereafter appearing. Incidentally I might add that my letter of September 19, 1946, apparently received no official recognition from the executive council for I have had no word with respect to it, aside from your letter of September 26, 1946, simply acknowledging its receipt. The chain of subsequent events in reference to the alleged clarification is of considerable interest and reveals with striking clarity the duplicity which has surrounded and stigmatized the purported document. Let me remind you that under letter of November 1, 1946, my office wrote you asking for a photostatic copy of the original "Statement of clarification." On November 6, 1946, you responded by telegram as follows : "Regret we do not have original of statement of clarification made by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright and Doherty. Only have copy of statement on file in my office." Pursuing the matter further, a telegram was sent to you on November 7, 1946, inquiring "Who has and where is the original signed clarification dated August 16, 1946? Please wire immediately." You did not wire your response to the foregoing telegram but telephoned my office and in my absence spoke to Thomas J. Shea, assistant international president of our organization and advised him, much to our surprise, that the supposed clarification was not signed at all by the members of tlie committee. As you can readily appreciate this was an amazing circumstance. The Communist-led carpenters and painters conference of studio unions in March, 1945, had precipitated a costly .iurisdictional strike in the Hollywood studios of 7 months' duration which was terminated only by virtue of the directive of the executive council, plus the appointment of a committee to resolve the controversy, whose decision would be final and binding. The executive council itself at the January 1946 meeting in Miami recognizing that it Ihad no jurisdiction in the premises, declined to modify or clarify the committee's decision, and affii'med it in all respects, although even at that time the