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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1529 pressure exerted by the carpenters' union to procure a change in the decision was most intensive and commonly known. Notwithstanding the vital importance of the matter it is disclosed by you and after intpiiry only that the purported clarification did not ever bear the signatures of the' members of the committee who were suposed to have rendered it. Frankly, I wondered why, but not until later did the explanation reveal itself. The now existing jurisdictional strike of the Conference of Studio Unions already in its eighth month was, as you know, called because of the dispute which tla red up over the effect of the clarification. On October 25, 1946, in the midst of this strike a three-way telephone conversation was held among officials of the conference of studio unions, two of the members of the executive council committee, the third member having been in Europe at the time, and the representatives of the Screen Actors Guild acting as an intermediary for the purpose of obtaining from the committee members themselves their statement as to the circumstances respecting the clarification. Our organization was not a participant in that telephone conversation. In this conversation a startling truth was disclosed. The clarification that was circulated among the interested parties and which gave rise to the current jurisdictional strike was never in fact rendered by the committee. The document actually issued by the committee was different in at least one vital respect, but somewhere along the line it appears to have been altered without the knowledge or consent of the members of the committee. The present jurisdictional strike against us arose when the carpenters union declared "hot" all interior sets wliich were being constructed by the lATSE, although the December 194." decision expressly recognized the 1926 agreement between our organizations and stated that the erection of such sets was within the jurisdiction of the lATSE. The carpenters union in making such declaration relied upon the clarification which, as circulated, contained language to the effect that the word "erection" was construed to mean assemblage and that the committee recognizes the jurisdiction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America's jurisdiction. If legal and authentic the clarification would have constituted a i-eversal of the December 194.5 decision in that respect. However, according to the statements of the two committee members, such language nowhere appeared in the document which they had actually prepared and they had at all times intended that the construction of interior" sets belonged to the lATSE and in truth had reiterated and reaffirmed that specific jurisdiction on August 16, 1946. The telephone conversation was recorded by a court stenographer, and I report only a portion of it to you. "Mr. Arnold" — Arnold is the actor — "the court reporter is here too. All right, now, Mr. Knight and Mr. Birthright, when we met you you told us that your original decision stood, is that right? '•Mr. Knight. That's right. "Mr. Arnold. And you are still of the same mind? "Mr. Knight. That's right. "Mr. Arnold. And regardless of the clarification your original decision will stick? "Mr. Knight. That's right. ******* "Mr. Reagan. May I ask you this? Maybe you won't want to answer it, but may I ask you this: Mr. Hutcheson said in Chicago that you gentlemen wrote two clarifications before he would accept one. He said in one clarification you mentioned the 1926 agreement and he wouldn't go for that. Is that right? "Mr. Birthright. It is in the 1936 original terms — voice became inaudible to repoi'ter ":Mr. Reagan. Again I want to ask you one last thing, Mr. Knight and Mr. Birthright. You have been very patient and very nice. "Mr. SoRRELL. Don't turn it off yet, we have more questions. "Mr. TiNSDALE. I have some questions to ask, too. "Mr. Reagan. I am not going to turn it off. I want to ask this one more question. You say he did not like the agreement from the first. Now what I am trying to get at is : Was there any word or was there any idea that your decision of December should be changed rather than clarified?