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 1531 It appears beyond the shadow of a doubt from the above, as well as from the entire telephone conversation, a printed copy of vpliich is enclosed herewith, that the clarihcation which was publicized as the August 16, 1946, statement of the committee was utterly spurious. The damage resulting thereby was colossal. Loss of wages to strikers was fabulous. The industry in which our members earn their livelihood appreciably harmed ; the organized labor movement generally discredited ; our own organization subjected to substantial esitense and all because of a bogus clarification. On January 20, 1947, I wrote Mr. George Meany, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Labor, asking him for the certified transcript of of the minutes of the meetings held in August 1946 by the committee of the executive coimcil, and by the executive council itself respecting the Hollywood studio jurisdictional dispute. 1 iniormed him it was necessary for me to have such transcripts in connection with certain litigation then pending against our organization, in which the alleged clarification was sought to be used to our detriment. In response I received a conununication dated February 6, 1947, fi'om Mr. Meany, in which he advised me that he had been instructed by the executive council "to take this matter up with Judge Padway, attorney for the American Federation of Labor, before furnishing any transcripts." In all frankness I was at a complete loss to understand why such procedure should be necessary. I should have imagined that as a matter of common fairness the lATSE, as an afB'iate of the American Federation of Labor, would have an absolute right to obtain a transcript of the minutes of any meeting of the council and of any committee thereof i>ertaining to matters so directly affecting or concerning our organization. I may say in passino; that, of course, Mr. Hiitcheson, as a member of the executive council, has and did have those minutes. They were subsequently presented, at the request of this committee, to this committee, meaning the committee of Congress. Who gave the executive council jurisdiction to make any interpretation, good or bad, correct or untrue? It has no power in the premises. And what an interpretation. It distorts plain language, completely reverses the decision of the executive council committee of three and purports to interpret a clarification that was never in fact made. As I stated at the outset, the issuance of the interpretation is fairly appalling. I have no doubt that it was brought about because of the pressure exerted by first vice president Hutcheson who at one and the same time acts as prosecutor, judge, and jury and that it can no more stand investigation than the fictitious clarification of August 1946. Like the clarification, the interpretation was issued without any notice of any kind whatsoever to me or my organization. Tlie intrigue, deception, and double dealing which have characterized the various proceedings undertaken after the rendition of the December 1945 decision sneak gravely ill of the American Federation of Labor. I have sought vigorously to cooperate in every way, as you well know, in order to promote a prompt, peaceful, and practical solution to the Hollywood studio situation, but, frankly I am beginning to lose my faith in view of what I am compelled to describe as the unfair and undemocratic tactics, the mockery of justice which has pervaded this entire situation. With what confidence can anyone greet the American Federation of Labor's attempt at conferences leading to arbitration of jurisdictional disputes if Mr. Hutcheson is permitted to ignore and defy all the interested organizations and to practice Ms secret machinations in the executive council. On behalf of the lATSE. let me say in conclusion that the executive council's recent interpretation is for the same reasons stated in my letter of September 1946 and others, completely null and void, and shall be ignored by us as will any future gratuitous interpretations or clarifications, or whatever else they may be called, which have for their purpose the deprivation of the established and recognized jurisdiction of the lA under the December 26, 1945, decision. We lost much by that decision, but we kept our word, and we were man enough to take it on the chin so as to preserve labor peace, but we will not appease by giving up what the decision confirmed as our rightful jiirisdiction. Kind regards. Fraternally yours, Mr. Kearns. Mr. Levy, that letter was addressed to Mr. Green ?