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.

1576 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES That went along. In 1944 the same demand was made when we were meeting with the lA crafts in New York and I had to give them the same answer. Subsequent to 1944 this organization of set dressers saw fit to affiliate with the set designers who are part and parcel or chartered under the painters' union. They so notified me. I then had the right under that contract to say, "We do not accept it ; we do not recognize it," or we had a right to cancel the contract. Mr. Oavens. And you did neither? Mr. Casey. I did neither, but I did say to them when they came in, "Boy, this is a mix-up. Go down before the National Labor Relations Board ; have it cleaned up once and for all and whatever the decision is we will make the deal." Now is that plain to you ? Mr. Owens. Yes ; up to that point. Mr. Casey. Now, they went down and made an application. Immediately when they made the application the lATSE local put in an objection. This was during the war. At that time I was given to understand that if two A. F. of L. unions came before the National Labor Relations Board they would not attempt to settle it. If it was a case between an A. F. of L. union and a CIO union they would accept it. When these fellows found out the I A had made this objection I understand they withdrew their application to the National Labor Relations Board and threatened to strike. Mr. Owens. The lA threatened to strike or the painters ? Mr. Casey. No ; the painters. Immediately then a man by the name of Nebbitt — it might have been him or it might have been someone else — who was one of those regional fellows for the War Labor Board at San Francisco, stepped into the picture and said, "Well, boys, if you don't do this, give us a little time. We will take it before the War Labor Board and we will get this thing straightened out." He thought he could do it within a week. He did take it up with the War Labor Board in Washington. They in turn handed it over to Mr. William Green. Mr. William Green held this lemon for a 1 ittle while, then handed it back to the War Labor Board. Mr. Owens. That was before the strike? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. In other words, Mr. Green did not take jurisdiction of their own dispute ? Mr. Casey. No ; handed it right back to the War Labor Board. Mr. Kearns. Will the gentleman yield at this point ? Mr. Owens. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hutcheson, is required to leave. I am going to release Mr. Casey at this time. You may come back on immediately after the luncheon period and answer questions that counsel may have for you, after the honorable gentleman, Mr. Owens from Illinois, has finished his questioning, if that is agreeable. Mr. Owens. Yes ; that is agreeable. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Hutcheson, will you step to the witness stand ?