Start Over

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 1579 Mr. HuTCHEsoN. Congressman, let me say thiĀ§ in reply to your statement : Far be it from me to influence Mr. Levy to say other than he desires. If I were to believe everything that I have heard and read in the papers about m3'self I would be ashamed to even look in the mirror. Mr. Owens. Well, I haven't seen anything so terrible about you, Mr. Hutcheson. Any remarks about you are always mixed with caution. As Mr. Casey mentioned there, he said there are fine men at the head of the A. F. of L., but they should have a housecleaning. Mr. Hutcheson. I was not referring to remarks like Mr. Casey made. I was referring to other things that have been said at various times and printed. Mr. Owens. In other words, you do not have any personal knowledge of any affiliation of any kind that Mr. Sorrell or any of his coworkers out there have with the Communists ? Mr. Hutcheson. I have none other than rumors. Mr. Owens. Now we will go to Mr. Casey's remarks, which were very pertinent with respect to jurisdictional issues. You heard his remarks. I do not have to repeat them to you. What do you think of what he said ? Did it carry the germ of truth in it ? Mr. Hutcheson. Having been associated with Mr. Casey since 1926, on various occasions, when the basic agreement went into effect, I agree with what Mr. Casey said. Didn't you want me to agree with him? Mr. Owexs. I said a year ago when you testified you were frani and o})en. I guess that ends my questioning now. Mr. Landis. Do you agree with him on the jurisdictional dispute? Mr. Hutcheson. I would have to think that over. Mr. Landis. By jurisdictional dispute, I mean that point where the employer is in the middle. The employer is always in the middle in a jurisdictional dispute. There should be some way to keep those men at work and let the unions get around the bargaining table and settle their own disputes. Mr. Hutcheson. Well, that is logical. Mr. Landis. That kind of a strike is quite different from a strike between an employer and a union. Mr. Hutcheson. I would not object to that procedure. Mr. Landis. That procedure would probably be better than to let the Government step in and make the decision. Mr. Hutcheson. I quite agree with that. Mr. Landis. That is all. Mr. Owens. That brings up just one more question, as long as that has been brought out. How long do you think they ought to have to settle the jurisdictional dispute, Mr. Hutcheson? Mr. Hutcheson, Oh, until they finally complete it. Mr. Owens. I mean how long; let us be serious now. Mr. Hutcheson. A limited time, you mean? Mr. Owens. Yes, how limited? Mr. Hutcheson. Excuse me, but I do not think I have any definite time in mind.