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 2153 Mr. Landis. The point I want to make is this: This is a directive as to what the job is snpposed to be. The clarification came afterward. Mr. DoHERTY. That is right. Mr. Laxdis. Is that important ? Is that the same as the directive ? Mr. DoHERTY. I think, Congressman Landis, it is highly important. jSlr. Laxdis. Do you see the point I am tr3dng to make ? Mr. DoHERTY. Yes; I do. It is highly important. The decision we handed down on December 26, 1945, was apparently accepted by all parties to the dispute with the exception of the carpenters. Immediately following that period when we handed down the decision we started to hear rumbles from Hollywood and grumbles relative to the dissatisfaction with at least that phase of the decision having to do with the erection of sets on stages and locations. It was discussed, as has been shown in the record here, at the January meeting in Miami, Fla., 1946; it was discussed at the May njeeting of the executive council in 1946, and later in the Chicago meeting in August, and at the August meeting of the executive council it was discussed again, and because of the fact that President Green had sent one of his organizers to Hollywood to investigate the situation — the apparent strike or new situation that had developed following our decision — Mr. Flanagan's organizer sent in a report dated August 9^ That report was read at our August executive council meeting. That report, incidentally, is in the record here. Now, I personally feel that the report of Mr. Daniel V. Flanagan had a great bearing on the claritication itself. As a matter of fact, when the report was read, it was then that other members of the executive council felt that a clarification was necessary. So in that clarification of August 16, 1946, some 8 months after we handed down our decision, we very aptly stated, in the first paragraph : Pursuant to instructions lianded down by the executive council. In other words, the executive council sent its own three-man committee out to clarify it. Then, of course, in the last paragraph of that clarification, we stated : In view of tlie alleged violation, the committee hereby directs that all participating in the Hollywood motion-picture-studio dispute strictly adhere to the provisions of the directive handed down on December 26. 1945. Following the issuance of this clarificatiom Mr. Chairman and Congressman Landis, things began to happen and we had the trouble on our heads all over again. I understand that in the months that followed there was considerable difficulty in the motion-picture industry. Some of it still exists today or else you wouldn't be holding these hearing here. But the clarification was handed down. I think I have testified previously — not only here, but also in Los Angeles — that if I had it to do over, I wouldn't cross a "t" or dot an "i" in the decision lianded down. I think the committee had absolute authority to hand down its original decision, but there is a question in my mind as to whether we had the authority to hand down any clarification. Any other questions? Mr. Lax'dis. I want to go into another subject before we get through, but I think it is very important to know about this clarification.