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)
Reading and Downloading:
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.
View OCR Text
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 2179
"(i) Brewer and Cooper joined the meeting.
"Kahane explained the situation which the producers find themselves in, reading the letters recently received from the carijenters, and the producers' reply to the carpenters, signed by Casey. Kahane outlined the two courses the producers could follow and stated our decision depends on what your (Brewer's) position is as to furnishing us with men. ,
'Brewer replied that they will do everything to keep the studios open — and will supply the necessary help. * * *" ,
On September 16, 1946, at page 3319, the said committee agreed, in pursuance of said conspiracy, to cause the State of California to deny said carpenters their right to unemployment insurance while locked out of the work by the said companies in conspiracy with the lATSE, as follows : ,
"Unemployment Compensation — Cragin of the Loeb office wanted instructions for the comptrollers as to what position the producers wanted to take on statement to be made to the State unemployment fund. It was agreed to say 'the employee left his work on account of a trade dispute,' and to ask the department to disqualify him for unemployment compensation."
On September 17, 1946, at page 3321, said comjnittee agreed with the lATSE, acting by said Brewer, to force the independent motion picture companies to replace all carpenters with lATSE set erectors, as agreed upon by said major motion picture companies, as follows :
, ''(a) Set erectors — Brewer wanted to correct an erroneous opinion that independents were not being forced to use erectors. They are * * *_
"(?)) lA is prepared to furnish men to cross jurisdictional lines — take the place of strikers and to keep studios going.
'•(c) Brewer said to put lA men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit. provided :
"1. lA is advised in advance when and where
"2. Put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self protection
'3. Keep procedure quiet so CSU can't gang up at one spot."
That on said date, said committee further deliberated in said conspiracy, as follows :
"(f?) Mannix thought some one group should meet with the sheriff, district attorney and the chief of police to explain the situation and arrange for necessary protection.
"(e) Discussed the proper method of procedure — how and when to get carpenters and painters to refuse to work — when to replace with lA, etc.
"(/) Wright thinks we should not act in concert. * * *''
On September 20, 1946, at page 3326, said committee agreed to avoid any meeting with the carpenters before the lock-out, set for the following Monday, and thereby avoid bargaining with the Carpenters, in accordance with the exhibit D agreement of July 3, 1946, as follows :
"(o) K'hane read a proposed reply prepared by Byron Price to the telegram sent by CSU to Pat Casey, dated September 19. 1946. He thinks we should not meet with them before Sunday as they could then use the argument that the break came on account of wages and not jurisdiction and further we should not offer to negotiate while they refuse to work under their interim agreement."
On September 23. 1946, at page 3329. the committee was advised by counsel that it could not refuse to bargain without being guilty of an unfair labor practice, and that they could not morally or legally assign maintenance men, who had never worked as journeymen, to work on sets, but in said conspiracy with the lATSE, decided to gamble on the advice of another counsel, that the Labor Board "might not assess any back pay".
"(a) Lawyers said we can't refuse to bargain and told of consequences. Carpenters situation may or may not have been an unfair labor practice, * * *
"(h) ^laintenance ]Men — INIetro and some other studios have requested maintenance men to work on sets, and upon refusal have dismissed them. Alfred Wright stated the studios cannot morally or legally assign maintenance men who never have worked as journeymen on sets to set work.
"(c) Benjtmin expressed belief that even though NLRB might decide producers had engaged in unfair labor practices there was a good chance the Board might not assess any back pay."
On September 24," 1946, at page 3331, the committee and lATSE agi-eed upon the details of replacing locked out cai-penters with lATSE members and designees, as follows :