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 2201 I ^Yill now file these two letters for the record and would like to read them at this point. The letters are addressed to me. The first letter reads : Dear Sir : The above-caotioned cases charging a violation nntler section S of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, have been carefully investigated and considered. As a result of the investigation, it does not appear that there is suflieient evidence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time and I am, therefore, refusing to issue complaint in this matter. It cannot be maintained that a .jurisdictional controversy, the outcome of which is more successful to one union, is grounds for an 8 (b) (1) charge, and there is no evidence of discrimination by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (lATSE) against individual employees. There is no evidence to sustain the 8 (b) (4) (A), (B), and (C) charges. The lATSE is not striking. Our investigation discloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitration award of a committee of the A; F. of L. Executive Council. Further, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. No evidence has been submitted to discriminatory initiation fees or dues being charged by the lATSE or of feather-bedding tactics being employed by the lATSE, and hence the 8 (b) (5) and 8 (b) (6) charges cannot be sustained. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board rules and regulations, you may obtain a review of this act by filing a request for such review with the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Washington 25, D. C, and a copy with me. This request must contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which they are based. The request should be filed within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter, except the general counsel may, upon good cause shown, grant special permission for a longer period within which to file. I wish to call the committee's attention to these features of the letter : * * * there is no evidence of discrimination by the lATSE against individual employees. At the time of the Los Angeles hearings of this committee I furnished the general counsel of the Labor Board with, an official copy of the transcript of hearings before this committee. Later, when those were mimeographed, I furnished a complete mimeographed copy with the regional office of the labor board at the time of filing the charges, and asked that each and all material facts set fortji therein be considered as evidence in their preliminary consideration of the case. I wish also to call attention Mr. Landis. Would you read the whole letter? Mr. Cobb. I did, sir. I wish also to call attention to the statement that the lATSE is not striking. We had made no charge that they were striking. It is not material to the issues in this cancer spot of American labor relations that the lATSE was not striking. The significant thing is that they had threatened to close the motion-picture theaters of America, so as to deny the production companies exhibition of their films, if their terms Avere not met by the production companies. I call attention to the statement : Further, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. We have not charged that they caused the carpenters to strike becau.se the carpenters have no strike. The carpenters did not strike. The carpenters were locked out. It is an improper statement for the regional office to say it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike, when it