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)

2202 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES has been shown that the lATSE by their threats to the companies, and in their conspiracy with the companies, did cause the carpenters to be locked out. I call attention also to the statement that — 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. * * * Those facts are contained in the transcript of the hearings of this committee, copies of which I furnished both the general counsel in Washington and the regional office in Los Angeles. Now, Mr. Chairman, under the same date a second letter was written pertaining to other cases against the lATSE. The above-captioned cases charging a violation under section 8 of tlie 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 suflicient evidence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time and I am, therefore, refusing to issue complaint in this matter. There is no evidence to sustain the 8 (b) (4) (B) charges because the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (lATSE) is not striking. Our investigation discloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitratit)n avpard 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. I wish to state, Mr. Chairman, that they do not insist upon that award, any more than the locked-out carpenters of Holly wood, insist upon that award. The difference between us is that they insist upon a false construction of the award, while we insist upon the actual decision made by the three-man committee, as shown by the clarification, and as I shall show by book and page references from the record and by citation of court decisions in the written brief you have kindly authorized me to file. Then there is the same paragraph in conclusion as the other with regard to our right to ask for review. Referring back to the first letter : Our investigation discloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitration award * * * There is no statement as to how that insistence was made. There is no statement as to when and how any conference was had with the lATSE. There is no statement to show what opportunity was afforded the locked-out carpenters to either cross-examine the lATSE or to be heard in answer to the insistence which the regional office apparently received from the lATSE. It is an unfortunate condition, Mr. Chairman, when the agency of government charged with the responsibility of removing cancer spots from labor relations proceeds ex parte. Ex parte proceedings died with the star chamber under British jurisprudence. Ex parte proceedings in labor relations have no rightful place in our country or under our laws. In support of this statement I have quoted a paragraph from an opinion written by the late Justice Cardozo. While pretending no superior knowledge as a lawyer, I have been a student of the decisions of the Supreme Court for 45 years. Sometimes we do not appreciate the man of our own day and time. But after I have read to you, sir, the language of this decision by Justice Cardozo, I believe that thought