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.

2208 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES agreement is embodied in the hearings of this committee, first, in the speech that Mr. Walsh made before his lATSE convention, and second, in the testimony of Mr. Walsh himself before the committee at Los A-ngeles. Mr. Landis. Do you know the date of the agreement? Mr. Cobb. It was in the spring, as I recall, in March of 1945. I don't want to quote it from memory, but I Avill provide the conmiittee with book and page quotations on it, both as appear in the speech of Mr. Walsh and as confirmed by Mr, Walsh in his testimony at Los Angeles. So that the understanding between the producers and the lATSE was of long standing. That was approximately 18 months before the occurrences of Sej^tember 1946. Then after the decision of December 1945 and the conflicts that continued making the clarification necessary, the Beverly Hills agreement was made on July 2. That agreement constitutes the agreement still in force. It was in the form of the minutes of a meeting held between the carpenters and other crafts, and the producers, and it is very significant that the lATSE was present in the meeting. Now, here is a meeting with the producers, the carpenters, and the lATSE present asd participating, reduced to minutes, with the agreement following it, that those minutes should constitute the agreement. In this agreement the language is used, "contract for 2 years." So we have an agreement made on July 2, 1946, providing for a contract for 2 years. Our contention is that that means a contract until July 1, 1948, and that that contract is in force and effect now. Mr. ivEARNS. Who signed that agreement 'i Mr. Cobb. That was signed by Pat Casey for the producers and Sorrell for the Conference of Studio Unions embracing the various crafts. Mr. Kearns. Are they duly authorized to sign that agreement ? Mr. Cobb. The testimony in the record — which I shall bring out in my brief — is to the effect that they were authorized, and is also to the effect that they acted upon the agreement and worked under the agreement. First you have the agreement ; second, you have testimony in the record that they were authorized ; and, third, you have the ratification by actual use of the agreement; so that in my judgment there cannot be any question. I think you will recall in the testimony of Mr. Benjamin a statement to the effect that the agreement was followed until September 23, 1946. I do not wish to make a quotation from the record. I will make the literal references to the record in my written brief. Mr. Landis. Could you explain there where they broke their agreement, the details of it ? Mr. Cobb. I will, sir. Mr. Kearns. Will counsel establish whether the testimony of Mr. Benjamin referred to is correct? Mr. McCann. I will find that, sir. Mr. Cobb. This is 6 months after the hearing, but I think you will find adequate testimony, adequate statements in the testimony of Mr. Mannix. You will recall, in effect, Mr. Mannix said the carpenters "only wanted to give us a contract for 1 year, and we made them give us a contract for 2 years." That is not literal, but that is my recollection of the substance.