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 2215
Mr, Cobb. Yes, sir.
Accordingly this decision is based upon that premise.
That is the language of the decision.
I will be very happy to show you that [showing a document to Mr. Landis].
So I submit to you that on the face of the decision, the true decision was to follow the historic division of work.
Later in the decision they use this language :
The committee rules —
jNlr. Landis. I though it was Hutcheson that wouldn't agree with the decision. That is the way I understood it. Wasn't that the decision there ?
]Mr. Cobb. I am reading from the decision. I think if you will bear with me until I put this whole decision before you, you will see where it is the lA, and not the carpenters.
Mr. Landis. Hutcheson testified here, I believe, that he did not agree with that decision.
Mr. Cobb. As I stated this morning. I am not going to assume to testify for Mr. Hutcheson.
Mr. Landis. Well, everybody knows it has been testified here that he did not agree with the decision. I think everybody knows that.
iSIr. Cobb. I don't think you will find any disagreement with the intent of the decision to follow the historical division.
Mr. Landis. You don't think the carpenters disagreed with the decision ?
Mr. Cobb. Not with the intent of the decision because the intent of the decision was to follow the historical division. I am going to give you that evidence right now.
Mr. Landis. All right.
Mr. Cobb. Quoting from the decision :
The committee rules that the division of work agreement entered into between the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, on February 5, 1925, and known as the 1936 agreement be placed on full force and effect immediately.
Now why? Why was that supposed agreement of February 1925, to be placed into effect immediately? Because the committee ha(l already decided to follow the historic division and because they were led to believe that this supposed agreement of February 5, 1925, represented that historical division.
Now I want to call your attention to the peculiar language in the agi-eement of February 5, 1925, and known as the 1926 agreement.
So far as this record discloses and so far as I have been able to ascertain the 1925 supposed agi-eement was never known by anybody as the 1926 agreement.
Why should it be known as the 1926 agreement? Why should a contract or supposed contract bearing the date of February 5, 1925, be known as the 1926 agreement?
Mr. Landis. Wliat directive would that be, the 1946 directive ?
Mr. Cobb. I am reading from the December 26, 1945, decision.
Mr. Landis. But I am asking you another question. Would you call it the 1945 directive or the 1946 directive?