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.
2216 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
Mr. Cobb. I don't understand, Mr. Landis.
Mr. Landis. The directive that was given was adopted in December 1945, but really was not adopted until 1946, is that correct?
Mr. Cobb. Oh, no, you are mistaken, sir. No one has ever referred to the December 26, 1945, decision by any other name. It is always referred to as the December 1945, decision.
Mr. Landis. Then that would be the 1925 agreement there.
Mr. Cobb. Now when you come back to this supposed agreement of February 5, 1925, the decision says, "Known as the 1926 agreement."
And I state again that insofar as this record discloses and so far as I have been able to ascertain, the 1925 supposed agreement was never known by anybody as the 1926 agreement.
Now where did they get it ? I am not attacking the three-man committee. I am giving the three-man committee credit for having decided to follow the historic division of work and having endeavored to follow the historic division of work.
Now where did they get this phraseology that the 1925 supposed agreement was known as the 1926 agreement? And with all the diligence that I try to have that was the mystery to me, until coming to this hearing. At this hearing for the first time I have seen the testimony taken by the three-man committee in Hollywood. I call your attention to the following quoted testimony from Mr. Walsh before the three-man committee in Hollywood on December 8, 1945, reading from page 7 :
Committeeman Birthright. This is dated 1925.
Brother Walsh. Well, it's 1926. They call it the 1926 agreement.
Mr. Landis. Well, of course, I can't see where that makes very much difference.
Mr. Cobb. But you will if you will be patient with me until I carry it through.
Committeeman Birthright. They entered into this thing in 1925. Brother Walsh. That's right, that's what they call it, the 1926 agreement.
Now reading at the bottom of the page :
That is signed by the local unions out here and signed by our local out here also. This is the agreement that we worked under from 1926 until we went on strike in 1933.
Now I am not going to attack Mr. Walsh. I do not want to be in the position of attacking anyone, but within propriety I am privileged to analyze their testimony.
Nobody, so far as this record discloses and so far as I can ascertain, ever heard the 1925 supposed agreement referred to as the 1926 agreement, then just where did that confusion come in with Mr. Walsh? It came in in a confusion with the bona fide, basic agreement between the companies and both the lA and the carpenters that was executed in 1926.
Now there was a 1926 basic agreement between the companies and botli of these unions. Of course the bona fide 1926 agreement was referred to constantly; of course they worked under the bona fide agreement of 1926 from its date on ; of course that is true.
Mr. Landis. It mentions in the directive the 1926 agreement?
Mr. Cobb. It uses the very language, Mr. Landis
Mr. Landis. Is the 1926 agreement in there or 1925 agreement ?