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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2221 Is that asking for a clarification? Mr. IvEARNs. Who said, that ? Mr, Cobb. The companies in their minutes of September 3. "The AFL counsel must tell us what to do," and that after all the protests about the clarification, "As we are between, AFL counsel must tell us what to do." If that isn't a question of clarification from the council, what can language mean ? Mr. McCann. May I interrupt a second, Mr. Cobb ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, referring to the minutes furnished to the committee, I find the record shows that representing M-G-M on that occasion were Mr. Mannix and Mr. Walsh. Among the list of those obviously who are union men are shown Cooper, Brewer, and Walsh, so I think Mr. Walsh must have been present. Mr. Cobb. So both were present. My copy of the minutes show both present. Mr. Kearns. Yes ; I just wondered for the moment. Mr. Cobb. I thank you, Mr. Kearns. I would rather falter in all that I say than to have one single inaccuracy in my statement to this committee. Now, why shouldn't they ask for a clarification? It is no sin or disgrace that the three-man committee decision needed clarification. That is only human. We have had Pat Casey's testimony that they asked for a clarification in January, and we have their minutes showing they were asking for a clarification in September. Mr. Landis. The point it seems you are bringing out is : At first I thought you inferred the companies broke their July 1946 contract. Mr. Cobb. Oh, yes ; I am coming to that. Mr. Landis. You are saying now the carpenters wanted the clarification, and the lA didn't want the clarification, and that the trouble was over the clarification. Mr. Cobb. You misunderstood me. I said the companies wanted the clarification. Mr. Landis. Now, you said the carpenters wanted a clarification. Mr. Cobb. The carpenters wanted a correct interpretation of the December decision which gave them their historic division of work, which was procured in the clarification. Mr. Landis. That is what the carpenters wanted ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir. Mr. Landis. Then after the clarification was made, the lA didn't want it ? Mr. Cobb. The I A said, "We've got a hold of your jobs that you had historically" — I am not speaking literally. Mr. Landis. Who macle these statements that the company wanted the A. F. of L. to make the clarification ? Mr. Cobb. It is in the minutes, but it does not credit it to any individual. Mr. Landis. No one person said it ? Mr. Cobb. That is the general discussion of the companies. Mr. Kearns. There was much testimony given there that the companies had gone ahead and followed out the directive, that it was not 67383— 48— vol. 3 46