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)

2248 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The charge I am making is that this business of rushing to people like this and having them put pressure on a quasijudicial agency is an admission that I certainly would have made for the record here. I think it is a shocking thing. The outcome of the case was this — and I could also tell you gentlemen some things about this Mr. Bart Guild, who is the source of Mr. Sorrell's information. But like Mr. Cobb yesterday I don't want hearsay and secondary information. I have a great deal of information about him and I thing you may be interested some day in running it down. I think that for many reasons he is one of the most thoroughly unreliable people who could have been quoted as a source of information. Mr. Kearns. Could you give the committee some of that data in confidence ? Mr. ZoRN. I would be very glad to. Since the newspapers are here I would rather not testify to information I have received second-hand. I like to talk about things I know myself but I will be very glad to give you that and you can check that for yourselves. Mr. Kearns. We would just use it as a source of inquiry. Mr. ZoRx. Eight. Now an interesting thing about that whole situation is this : You may recall when Mr. Bodle was on the stand with Mr. Sorrell he read at great length from the report of the trial examiner with respect to this question of whether the strikers should vote and whether the replacements should vote, and the regional director recommended that the strikers' votes be counted and the replacement votes, as I recall it, be held up in some way for future decision. That was not done. In the decision of the Board in the Columbia Pictures case the Board split 2 to 1 in the decision. The majority of the Board, that is, Mr. Herzog and Mr. Houston, decided that despite the fact — and this is all in the decision — despite the fact that there was a no-strike clause in the contract with the Society of Interior Decorators, which has been testified to here, and that they went out on strike in violation of that clause — despite the fact that they continued the strike in violation of the directions and orders of Mr. William Green, the telegram of which has been read in the record here; despite the fact that it was a violation of the no-strike pledge during wartime and despite the further fact that they walked out on strike right in the middle of a hearing which was set up to determine this very question of representation, and the further fact — and this is very important — the majority also found that the employers were not guilty of any unfair labor practices. Therefore it was not an unfairlabor-practice strike. Now despite all those factors the majority came to the conclusion that the strikers should be permitted to vote, and so far as the replacements were concerned there was no question but that they were valid replacements and of course they had the right to vote. Mr. Reilly, in his dissenting opinion — and I am not going to read too much into this record; I will give you the essence of it and I will give you the volume — Mr. Reilly, in his dissenting opinion, points out that that decision is completely contrary to former decisions of the Board; that the logic of the situation is inescapable; and that, under those circumstances, the strikers had lost their status and had absolutely no right to vote.