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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2251 completely illogical; tluit it was completely contrary to a rule tliey had already established in a similar case. Mr. Landis. Did he say one case or more than one? Mr. ZoRN. Several of them. Yon might be interested in the opinion. Mr. Landis. It looks to me there like the pressure worked. Mv. ZoRN. Iwon't say that, Mr. Landis. You can draw your own conclusions on that. Mr. Laxdis. That is the conclusion I draw from it, that if that had not been done in the past the pressure they put on them worked. Mr. ZoRN. Answering your question directly on this question of authorities, I will give you just a few quotations. I will not read it all. Mr. Reilly says, starting at page 522 : "Since that portion 'of the majority decision whicli requires the vote of the discharged strilcers to be <ipfned and counted, seems to me contrary to well settled legal principles, I feel constrained to indicate the grounds of my disagreement. Then he refers to the provisions of the act and the procedures of the Board where employees discharged foi" cause lose all status as employees. Then he goes on to say : At the time of the strike the petition of the producers and several petitions of the painters were pending before the Board, I am skipping some lines, so I will not clutter the record. The producers without espousing the cause of either union had presented these conflicting claims to the Board for determination in the matter prescribed by the Board's rules and regulations. The Board was employing its processes to determine the questions thus raised. Painters, however, were not content to allow the questions to be determined thrcnigh the orderly processes of the only governmental agency in power to resolve such matters. Notwithstanding it had invoked the act and the processes of the Board to determine the question, the painters struck to compel the producers to recognize it immediately as the majority representative under the act. Now after flouting the same law and processes through its efforts by strike action designed to compel the producers also to ignore the act and the Board by violating the established law which prohiibted the producers from recognizing and bargaining with any union as the exclusive representative of the decorators while there was pending a very real question concerning representation, over which the board had assumed jurisdiction, and was at the time actively investigating by means of a hearing then in progress, a hearing in which tlie painters were an active participant, the painters contend that the strikers were discharged without cause and therefore the strikers are entitled to cast valid ballots. The producers state in their brief: "The producers refused to determine at their peril the conflicting claims of lA Local 44 and Painters Local 1421 as to the unit in which set dressers should be included for purposes of collective bargaining." Then he goes on to say : It was the producers' obligation to take this position and to refuse to deal with either union as the bai'gaining representative of the decorators; especially after the petition had been filed, if they hoped 'to remain within the law and not be subjected to the remedial jirocesses of the Board. Then he quotes matter of Elastic Stop Nut Corp., a Board case in which the Board reached a conclusion contrary to the majority here. He cites matter of Phelps-Dodge, giving the citation of the ciise. They are all in this opinion. He quotes the Midwest Piping & Supply Co. case and several others, including the American News Co. case which was the most recent of the cases where the Board held