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 2341 itself as an interim agreement, or rather in tlie letter from Mr. Casey of July 2, 1940, in which he says, in his letter to Herbert Sorrell : Pending the completion of contracts between the individual unions, members of the CSU and the major studios, these minutes (copj' attached herewith) shall cojistitute an interim agreement. The so-called interim agreement of July 2 contemplated, of course, that there were several other matters left open which were to be negotiated and that the final formal contracts were to be signed. I said the other day that so far as we were concerned we believed we had entered into an agreement on Jidy 2. There is as a matter of law in the first instance some question as to whether or not this was an agreement or simply an agreement to maks an agreement, but nevertheless the thing I want to bring out today is that the Conference of Studio Unions did not recognize and has not recognized that as an agreement. So that we can tie this whole picture together I want to give you extracts from certain telegrams of Mr. Sorrell on behalf of the Conference of Studio Unions, including the carpenters organization, in M'hich he takes the jDosition that they were without contracts in September. October, and November of 1946. You will recall when I testified the other day I said I thought in my opinion we had entered into an agreement on July 2 which contained a provision by which you will recall the studios would "have a right to assign work and that there would be no stoppage of work for 30 days or until arbitration machinery had been set up: and that on the basis of that language it w as arguable, possibly legally, it was my opinion that so long as arbitration machinery was not set np there had been a complete breach of that particular provision of the agreement, when they declared the sets hot and refused to work on their own hot sets. , I do want to bring out the fact, however Mr. Laxdis. You mean that is when they broke the contract? ]Mr. ZoRN. That is when the}^ broke the contract. As a matter of law there is still some question as to whether or not that was a complete legal agreement or whether it was not. In other words, that is completely legal matter that some day the courts will have to decide. I pointed that out, that if it were a legal agreement then of course they broke it by their own actions and we have no further obligations under it and obviously w-e do not have a 2-year agreement by which we were bound until July 1948. ]\rr. Laxdis. But it was signed by boith parties? ]\[i'. ZoPtX. That is right. But I do want to point this out to you so that the record will be clear as to what they thought of this agreement despite Mr. Cobb's statement of the other day. I do not have the page references, bitt in a telegram dated September 20. 1946. addressed to Pat Casey and signed by Sorrell on behalf of the Conference of Studio Unions and all the organizations which were part of it. including the painters and the carpenters, Sorrell says to Mr. Case}^ : We therefore demand immediate and continuous negotiations to conclude contracts with all CSU locals as was pledged in the interim agreement of July 2, 1946. I am not reading the whole telegram. In a telegram dated September 24, 1946, addressed to Pat Casey and signed "Conference of Studio Unions, Herbert K. Sorrell, presi