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 2349 during the hearings, but he utilized every opportunity to avoid a statement that he woukl abide by it. And after the decision came down from the National Labor Relations Board to which he testified, he did not then call off the strike or abide by the decision. That is the record in this case. Mr. jSIcCann. Would you mind telling us when the decision came down, sir, so that we could have that in the record? Mr. Levy. I think it is already in the record, but my recollection of it is that there were two decisions by the Board, one in 61 N. L. R. B., in which it was decided to hold an election. I think tliat was in May of 1945 and then the final decision determining Avhich ballots would be counted, that was, I think, in September or October of 1945. That was published in full in 64 NLRB. 1 listened to 5 days of testimony by Mr. Sorrell here in Washington and I listened to a number of days and read the rest of the record of his testimony at Los Angeles. If you will remember, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the lATSK, I have consistently taken the position that a complete and thorough investigation of this very diflicult jurisdictional situation that has been burning since 1^944 through 1946, in Hollywood, should have every facet of it examined into and let the chips fall where they may. AA'hen ISIr. Sorrell took the stand he undertook to paint a rather black picture of the history of the lATSE. And if we talk about historical experience I think it ought to be underscored that the lATSE has been in existence since at least 1893, for more than 50 years. I recognize that there is a very definite black mark upon its escutcheon and I have no apologies to make for it. I did not generally represent the IxVTSE during that period. I was counsel for one of its local unions in New York City and once in a while through the general office of the lATSE I may have been consulted about some matter on behalf of the lATSE. But just as the history of the lATSE was ignored in the testimony of Mr. Sorrell from 1893 until 1934, so has the history of the lATSE been ignored by him from 1941 to date. He made accusations here that the Browne and Bioff regime was in effect being carried out, since Mr. Walsh became president and since INIr. Brewer became international representative in Hollywood. I want to touch upon that. Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer are here to be questioned about it. As I touch upon it, I want to quote from an article in Variety of August 2, 1937. As I read it in full, you will get the bearing quite clearly of the necessity for my having brought this up. Headline : Painters Given 15 Percent Pay Tilt, 800 Gain Studio painters received 15 percent wage tilt yesterday as William Bioff, personal representative of President George E. Browne, of International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, again intervened in negotiations and insisted producers grant demands of lirotlierhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America. Increase will affect about 900 men and is retroactive to July 1. Motion Picture Painters Local G44 voted unanimously to send letter of thanks to Bioff for his cooperation in getting raise and imiiroving working conditions. Letter will be mailed to<lay l)y Secretary William Ball. Contract to be drawn np today at conference betweeii Bioff, Pat Casey, producer-labor contact, and Herbert Sorrell, business representative of painters will run until May 1, 1938. G73S3 — 48 — vol. 3 54