r^ ^ t Given By U. S. SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS r 3^ JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY HEARINGS BEFORE A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ^ ^COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION PURSUANT TO H. Res. Ill (80th Congress) VOLUME 3 HEARINGS HELD AT WASHINGTON, D. C. FEBRUARY 25, 26, 27, MARCH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, AND 17, 1948 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67383 WASHINGTON : 1948 '^%. SUPERIHITNDENT OF 0OaiM£«lt JUL 6 1948 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR FRED A. HARTLEY, Jr., New Jersey, Chairman GERALD W. LANDIS, Indiana CLARE E. HOFFMAN, Michigan EDWARD O. MCCOWEN, Ohio MAX SCHWABE, Missouri SAMUEL K. McCONNELL, Jr., Pennsylvania RALPH W. GWINN, New York ELLSWORTH B. BUCK, New York WALTER B. BREHM, Ohio WINT SMITH, Kansas CHARLES J. KERSTEN, Wisconsin GEORGE MACKINNON, Minnesota THOMAS L. OWENS, Illinois CARROLL D. KEARNS, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NIXON, California W. MANLY Sheppard, Clerk IRVING G. McCann, Oencral Counsel JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan GRAHAM A. BARDEN, North Carolina AUGUSTINE B. KBLLEY, Pennsylvania O. C. FISHER, Texas ADAM C. POWELL, Jr., New York JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia RAY J. MADDEN, Indiana ARTHUR G. KLEIN, New York JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts WINGATE H. LUCAS, Texas Spectal Subcommittee To Investigate Jurisdictional Disputes in the Motion-Picture Industry CARROLL D. KEARNS, Pennsylvania, Chairman GERALD W. LANDIS, Indiana O. C. FISHER, Texas THOMAS L. OWENS, Illinois JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia II CONTENTS LIST OF WITNESSES Page Benjamin, Maurice, counsel for motion-picture companies and Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif 1691-1699 Bodle, George E., Hollywood, Calif., attorney for Herbert K. Sorrell 1870, 1872. 1911-1916, 1924-1925, 1934-1935, 1938-1941, 1948-1949, 1959- 1972, 1974-1976, 1990-2U18, 2024-2030, 2032-2048, 2051-2057, 2083- 2091. 2096-2100, 2104-2111, 2116-2121, 2132. Brewer, Roy M., international representative, lATSE, Los Angeles, Calif__ 1746- 1816, 2116-2119, 2346, 2365-2367, 2371-2375, 2420-2427, 2432-2434 Casey, Pat, former chairman of labor committee of Motion Picture Pro- ducers Association, New York, N. Y 1559-1576, 1586-1600 Cobb. Zach Lamar, Los Angeles, Calif., attorney for Studio Carpenters Local No. 946 2162-2239 Doherty, William C, vice president, American Federation of Labor 2133-2157 Hiust. Paul, member of local 946. Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Los Angeles, Calif 1683-1691 Hutcheson, William L., general president. United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, Indianapolis, Ind 1577-1585 Levy, Matthew M., attorney for lATSE, New York, N. Y 1514- 1558, 1605-1626, 1701-1746, 1816-1833, 2344-2365, 2367-2371, 240O- 2408, 2420, 2427-2432. Lindelof, Lawrence P., president. Brotherhood of Painters, Paperhangers and Decorators of America, Lafayette, Ind 1600-1605 Mulkey, George A., international representative. International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, San Francisco, Calif 1627-1678 Robinson. John R., Compton, Calif, former president. District Council No. 4, Maritime Federation of the Pacific 2375-2398, 2408-2419, 2443-2445 Sorrell, Herbert K., president. Conference of Studio Unions ; business representative. Moving Picture Painters Local No. 644 1837- 1955, 1972-1990, 1994-1995, 1998-2001, 20O4, 2012-2013, 2017-2024, 2030-2038. 2048-2053, 2056-2081, 2091-2096, 2100-2104, 2111-2115, 2121-2132. Walsh, Richard F., president. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, New York, N. Y 1678-1683, 2434-2441 Zorn, Burton A., New York, N. Y., counsel for the motion-picture producers 2241-2344,2399-2400 INDEX Advertisements in Variety, by Walt Disney, to his employees on strike, and their reply 1913-1914 AflBdavit of (or excerpts from) — Bien, Paul W 2388 Coffey, John L 2338 Fadiman, William J 2338 Glover, Walter 2340 Henshaw, William J 2332 Jones, Raymond E 2334 Karp, Jacob H 2333 Kraushaar, Corrine 2335 Maehl, August A 2334 m IV CONTENTS Affidavit of (or excerpts from) — Continued ^^s® Pinlfham, George W 2333 Richards, Georjean 2336 Ritchie, Robert 2333 Rosen, Arthur 2332 Vance, Luis 2335 Warner, Helen 2335 Wheelwright, Ralph F 2337 Zimmerman, Rex L., relative to how M-G-M bought up entire Culver City police force (article from Hollywood Sun) 2159-2161 A. F. of L. executive council, minutes (or excerpts from minutes) of meet- ing of — April 21-25, 1947, at Washington, D. C 2146-2149 April 30-May 8, 1945, at Washington, D. C 2362 August 6-14, 1945, at Chicago, 111 2362-2364 August 15, 1946, at Chicago, 111 2139-2146 August 16, 1946, at Chicago, 111 2148 May 15-22, 1946, Washington, D. C 2136-2139 October 15-24, 1945, at Cincinnati, Ohio 2364 A. F. of L. three-man committee : Report of, after investigation of Hollywood disputes (Cobb ex- hibit H) 2193-2194 Testimony of machinists' representatives before, excerpts from 2149, 2150-2151, 2152 Agreement between carpenters and major producing companies, effective July 2 ,1946, known as the treaty of Beverly Hills (Cobb exhibit D) __ 2186-2188 Agreement between grips' local 80 and carpenters' local 946 relative to dis- tribution of work, effective November 13, 1945 (Cobb exhibit G ) 2192 Agreement between producers and lATSE, effective August 15, 1947. (Cobb' exhibit Q) 2198-2200 Agreement between unions and Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, effective June 29, 1946 (Cobb exhibit B) 2189-2190 Agreement between unions and major companies relative to closed shop (Cobb exhibit C) 2186 Agreement of February 5, 1925, between U. B. of C. and J. of A. and lATSE relative to distribution of work (excerpt from Cobb exhibit H)— 1592 Agreement of January 15, 194S, for jurisdictional settlement between local 40, IBEW, and local 695, lATSE 1632-1634 Agreement of July 9, 1921, between U. B. of C. and J. of A. and lATSE rela- tive to distribution of work (Cobb exhibit A) 2184 Agreements not indexed above, sec Contract, or under name of organi- zation. American-Soviet Friendship, Congress of, excerpts from reports of 1606, 1924-1925 Application of lATSE to NLRB for certification as bargaining agent (Cobb exhibit P) 2198 Articles or editorials in magazines or newspapers, or excerpts from : Chicago Tribune . 2105 Commonweal 1968, 1969, 1971 Daily People's World 1619, 1620, 1621, 1623, 1832-1833, 1963, 1964, 2026 Flashes (oflicial publication of film technicians) 1764, 1765, 1766 Hollywood Citizen-News 1622, 1916 Hollywood Reporter 2350 Hollywood Sun 2025, 2026, 2159-2161 Los Angeles Daily News 1621, 1959-1961, 2105, 2351 Los Angeles Herald-Express 1993-1994, 2105 Los Angeles Times 1933, 1994, 2323-2331 Picket Line (circular publication issued by the Conference of Studio Unions) 1624, 1625, 2344-2345 Tidings (official paper of the archdiocese of Los Angeles) 1971-1972, 2304 Variety 1911-1912,1913, 1914, 1996-1997, 2000-2018, 2027-2029, 2092, 2347-2350, 2352, 2433 Attendance at school, church, and the movies, data on 1586 Award of NLRB arbitrator in case involving major motion-picture pro- ducers and screen set designers, etc 2040-2047 CONTENTS 'V Basic studio agreement between unions and major companies, efiEective ^^S® November 2G, 1926 (Cobb exhibit B) 2184^2186 Benjamin, Maurice, statement and testimony of 1691-1699 Bodle, George E., statement of and testimony of 1870, 1872, 1911-1916, 1924-1925, 1934-1935, 1938-1941, 1948-1949, 1959- 1972. 1974-1976, 19!^)0-201S, 2024-2030, 2032-2048, 2051-2057, 2083- 2091. 2096-2100. 2104-2111. 2116-2121. 2132. Boren, Charles, telegram to Burton A. Zorn showing contractual history between producers and painters and set decorators 2308-2310 Brewer, Roy M. : Statement and testimony of 1746-1816, 2346, 2365-2367, 2371-2375, 2420-2427, 2432-2434 Testimony at Los Angeles hearings, excerpts from 2116-2119 Broadened scope of hearing, statement relative to, by — Kearns, Hon. Carroll D., chairman of the special subcommittee 1537 Landis. Hon. Gerald W., acting chairman of the Hou.se Committee on Education and Labor 1537 Browne, George E., president, lATSE, excerpts from report of, to 1940 lATSE convention 2029-2030 Bylaws of Cinema Lodge 1185, lAM, excerpt from article XI, section 3 1513 California Assembly Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy, excerpts from report of the 1710, 1711, 1713, 1714, 1716-1717, 1718 Carpenters local 946. {See Motion Picture Studio Carpenters, etc.) Casey, Pat, statement and testimony of 1559-1.576, 1586-1600 Central Labor Council of Los Angeles, ultimatum of April 18, 1946, from group of A. F. of L. unions to 1720 Charges filed before National Labor Relations Board on behalf of indi- vidual members of carpenters' local 946 against major motion-picture producers and L\TSE 2165-2183 Dismissal of above charges, excerpts from 2201,2202 Cincinnati agreement, excerpt from 2174 Cinema Lodge 1185, lAM, excerpt from article XI, section 3, bylaws of 1513 Clarification of December decision (Cobb exhibit I) 2194-2195 Closed-shop agi'eement between unions and major producing companies, effective January 2, 1936 (Cobb exhibit C) 2186 Cobb, Zach Lamar : Charges filed before National Labor Relations Board on behalf of in- dividual members of carpenters' local 946 against major motion- picture producers and lATSE 216.5-2183 Dismissal of above charges, excerpts from 2201, 2202 Exhibit A — Agreement of July 9, 1921, between U. B. of C. and J. of A. and lATSE relative to distribution of work 2184 Exhibit B — Oi'iginal basic studio agreement and rules of pro- cedure between unions and major companies, effective November 29, 1926 2184-2186 Exhibit C — Clo.sed-shop agreement between unions and major com- panies, effective January 2, 1936 2186 Exhibit D — Interim agreement between carpenters and major com- panies, effective July 2, 1946, known as the treaty of Beverly Hills " 2186-2188 Exhibit E — Interim agreement between unions and Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, effective June 29, 1946 2189-2190 Exhibit F — Letter to all former studio employees from Richard P. Walsh, international president, lATSE, relative to their return- ing to work 2190-2192 Exhibit G — Agreement between grips' local SO and carpenter.s' local 946 relative to distribution of work, effective November 13, 1945_ 2192 Exhibit H — Report of A. F. of L. three-man committee after investi- gation of Hollywood disputes 2193-2194 Exhibit I— Clarification of December decision 2194-2195 Exhibit .T — Letter to Richard F. Walsh from William Green rela- tive to clarification 2195 Exhibit K — Emergency working card issued by lATSE local 468 to Elzyn Snow 2195-2196 Exhibit L — Letter to Richard F. WaLsh from William Green, trans- mitting copy of clarification 2196 VI CONTENTS Cobb, Zach Lamar — Continued Charges filed before NLRB, etc.— Continued ^ae® Exliibit M — Letter to Association of Motion Picture Producers from Richard F. Walsh, transmitting copy of clarification 2196 Exhibit N — Letter to all Hollywood lATSE locals and members from Richard F. Walsh relative to anticipated lock-out 2197 Exhibit O — Letter to members of grips' local 80 from James L. Noblitt, recording secretary, lATSB, relative to cessation of service to independent studios — . 2197 Exhibit P — Application of lATSE to NLRB for certification as bargaining agent _ 2198 Exhibit Q — Agreement between producers and lATSE, effective August 15. 1947 2198-2200 Statement and testimony of 2162-2239 Committee appointed by Archbishop Cantwell of Los Angeles, excerpt from report of the 1971-1972 Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy, California Assembly, excerpts from report of the 1710, 1711, 1713, 1714, 1716-1717, 1718 Communist afliliations of Herbert K. Sorrell, information from files of House Committee on Un-American Activities relative t(>-_ 2360-23(>l. 236rj-2370 Communist-controlled organizations referred to in report of Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities in California. {See Fact-Finding Committee, etc. ) Conference of Studio Unions : Dossier of action taken by, on matters promoted or opposed by the Comnuinist Party, from August 12, 1942, to September 5, 1946. excerpt from 1621-1622 Message to studio workers issued in February 1946 by group of A. F. of L. unions relative to strike called by 1718-1719 Proposed plan for settlement of jurisdictional disputes submitted by, to Pat Casey, excerpts from 2096 Congress of American-Soviet Friendship, excerpts from reports of 1606, 1924- 1925 Contract (1942) between Society of Motion Picture Interior Decorators, etc., and producers, excerpts from 2033 Contracts not indexed above, ?,e6 Agreements, or under name of organiza- tion. Contractual history between producers and painters and set decorators, telegram from Charles Boren to Burton A. Zorn showing 2308-2310 Data on attendance at school, church, and the movies 1586 Definition of "strike," from Public Lhw 101 of 1947 2304 Dismissal of charges filed before NLRB on behalf of — A group of individuals against lATSE, lAM, and other unions, ex- cerpts from 2265 Individual members of carpenters' local 946 against major motion- picture producers and lATSE, excerpts from 2201, 2202 Disney, Walt (see also Walt Disney Productions) : Advertisements in Variety, to his employees on strike, and their reply 1913-1914 Testimony before Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities, in October 1947, excerpts from 1722-1724, 1743-1744 Doherty, William C, statement and testimony of 2133-2157 Dossier of action taken by Conference of Studio Unions on matters pro- moted or opposed by the Communist Party, from August 12, 1942, to Sep- tember 5, 1946, excerpt from 1621-1622 Dunne, Father George H., of Loyola University: Article in Commonweal 1968. 1969-1971 Testimony at hearings in Los Angeles, excerpt from 1964-1968 Editorials or articles in magazines or newspapers, or excerpts from. (See Articles or editorials, etc.) Emergency working card issued by lATSE local 468 to Elzyn Snow ( Cobb exhibit K) 219.5-2196 Excerpts from magazine or newspaper articles or editorials. (See Ar- ticles or editorials, etc.) Excerpts from minutes of meetings. {See Minutes of, etc. ; also under name of organizations.) Excerpts from testimony of witnesses at earlier hearings. (See under name of witness.) CONTENTS VII Excerpts not indexed above, see under principal classification. Exhibits. {SeeCohh.) Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities in California : Communist-controlled organizations referred to in report : Page American Youth for Democracy 1556 Labor's Non-Partisari League 1551 League of American Writers 1626 Motion Picture Democratic Committee 1549 National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, Southern Cali- fornia Branch 1553, 1555 United American Spanish Aid Committee 1555 Excerpts from report of the 1549-1557 Testimony of Howard Rushmore before the, excerpts from 1625-1626 Federal Bureau of Investigation, report from the, relative to signatures of Herbert K. Sorrell 2280 Freed, Emil, Communist Party candidate for Congress from Fifteenth Con- gressional District of California, record of 1552 Grirs' local 80, a'^reement with carpenters' local 946 relative to distribution of work, effective November 13, 1945 (Cobb exhibit G) 2192 Harris, John, excerpt from testimony of, before Committee on Un-American Activites in California 2407 Hinst, Paul, statement and testimony of 1683-1691 Honor certificate issued to John R. Robinson by Marine Engineers Beneficial xVssoeiation 2381 How M-G-M Bought Up Entire Culver City Police Force (article from Holly- wood Sun and affidavit of Rex L. Zimmerman, former police officer )_ 2159-2161 Hutcheson. \YiIliam L., statement and testimony of 1577-1585 Hynes, Capt. William F., excerpts from testimony of, before Committee on Un-American Activities in California 2400-2404 Independent motion-picture companies, list of 2171-2172 IBEW, local 40, jurisdictional agreement with lATSE local 695, effective January 15. 1948 1j632-1634 Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, interim agreement with unions, effective June 29, 1946 (Cobb exhibit E) 2189-2190 Informational Bulletin No. 1, issued by lATSE, excerpt from 1558 Information from files of House Committee on Un-American Activities relative to Communist affiliations of Herbert K. Sorrell— 2360-2361, 2365-2370 Instructions to department heads, excerpts from 2178 Intercity telephone conference. {See Telephone conference, etc.) Interim agreement between carpenters and major producing companies, effective July 2, 1946, known as the treaty of Beverly Hills (Cobb exhibit D) 2186-2188 Interim agreement between unions and Independent Motion Picture Pro- ducers Association, effective June 29, 1946 (Cobb exhibit E) 2189-2190 Intermediate report of NLRB in hearing involving producers and Lodge 1185, lAM. excerpts from 2083-2090 International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, etc. : Agreement of February 5, 1925, with U. B. of C. and J. of A. relative to distribution of work (excerpt from Cobb exhibit H) 1592 Agreement with producers, effective August 15, 1947 (Cobb exhibit Q) 2198-2200 Application to NLRB for certification as bargaining agent (Cobb ex- hibit P) 2198 Charges filed before National Labor Relations Board against, on behalf of individual members of carpenters' local 946 2165-2183 Dismissal of charges, excerpts from 2201, 2202 Informational Bulletin No. 1, excerpt from 1558 Jurisdictional settlement agreement of January 15, 1948, with local 40, IBEW 1632-1634 Letter to members of local 80 from James L. Noblitt, recording secre- tary, relative to cessation of service at independent studios (Cobb exhibit O) ■ 2197 Report of President George E. Browne to 1940 lATSE convention. excerpts from 2029-2030 Resolution presented to 1940 convention 1870 Statement of general executive board to 1945 convention 2352-2355 VIII CONTENTS Jurisdictional agreement of January 15, 1948, between local 40, IBEW, ^^se and local 695, lATSE 1632-1634 Kearns, Hon. Carroll D., chairman of the special subcommittee, statement relative to — Broadened scope of hearing 1537 Reason for additional hearings in Washington, excerpts from 1515, 1518 Resumption of hearings 2241 Kibre, Jeff, report of, to — CIO officials, excerpts from 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753 Goldblatt, Louis, secretary of the State CIO, excerpts from__ 1756, 1757, 1766 Reed, Bob, of Actors Equity, excerpts from 1754, 1755, 1756 Landis, Hon. Gerald W., acting chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, statement relative to broadened scope of hearing. _ 1537 Levy, Matthew M., statement and testimony of 1514-1558, 1605-1626. 1701-1746, 1816-1833, 2344-2365, 2367-2371, 2400-2408, 2420, 2427-2432. Lindelof, Lawrence P., statement and testimony of 1600-1605 List of independent motion-picture companies 2171-2172 List of major motion-picture production companies 2170-2171 Letters and telegrams to — Actors who passed through picket lines, from Pomona Valley Central Labor Council, excerpt from 2347 All former studio employees, from Richard F. Walsh (Cobb exhibit F) 2190-2192 All Hollywood lATSE locals and members, from Richard F. Walsh (Cobb exhibit N) 2197 Association of Motion Picture Producers, from Richard F. Walsh (Cobb exhibit M) 2196 Bioff, William, personal representative of lATSE International Presi- dent George E. Browne, from George E. Browne and other inter- national officers 2029-2030 Casey, Pat, from William L. Hutcheson 1520-1521 Cobb, Zach Lamar, from — NLRB regional director at Los Angeles, Calif 2201, 2202 Thomas, Earl E., secretary, Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters 1837 Davis, William H , chairman, NLRB, from Herbert K. Sorrell 2039 Denham, Robert N., general counsel, NLRB, from Zach Lamar Cobb 2203-2204 Ellsworth, Ted, from Roy M. Brewer 2103-2104 Green, Gene L., Director, Division of Disputes, Tenth Regional War Labor Board, from Herbert K. Sorrell 2037 Green, William, president, American Federation of Labor, from — Duffy, Frank, general secretary, U. B. of C. and J. of A 2146 Lindelof, Lawrence P 1939-1941 Nelson, Donald M., president. Society of Motion Picture Producers 2101-2102 Shea, Thomas J., assistant international president, lATSE 1533 Walsh, Richard F 1524-1527, 1528-1531 Hartley, Hon. Fred A., Jr., from — Tenney, Senator Jack D., of California Legislature 1542, 1544 Walsh, Richard F 1540, 1702 Hudson, Roy, trade-union secretary of the Communist Party in New York, from INIac Weiss, acting State assistant secretary of the Com- munist Party in Ohio, excerpts from 1758 Hutcheson, William L., from Felix H. Knight 2135 Johnston, Eric, president, Motion Picture Association of America, from William L. Hutcheson 1523 Kearns, Hon. Carroll D., chairman of the special subcommittee, from — Benjamin, Maurice B 2161 Bruno, Dominic L., assistant technical director, Eagle-Lion Studio. 2421 Ellsworth, Ted, business representative. Motion Picture Costumers Local No. 705, lATSE 1835-1836 Independent Make-up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild 1958 Levy, Matthew M., or excerpts from 134, 1535, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1709, 1829-1832 CONTENTS IX Letters and telegrams to — Continued Kearns, Hon. Tarroll D., chairman, from — Continued ^^s® Lessing, Gnnther R., vice president and general counsel, Walt Disney Productions 2114 ilembership of Local 63-A 1958 Screen Publicists Guild, Local 1489, and Mr. Brewer's reply to Guild 1958 Tenney, Senator Jack B., of California Legislature 2223 Walsh, Richard F 1957 Knight, Felix H., vice president. A. F. of L. ; chairman, three-man connnittee, from William' L. Hutcheson 2135 Komaroff, Michael, representing a group of individuals, from Howard F. LeP.aron, regional director, NLRB 2265 Lambert, Walter, State trade-union director and Communist Party official in San Francisco, Calif., from — Hudson, Roy 1758-1759 Kibre, Jeft, excerpts trom__ 1759, 1760 Landis, Hon. Gerald W., from undisclosed writer, excerpts from— 2121,2123 Lessing.' Gunther, vice president and general counsel, Walt Disney Productions, from Herbert K. Sorrell, excerpt from 2019 Levy, Matthew M., from Michael G. Luddy, counsel for lATSE 2400 Lindelof, Lawrence P., from — Green, Willianf 1938 Sorrell, Herbert K 2038 Local Union 644 of the Brotherhood of Painters, from major motion- picture producers 2291 Loew's, Inc., from Stewart Meacham, LRB regional director, Los Angeles, Calif 2267 McCann, Irving G., general counsel to the committee, from L. P. Lindelof, enclosing correspondence with Thomas Ranford 1836 Member of grips' local 80, lATSE, from James L. Noblitt, recording secretary (Cobb exhibit O) 2197 Motion-incture producers, from Pat Casey 229G-2291 Mussa, Ed, business representative, screen set designers' local 1421, from William H. Davis 2039 Nelson, Donald, president, Society of Motion Picture Producers, from the Conference of Studio Unions 2102 Owens, Hon. Thomas L., from John R. Robinson 2375 Pestana & Esterman, from Robert N. Denham, NLRB general coimsel 2267 Pomona Valley Central Labor Council, from William Green 2347 Screen Publicists Guild, from Roy M. Brewer 1959 Society of Motion Picture Art Directors, etc., from members of CSU., etc-1 2092 Sorrell, Herbert K., from — Brown, George T., of National Labor Relations Board 2037 Casev, Pat 2285-2286 Green, Gene L 2036, 2038, 2039 Mangold, Vernon K., recording secretary, painters' local 644 1888 Nelson. Donald - 2102 Preston. Lewis B 2103 Tongue, Thomas H., NLRB arbitrator in dispute 2040 Weitzman, Bernard, of National War Labor Board 2037 Thomas, Hon. J. Parnell, chairman of the House Committee on Un- American Activities, from Rov M. Brewer, international representa- tive of lATSE - 1618 Tindall. Rov, business manager, local 40, IBEW, from Felix H. Knight—"- 1629 Walsh, Richard F., from— Green, William 1523, 1527, 1532, 1816, 2195, 2196 Hartley, Hon. Fred A., Jr l-'i41, 1702 Kearns, Hon. Carroll D., excerpts from, stating reason for additional hearings 1515 Zorn, Burton A., from Charles Boren, showing contractual history between producers and painters and set decorators 2308-2310 Machinists' representatives' testimony before three-man A. F. of L. com- mittee, excerpts from 2149, 2150-2151, 2152 X CONTENTS Magazine or newspaper articles or editorials, or excerpts from. {See Articles or editorials, etc.) ^^s® Major motion-picture producers, charges filed before National Labor Rela- tions Board against, on behalf of individual members of carpenters' local 946 2165-2183 Dismissal of above charges, excerpts from 2201, 2202 Major motion-picture production companies, list of 2170-2171 Manifesto of the World Labor Conference, excerpt from 1622 Message to studio workers issued in February 1946 by group of A. F. of Tj. unions relative to strike called by CSU 1718-1719 Meetings, minutes of. (See Minutes of, etc.; also under name of organ- izations.) Meyer, Fred, studio executive. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., excerpts from testimony at Los Angeles hearing 2106 Minutes, excerpts from. {See under name of organization.) Minutes of meeting of — Labor relations managers, on — February 21, 1945, with unit managers' committee 2313-2314 February 27, 1945, with business agents of locals 44, 80, and 728, and Carl Cooper 2315-2318 February 28, 1945, with "Cappy" DuVal 2318-2319 March 5, 1945 2319 March 6, 1945 2320-2321 Producers' labor committee on— February 15, 1945 2313 July 2, 1946, with union representatives (treaty of Beverly Hills) 2187-2188 September 12, 1946, excerpts from 2074,2076 Studio executives and labor relations managers, March 12, 1945 2321 Motion Picture Studio Carpenters' Local 946 : Agreement with grips' local 80 relative to distribution of work, effective November 13, 1945 (Cobb exhibit G) 2192 Agreement with major producing companies, effective July 2, 1946, known as the treaty of Beverly Hills (Cobb exhibit D) 2188-2188 Charges filed before National Labor Relations Board on behalf of individual members against major motion-picture producers and lATSE 2165-2183 Dismissal of above charges, excerpts from 2201, 2202 Moving Picture Painters Union, Local No. 644, minutes of — Regular meeting of — May 19, 1941, excerpts from 1879 November 17, 1947, excerpt from 1990 Special meeting of — October 26, 1947, excerpt from 1976 September 21, 1947 1974-1975 Mulkey, George A., statement and testimony 1627-1678 National Labor Relations Board : Application of lATSE to, for certification as bargaining agent (Cobb exhibit P) ) 2198 Award of arbitrator in case involving major motion-picture producers and screen-set designers, etc 2040-2047 Charges filed before, on behalf of individual members of carpenters' local 946 against major motion-picture producers and lATSE — 2165-2183 Dismissal of above charges, excerpts from 2201, 2202 Intermediate report in hearing involving producers and Lodge 1185, lAM. excerpts from 2083-2090 Report of regional director on challenge of ballots cast in screen-set designers' election of May 7, 1945, excerpts from 2053-2055, 2056-2057 Newspaper or magazine articles or editorials, or excerpts from. {See Articles or editorials, etc.) Original basic studio agreement and rules of procedure between unions and major companies, effective Nov. 26. 1926 (Cobb exhibit B) 2184-2186 Press release issued by Walt Disney Productions, denying charges made by Herb Sorrell 2114-2115 Producers' 1942 contract with Society of Motion Picture Interior Deco- rators, etc., excerpts from 2033 CONTENTS XI Pi-oposed plan for settlement of jurisdictional disputes, submitted by CSU ^ae^ to Pat Casey, excerpts from 2096 Public Law 101 of 1947, definition of "strike," from 2304 Recomujendations of Reverends Delvin and Coogan relative to settlement of strike, excerpts from Tidings 2304 Record of Emil Freed, Communist Party candidate for Congress from Fifteenth Congressional District of California 1552 Report of three-man A. F. of L. committee after investigation of Holly- wood disputes (Cobb exhibit H) 2193-2194 Reports, or excerpts from. (See name of organization or individual.) Resolution adopted January 4, 1945, by Tenth Regional War Labor Board__ 2039 Resolution No. 60, adopted by carpenters' convention, April 22, 1946, and excerpts from transcript of convention discussion thereon 1822, 1823-1827 Resolution presented to 1940 lATSE convention 1870 Robinson, John R. : Honor certificate issued to, by Marine Engineers Beneficial Associa- tion 2381 Statement and testimony of 2375-2398,2408-2419,2443-2445 Rules of procedure under motion-picture agreement of November 26, 1926 2185-2186 Rushmore, Howard, excerpt from testimony of, before Committee on Un- American Activities in California 1625-1626 Sellers, Clark, excerpts from testimony of, before Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities in California 1607-1608, 1612-1615 Society of Motion Picture Interior Decorators, etc., excerpts from 1942 contract with producers 2033 Sorrell. Herbert K. : Information from files of House Committee on Un-American Activi- ties relative to Communist affiliation of 2360-2361, 2365^2370 Report from Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to signa- tures of 2280 Statement and testimony of 1837-1955,1972- 1990, 1994-1995, 1998-2001, 2004, 2012-2013, 2017-2024, 2030-2038, 2048-2053, 2056-2081, 2091-2096, 2100-2104, 2111-2115, 2121-2132 Sponsors of People's World annual drive, jmrtial list of 1623 Statement of— General executive board to 1945 lATSE convention 2352-2355 Kearns, Hon. Carroll D., chairman of the special subcommittee, rela- tive to- Broadened scope of hearing 1537 Reason for additional hearings in Washington, excerpts from. 1515, 1518 Resumption of hearings 2241 Landis, Hon. Gerald W., relative to broadened scope of hearing 1537 "Strike." definition of, from Public Law 101 of 1947 2304 Studio Carpenters Local 946. (See Motion Picture Studio Carpenters Local 946.) Telegrams. (See Letters and telegrams, etc.) Telegram to Burton A. Zorn from Charles Boren showing contractual his- tory between producers and painters and set decorators 2308-2310 Telephone conference between arbitrators and representatives of CSU ard Screen Actors' Guild, excerpt from transcript of 1529-1530 Testimony of witnesses at earlier hearings, excerpts from. (See under name of witness.) Transcript of intercity telephone conference. (See Telephone conference, etc.) Treaty of Beverly Hills, interim agreement between carpenters and major producing companies, effective July 2. 1946, known as the (Cobb Exhibit I)) 2186-2188 Ultimatum of April 18, 1946, from group of A. F. of L. unions to Central Labor Council of Los Angeles 1720 Un-American Activities in California, Committee on. (See Fact-Finding Committee, etc.) XII CONTENTS United Brotherhoorl of Cai'i)enters and Joiners of America : Agreement of February 5, 1925, between local 1632 and lATSE local ^'^s* 37, excerpt from lr)92 Agreement of July 9, 1921, with lATSE relative to distribution of work (Cobb Exhibit A) 2184 Resolution No. 60, adopted at convention, April 22, 1946, and excerpt from transcript of convention discussion thereon 1822, 1823-1824 Walsh, Richard F., statement and testimony of 1678-1683, 2434-2441 Walt Disney Productions, press release issued by, denying charges made by Herb Sorrell 2114-2115 World Labor Conference, excerpt from manifesto of 1622 Zorn, Burton A. : Statement and testimony of 2241-2344,2399-2400 Telegram from Charles Boren showing contractual history between producers and painters and set decorators 2308-2310 JUKISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTUEE INDUSTRY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington^ D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, before Carroll D. Kearns, chairman of the special subcommittee. Mr. Kearns. The committee will be in order. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at this time may I place in the record something which w^as requested the other day? Mr. Kearns. Yes, proceed. Mr. IVIcCann. The other day it was requested of Mr. Brown, the international president of the International Association of Machinists, that he should submit for the record the bylaws of Cinema Lodge 1185 with reference to the requirements that members of the union could not pass through a picket line. I am now reading from article XI, section 3 of the bylaws of Cinema Lodge 1185 : Any member of Cinema Lodge 1185 found guilty of not complying with the desires of the majority of the lodge of conduct unbecoming a member of this lodge, of double-shifting, of scabbing, of violating a bona fide A. F. of L. picket line, or of attempting to represent the lodge without permission or sanction, may be punished by either reprimand, fine, or expulsion. Fines in excess of $50 must be approved by the executive council of the grand lodge, as per article K, section 7, of the constitution for local lodges. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to receive in evidence for reference purposes only, the constitution of the Grand Lodge of International Machinists. There are two volumes. One is amended by referendum vote July 1934. and the other is revised by the committee on law, as recommended by the Twenty-first Convention of the International Association of Machinists held in the city of New York, October 29 to November 7, 1945. May these be accepted, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The documents above referred to were filed with the committee.) Mr. McCann. Now, Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask if the industry representative who is present, Mr. Clark, has ready for submission to the committee the minutes of the industry producers' committee from February 15 to the end of March 1945 ? Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Chairman, those minutes have been sent for. They have not yet arrived. Mr. McCann. I would like to reaffirm the request to Mr. Benjamin and to the industry, and reaffirm the request made yesterday by 1513 1514 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES lATSE's counsel, Mr. Levy, and request Mr. Hutcheson to submit to the committee the record of the convention of the carpenters which followed the meeting in Miami. We will return that to Mr. Hutcheson after going over it and receiving in evidence such excerpts for the record as refer to the resolution which you submitted to the August meeting of the executive council. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman, in reply to that I will see that there is a copy sent to the committee from our office. I do not have it with me. . Mr. McCann. I understand that, sir. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, we have always been granted any in- formation from both the labor organizations and the industry, so we know it will be here. Mr. McCann. I just wanted to get that in the record that we are proceeding in anticipation of the receipt of these documents. Mr. Kearns. Is that all you have on that? Mr. McCann. That is all I have, sir. Mr. Kearns. At this time, I would like to call Attorney Matthew Levy to the stand. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment, if you do not mind ? Mr. Hutcheson is leaving at 1 o'clock. He is very anxious to hear Mr. Casey, if it is possible, before he has to take the train. Mr. Kearns. Yes, we will do what we can on that itinerary. Mr. Levy, I believe you have been sworn ? Mr. Levy. I think I have been sworn. Mr. Kearns. By the way, you are testifying at your own request; is that correct ? Mr. Levy. At the request of the lATSE. Mr. Kearns. I might state at this time, inasmuch as Mr. Levy has requested time to place information in the record, if counsel or any of the other groups here wish to be heard also they will have the same courtesy extended to them. If they do not wish to make any statement for the record, if they will be sworn when requesting that they submit a brief, that also will be submitted for the record. We have no idea of discrimination here. TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY, ATTORNEY EOR lATSE— Recalled Mr. Owens. Might I say, Mr, Chairman, if they are submitting a brief, then it would only be in answer to things they have heard here and they would not be raising new matter. Mr. Kearns. It is understood it would pertain to the Hollywood jurisdictional strife, and something that has been submitted in con- troversy to the cominittee. Mr. Levy, you may proceed. Mr. Levy. I am special counsel for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada in the Hollywood jurisdictional dispute. I have had close professional contact with the situation from its inception in the early part of 1945, or the latter part of 1944. I have been requested by the organization which I represent to make the following statement : MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1515 By letter dated January 26, 1948, the chairman of this subcommittee, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns, wrote President Richard F. Walsh of the lATSE, inviting him to appear at these hearings in Washington. One sentence of that letter reads as follows, and I quote : The reason for tins additional hearing is that an examination of the record and of the testimony heretofore received by my committee indicates that the committee of three vice presidents of tlie American Federation of Labor was deceived by some of those who appeared before them. In the opening statement made by the chairman of this subcom- mittee, Congressman Kearns, appears the following statement : It appears from the testimony that the most recent of the jurisdictional strikes in Hollywood beginning in September 1946, might have been the result of a deception which vpas perpetrated upon the three vice presidents of the American Federation of Labor vpho were appointed by order of their executive council in October 1946, to make a final determination with respect to the jurisdictional rights of certain unions whose members were employed in the Hollywood studios. Then the opening statement of the learned chairman of the sub- committee states: I am sure you gentlemen understand the gravity of my proposed findings. You will be given an opportunity to present any evidence which you may have to dissuade me from making such a rep(5rt to the Congress. On behalf of the lATSE, I want to express our appreciation to the subcommittee for giving us this opportunity at the hearings in Washington, with respect to that item in Congressman Kearns' letter and in Congressman Kearns' opening statement. There is another item in that statement which I shall come to later. I do not want to repeat the statements that were made by Inter- national President Walsh when he testified with respect to the 1925, the so-called 1926 agreement. While no names were mentioned in Congressman Kearns' letter and no names were mentioned in Congress- man Kearns' opening statement with respect to deception, the ques- tions presented by Counsel McCann during the hearings in Washing- ton indicated that it was at least the assumption of the general counsel of this committee that it was Mr. Walsh or someone on behalf of the lATSE who, to use the language heretofore indicated, perpetrated the deception. It is for that reason I have been requested by the lATSE to proceed in response to that. I think it would be important to point out at this time that any inference that the committee was deceived is not a statement made by any member of the committee at any time, either before the execu- tive council of the American Federation of Labor, or under oath before this committee. The statement made by the member of the executive council com- mittee of three did not claim that the committee was deceived about anything. On page 1665 of the August 18, 1947, minutes, Mr. Doherty testified that he did not know that the February 5, 1925, agreement was repudiated by the carpenters' international, and that he did not find that out, as was intimated in some of the questions, months later, but he found that out, to use his language on page 1665 of the minutes of August 18, 1947 : Shortlf following the issuance of the decision. 1516 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I think it would be material to read into the record portions of the minutes of the hearings before the three-man committee in Holly- wood, of the testimony presented by the carpenters themselves with respect to this 1925 so-called 1926 agreement. I am giving it to you, sii-s, verbatim. On pages 31 to 32 of the carpenters' minutes of the hearings of the three-man committee in Hollywood, Mr. Cambiano, the general repre- sentative of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, together with his colleagues, were present before the three- man committee. Mr. Cambiano testified as follows, and I quote: The only change that I know of which took place since 1921 — there is no other agreement approved by the two internationals. There was a time here when one of our carpenters' locals was taken up when local 946 came into being. A local group here got together with certain lA people to work out some agreement, which never was submitted to and never had been approved by our general othce. Then again Mr. Cambiano stated : I base my whole case here around the 1921 agreement between the American Federation of Labor and the lATSE. When you read that you will And that I have predicated our whole case around that. On page 43, Mr. Cambiano testified i The only thing which may develop is that Walsh may take the position, if we don't arrive at a satisfactory settlement, that they will want to build the sets. I read that, sirs, because of the fact that it shows it was the con- tention of the carpenters before the three-man committee that it was the 1921 agreement, not the 1925-26 agreement which had ef- fect and that the committee knew what the position of the carpen- ters was before they rendered their decision on the 26th of December of 1915. I read it also because of the fact that it is made clear, in the po- sition taken by Mr. Walsh in his testimony taken before the three- man committee — and I refer to page 6 of Mr. Walsh's testimony, in which he presented the 1919 agreement, the 1921 agreement, and the 1925-26 agreement. Mr. Walsh testified on page 7 : That is signed by the local unions out here and signed by our local out here also. This is the agreement that we worked under from 1926 until we went on strike in 1933. So, first, not only the committee not claim deception itself; sec- ondly, both contending sides presented before the committee their respective positions and the conniiittee decided in favor of one side or the other, and came to a conclusion on the basis of conflicting tes- timony, and the testimony was not conflicting, as a matter of fact. Therefore, the statement which was made, and the questions which were asked indicating there was any attempted or actual decep- tion on the part of anybody on behalf of the lATSE, are statements that should be withdrawn. I think I should also point out to the committee here something that was referred to, I believe, in one phase of the questions that were presented by Congressman Owens, that Mr. Zach Lamar Cobb, who represents the carpenters, in a sworn complaint involving this Hollywood jurisdictional strike, stated in paragraph 15 as follows : Beginning in 1921 and continuing until the present time, repi'esentatives of defendant carpenters' union and representatives of the defendant lATSE, have MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1517 engagefl in a series of negotiations between themselves and with defendant luotion-pictiire companies, and have entered into arbitration before other rep- resentatives of tlie American Federation of Labor with the view of settling existing disputes and controversies over the relative services to be rendered to defendant motion-picture companies by members of said respective unions. Said negotiations and arbitrations have resulted in a series of agreements, decisions and awards constituting a fair and practical division of motion- picture employment between the members of said unions as is set forth in detail hereinafter. Then in the next paragraph of that complaint, paragraph 16, the agreement of July 9, 1921, is set forth. The next paragraph, paragraph 17, the agreement in question, Feb- ruary 5, 1925, is set forth. Then in paragraph 18 it is stated, and I quote : In March 193G, defendant William L. Hutcheson, president of defendant car- penters' union, and George Brown, president of defendant lATSE, ratified the aforesaid agreement of February .'i, i;)25, as the basis for settlement of contro- versies between the respective unions over the allocation of w^ork to be per- formed by members thereof for defendant motion-picture companies. At pages 30 to 31 of the minutes of the hearing before the three- man committee Mr. Kearns. You are speaking of the A. F. of L. committee now ? Mr. Le\^. That is correct. Mr. Doherty points out that on July 1, 1928 — he points this out to the carpenters — the constitution of the lATSE was filed with the American Federation of Labor showing "stage employees", which was construed as granting jurisdiction over "stage carpenters, jDroperty men, stage electricians, and all other stage employees" to the lATSE. Mr. Doherty pointed out to Mr. Cambiano, Mr. Skelton, and the other representatives of the carpenters' organization on page 31, that that was the lA basis for claiming property men and stage carpenters. I think in passing I ought to mention here that far from indicating that the committee was deceii^ed. Mr. Doherty stated at page 1065 of the minutes of August 18, 1947, before this congressional subcommit- tee that while he learned Mr. Hutcheson claimed that the 1925-26 agreement had been repudiated bj^ the carpenters, nevertheless, "that did not alter our opinion" with respect to the decision that they were making. That certainly is a far cry from indicating any deception. I think I should point out here, too, that the so-called clarification which was issued in August 1946 and was the basis on which or the spark which caused the second large strike — tlie fourth in point of time in recent years — was not issued by the three-man committee or by the A. F. of L. executive council's direction, on any claim of fraud or deceit whatsoever. Mr. Kearxs. Mr. Levy, for the record, when you mention the term "committee" will you state whether it was a congressional committee or the A. F. of L. committee ? Mr. Levtt. Yes, sir. I referred just then to the so-called clarification of August 16. 1946, issued by the American Federation of Labor committee of three vice presidents of the executive council. Mr. Kearns. Thank you. Mr. Levy. I think it also would be important to point out here that in its decision or award of December 26, 1945, the A. F. of L. committee of three did not indicate that it assumed anything about the 1926 agreement being in force or not being in force, because it 67.383 — 48— vol. 3 2 1518 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES states, at page 14 of the orange or yellow-covered pamphlet which we have used as the basis for our testimony here : The committee rules that the division-of-work agreement entered into * * * on February 5, 1925, and known as the 1926 agreement, be placed in full force and effect immediately. I think Mr. Walsh pointed out yesterday that with respect to one of the organizations involved in this internecine labor strife the plumb- ers' organization, the agreement which was put into effect immedi- ately was not even signed by anybody. It was not even in effect. As a matter of fact it was being negotiated currently. If you will look at the plumbers' directive you will see the com- mittee said that this was a fair division of work, even though the parties had not yet agreed to it. I think I should point out here also that at page 206 of the minutes of February 18, 1948, 3 or 4 days ago, in which the minutes of the Miami meeting of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor are quoted, it is stated that Mr. Hutcheson — contended that the agreement of February 1925 provided that it must be ap- proved by the presidents of the two internationals. I have a pliotostatic copy of that agreement of February 5, 1925, before me, and there is no such provision whatever in that agreement, that that agreement must be approved by the internationals in 1925 or '26. Finally with respect to that item I want to say that Mr. Hutcheson testified as follows : That when the agreement was sent to the office of the carpenters he refused to approve it. and yet Mr. Cambiano, on pages 31 and 32, before the A. F. of L. committee of three testified : The agreement was never submitted to the general office of the carpenters. Now there was another statement made in the opening statement by the Honorable Carroll D. Kearns, the learned chairman of this sub- committee, which I want to read and which I want to take up next: A careful analysis of the testimony heretofore received indicates that the jurisdictional strike in September of 1946, which has continued to the present time in the Hollywood studios, is probably the result of collusion between the producers and the lATSE. Therefore, gentlemen, unless you have evidence to the contrary to present to my subcommittee it is my intention to make a finding of fact that the present labor dispute in Hollywood is the result of a lock-out by the employers after having consjjired with certain officials of the lATSB to create incidents which would make it impossible for the members of those vniions affiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions to continue to work in ^the studios. Then Mr. Kearns, putting the onus and the burden upon us to prove our innocence, states : I am sure you gentlemen understand the gravity of my proposed finding. You will be given an opportunity to present any evidence which you may have to disuade me from making such a report to Congress. Again on behalf of the lATSE I want to express our appreciation to the honorable chairman of this subcommittee for the privilege of presenting our proof in that regard. At the outset I want to say — and I have had occasion I think, al- though my office and residence are in New York City, to have visited Hollywood six or seven times since the jurisdictional strife started there in recent years after the end of October of 1944. I have spent months there. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1519 On behalf of the lATSE I want to say there has been and there is no colhision or conspiracy between the lATSE and the producers, or any of them, and that if there is a conspiracy in this jurisdictional situation the conspiracy is on the other foot. I want to present, in response to the permission granted me by the subcommittee, some items in support of that situation. You will recollect that the strike in March of 1945 was claimed to have resulted from the fact that there were some 50, 60, or 70 set decorators whom the producers refused to negotiate with, insofar as they had become affiliates of the painters' organization connected with the Conference of Studio Unions. It was said that that was the reason for the strike. It has always been the position of the lATSE — that was one of the first things Mr. Walsh and I discovered when we went out to Holly- wood— that as a matter of fact that was merely the spark which set this strike off and that the reasons for the strike, the basic reasons, were something entirely diflferent. Let me mention one of them at this point. Here I quote from the minutes of the carpenters before the American Federation of Labor executive council committee at pages 7 to 8 on December 6, 1945. Mr. Cambiano testified : I have instructed our representative, Jim Skelton, here, not to resort to any stoppage of work, strikes or otherwise — - This was before the March 1945 strike — until I had an opportunity to come in. Parenthetically I want to say, come in not for the set decorators, but come in for carpenters before the set decorators strike in March 1945. But it got so bad that it became necessary for me to communicate with the labor-relations department of the studios here through our office that we have here under the six basic trades. They in turn would notify the producers that the carpenters were going to insist upon their just work. I want to emphasize the expression "just work," meaning the work to which they claim they are justly entitled. That to my mind — and I parenthesize this — is a euphemism in order to effectuate a desire to get work which someone else has under the jurisdictional arrangements among the parties. I have that among the records here on file with you. I am bringing this out to show that this thing has just been going along step by step, and it so hap- pened that when this turmoil of the painters took place it was through my recommendation that I was preparing for a strike vote — in the carpenters — to be honest with you, and when the painters' strike took place why of course it just was made to order for us and I instructed local 946 not to go through the picket line. That is not my statement, sir. That is the statement of the car- penters' general representative. Several attempts were made afterwards to settle with the car- penters, meaning Mr. Walsh and Mr. Hutcheson. We met here several times with Mr. Walsh and we met back East. The car- penters could have made a deal, at lest they said so, if we would have agreed to go back to work. 1520 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES This was during wartime. When I say we could have made a deal, I know that certain concessions were in the offing. Maybe we couldn't have gotten all that we wanted, but at least they said they were willing to make a deal if we were willing to return to work. Well, knowing the picture industry and knowing the background and knowing what the lA had in mind, namely, the entire motion-picture industry, I personally felt that it was about high time to clean the thing up once and for all times. What Mr. Cambiano said, when he said that, was that if it were necessary in order to obtain the jurisdiction which tlie carpenters felt the lA had had and were operating under, to go out on strike himself or to utilize the painters-set decorators strike as made to order for him, he was going to do it, wartime or no wartime, because there was a manpower shortage there and they felt they could close the studios. If they closed the studios during the war as the result of the manpower shortage then they would be in a position to dictate the terms upon which they were going to come back. I think I should point out to you, sir Mr. Landis. Your organization respects the picket line but this happened to be in wartime ; is that the point ? Mr. Levy. Our organization respects a picket line which is deter- mined to be a valid picket line on the basis of our organization's resjwn- sibility. Let me explain to you in a moment what I mean by that. With my knowledge of the labor movement and the legal phases of it, I think I can give you an answer. Organization A is out on strike. Organization B also works in the shop. Now before Organization A can expect Organization B not to cross the picket line, unless there was some arrangement between them, Organization A has to do several things. In the first place, Organiza- tion A must get the approval of its own international head. In the second place, if it is in a city where there is a central labor union or a central labor council, the central labor union or central labor council must approve the establishment of that picket line. The reason for that is obvious. In a trade such as the motion-picture industry when there are scores of crafts working under contract those crafts should not be placed in the position of violating either their contracts or their no-strike pledge on any subterfuge of refusing to recognize the picket line, unless at the outset they have an opportunity of discussing the nature of that picket line and the reason for it within the councils of organized labor. I say to you, sir, that the lATSE will recognize a legitimate picket line as determined by that organization, but it does not consider a picket line established to squeeze the lATSE out of the studios on a jurisdictional strike, as a legitimate picket line. On February 10, 194,5, Mr. William L. Hutcheson, the general presi- dent of the LTnited Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America wrote to Mr. Pat Casey a letter which I think is illuminating and ought to be presented to you now in full. It is short but to the point. In support of the proposition that the strike in March 194.5 was not even a bona fide set decorators' strike, but was, to use Mr. Cambiano's language, made to order for the carpenters : Dear Pat: This will acknowledge receipt of your communication of Febru- ary 9. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1521 I note with particular interest what you say in reference to the controversy over the set dressers who have affiliated with the interior decorators. Our mutual friend Herb Sorrell called me on tlie telephone some weeks ago in i-efer- ence to the matter and asked me to contact Bill Green, which I did, but as you state there was nothing Bill could do in reference to the matter. Following that Cambiano and Skelton, representing our organization, were informed tliat if the decorators went on strike our members were to recognize the picket line. You, Pat, know as well as I that for some time there has been a contention over prop making — meaning that the lATSE was doing the prop making and the car- penters wanted it. It had nothing to do with decorators or set dress- ing— and we, representing the brotherhood, have contended that the making of props Avas work that should be done by our members, and the thing has dragged along for a considerable length of time and I know of no reason why there should not be a final solution to the matter arrived at. I will come back to that in a moment, but I want to quote it here in view of the contention made by the carpenters that it was the 1921 agreement that should take effect, and not the 1925-26 agreement, Mr. Hutcheson has made this interesting statement, and I quote it verbatim : As far as going back to the understanding which you quote as having been entered into in 1921 is concerned, the time for that in my opinion has long since passed. I would suggest that you not deduct anything from the wages due our member.s- — Mr. Casey had stated that if your members don't work we will deduct wages — because if you do and they resent it by taking a vacation I shall not interfere in the matter. This was during wartime when there was a manpower shortage. Sincerely yours, WiLxiAM L. Hutcheson, General President. Now I have before me a printed letter dated February 6, 1945, issued by Studio Carpenters Local Union, No. 946 in Los Angeles, Calif., signed by J. W. Vamp, recording secretary, of Mr. Hutcheson's local out there. From this letter, which I should like to have incorpo- rated in the record, it will appear that in February of 1945 the carpen- ters were preparing for the strike which they felt was going to take place sometime in the early part of 1945 in the studio situation in Hollywood. I asked a question through Mr. McCann, who was courteous enough to ask the question of Mr. Hutcheson : What financial support did Mr. Hutcheson or his organization give to the painters' strike in 1945 ? Mr. Hutcheson stated it was none of the gentleman's business, and probably it isn't my personal business. But I should suppose that it is the business of any tribunal which is making an investigation of the causes of the Hollywood jurisdictional strife. I leave that to the conunittee. One other factor to indicate that the 1945 strike was not a set dec- orators' recognition strike, although that was the ostensible reason for it, was that Mr. Walsh, to my personal knowledge, made a definite agreement that the set decorators' situation could be resolved by an election before the proper tribunal, the National Labor Relations Board. That agreement was made in March of 1945. 1522 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES So Mr. Walsh agfreecl that he would abide by the final determination of the National Labor Relations Board. That did not take the situa- tion out of the fact that the cai-penters, the painters, and all the other crafts were banded together in cooperation with the Conference of Studio Unions for the purpose of taking the jurisdiction they felt they could capture by closing the studios. Mr, Walsh's agreement to abide by the tribunals of our Nation was ineffective. The record will show that Mr. Sorrell, the leader on the ground of the strike in Hollywood, made promises that before they would go back to work he would get for the carpenter^;' organization the jurisdic- tion which the carpenters claimed they were entitled to take from the lATSE. Mr. Owens. Where is that statement ? Mr. Levy. I have that here and I will present it. I say the record will show that. We collected the statements made by Mr. Sorrell as published in their own publication and in the quotes of the trade journals in Hollywood at the time. They are being collected and are being presented to this committee. I think Mr. Walsh testified in Los Angeles about the conferences that he had with all the international presidents, telling them, "Go back to work because our people want to work in the studios. Their jobs depend upon it." It was found out he could not persuade Mr. Hutcheson to get the people to go back to work unless Mr. Hutcheson got the jurisdiction, which he wanted and which he stated to be all work on wood, wood substitutes, and woodworking machinery. Now this was merely respecting a bona fide American Federation of Labor picket line because the set decorators went out on strike, not for wages, not for hours, not for working conditions, but for jurisdic- tion— it was not a matter for Mr. Hutcheson or for the general presi- dent of the carpenters' brotherhood to say, "Before I will let you go back to work I will insist upon getting all the jurisdiction which I have claimed I am entitled to from 1881." So I say to you that in adition to what has been stated I have here a photostatic copy of the demand for the jurisdictional work })resented by carpenters' local 946, at or about the time of the 1944 or 1945 strike, which indicates what the jurisdictional demands were that the car- penters wanted. My point is, gentlemen, that there was in my opinion a definite conspiracy between the carpenters' organization and the Conference of Studio Unions in order to freeze out the lATSE of jurisdiction in the Hollywood studios because it was felt that with a manpower shortage during the war they would be able to keep the studios closed, either through the picket line, through manpower shortage, through mass violence or anythinsr else. Mr. Owens. Weren't they a part of the same organization? Mr. Levy. No, sir. Mr. Owens. Weren't they all joined together in one group, the Conference of Studio Unions? Mr. Levy. At that time the carpenters were not in the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. Owens. The carpenters were not? Mr. Levy. No, sir; not in March of 1945. They came in later, officially. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1523 Now, much has been said about the chirification, and I think nothing has been said about the interpretation of the clarification. Mr. Landis. Did you get through with the collusion part of it? Mr. Levy. I think I have, sir, except that I w^ant to present those clippings of statements that I said Mr. Sorrell made with respect to the promises that he made that I will not have our people go back to the studios until the carpenters' "beefs,"' as he expressed it, are satisfied. There is one other factor I will come to later, but I want to get into the clarification now, because I think it is very material to have a complete picture of this situation before your committee? lleference has been made to a letter written by Mr. Hutcheson, general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America, on August 18, 1946. Mr. Owens. Is that the one to Mr. Johnston? Mr. Levy. Yes, sir ; I think it ought to be read : Mr. Eric Johnston, \Vashingto7U D. C. Dear Mr. Johnston : I herewith enclose with this communication a copy of interpretation — parenthetically I may say that later it was called the clarification, so as not to confuse it with a later interpretation of the clarification of the decision — I herewith enclose with this communication a copy of interpretation made by the committee that was appointed by the president of the American Federation of Labor to investigate the Hollywood situation and make report thereon. You will note by this interpretation that they definitely give to our members juris- diction over construction work on all studio sets. Furthermore, you will note that they specifically refer to the Brotherhood of Carpenters having jurisdiction over all carpenter work. Underlining "all carpenter work." This was accepted by the executive council and there will be sent, either through the secretary's oflSce, or the president's office of the federation, a copy of this communication to all producers and to the trades employed in the studios. I trust that the producers will accept this interpretation, as well as future interpretations, and see that same is observed. With kindest regards, I am, "Very truly yours, William L. Hutcheson. Mr. Owens. What is the date of that letter ? Mr. Levy. August 18, 1946. Mr. Owens. That was 2 days after the Mr. Levy. Clarification was issued. Mr. Green, however, president of the American Federation of La- bor, on August 27, 1946, was the date when Mr. Green sent the so- called clarification to Mr. Walsh. I want to read that letter : American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C, August 21, 1946. Mr. Richard F. Walsh, President, International Alliance of Theatrical State Employees — and so forth. Dear Sir and Brother: I enclose copy of a statement of clarification pre- pared by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright, and Doherty, of the American Federation of Labor, who rendered a decision in the jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture studios in Hollywood, Calif., dated December 26, 1945. Said 1524 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES statement is self-explanatory and is transmitted to you as a matter of informa- tion. It is sent you by direction of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. Fi'aternally yours, William Green, President, American Federation of Labor. I think, Congressman Landis and Congressman Owens — ^I am not sure whether Congressman Kearns is familiar with it — I think we ought to read Mr. Walsh's response, because I think that indicates quite clearly the official position of the lATSE. In view of the charge of collusion, I think this gives an answer, Mr. Owens. How did Mr. Green happen to enter into the picture? Mr. Levy. I assume that Mr. Green, as president of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, having directed the three-man committee to make what he called a clarification, but what was in effect a probable reversal of its earlier decision, decided to send the communications. Apparently it was felt when Mr. Hutcheson sent the communication on August 18, that that was not enough. Therefore, 9 days later, Mr. Green sent the communication. But he had no jurisdiction in the premises, as I shall point out in Mr. Walsh's letter: September 19, 1946. Mr. William Green, President, American, Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir and Brother : Receipt is hereby acknowledged of your letter of August 27, in which you enclose a paper described as "a statement of clarifica- tion" prepared by Brothers Knight, Birthright, and Doherty who, in December 1945, constituted a committee of the executive council of the American Federa- tion of Labor and rendered a decision which was final and binding in the .iuris- dictional disputes then existing in the motion-picture studios in Hollywood, Calif. It is difficult to resist the pressing temptation to discard restraint in expressing my opinion of this document, and the circumstances that brought it about. By the terras of the very directive of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, which created the committee at Cincinnati, it was expressly provided that such committee shall "investigate and determine within 30 days all jurisdictional questions still involved." The committee itself was keenly aware of this expressed time limitation placed upon its authority to act. On numerous occasions during the course of the hearings which were conducted in Hollywood, the committee members alluded to the fact that under the directive its decision had to be rendered within a period of 30 days. In the minutes of the seventh session, when the lATSB appeared, Chairman Knight stated at page 8, "The committee has come out here and we have 80 days to make an investigation and determination and decision." Again, at page 9, when I inquired whether the parties would be afforded an opportunity to rebut the case presented by the other sides. Chairman Knight re- sponded, "We don't anticipate any rebuttals because it cannot be done in 30 days." Later, when I urged upon the committee that more than one representative from the lATSE would be necessary for a proi>er explanation and physical dem- onstration of the work being performed b.v members of our organization on the occasion of the inspection visit to the studios, I was emphatically reminded by Chairman Knight, "Time is valuable in this case under our directive." The committee's determination by the very terms of the directive became its final and binding decision. No continuing authority was vested in the committee or in its members, collectively or individually, and when the decision was filed its powers and functions ended. The present so-called clarification therefore constitutes an attempt by a com- mittee no longer possessed of power or authority to change its official decision and as such it is a complete nullity. The executive council itself at the January 1946 meeting in Miami which I attended pursuant to invitation, declined to modify or clarify the committee's MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1525 decision and affirmed it in all respects, recognizing that the committee's decision was tinal and binding. At Cincinnati, in Octoloer 1045, all of the parties agreed to accept the decision of the conunittee as final and binding and part of that agreement was the specific time limitation upon the committee's authority. The committee rendered its decision within the time limit specified, to wit, on December 26, 1945. Notwith- standing the fact that the decision was, in many important aspects, unfavorable to the organization which I have the honor to represent, we abided by its terms to the letter and to our detriment. On the other hand, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, in violation of their solemn agreement, flaunted the directive in the decision, and by disruptive tac- tics and insidious devices sought to bring about its reversal. Through the persistent efforts and pressure of Brother William L. Hutcheson, the president of the carpenters, three individual members of the executive coun- cil, functus officio as a committee, were prevailed upon to arrogate to themselves the authority to reverse a final decision under the subterfuge of a purported clarification. Significantly enough. Brother Hutcheson is a member of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor and its first vice president, and as such is in a dominant position to influence the council's actions and undertakings. When Brother Hutcheson defied the American Federation of Labor and refused to abide by the decision, the council supinely did nothing. Nevertheless, up to now we have been content to make no mention of this undue advantage accorded the carpenters' union in this matter, but certainly we cannot be expected to refrain from voicing vigorous coml)laint when it appears that the three individuals in- volved formally constituting an official committee, have so obviously surrendered to pressure, even to the point of assuming to act in the absence of any power or authority to do so. In this connection, I think it is important to call attention to the brazen tenor of the communication which Brother Hutcheson sent to Mr. Eric Johnston repre- senting the employers, in which he requests the producers to comply with "this interpretation and all future interpretations." In agreeing to abide by the Cincinnati directive of the executive council, the lATSE did not surrender to the council or any committee the power to decide its jurisdiction in the studios for all future time. The irregularity tainting this recent action of the defunct committee is further emphasized by the fact that it undertook to render the so-called clarification without serving in advance any notice on this international union of its intention so to act, or offering us the right of a hearing in connection therewith. No copies of the report filed by organizer Daniel V. Flanagan under date of August 9, 1946, or of the brief submitted by the carpenters' luiion referred to in the offending document was ever served upon the lATSE. We were not notified or requested to appear before the August 1946 session of the executive council in Chicago. In consequence, not only is the clarification void and illegal in its inception because of the complete lack of power in these three individuals to act in the premises, but it is illegal as well because of the failure to offer my organization a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case. IMoreover. the clarification itself is basically false and unsound, and obviously arrived at through a process of reasoning which was calei;lated to bring about a foregone, and evidently, an imposed conclusion. It is a gross distortion of every-day language to define the word "erection" as meaning assemblage. The words "erection" and "asseml)lage" each have well-defined meanings and they are in no way synonymous. According to Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary, "erection" means the act or process of building or construction, as a house or other structure. On the other hand "assemblage" means the act of fitting together, as part of a ma- chine, union of parts, assembling. Hence, it appears that the word "erection" is a broader term embracing all of the multiple aspects of the making, construct- ing, assembling, and setting-up of ob.lects or structures. The ordinary reasonable man so understands the term. The whole tenor and import of the committee's decision of December 26, 1945, is destroyed and rendered useless and impractical by the narrow and erroneous interpretation which lias now been placed on the word "erection." The Decem- ber 26, 1945. decision which incorporated the 1926 agreement between the car- penters and the lA, provided that the lA shall have .iurisdiction over "the erection of sets on stages, except as provided in section 1." 1526 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Section 1 provided that the United Brotherhood of Cari)enters and Joiners of America should have jurisdiction over all trim and millwork on sets and stages. Unquestionably, if all that was allocated to the lA was the assemblage of sets, there would have been no necessity whatever to except from its scope of activity trim and millwork on sets and stages. Trim and millwork are not involved in assemblage, but they are involved in erection. It is apparent from the decision of December 26, 1945, that it was the over-all purpose and intent of the committee to allocate to the carpenters the carpentry work on permanent constructions, such as buildings and studios, and to a limited extent only on temporary structures such as sets on stages. The limited jurisdiction assigned to the carpenters with respect to sets is that of performing the trim and millwork thereon and the construction of exterior sets. Jurisdiction over the making of miniature sets, the making of props, the erec- tion or making of sets on stages with the exception of trim and millwork and the wrecking of all sets, whether exterior or interior, and the erection of platforms for lamp operators or cameramen on stages was assigned to the lA. If any ambiguity was involved in that decision — and we say emphatically that there was none — it cannot be resolved by the gross distortion of commonly under- stood language which the defunct committee has now indulged in, language which moreover was not even that of the committee itself, but employed by the parties themselves and embodied by them in their 1926 agreement. For the sake of harmony and a peaceable relationship between the parties in the motion-picture studios, the lA entered into the 192G agreement setting forth the respective jurisdictions of the carpenters' union and of the lA. The lA in that agreement made important concessions to the carpenters' union by agreeing to relinquish some of the jurisdiction which it had traditionally held both in fact and under prior agreements. The jurisdiction relinquished, however, went not one iota further than to give to the carpenters' union the right to construct exterior sets and to perform trim and millwork on interior sets. This entire matter was discussed at length by me and others at the hearings before the committee, so there is no excuse or possible claim that the committee misunderstood. Mr. Kel\rns. Which committee? Mr. Levt. The committee of three of the American Federation of Labor. The unwarranted, illegal and futile interpretation placed upon the December 26, 1945, decision by these individuals constitutes an intolerable encroachment upon the rightful jurisdiction of the lA. Organization of the workers throughout the entire moving-picture industry is directly attributable to the indomitable efforts exerted and at considerable expense incurred by the lA. We have been the spearhead of the opposition against the concerted and repeated attempts of commimists and CIO organizers to capture the industry away from the American Federation of Labor. If the so-called clarification were enforced, it would seriously weaken and undermine the established effectiveness and strength of the lATSE. Neither the unions nor the producers can possibly live in harmony under this purported clarification. Instead of maintaining peace where disputes have been rampant, it would rekindle the dying fires and muddy the formerly troubled waters in Hollywood and thus lay this entire field wide open to the unholy conspiracy to cripple the American Federation of Labor in the studios. After I attended the meeting of the executive council in Chicago in August 1945, you gave your assurance that a committee would be appointed to investi- gate the subversive activities threatening in the Hollywood studios, but to date no action on that has been taken by you. Instead, the council's actions have given sustenance, confidence, and courage to those elements in the studios which have thrived on internal controversy. On behalf of the lATSE, I vigorously protest this recent action of the executive council and of the three individuals who, unlike their subscription to the original decision, do not even sign their objectionable statement as a committee. They signed it as individuals. Because of the circumstances bringing it about, this action reflects discredit- ably upon the American Federation of Labor as a whole. It is a complete nullity and shall be ignored by us as will any future gratuitous interpretations MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1527 which have for their purpose the deprivation of the established and recognized jurisdiction of the lATSE under the December 26, 1945, directive. We shall exi>ect the producers, the executive council, the labor organizations, and all other parties to comply fully with the December 26, 1945, decision, as originally rendered. That was their agreement in Cincinnati and they must live up to tlieir word. The carpenters no more than the alliance should be permitted to eat their cake and have it, too. In conclusion, let me say that it was of course recognized by me that the Cincinnati directive was a startling and unusual procedure in the American Federation of Labor, but the lA agreed to abide by that directive, to show our sincere desire to establish prompt and permanent peace in Hollywood, and in the justifiable expectation that when the executive council directed that the committee's decision, to be made within SO days, was to be "final and binding," the executive council meant exactly what it said, and that at least the executive ■council itself would abide by its own agreement. Now, however, an attempt is being made, nearly eight months later, to modify the decision, and that atempt is not even honestly and directly made by way of specific amendment, but is being made dishonestly and indirectly by way of a so-called interpretation or clarification. I regret to say that that attempt has made a mockery of the directive, and has shown to me that the novel procedure adopted by the executive council in Cincinnati for adjusting this jurisdictional dispute has proven to be an utter failure, and primarily, if not solely, because the council itself seems to be ready to ignore or violate its own determination. Fraternally yours, Richard F. Walsh, International President. Mr. Owens. I am constrained to say, after hearing the words "func- tus officio" in there, and hearing the clarity and logic of that state- ment, that I would certainly have thought it was done by a very clever lawyer, a fine lawyer, if I had not heard the gentleman testify and realize that it was his own language. ]Mr. Levy. I want to say this. I think it is fair to say both for Mr. Walsh and for his counsel, that the ideas, many of the phrases, if not most of them, were Mr. Walsh's. The legal terminology I will have to take responsibility for. But do not get the impression that Mr. Walsh has not got a mind or manner of expression of his own. He certainly has. Mr. Owens. I realize that. The "functus officio" in there Mr. Levtt. Was not Mr. Walsh's. I would suppose that should have closed it up, but on April 18, 1947 — and this comes to this committee for the first time — another letter is received by Mr. Walsh Mr. Owens. Just a moment. Did Mr. Green reply to that? Mr. Levy. No, sir, except that he acknowledged receipt of it. On April 28, 1947, William Green, president of the American Fed- eration of Labor, wrote to Mr. Walsh again as follows : The executive council at its meeting held here in Washington, beginning April 21, 1947, gave special consideration to reports that a large degree of confusion and uncertainty had arisen in the minds of many directly interested in the Hollywood jurisdictional dispute, as to the scope and meaning of the clarification made by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright and Doherty of their previous decision in the dispute, which I sent you under date of August 27, 1946. I am. therefore, submitting to you the executive council's clear, definite, and simple interpretation of the clarification referred to. The interpretation is as follows : "Jurisdiction over the assembling of sets on stages was awarded to the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada: jurisdiction over the construction of sets was awarded to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America." 1528 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES By direction of the executive council I am calling upon all organizations inter- ested and affected to comply with this interpretation of the clarificatinn of the decision rendered by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright and Doherty. This communication is sent you by direction of the Executive Council of the Americau Federation of Labor. Fraternally yours, WHiUAM Green, President, American Federation of Labor. Mr. Owens. That was dated when? Mr. Levy. April 28, 1947. Neither Mr. Walsh nor the lA were invited to be present when this additional future interpretation was undertaken. Api:)arently it was felt by the executive council, with Mr. William L. Hutcheson a member of it, that perhaps the clarifica- tion of August 1947, maybe in view of the point which Congressman Owens indicated, that the committee in its clarification said you must live up to the original directive, was not adequate for the purposes which they had indicated. So they wanted to make it an interpretation upon a clarification upon a decision upon a directive. On June 25, 1947 — I hate to impose this on you, but I think you have to know the facts — Mr. Walsh wrote in response to that most recent interpretation. This has not been presented to this committee before : Dear President Green : I am impelled to condemn as completely invalid and wholly unconscionable the executive i^ouncil's recent so-called interpretation of the purported August 16, 1946, clarification of the decision rendered on December 26. 1945, by the Executive Council Committee of the American Federation of Labor on the Hollywood Jurisdictional Controversy. As stated to you in my letter of September 19, 1946, the so-called clarification was itself a complete nullity. I pointed out at that time at great length the reasons why that was so and I need not repeat them now other than to state that to date they have received no refutation and in truth have been vindicated by circumstances thereafter appearing. Incidentally I might add that my letter of September 19, 1946, apparently received no official recognition from the executive council for I have had no word with respect to it, aside from your letter of September 26, 1946, simply acknowl- edging its receipt. The chain of subsequent events in reference to the alleged clarification is of considerable interest and reveals with striking clarity the duplicity which has surrounded and stigmatized the purported document. Let me remind you that under letter of November 1, 1946, my office wrote you asking for a photostatic copy of the original "Statement of clarification." On November 6, 1946, you responded by telegram as follows : "Regret we do not have original of statement of clarification made by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright and Doherty. Only have copy of statement on file in my office." Pursuing the matter further, a telegram was sent to you on November 7, 1946, inquiring "Who has and where is the original signed clarification dated August 16, 1946? Please wire immediately." You did not wire your response to the foregoing telegram but telephoned my office and in my absence spoke to Thomas J. Shea, assistant international president of our organization and advised him, much to our surprise, that the supposed clarification was not signed at all by the members of tlie committee. As you can readily appreciate this was an amazing circumstance. The Com- munist-led carpenters and painters conference of studio unions in March, 1945, had precipitated a costly .iurisdictional strike in the Hollywood studios of 7 months' duration which was terminated only by virtue of the directive of the executive council, plus the appointment of a committee to resolve the controversy, whose decision would be final and binding. The executive council itself at the January 1946 meeting in Miami recognizing that it Ihad no jurisdiction in the premises, declined to modify or clarify the com- mittee's decision, and affii'med it in all respects, although even at that time the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1529 pressure exerted by the carpenters' union to procure a change in the decision was most intensive and commonly known. Notwithstanding the vital importance of the matter it is disclosed by you and after intpiiry only that the purported clarification did not ever bear the signa- tures of the' members of the committee who were suposed to have rendered it. Frankly, I wondered why, but not until later did the explanation reveal itself. The now existing jurisdictional strike of the Conference of Studio Unions already in its eighth month was, as you know, called because of the dispute which tla red up over the effect of the clarification. On October 25, 1946, in the midst of this strike a three-way telephone conversation was held among officials of the conference of studio unions, two of the members of the executive council committee, the third member having been in Europe at the time, and the repre- sentatives of the Screen Actors Guild acting as an intermediary for the purpose of obtaining from the committee members themselves their statement as to the circumstances respecting the clarification. Our organization was not a par- ticipant in that telephone conversation. In this conversation a startling truth was disclosed. The clarification that was circulated among the interested parties and which gave rise to the current juris- dictional strike was never in fact rendered by the committee. The document actually issued by the committee was different in at least one vital respect, but somewhere along the line it appears to have been altered without the knowledge or consent of the members of the committee. The present jurisdictional strike against us arose when the carpenters union declared "hot" all interior sets wliich were being constructed by the lATSE, although the December 194." decision expressly recognized the 1926 agreement between our organizations and stated that the erection of such sets was within the jurisdiction of the lATSE. The carpenters union in making such declaration relied upon the clarification which, as circulated, contained language to the effect that the word "erection" was construed to mean assemblage and that the committee recognizes the juris- diction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America's jurisdiction. If legal and authentic the clarification would have constituted a i-eversal of the December 194.5 decision in that respect. However, according to the statements of the two committee members, such language nowhere appeared in the document which they had actually prepared and they had at all times intended that the construction of interior" sets belonged to the lATSE and in truth had reiterated and reaffirmed that specific jurisdiction on August 16, 1946. The telephone conversation was recorded by a court stenographer, and I report only a portion of it to you. "Mr. Arnold" — Arnold is the actor — "the court reporter is here too. All right, now, Mr. Knight and Mr. Birthright, when we met you you told us that your original decision stood, is that right? '•Mr. Knight. That's right. "Mr. Arnold. And you are still of the same mind? "Mr. Knight. That's right. "Mr. Arnold. And regardless of the clarification your original decision will stick? "Mr. Knight. That's right. ******* "Mr. Reagan. May I ask you this? Maybe you won't want to answer it, but may I ask you this: Mr. Hutcheson said in Chicago that you gentlemen wrote two clarifications before he would accept one. He said in one clarification you mentioned the 1926 agreement and he wouldn't go for that. Is that right? "Mr. Birthright. It is in the 1936 original terms — voice became inaudible to repoi'ter ":Mr. Reagan. Again I want to ask you one last thing, Mr. Knight and Mr. Birthright. You have been very patient and very nice. "Mr. SoRRELL. Don't turn it off yet, we have more questions. "Mr. TiNSDALE. I have some questions to ask, too. "Mr. Reagan. I am not going to turn it off. I want to ask this one more ques- tion. You say he did not like the agreement from the first. Now what I am trying to get at is : Was there any word or was there any idea that your decision of December should be changed rather than clarified? 1530 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "Mr. BlRTHEIGHT. No. "Mr. Reagan. In other words, was there some misunderstanding of the meaning on the part of the carpenters or did they want it changed because they knew what it meant and didn't like it? "Mr. Birthright. They didn't like it, of course, but they recognized the so- called 1926 agreement. "Mr. TiNSDALE. Mr. Birthright, this is Tinsdale again. I am sorry to keep inter- rupting and coming back to the same item Init in this copy of August 10, 1946, memorandum which we have received here, there is one paragraph which starts as follows: 'Jurisdiction over erection of sets on stages was awarded to the lATSE.' Is that paragraph in the memorandum you have before you ? "Mr. Birthright. No. How does it read following that line? "Mr. Tinsdale. Well, Mr. Birthright, in this same memorandum you have this : The word 'erection' is construed to mean assemblage of such sets on stages and locations.' "Mr. Birthright. Well, we don't have that here. "Mr. Tinsdale. Your memorandum of August 16, 1946, does not read that way? "Mr. Bikthright. No. Where did it come from? "Mr. Tinsdale. There is no question about it, Mr. Birthright, but that this memorandum of August 16 directs the parties to comply, but at the same time in the purported copy of the August 16 memorandum which has been received here on the coast it has the following language in it. and I want to say here that contrary to Mr. Murphy" — Mr. Murpliy is the actor — "we are very much inter- ested in the language of the actual meiuoranduni because it is only from the language that we have anything on which to act. Going back to the language which is in your purported copy of your August 16, 1946, memorandum 'The word "erection" is construed to mean the assemblage of such sets on stages or loca- tions. It is to be clearly understood that the committee recognizes that juris- diction over construction work on sui-h sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners' jurisdiction.' "Now I don't think there has been any question in anyone's mind here that since January 26, 1946, the erection of sets — I say again erection — was the juris- diction of the I A, but there has been question as to the meaning of the term 'erection' and we were given to understand in your memorandum of August 16, 1946, that you defined the term erection as follow : 'To mean assemblage of such sets on stages or locations' and that there was a distinction between erection and construction and that you defined erection as meaning assemblage, and that you went on to say it was clearly understood that the committee recognized jurisdiction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. "The only question here is where construction work stops or what is erec- tion and what is construction work. Is it generally understood that construc- tion should be performed by carpenters and erection as you have defined it, to be assemblage, the work of the lA? Do I make myself clear? "Mr. Birthright. Yes, you make yourself clear, but I don't know where you got that. "Mr. Tinsdale. That language is not in your memorandum of August 16, 1946? "Mr. Birthright. No. "Mr. Kelly. Just explain to me if you can : Do you mean by erection of sets for the lA that any set built on a stage should be built and constructed by the lA? "Mr. Birthright. As the directive is understood, yes. "Mr. Kelly. In other words, r-ny building on a stage outside of millwork and trim work goes to the lATSE? "Mr. Birthright. Yes." This is not in the letter. I want to say that thereafter a telejsram was sent at the solicitation of somebody in Hollywood, by either Mr. Birthright or by the other member of the committee, Mr. Knight, to the effect that they did not have the right clarification before him when they had this telephone conversation. I merely add that to indicate the confusion was confounding, when you try to change a formal, final, and binding decision. Then to continue Mr. Walsh's letter : MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1531 It appears beyond the shadow of a doubt from the above, as well as from the entire telephone conversation, a printed copy of vpliich is enclosed here- with, that the clarihcation which was publicized as the August 16, 1946, state- ment of the committee was utterly spurious. The damage resulting thereby was colossal. Loss of wages to strikers was fabulous. The industry in which our members earn their livelihood appreciably harmed ; the organized labor movement generally discredited ; our own organization subjected to substan- tial esitense and all because of a bogus clarification. On January 20, 1947, I wrote Mr. George Meany, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Labor, asking him for the certified transcript of of the minutes of the meetings held in August 1946 by the committee of the executive coimcil, and by the executive council itself respecting the Hollywood studio jurisdictional dispute. 1 iniormed him it was necessary for me to have such transcripts in con- nection with certain litigation then pending against our organization, in which the alleged clarification was sought to be used to our detriment. In response I received a conununication dated February 6, 1947, fi'om Mr. Meany, in which he advised me that he had been instructed by the executive council "to take this matter up with Judge Padway, attorney for the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, before furnishing any transcripts." In all frank- ness I was at a complete loss to understand why such procedure should be necessary. I should have imagined that as a matter of common fairness the lATSE, as an afB'iate of the American Federation of Labor, would have an absolute right to obtain a transcript of the minutes of any meeting of the council and of any committee thereof i>ertaining to matters so directly affecting or concerning our organization. I may say in passino; that, of course, Mr. Hiitcheson, as a member of the executive council, has and did have those minutes. They were subsequently presented, at the request of this committee, to this com- mittee, meaning the committee of Congress. Who gave the executive council jurisdiction to make any interpretation, good or bad, correct or untrue? It has no power in the premises. And what an inter- pretation. It distorts plain language, completely reverses the decision of the executive council committee of three and purports to interpret a clarification that was never in fact made. As I stated at the outset, the issuance of the interpretation is fairly appalling. I have no doubt that it was brought about because of the pressure exerted by first vice president Hutcheson who at one and the same time acts as prosecutor, judge, and jury and that it can no more stand investigation than the fictitious clarification of August 1946. Like the clarification, the interpretation was issued without any notice of any kind whatsoever to me or my organization. Tlie intrigue, deception, and double dealing which have characterized the various proceedings undertaken after the rendition of the December 1945 de- cision sneak gravely ill of the American Federation of Labor. I have sought vigorously to cooperate in every way, as you well know, in order to promote a prompt, peaceful, and practical solution to the Hollywood studio situation, but, frankly I am beginning to lose my faith in view of what I am compelled to describe as the unfair and undemocratic tactics, the mockery of justice which has per- vaded this entire situation. With what confidence can anyone greet the American Federation of Labor's attempt at conferences leading to arbitration of jurisdictional disputes if Mr. Hutcheson is permitted to ignore and defy all the interested organizations and to practice Ms secret machinations in the executive council. On behalf of the lATSE. let me say in conclusion that the executive council's recent interpretation is for the same reasons stated in my letter of September 1946 and others, completely null and void, and shall be ignored by us as will any future gratuitous interpretations or clarifications, or whatever else they may be called, which have for their purpose the deprivation of the established and recognized jurisdiction of the lA under the December 26, 1945, decision. We lost much by that decision, but we kept our word, and we were man enough to take it on the chin so as to preserve labor peace, but we will not appease by giving up what the decision confirmed as our rightful jiirisdiction. Kind regards. Fraternally yours, Mr. Kearns. Mr. Levy, that letter was addressed to Mr. Green ? 1532 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Levy. Yes. Mr. Kearns. Signed by Mr. Walsh? Mr. Levy. Yes. Mr. KexVRns. Did I hear correctly where inference was made to Mr. Green by Mr. Walsh that the strike out there was communistically led? Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. Not only the inference, bnt the specific state- ment was so made, and we are prepared to present proof in support of it. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. Owens. With respect to Mr. Sorrel! , Judge Levy, I note that on August 20, I read here a couple of statements when he was testifying before the committee, speaking of Mr. Doherty, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Birthright, he says, "We think they did a pretty fair job." He says, "Mr. Doherty told me the directive meant exactly what it said and the clarification did not change the directive." That would seem to indicate that Mr. Sorrell did testify clearly to just about what you read there. Mr. Levy. That's right; that is why the interpretation came out, because they were not satisfied with the clarifiation. Now, Mr. Green did reply to that letter, and I think in fairness to Mr. Green that ought to be read. Mr. Kearns. We will take a 5-minute recess. (A short recess.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order. Mr. Levy, you may proceed. Mr. Levy. Thank you. I shall now read the response made by President Green of the American Federation of Labor to Mr, Walsh's last letter : American Federation of Labor, Wasfungton, D. C, June SO, 1947. Mr. Richard F. Walsh, President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, New York 20, N. Y. Dear Sir and Brother: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 25 in which you state that you are compelled to condemn as completely invalid and wholly unconscionable the executive council's so-called interpretation of the purported August 16, 19-16, "clarltication" of the decision rendered on December 26, 194.5, by the executive council committee of the American Federation of Labor on the Hollywood jurisdictional controversy. Because of your reference to clarifications of the decision jfendered by the executive council committee in the jurisdictional dispute which arose at Holly- wood, it seems appropriate for me to state tliat I know from the discussion which took place at meetings of the executive council when tlie Holl.vwood situation was discus.sed, that the members of the council were inspired by a sincere desire to promote a settlement of the jurisdictional controversy at Holly- wood and to bring about a termination of the situation there which has pre- vailed for a long length of time. The interpretation of the clarification of the executive council committee decision, was sent you by direction of tlie executive council. The committee which rendered the original decision stated in xx^sitive terms that the interpre- tation of the clarification of their decision was correct. Surely no one knew what the committee's decision meant better than the committee itself. The committee formulated the decision. Eacli memlier knew what his decision meant. No one could interpret the decision better tlian tlie committee itself. All parties affected and involved in the jurisdictional dispute agreed in advance to abide by the decision of the committee. I presume that meant an honest and sincere interpretation of the meaning of the decision made by the members of the committee who rendered tlie decision. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1533 The previous letter you i-efer to, dated September 19, 1946, was read to the executive council. The council did not direct that any reply be made thereto, but each member of the coimcil v\'as acquainted with the letter you sent me. I will bring your letter dated June 25 to the attention of the members of the executive council immediately. In the event the council directs me to make reply thereto I will proceed to do so. In the meantime, please accept this communication as an acknowledgement of the receipt of your letter dated June 25. Fraternally yours, William Green, President, American Federation of Lahor. On July 24, 1947, the lATSE wrote the following letter to Mr. (irreen : Dear President Green : Your letter of June 30. 1947, reached this office dur- ing the absence of President Walsh, who, as you probably know, has been abroad for some time on union business. As assistant international president, I should like to make some comments with respect to the statements contained in your letter of June 30, 1947, al- though I do not think it necessary to enter again into a discussion of the various matters set forth in President Walsh's letters to you of September 19, 1945, and June 25. 1947. You state in your letter that "the members of the council were inspired by a desire to promote a settlement of the jurisdictional controversy at Hollywood and to bring about a termination of the situation there which has prevailed for a long length of time." If that is so, why were these matters, in which our organization is so vitally interested, taken up by the executive council in our absence and without any notice to us? Why were they considered and judged when Mr. Hutcheson, president of the carpenters luiion, a vitally interested party, was permitted to participate in the discussions and to influence the de- liberations? Why were we denied the minutes of the meetings of the executive council and of the executive council committee of three pertaining to these matters? Finally, how can there be any "sincere desire to promote a settlement of the jurisdictional contx'oversy," when the fact of the matter is that it was only because of the circulation of the fal.se and fictitious "clarification" that the cur- rent jurisdictional strike arose? Only when satisfactory answers to these ques- tions are furnished, can anyone justifiably come to the conclusion that the mem- bers of the council and the committee were not, in truth, coerced into doing what they did, rather than being in.spired by an honest desire to settle the jurisdic- tional controversy on a just and fair basis. In any event, and irrespective of whether the council was prompted by sincere motives or otherwi.se, it is plain that their action was completely illegal and void. The executive council committee of three were bound to render their decision within 30 days. This they did, and any so-called clarification, interpretation, explanation, modification, reversal, or change of mind after that time is a com- plete nullity. You say that "no one could interpret the decision better than the committee itself." But you overlook the fact that the committee, after the ex- piration of the 30-day period, was without any legal authority to clarify or interpret its decision, and you also ignore the fact that the decision is plain and unambiguous and requires no interpretation, and furthermore, that it is apparent from the telephone conversation held with members of the committee that they never intended to give to their decision the purported meaning claimed in the so-called clarification and so-called interpretation. I should like to renew at this time our request of January 20, 1947, to Mr. ISIeany for certified transcripts of the minutes of the various meetings held by the committee and by the executive council respecting the Hollywood studio jurisdictional dispute. As Mr. Meany was informed previously, and as President Walsh stated in his letter to you of June 2.5, 1947, these transcripts are necessary because of certain litigation pending against our organization in which the so- called clarification and interpretation are being sought to be used to our detri- ment. Since our organization is so directly affected and concerned in these matters, I think we are entitled to these transcripts as a matter of coiu-se. I should appreciate if you were to give this request your immediate attention. Kind regards. Fraternally yours, Thomas J. Shea. Assistant International President. 6738.3 — 48— vol. 3 3 1534 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. Did you write that very fine legal letter for liim, Judge ? Mr. Levy. I would say I participated in its preparation-. Now, here is a letter, Mr. Chairman, which I did write. I wrote this letter to Mr. Kearns on November 28, 1947, at the request of the lATSE and pursuant to the permission given to me by Mr. Kearns in Los Angeles. The letter speaks for itself, and I should like to read it : Hon. Carroli> D. Keabns, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Hollywood Studio Labor Strikes, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Congressman Kearns : On behalf of Mr. Richard F. Walsh, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, and Mr. Roy M. Brewer, International representative in Hollywood of that organization, and pursuant to the authorization of the subcommittee, Mr. Michael G. Luddy, of Los Angeles, west coast counsel, and I, as special counsel for the lATSE in the Hollywood labor situation, herewith submit the following statement to be included in the record of the Hollywood hearings in the inquiry conducted by your subcommittee in the matter of the Hollywood studio labor strikes. I. Normal jurisdictional labor problems existed in the studios for some years, largely as a result of the many unions and of the nature of the work. These normal jurisdictional differences might have been peaceably resolved in ordinary trade-unions channels were it not that the pro-Communist elements in the studios had irritated and magnified the jurisdictional differences into internecine labor explosions. More is involved in the Hollywood labor situation than ordinary jurisdictional differences. No investigation of the jurisdictional strikes in Holly- wood from 1944 to date can or will give a complete picture of the situation, with- out a recognition and study of Communist infiltration and tactics in the Hollywood studio unions. (a) One Jeff Kibre, as the representative of the Communist Party in Holly- wood prior to 1939, planned to form an unemployment conference of various studio unions for the purpose of laying a foundation for an industrial union in opposition in the lATSE, which was and is a bulwark against Communist supremacy in Hollywood, and for the purpose of capturing control of studio labor for the Communist Party. Upon receiving information that it was possible to obtain an election to designate a collective bargaining representative under the National Labor Relations Act, Kibre changed his tactics and organized the United Studio Technicians Guild (USTG), petitioned for an election, obtained an order for such election from the National Labor Relations Board, and en- deavored to win control of all studio labor by this method. This plan was thwarted in 1939 when the Communist sponsors behind Kibre were exposed. This exposure showed among other things that Kibre was reporting to Bob Reed, a Communist Party representative in New York, and to Harry Bridges in San Francisco ; that one Irwin Henschel was a part of the organization which assisted Kibre; that Henschel was sent to the 1938 convention of the lATSE with instructions from Kibre as to a certain resolution which Communist Party representatives in California wanted passed by that convention; that the acting secretary of the Communist Party of Ohio objected to Henschel's activities, as indicated in correspondence by Roy Hudson, then trade union secretary of the Communist Party and later editor of the Daily Worker in New York ; that Henschel's Communist motives and reliability were vouched for ; and that Kibre's efforts were directed to establish a Communist faction within the lATSE. This is the same Irwin Henschel who was the leader of the so-called "rank and file movement" of the Sorrell-directed strike of the CSU in 1945. (b) The same program which Kibre had outlined originally in his reports (that is, before he changed his plan to procure an election under the auspices of the NLRB, and which election he lost in 1939) was used by Sorrell later, and Sorrell was aided by the same Henschel. Many of the same persons who had previously supported Kibre supported Sorrell in the strikes from 1944 to 1947. (c) Since its organization, the CSU has followed the Communist Party line. The president of the CSU, Herbert K. Sorrell, since 1937, has followed the Com- munist Party line. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1535 I may say, parenthetically, that early in 1945, when it was thought that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer and the lATSE had stated that Mr. Sorrell was a Communist, that Mr. Sorrell instituted a libel suit against Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer and the lATSE, based upon that charge. Instead of bringing that case on to trial, Mr. Sorrell voluntarily had the case dismissed, with prejudice. That is the language of the stip- ulation which was signed by Mr. Sorrell's counsel and my represent- ative on the west coast. It has been testified by noted handwriting experts before the California Committee on Un-American Activities that Herbert K. Sorrell (under the name of Herbert K. Stewart) was a member of the Communist Party. One of the purposes of the CSU was to bring certain American Federation of Labor unions into its orbit and to bring those unions into conformity with the Communist Party line. Mr. Landis. Was there any date on that Communist card? Mr. luiEVY. We sent photostats of the exhibits to Mr. Kearns. I thinkit is 1937. Mr. Landis. I believe that is so, according to the Un-American Activities' records. Mr. Levy. Yes. (d) One of the lATSE's own local unions, Film Technicians Local No. 683, participated in the oi-ganization of the CSU in 1941, and participated in formu- lation of the policies of the CSU along the patterns of the Communist Party, until the latter part of 1944, when Local 683 officially withdrew from the CSU. It was almost immediately after this withdrawal that the open attack began by the CSU against the lATSE. I want to say here parenthetically that because of the disloyal ac- tivities of local No. 683 the International lATSE was forced to recog- nize its international powers to take control of local 683, this local which had participated with Mr. Sorrell's strikes in 1946. Mr. Kearns. All right, from there on we have all the information here, Mr. Levy. This has not been put in the record for this reason : As I stated before, I did not consider it the charge of my commit- tee and until the chairman of the full committee instructs me other- wise, I cannot put it in or go into this phase of the investigation. The data is all here for him to pass judgment on. Mr. Levy. May I just say a word about that? Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. Levy. I would say that those who woidd understand Holly- wood's complicated labor problems must recognize at the outset that there are at work in this conflict two separate and distinct forces, which normally would not be allied together, but which in this par- ticularly instance are joined in a marriage of convenience for the purpose of destroying the dominant position which the lA holds in the motion picture industry. These forces are, (1) the carpenters' union and the burning ambition of William L. Hutcheson to dominate studio labor; and (2) the sub- versive drive to bring all Hollywood labor under the influence of the Communist Party and those who would follow the Communist line, which drive centers around the Conference of Studio Unions and Herbert K. Sorrell. Were these two forces to be successful in eliminating the lA, which the lA does not intend to permit to happen, then an equally bitter con- 1536 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES flict for supremacy in our opinion would later result between these two forces. Mr. Hutcheson would not accept dictation from the Communist Party, and if the Conference of Studio Unions ever eliminated the lATSE, Mr. Hutcheson would quickly find out how little real economic strength he has in the studios. I want to make this clear on behalf of the lA. This congressional committee is charged with the responsibility of investigating the Holly- wood labor situation. You can no more investigate the war, the Sec- ond World War, without investigating the Stalin-Hitler pact Mr. Kearns. All right. At this point I want to tell you again, Mr. Levy, that I have followed out the orders of the chairman of the full committee, the Honorable Fred A. Hartley, Jr., and until I am in- structed to go into the communistic angle of this situation, I will not not do it. It is up to him to say whether another committee will be appointed or whether he wishes to turn it over to the Un-American Activities Committee. I am not in any way slighting you in presenting your testimony, I am only stating the fact of my orders. Mr. Levy. Mr. Kearns, I appreciate that, and of course I do abide by your rulings. Mr. Landis. Let me make an inquiry. I notice, according to the testimony you read there that the Communists had taken over this local in your organization. Is that correct ? Mr. Levy. That is correct, sir. Mr. Landis. Of course, the part that seems to me to be testimony for the Un-American Activities Committee is that part which says this jurisdictional strife was caused by the Conference of Studio Unions and Communist-led strikes. Of course, the testimony given before that committee takes in and jeopardizes the carpenters' union. Mr. Hutcheson testified yesterday that they had in their constitution the fact that they do not allow Communists in their organization. According to testimony given before the other committee this was a Communist-led strike ; they took over your local and they have taken over some of the other locals in the Conference of Studio Unions. I think this is a pretty vital and important point to bring out. I think before we close the hearing that is the only part left in the con- troversy, with the exception that, as I understand it, Mr. Hutcheson denied yesterday accepting the '25 agreement, and Mr. Walsh said they accepted the '25 agreement. If this was a Communist-led strike and some of those unions are trying to clean it up, I think we ought to find out before the close of the hearing, from the chairman, whether we will have one witness from each side to present the case. That would be my suggestion, that one witness from each side would present their side of that Communist activity. I want to be fair to both sides. I do not want to give one side an opportunity and not the other side. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Landis, as ranking member of the committee, I am only too glad to follow out my orders, but if you wish to serve the chairman of the full committee with me about the situation and he orders me or someone else to go into it, I would be very happy to do so. Mr. Landis. That would be my suggestion, to contact Mr. Hartley. I make the suggestion we let each side pick out one man, and let them MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1537 present their case on this part of it. There has been testimony that Sorrell was a Communist back in 1937. He might have been one then, but he might not be one now. It is intimated that the carpenters are Communists out there. Mr. LE^^^ Not by me, sir. Mr. Landis. No; I do not say that, but they are in the Conference of Studio Unions now. Mr. Kearxs. They are all together. Mr. Levy. I said they were all working together, that is right. I made that position very clear on our behalf, each for his own purpose. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Landis, I also want you to appreciate the position I am in. Mr. Landis. Yes ; I realize the situation. Mr. Kearns. I am willing to go along on this matter. At the dis- cretion of the chairman of the full committee, I believe you would like to have that so ordered, is that correct ? Mr. Landis. I would like to have him contacted. Mr. Kearns. We will stand in recess until 2 :30 p. m. this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12 :10 p.m., a recess was taken until 2 :30 p.m. of the same day.) afterngon session (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 : 30 p. m.) Mr. Kearns. I am just merely calling the meeting to order. We will adjourn until the call of the Chair, which should be 15 or 20 minutes. (A short recess was taken.) Mr. Landis. The committee will come to order. Since the testimony this morning that was brought out by Judge Levy that the communistic part was an important thing to the solution of this problem and since several statements have been made against the committee and about the committee, not giving a fair deal on both sides, we are going to open up the Communist question. It will be fully discussed on each side. Let the chips fall where they may. The past proceedings were under the direction of Congressman Kearns of Pennsylvania. The proceedings from here on will be con- ducted by Congressman Kearns as subcommittee chairman ; Congress- man Fisher, of Texas; Congressman Wood, of Georgia; Congressman Owens, of Illinois, and myself from Indiana. Mr. Kearns, you take the chair. (Mr. Kearns assumed the chair.) Mr. Kearns. ]\Ir. Landis, at the request of the chairman of the full committee, Hon. Fred A. Hartley. Jr., with you as acting chairman of the committee, I think it only fair at this time to mention I have kept this communistic ansrle out of the labor relations situation in the motion picture jurisdictional dispute purposely, because I felt I was not so charged to enter into this phase of the situation. However, I have just been informed by phone, bv Mr. Hartley, and have confirmed it with the acting chairman and ranking member of the committee, the Honorable Mr. Landis, of Indiana, that we shall de- velop the communistic angle of the jurisdictional dispute. However, I want it fully understood by all persons involved that this is purely a part, now, of the proceedings and hearings pertaining 1538 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES to the motion-picture industry labor dispute and in no way is to be considered as any single angle of development. It is purely a part of the over-all picture which will be developed through the testimony we will hear. So at this point, Mr. Levy, we will go back. The evidence which you presented this morning will be part of the record which will be considered from here on by the committee named by the Honorable Mr. Landis. The report up to this point of the hearing is still under the direction of myself who was appointed by the chairman of the full committee. The parties will understand how the picture looks from here in. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion at this point? Mr. Kearns. Yes, Mr. Counsel. Mr. McCann. I would like Mr. Levy to correct me if I am wrong. I believe the communistic element first entered into his testimony this morning with the introduction of the letter which you wrote to Chairman Kearns in November ; is that not correct, Mr. Levy ? TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY— Continued Mr. Le\'y. No, sir. Mr. McCann. You had gone into that before ? Mr. Levy. In Los Angeles we had made request of the learned chair- man of the subcommittee to go into that. That is in the record. In the letter which was written by President Walsh of the lATSE to President Green of the American Federation of Labor on Septem- ber 19, 1946, the position of the lATSE with respect to the Com- munist conduct in the studio strike was mentioned. Then I followed that with a letter which I wrote to Congressman Kearns on November 24, 1947, pursuant to his permission, when the hearings ended suddenly out there, to file a statement. One other matter came in. Vice President Knight of the American Federation of Labor, the record shows, on page 192 of the minutes of February 18, 1948, of the Miami meeting of the American Federa- tion of Labor said: There is a bad situation there. He — meaning Vice President Knight of the American Federation of Labor and the chairman of the committee of three of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor — stated there is a very bitter feeling in that industry in Hollywood and there are numerous other interests working there, some of them working with those people, not for their benefit but for the ultimate result of their taking over and then we would have other organizations representing these people in Hollywood. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I think that gives to the committee present at least some idea of what references have been made to com- munism in the testimony before noon. I thought that the communistic element — because I was busy doing things the chairman asked me to do — started with this letter and, if it had started, that I was going to suggest that the letter itself be put in the afternoon session, as I understood that was Mr. Owens' desire. Mr. Owens. I was going to say let us consider a reoffer of Mr. Levy's testimony for the record this morning in the record of this afternoon. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1539 Mr. McCann. I think that is very wise. Mr. Kearns. The Chair will rule this way, that we will take the testimony beginning with you this morning, Mr. Levy, for the con- sideration of the newly appointed committee. At this time I would like to recognize the Members of Congress sitting here this afternoon. Beside Mr. Landis, the ranking Member, Mr. Owens, of Illinois and Mr. Gwinn, of New York; Mr. Fisher, of Texas; Mr. Kennedy, of Massachusetts ; and Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Landis. Mr. Kelley has a guest and I would like him to introduce his guest, if he will. Mr. Kelley. My guest, Mr. Chairman, is a member of the English Parliament, Mr. Wallace. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Wallace, we welcome you here and are very glad to have you with us, sir. Mr. Levy. Shall I proceed, sir? Mr. Kearns. Mr. Levy, you will proceed. I think you were reading the letter written to me. You left off with section D. Do you want to continue that? Mr. Levy. I do want to continue, but I think I ought to preface the continuance of the reading of that letter with this short statement, in view of the augmented committee. I had not completely finished my response to Mr. McCann's question that I think I ought to put on the record. Mr. Kearns. All right, proceed. Mr. Levy. Our position, Mr. Kearns, before this honorable com- mittee is that we deeply appreciate the opportunity of presenting to this committee of Congress all of the phases of the matter involved in this jurisdictional dispute which started in the latter part of 1944. It was our position that those who would understand Hollywood's complicated labor problems must recognize at the outset that there are at woi'k in this conflict two separate and district forces which normally would not be allied together but which in this particular instance are joined in a marriage of convenience for the purpose of destroying the dominant position which the lATSE holds in the motion picture industry. These forces are, (1) the carpenters' union and what otir organiza- tion feels to be the burning ambition of the carpenters' organization under the leadership of Mr. William L. Hutcheson to dominate studio labor. We do not claim that is a Communist outfit at all. And (2) the subversive drive to bring all Hollywood labor under the influence of the Communist Party and those who follow the Commu- nist line, which drive centers around the Conference of Studio Unions and Herbert K. Sorrell. I think I may say in passing that the strike to all intents and pur- poses is over. I should really speak of this in the past tense rather than in the present tense. Were these two forces to have been successful in eliminating the lATSE which we consider the one bulwark in studio labor in opposi- tion to the Communist capture of studio labor, then, and equally in our judgment, an equally bitter conflict for supremacy would later result between the Communist groups and the carpenters. I believe that Mr. Hutcheson would not accept dictation from the Communist Party and if the Conference of Studio Unions ever elimi- 1540 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES nated the lA I believe that Mr. Hutcheson would quickly find out how little real economic strength the carpenters' organization has in the studio. Our position was, as I urged upon the committee this morning, that you can no more adequately investigate World War II without study- ing the Stalin-Hitler pact, than you could investigate the Hollywood jurisdiction of disputes without going into the tieup between Mr. Sorrell of the Conference of Studio Unions, and Hutcheson of the carpenters' organization in this marriage of convenience which I have indicated. If we are going to make a thorough investigation those two factors mlist be kept in mind, on the basis of which we can come to a fair con- clusion as to the reason for the continued strife. On March 11, 1947, Mr. Kichard F. Walsh, the international presi- dent of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada addressed a telegram to the Honorable Fred A. Hartley, chairman of the House Labor Committee. Wliile that telegram is in the rec- ord, so far as the hearings with respect to the amendments to the Na- tional Labor Relations Act are concerned, it is not in the record of the Washington hearings of this Hollywood jurisdiction dispute, and therefore I should like to be permitted to proceed to read it : Having taken note of publicity given to the testimony of one Oscar Schatte before your committee I want to urge you to complete the investigation so that all the facts may be ascertained and made known to the public. The one-sided testimony given by Schatte is misleading and prejudicial to the thousands of loyal workers who have refused to surrender to the strong arm and subversive ele- ments in Hollywood with whom Schatte is associated and whom he is trying to defend. Several hundred members of our organization have been injured or have suffei'ed damage at the hands of goons many of whom have been identified as being asso- ciated with the so-called Conference of Studio Unions w'hich, under the leader- ship of Sorrell, has been conducting this long strike to deprive our organization of jurisdiction in the Hollywood studios. Schatte shopworn hearsay charge often repeated and never proved, that I or our international union is in any way involved in racketeering practices, or that we are in any way associated with Bioff is absolutely false. I challenge him to submit any proof in support of that charge. I want to parenthesize by saying that in Hollywood I, on behalf of the organization whom I represent, made the same challenge before this honorable committee, before it was increased in size, because I felt that if there was any racketeering in Hollywood since 1941, No- vember, when Mr. Walsh became the president, I — and I consider myself an honorable member of the bar — would not want to represent that organization. No proof was presented. I make the same challenge again. [Reading :] The false charge thus made before your committee as a sounding board is intended to bolster up a dying morale on the part of those who have been duped by Sorrell's false propaganda. The fact is that the present controversy was caused and is being continued solely by the action of Conference of Studio Unions in conducting its vicious jurisdictonal strike against us. I am personally proud of the fight which our organization is making against the pro-Communist elements in Hollywood. Their No. 1 goal is to destroy the lATSE, universally recognized as the most effective bulwark against the capture by those disloyal to America of control over the motion picture industry. A complete investigation will show the American people, who are the truly resixmsible parties in the Hollywood conflict. We will welcome such an investigation and we shall assist in every possible way. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1541 Mr. Kearns. Mr. Levy, you mentioned that on the west coast you challenged during the hearings the communistic angle. You should have included in your statement that it was ruled out at the discretion of the chairman. Mr. Levy. That is exactly what I intend to say now, sir. Mr. I\JEARNS. All right. IVIr. Levt. The chairman took the position, contrary to my request in Los Angeles, that they were not investigating the Communist infil- tration in the Hollywood labor situation and that they were not going to go into any racketeering elements in the situation, as if that were a deal or bargain which would satisfy me or my client Mr. Kearns. Now, let's watch the language here. I don't like that word "deal." I had that in another hearing I had once. I said that was not the charge of my committee and don't say that I ignored it because I purposely ruled it out because it was not the charge that I had from the full chairman. I have said that so many times that I do not want it referred to again. Mr. LE\Tr. Congressman, I respect you as the chairman of this subcommittee, I am merely repeating what I stated on the record in Los Angeles, that's all. I said, "I don't want any such arrangement ; that I believe a thorough investigation of this Hollywood situation would justify naming or requiring going into every feature of it." The lATSE is not ashamed of anything it did since November 1941. Mr. Kearns. There were never any insinuations of that, sir. I just ruled it out, as you recall. Mr. Levy. That is correct, sir. The insinuations were sought to be made by some of the witnesses, sir, notwithstanding your ruling. Mr. Kearns. They were called out of order in a hurry, then. ]\lr. Levy. Mr. Walsh received this communication signed by Fred A. Hartley, Jr., chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, dated March 21, 1947 : Dear Mr. Walsh. I wish to acknowledge your telegram of March 21. There was another telegram. At the outset let me assure you that any investigation or hearings held by this committee, as long as I am chairman, will be both impartial and com- pletely fair to everyone concerned. Your wire to me of March 11 was made a part of the official hearings before my committee, and in addition I gave assurances to Hon. Arthur Klein, a member of this committee, that this mat- ter would be thoroughly investigated and that you would be given every oppor- tunity to present whatever testimony you desired. I had assumed this had been passed on to you. The reason I wired you on March 19 was because I wanted to make certain that anyone who testifies before my committee will not as the result be subjected to intimidations and strong-arm methods. Once again let me assure you this matter vsdll be com- pletely investigated. I am, Sincerely yours, Fred A. Hartley, Jr. Mr. McCann. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness whether or not any evidence was submitted to the full committee which was at that time taking testimony on the labor-management bill, with respect to the subject matter referred to? Mr. Levy. You mean the Hollywood strike? Mr. McCann. No, I ask if you submitted any testimony in reply to Mr. Hartley's message to Mr. Walsh to be included in the record from which you are reading, which was the testimony with respect to 1542 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES the labor-management bill. I am trying to keep you and your rec- ord of the labor-management bill apart from the Hollywood investi- gation. Mr. Levy. That is why I was reading this into the record here, sir. We made no presentation of proof with respect to the labor- management relations committee hearings whatsoever, other than the telegram which Congressman Hartley offered in the record. We were not requested to present any proof to that committee, as I un- derstood it. Mr. McCann. But, as I understand Mr. Hartley's message to you, it invited you to offer any testimony which you might have with re- spect to the subject matter and it would be included in the record; is that not true ? Mr. Levy. I got the impression from the telegram I read that, in- sofar as there was to be an investigation of the Hollywood jurisdictional situation, there was where the proof would be presented. Mr. McCann. May I call your attention to the fact that there was no committee appointed to go to Hollywood to investigate the Holly- wood jurisdictional strike until, I think, July of 1947. Mr. Levy. I do not deny that, sir. I did not know it, but I accept your statement as a fact. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, the telegram you have referred to, was that dated March 11, 1947, from New York, addressed to Hon. Fred A. Hartley? Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. I do not seem to have it here. If you have it, I would like to read it into the record. Mr. Owens. There is one here at page 3483 of the official record of last year. Mr. Levy. That is the one I just read. Mr. Owens. There is also one from a party named Jack B. Tenney^ dated March 18. Mr. Levy. Yes, I intend to read that, sir. The learned chairman of this full committee made the following statement : The Chaikman. As furtliei- evidence of the desire of this committee to hear both sides of ali controversies presented to this committee the Chair wishes to insert in the record at this point a wire from Richard F. Walsh, international president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, as a reply to the testimony of Mr. Schatte. In the same connection the Chair would also like to insert at this point in the record a wire from Mr. Jack B. Tenney, chairman of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities of the California State Legislature. If there is no objection they will be made a part of the record at this point. Now I want to read to vou the telegram to Hon. Fred Hartley from Sacramento, Calif., March 13, 1947 : My attention has been called to the testimony of Oscar Schatte, member of the Conference of Studio Unions, before your committee last Saturday. The Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities of the California State Legis- lature, of which I am chairman, has thoroughly investigated the Conference of Studio Unions and the Hollywood studio strike situation. On February 19, 1946, we issued a report containing the following paragraph : "The secret Communist Party affiliation of Herbert K. Sorrell is therefore established beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt and his activities explained in light of current Communist Party purposes and objectives." Mr. McCann. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order? Mr. Kearns. No objection. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1543 Mr. McCann. If charges of communism are to be received in the record against anyone here, I ask that those charges shall be personal and given under oath by the parties making such charges and that we shall restrict and refuse to receive documents or communications which are not personal in nature, from the ones who can testify under oath. Mr. Kearns. The witness is under oath. Mr, McCann. The witness may be under oath but now he is quoting from someone else who is not under oath before this committee, I believe that with such a grave charge that the person who makes such a charge should be subject to examination by the counsel of this com- mittee and by the members of this committee. Mr. Owens. Mr, Chairman, while ordinarily I think that point would be a very good point, I believe what Judge Levy is reading now is from the proceedings of the hearings of last year where Mr. Hartley made the statement and put these telegrams right in our record so that they are already public. Mr. Kearns. Mr. McCann, I believe that is correct, although your observation is well taken. The records being read now by the judge are records of last year. ]Mr. McCann. The record received by the committee at that time, Mr. Chairman, the full committee of the House, was a record in which any witness could appear before the committee without being put under oath and without the sanction of an oath, except as to those accused of being Communists, such as Mr. Christoffel. Mr. Christoifel is being tried at this time in district court. Mr. Owens. He is being tried for perjury. Mr. McCann. Being tried for perjury. Outside of a few witnesses of that character anyone could come before the committee and make a statement and there was not the sanction of an oath. Mr. Landis. ]\Ir. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Landis. Mr. Landis. You might mark those items, but I believe every wit- ness who comes here ought to have his say. We could mark those items as to whether they were given under oath or not given under oath. Mr. Kearns. That is right, sir. ]\Ir. Landis. Let's not bar any witness from having his day in court. Mr. BoDLE. Mr. Chairman, could I be heard on that ? Mr. Kearns. No, not at this time. Mr. Owens. May I make one further observation, Mr. Chairman? When a man is testifying as Judge Levy is doing he is taking the responsibility for the testimony he is giving in the record ; he is taking the responsibility for the telegrams which are read and for the further proof of those very things he is stating. That is my theory of it. It is different when we take a telegram in from someone in the West and put it in the record ourselves. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I very seriously, and without any thought to block out any testimony here which is right and based upon oath, feel that the statements now being made by counsel are being made purely as hearsay ; it is a record of what someone else said, what someone else has done. So far I have not heard one word from this witness which is based upon his personal knowledge and which he can verify or certify to this committee under oath. I refer now to charges with respect to communism. ■ 1544 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, the Chair will have to rule this way : Mr. Levy is under oath. What he wishes to tell the committee at this time he is perfectly privileged to do so, and any other witness who comes before us to deny or make countercharges will also be under oath. I think in the long run it will clarify itself, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the committee chairman but I contend this witness may quote 20 people to the effect that some- one is a Communist and we haven't one scintilla of evidence that justifies the committee in making any such affirmation. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, as long as he makes the accusation and puts it in the record he is under oath and assumes that responsibility, does he not ? Mr. McCaNjSt. He assumes the responsibility without legal obligation. Mr. Kearns. Well, maybe somebody else will make it legal then. You understand I am just trying to clear this up. Mr. Levy. I understand very well. I want to read two telegrams and then I will proceed to read the letter that I wrote you. Mr. Kearns. All right, Judge, go ahead. Mr. Levy. Thank you very much. We will have a witness here who will testify. I am presenting the statement on behalf of my client. I continue reading from Senator Tenney's telegram : There is no doubt in the minds of the members of the joint fact-finding com- mittee on un-American activities that Herbert K. Sorrell is a member of the Communist Party and presently an important stoose and tool of the Communist Party design for the disruption of American Federation of Labor unions in Hollywood and the establishment of Communist influence and domination in the motion-picture industry. On February 18, 1946, the subcommittee on law and order of the State assembly, under the leadership of C. Don Field, which has investigated the violence in the 1945 strike, submitted a report containing the following : "From its investigation the subcommittee concludes that there was a definite and serious break-down of law and order in the county of Los Angeles and particularly in the city of Burbank, in connection with the so-called jurisdictional strike at the motion picture studios in the month of October 1945. Mass picket- ing and acts of violence in disregard of law and orders of the court, induced and inspired by subversive elements taking advantage of the strike situation were not prevented nor immediately curbed by law-enforcement agencies." We hope your committee will ascertain all the facts in the current studio situation before taking any action which might unintentionally support these subversive elements active in the studio situation. If I can be of service to you feel free to call upon me. Jack D. Tenney. I have no doubt, sir — although I cannot speak with knowledge — that after these telegrams were sent to the Honorable Fred A. Hartley it was thought there ought to be an investigation of the entire Holly- wood jurisdictional strife situation. Now I proceed to continue to read the letter which I was privileged to write to the Honorable Carroll D. Kearns on November 28, 1947, pursuant to the authorization of the subcommittee in Los Angeles. Since I have certain exhibits here tliat ought to be presented and you have the original letter, I would appreciate it if you would let me have the letter and the exhibits. I shall present them in that way. Mr. Kearks. All right, sir. [Handing the witness documents.] Mr. Levy. Thank you very much. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1545 Mr. Kearns. You might explain to the full committee now that you have read the letter up a certain point. Mr. Levy. In view of the fact that there are other members here, I will read the first two pages again. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Reporter, he will read the letter and then you pick it up at section (e) , where he left off before. The Reporter. Yes, sir. Mr. Levy (reading) : November 28, 1947. Hon. Cakroll D. Kearns. Chairman, Subcommittee on the Hollywood Studio Labor Strikes, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Congressman Kearns : On behalf of Mr. Richard F. Walsh, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, and Mr. Roy M. Brewer, international representative in Hollywood of that organization, and pursuant to the authoriztion of the subcommittee, Mr. Michael G. Luddy, of Los Angeles, west coast counsel, and I, as special counsel for the lATSE in the Hollywood labor situation, herewith submit the following statement to be included in the record of the Hollywood hearings in the inquiry conducted by your subcommittee in the matter of the Hollywood studio labor strilies : I. Normal jurisdictional labor problems existed in the studios for some years, largely as a result of the many unions and of the nature of the Avorli. These normal jurisdictional differences might have been peaceably resolved in ordinary trade-union channels were it not that the pro-Communist elements in the studios had irritated and magnified the jurisdictional differences into internecine labor explosions. More is involved in the Hollywood labor situation than ordinary jurisdictional differences. No investigation of the jurisdictional strikes in HoUj^wood from 1944 to date can or will give a complete picture of the situation, without a recognition and study of Communist infiltration and tactics in the Hollywood studio unions. (a) One Jeff Kibre, as the representative of the Communist Party in Holly- wood prior to 1939, planned to form an unemployment conference of various studio unions for the purpose of laying a foundation for an industrial union in opposition to the lATSE Mr. McCann. Now may I ask at this time: Do you know where Jeff Kibre is ? Mr. Levy. I do not. I have been informed Mr. Jeff Kibre is now in the northwest part of the United States, recently charged or in- dicted with the commission of some crime or offense there, and is presently. an organizer of a CIO union. That is as far as I can tell on information. I have no knowledge as to Mr. Jeff Kibre's personal present where- abouts. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at this time, with the first name he has mentioned, I propose as a procedure that as each name is called out and the person is charged with being a Communist, that the chair- man of the committee shall ask for the full name and address, and that we notify the persons charged before this committee as Commu- nists, and afford them an opportunity, if they so desire, to appear before the committee to offer any evidence to the contrary. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. Mr. Levy. Counsel interrupted me in the middle of a sentence, and I would like to complete it. Mr. Landis. Mr. Chairman, I might say I was taking down the names, but if counsel will take down the names and addresses I would appreciate it. 1546 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Yes, and I will instruct the secretary later as to the type of letter we will send each person. Mr. Levy. Our statement sets forth that Mr. Kibre planned to form an unemployment conference of various studio unions for the purpose of laying a foundation for an industrial union in opposition to the lATSE— which was and is a bulwark against Communist supremacy in Hollywood, and for the purpose of capturing control of studio labor for the Communist Party. Upon receiving information that it was possible to obtain an election to desig- nate a collective bargaining representative imder the National Labor Relations Act, Kibre changed his tactics and organized the United Studio Technicians Guild (USTG), petitioned for an election, obtained an order for such election from the National Labor Relations Board, and endeavored to win control of all studio labor by this method. This plan was thwarted in 1939 when the Com- munist sponsors behind Kibre were exposed. This exposure showed, among other things, that Kibre was reporting to Bob Reed — Parenthetically, I do not know where Bob Reed is. I have never met the gentleman, and I am in no position to give you his address — a Communist Party representative in New York, and to Harry Bridges — I have never met Mr. Bridges. I don't know where he is. I under- stand his residence is San Francisco. Mr. McCann. I don't think we will have any trouble finding him. Mr. Levy. All right — that one Irwin Henschel was a part of the organization that assisted Kibre — Mr. Irwin Henschel was a member of the lATSE. I parenthesize this. I met Mr. Henschel in California on one of my trips out there as counsel for the lATSE. My present knowledge of his whereabouts is nil. I understand that he lives in Los Angeles or in that area — that Henschel was sent to the 1938 convention of the lATSE with instructions from Kibre as to a certain resolution which Communist Party representatives in California wanted passed by that convention; that the acting secretary of the Communist Party of Ohio objected to Henschel's activities, as indicated in cor- respondence by Roy Hudson, then trade-union secretary of the Communist Party and later editor of the Daily Worker in New York ; that Henschel's Communist motives and reliability were vouched for ; and that Kibre's efforts were directed to establish a Communist faction within the lATSE. This is the same Irwin Henschel who was the leader of the so-called "rank and file movement" of the Sorrell-directed strike of the CSU in 1945. Mr. McCann. Are we to understand that this Henschel, who was a member of the lATSE, transferred his union membership to a union that was connected with the CSU? Mr, Levy. No, sir. Mr. McCann. Well, would you i^lease explain that ? Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. You are to understand, sir, that the lATSE had also a number of Communists seeking to undermine the or- ganization of the lATSE in cooperation with their spiritual colleagues who were working in the Conference of Studio Unions. I do not make the allegation that Mr. Henschel withdrew from the lATSE and went over to the Conference of Studio Unions. I make the allegation that it was his job to work in the lATSE and it was the job of his colleagues to work in the Conference of Studio Unions. When it was discovered that Mr. Henschel was disloyal to the lATSE and to America, the lATSE, in accordance with law, under- took to expel him from the organization and did so. (&) The same program which Kibi-e has outlined originally in his reports (that is, before he changed his plan to procure an election under the auspices MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1547 of the NLRB, and which election he lost in 1939) was used by Sorrell later, and Sorrell was aided by the same Henschel. Many of the same persons who had previously supported Kibre supported Sorrell in the strikes from 1944 to 1947. (c) Since its organization, the CSU has followed the Communist Party line. The president of the CSU, Herbert K. Sorrell Mr. McCann. What date was that — smce what ? Mr. Levt. I said "since its organization." That would be 1941, so far as the CSU is concerned. I will repeat, sir, since its organization, the CSU has followed the Communist Party line. And we have exhib- its in support of that position. Mr. McCann. Will you state for the record at this time, sir, so that new members of the committee who are sitting in for the first time may know, what unions you are talking about when you say the Con- ference of Studio Unions. Tell them what major unions are connected with the Conference of Studio Unions? Mr. Levy. There have been changes, Mr. McCann, from time to time in the make-up of the Conference of Studio Unions. It was organized in 1941 with Herbert K. Sorrell as its president. No international union affiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions; only a number of local unions in Hollywood affiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. McCann. That is what I understand, but would you mind mentioning them ? Mr. Levy. I can mention some of them from memory. I would rather look over my records and give you a complete list rather than to mention them from memor3\ ;Mr. McCann. I think the committee should know against whom you are making this statement. Mr. Le\^. I agree with you. I am not now making any statement with respect to any local union. I am now making a statement with respect to the Conference of Studio Unions. I will be leased to give you the complete list. All I say is that I do not think I would like to give it to 3^ou from memory. Mr. Landis. Let him put the complete list in the record. Mr. Levy. I will give it to you before the day is over, I just do not want to take the time now to examine my records. Mr. Kearns. All right ; that is agreeable. Mr. Levy. In order to make it clear, I want to say to you that the carpenters' organization was not in the conference. The carpenters' local in Hollywood was not in the Conference of Studio Unions in 1941 or even during the early part of 1945. Mr. McCann. The painters, the machinists, and the IBEW were, were they not ? Mr. Levy. The local unions of the painters, the local union of the machinists, and the local union of the electricians, I think were. Mr. McCann. All right ; proceed. Mr. Levy. I think there were some others, but I want to give you the complete list. I pointed out earlier that one of our own local unions, the Studio Technicians, Local 683, of the lATSE, was in the Conference of Studio Unions at its inception in 1941 until the latter part of 1944. I continue with subparagraph (c) : The president of the CSU, Herbert K. Sorrell, since 10.37 has followed the Com- munist Party line. It has been testified by noted handwriting experts before 1548 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES tbe California Committee on Un-American Activities tliat Herbert K. Sorrell (under tlie name of Herbert K. Stewart) was a member of the Communist Party. One of tlie purposes of tlie CSU was to bring certain American Federation of Labor unions into its orbit and to bring those unions into conformity with the Communist Party line. (d) Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at that point, if you will excuse me, I think that is a tremendously serious charge ; and I hope that we will have positive proof of that fact, rather than a conclusion, because I think that is a most grave charge. Mr. Levy. Which fact do you mean, Mr. Counsel ? Mr. McCann. That from 1937 — whatever the last statement was that you read. I think that is a grave charge, and I hope you are going to be able to sustain it. Mr. Levy. I think, sir, any statement I make I will be able to present — if you will permit me, and I think you will — exhibits in support of my statement. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Coiuisel, if I may restate here, Mr. Levy is under oath. He is testifying and making these charges. I imagine he is over 21 years of age and knows what he is doing. Mr. McCann. I don't doubt that, sir, but a charge of this momen- tous character is such a sweeping over-all charge, it seems to me we ought to indicate our interest in that charge and a desire to have that point established before our committee. That is my purpose. Mr. Levy. I will endeavor through the witnesses which we will present to substantiate any statement which is questioned in the letter that I wrote to the learned chairman of this committee. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Landis, of Indiana. Mr. Landis. All the witnesses are going to be under oath. Mr. Kearns. That is right. Mr. Landis. I anticipate some serious charges from a great many witnesses here, and I don't think we should take up the time of ques- tioning them on every charge they make. Mr. McCann. I did not have that in mind, sir. I was only trying to cover an over-all picture. Mr. Landis. On all sides there will be some serious charges made. Mr. McCann. I thought it might clarify things, Mr. Landis, and expedite things if we indicated those statements which were of such a grave character. There are a lot of statements being made that we cannot check on, for example, names of persons accused whose ad- dresses are not given. Mr. Owens. I think, Mr. Chairman, as long as a party is testifying we can only err by keeping it out and not by lettiilg it in. We are only going to weigh the testimony that is material to the issue. Mr. McCann. Proceed, sir. Mr. Levy (reading) : (d) One of the lATSE's own local unions, film technicians local No 683 participated in the organization of the CSU — meaning the Conference of Studio Unions — in 1941, and participated in formulation of the policies of the CSU along the patterns of the Communist Party, until the latter part of 1944, when local 683 officially withdrew froux the CSU. It was almost immediately after this with- drawal that the open attack began by the CSU against the lATSE. (e) The 1946-47 strike was only one of a series of strikes, all of which were a part of the pro-Communist agitation to disrupt labor relations in the Hollywood MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1549 studio, to destroy the lATSE as a collective-bargaining representative of the studio unions, and to install in its place a pro-Communist industrial type of union which would, at the appropriate time, join hands with the pro-Communist elements in the studio talent guilds, and especially in the screen writers guild, so as to place the motion picture industry under the domination of the Communists and their pro-Communist friends and sympathizers. (/) The following documents are annexed hereto in support of the foregoing, I do not know whether these documents are in order. Mr. Kearns. I have looked through them, so I doubt wliether they are. Mr. Levt. All right, I will try to pick them out. Following are excerpts from the Senate Journal of February 19, 1946, containing a partial report of the Joint Fact-Finding Commit- tee on Un-American Activities in California, showing the record of Herbert K. Sorrell. The record of Herbert K. Sorrell, president of Conference of Studio Unions and strike leader in Hollywood strike called March 12, 1945. Mr. OwEXS. You are vouching for that record, of course, Mr. Levy ? You are vouching for the correctness of that record ? Mr. Levy. We vouch for every statement presented in this bulletin. I want to make clear that I was not present in Hollywood in 1938, up to the present time, so I was not personally present in order to watch all of the activities of the president of the Conference of Studio Unions. This record is based upon documents which came to the atten- tion of Mr. Roy M. Brewer, the international representative of the lATSE in Hollywood, since the early part of 1945. The following compilation is made from subject's participation in known Com- munist "front" organizations, and his association with known Communists, and support of the activities of such known Communists. Subhead, "Motion Picture Democratic Committee Brands Roosevelt a 'War-Monger'." This organization was a proven Communist-controlled "front." It was set up in the spring of 1938 and went out of existence about 1 year after the signing of the Stalin-Hitler Pact on August 23, 1939. During the lifetime of the organization it followed the Communist Party line faithfully and when the Communist Party of the United States changed over from the "United Front" or anti-isolation to the "imperialist war" position, to an anti- Roosevelt position and opposition to aid to England, the Motion Picture Demo- cratic Committee did likewise. The official literature of this organization will show that right up to the time of the Stalin-Hitler pact, it supported Franklin D. Roosevelt and advocated his running for a third term. It will also show that right after the announcement of the Stalin-Hitler pact, when the Communist Party line changed to isolation, it opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt and his foreign policy of aiding the Allies. ^ Two members of the executive board, Melvyn Douglas and Phillip Dunne, resigned because of the Communist control of the organization. Mr. Douglas and Mr. Dunne introduced the following proposals to the executive board of the Motion Picture Democratic Committee shortly after Soviet Russia invaded Finland in December 1939, at which time Russia and Germany were in virtual alliance: "1. The Motion Pictui'e Democratic Committee reaffirms its support of the Roosevelt foreign policy. "2. It conmiends the President for his condemnation of Russian aggression and his request that the Finnish war-debt payments be reserved for Finnish use. "3. The Motion Picture Democratic Committee is in fundamental disagreement with the Communist Party and other organizations and individuals who sup- ported the President until the Russian aggression and have since turned on the administration with attacks. 67383— 48— vol. 3 4 1550 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "4. The Motion Picture Democratic Committee can in no way collaborate with such organizations." These proposals put as a resolution, were defeated by the executive board by a vote of 19 to 0 (reported in the Communist People's World, March 12, 1940). Mr. Douglas and Mr. Dunne then resigned from the organization because of its Communist character. Herbert K. Sorrell was a member of this executive board (official stationery), and continued actively to support the new position of the organization which was in strict conformance with the Communist Party line will be shown hei-e- inafter under the heading of "Patterson Slate," a venture which the Motion Picture Democratic Committee supported. Other members of the executive board of the Motion Picture Demo- cratic Committee at that time who are now supporting the present strike in the Hollywood studios are Harold Buchman, Al Caya, John Cromwell, Norval Crutcher, John Green, Edward Mussa, Irving Pichel, Gloria Stuart, Frank Tuttle. One of the last acts of this Motion Picture Democratic Committee and one which showed its Communist character was a meeting held at the Olympic Audi- torium in Los Angeles on April 6, 1940, at which this organization was repre- sented. The title of the meeting was according to the Motion Picture Democratic Committee bulletin dated March 26, 1940 : "America Declares Peace." This meeting constituted a violent attack on Franklin D. Roosevelt and the "war-mongers" and was called by the Hollywood Peace Council, afterward to become the American Peace Mobilization, an organization denovmced by the Attorney General of the United States as one of the most dangerous Communist oi-ganizations ever to be launched in this country. Persons who were speakers, or present on the platform, who are now supporting the 1945 Conference of Studio Unions' strike in the studios are : Philip N. Connelly, Dalton Trumbo, Frank Tuttle, Ellis E. Patterson, Reuben Borough, Herbert Biberman. My. Kearns. Those names will all be submitted in the record. Those are my records which he submitted to me that he is now using, or rather, his records which he gave to me. Mr. Levy. That is correct. The Motion Picture Democratic Committee went out of existence during the latter part of the Stalin-Hitler pact, when the Communist Party in the United Sates was isolationist and antiwar. When the Communist Party line changed from isolation to prowar because of the attack on Soviet Russia by Hitler, the Motion Picture Democratic Committee was revived under a slightly different name. This time it was called the Holly- wood Democratic Committee. This committee, like its predecessor the Motion Picture Democratic Committee, followed the Communist Party line, but this time it was not so apparent because the line now called for all-out support of the war, because of the need for assistance by Soviet Russia. We now find a very "patriotic" organization hailing Franklin D. Roosevelt as a great commander in chief instead of a war-monger and trickster leading the country into an unpopular war and betraying the country into the net of Wall Street, as the Motion Picture Democratic Committee had claimed when Stalin and Hitler were allies. Herbert K. Sorrell, now emerges as a member of the executive board of this organization also, whose program is just the reverse of its predecessor where he was also a member of the executive board. However, the Hollywood Democratic Committee has also now gone out nf existence. On May 24, 1945, there was advance notice that the Communist Party line in the United States would again undergo a change. This notice was in the form of a letter from a leading French Communist, Jacques Duclos. Mr. McCann", May I stop you just a moment there? Mr. Levy. I don't know where Mr. Duclos is. He is probably in Paris. Mr. McCa-nn. I was not going to ask you about Mr. Duclos, I was going to ask you what time the Hollywood organizntion went out of MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1551 existence ; whether it was before or after March 12, when the '45 strike started. Mr. LE\Tr. I will give yon the date in just a moment. I have it here in this statement. Mr. Owens. Inasmuch as you have been stopped there for a moment, I was quite interested in something you said where you used the word "isolationist" and the antonym of that was "prowar." Does that mean the anti-isolationist is prowar? Mr. Levy. No, sir; I am just reading the pamphlet. I am not ex- pressing any personal opinion except reading the pamphlet. Mr. Ow^ENS. You are vouching for it, of course ? Mr. Levy. I am vouching for the historical facts stated here, not the terminology of an international or political nature. [Reading.] This letter was published everywhere in the official Communist press and it constituted a criticism of the past "line" and demanded a change back to the program of Marx and Lenin which had been abandoned during the war. On June 6, 1945, the Hollywood Democratic Committee became the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions. The names of those persons of the recently dissolved Hollywood Democratic Committee who are now supporting the present Commu- nist-inspired strike in the Hollywood studios are John Cromwell, Norval Crutcher, John Green, Irving Pichel, Gloria Stuart, Frank Tuttle. E, Y. Harburg, Edward Dmytryk, Ira Gershwin, Rev. Clayton Russell. All of the above are members of the Executive Board of the Hollywood Demo- cratic Committee (official literature of organization). Labor's Non-Pabtisan League YANKS are not COMING TO FIGHT STALIN-HITLEB This Communist-controlled organization came into existence before the war started. Up until the Stalin-Hitler pact it supported President Roosevelt and the New Deal, supported the United Front against Hitler and was for "collective security" against nazism. But wlien the Stalin-Hitler pact was made and the Communist Party changed from anti-Hitlerism to isolation, the Labor's Non-Partisan League changed also, opposed our entry into the war, opposed aid to England and adopted the slogan "The Yanks Are Not Coming." Herbert K. Sorrell was State president of the organization during this latter period, opposed the third term for President Roosevelt and Sorrell denounced him as leading us into war ( People's World, May 2, 1940) . I want to say something about Mr. Sorrell's supporting President Roosevelt. I understand there was one instance when, not following the Communist Party line, he did at that time support the reelection of President Roosevelt, notwithstanding the fact that it was the Com- munist Party line to oppose him. Regarding the Communist character of Labor's Non-Partisan League, Vierllng Kersey, superintendent of Los Angeles schools, stated through the public press that : "In 1938, Superintendent Kersey said, he requested an opinion of County Counsel J. H. O'Connor on the right of California Lnbor's Non-Partisan League to use school facilities as a meeting place under the so-called California Civic Center law * * * O'CoTinor ruled at that time that the California Labor's Non-Partisan League was affiliated with the Communist Party." (Los Angeles Examiner, September 7, 1944.) 1552 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Patterson Slate democrats opposed to franklin d. roosevelt for third term preferred communist line In the California primary election held on May 7, 1940, there was placed before the voters a slate of delegates to the National Democratic Convention, at which Franklin D. Roosevelt was nominated for tlie third term. This slate of delegates was called the Pattorson slate ; was headed by Ellis D. Patterson, now Congress- man from the Sixteenth Congressional District. This slate of delegates was opposed to the third term for Mr. Roosevelt, op- posed aid to England and was strictly isolationist. It followed the Communist Party line ; was in sympathy with the aims of that party, as the records of the great majority of the delegates will show. The principal plank in the platform was : "No men, no arms, no loans to foreign powers. Stop intrigue leading us int» war. (Remember 1916 — He kept us out of war??? In 1940 — We must keep our- selves out of war. ) " Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the candidates on this delegation. Other candidates for membership on this Communist Party line dele- gation now supporting the Communist-inspired strike in the Holly- wood studios were Philip M. Connelly, Carey McWilliams, Reuben Borough, chairman of the ticket, Frank Scully. Workers Alliance This organization was listed by the Attorney General of the United States as a completelj' Communist-controlled organization of the unemployed. Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the speakers at a mass demonstration of this organization before the Hollywood district SRA headquarters, 245 South Western Avenue, on March 7, 1940. At this demonstration the first Hollywood local of the Workers Alliance was set up. Mr. Sorrell spoke as representative of the Motion Picture Democratic Commit- tee, mentioned heretofore. Other speakers at this demonstration were : La Rue McCormick, member of the Communist Party State Central Committee. Emil Freed, Fifteenth Congressional District branch of the Communist Party — Now on the picket lines in the present strike. I have Mr. Emil Freed's record before me. I think it would be appropriate to interpolate that since he has been stated to be on the picket lines : Emil Freed. 930% South Orange Grove, Los Angeles : In county 35 years ; State, 35 years ; United States of America, 45 years ; education, 16 years ; employed as salesman ; married. Description : Male, white, brown hair, brown eyes, 5 feet 41/^ inches, 150 pounds, age, 45 years ; medium complexion. Born in New York, N. Y., Jewish descent. Registered as Communist, Los Angeles, Calif., August 27, 1940. Communist candidate for Congress, August 27, 1940, Fifteenth Congressional District, Los Angeles, Calif. Organizer of Hollywood section. Communist Party, 1938. Sells and distributes Daily People's World. Expelled from Local No. 311, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., August 27, 1946, for Communist activity. Arrested at Columbia Studio November 16, 1946, for 166. 4PC (disobeying court order), booking No. 98402; Los Angeles 1227-D-52. Sentence: Judge Byron Walters, 1 year in jail, April 18, 1947. Arrested at Warner Bros. Studio October 10, 1945, Los Angeles County sheriff's office. No action. Mr. McCann. Now, ]\Ir. Chairman, in his case, since he has been a candidate of the Communist Party, I will except him from any notifi- cation, with your permission, because an avowed candidate is of course one who has taken the position he is a member of the party. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1553 Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, he is probably still in jail if he went to jail in April '47, Mr. Levy. I am reading this as of the time this bulletin was prepared. I am not any more interested in Mr. Freed because of the fact, as I said earlier, the strike to all intents and purposes is over. There are merely picket lines there. There is no more mass picketing, no more violence. So far as we are concerned we are now discussing something which was finished months ago. I have not followed Mr. Freed's career whether he is in or out of jail. Mr. Owens. Of course, that may be your theory. Judge Levy, but there are probably hundreds of thousands of people out in Los Angeles that might feel differently than you do. ]Mr. IjT.\y. I live in New York. Mr. McCann. Right on that point, Mr. Levy, we received a letter this morning from one of the workers out there who advised me that she is still out as a result of the strike and wants the committee to know that the strike is not over, so far as she is concerned. IVir. Levy. All I can say is that if she is a capable employee and she wants to return to work, she does not have to write counsel for this committee, she can apply in accordance with the law and obtain her employment. Mr. McCann. She stated that she had done so. I do not know that it is true. Mr. Levy. I do not want to get into a debate with you about that, Mr. McCann. That is a different phase of the matter entirely. I am representing the lATSE and I assume you are not representing anybody else here but the committee. Mr. McCann. Exactly, but I wanted you to know we are getting €ommunications from people to the contrary, and I wanted to make that note on the record, that is all. Mr. Levy. I will be pleased to pay attention to any communications directed to me. Mr. McCann. That is what I am doing now, Mr. Levy. All right. [Continuing reading :] Joe Wilson, employee of the Communist People's World. Dorothy Ray, a Communist representing Labor's Non-Partisan League men- tioned heretofore. Frank Scully, screen writer and supporter of present strike. (People's World, March 18, 1940, official records of secretary of state of Cali- fornia on McCormick.) National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, Southern California Branch. The Attorney General of the United States has pronounced this organization to be a Communist front. On September 28, 1941, a meeting of this organization was held in San Fran- cisco, Calif. Herbert K. Sorrell, in the official announcement of the meeting, appears as one of the sponsors of the organization. This organization has followed e^ery twist and turn in the Communist Party line for years, and it is still in operation. Others whose name appear on the announcement and who are now actively supporting the present Communist -inspired strike in the 1554 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Hollywood studios are Carey McWilliams, national vice chairman; Abraham Isserman, national vice chairman, Charlotta A. Bass, Phillip M. Connelly, E. Y. (Yip) Harbnrg, Fred Rinaldo, Clore Warne. Yanks Are Not Coming to induce students to "peace strike" A demonstration under the auspices of the above "committee" in cooperation with the American Student Union, a Communist-controlled group, was held at the University of California at Los Angeles, on April 18, 1940. The purpose of the meeting was to induce the students at the college to stage a "peace strike" (this was during the period of the Stalin-Hitler pact). Herbert K. Sorrell was listed as one of the speakers. The other speakers were Carey McWillams — Now busy on the side of the strikers in the Hollywood studios — Dr. E. P. Ryland, American Civil Liberties Union. (People's World, April 19, 1940.) If I haven't said before, I think I should interpolate now that the People's World is the west-coast Communist newspaper. Schneiderman-Darct Defense Committee William Schneiderman and Samuel Darcy were two top officials of the Com- munist Party of the United States in 1940, were up for deportation by the immigration authorities of the United States Government. A committee to defeat their deportation was set up. Herbert K. Sorrell was a member of this committee. Known Communists on the committee were Leo Gallagher, chairman of the committee and member of the law firm of Katz, Gallagher & Margolis; Anita Whitney, State chairman of the Communist Party of California; Celeste Strack, executive seci'etary of the committee ; Theodore Dreiser, now deceased, member of the Communist Party. Other members of this committee now supporting the Communist- inspired strike in the Hollywood studios were Carey McWilliams, Er- nest Dawson, Ben Margolis. In a letter written by the secretary of the committee, dated April 22, 1940, the following paragraph appears on official letterhead of the committee : The Schneiderman-Darcy Defense Committee, which includes such California Labor leaders as Henry F. McGrath, Roy Donnelly, and Herb Sorrell, and such prominent individuals as Carey McWilliams and Theodore Dreiser, is engaged In rallying public opinion to demand that the Federal authorities drop these two cases immediately. Mr. McCann. Do you know who Henry F. McGrath is ? Mr. Levy. I do not know, sir. Eael Browder At the sixteenth general assembly of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, held at Columbus, Ohio, September 23, 1941, 100 officers and delegates signed a petition demanding the immediate release of Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party of the United States, from the Atlanta Penitentiary, where he was serving a term for a felony. The demand was forwarded to President Roosevelt. Herbert K. Sorrell, who was a delegate from his Hollywood Local 644, signed the petition. (People's World, September 24, 1941.) MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1555 United Spanish Aid Committee This Communist-front organization was operating under the above title in July 1941. It is now known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, with a branch in Hollywood. Tlie purpose of the committee was to furnish aid to the Communists who took part in the Spanish civil war in 1936-38. Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the sponsors of the west-coast branch of the organization. Others listed as sponsors of the United States Si^anish Aid Committee who Others listed as sponsors of the United American Spanish Aid Com- mittee who are now actively supporting the Communist-inspired strike in the Hollywood studios were Prof. Frank C. Davis (UCLA), Ellis E. Patterson (Congressman), Judge Stanley Moffatt, Carey McWil- liams, John Garfield, Dorothy Parker, Irving Pichel, Dr. F. M. Pott- enger, Herman Shumlin, Frank Tuttle, John Wexley. Leo Gallagheib Testimonial to defend the eights of communist party A testimonial banquet in honor of Leo Gallagher, a Communist, of the law firm of Katz, Gallagher & Margolis, was given at the Wilshire Bowl, in Los Angeles, on June 2, 1941. Gallagher has long been known for his defense of Communists and their case, and this testimonial was given in recognition of his services in this respect. This affair was given on June 2, 1941, when Soviet Russia had not yet been attacked by Hitler ; the Communist Party line was still opposed to entry into the war and to any help to the Allies in their fight against Hitler. Quoting the People's World of June 4, 1941 : "Reminding of the forces trying to inject the United States into the tragic struggle of the imperialist war, Gallagher said : 'In these days it is necessary for all of us to take our place and recognize our responsibility to defend and protect the civil liberties of all wherever they may be attacked. * * * At the present time the windmills of hysteria are directed mainly against the Communist Party and it is our duty then * * * regardless of our political opinions to defend the rights of the Communist Party.' " Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the sponsors of this testimonial. Others who sponsored this Communist testimonial, and who are now actively involved in the present Communist-inspired strike in the Hollywood studios, are Augustus Hawkins (assemblyman). Judge Stanley Moffatt, Carey Mc Williams, Ernest Dawson, A. Maymudes, Clore Warne, Phillip M. Connelly, Reuben Borough, Charles Katz. Chai-les Katz. of the law firm of Katz, Gallagher & Margolis, was toastmaster of the evening. The following persons gave testimonials to Gallagher : Anita Whitney, State chairman of the Communist Party ; Reuben Borough ; Phillip :M. Connelly ; Judge Stanley Moffatt ; Theodore Dreiser, now member of the Communist Party ; Sam Ornitz, .screen writer and Herbert Biberman, Hollywood director. Harry Bridges Defense To Defbiat Deportation In September of 1942, the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, an organization branded by the Attorney General of the United States as a Com- munist-controlled front, launched a campaign to defeat the deportation of Harry Bridges on the grounds that he was an alien Communist. This organization issued an open letter addressed to the President of the United States protesting the deportation proceedings and demanding tliat they be dropped. Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the signers of this letter. 1556 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Others who signed this letter and who are now actively support- ing the present Communist-inspired strike in the Hollywood studios were Dr. Frank C. Davis, University of California at Los Angeles; Carey McWilliams ; Ernest Dawson; Abraham Isserman; Dalton Trumbo ; Earl Robinson. La Rue McCormick, Communist Candidate for State Senator In the November 1942 election, La Rue McCormick, a known Communist, and an officer of the Communist Party and the Communist Political Association, was a candidate for the office of State Senator of California. To support the campaign of the Communist, La Rue McCormick, a committee was set up. It was called Democrats for McCormick. Herbert K. Sorrell was the cliairman of this committee. That is a display advertisement in the Los Angeles Daily News, November 2, 1942. Others listed as supporting this Communist for office and who are now supporting the Communist-inspired strike in the Hollywood stu- dios were: John Howard Lawson, screen writer; Dalton Trumbo, screen writer; Rev. Clayton Russell; Charlotta Bass; Al S. Waxman. Others listed in the People's World, Communist publication, of October 31, 1942, as supporters of the McCormick campaign, were : Ellis E. Patterson, Congress- man, Sixteenth District ; Paul Jarrico, screen writer ; Viola Brothers Shore, screen writer ; John Bright, screen writer ; Lester Cole, screen writer ; Leo Gal- lagher of Katz, Gallagher & Margolis ; Richard Collins, screen wirter ; Jay Gorney, Hollywood song writer ; Henry Myers, Hollywood song writer ; and A. Maymudes. From the New York Times, October 18, 1943 : American Youth foe. Democracy (Formerly the Young Communist League) On October 17, 1943, the Young Communist League held its national convention in New York City. At this convention the name was changed from Young Com- munist League to American Youth for Democracy. This was done for tactical reasons, and was so stated. From the People's World, December 1, 1944 : On December 1, 1944, tlie American Youth for Democracy of the Los Angeles area held a meeting and a celebration of the first anniversary of the change of name at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the sponsors of this gathering. Others who sponsored this organization and who are now actively supporting the present Communist-inspired strike in the Hollywood studios were Ellis E. Patterson, Congressman, Sixteenth District ; Ned R. Healy, Congressman; Dalton Trumbo; George Bradley; Dr. Frank C. Davis; Dr. Franklin Fearing; Dr. Ernest Caldecott; Augustus C. Hawkins, assemblyman; Judge Stanley Moffatt; Rev. Clayton D. Russell; John Howard Lawson; Edward Dmytryk; Mrs. John Gar- field ; Thomas Mann ; Earl Robinson ; Frank Scully ; Reuben Borough ; Charlotta A. Bass ; Ernest Dawson ; Peter M. Kahn ; Ring Lardner, Jr.; Albert Maltz; A. Maymudes; Samuel Ornitz; Al S. Waxman; Phillip M. Connelly ; and Alvin Wilder. The People's World of December 5, 1944, adds the following to this meeting : Albert Dekker, assemblyman from Hollywood district, acted as master of ceremonies. Ellis E. Patterson and Ned R. Healy, Congressman from the Fifteenth and Thirteenth Districts, respectively, were honored guests. Rueben Borough welcomed the guests and "spoke of the pride of the sponsoring committee in the growth of the AYD in its first year." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1557 Speakers were : Albee Slade, CIO Council ; William J. Hill, Carpenters Local 634 ; Rex Ingram, Negro actor ; Barney Ross, former lightweight champion ; Rev. J. Raymond Henderson, pastor, Second Baptist Church (colored) ; Daiton Trumbo, screen writer. People's Wokld Press Conference The People's World is the Communist publication on the Pacific west coast and is published in San Francisco at 590 Folsom Street. On August 4, 1943, a "press conference" was held for the benefit of this publication at the First Unitarian Church, 2936 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles, Calif. (Rev. Ernest Caldecott, pastor.) Now supporting the Communist strike in the studios ; see elsewhere herein. The People's World lays down the Communist Party line and is the political guide for all Communists on the west coast. Herbert K. Sorrell was one of the six)nsors of this conference. Not only was Sorrell a sponsor in this case, but he has consistently vipheld this publication over a period of years as a subscriber and by public statement. In the People's World dated July 24, 1944, the following statements appear : "The Daily People's World leads the daily newspaper field in understanding the contribution of labor in Hollywood to America's effort." "That's the statement of two prominent Hollywood leaders — Screen Writer John Howard Lawson and Herbert Sorrell, president of the Conference of Studio Unions. "Both Sorrell and Lawson are supporting the current $75,000 victory expansion drive of the Daily People's World." Others sponsoring this "conference" mentioned above and who are now actively supporting the present Communist-inspired strike in the Hollywood studios were Augustus Hawkins, assemblyman; John Howard Lawson, screen writer; Leon Gallagher (Katz, Gallagher & Margolis) ; Kev. Clayton Kussell ; Carey Mc Williams ; Charlotta Bass ; Ernest Dawson ; Al Waxman ; Theodore Dreiser ; R. Lai Singh. Third Annuat. Convention Los Angeles County Communist Party april 29, 30 and may 1, 1938 — held at 121 west eighteenth street, los angeles, CALIF. Herbert K. Sorrell has denied that he was ever a member of the Communist Party. A photostatic copy of the minutes of the above Communist convention shows the following names written on the back page : William Schneiderman, State secretary of Communist Party, district 13 ; Don Healy ; Hugh Wilkins ; Herb Sorrell ; Urchel Daniels. When shown this document at a hearing of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee of the State of California on August 31, 1941, Mr. Sorrell denied, under oath, that he had been a delegate to this Communist convention. He stated that he had given someone permission, he couldn't remember who, to put his name on some committee and that he thought this might account for his name being on this copy of the minutes of this Communist convention. Sorrell stated that he had never attended any Communist Party convention, "not knowingly * * * j i^^jght have, and not known what it was * * *" The above fact-finding committee has in its possession a sworn aifidavit made by a former Communist Party functionary and a delegate to this Communist convention in which the following appears : "I recall that Herb Sorrell was doorman at the session I attended, and ac- cepted my credentials: that the membership of the Communist Party was esti- mated at around 3.000 at that time; that plans were discussed for developing a more efficient political pressure machine, on which subject Paul Cline spoke." He admitted he had conferred with Jack Moore and Paul Cline, officers of the Communist Party, in the offices of his union, local 644, painters. (Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1943, page 167.) 1558 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Now are you prepared to furnish the name of the man who made the statement that Herb Sorrell was the doorman ? You will recall the other day when we had the very issue before us as to whether or not we could accept affidavits on the question of mem- bership in four different unions, that Mr. Owens stated such material should not be received in the record. Mr. Levy. My recollection is that it was not a man, that it was a woman and that her name was Rena Vale. I do not have the record before me but I would like to verify that to make it accurate. Mr. McCann. I wish that you would, sir. Mr. Levy. I shall do so, sir. Mr. SoRREix. That is right ; that was a woman. Mr. Kearns. Just a moment. Mr. Levy (reading) : Additional and further activities of this subject will appear in local and na- tional publications at an early date. No. 1 of a series of personalities in Hollywood. All information was taken from public records, documentary evidence from Federal, State, municipal rec- ords ; newspaper and magazine clips ; available to subject or anyone desiring proof of their authenticity. Released in American public interest by the International Alliance of Theat- rical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators, 6636 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood 28, California. Signed : "Official Committee of the lATSE, Roy M. Brewer, inter- national representative." That, Mr. Chairman, is the first exhibit which I submitted with my letter of November 28. I think it would not be inappropriate for me to ask the indulgence of the committee for a 5-minute recess before I proceed with a continued presentation of my statement. Mr. MgCanx. May we have that document turned over to the court reporter for him to check as he reproduces it and then you can receive it from us? Mr. Levy. Definitely. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Levy, are you going to keep all of those exhibits and the letter you sent me until you finish your report? Mr. Levy. I would be glad to submit them to you or I will be glad to keep them, as you wish. I will assure you if you have them they will be safe and if I have them they will be safe. Mr. INIcCann. I think, Mr. Chairman, after they are read in the record, the letter originally sent to you, with these documents, should be returned to the file because they are exhibits read into the record. We can then refer to them in sending wires out to anyone named. Mr. Levy. What the Congressman asked me was whether I should keep them during the recess; isn't that what you indicated? Mr. Kearns. Yes, or perhaps tonight you would like to return them to me. Mr. McCann. I suggest he keep them in his own possession. Mr, Kearns. No objection. I would like to make this announcement: Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock we will return to the caucus room downstairs and continue the hearings there tomorrow and Friday. We will now stand adjourned until 10 a. m. tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5 : 10 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Thursday, February 26, 1948.) JUEISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTUKE INDUSTRY THURSDAY, FEBBUARY 26, 1948 House of Representatives, Special. Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington^ D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will please come to order. I requested Judge Levy last evening to relinquish the stand for a period this morning in order to hear some other witnesses. At this time I would like to recall Mr. Pat Casey, of Los Angeles, to the stand. TESTIMONY OF PAT CASEY, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE OF THE MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.— Recalled Mr. McCann. Will you please state your name, your address, and your telephone number ? Mr. Casey. Pat Casey, 1600 Broadway, New York City; Circle 5-6001. Mr. McCann. State your business or occupation. Mr. Casey. Up to July 1 of 1947, for twenty-odd years, I was the chairman of the labor committee for the Motion Picture Producers Association. Mr. McCann. What were your duties in that position ? Mr. Casey. As chairman I had under me certain people who did the leg work, as it were, in the studios. After that when we had meetings I acted as chairman of the meetings for the producers and different international presidents acted as chairmen for the unions. Mr. McCann. Are you here under subpena ? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Will you tell us in your own language, step by step from the time you became the employee of the studios, the character of the contracts and agreements that were entered into by the studios, and as you develop the matter give the committee the benefit of such knowledge as you may have with respect to the work carried on by the various unions? Mr. Casey. In 1926 there was entered into an agreement between the international presidents of several unions and the presidents of the 1559 1560 MOTIOK -PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES different motion-picture companies, a paper known as the basic agreement. That paper — I believe legally any attorney would tell you it is not worth the paper it is written on, and perhaps it is not. It just covered what the idea was. It was a paper where you depended upon the signatories to the paper more than you did on any legal language that might be in the paper. Tliere was nothing in that agreement at any time that had anything to do with any jurisdiction. Meetings w^ere held and at those meetings the only matters that were brought up or that could be brought up were matters of wages, hours, and conditions. At no time did we ever allow a jurisdictional matter to be brought up at those meetings as we felt those were things that should be settled amongst the unions themselves and with which management had nothing to do. From 1926, the time when that agreement was entered into, up until the latter part of 1935 or 193G — I am not sure which — we operated in California under an open shop. We made wage conditions with these unions .and we paid everybody in the studio the same wage, whether or not he belonged to any of these organizations or whether he was a free lance. I have heard it said here — and I want to state that it is not so — that the strike was called on wages and hours. That is not so and I am sure the follow who made the statement was mistaken. It was a jurisdictional fight between members of the lATSE union known as the soundmen's union and the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers known as the IBEW. When the original agreement was entered into, of course, nobody thought there was going to be talking pictures. But like every other industry things changed. About the time that talking pictures came into existence then we had a jurisdictional dispute as to whether or not members of the lATSE local or members of the IBEW would do the work. Tliat controversy kept going for quite a while. Finally in 1933 a Mr. Harold Smith, who was the business agent of the lATSE soundmen's local, and Mr. Hurd, who was the business agent of the cameramen's local, took it upon themselves, without any authority from the international of the lATSE, to send out wires and call a strike. Unfortunately the poor fellows working in the studios figured, I presume, that they had some authority because they followed the instructions of the wires from both Smith and Hurd and they went on strike. Now at that time, gentlemen, I want to have you distinctly under- stand it was open shop. There were no picket lines put around. The producers had a ri^ht to go out on the street and hire anybodv that they wanted to. But the carpenters and electricians of the IBEW stepped in and took over such work as was necessary for them to do in order to keep the studios open and, of course, the studios hired whoever they wanted from the outside to fill up the gap. That went on, as I say, until either the latter part of 1935 or 1936. There had been a change in the officers of lATSE. The men in charge at that time insisted they be allowed to come back under the basic agreement. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1561 "Well, that was not decided upon right away ; but evidently a little later some situations developed in Chicago and other places which forced us intO' a meeting. At that meeting, which was held in Xew York City and attended by the presidents of the companies and the other international miions who were signatories to the basic agreement, the lATSE came back under the basic agreement. Shortly after that a local known as No. 37 of the lATSE had some members who started some legal actions in the city of Los Angeles. Those actions went on in the courts for quite a while until it eventually wound up before the National Labor Relations Board, which had come into existence during this time. At that time an election was held. The election gave the work to the international of the lATSE. Thereupon the representative of the international lATSE proceeded to divide local 37 into several unions, which he did. That was about the time that any serious jurisdictional question commenced to show itself. I may say that from that time until now that jurisdiction has been creeping under different conditions and has gotten to be a very serious situation. Now we go along to 1945. In 1942, at a meeting in New York between the international rep- resentatives and the local unions under their jurisdiction the property men demanded that we make a deal covering the so-called — well, I will call them set dressers ; that is the way I know them. We had had a contract with those set dressers, not as a union but as a society. That was a 5 -year contract. That contract provided — at least a certain clause in it did — that if the organization decided to affiliate with any other labor organization the producers had a right to either accept the affiliation as the representative of the society or they had a right to cancel the contract. Well, both sides commenced to wrangle then. There were some elections held, and the set dressers decided to affiliate with the set do- signers, who are chartered under the International Brotherhood of Painters. We were then in a position where we would either have to cancel the contract or accept the change-over from their organization to the set designers. I prevailed upon them that since the National Labor Relations Board was in existence, to clear the thing once and for all ; please go before the National Labor Relations Board; have an election; when that is set aside I will be glad to sit down and deal with you. Well, you have heard the testimony here. I do not think there is any need of my repeating it that that was started, then it got into the War Labor Board and then the strike happened. There you are as to that situation. Now we go along. As I say, there are still these jurisdictional things coming up to the point where there got to be stoppages around the studios. Gentlemen, a studio is a little bit different than any other branch of business. If there were cameras here now and this whole situation, as we sit in this room, was to be a part of a picture and something 1562 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES developed in the meantime where any part of it was stopped, the whole picture stops. You can't say, "Well, Johnny, you go straighten yours, we'll keep shooting the picture." It can't be done. And when that picture is stopped, with the terrible expense the producers have, gentlemen, it runs into thousands of dollars a minute, not an hour, but a minute. We stood that as long as we possibly could. Finally I believe an appeal was made to the American Federation of Labor asking if they would not do something about it. It developed then they did allow Mr. Johnston to go to Cincinnati to meet with the executive council. You know what happened at that meeting just as well as I do. They appointed a committee to come to California. From the testimony I have heard here in this room and the room upstairs, the men were given 30 days to make a thorough investigation of the studios and to then allocate the work as they saw fit. Well, gentlemen, I have been around a long while — perhaps too long — but the fact remains if there is any human being who has never had any experience with any one of those studios out there, and who could go out there and make a thorough investigation and make any decision as to what to do in 3 months, he would be a pretty smart fellow. It might take him a year. That is due to the very fact that no two studios work alike. In another industry you have the lines where the people go along; one fellow makes the same kind of a wheel for an automobile, he might make the same kind of a cushion or things of that kind. But in our business every picture is a different subject and has to be treated as an individual proposition. Another feature of the tiling is this : The studios are not all built the same. For instance, if you were taking this scene today, this setting would be set up here. For instance, we will take the Wanier lot, where they have a tremendous amount of staging. If something had to be retaken on this thing 2 weeks from now on the Warner lot they would not have to take it down. It could stay on this stage be- cause if they had something else to shoot they would pull over to one of the other stages. But when you go to a place like Paramount that is fenced right in, and where they do not have room to move out and build an extra stage or an extra building of any kind, if the scene were being shot today and you have another scene to be shot tomorrow, this scene must be taken down, as we call struck, and put away; the other scene must be put up so that you can shoot the scene tomorrow. Most of that must be done at night. Now you go to RKO. There is a fence right between RKO and the property, in the same situation there. Over at Metro they have three big lots, but they still do not have stage room. Now you move to Twentieth Century-Fox and they have practically what the Warners have. Another thing, gentlemen, is that we are in a business where the only thing involved in the business is personality, and that goes pretty near from the fellow who sweeps the street to the head of the institution. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1563 The nuiu at Twentieth Century-Fox who is head of the sound de- partment says, "My system is the one ; the others are no good." The follow at Metro will tell you that Fox is no good but his is. Now that goes for that, it goes for sound ; it goes for the laboratory ; it goes for construction ; it will go for pretty nearly everything. Each one is an individual, and each one thinks that his is the proper one and that the other fellow's is not. They get along, but how they do he does not know. Now, these men came out there. They made a survey. They had 30 days. You have heard it here a million times. They met with people, and what happened at those meetings I don't know a thing about. I was never present at any one of them. The only connection I had was that about 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning I got a telephone call from someone on the committee asking if I would arrange for them to go over to Paramount and see the lot, which I did. I understand they went over there, and they were there 2 or 3 hours. They came back and made decisions. Now far be it from me to say what they should have done or what the American Federation of Labor should have done. But the way that looks to me from the testimony I have heard here is that there should be a lot of house cleaning in the American Federation of Labor. In my early days when Mr. Sam Gompers gave an order, gentle- men, it was an order, and somebody filled it. But from the testimony I have heard here, from the letters Mr. Walsh has written to Mr. Green, to Mr. Meany, the answers back, and everything else — somebody made the remark here that it was a lemon handed from one back to the other and from the testimony now every day it looks as though that lemon, in my estimation, has gotten to be a watermelon. Now, this committee gives orders. Bear in mind one thing. The producers were part and parcel of the committee. The producers were the ones that wanted this thing settled. They were the ones that were getting hurt. Yes ; the fellow who was out of a job was getting hurt a little bit, but that producer is budgeted to that picture, and when those costs go up 100 percent, which they do in many cases, somebody wants to know why. So they say, "Our decision is final." They make a decision, and the main thing they say and the main thing I understand all this argimient is about is that they said "Set erection belongs to the lATSE." All right, the directive came to California. Then the argument started, gentlemen, between ourselves, between the unions and between practically everybody, as to what was the definition of "set erection." We ourselves were divided on it. We brought the attorneys in to ha"*'e them give us decisions. We finally decided we would send the committee down to Miami where the American Federation of Labor was having its meeting, or the executive council was having its meeting, and see if they would give us a clarification so that we would know what to do. We did not care who got the work. It was the same price. We would not save a nickel if this one or that one got it. There was no dispute as to the amount of wages they were to be paid for what they did. 1564 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Well, you have seen from the testimony, from the minutes, and everything else, what happened at Miami. Now, a situation did come out at ]\Iiami, according to some of the testimony and some of the minutes, to the eifect that someone asked a question. If I remember correctly, it was Mr. Tobin of the teamsters, from Mr. Mannix: How many men does this involve vpho are going to lose work tliat they have been doing? He was referring to the carpenters. He was told between 300 and 350. That went along. We could not get anywhere. I believe that same committee came to Washington and had furtlier meetings with Mr. Green and everybody else for clarification so that they could tell us what was meant when they said the lATSE was to have "set erection." We did not get it. Then along comes a clarification which says, "Well, set erection means, instead of building, it means assemblage," or words to that effect. Then there was a clarification made of a decision that had already been rendered. In came the carpenters and said, "Here it is, boys, here is what they say. The same people who told us of their decision, now tell us this, and unless you do so and so we won't work." They said, "We have a hundred million dollars involved and we want to keep going." I said, "All right, we will go to Mr. Johnston." We said, "Boj^s, you will never straighten this out. Let's close down and let them all walk the streets, then we will get together. When the pay check is not coming in every Saturday night to that old lady, she'll tell the guy what to do." But they wouldn't do it. Perhaps they could not afford to do it, gentlemen. We have a very, very serious situation in the motion-picture busi- ness. They want to close theaters. If that dough does not come through the little wicket in the box office, and that in turn is sent back to California, there are not going to be any pictures made. I have been around a long, long while, and I have never seen where these companies have built up any great reserve to fight any such battle. If they had had the money when the boys went into Chicago and closed the theaters, I think at that time they would have closed. They did not have the money. They were in bad shape. It was not a situation such as where Mr. Henry Ford could say, "Close down tonight." He is the only boss. But here are these com- panies with bankers, stockholders, and everybody telling them what to do. They are not their own bosses, and they could not at any time close down because if the flow does not come through, if the old water does not come through the pipe, we can't drink. Gentlemen, when this thing first started out there, there was an agreement of some kind in 1925, but that was a long, long while ago. They went in to make pictures. They had been making them in the East. They then went out west to make pictures. At that time they did practically what was done in the theater. They built a frame like that panel in that wall there. The carpenter built that frame. Then the grip covered that either with muslin or canvas. Somebody came along and painted it, and they set it right up there. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1565 But as business commenced to get a little better somebody decided, "Oh, we can't do that. We've got to build these things solid." It says in there all of it must be done in the mill. All right ; there isn't a mill in California where it could be done, they are not big enough because they have put in sets of pictures which you have probably seen that are pretty big. You have probably seen sets they have put in of the Grand Central Station. I will say, gentlemen, when you walk onto that stage and you saw the replica of Grand Central Sta- tion built on that stage you would bet your life you were in the Grand Central Station. How are you going to build that in a little bit of a mill probably 50 by 100 feet ? It could not be done. So the industry kept coming along. New developments kept coming. I can remember in the early days when they developed film. The fellow went into a room where it was so dark he couldn't see any- think. He felt around ; he had to have certain temperatures ; he had to have the baths, and everything all right. But today, science has come along and they set it like you would a thermostat for heat in your home. You just press a button. There are improvements every day on cameras. There are im- provements every day on sound. There are improvements on the manufacture of this and that. Out at Twentieth Century-Fox a gi'ip out there perfected a sort of truck arrangement. He did it himself, out of his own head. That has probably saved a lot of money, but that is his. I am showing you what was done in 1945. It would be just the same as the construction of a building in 1925. They are certainly not constructing them that way today. If you constructed a building today on this site, you would have air conditioning put in. Every stage in California has air conditioning today. Mr. Owens. I cannot help but add, Mr. Casey, when you speak about building, from observation during our recent investigations, I must say that the percentage of change in that is about 10 percent, compared with other things. Someone is responsible for that, holding back those technological improvements. Mr. Casey. No question about it. Since you have brought that matter up, let me tell you something. When the NRA was first formed, we came down here. We had meetings down in the big building that our good friend Mr. Herbert Hoover, a resident of the State of California, had built. He was sup- posed to be a very fine engineer. In that day he built one of the finest buildings you have in Washington. The only room he air-conditioned was his own private office. We had meetings there in the summertime when I was in there fighting with several others, and they allowed us to strip down to our under- shirts. So what you say is absolutely so, they have not gone along with it. Probably some day they will, but that is another business. It is not the picture business. Up until 1937, the latter part of 1936, or up until the time we gave them the closed shop, we had no trouble, no stoppage of any kind, and we have never had a situation where they had a strike, to my 67383— 48— vol. 3 5 1566 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES knowledge, in Hollywood — and I think I am right — where it was ever about anything but jurisdiction. Before the NRA came into existence, there was a time when we were having it pretty tough. We went to the signatories of the basic agree- ment and told them how tough it was. They gave us a reduction of a dollar a day on the men. But before NRA came into existence conditions were bad. They called a meeting. They said, "We have got to have more work. We have got to have this and that and so and so." And we voluntarily, before any NRA meeting was held, gave the men a 6-hour day instead of an 8-hour day for the same amount of money that they were getting for 8 hours, and that has been in existence ever since. They did give us an 8-hour day during the war, but we jDaid time and a half after 6 hours, and it is still in effect. Now, I am sorry anything like this had to happen. Of course, I have lived with the thing, but since the 1st of July I have been out of the picture. I have served my apprenticeship. We have done a. good job because the gates have never been closed. Of course, that is the main thing you have to watch for. My personal opinion is this, gentlemen, and take it for what it is worth: That had that committee, when they sent in that directive that the work of set erection belonged to the lATSE, if they had said in that line that the set erection belonged to local 80 of the lATSE, which I am informed — I have never seen the contract — was prac- tically what had been agreed to between the carpenters and local 8Q of the grips Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at that point. Mr. Kearns. Yes, proceed Mr. Owens. Mr. Casey, did the inclusion of the words in there with respect to the 1925 agreement, add anything to the point ? Mr. Caset. No, sir. What had happened in 1925 was, as I have told you. But after that, as it progressed, the carpenters built the sets. The laborers took those sets before they were put together from the mill to the stage. The carpenter went over to that stage with a blueprint. He laid out his floor plan. He put up the set. He did the trim and the millwork and things of that kind. From then on the grips took charge. When that set was to be used again, the gi-ips took it down, took it apart, took whatever could be salvaged and saved, over to the bins, what we call the storehouse. If it was not to be used again, the laborers came in, knocked it to pieces, took it to the incinerators and burned it up. It was cheaper in those days to burn the stuff up than it was to knock it down, take the nails out, save this piece or that piece, and things of that kind. You could buy the lumber and material cheaper, and it was cheaper to do it that way. Now, they have worked hand in hand. As I say, no two lots work alike. Sometimes the grips took that work from the carpenter shop over there. But to my knowledge, I have never seen any serious trouble between local 80, which is the grips, and the carpenters. There were certain things that came along. The grips got out a patented scaffolding of piping instead of a wooden structure. That was theirs. They made it. Everybody used it. The carpenters worked on it. The painters worked on it. Everybody worked on it. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1567 Mr. Owens. Wouldn't it be presumed, Mr. Casey, that if control were given to the international, or the ones who controlled the various locals or had jurisdiction over them, that they would naturally assign them to the proper group, for instance, like local 80 ? Mr. Casey. Evidently in this thing it was not done. Mr. Owens. Well, that would be the natural assumption, wouldn't it? Mr. Casey. I would have thought so, but it was not done in this case. Mr. Owens. That is all. ISIr. McCann. What was done ? Mr. Casey. A new organization was chartered by the lATSE which was called the set erectors. My personal opinion, gentlemen, is that when they set that up they took practically as much work away from their own grips as they did from the carpenters. Mr. Owens. That was set up after the directive had been handed down ? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. I had never heard the words "set erection." It was never used in any of our contracts, or anything of that kind, until after that. It was always local 80 or local 44, and they had their work, Mr. McCann. A while ago, Mr. Casey, you commented on the fact that the industry was primarily concerned, that the industry was the one who insisted on going to the Cincinnati meeting, that the industry obligated itself to go along, then you stated you were not consulted when the three-man committee came out on any of its decisions. Were any industrj^ representatives consulted at all with respect to the work that was assigned to the different unions ? Mr. Casey. Not that I know of, except they might have talked with the people at Paramount. I believe that is the only studio they visited. Mr. McCann. Was the 1925 agreement that has so frequently been referred to, ever put into effect? Mr. Casey. I don't think it was from the fact that that was an agree- ment between the locals. Subsequently, within a very short while after that agreement had been talked about between those locals, the basic agi-eement came into effect, to which the lATSE, through Mr. William Canavan, their president, was a signatory. From 1926 on, everybody worked under the basic agreement. Mr. Owens. At the time of that directive they did not seem to go on the theor}' that the 1925 agreement had been put into effect, they just merely said they were from that time on to work under the 1925 agreement. At least that is the meaning I get out of it. Mr. Casey. You get the same meaning I do. I believe that is what they did say in there. The A. F. of L., gentlemen, gave those three men a job that, my God, no human being in the world could have done in the time they were supposed to do it. It looks from the testimony, and everything else that has been said, that when they got this thing they looked at certain papers. They probably made the decision on those papers. That is the way it looks to me. I might have been hundreds of miles away, but I would not take the job if they gave me a million dollars right on this table today, to go out there and try to straighten out the jurisdiction in those studios, because if I made a decision — and I want to clarify that in a minute — I do not think any one of them would live up to it after a little while. 1568 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I am positive if the records were gone into — and I have made this statement before — covering the time the American Federation of Labor has been in existence, and I think it is around 70 or 75 years, I person- ally do not know of a single jurisdiction ever handed down that both sides lived up to. There may be, but by God, I don't know where they are. Mr. McCann. What is your answer as to the way in which this could be settled ? Mr. Casey. There is only one way this thing could ever be settled. That is, the people who are involved in it getting around a table, giving and taking, and let the poor devils alone who have given up their lives to these studios and have worked there — and there are sev- eral of them. Now, the rank and file, the younger fellow in any of these crafts, whether he is a painter, an electrician, or a carpenter, he can get all the work he wants on account of building conditions. But the fellow who has worked for 25 years in one of those departments, who is not a young fellow any more, it is hard for him to go out and climb scaffolds, climb ladders, and do that type of work. They must have been pretty good mechanics, because I do not think any one of them was ever hired for more than 1 day. When you hire a fellow for 1 day and keep him for 25 ^^ears, he must have delivered. I do not have a dollar interest in this thing in an way, shape, or manner, gentlemen. I do not own a dollar's worth of stock in any amusement enterprise, but I certainly would like to see the people get together and in some way put the poor devils back to work who are walking the streets, that have been part and parcel of this industry Mr. Owens. Of course, under an arrangement like that you probably have an awful habit of getting the very best men and the very best out of the men, don't you ? Mr. Casey. Yes, no question about that. Mr. Owens. The word "awful" was just used in jest. Mr. Landis. Mr. Casey, I agree with you they should sit down at the bargaining table. When we wrote the Taft-Hartley law on juris- dictional disputes we did not expect them to strike for very long and leave the employer out, because he had nothing to say about it. We intended to give them a few days, and if they did not settle within a few days, we would let the National Labor Relations Board settle it. Of course I would like to see them settle it first. Mr. Casey. Certainly you would. But let me tell you something, I do not want it to appear here that I am the Moses here, I do not think this is out of line. I have talked to some of your committee, but not you gentlemen. Again I think the Taft-Hartley Act made a little mistake. I think if the Taft-Hartley Act had gone through the way the Congress laid it out you would have less headaches, and it would have been better for everybody, I believe it is clause 3 in the contract as finally written that deals with jurisdiction. What do you say in there? You practically say that if there is a jurisdictional dispute and they cannot settle it within a day or two, or whatever it is Mr. Landis. Ten days. Mr. Casey. Ten days. They have the right then, to go to the National Eelations Board. They go and make an investigation, then MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1569 they have a hearing. Then it will be 2 years, gentlemen, before you get a decision. Now, what is going to happen to the picture that is stopped and is not working ? You cannot stop it even for 10 days. If they had put one clause in there, "while it is before the Board," or ''while this is going on there shall be no stoppage of work," gentle- men, you could have gone to the Board, because when the final decision was made, it could not be any different than it was under the present conditions. Mr. Owens. Well, you are given more time than that, Mr. Landis. Mr. Casey, Well, you need time to go in and investigate and do something. Mr. Owens. Yes, but you have time for the conciliation board to come in for practically 60 days, you might say. iSIr. Casey. Yes, naturally. Now, if they made the decision that the other fellow had the right to do the work, pay him. Mr. Owens. They say the conciliator in the case cannot make a bind- ing order, but he can sit and help them get together. Mr. Casey. Well, isn't that practically the trouble? We are friends now, talking very friendly. I have had people come to me on the out- side and say, "AVhy doesn't the Department of Labor come in here and settle this thing?" The Department of Labor can do nothing but come in, try and conciliate and give their best efforts to bring people together and get them around the table. They can't say, "I have heard your story, Mr. Casey, and you are right, and I have heard yours, Mr. Owens, and you are wrong, so I am going to give a decision to Mr. Casey." They cannot do it. Gentlemen, that I say to you is the trouble with half the bills we have. I wish that in the Taft-Hartley Act there would have been just that one line in there that "during this investigation work would not be stopped." Mr. Landis. That would work on the same principle as if the unions could not decide who was to do the work then let the employer make the selection until it was settled. Mr. Casey. Until it was decided, that's right. If he made the wrong selection, pay the other fellow. That is the only way you are going to do it, gentlemen. We have been here now a long while. We are hearing a lot of evi- dence back and forth. I mny be wrong, but as I understand it all that this committee can do is say, "Boys, try and settle. If you don't we will probably have to try and put other legislation into effect that will make you do something." That is practically all you can do, man to man. isn't that true? Mr. 0^^t:ns. Well, INIr. Mr. Casey, we try to be very careful not to interfere with the internal affairs of the union organization, or with the internal affairs of business. Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. Owens. That is something which concerns them alone, and even though it might hurt the Nation, w^e should give them a reasonable opportunity to prove they either can or cannot do it, before we take drastic steps, because it would be drastic to interfere with their internal operations. 1570 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Casey. You will have to do something, or try to do something, won't you ? Mr. Owens. Well Mr. Casey. I am not talking about this one case, but any case of this kind. If the parties do not get together and try to settle it in their own home, they you have to step in the door, don't you ? Mr. Owens. Well, we made provisions in certain instances where they had as much as 60 days, and even as much as 90 days. Mr. Casey. But, Mr. Owens, the work has stopped. Mr. Owens. No, that is without the work being stopped. We have provisions in the bill where it can go from 60 to 90 days without the work being stopped. Mr. Casey. I don't think so. Mr. Landis. He is talking about the health and safety section. Mr. Owens. Yes, but depending upon how serious the situation is, that is, if it affects the health and safety of the Nation. Mr. Casey. That is right. As I am trying to explain to you — it was brought out here that I had written a letter to Hutcheson of some kind telling him I was not going to pay his men if they stopped, and I issued that order not to pay them if they stopped. Mr. Owens. Now you are going into things that are purely eco- nomic and concern money. Where it concerned money, we felt the action for damages should be enough to cover the parties from taking steps which would harm each other. Maybe if we restrain those parties from filing suits for damages which have to be paid, we will see some changes. Mr. Casey. You might. Mr. Landis. A strike where the employer and the labor union is involved, is a different strike from two labor unions where the em- ployer has nothing to do with it. Mr. Casey. That is right, you are in the middle. Mr. Landis. In other words, we would like to keep the Government out of it. It is in too many things now, but if they take sides Mr. Casey. You ought to have some redress somewhere. Mr. Landis. No question about it. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Casey, you are not an advocate of compulsory arbitration ? Mr. Caset. I am not. I am not. These men are over 21 years of age, all of them. My God. all that is needed in any of these things is a little common sense. Now, as to pride, throw it out the window. Who is getting hurt ? The poor devil trying to make a living. That's all. Mr. Landis. I do* not want you to accuse anybody, but will you give me what information you can on this : Is there anything in this jurisdictional dispute that has been communistic-inspired? Mr. Casey. I don't think so. My God, I have heard Communist, Communist, Communist. It gets down to where if you do not agree with somebody you are a Communist. It is true there has been testimony here that back in 1937 when they were fiijhting — it might have been 1937 — but when local 37 was having the fight, that fellow Kibre who was in there, I believe has been proven a Communist. He is now an organizer or head of the fish union down at San Pedro. They have been in trouble. They have been in the Federal court and they have been everywhere. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1571 There is no question but so far as our trouble out there is concerned the fellows in those studios are anxious to work and to get that dough Saturday night, I don't think they have anything to do with any communistic affiliations. Mr. Owens. In other words, you don't believe the leaders of the A. F. of L. were hypnotized by anybody ? Mr. Casey. No, sir. I was present at Atlantic City when the CIO was formed and the day they broke away from the American Federation of Labor, so I am talking about something I know of. I was there. Unfortunately the leaders of the A. F. of L. did not think Lewis was going to go through. All the A. F. of L. fellows are my friends. We have never dealt with anybody else. I told them then, "Look out, boys, you are going to be in a little trouble." Now up to that time the American Federation of Labor could say to an international, "Now, wait a minute. You are wrong. You will have to do so and so or we will throw you out, take your charter away," or something of that kind. Now, let's step down the line. The international could say to a local, "You are wrong and if you are wrong we are going to come in and take the charter off your walls," which they did in lots of cases. In those days a charter from that international on the local's wall was just the same as a doctor, dentist, attorney, or anybody else with a diploma. The minute that charter was taken away from them they had nothing. Today they come in and say, "Well, Willie Jones, we are going to take the charter away." He says, "All right, take it away." He walks across the street and says, "I'll join the CIO and take the crowd with me," and vice versa. They have lost the power to compel anybody to do anything, in my opinion. Mr. 0^\T:]srs. That is quite a thought. Mr. KJEARNs. Do you have any further questions, Mr. Owens ? Mr. 0wt:ns. Oh, yes ; I do. Mr. Kearns. Are you through with your testimony, Mr, Casey ? Mr, Casey. Yes ; that is about all I know. Mr. Owens. You mentioned before the 1926 agreement. Mr. Casey, Yes, sir. Mr, Owens. You stated, however, that so far as a written document was concerned, it had no particular meaning; it was just something in the minds of the various parties and you depended upon their in- tegrity as to whether it would be carried out ; is that true? Mr. Casey. That is correct, sir, Mr. Owens. Did you feel there was enough in that agreement, for instance such as a constitution, that could be liberally construed from time to time to take care of the technological changes that were occur- ring so rapidly? Mr, Casey. There was not anything in that agi'eement, Mr. Owens, covering that situation, but as they were taken we had meetings, got together, and we never had an argument. Well, something would come along. For instance, they would have certain craft that were not in existence at the time of the original agreement. But as those crafts came along and became part of their organizations we accepted them. 1572 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. You mentioned there was no jurisdictional question involved in the 1926 set-up. Mr. Casey. No, sir ; there was not any. Mr. Owens. But there appears to have been questions of jurisdic- tion decided in the so-called 1926 agreement, that was made about the 5th of February 1925 ; is that true ? Mr. Casey. There were some divisions of work as to what one or the other was to do. But as I say to you, as business increased and these conditions crept into the industry — which you yourself have referred to — then you had other situations to contend with. Mr. Owens. As you went through the thirties after you had the open shop, up to about 1935, you naturally did not have a great deal of difficuhy because work was quite scarce, was it not? Mr. Casey. Well, it was scarce, but the thing was this : The working- man was willing to work because he was afraid if he said anything or i t' he kicked over the traces, all you had to do was to go out to the gate and get someone else. In those days, Mr. Owens, there were thousands of fellows hanging around those gates trying to get jobs in the studios. Mr. Owens. That is what I mean. Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. In other words, there were quite a number of men available so you did not have that difficulty? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. But of course at that time we do admit the employers of the Nation were taking quite an advantage because there were a great number of workers. Mr. Casey. They weren't in the picture business for the very fact that while we made a wage agreement for the people who were signa- tories to the basic agreement, any other man in that studio who did not belong to a union and did the same work, he got the same conditions and the same money, Mr. Owens. It appears that the first real difficulty that we had with respect to arguments between labor and management was that we started to have a business pick-up in 1937. Then the sitdown strikes and other things occurred. Mr. Casey. That's right. Mr. Owens. You had some difficulty, too, in 1937, didn't you ? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Do you recall what the trouble was about in 1937 ? Mr. Casey. In 1937? Mr. 0"\vens. Yes. You will remember there was some testimony about a strike that took place in 1937. Mr. Casey. You mean in the theaters in Chicago? Mr. Owens. No; the machinists mentioned the fact that they would not go through the picket lines. Mr. Casey. Oh, yes. In about 1937 the painters withdrew from the basic agreement. Mr. Owens. The 1926 basic agreement ? Mr. Casey. The 1926 basic agreement. They wanted jurisdiction over the make-up people, over the hairdressers and three or four things of that kind that we did not consider belonged in the painters union and we would not asfree to that. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1573 They then withdrew from the basic agreement and did start a strike. Mr. Owens. What time in 1937 did that take place, any time in the spring ? Mr. Casey. Now, Mr. Owens, to the best of my recollection, I think it was along in the fall. I believe it was around August or September, something of that kind. Mr. Ow^ENS. Who headed the painters at that time ? Mr. Casey. Mr. Lindelof was the international president of the painters and Herb Sorrell was the business agent for the local union. Mr. OwExs. "Wlio called the strike ? Mr. Casey. Wait a minute, I am wrong. A man named Charlie Lessing — and I think you will find his signature on the original basic agreement — was brought to California. There were two or three fel- lows there. I do not recall their names. They came back there and called the strike. Lessing was around trying to straighten it out and he could not, so he went away. Then, if I remember correctly, the painters had a meeting and elected Sorrell as their business agent. ]Mr. Owens. You mean after the strike was called ? Mr, Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owexs. So he was not primarily connected with the strike in the first place ? Mr. Casey. No, sir. Mr. Owens. Then how long did that strike last ? Mr. Casey. Oh, I think tTiat strike lasted 4 or 5 weeks. The lA came along and furnished us with people and we kept the studios open. Then the lA and the painters got together and straightened it up. Mr. Oavens. The teamsters came through the line ? Mr. Casey. Everybody. INIr. Owens. Well, the machinists mentioned they would not go through the line and the carpenters did not either, did they ? Mr. Casey. I think they clid, Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens. I believe the machinists testified they did not go through the lines. Mr. Casey. They may not have. Mr. Owens. You recall I was trying to bring out the difference between 1937 and 1945. Mr. Casey. That is right. I am pretty sure everybody under that basic agreement went through that line and paid no attention to this thinof because at the meeting when the painters were demanding the jurisdiction of these people all the rest of the international presidents were there. I don't believe that any one of them — Tobin, Joe Weber, Hutcheson, the electrical workers — I think everyone of them went through the line. Mr. Owens. Well, the machinists testified that they were trying to organize at that time. Mr. Casey. But the machinists were never under the basic agree- ment, IVfr. Owens. Mr. Owens. That is right. Mr. Casey. I am only talking now abi>ut the crafts that were under the basic agreement. I am positive they all went through the line. 1574 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. I think the machinists mentioned they were organizing their local at that time and they felt that was a good way to keep their local orderly. Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. Owens. So your next real difficulty occurred when after 1937 ? Mr. Casey. 1945. Mr. Owens. What about the meeting in 1942 you have mentioned before ? Mr. Casey. 1942 ? Oh, that was a meeting in New York where we were meeting with the lATSE crafts, setting up their wage scales and conditions. At that time they were demanding we recognize them as the bargaining agent for the set dressers, which I wouldn't do. Mr. Owens. But you had a closed-shop contract witli them for about 5 years prior to that time, from about 1936 on, didn't you ? Mr. Casey. With the lA? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. That expired when, about 1941? Mr. Casey. No; that must have been about 1937 or 1938, because we gave them a new one in 1944. We renewed it in 1944 for another period of 5 years. Mr. Owens. Then it was right in the middle of the contract when the discussion came up about the — what was it? Mr. Casey. The set dressers. Mr. OvTENS. Then you arrived at an agreement with them on that point and incorporated it in your other 5-year agreement, did you ? Mr. Casey, No, sir; we would not at that time, because I already had a 5-year agreement with the set dressers that had 2 or 3 years to go. I could not make a deal with them. Mr. Owens. Then in 1944 when you made the agreement with the lA was it under the same type of work they had done before? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Did you incorporate the set dressers into that agreement ? Mr. Casey. No ; because their contract was not even up in 1944. Mr. Owens. So you had a strike also in 1944, didn't you ? Mr. Casey. Well, it might have been the latter part of 1944 or 1945. Mr. Owens, I believe it was the latter part of 1944. Who called that strike ? Mr. Casey. The set designers, 1421, a chartered organization of the painters' union which the set dressers had joined. Mr. Owens. That was also during the war, was it not? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Tlie next difficulty came in the early part of 1945, did it not? Mr. Casey. I think you will find that was the same difficulty. You see, they were going before the Labor Board, the War Board, and putting their hand into it. It was just a ball rolling until they finally got to this strike in the early part of 1945. Mr. Owens. Isn't it a fact they did file before the Board and then withdrew the petition ? Mr. Casey. I have already said, Mr. Owens, but let me remind you, when they came to me and told me they had joined with 1421, which MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1575 was the set designers, an affiliate of the painters' union — and in my contract with them this clause was there, either I had a right to accept the affiliation or I had a right to cancel the contract. I did neither. A,fter they had joined this other thing they came and I suggested they go to the National Labor Relations Board and get it cleaned up once and for all. because at that time the lA was still with me, too. Mr. Owens. Who would you say were the two unions primarily responsible for the difficulty at that time ? Mr. Casey. Well, the entire painters' union and their affiliates. 1421 is a charter just the same as local 80 is a charter under the lATSE. Mr. Owens. You mean they were arguing with each other on the very same thing? jVlr. Casey. Oh, no. The set dressers joined the other draftsmen. Mr. Owens. What are they? Mr. Casey. Well, they are draftsmen. They call them set designers but they are draftsmen. They had become a part of the set designers union. Mr. Owens. And the painters objected to that ? Mr. Casey. Oh, no ; the lATSE objected to that. Tlie lAT took the ground that some of these people, or most of them, had come up from the ranks of property ]nen, which the lA did control, and that under those conditions they should belong to the lA local. Mr. Owens. But they were already A. F. of L. people, were they not^ Mr. Casey. They were not up until the time they joined the set designers; they were a society. They were not affiliated with any union. Mr. Owens. They were just independent ? Mr. Casey. They were just an independent society. Mr. Owens. Then when they became affiliated with the designers — Mr. Casey. Thej^ naturally became A. F. of L. Mr. Owens. Then just how did the difficulty arise? Tell me that. Mr. Casey. The difficulty started in 1942, when we had a contract with this society, a 5-year contract. Mr. Owens. Which was to expire in 1947 ? Mr. Casey. I believe that is the time, sir. Now as I say to you, in this 5-year contract there was this clause, that if they saw fit to af- filiate with any other organization — in other words, if they wanted to become a labor union — we had a right to either cancel the contract or to accept the affiliation that they made. Is that clear, Mr. Owens? Mr. Owens. Yes. That was in 1942, when you had that contract which was to expire in 1947? Mr. Casey. It might have been '42 or '41. Anyway, it was a 5-year contract. Now before that contract expired in 1942 — so I think this other con- tract must have been 1941 — the lA at one of our meetings in New York where we were settling wages and conditions for all of their crafts, demanded recognition of the set designers. My answer was, "No : I have a contract for 5 years with these people. They have not notified me in any way, shape, or manner that they are affiliated with anybody, and I can't do a thing." 1576 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES That went along. In 1944 the same demand was made when we were meeting with the lA crafts in New York and I had to give them the same answer. Subsequent to 1944 this organization of set dressers saw fit to affiliate with the set designers who are part and parcel or chartered under the painters' union. They so notified me. I then had the right under that contract to say, "We do not accept it ; we do not recognize it," or we had a right to cancel the contract. Mr. Oavens. And you did neither? Mr. Casey. I did neither, but I did say to them when they came in, "Boy, this is a mix-up. Go down before the National Labor Relations Board ; have it cleaned up once and for all and whatever the decision is we will make the deal." Now is that plain to you ? Mr. Owens. Yes ; up to that point. Mr. Casey. Now, they went down and made an application. Im- mediately when they made the application the lATSE local put in an objection. This was during the war. At that time I was given to understand that if two A. F. of L. unions came before the National Labor Relations Board they would not attempt to settle it. If it was a case between an A. F. of L. union and a CIO union they would accept it. When these fellows found out the I A had made this objection I understand they withdrew their application to the National Labor Relations Board and threatened to strike. Mr. Owens. The lA threatened to strike or the painters ? Mr. Casey. No ; the painters. Immediately then a man by the name of Nebbitt — it might have been him or it might have been someone else — who was one of those regional fellows for the War Labor Board at San Francisco, stepped into the picture and said, "Well, boys, if you don't do this, give us a little time. We will take it before the War Labor Board and we will get this thing straightened out." He thought he could do it within a week. He did take it up with the War Labor Board in Washington. They in turn handed it over to Mr. William Green. Mr. William Green held this lemon for a 1 ittle while, then handed it back to the War Labor Board. Mr. Owens. That was before the strike? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. In other words, Mr. Green did not take jurisdiction of their own dispute ? Mr. Casey. No ; handed it right back to the War Labor Board. Mr. Kearns. Will the gentleman yield at this point ? Mr. Owens. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hutcheson, is re- quired to leave. I am going to release Mr. Casey at this time. You may come back on immediately after the luncheon period and answer questions that counsel may have for you, after the honorable gentle- man, Mr. Owens from Illinois, has finished his questioning, if that is agreeable. Mr. Owens. Yes ; that is agreeable. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Hutcheson, will you step to the witness stand ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1577 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM L. HUTCHESON, GENEKAL PRESIDENT, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA— Recalled Mr. Kearns. Mr. Hutcheson, proceed to make any statement you wish to make at this time. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman. I appear before your committee at your request, as you know. I presented the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America's evidence, or what we had to say. Since that time it has been stated from the witness chair by repre- sentatives of the lA that they were desirous of procuring all of the work in the studios. I would like to make the position of the Brother- hood of Carpenters clear that all we desire is the work that belongs to carpenters. We have no desire to get any other work in the studios. Eeference has been made by a representative to the lA to commun- ism. The records will show there has been considerable said in that respect. I again want to state the position of the brotherhood as I think it has been made clear in reference to Communists. Now if your committee's further hearings develop that any member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is a Communist, I welcome that evidence so that we may follow up our usual procedure in the brotherhood. INIr. Kearns. What is that procedure ? Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman, it will show in the record that we do not permit a known Communist to either become a member of the brotherhood or to retain membership if he should get in. Mr. Kearns. You kick them out, in other words ? Mr. Hutcheson. We do. Mr. Owens. Well, in the same way you would have no dealings out- side of your union, either? Mr. Hutcheson. I did not get that clear. Mr. Owens. You would not permit your locals to have dealings with known Communists, either? Mr. Hutcheson. Not if we know it. In other words, we would not take on as a cooperative to assist us, to gain our end, any known Communist. Mr. Owens. That is what I want to bring out. Mr. Kearns. You may proceed, Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say. I have tried to be as helpful to the committee as possible. If you want to ask me anj^ questions before I leave the chair, I would be happy to answer them, but when I am excused I would like to leave. ]Mr. Landis. The record will show that Judge Levy, speaking for the lA, gave the carpenters a clean bill of health. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Congressman, I did not get all of that. Mr. Landis. INIr. Levy, the representative of the lA, gave the car- penters a clean bill of health so far as carpenters are concerned, yester- day : is that the way you understood it ? Mr. Hutcheson. If Mr. Levy is the final court of all resorts, I thank the gentleman for that clean bill of health. 1578 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Landis. I said that Judge Levy, when he was on the stand, said there were no Communists in the carpenters' union, so far as he under- stood it. Mr. HuTCHESON". I may be wrong — and if I am I would be glad to be corrected — ^but I understood tlie inference was in his remarks that I, as general president of the brotherhood, was collaborating to some extent at least with the Communists in order to get control of the studios in California. That is why I just made the statement and I want to make it clear that all we desire in the studios is work that rightfully belongs to our carpenters. We do not want to control the studios in Hollywood by any means. We only want the carpenter Mork that is done therein. Mr. Owens. Mr. Hutcheson, inasmuch as you may be gone from here when this testimony is resumed by Mr. Levy, I am going to try to anticipate from some of the general charges that were made and ask you questions. He is making the charge that Mr. Sorrell is a Comnuniist. He has made that statement, and that there has been an unholy alliance be- tween his group and the carpenters. That is virtually what he said and what you just mentioned. Did you have any knowledge of the fact that Mr. Sorrell was or could have been affiliated with the Communist Party in any way ? Mr. Hutcheson. I have no knowledge of that. I have told Mr. Sorrell to his face that if he were a "Commie" I didn't want to have anything to do with him. Mr. Owens. Well, you certainly had knowledge of all these various statements made in the papers read here showing that he participated in meetings of all these various groups, or he was a very busy man. Judging from what has been said about him he must have been every- where at the same time. Mr. Kearns. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Owens. Yes; of course. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Sorrell has not had any opportunity to defend that yet. That is just a charge. Mr. 0"\vens. Oh, there is no question about it. When I am asking these questions I am not charging anyone. I am just trying to antici- pate because you have been placed back on the stand and I understand you want to get away. Mr. Hutcheson. Congressman, might I ask you this : Do you believe everything you read in the papers ? Mr. Owens. It would be too bad if I did, because I have read some things about myself sometimes I knew were not true. Mr. Hutcheson. Yes ; that's true. Mr. Owens. That might happen occasionally; but, for instance, when you see one charge after the other saying a man is a member of this group, he is shown to be a member and he does not disclaim he is a member of a certain organization, and then he joins another group which is known as a pro-Communist group — I am not making these charges, I am only going into the things Mr. Levy said, because Mr. Levy is ooing to be responsible, with his group, for the charges that were made. We made that clear yesterday. We have assumed he is going to put in definite proof rather than general charges because we do not like general charges. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1579 Mr. HuTCHEsoN. Congressman, let me say thi§ in reply to your statement : Far be it from me to influence Mr. Levy to say other than he desires. If I were to believe everything that I have heard and read in the papers about m3'self I would be ashamed to even look in the mirror. Mr. Owens. Well, I haven't seen anything so terrible about you, Mr. Hutcheson. Any remarks about you are always mixed with caution. As Mr. Casey mentioned there, he said there are fine men at the head of the A. F. of L., but they should have a housecleaning. Mr. Hutcheson. I was not referring to remarks like Mr. Casey made. I was referring to other things that have been said at various times and printed. Mr. Owens. In other words, you do not have any personal knowl- edge of any affiliation of any kind that Mr. Sorrell or any of his co- workers out there have with the Communists ? Mr. Hutcheson. I have none other than rumors. Mr. Owens. Now we will go to Mr. Casey's remarks, which were very pertinent with respect to jurisdictional issues. You heard his remarks. I do not have to repeat them to you. What do you think of what he said ? Did it carry the germ of truth in it ? Mr. Hutcheson. Having been associated with Mr. Casey since 1926, on various occasions, when the basic agreement went into effect, I agree with what Mr. Casey said. Didn't you want me to agree with him? Mr. Owexs. I said a year ago when you testified you were frani and o})en. I guess that ends my questioning now. Mr. Landis. Do you agree with him on the jurisdictional dispute? Mr. Hutcheson. I would have to think that over. Mr. Landis. By jurisdictional dispute, I mean that point where the employer is in the middle. The employer is always in the middle in a jurisdictional dispute. There should be some way to keep those men at work and let the unions get around the bargaining table and settle their own disputes. Mr. Hutcheson. Well, that is logical. Mr. Landis. That kind of a strike is quite different from a strike between an employer and a union. Mr. Hutcheson. I would not object to that procedure. Mr. Landis. That procedure would probably be better than to let the Government step in and make the decision. Mr. Hutcheson. I quite agree with that. Mr. Landis. That is all. Mr. Owens. That brings up just one more question, as long as that has been brought out. How long do you think they ought to have to settle the jurisdic- tional dispute, Mr. Hutcheson? Mr. Hutcheson, Oh, until they finally complete it. Mr. Owens. I mean how long; let us be serious now. Mr. Hutcheson. A limited time, you mean? Mr. Owens. Yes, how limited? Mr. Hutcheson. Excuse me, but I do not think I have any definite time in mind. 1580 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. Mr. Hutcheson, so far as I am concerned and for fu- ture consideration of the labor bill, it is probably the most serious question I am going to ask. Don't you think there should be some limit of time that they should keep men out of work and keep the employer from doing his business ? Mr. Hutcheson. Congressman, if you have something of that sort in your mind I would be glad to confer with you sometime in the future on that very subject. Mr. Owens. I would rather do it right out in the open where every- body can hear it, because I don't hide any of my views. I put them right in labor bills. Mr. Hutcheson. Neither do I, when I make up my. mind what my views are. Mr. Owens. There has been a great deal of talk about compulsory arbitration and even though Mr. Casey said he does not like it Mr, Hutcheson. Neither do I. Mr. Owens. We are coming to the point where we are wondering just what is going to be applied if they don't end these jurisdictional disputes. Mr. Hutcheson. Congressman, don't go so far afield from our American way of life as to seriously consider compulsory arbitra- tion. Mr. Owens. But that brings us back to the question : How long do you think they ought to carry on and keep tlie employer's work stopped and keep men out of work without settling the jurisdictional dispute ? Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Congressman, I can only answer you in this manner : First, as far as the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners are concerned, we would have to continue to carry on our objections to encroachments upon our jurisdiction, no matter how long it lasted. Now then, if you could find some way — perhaps you could be more persuasive than I — to convince the encroacher that that should not be done, I would welcome that. But how are you going to do it ? If you have some plan as to how you are going to do that, I would be glad to consider it. Mr. Owens. But it is your own international, your own organization that is involved, Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Hutcheson. Let me ask you this, Mr. Congressman : You are an attorney. Would you sit idly by and let someone come in and say they have a right to take your work as an attorney? Mr. Owens. No. Mr. Hutcheson. Very well, then. Do you expect members of the Brotherhood of Carpenters who have spent their apprenticeship, or even if they haven't, and have become efficient carpenters, to sit idly by and let someone come in and take their work ? Mr. Owens. Where lawyers are involved, just as soon as one lawyer does what he should not do, the courts take care of it promptly upon complaint, very promptly, so that is not a comparison at all. They take care of it. Now, do you in your own organization take care of these jurisdic- tional disputes, or do you permit them to go on for years, as this has been eoinir on? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1581 Mr. HuTCHESOisr. We take care of them by still defending our posi- tion and oui- work. That is how we try to take care of them. We could take care of it, and walk out. In the Hollywood situation, as was testified to by Mr. Casey, we have members who have grown up in that industry, who have worked there as carpenters for 25 years. Should we say to the lA, "All right, take those jobs and our men will have to go elsewhere to find work"? Mr. Owp:ns. Mr. Hutcheson Mr. HuTCHESox. Will you please tell me your opinion on that? Mr. Owens. This is j^our own organization, your own group of people. You can set up the rides in your own organization which will take care of that once and for all — as you did in this case where you set up the arbitrators, gave them the right to make a fnial decision, and then refused to abide by the final decision. I have no question but what my mind has been made up on that point. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Congressman, I think I made it clear in pre- senting the evidence I did that we did not accept the findings because they were made on ex parte evidence. Mr. Owens. But it is your own organization. We are still back to the same point ; your own A. F. of L. Mr. HuTCHESON. My own organization is only the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Mr. Owens. Except that you were the ranking member of the A. F. of L. also. Mr. Hutcheson. What does that mean ? Mr. Owens. Well, just like Mr. Landis is ranking member of the Labor Committee in the absence of the chairman, he is the chairman. That places you in control many times, you and Mr. Green and the other vice presidents — well, maybe we better leave that word out. Mr. Kearns, Maybe Mr. Green was never absent. Mr. HuTCiiESON. Mr. Chairman, let me try to make it clear to the Congressman. Those of us who constitute the Executive council of the American Federation of Labor have no ranking. We are not in the position of Congressmen who can get in the place of being just a step above somebody else. That does not prevail in the council of the American Federation of Labor. ]\Ir. Owens. Why do they call you the first vice president ? Mr. Hutciieson. I am not. I am just councilman now, a council member, because of the Taft-Hartley law. They took the designation of vice president away from me. They demoted me. ISIr. Kearns. You lost your jurisdiction? ]Mr. Oavens. When these troubles were occurring in 1945 you were the first vice president, were you not? Mr. Hutciieson. Right. Mr. Owens. So if the president were not there you would be in charge. Now, just what has your group done in your own organization to end these jurisdictional disputes? Mr. Hutcheson. Now, Mr. Congressman, I will go back to when we wpre vice pvesid'^nts. It merely meant there were to be LS vice presidents elected. The first one nominated would be designated as first vice president. It just happened that I was nominated first. 67383 — 48— vol. 3 6 1582 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES That did not mean I was any better than the man who was nominated thirteenth and became thirteenth vice president. It did not mean I had anything more to say in the council than he. I was just one of the 13. Mr. Owens. But you are still in there. Is the thirteenth man in there? Mr. HuTCHEsoN. What did you say ? Mr. Owens. I say you are still in the organization. Is the thirteenth man still in there? Mr. HuTcHEsoN. The thirteenth councilman. Mr. Owens. I meant the thirteenth vice president; is he still a mem- ber of your organization ? Mr. HuTCHESON. Of our organization ? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Hutcheson. No, and never was. I didn't get that point. Mr. Congressman, I would be glad to answer that and not be sar- castic about it. I do not intend to be sarcastic. I understood you to ask me was the thirteenth councilman or thir- teenth vice president a member of our organization, and I said "No." Mr. Owens. I mean the A. F. of L. What office did Mr. Lewis occupy ? Mr. Hutcheson. He was elected thirteenth vice president when he went in there, but he was eleventh when he got out. Mr. Kearns. He went up in the world ; is that right? Mr. Hutcheson. That is right. Mr. Landis. The point I want to make clear was that there is a dif- ference between a strike between an employer and a union, and a strike between two unions where the employer is not involved. I understood you were willing to try to help work out something to stop these disputes and strikes between unions. ISIr. Hutcheson, That is right, and always has been. Mr. Owens. Sure, he is willing, but what are you doing to stop it? That is my question, Mr. Hutcheson. What are you gomg to do to stop it? Mr. Hutcheson. So far, Mr. Congressman, we have defended our- selves. You can look through the records of the Federation, and for 25 years if you can find a resolution in there introduced by the Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America I will eat it with my breakfast any morning you present it. We just try to go along with the other groups. All we have been doing is defending ourselves. Now, let me say this to you : Oftimes architects have been much to blame for jurisdictional controversies because of them putting in speci- fications of buildings that certain things would come under certain headings of the specifications. Now, as illustration — and I do not want to bore you too much — some years ago architects would invariably put in their specifications, bathroom equipment in the plumbing specifications. Now, since time immemorial, the carpenter in trimming out the building or in preparing the building for trim, would trim out a place for a medicine cabinet to be set in the inset in the wall. In those days medicine cabinets were all made of wood. Along comes an advanced method of doing things, and they bring out metal medicine cabinets. Now, the method of inserting or setting a metal medicine cabinet is exactly the same as for wood. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1583 We liad a contention with the plumbers over that, for the simple reason that when the architect would put it in the plumbing sp>eciti- cations, it was quite natural for the contractor to figure that when he figured his plumbing contract or his bids. Mr. IvEARNs. You claimed that as a wood substitute ? Mr. HuTCHESON. Well, it was in the specifications, so he would do it. Now, that is where we get into a controversy with the plumbers, but it did not last so long. We entered into an agreement with the plumbers, and we have it today. The plumbers said, ''O. K., that's your work, you do it." It is minor, but just the same it is work for a carpenter. I give that as an illustration. In that case, the architects were to blame for that jurisdictional controversy. Mr. Owens. Well, I will not argue with you about that one way or the other. But that still does not answer my question. Mr. HuTCHESON. Congressman, I am not arguing, I just try to instruct. Mr. Owt:ns. I use that word advisedly. You did settle that situa- tion between yourselves? Mr. HuTCHESON. Yes. Mr. Owens. But here we have a situation which has gone on for 3 years and still is not settled. Mr. HuTCHESON. All right, Mr. Congressman, let me recite to you some more settlements. For instance, the matter of metal trim. I am not going into that in detail, but I give you credit for knowing what I mean when I say metal trim. That controversy went on for 19 years between ourselves and the sheet-metal workers. We finally reached on agreement, and I do not mind saying to you now, that if those outside would have kept their hands off, we probably would have reached an agreement long before we did, but after 19 years the sheet-metal workers and ourselves settled the controversy. Mr. Owens. And did strikes take place for that 19-year period? Mr. HuTCHESON. Oh, many times. But I will say this, of course : In the first instance, it came on as a controversy in 1909 in New York City. Judge Gaynor made a finding on that. On the representation of the employers. Judge Gaynor decided that should be carpenters' work, because it took the knowledge and skill of a carpenter to be pro]:)erly performed, because the metal principle of setting a door jamb, casing it and everything, was just the same as wood. But notwithstanding that, over a period of 19 years — well, it was not so serious. The contractors would come to me and say, "Here, what's the matter? You are holding up our jobs. We are your friends." I said, "Well, I realize that." but if you if you are going to inconvenience anybody it is usually friends you inconvenience first. ]\Ir. Owens. I am just going to ask one more question, or one after it in connection with it. You heard Mr. Casey make the charge. You heard us talkinir about building not proceeding in the United States because of jurisdictional strikes. I ask you this : Do you think that in view of the fact sometimes there are thousands of dollars lost per minute because of a jurisdictional strike, don't you believe 1584 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. HuTCHESON. I don't consider they are lost, they are just waiting. You get them later on. Mr. Owens. Assuming it is lost, then, do you see any reason why the unions who fought among themselves and who were responsible for the loss should not be liable for damages for that loss? Mr. HuTCHESON. Congressman, you should keep this thought in mind : In ordinary times, a carpenter, if he gets 200 days' work in a year, is lucky. So, if he leaves the job and is gone 10 or 20 days, he knows when he goes back he is still going to get that much work during that year, so he has not lost anything. Mr. Owens. I am not talking about what the carpenters alone have lost, although I have a great deal of sympathy for many workmen who are put out because of strikes Mr. HuTCHESON. Who are you thinking about, now ? Mr. Owens. Any workman who loses because of a jurisdictional strike that could be settled by the leadership of the organization. Mr. HuTCHESoN. In other w^ords, as a Congressman, are you think- ing of the public, what you usually term "the public"? Mr. Owens. I must admit that that is true, that I think of the public first. Mr. HuTCHESON. You do not think the building tradesmen, car- penters and others who are trade-unionists are part of the public? ISIr. Owens. I just said they are part of the public. I consider the workman who has lost his work a part of the public. Mr. HuTCHESON. I thought you might be a little biased on that because of the Taft-Hartley law, class legislation. Mr. Owens. Don't forget, Mr. Hutcheson, my father was a carpenter and I worked in a machine shop for a long while. Mr. Hutcheson. So was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a car- penter, according to the records. Mr. Owens. I am not kin to Him. I worked in a machine shop, too, and if you look at my past record you will not find anything in it but my sympathy for the laboring man. Mr. Hutcheson. You know, that "mike" kind of deadens your voice to me. Mr. Owens. I am doing that because you have been having diffi- culty hearing me when I stand back here. Now, let's get right back down to that question again. Mr. Hutcheson. Which one ? Mr. Owens. The jurisdictional question. Have you any idea as to how long it should be before you settle your jurisdictional disputes, and if you don't settle them, don't you think you ought to be liable for damages for losses sustained because of a jurisdictional dispute ? Mr. Hutcheson. Have you any particular jurisdictional dispute in mind when you ask me that question ? Mr. Owens. Well, let's take this 3-year-old dispute going on right now. Mr. Hutcheson. Where ? Mr. Owens. In Hollywood. Mr. Hutcheson. Oh, that. I don't know. It all depends on when our carpenters can get what rightfully belongs to them and then as far as we are concerned it will be all settled. Mr. Owens. We are getting letters and telegrams from hundreds of people saying they are out of work out there because of this trouble. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1585 Mr. HuTCHEsoN. Members of our organization ? Mr. Owens. I don't know who they are. Mr. HuTCHEsoN. Well Mr. Owens. But I think the key is in your hands. That is all. Mr. Hutcheson, Let me answer that, Mr. Chairman. The key may be in my hands in your opinion, but that key, as far as I am concerned, is not going to be turned until we, the members of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, get the work to which we are rightfully entitled. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Hutcheson, I want to thank you for appearing here as a witness and tell you how much we appreciate it. How^ever, I want to make one statement to you before you leave. It has been my observation, as I have gone through this situation since last June, and being a member of the American Federation of Labor, I naturally hate to see the wrong reflection placed upon it, because of jurisdictional disputes; knowing of your esteemed standing in the A. F. of L. and knowing as long as you are willing to continue in your present capacity that you no doubt will be continued in that capacity as long as you wish to be ; and observing Mr. Walsh in his age and the years he probably has ahead of him in tendering his particular capac- ity, I imagine you will both be in your present positions a long time. I want both of you to consider one thing, and that is this : As I under- stand it, the motion-picture business is the fifth largest industry in the United States. It is my personal opinion, after going through this since last June, that ultimately, no matter who else may intercede or whatever contribution anyone else will make, whether it be Mr. Green, the Congress of the United States — unless there is legislation — or any- one else, that the jurisdictional dispute cannot be settled in Hollywood unless it is settled by two gentlemen by the names of Mr. Hutcheson and Mr. Walsh. It is my wish, and my prayer, as a matter of fact, that you two gentlemen will eventually — and I like you both, really I do — will be able to sit down some time, discuss the matter, and will be able to render to the industry, in the way of appreciation, wjiat the industry in the way of capital outlay and investment, has given to men who work for a living like we all do, in the way of jobs. I think you two are not too far apart if some of the underlying prob- lems now existing could be thrown out of the window. Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman, in answer to that, let me say this : I see by the press you are quoted as saying, "Bill Hutcheson could settle that matter in 10 minutes." Let me say this : I made myself clear a few minutes ago, that all the carpenters want is carpenter work. We don't w^ant all the employees in the studios. Mr. Keakns. I understand that. Mr. Hutcheson. If I understood correctly, President Walsh of the lA made the statement that they wanted all employees. We do not. ^Vlien he is ready to concede to us the work that rightfully belongs to us we can settle it in 5 minutes, in 3 minutes. Mr. Kearns. I will say in your behalf I know you do not want any- thing else but carpentry work. Mr. Hutcheson. Certainly, that is all we ever wanted. Mr. Kearns. Well, I do thank you for coming up. I hope we will not have to call you back again. 1586 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Casey is called back to the stand, I want to read a memorandum which was prepared at my request by Mr. Harold E. Snide of the General Research Section of the Library of Congress, showing the interest in and probable influence of motion pictures upon the people of the United States, Mr. Kearns. Proceed. Mr. McCann (reading) : Library of Congress Legislative REai'ERENOE Service. Washington, D. C, January 5, 19Jf8. Data on Attendance at School, Church, Movies The average daily attendance at public schools in the United States was 19,G02,- 772, for 1943^4, the latest year for which figures have been published. Data are published on a daily rather than weekly basis. Presuraaljly an aggregate figure of five times the daily, would be the approximate weekly attendance — viz. 98.013.860. The average weekly attendance at church services is estimated at 25 percent of the registered membership (72,492,609 in 1945), or 18,123,166. The average weekly attendance of United States film theaters in 1945 is esti- mated at 95,000,000. This is the latest year for which statistics are available. The sources from which this material was gathered are attached to the memorandum, and I now offer it to the court reporter for reproduction in the record. (The source material is as follows:) Sources: Statistics of State School Systems, 1943-44, Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, Washington, D. C, United States Office of Education : Yearbook of American Churches, 1945 edition, quoted in World Almanac. 1947, page 743; McCullough, Charles J. (.statistician, commission on church attendance), in statistical appendix to Babson, Roger W., How to In- crease Church Attendance, New York, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1936, page 150, BV652.G4; Alicoate, Jack, editor. Film Dailv Year Book, 1946, page 49, PN1993.3.F5. Mr, Owens, You mean the point is there is more interest in moving pictures than there is in churches ? Mr. McCann, I mean that shows the relative importance of the moving-picture industry to the life of our country. Mr. Kearns. I see no objection to having that in the record. Mr. Owens. Except that I do not see why one church should be picked. Mr. McCann. I have schools, churches, and movies as some of the great forces in the life of our country. Mr. Kearns, We will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock, (Wliereupon, at 12 noon, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will please come to order. Mr. Pat Casey, will you kindly take the stand again. TESTIMONY OF PAT CASEY— Resumed Mr. Kearns. I think you were in the midst of answering a question of Congressman Owens when I asked you to leave the stand to permit Mr. Hutcheson to testify. Do you want to continue with that thought ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1587 Mr. Casey. I have forgotten now wliat the question was. Mr. Landis. I think that was answered. Mr. Kearxs. Do 3'ou have any further questions, Mr. Landis? Mr. Landis. I think we have it clear on jurisdictional disputes. The Taft-Hartley bill, in dealing with jurisdictional disputes, gives the labor unions 10 days to settle it. If they do not settle it, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board is supposed to. Of course, that would require some length of time and a lot of litigation. What I want to ask is this: In case of a jurisdictional dispute, if we let the employer pick out one group to handle it while the unions were continuing negotiations — and of course the men would continue working and there would be no interference in going to and from work — I wonder what you think about that idea ? Mr. Casey. I think that is the only idea. If the people will stay on the job and work there certainly will not be any picket lines. Mr, Landis. Of course, you cannot make them work. Mr. Casey. I know that. Mr. Landis. But give the employer an opportunity to go and desig- nate who he wants to do it. Mr. Casey. That is right, and after he goes through all this rig- marole and probably a lot of difliculties, if the employer is wrong let the employer pay the other people. In other words, if there was a dispute today between the carpenters and the lATSE and the employer says, "Well, lA, you stay on the job," After all the legal matters, if they then decided the carpenters were entitled to that work, the employer should pay the carpenters on top of paying the people who had stayed there and done the work. Mr, Landis. You mean double pay? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir; if it is decided that way. The employer has to judge. He is between two fires. He has to pick one of the two. Mr. Landis. Well, that is another angle. Mr. Casey. That's right. Mr. Landis. What I was thinking of was, he would select one, say, the millwrights or the carpenters. Perhaps he would select the car- penters to do the work. They would work until the dispute was settled between the labor unions, and then if the dispute was settled the other way, he would have to go back and hire the other group ? Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Casey, Mr. Hutcheson made a statement here this morning which I think is quite important. He said the carpenters never wanted anything in the studios except carpentry. As I under- sand, you have been associated with the motion-picture industry for a great number of years. In your capacity, dealing with labor rela- tions for the producers, would you say that statement was correctly given, so far as the category of work which he was describing is concerned ? Mr. Casey. The statement he gave was that he wants all the car- penter work. Now, the question is, what is carpenter work? That is the whole milk in the coconut; what is carpenter work and what is lA work — nothing else. Mr. Kearns. Another thing I want to reaffirm here is : In your ex- perience, have the carpenters tried to take work out of their jurisdic- tion, in the history of the industry ? 1588 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Casey. It all depends again, Congressman, as to what their jurisdiction is. In other words, under the basic agreement and in all of the time I have been trying to handle these labor difficulties, I have never made a decision as to a jurisdiction. I was taught that by a great man a great many years ago, to never get into a jurisdictional dispute. I think I have testified here, that in all the years of the A. F. of L., I personally do not know of a case, even when an award was made, where anybody lived up to it. That is our situation. Mr. Landis. Mr. Chairman, will you yield ? Mr. Kearns. Yes, sir. Mr. Landis. The point here is the A. F. of L. should say what that carpenter work is. Mr. Casey. That is correct. They probably did make certain deci- sions. They have been reading them here all the time. One year it is this, and another year it is that, but who lives up to it ? Mr. Kearns. In other words, the difficulty is in defining the work? Mr. Casey. The difficulty is. Congressman, that the power is at the head of the line and nobody has power enough to say "Yes"' or "No." That is the trouble. These three men were sent out there, sent out by a committee of the American Federation of Labor to do a job that they could not have done in the time it was given them to do it. They bring back a deci- sion. The decision, as I understand it, says that whatever they say the first time shall be binding. In a few days somebody says no, that isn't the right thing, "You did not do what you agreed to do." That same executive council that sent these men out to make that first decision turns around and practically commands them to make another decision. I think that was Mr. Doherty's testimony at the finish, that he belonged to the A. F. of L and if they said "go and do it," he as a good soldier had to go and do it. Mr. Kearns. You think there is too much buck-passing in the high command ? Mr. Casey. The old lemon, it keeps going right around. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Casey, since I have been involved in this inves- tigation since last June, I have met certain individuals who are sup- posed to be leaders in labor on the west coast, in the industry, from the international standpoint. An inference was made yesterday of communism in leadership. Of course, from my limited acquaintance with leadership in industry, so far as labor is concerned, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr, Walsh, Mr. Sorrell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lindelof, and a lot of the men I have met out there who have had direct contact with the situation — and Mr. Sorrell — do you consider that any of these men I have spoken of, in any way, could be considered as being so-called communistically inclined, so far as leading their various groups is concerned ? Mr. Casey. I would not. Mr. Kearns. That is a very important answer. There has been much discussion about a certain Mr. Herbert Sorrell. I want to ask you this one question about Mr. Sorrell before you leave the stand : You have dealt with him for how long, personally ? Mr. Casey. I think since about 1937 or 1938, 10 or 11 years. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1589 Mr. Kearns. Have you found Mr. Sorrell of good integrity and have you considered him personally an honest man ? Mr. Casey. I have, I have considered him honest in the first place, which covers a multitude of sins. In the second place, I will take his word for anything he says in a deal. He has never broken it with me. What he might have done with something else, I know nothing about. As far as I am personally concerned, that is the situation. Now. I will go further. I have heard of a lot of the CIO fellows being Communists, and I think they probably have proven so. I think this reference to Conway, who was referred to in the tes- timony yesterday — he is the head of the Newspaper Guild — probably is correct. I think Leo Gallagher, a lawyer out there, and who is probably as bright and smart a fellow as the Lord ever put breath into— he does not deny he is a Communist. But so far as anybody in the A. F. of L. movement that I have ever had business dealings with, I do not know of one that I would say was a Communist. Mr. Kearns. Thank you for your frank answer. Mr. Owens, before we take questions from other counsel, do you have anything else you wish to ask Mr. Casey ? Mr. Owens. Yes, I was examining him this morning, do you remember 5 Mr. Kearns. Yes. You may continue. Mr. Owens. I believe at about the time we were cut off, I had just reached that strike in 1945. Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. I believe it was in March '-45. Mr. Casey. I believe so. Mr. Oavens. I was just asking you how that arose and who brought it about, who went on strike? Mr. Casey. I told you that local 1621, which is the set designers' local, affiliated with the painters' union, called the strike. Mr. Owens. That was a strike that lasted until the fall of 1945? ]Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. "\'\'1io went through the picket lines then, if you recall ? Mr, Casey. I think the lA people went through the picket lines. There might have been a few that did not, but as a rule, yes. The plasterers went through the picket lines. I think at that strike the IBEW did go through the picket lines, Mr. Owens. And the teamsters did also ? Mr. Casey. The teamsters did, yes, sir. Mr. Owens. The carpenters and machinists did not? Mr. Casey, No. the carpenters did not, and I do not think the machinists did, either. INIr. 0^^^:NS. I believe there was a letter read here by Mr, Doherty from Mr, Lindelof, which he wrote just a week or two after the direc- tive was handed down, in which he said he congratulated the committee for the work they had done, and the decision they had handed down. Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. 0^t:ns, Did you have any occasion to talk to Mr. Lindelof about that matter? 1590 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Casey. No, sir, I did not, but I think Mr. Doherty erred a little bit in his statement when he said that under the directive they had straightened out the trouble with the office workers. Now, when Mr. Lindelof granted a charter to the office workers as coming under the painters, I objected to Mr. Lindelof for doing it. Mr. Lindelof showed me a copy of a letter he had written to Mr. William Green of the American Federation of Labor to the effect that he was granting these people a charter with a distinct understanding that whenever the American Federation of Labor granted an interna- tional for office workers, he would turn these office workers over to the proper international. Mr. Owens. And he did that? Mr. Casey. And he did that. Mr. Owens. So that was not really involved in his action in 1946 ? Mr. Casey. That had nothing to do with it at all. Mr. Owens. He was not involved in that at all ? Mr. Casey. No, sir. Mr. Owens. The point I am trying to make is that when they handed down the directive, which of course was in accordance with the powers given to them by the A. F. of L. — I feel I am entitled to make my interpretation of that Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. Owens. Mr. Lindelof then did say he was in accord with it. Mr. Casey. That is right. I think the only thing they said in it about the painters was something about frosting windows, or some- thing of that kind. In other words, the painters had practically no jurisdictional dispute. Mr. Owens. Did you ask Mr. Lindelof at any time why their group did go off on strike in the fall, in view of the fact that they were in accord with the directive ? Mr. Casey. I telephoned Mr. Lindelof and begged him to notify his people to go back to work. I did everything possible to keep those people from going out on strike, but they went out. Mr. Owens. What did he say to you ? Mr. Casey, He told me first he did not know anything about it. That was the day it happened. I called him very early in the morning. Later that day he told me that he had word, and he had O.K.'d the strike. Mr. Owens. Didn't you have any conversation with him on the fact that he had given his approval of that directive ? Mr, Casey. I am speaking now of the time before the directive. Mr. Owens. You are talking of the spring in '45 ? Mr. Casey. Yes. You mean after the directive ? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Casey. I have not seen Mr, Lindelof and I do not think I have spoken to him until I saw him in here, since the directive. Mr, Owens. Let us go to the fall of '46, then. Where did the diffi- cult v start in the fall of '46 ? Mr, Casey. In '46? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr, Casey. Well, in '46, that was after the directive came down and nobody was satisfied with it. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1591 Mr. Owens. I would not say that was true. Mr. Lindelof wrote to Mr. Doherty saying he approved of it fully. Mr. Casey. Perhaps he wrote to Mr. Doherty, but I am telling you the people out there in the studios were all hemming and hawing, and nobody was satisfied. That is the reason, Mr. Owens, that the pro- ducers went to Miami to try and get a clarification. They came here to Washington to get a clarification from the Central Labor Council. Mr. Owens. The reason they went, Mr. Casey, was because the carpenters objected to what had taken place, is that true? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. If the carpenters had not objected, Mr. Casey. There would have been no trouble at all. Well, wait a minute. Yes, before the carpenters objected we ourselves could not quite figure out just what was meant by the directive. Mr. Owens. You mean you could not figure out what was meant by set erection? Mr. Casey. That is right, the erection of sets. Mr. Kearns. You mean the labor committee of the producers, or you personally ? Mr. Casey. No, the labor committee and myself. Mr. Owens. Did you raise any question about it as to who was to do the work? Mr, Casey. Not until after our people had come back from Washing- ton, I believe. Then we got together amongst ourselves and we inter- preted what we thought the directive meant and sent that word out to the studios to operate under the definition we had given. Mr. Owens. When did you go to Washington ? Mr. Casey. I didn't go. Mr. Owens. When did the committee go to Washington ? Mr. Casey. I believe it was the next meeting of the executive council after the one in Miami. Mr. 0^\^NS. Well, that is beyond what I am still inquiring about. When the directive was handed down, the lATSE was ready to proceed with the work? Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. Owens. Mr. Walsh, by his testimony, seems to indicate that while he did not agree with what was taking place, he knew very well what was lost and what work he had to do, is that true ? Mr. Casey. That is right. INIr. Owens. So he was doing that work; the painters were doing their work ; the machinists were doing theirs ? Mr. Casey. Yes, that is right. Mr. Owens. It was only the carpenters who objected ? Mr. Casey. They objected, but they still stayed on the job until the clarification came down. Mr. Owens. Now, when they stayed on the job, did the producers raise the point of going to Miami, or did the carpenters ? Mr. Casey. I did not get that. Mr. Owens. Were the producers responsible for the group going to Miami, or were the others? Mr. Casey. The producers were responsible for my going to Miami. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Walsh testified that he hitch-hiked on account of the transportation situation. 1592 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Casey, I think he went along with them. Mr. Owens. Wliy did you go to Miami ? Why did you interfere in their dispute? Mr. Casey. Now, let's try to get this straight. A directive came down. It had in that directive that the erection of sets was to go to the lA. That is correct now, isn't it ? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Casey. The word "erection" we had not used in our business. We had used the putting up or taking down, or things of that kind. So when the word "erection" came into the field we wanted to know what was meant by the word "erection." The attorneys came in. They looked it up in Webster's and I guess all the law journals, and everything else. One had one opinion and another had another, so it was decided to go back down to Miami and ask the executive council what their interpretation was of that one clause. ]\Ir. Owens. Had that been taken up in the agreement back in 1925 ? Mr. Kearns. What agreement is that? Mr. Owens. The agreement of February 5, 1925 ; do you remember? Mr. Casey. Yes. Mr. Owens. That was referred to in the directive. Mr. Casey. Yes. Mr. Owens. What was your understanding as to what that said about erection ? I will read it to you. It says : United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : The committee rnles that the division of worlj agreement entered into between the United Brotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada on February 5, 1925, and known as the "1926 agreement" be placed in full force and effect immediately. Division of work by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : Section 1 : All trim and millwork on sets and stages. Section 2 : All millwork and carpenter work in connection with studios. Section 3: All work in carpenter shops. Section 4: All permanent construction. Section 5 : All construction work on exterior sets. Division of work by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Ojierators of the United States and Canada : Section 6 : Miniature sets. Section 7 : Property building. Section 8 : Erection of sets on stages except as provided in section 1. Section 9 : Wrecking all sets, exterior and interior. Section 10 : Erecting platforms for lamp operators and cameramen on stages. Now, would that give you any assistance ? Mr. Casey. No, sir; because the first of it there says each one is. to help the other and do the best they could, and that is what they did do for years. Mr. Owens. Yes, but then it gave the division of work here. Mr. Casey. But the argument was what they meant by erection. Was it putting it up ? Was it manufacturing it ? Was it building it ? Mr. Owens. "What would you say section 8 meant, "Erection of sets on stages" ? Mr. Casey. That would be to put it up after it had been made in the mill. That would be my interpretation, but I never gave one. You are asking me now and I give it to you now. Mr. Owens. But it says "except as provided in section 1." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1593 Mr. Casey. That is the mill and trim work. Mr. 0^\t:ns. In other words, the carpenters had all mill and trim work on sets and stages ? Mr. Caset. Correct. Mr. Owens. So thej^ would see to have all trim and millwork on the sets and on the stages ? Mr, Casey. That is right. Mr. OwEXS. Then the others have the erection of sets on stages ? Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. OwEXS. Except for the trim and millwork which would be done by the carpenters ? Mr. Casey. That is right, the erection after the set was built. Mr. OwExs. Oh, after tlie trim and millwork was done? Mr. Casey. Oli. no, I tried to explain this a moment ago. Mr. Owens. Mr. Casey, I am only stating this in plain language. Mr. Casey. I understand, but I would like to explain it, if you will let me, please. There is a panel right behind you. That is part of a set. That might have been built in the mill. In the early days it was. Now it comes to where they are making a stage set like this, that the mill is not big enough to handle, so this is built on the stage. It is built in sections. The sections then are put together. Xow the trim has to be put on and the molding has to be put on. After the carpenters have built them, then the grips took it and put it together, except for the molding and the trim, as is in there. Then after that had been photographed, from then on the grips took that and put It away, brought it back if it was used a second time. Mr. Owens. Your covered everything except erection. You are talking about assembly work now, you are not talking about erection. I am not out in the studios, but the difference between assembly and erection is clear to me. Mr. Casey, I wish you had been there at the time, to give us the difference, whether it was erection or assembly. Perhaps it would have helped us a great deal. Mr. Owens. I really don't see any difficulty. Mr. Casey. Well, Mr. Owens, that is the entire difficulty. Mr. Hutcheson claims that the erection of that belongs to his carpenters, the absolute building of it, that is what he claims. Mr. Owens. Although his own three men from the A. F. of L. made a finding that the erection was to be done by these other people ? ]Mr. Casey. That is correct, they did make that finding. There is no question about that at all. Mr. Owens. How did you happen to be guided then in following the directive for the next 10 months, and since that time ? Mr. Casey. Because as I say they went to Miami, they went to Washington ; when they came back everybody was befuddled. We sat down and interpreted it ourselves and set out our own interpreta- tion of the directive and that is what everybody worked under until the clarification came down. jNIr. Ovnssfi. That was after the men said they meant exactly what they said in Miami, the three men? Mr. Casey. I believe so. I was not in Miami. All I know is what I have heard here. 1594 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. But you did say they said that and after they came back you made the interpretation whereby you stood by what this would seem to say right here ? Mr. Casey. I don't know whether the interpretation we sent out is exactly the same as that or not ; it might be. We sent out our own interpretation. I am talking about the producer. He sent out his own interpretation as to what the labor representatives of the pro- ducers in the studios thought was the proper thing. Mr. Owens. So, you were playing with this interpretation in the fall after the so-called clarification came out and the studios were advised to stand by that interpretation and all subsequent interpreta- tions, which of course would mean that it could be interpreted again ad infinitum from that time on ; is that correct? Mr. Casey. We didn't interpret it at any subsequent date, we just interpreted it that once. Mr. Owens. But I mean that was in the letter to Mr. Johnston^ according to the testimony here. There was a letter sent to Mr» Johnston by Mr. Casey. By Hutcheson or somebody. Mr. Owens. By Mr. Green, I believe it was. Mr. Casey. Hutcheson sent him a letter saying that. Mr. Owens. Yes, Hutcheson. He sent this interpretation and subsequent interpretations. Mr. Casey. That is correct. Mr. Owens. Now after that somebody caused you trouble. Who caused j^ou the trouble? Mr. Casey. The carpenters. Mr. Owens. They were the ones who would not work? Mr. Casey. They came in and gave an ultimatum that unless we followed the clarification of that directive, gave them the building and everything else on tlie set, they would call them "hot" and would not work on them. Mr. Owens. And then whey they went out did anybody else go out with them? Mr. Casey. Yes. They put a picket line around there then. I think the machinists stayed out. Practically all of the Conference of Studio Unions respected the picket line. I say practically all — some of them did not. Mr. Owens. Which ones did not? Mr. Casey. Well, I think the publicists did not for awhile; then the office workers did, and then they didn't. Mr. 0^\Ti:NS. Well, that was a group which had just been newly created the previous year; is that right? Mr. Casey. That is right. The publicists were only a year or two old, also. Mr. Owens. That is the picket line that has been thrown around there ever since? Mr. Casey. Well, it is down now to practically nothing but car- penters. Mr. Owens. In other words, it is purely an economic strike ? Mr. Casey. Right. Mr. Owens. Has there been an unfair labor charge in connection with it? ^ MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1595 Mr. Casey, Oh, I believe they have all filed something. I have had nothing to do with it and have kept my hands off entirely. Mr. Owens. Insofar as you are concerned this so-called interpre- tation that was asked for did not come from you at all, it came from somebody else who went to Miami? Mr. Casey. That is right. Mr. Ow^ENS. Did you ask him to go there ? Mr. Casey. I didn't; no. I was just minding my own business. I was not gi\ing the producers orders what to do. They are all over 21. They have their "dough" in the business, let them decide what to do. I am not making decisions for them. :Mr. Owens. That is all. Mr. Landis. I would like to ask one more question. It has been said here in the testimony that there might be collu- sion between the producers and others. Mr. Casey. If there has been any collusion with anybody there has been none with me, and I can only answer for myself. INIr. Kearns. Mr. Casey, isn't it true that more or less the interpre- tation of erection, as it was clarified in the clarification, was the principle that you had invoked during your time as public-relations man there in deciding the jurisdictional work? Mr. Casey. I just don't get that. Congressman. Mr. Kearns. Wasn't it more or lesis the clarification that was handed down bv the three-man committee after the directive Mr. Casey. Yes. Mr. Kearns. The clarification of carpentry, we will say. A lot of people are in the dark here. They don't know millwork business. If they only knew millwork business, what was done in the mill and what a carpenter does, it seems to me the thing would be clear. That is the thing I have contended all along, that they did not have people who understood the business, deciding whose jolb was whose out there. Mr. Casey, That is correct, Mr. Kearns. Definitely. IMr. Casey, That is correct. Mr, Kearns, When they handed down the clarification they more or less followed the line or pattern that you had used as labor-relations man for the producers when you could call signals and say "Go out and do this, this is for the carpenters, or this is for the grips, or this is for the lA," and so on, Mr. Casey. Mr. Chairman, I did not call the signals then, but it was along the lines that the two crafts had worked out themselves. Mr. Kearns. Voluntarily? Mr. Casey. Voluntarily. We never interfered with their jurisdic- tion in any way, shape, or manner. They made jurisdictions that probably would cost us a lot of money, but they did not have any right to come in and tell the producers what kind of a picture they were going to make or how much money they were going to spend for it. The unions take it upon themselves to run their own business. Mr. Kearns. The thing I would like to point out here, which I think is a tremendous matter of decision, is that when the industry, so far as set erection was concerned, outgrew the roof of a small mill 50 by 100, and when they started to build Grand Central Station as a scene 1596 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES in a movie, they could not build it under the roof of a shed 50 by 100, so they had to ^o in God's great outdoors and build it out there. Mr. Casey. That is correct. Mr. Kearns. But the minute they moved outside the roof the work came under a different jurisdiction. Mr. Casey. It does, according to the directive. Mr. Kearns. And because they could not build it under the roof the work came under a different jurisdiction because they had to build it outside of that little millwork shop. Mr. (VsEY. That is correct. Mr, Kearns. That was the whole controversy. Mr. Casey. That is the contention today. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, there are two questions I would like to ask at this point for clarification. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Casey, you said that you under- stood the word "erection" as used in the 1925 agreement to mean exactly what the three-man committee said in their clarification? Mr. Casey. That is correct. Mr. McCann. I think it was testified by Mr. Kahane and other industry representatives in Hollywood, that that was the practice for Hollywood for 20 years prior to the decision of the three-man committee. Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I go on with the lawyers' ques- tions ? Mr. Kearns. Mr. Landis has a question. Mr. Landis. I just wanted to verify one point. This conunittee that the A. F. of L. sent out to Hollywood, did you say they only visited one studio ? Mr. Casey. One studio, that was my understanding. Mr. Landis. Was the studio working at the time ? Mr. Casey. It was a Saturday afternoon. Saturday is not a very busy day. As I stated earlier in my testimony, they might have been there 3 weeks in that one studio, gone across the fence into another one, and found conditions absolutely different than the one they were investigating because they do not work alike. Mr. McCann. May I ask the questions that have been submitted? Mr. Kearns. Proceed. State what counsel is asking the questions. Mr. McCann. I find I have questions, Mr. Chairman, from Herb Sorrell and from Mr. Wayne of the machinists. The lawyers have not submitted questions yet. Mr. Kearns. Is Mr. Sorrell acting as his own counsel ? Mr. McCann. Acting as his own counsel in submitting these ques- tions. Mr. Kearns. I think we better raise a question there. Is there any objection to Mr. Sorrell acting as his own counsel in the absence of his attorney? Mr. Cobb. No objection. Mr. Benjamin. No objection. Mr. Levy. It is O. K. with me. Mr. Kearns. All right, proceed. Mr. McCann. Did the CSU always advocate a plan of arbitration of jurisdictional issues? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1597 Mr. Caset. I don't know whether they always did, but they pre- sented an arbitral ional phm for jurisdictional issues. Mr. McCann. Was that in 1944? Mr. Casey. I could not say just when it was, but I think probably it was, or early 1945. Mr. McCann. Did the producers submit a counterproposal which, although not satisfactory to the CSU, the CSU agreed to accept? Mr. Casey. They did. Mr. McCann. Did not the producers inform the CSU that no more contracts would be written with any union, without an abritration clause for the settlement of jurisdictional issues? Mr. Casey. I think when they came in one time and were negotiating we told them we were not going to sign any contract with anybody unless there was some clause in the contract that gave us the right to go to arbitration, that we were sick and tired of all this other trouble. Mr. McCann. If clauses of this kind had been inserted in all the contracts would it not have been possible to have avoided the 1945 strike ? Mr. Casey. I think if there had been clauses of that kind in the contracts, or some sort of an arbitration clause in the contracts and the parties had lived up to it, there would not have been any strike. Mr. McCann. At the treaty of Beverly Hills did one of the condi- tions require all unions to include a clause for the settlement of juris- dictional disputes? Mr. Casey. Mr. McCann, I think the memorandum that was drawn after the treaty of Beverly Hills would be better evidence than I could give you on that. Mr. McCann. That has been received in evidence, has it not ? ]\Ir. Casey. I think it has. Mr. McCann. Is it not a fact that new agreements have been en- tered into by the producers with the lATSE, the teamsters and others since the Beverly Hills agreement, without the inclusion of a juris- dictional disputes clause? Mr. Casey. I know negotiations have taken place, and I know that deals have been made. I have never seen any one of the final contracts and I do not know. Mr. McCann. You may not be able to answer some of these and if you cannot I want you just to say so, because these are his questions and I do not know the facts about them. Mr. Casey. That is right, sir. Mr. McCann. Is it not a fact that no new agreements have been written for unions belonging to the CSU since 1942 ? Mr. Casey. To my knowledge and up to the time that I quit there had been no new contracts issued for the CSU unions. There were negotiations going on, but I do not think there had been any contracts completed. Mr. McCann. Is it not a fact that the Conference of Studio Unions proceeded to work under the 1942 agreements until July 2 when the treaty of Beverly Hills was signed by yourself or the producers? Mr. Casey. Do I understand that to mean from 1942 up until the Beverly Hills agreement ? Mr. McCann. Yes, sir. Do you want the question repeated? 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 — —7 1598 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Casey. No. What was the date of the Beverly Hills agree- ments ? Mr. McCann. July 2, 1946. Mr. Casey. The interior decorators' troubles were between 1942 and that, is that right? Mr. McCann. That is right. Mr. Casey. Now, if you will repeat the question I might be able to answer it. Mr. McCann. Is it not a fact that the Conference of Studio Unions proceeded to work under the 1942 agreements until July 2, 1946, when the treaty of Beverly Hills was signed by yourself for the producers ? Mr. Casey. They continued to work under the wages and conditions as per the 1942 agreement, up until that time. Now, whether or not any of them went out during the latter part of 1944 and early part of 1945, 1 cannot answer that at the present time. Mr. McCann. Is it not a fact that the treaty of Beverly Hills called for this formal signing of agreements with some of the unions belonging to the CSU within 30 days ? Mr. Casey. Again, the agreement is better evidence than I would give. Mr. McCann. Can you state the reason for the violation of the treaty of Beverly Hills and not signing these unions up within the 30-day period? Mr. Casey. I cannot. Mr. McCann. Can you give the r^eason for the producers committee and yourself changing your minds about signing agreements not including the arbitrational clause ? Mr. Casey. I have just testified I don't know whether the clause is in the contracts or not. Mr. McCann. Was it your recommendation that these agreements be signed without the clause ? Mr. Casey. No, sir. Mr. McCann. Did the unions belonging to the conference live up to all the obligations of the contracts, or not ? Mr. Casey. Except if they violated any of them, they did during the interior decorators trouble. All others they lived up to. Mr. McCann. What unions or business agents, to be more exact, caused the most jurisdictional trouble within the studios? Mr. Casey. '44, of the lATSE and the carpenters. Mr. McCann. Other questions by Mr. Sorrell. Were contracts signed by the producers and the lATSE in 1944? Mr. Casey. Yps, sir. Mr. McCann. Were contracts signed by the producers and any CSU organization ? Mr. Casey. Wlien? Mr. McCann. 1944. Mr. Casey. I don't think there were. Mr. McCann. Had there been contracts signed by the unions wnth the CSU, don't you think the strike could have been avoided ? Mr. Casey. I can't answer. Mr. McCann. Was it not a fact that only unions not having con- tracts in 1937 went on strike? Mr. Casey. In 1937 the painters went on strike and they did not have a contract. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1599 Mr. McCann. That is as far as you can go with it ? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Is it not a fact that the CSU allowed you to make decisions on jurisdiction and at all times concurred in your decision that no stoppage of work occurred by CSU members, even though the}' did not agree with you ? 1 imagine he refers to the period after 1946. Mr. Casey. For a term of 30 days, while all this trouble was going on, I agreed to act as sort of an arbitrator and settle who should have the work until such time as the directive and everything else was straightened away, thinking that it would be done within the 30 days. I did make decisions and both sides lived up to any decision I made during the 30 days. At the end of 30 days, I think they all would have liked to have me keep going, but I was not sucker enough to do it. Mr. McCann. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr, Levy. Do I understand all of these questions Avere presented to you by Mr. Sorrell ? Mr. McCann. Yes, sir ; by Mr. Sorrell. The next question : Did or did not the CSU always live up to their agreements with you I Mr. Casey. They did. Mr. McCann. Do you believe the president of the CSU or the lead- ership of the CSU are Communists and cause these disputes over Communist propaganda ? Mr. Casey. I have already answered that question. Mr. McCann. The following questions are asked by Mr. Wayne of the machinists. Mr. Kearns. Is Mr. Wayne asking them as his own counsel ? Mr. McCann. He is, sir. He has no counsel that I know of. Mr. Kearns. Is there any objection to Mr. Wayne acting as his own counsel? Mr. Cobb. No objection. Mr. Levy. No objection. INIr. Benjamin. No objection. Mr. Kearns. Proceed. Mr. McCann. How long have you known and dealt with Mr. Sor- rell? Mr. Casey. I think about 11 years. Mr. McCann. These questions have been asked and answered, but I will ask them and he can say he has answered them. Do you consider that you are familiar with his character? Mr. Casey. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. In your opinion, is Mr. Sorrell a Communist? Mr. Casey. He is not. Mr. McCann. Some more questions from Mr. Wayne. What was the jurisdiction of the International Association of Machinists under the agreement the producers signed with local 1185 on June 24, 1937 ? Mr. Casey. The agreement should speak for itself. I cannot remember all of the details. Mr. McCann. I do not know that that is in the record. 1600 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. All you can do is ask the questions. Mr. McCann. Did any other international ever have an argeement covering auto mechanics, aside from the one with the lA of M. in 1942? Mr. Caset. If my memory serves me right, up to that time I think the machinists had the automotive mechanics. Mr. McCann. Any further questions, gentlemen ? Counsel ? Mr. Kearns. Mr. Casey, on behalf of the committee, I not only want to express to you my appreciation for coming to Washington, but for the valuable assistance you have given us throughout this entire testi- mony. You should feel very happy that you had the tenure of long service with the producers when things were a bit more peaceful, and I think the value of your experience will live long with the industry. Mr. Casey. You think I will add a few years to my life by being smart enough to step out when it got as hot as it did ? Mr. Kearns. That is right, you take the sunshine with you. Mr. Casey. Thank you. Mr. Kearns. At this time, if Mr. Levy, who still has the chair, will relinquish it to Mr. Lindelof , the international president of the Paint- ers, Paperhangers, and Decorators. Mr. Le\t. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. You have already been sworn? Mr. Lindelof. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. I understand you have a statement to make. Mr. Lindelof. No, Mr. Chairman, I did not wish to be called, but apparently counsel for the committee probably wanted me to answer some questions. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I did not have that in mind. Mr. Sor- rell suggested he was here and that he might want to say something after the testimony of Mr. Levy yesterday. I have no questions, but 1 just wanted to let him proceed and make any statement he desires to make, after hearing Mr. Levy's statement. TESTIMONY OP LAWRENCE P. LINDELOP, PRESIDENT, BROTHER- HOOD OP PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS, AND DECORATORS OF AMERICA— Recalled Mr. Lindelof. I am leaving for Lafayette tomorrow night. I have a board meeting starting on Monday morning, and I have a lot of preparations to make before that meeting. I would like to stay as long as the hearings are taking place, and if I can come back here, I am going to do so. While I have the stand, I want to call attention to a statement made in one of the affidavits read by Attorney Levy yesterday afternoon, re- garding a petition that was signed at the 19-11 convention of the Broth- erhood of Painters and Decorators, at Columbus, Ohio. It was a peti- tion, I believe, requesting the President of the United States to grant Browder immunity or permission to remain in this country. I am not familiar with it. I have never seen it and never heard of it until yes- terday afternoon. The point is this : It was stated that delegation officers to that con- vention signed the petition, I want to correct that, that no officer of the Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators knew anything about MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1601 that petition or signed such a petition. I spoke to Mr. Levy and he agrees with me, that the men were officers of local unions, not repre- senting the international. I wanted to have that in the record. Outside of that, if you have any questions to ask, I would be more than pleased to answer them. Mr. Kearns. Do you have any questions ? Mr. Landis. I believe you would take the same position as Mr. Hutcheson, that if there is anyone on this committee who designates any of your officers as Communists, you would like to be informed of the names of those officers? Mr. LiNDELOF. Oh, yes, because we have in our constitution the same clause as is contained in the constitution of the Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners. And while I heard the indictments against our representatives, or the local representatives at Hollywood, Herb Sorrell, I have always adopted the policy that I want to hear both sides of the story before I make a decision. During the 19 years I have been president of the Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators, I have found that to be the best policy. I never hear one side of the story, I always hear both sides of the story before I commit myself. Mr. Keaiusts. You and your union, though, have signed the non- communistic affidavit, have you not? Mr. LiNDELOF. Oh, yes, and also the financial certificate. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Lindelof , we w^ant to extend to you the invitation of the committee to be with us any time we are holding hearings. If we are in session next week, we will be only too glad to have you. Mr. LiNDELOF. If you are in session when I finish the board meeting, I will be only too glad to come over. This is very interesting. ]\Ir. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question which neither you, ]Mr. Sorrell, nor Mr. Landis has asked, and I think it should be asked here. How long have you known Mr. Sorrell? Mr. LiNDELOF. About 10 or 11 years. Mr. McCann. When did you become acquainted with him, I mean in the sense of getting to know him \erj well, if you would state? Mr. LiNDELOF. I would not be able to say any particular date. I know that after Lessing stepped out of the situation in Hollywood, Herb Sorrell was selected at that time, but it was 2 or 3 years after that that I had personal contact with him, Mr. INIoCann. You have heard through the years that he has been charged with being a Communist? Mr. Lindelof. Oh, yes. ]\Ir. McCann. You must have talked with him about his personal connections, and so forth? Mr. LiNDELOF. On several occasions. Mr. McCann. What is your personal opinion with respect to his communistic membership? Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, Mr. Lindelof just stated he reserves the riglit to hear both sides of the story. Mr. McCann. I thought he would want to state that before he left, since he has heard the charge. Mr. KJEARNS. Mr. Counsel, he had that opportunity to say that. If he wants to reserve his comment, that is his privilege as a citizen of the United States. 1602 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Of course, I was not trying to crowd liim. Mr. LiNDELOF. I do not mind answering that question at all. Mr. Landis. Of course, before that question is answered, I think it ought to be brought out : Is the business agent of the painters selected by the painters' local? Mr. LiNDELOF. He is, yes. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to develop something. I thought he had overlooked answering it and might want to answer it. Mr. LiNDELOF. I do not mind answering your question. I would like to commit myself on that particular subject. I have talked to Herb Sorrell on several particular occasions trying to find out whether he was a Communist, a member of the Communist Party, or communistically inclined. About 2 years ago, I believe it was, he was accused of being a Com- munist before the Central Labor Union in Los Angeles. I was very much interested in tlie outcome of that trial of the central labor union. Up to the present time we have not found the findings of this trial committee of the central labor union. Mr. Kearns. They never handed them down, you mean ? Mr. LiNDELOF. They never did hand them down and, consequently, after that extensive trial or hearing that was held there, I cannot say that Herb Sorrell was a Communist. He may be a radical, he may have some very progressive ideas, but I could not accuse Herb Sorrell of being a Communist. We have, during the last 6 months, expelled from our international union about 12 Communists, but we must have the proof that they are Communists. Mr. Landis. When did you say you had done that ? Mr. LiNDELOF. During the last year. Mr. Kjiarns. Does that complete your testimony ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. May I ask one question ? Mr. Kearns. Yes, you may. It may have been asked already. Mr. OwT3NS. Perhaps it has, but I wanted to clear up that testimony of Mr. Doherty about your letter to him. You wrote Mr. Doherty a letter telling him you were well satisfied with that directive and congratulating the committee on its work ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Yes, wh}^ shouldn't I be? I got more than I asked for. I even got the frosting of the windows, and I don't even know what it is. Mr. Owens. They gave you the frosting and the cake? Mr. LiNDELOF. And it probably does not involve 3 days' work a year. But, Mr. Owens, you will notice in that letter I state as far as we are concerned, I was well satisfied. Mr. Owens. But you did join a jurisdictional strike later on? Mr. LiNDELOF. No. As I stated on the stand the other day when the carpenters and painters refused to work on the "hot" sets, they were discharged from the studios. Mr. Owens. Well, that was "hot" in the opinion of the carpenters. Mr. LiNDELOF. "Hot" in the opinion of the carpenters and the painters. Mr. Owens. But you have said you were satisfied with it. It could not very well be "hot" then, could it ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1603 Mr. LiNDELOF. Well, again my testimony of the other day, Mr. Owens, was that we had always adopted a policy to go along with any decisions or mandates of the American Federation of Labor and the executive council. When the clarification came out we went along with the clarification. Mr. Owens. Even where you have a contract to do work, you re- fused to cross the picket line and keep your contract ? Mr. LiNDELor. We had no contract. Mr, Owens. But you said you always do that. Mr. Kearns. He means traditionally. Mr. LiNDELOp. With the American Federation of Labor. We have taken their directives, as long as I can remember. Mr. Ow^ENS. In other words, even if you had a contract, it would not require, if a jurisdictional strike occurs, you will not go through the picket line to keep your contract? Mr. LiNDELOF. I do not know as I understand your question. Mr. Landis. You mean, you always respect the picket line of an A. F. of L. organization ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Oh, yes. Mr. Owens. Even if you have a contract with the employer ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Oh, yes, because in most of the agreements we in- sert that. In most of the agreements we have with our employers there is a clause there that it is our right to support other crafts. Mr. Owens. Of course, under the present law you could not make such an agreement, could you ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Oh, that is true now. That was in the past. We re- spect the Taft-Hartley Act in every respect. While we do not like it and believe it is a detriment to organized labor, a detriment to the public and so complicated that it is going to cause more confusion and probably more cessation of work eventually than if it was not in effect. Mr. Owens. After hearing the testimony here, Mr. Lindelof, I am beginning to like the law more and more all the time. Mr. LiNDELOF. Oh, I believe that. You will make us like it. Mr. Kearns. That is the law of the land. Mr. Owens. You support each other so well in the picket line on jurisdictional strikes, why can't you take steps to end jurisdictional strife in jour ranks ? Mr. LiNDELOF. We have always believed in cooperation. We have always believed in sitting down and trying to work out the differences and difficulties with our employers. In our agreements, we have set-ups for the settlement of disputes between employer and employee, not only locally, but nationally. We have a committee from the Brotherhood of Painters and Deco- rators International organization that meets with a like committee from the painting and decorating contractors' organization, in order to do away with any difficulties, misunderstandings, and disputes. Mr. Owens. Mr. Lindelof, in view of that, tell me this : Do you feel it is fair to the general public, which includes the em- ploj^ers, which includes the workers and other members of the j)ublic, to go out and support a strike between members of your own group as to who is to do work, even in Aaolation of a contract? Do you think that is fair ? 1604 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. LiNDELOF. Neither do I think it is fair for the employer Mr. Owens. Wliat has the employer got to do with that ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Wait a minute. The employer is involved in it just as much as the employee. Mr. Owens. How ? Mr. LiNDELOF. There can't be any dispute unless the employer or the employee cannot get together. Mr. Owens. How was a strike between two unions as to who is going to do the work going to have anything to do with the employer? Mr. LiNDEix)F. If you put it that way, then we will say that we cannot, under any circumstances, allow one organization to take over the work of another organization. I, at least, would not stand for it. Mr. Owens. In other words, in your own group you have a dispute as to who is going to do the work. Instead of settling it between yourselves, one goes out on strike, stops the work of the employer, stops the work of all the workers, keeps the Nation from getting the things that they need while you are having an argument between yourselves. I ask you again, do you think that is fair for the people of this country ? Mr. LiNDELOF. That is the reason I proposed 2 years ago a way of settling jurisdictional disputes. Mr. Owens. Well, I liked your proposal ; I granted you that. Mr. LiNDELOF. And I will say here, that in settlement of those juris- dictional disputes, there would be no cessation of work. One day that may be established, but as one man, I cannot make that set-up. I have to have the assistance of an organization like the American Federation of Labor, and if they will step into the picture and adopt a set-up of that kind, or a system of that kind, then we will get some place. Mr. Kearns. You go along with Pat Casey on this ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Don't you think that the fastest way to stop it is to use your own judgment and keep your own contracts when somebody is just going out on a purely jurisdictional strike, when there is no argument with the employer ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Lose my work, lose my work for the membership, and lose my membership besides ? Mr. Owens. What do you mean, "lose your work" ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Certainly I would lose it. Mr. 0^\t:ns. How? Mr. LiNDELOF. Because the other organization would take them all over, like they have now. Mr. Owens. What did you say the other organization would do? If you kept your contract with the employer while they were having a jurisdictional strike, who could do anything about that? Mr. LiNDELOF. Why should I not work? I have a right just like the rest of them do, otherwise I am going to be the loser. Mr. Owens. Well, I say, if you do it Mr. LiNDELOF. Well, if I clo it then you think everybody else will doit? Mr. Owens. You are the leader, aren't you ? Mr. LiNDELOF. Yes, I will admit that, but I am not the leader of the carpenters or the electricians or the machinists or the lA, only of my own organization. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1605 Mr. OwEXS. The teamsters kept their contract, didn't they? Mr. LixDELor. Oh, now you are coming back to the contract. I have no contracts with anybody in the studios. Mr. OwExs. But you said even if you did have you would still not go through the picket line. Mr. LixDELOF. Yes; because that is one of the principles of or- ganized labor. ]\Ir. 0^^'Exs. Why didn't the teamsters do that? Mr. LixDELor. The teamsters would have to answer for themselves. Mr. OwEXS. You didn't put them out of the A. F. of L., did you ? Mr. LixDELor. Oh, no; I wouldn't be able to put them out of the A. F. of L. Mr. OwExs. And while they were doing that they permitted work to go on, permitted the workers to continue, and permitted the em- ployers to do the job and the people to get the benefit of it, didn't they? Mr. LixDELOF. The teamsters may have gone through the picket line, but we have always had the policy to respect the picket line when it was established by any A. F. of L. organization. Mr. OwExs. "Well, I repeat again, I like the law. Mr. LixDELOF. Well, I don't blame you. Mr. Laxdis. Usually, though, they have a central labor union and when one of the crafts are out on strike, they bring it up in the central labor union organization, don't they ? Mr. LixDELOF. Not always. That is done in some instances, but a central labor union conld not dictate to a painters' local union, for instance, as to what they should or should not do. Mr. Laxdis. The point I was trying to make is this : If the carpenters are out on strike, then we call in the painters, bricklayers, and so forth ; they take in the situation of the carpenters strike, and probably join the'm after the central labor union meeting, is that right? Mr. LiXDELOF. Yes; they would probably do that. Mr. Keaexs. Mr. Lindelof , there is one point I would like to clear up here which is very important. These sets which were supposed to be "hot" and which you refused to work on, you did not refuse to work on them because they were "hot" from a painter's standpoint, you refused to work on them because they were "hot" from a carpenter's stand- point ? Mr. LiXDELOF. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearxs. That is all I wanted to ask. Thank you very much. TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY— Recalled Mr. Keaexs. Mr. Levy will take the stand, please. You have already been sworn. Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. I hope Mr. Lindelof will remain, since he does not have to leave until tomorrow, so that he may have presented to liim some of the material which apparently he is unfamiliar with. Mr. Kearxs. Yes ; he stated he wanted to hear both sides of the case. Mr. Levy. Continuing to read from the letter to the chairman of the committee, dated November 28, 1947, I would like to read, while Mr. Lindelof is here, item No. 4 on page 4. This is a photostatic copy of a report 1606 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Pardon me at this point. This is off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Levy. I am submitting now the report of the Congress of Amerl can-Soviet Friendship, a photostatic copy of it : Mr. Herb Sorrell, business representative for Motion Picture Painters of the Conference of Studio Unions, A. F. of L., told of the success the conference had had in carrying on an educational program on the Soviet Union in Hollyvpood. Louis Weinstock (fr»m the floor) : Mr. Louis Weinstock, Treasurer of Painters' District Council, No. 9, spoke as follows : "I don't knovp^ whether it is the good work of Herb Sorrell or whether it has something to do with the Red Army, but this is the first time that I have the honor and opportunity to announce that I speak not only for the New York painters of district council No. 9, but my international president, L. P. I^indelof, authorized me to speak for 50,000 organized painters, who are supporting this Congress. I had the honor to be the guest of the Russian trade unions 5 years ago, and when I came back I wanted to say things" Now, Mr. Louis Weinstock has been for years a member of the Com- munist Party and at the same time, for years prior to 1942, Mr. Louis "Weinstock has been a leader of the Communist Party. Mr. L. P. Lindelof, according to the statement on the report of the Congress of American-Soviet Friendship, is claimed by Mr. AVeinstock to have authorized Mr. Weinstock to speak for the 50,000 organized painters of which Mr. Lindelof is the international president. I have before me the fact that the dossier of Mr. Louis Weinstock, who, I repeat, was the treasurer of Painters District Council No. 9 until recentl}^ and for many years, and I think it will not be denied that Mr. Weinstock is and has been for many years a leader of the Com- munist Party. Pie was recently elected a member of the national committee of the Communist Party. If there is any denial by anybody that Mr. Louis Weinstock is a recognized, known, bullet-proof Communist, I will present a complete dossier. Mr. Kearns. We are not interested in anybody else's opinion. That is up to Mr. Weinstock himself. Mr. Levy. We are now talking about the fact of INIr. Weinstock's and Mr, Sorrell's association, in view of the material I am presenting to you, and at the appropriate time with the committee's cooperation we will present the necessary proof to support the statement which I am making. Going out of turn a moment, I think I can present documents in support of the proposition that Mr. Louis Weinstock has claimed to have raised more than $10,000 in support of the Sorrell-conclucted Conference of Studio Union strikes in Hollywood. I will get to that document in a moment. Mr. Kearns. In the documents you are presenting I think it would be good to watch the terminology there — not that you think you can ; you can or you cannot; is that correct? Mr. Levy. Any statement I make as preliminary statement for this proof, we expect, as I say, with the cooperation of the committee, to present the documents to which I refer and, if required, pursuant to the subpena of the committee, the necessary witnesses in support of the statements which I make. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I can't help but interject a remark there. There is a difference between an opening statement, Mr. Levy, and MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1607 a sworn statement of an attorney where he is using documents in support of a statement. Mr. Levy. That is correct, I understand that. This is a combina- tion, I think, of both. Coming back to the letter, I refer to items 3 and 2 together. One of them is the excerpt from Senate Journal of February 19, 1936, containing partial report, Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un- American Activities in California, published by the Senate of the State of California, with the Honorable Jack B. Tenney as chairman. I will not read the names entirely, but they can be included in the stenographic minutes. I want to read certain testimony taken before that committee under oath: Testimony Before Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-Amemcan Activities IN California, January 4, 1946, Los Angeles, Cal,if. (Vol. XXV, pp. 467-^79) Chairman Tenney. Mr. Sellers, will you state your full name for the com- mittee? The Witness. Clark Sellers. Chairman Tenney. And your residence address? The Witness. 887 El Campo Drive, Pasadena, Calif. Chairman Tenney. Your business or occupation? The Witness. I am an examiner of questioned documents. Chairman Tenney. Do you have an office address? The Witness. Yes; llOO-Ol Rowan Building, 458 South Spring Street, Los Angeles. Chairman Tenney. All right, Mr. Combs. By Mr. Combs : Question. Mr. Sellers, how long have you been engaged in your present pro- fession? Answer. I have been examining documents for more than 25 years ; and I have been a student of the subject for more than 30 years. Question. You were employed in connection with the Lindbergh-Hauptman kid- naping case; were you not? Answer. Yes. I was employed by the Attorney General of New Jersey to ex- amine the documents in that case and advise him as to whether or not, in my opinion, Hauptmann wrote the ransom letter to Colonel Lindbergh. Question. And you did so, did you? Answer. Yes ; and I was called as a witness to testify in that case. Question. You were also employed in connection with the Hickman case ; were you not? Answer. Yes. Question. The Hickman kidnap and murder case that occurred in Los Angeles County? Answer. Yes. Question. Now, Mr. Sellers, at your office do you also have a laboratory? Answer. Yes. Question. Just in general terms, Mr. Sellers, of w^hat does your equipment con- sist ? Answer. My laboratory equipment consists of microscopes, cameras, lenses, measuring instruments, ultra-violet light, infra-red-ray equipment, specimens of paper and handwriting, special measuring instruments of precision, and other equipment that might be of value to me in examining documents. Question. What do you mean when you use the term "questioned documents"? Answer. I mean by questioned documents a document about which there is some question as to its authenticity. That question may be as to the identity of the liandwriting, or as to typewriting, inks, or other problems that arise about the authenticity of a document. Question. Over what period has your experience extended? 1608 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Answer. I have received documents for examination for more than 25 years, and from Canada and Mexico, and I have examined the questioned-document problem in England. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, this point just entered my mind: Is it your thought, Mr. Levy, that if you were to get through with these statements — of course you made your general charge stating that Mr. Sorrell is communistic and with help in Hollywood it has resulted in some of these communistic activities. Now you are going to testi- mony given in other hearings by other people. Do you think 3^ou are informing him sufficiently to call upon him to defend himself after you are through with statements like that unless you are presenting original testimony to us, that is, the same man who testified in that case ? Mr. Levy. I think I should like to express our position in this way : This committee has undertaken the public responsibility to inquire into the causes of the jurisdictional strife in Hollywood; that one of the principal parties in this case, my client, the lATSE, takes the posi- tion that one of those factors — not a minor factor, not the only factor, but one of the important factors in the case — is the Communist prob- lem in studio labor in Hollj'wood, existing before and from 1944 through 1947. This committee has recognized that is a factor that ought to be studied by any committee of the House, any subcommittee of this full committee in the Hollywood situation. We have no power of subpena. We have no power to compel wit- nesses to be brought here. In fact, I understand the rules to be — and I am not in disagreement with them — that I cannot examine witnesses at all in that matter. That is entirel}^ a matter for counsel of the com- mittee and for the members of the committee. Not having the power to produce witnesses or to compel their attend- ance, not having the power of examination or cross-examination, I feel that I have, and shall continue to endeavor to perform our re- sponsibility by presenting to this committee enough material to do one of two things, or both: (1) either call the witnesses whose names I give you for the purpose of getting what you would consider to be satisfactory proof, or (2) if that is sufficient, to impose upon the other side to come forward with some denials. Either one or the other in my judgment, or both — and I am not taking a position as to which Mr. OwExs. Mr. Levy, a year ago in the hearings after Mr. Shatty testified we received communications from Mr. Walsh and Mr. Tinney which apprised us of the things you are saying now. That in our opinion did not place any burden upon us to enter into any investiga- tion concerning that matter. These charges are coming from the lATSE and not from anybody else. I do not believe — and I say this to you in all sincerity — that a state- ment on your part, whether you made it in a general opening state- ment or made it by giving statements from other records, would place any burden upon this committee. It might do harm in that it is public. When you make charges as serious as that I believe you have a burden not to ask Congress to subpena people, but to bring in people from your own ranks who have knowledge of the facts and give us proof, then let us do the rest, but do not fill the records full MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1609 of statements from a lot of newspapers and documents from other places and expect Congress to proceed on that. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting that as my theory of what is correct in the law and I think Mr. Levy, the good lawyer that he is, must agree with me. Mr. Lextt. This is an investigation, this is not a trial. I think that is the fundamental difference between a congressional committee and a court of law. I think the Constitution recognizes the power of the Congress to make its investigations. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld that without question. Now we will satisfy the burden insofar as we have it. We expect, not that any committee of Congress will ignore its responsibility; as a matter of fact if. after I present what material we have to you, you come to the conclusion that no further inquiry is necessary, that is your responsibility. I have the responsibility to j)resent to you the basis upon which we have made the charge. Mr. Owens. Let me ask you one question. Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Have you anyone in your group that can submit posi- tive facts upon which he can be prosecuted, if found untrue, that this man is a Communist or that the strike out there was Communist- inspired ? Mr. Levy. May I separate the two things ? Mr. OwTENS. Yes. Mr. Levy. Preliminarily I want to say that I don't know of anyone in my group — to use that expression ; meaning an7/one in the IATSE — who was also a member of the Communist Party and who can say that he saw Mr. Sorrell at a Communist Party meeting. I can present to 3^ou, and at the proper time if you will permit me to do so I shall, the names of certain witnesses who will testify even to satisfy a court of law that the charge which we make with respect to Communist infiltration in the studios and the labor difficulties that they have fomented there and carried on, is a charge which proved — let me put it to you in this way: I camiot testify to personal knowledge and you know I did not undertake to do so because I stated the basis of the statement which I made. I cannot testify that Mr. X was on such a day a member of the Communist Party. The only way I could do that would be to admit that I was there with him in the Com- munist Party, and everj^body who knows Matthew Levy knows that he was not and is not a Communist, or a member of the Communist Party. So the type and nature of personal proof which you suggest is a matter of the nature of proof which is to be presented in a court of law. This, I repeat, is an inquiry and investigation. If I were to present to you the name of one of the most noted handwriting experts in the country, who testified in California and who will testify before you, that he has before him the membership card and the signature of Herbert K. Sorrell in the Communist Party as of such and such a date, I think you ought to take that into consideration. I cajinot compel you to do it. Mr. Owens. You could give that to us in an opening statement, Mr. Levy, without referring to any other documents. 1610 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Everything that you have said since you started yesterday — and I did not want to interrupt you at the time — could have been stated in an opening statement. You could then say, "I have a document marked for identification," such and such a reference document or exhibit, or whatever you want to call it, then we would be in a position either to take those documents, or not. But you are sworn to testify. You are reading from documents, putting them into a public record- it could even be broadcast — before we have an opportunity to decide what we are going to do about it. Mr. Levy. Maybe I did not make myself clear. Mr. Landis. Now just a moment. We brought this up yesterday, Mr. Chairman. We will be all summer on the committee if we are going to argue about this all the time. Mr. Levy was sworn in. Before this case is ended I want everyone who has to testify to have his full say and let him say what he wants to say, so that whoever takes the chair will be satisfied with the case. They are all going to be sworn in as witnesses. Mr. Owens. I have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman, and you notice I did not say anything up to this time. I spoke of Mr. Levy separately. I called his attention to the fact that he is sworn. He is in the nature of a witness. Some people could have the impression he is testifying to these facts, whereas there is no responsibility being placed upon his shoulders whereby he could be charged with perjury, which Mr. Levy very well knows, from what he has testified to to date, and it is hardly right. Then I say from now on Mr. Levy should make a statement of these points in his own language, rather than reading from documents. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Owens, I am glad you brought the point up. As chairman of course I will be governed by the opinion of the committee, naturally, but when Mr. Levy is sworn in and gives his name, he is representing the lATSE. When he mentions names here of people who are supposedly Communists, it is the lATSE, through counsel, Mr. Levy, who is presenting these names as Communists or communis- tically-minded people who have had some influence or have infiltrated upon the communistic angle of labor in the Hollywood motion-picture dispute. Mr. Owens. Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, these documents were more or less unknown prior to this time. They have been in some files in California. They may have been in the paper or in the lATSE file, but now they are being placed practically in the Congressional Record. From the names that are being mentioned there nothing has happened so far that could make Mr. Levy responsible for what is being said and for damage as a result. Mr. Kearns. Without going into executive session I think the mem- bers had it clearly understood that before the committee would receive any names these charges would be made known to the party named. Mr. Owens. Well, there have been a hundred names mentioned so far. We don't have the addresses and we don't know where they are. Mr. Kearns. Well, even five thousand names. Mr. Ow^ENS. I appreciate what Mr. Levy is saying. I believe as an attorney he should make his statement as an attorney or as a witness, one or the other, and not as both. I say that in all sincerity. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1611 Mr. Kearns. Unless it would be ruled otherwise as in executive session of the committee, any name that is mentioned here as a Com- munist or making any contribution to the development of the Com- munist Party in its infiltration in the motion-picture dispute in Hollywood, would have to receive notification that their names had been brought before the committee. Mr. McCanx. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that for 10 minutes we ask the visitors to leave the room and hold an executive session? Mr. Laxdis. No ; I disagree w^ith that. Mr. Kearxs. I see no reason for an executive session, Mr. Counsel. The declaration of policy of the witness was clearly defined yesterday. Mr. McCaxn. As I understood yesterday it has been changed today. If I am incorrect it is a misunderstanding only. But yester- day as I understood this witness, he was going to prefer charges which he would prove to this committee. Mr. Kearxs. Oh, he said he woukl prove the charges. That is in the record. Mr. McCaxx. Todaj^ he says he is reading the charges and the committee can make an investigation and expend its own funds to subpena the witnesses to prove these charges. That is the way I understand it today. ]Mr. Laxdis. The record will speak for itself. Mr. Kearxs. He has insisted. Counsel, that he will prove the charges. Starting out he has directed them toward Mr. Sorrell and all the testimony he has given to date in its finality is to prove that Mr. Sor- rell is a Communist. Mr. OwExs. Mr. Sorrell had just spoken to me. It is not Mr. Sorrell T am thinking about, because he is sitting here listening to these charges and can defend himself. It is the many other names and organizations being mentioned about which I know nothing. If they are stated in counsel's opening statement they are not considered anything but a message to the court, as counsel is entitled to do in any hearing. Mr. Kearxs. I still contend, Mr. Owens — you are an attorney and I am not — that anyone whose name is mentioned before this committee as being a Communist should be notified. Mr. Owexs. Well, I just made the point. Mr. Laxdis. That is the regular order of other committees. Mr. Kearxs. I still contend as chairman that Mr. Levy has the witness stand. He has made his declaration and the policy that he wants to pursue is entirely up to him. Mr. OwExs. I am trying to help Mr. Levy in this, too. Mr. McCaxx. Mr. Chairman, as counsel for the committee I raise this question, whether the committee shall receive in evidence as the sworn testimony of Mr. Levy, testimony before another body where the witnesses are not before the committee for cross-examination. Mr. Kearxs. Mr. Counsel, I think in that case the Chair would rule Mr. Levy took the chair and was sworn. He is presenting this material, affidavits or proof of certain declarations he has made. I tliink it is the duty of the committee to receive that information. It would not make any difference to me, since we have started this thing, if they went on a year from now. If they want to go through with it we will go through with it. 1612 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I know if anyone accused me of being a Communist, if I had to sell my home to come to Washington I would do so, to prove that I was not a Communist. And that's all I have in the world, too. Mr. Landis. We do not want to regulate any witness as to the way he wants to present his evidence. Mr. McCann. But we do want testimony, do we not, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kearns. I still contend Mr. Levy had made his declaration. If he has five bundles of stuff that he wants to give the committee I think he ought to have that privilege to develop his point and give his testimony before the committee. I cannot see any other proce- dure the committeee can take, with all due respect to Mr. Owens' kind suggestion to the attorney, as I would put it. Mr. OwENS. Tliat is a good expression. Mr. Levt, I am perfectly prepared to cooperate with any determi- nation this committee desires to make. Mr. Kearns. Proceed in your own way. You have the green light from the committee. You know what you want to do. Mr. Levy. In view of the request — shall I say the kind suggestion of Congressman Owens — I will endeavor to cut down some of the material that I intended to present. That is on my own responsibility. Mr. Kearns. Now wait a minute. At this point I will have to inform the distinguished gentlemen from Illinois that I do not want it to appear in the record that he is suggesting you do that. Mr. Levy. No, sir. Mr. Kearns. I think he meant his suggestion purely as a kindness to you, Mr. Levy. Mr. Owens. That means he is responding for the good of the public. Mr. Levy. I will endeavor on my own account to be selective with respect to the material that is presented. But since we are in a some- what jocular mood I do want to take a moment on the record to say this. Mr. Landis. Is this off the record ? Mr. Levy. On the record. It is all right. It is a good story to put on the record, I think. It is a clean story. If I see a group of ducks swimming in a pond and in the center is a particular bird ; he looks like a duck, he swims like a duck ; he quacks like a duck; he has web feet like a duck; and he is always swimming around with ducks, I think I would be justified in assuming under such circumstances that this particular bird is also a duck. Mr. Owens. The bird could be a loon. Mr. Levy. Could be. And if the problem is one of having a loony jurisdictional problem in Hollywood they ought to know that, too. So I want to present the material I submitted to this committee in November 1947. [Reading :] Question. You have had practical experience have j'ou, in examining questioned documents? Answer. Yes ; I have examined several thousand documents. Question. And you have written articles for various technical journals on the side, have you? Answer. I have. Question. And you have testified in the State and Federal courts on the subject? Answer. Yes. Question. Now, Mr. Sellers, were some questioned documents submitted to you by this committee? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1613 Answer. Yes. Question. Do you have them with you? Answer. Yes. Question. Will you produce them, please? Answer. Yes (handing documents to Mr. Combs) . Question. Now, Mr. Sellers, I show you a photostatic copy of a document which reads, "Control Card, First Hal of 1937, Book No. 742S2 ; Name : Herbert Stewart ; State of California, County L. A., City L. A., District 13 ; Section : Industrial ; Unit : Studio No. 2 ; Occupation : Painter, Union Painters 614 ; Mass organization, ; Male; (In ix^ncil) Yes; Female: ; Age: 41; White: Yes; Foreign- born: ; Dues paid up to and including the month of: " Was that one of the questioned documents submitted to you? Answer. Yes. Question. And the other one is numbered No. 60622 and it reads as follows : "I have received membership book. (Signed) Herb Stewart," in ink; "State: Cal. ; District 13; County: LA., City: LA.; Section: Ind. ; Unit: Studio; Date: 2-12-37" with this printed matter at the bottom : "Be sure to sign and return to the Membership Director." Was that the other questioned document that was submitted to you? Answer. Yes. Quesion. Now, Mr. Sellers, in order to determine the fact as to whether or not the same person wrote two documents, is it or is it not a part of your technique to procure exemplars of the handwriting of the individual who purported to write the questioned documents and make an analysis of those examples and compare them with the signatures and writing on the questioned documents? Answer. It is. Question. Were some documents which purported to be such examplars sub- mitted to you for analysis? Answer. Yes. Question. Do you have them with you? Answer. Yes. Question. May I see them? Anwer. Yes [handing documents to Mr. Combs]. Question. One is a card which reads as follows: "R. E. S., Charleston 6-1687; Office, Drexel, 8354 ; HiUwide 7997." Written in pencil on the card is : "Hello, Ben." Then the printing continues : "Herb Sorrell, business representative Moving Picture Painter's Local 644, 4157 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles." Was that one of them? Answer. Yes. Question. The other one is an attendance card ; "Central Labor Council ; Name : Herb Sorrell ; Address : 4157 West 5th Street ; City : L. A. ; Union : Moving Picture Painters 644; Date: November 5, 1945; If change of address give old addi-ess here " And blank for telephone number. Was that another example submitted to you? Answer. Yes. Question. Then I show you two letters, the first one being on stationery of the Hotel Statler, Buffalo, N. Y., dated September 9, 1937. It is in ink hand- writing. It starts out with the wox'ds, "Dear Victor" and concludes with the words, "Sincerely, Herb," and ask you if that is another of the examplars? Answer. It is. Question. I show you a letter written on the stationery of Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Studios. Culver City, March 24, 1938. and on the bottom of the letter — the letter is in typewriting — is some matter in ink handwriting, signed "Herb Sorrell," and ask you if that is another of the exemplars submitted to you? Answer. Yes, it is. The three lines of writing at the bottom of said letter and the name Herb Sorrell. Question. Now, I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of a 1938 registration blank and ask you whether or not that was submitted to you as an exemplar or as a questioned document? Answer. Tliis was submitted as a questioned document. Question. It reads as follows : "1938 registration blank. Please write in ink. Section: Industrial.. Unit: Studio No. 2. Branch Real name: Herbert K. Sorrell. Party name: Herb Stewart. Correct address: 137 North Verdugo Avenue, Burbank. Year .joined : 1938. Book No. : 1937, lost ; 1938, 60022. Nationality : American. Country of birth : U. S. A. Age : 42. Male (is checked.) White (is checked). Present occupation: studio painter." 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 8 1614 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES After "employed" is written the word '"yes." "Place of employment: 4157 West 5th Street. No. of workers in shop : 3. What union : M. P. P. Local G44. Functionary in this union : business agent. What unemp. mass org. Other mass organizations : none. What function : Veteran: What veteran's organization: What function in party: Full time: Section:. Br. unit: Party schooling: After the word "county": "trade-union school." State: National: Workers school: . How many children : 2 and two grand. What are their ages: 23, 19, 2, 1 mo." Was that submitted to you as an exemplar? Answer. No. This was submitted to me to determine if I could, whether or not it was written by Mr. Sorrell. Question. In other words, that was a questioned document? Answer. Yes. Question. In addition to the other two? Answer. Yes. Question. Were those all of the questioned documents submitted to you, three, or was there another one? Chairman Tenney. What about the voter's registration? The Witness. Those are the only questioned documents. Mr. Combs. Now, I show you a portion of a voting registration blank with the signature and handwriting on it, "Herbert K. Sorrell, 1153 Norton Avenue, Glen- dale," and ask you if that was submitted to you as an exemplar? Answer. Yes. This was submitted as an exemplar of the signature of Herbert K. Sorrell. Senator Gokdon. What is meant by exemplar? Chairman T"^nney. It is an example of handwriting. Senator. Is that correct, Mr. Sellers? The Witness. Yes. It is a specimen of writing submitted to me as being the genuine handwriting of Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Combs. Question. I show you a photostatic copy of a jurat submitted and sworn to before a notary public on which appears the signature "Herbert K. Sor- rell," and ask you if that was submitted to you as an exemplar? Answer. Yes. Question. I show you a bottom portion of a voter's registration certificate dated January 6, 1936, W. M. Kerr, registrar of voters, which bears the signature "Herbert K. Sorrell," and ask you if that was submitted to you as an exemplar? Answer. Yes. Chairman Tenney. Was that an exemplar? Mr. Combs. Yes, Mr. Chairman, an exemplar. Question. I show you a similar portion of the same sort of a registration blank, dated 1932, with the same purported signature on it, and ask you if that was submitted to you as an exemplar? Answer. Yes. Question. I show you a similar one for the year 1930 and ask you if that was submitted to you as an exemplar? Answer. Yes. Question. Were those all of the examplars submitted to you? Answer. Yes. Question. Now, Mr. Sellers, did you make any effort to determine whether or not the same person who wrote the exemplars, or was alleged to have done so, also wrote the questioned documents? Answer. Yes. Question. Will you describe briefly the technique you use in order to arrive at a conclusion? Answer. I had these documents in my oflBce and laboratory and I examined them under various magnifications and made a careful comparison between the exemplars first to determine what the handwriting characteristics of Herbert Sorrell are, the extent and scope of his variations, his handwriting ability, and in general the identifying characteristics in his writing. I then made a careful comparison between those examplars and the questioned documents that have been here described for the purpose of determining if I could whether or not Mr. Sorrell wrote any of the questioned documents or any part of them. Question. I show you now a large photostatic sheet on which appear several signatures in writings and ask you what they purport to be? Answer. I did not make this photograph. Question. Do you know who did? Answer. Yes ; John L. Harris. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1615 Question. He is the gentleman with whom I had a coufereuce in your presence yesterday? Answer. Yes. He is an examiner of questioned documents. Question. Did you notice similar characteristics between the exemplars and the questioned documents? Answer. Yes. Question. You arrived at a positive opinion, did you, as to the identity of the person who wrote the exemplars and the questioned documents? Answer. Part of them, yes. Question. Whether or not the same person wrote the examplars and the questioned documents? Answer. Yes ; as to part of them, that is correct. Question. What do you mean by part of them? Answer. My opinion is that some of the questioned documents were not written by tlie same writer who wrote other parts of the questioned documents. Question.Will you indicate what those were, please? Answer. This document that begins '1938 registration blank' that is filled in beginning with the words, "Industrial Studio No. 2" and so on, I could not identify Mr. Sorrell as having written the writing on that document. Question. In other words, this document is a printed form, is it not? Answer. Yes. Question. It contains a number of blanks which were filled in in hand- writing? Answer. Yes. Question. After the words "real name" was that written in ink or in pencil? Answer. Apparently in pencil. Question. Is it your opinion that a different person wrote that name than the person who filled in the blanks in the rest of the form? Answer. No; I would not say so. I am saying that I was unable to identify Mr. Sorrell as having written any part of this particular document. Most of that is handprinted and I have not examined any of his hand printing. But in any event I was not able to identify him as having written any part of that particular document. Question. Now, we will take the document, 'Control card, first half of 1937.' What was your conclusion with regard to that? Answer. My conclusion with regard to that is that the person who wrote the exemplars which were submitted to me as being the genuine handwriting of Herbert K. Sorrell wrote the name "Herb Stewart" on this card which begins "Control card first half 1937, book No. 74282." Also, the same writer, in my opinion, wrote the word "Calif." following the word "State," and wrote the letters "L. A." following the word "City." I could not identify him as hav- ing written the numeral 13 following the word "District" — and the person who wrote the exemplars wrote the word "Industrial" following the word "Sec- tion." and wrote the word "painter" following the word "occupation," and wrote the word "Painter's 644" following the word "Union," and the word "yes" following the word "male" and the numeral 41 following the word "age" and the word "yes" following the word "white." Question. Now, will you take the other questioned document which bears the number "60622", membership book; what was your conclusion with regard to that? Answer. It is my conclusion that the i>ei-son who wrote the exemplars sub- mitted to me as being the genuine handwriting of Herbert K Sorrell wrote the name "Herb Stewart." Immediately above the printed word signature on this document is the number in printing "60622", and below the number are the words, "I have received membfrship book." Then below the signature "Herb Stewart" there is some other handwriting that I was not able to identify as having been written by the writer of the exemplars. It is my opinion that that writing was written by the same writer who wrote the handwriting on the card which begins in printing, "1938 registration blank." Mr. Co^rns. I think that is nil, Mr. Sellers. Chairman Texxey. Any questions from the members of the committee? That is all. Mr. Sellers. Thank you. Since I made up my own mind to be selective in the reading of it, without request or suggestion, I will not read in full the testimony of the handwriting expert John L. Harris, nor the rest of the document, 1616 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES but will ask that it be received in full and incorporated in the record with the following statement that I do want to read now. This is from the report of the joint fact-finding committee from the State of California. Mr. Owens. Mv. Chairman. I would like to ask a question first. Does it show in the testimony where that card came from? Mr. Levy. This does not show where the card came from. Mr. Owens. Just how did they connect it? Mr. Levy. The connection is shown that that was a Communist Party membership card. The source from which it came from this exhibit does not appear. I believe I have available the entire report. I shall seek to read that overnight, if I can, for the purpose of being able to answer that question. Mr. Owens. Was there anyone in there that gave proof of any sig- nature of his ? Mr. Levy. The proof that was presented was the proof of the voting registrar. Mr. Owens. He said that was not the signature, if I understood the testimony. Mr. Levy. Oh, I am afraid, sir, that you misunderstood it. I read this testimony from the report of the joint fact-finding committee of the State of California. What they did was to go to the following sources to get, as I read the testimony, general signatures of Herbert K. Sorrell, as they see it. They went to the voting registrar, without reference to how he voted. They found he voted in this year, in that year, and in the other year, and they took his signature. From the voting register of Herbert K. Sorrell, they had a letter written to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, and they took the signature of Sorrell. They had some note from the Statler Hotel in Buffalo and they had a card. My recollection is, from reading the whole report which is rather voluminous, that there is proof in the record that those documents Mr. Sellers and Mr. Harris call "exemplars" were the undoubted signatures of Herbert K. Sorrell. Mr. Owens. Except there is nothing in that record so far which shows that ? Mr. Levy. As I say, I will be pleased to present to you the complete record, rather than this report in support of that. Now, with reference to the 1938 card that was not in his hand- writing. That was one of the questioned documents ; that was not one of the recognized exemplars. Since I have here a pamphlet with respect to the photostatic copies, to which the witness referred, and which I ask you now to receive, I think that will be made much clearer from the pamphlet which I have. We also will have available at an appropriate time, larger photo- stats and we may get several more copies of this so that each member may have it. But if you take the photostatic copies of these documents and the testimony as indicated before the Senate committee in California, I think that will be an answer to your question. Mr. Owens. Just one more question : Did you check the records in any way to ascertain whether Mr. Sorrell had signed the non- Communist affidavit? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1617 Mr. Levy. I did not personally check the records. I can say this, that I made inquiry. That is a matter which the National Labor Rela- tions Board does not disclose, I understand, but I do know Mr. Sorrell stated he signed a non- Communist affidavit pursuant to the Taft- Hartley law. There is no way in which I iCan present that. I have not reason to doubt that he did. That is since the enactment of the Taft-Hartley law. In view of the fact that that question has been asked — and I think very appropriately — ^I want to say that notwithstanding the claim that Mr. Owens. Just a moment. Pardon me. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. IvEARNS. Mr. Levy, did you state where the membership of Herb Stewart showed, in what city, or where ? iSIr. Le\^. I have only indicated to you, sir, that the address given was the address given on the card. I do not know anything about the section or the district. I can only tell you what the card reads. The card reads: "County, Los Angeles; City, Los Angeles; State, California." Mr. Kearns. Thank you. That answers my question. Mr. Le^tt. Now, with repect to the signing of the non-Communist affidavit, I think it would be appropriate for me to read here — and I think it is of value to us, to indicate the position of the lATSE on that — this document. I want you to know that the lATSE, through its national officers, promptly complied with the requirements of the law and filed those affidavits. With respect to whether Mr. Sorrell did or not, I think I told 3^ou that I tried to make inquiry; that I was unable to get it, be- cause I think it is the rule of the Board that that is confidential, at least I was sold told in communicating with the west coast. I did not take the matter up with the national office of the National Labor Relations Board. However, I understand it was published on the west coast that Mr. Sorrell stated he did file such an affidavit, since August 22, 1947. Now, I intend to show to you that Mr. Sorrell's name still remains as one of the sponsors of the Communist- operated and -controlled Hollywood People's Educational Center; the American Youth for Democracy, formerly the Young Communist League; the People's World, which is the west-coast Communist newspaper, and other Com- munist-front organizations in Southern California, as late as 1946, and I think perhaps as late as 1947. Now, there is no evidence, to the knowledge of the lATSE, that Mr. Sorrell has resigned or repudiated a single one of his pro-Communist coimections, either before or after the Taft-Hartley law. I do not think we can say that modesty is one of Mr. Sorrell's out- standing virtues ; and, therefore, his failure to speak up in repudiation of a long pro-Communist past cannot be charged to modesty. Mr. Laxdis. One question there : All these organizations you just mentioned, were they considered Communist-front organizations by the Attorney General ? Mr. Levy. That is definitely true with respect to the American Youth for Democracy, formerly the Young Communist League. That 1618 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES is my understanding. The People's World is conceded, I believe, by everybody to be a Communist newspaper. Mr. Landis. We are checking on the Hollywood People's Educa- tional Center. I may say to you, sir, that in the hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities before the House of Representatives, in Oc- tober 1947, this appears with respect to the People's Educational Center — the point I want to make is that you make a distinction be- tween the groups that were declared front organizations by the At- torney General and also perhaps by the House Un-American Activi- ties Committee? Mr. Levy. That is correct. I will present the facts as I know them with respect to each. I want to say that the following appears on page 544 of the hear- ings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Kepresentatives. We have the exhibits here, I think, that in the Motion Picture Daily of the 17th of March 1947 was an item stating that Louis Weinstock — who, as I indicated earlier, was an admitted member of the national executive council of the Communist Party — had raised $10,000 in support of the strike of the conference of studio unions. You remember earlier during my testimony I said I would come across that and point that out to you. Mr. Ro}^ N. Brewer, the international representative of the lATSE, wrote a letter to the Honorable J. Parnell Thomas of the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities, in which he stated : Those of us who are within the trade-union movement in Hollywood, who have had to meet the smear campaign of the Communists for the past several years, and who have had to meet their onslaught and their tactics day in and day out, no longer naively consider that nonmembership in the Comnuinist Party or the signing of non-Communist affidavits is a guaranty that those who make such declarations and sign such affidavits, have necessarily severed their organizational or ideological bonds with communism. We must be convinced of their noncommunism by open and outright condemnation and repudiation of their Communist principles, Communist tactics, Communist organizations, and Communist associates. If and when Mr. Sorrell and his associates follow this line of action, none shall be happier than we, but until this is done we remain skeptics. Formal disassociation from the Communist movement is an old Communist trick, advised by both Lenin and Stalin to their followers when the going got hot. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to receive these two excerpts which are as follows: Excerpts from Senate Journal of February 10, 1946, containing partial report, Joint-Fact Finding Committee on Un- American Activities in California, and photostatic copies of Commu- nist Party documents and exemplars of the handwriting of Herbert K. Sorrell. (The dociunents were filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. One of the learned members of the committee suggested I ouglit to present some photostats. I will present some of those that I have here. We are going to present as many as we can get from the west coast and from New York. Mr. Kearns. You will present those that you receive at a later date? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1619 Mr. Levt". Yes, sir; I think I will follow the document. Excerpt from People's Daily World, dated September 6, 1946, re Herb Sorrell. This is a photostat : "Support for WFTU." I want to say the WFTU is the World Federation of Trade Unions [reading] : Paintehi Det.egates Assail Watt's Anti-Soviet Speech San Francisco, September 5. — Convention sessions of the AFL painters today were devoted mainly to organizational matters, but progressive delegates — and I want to say this in view of what Mr. Lindelof said, that I am not one of those who am considered a Communist-Progressive. I distinguish quite definitely between progressivism and communism, but the Daily People's World and Communist terminology is to use the word "progressive" with respect to communism — were actively lining up support for AFL affiliation vpith the World Federation of Trade Unions. Delegates were up in arms over the anti-Soviet speech made yesterday by Robert Watt, AFL international representative, in which he slan- dered the WFTU, as "dominated by Moscow." Herb Sorrell, delegate from local 644, Hollywood, told The Daily People's World : "]My local organization desires to support the WFTU and we do not believe a minority group, even tliough they come from Russia, can control 70,000,000 workers in this World Federation." The next photostat which I want to present is No. 6 in the letter, "Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated March 8, 1940, re Herb Sorrell, entitled 'Movie City Forming First Alliance Local.' " Movie City Fokming First Aixiance Locai. HoixYWOOD, March 7. — Tawdry and tinselled Hollywood forgot the shadow tvorld today and was all wrapped up in the business of forming its first Workers Alliance local. ******* WIDE BACKING Those who addressed the meeting included : Dorothy Ray, Labor's Non-Partisan League ; Rabbi Mayer Winkler, Community Synagogue ; Herbert Sorrell, Motion Picture Democratic Committee, and others. I will not read this entire article, but will offer it entirely to be put into the record as I did the earlier one. I ask that the committee receive the earlier exhibit entitled, "Sup- port for WFTU. Painter delegates assail Watt's anti-Soviet speech," from the Daily People's World of September 6, 1946, and also the photostat from the People's Daily World of March 8, 1940, "Movie City Forming First Alliance Local." Mr. Kearxs. So ordei-ed. (The above photostats were filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. The next item in the letter is item No. 7, "Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated April 14, 1940, re President Herb Sorrell, entitled 'Million on 500 Campuses to Join Peace Strike Today.' " If I may interpolate, this was after the Stalin-Hitler pact and before the Nazi attack upon the Soviet Union : 1620 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Million on 500 Campuses To Join Peace Strike Today ucla meeting expect 12,000 at los angeles rallies Los Angeles, April 18. — Participation tomorrow of 12,000 Los Angeles students in the seventh annual national peace strike seemed assured today, student leaders told The People's World, and so forth. At City College, screenwriter Dalton Trumbo — By the way, you will find a number of names mentioned at these meetings, at places, and sponsorship with respect to organizations where Mr, Sorrell's name is mentioned in collaboration with several others. I think at this time, without offering in evidence the entire hear- ings before the Committee on Un-American Activities of this House, I think I may say to you that the following 10 persons have been cited by that committee for refusal to answer certain questions before it. Mr. Kearns. We know that. Mr. Le\^. I mention that because of the fact that some of these names are mentioned here. Mr. Kearns. We knew that a long while ago. Mr. Levy (reading) : At City College, screenwriter Dalton Trumbo will address assembled students and present his peace pledge, already taken by many local trade-unions. City College students will sign a huge "post card" resolution addressed to the admin- istration demanding peace. At UCLA, Carey McWilliams, State director of immigration and housing; President Herb Sorrell, of Labor's Non-Partisan League ; and Dr. E. P. Ryland, Los Angeles, president, American Civil Liberties Union, will be the speakers. I ask that that be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The photostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. The next item in the letter is, "Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated May 17, 1940." Mr. Kearns. I made the Daily World, too, when I was out on the west coast. Mr. Levy. I may assume, Mr. Chairman, if you made the Daily W^orld in association with some of these names and someone stated it was thought you were a pro-Communist, you would undertake ap- propriate procedures to correct it. You would not institute a libel suit and then withdraw it with prejudice so that you would not be able to sue again. I don't doubt that I will make the Daily World also, as a result of my testimony, and my known attitude in this matter of Communist relationship to the United States. No. 8, "Excerpt from the People's World, dated May 17, 1940, re Herb Sorrell, entitled 'Schneiderman Case. AFL Leader, Liberals Rally to Defense' " : Schneiderman Case AFL leader, LIBERALS RALLY TO DEFENSE Los Angeles, June 16'. — Revocation of the citizenship of William Schneiderman, State Secretary of the Communist Party is, "not only an attack on the Communists but a step toward crushing the civil liberties of all." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1621 Herb Sorrell, business representative, AFL Moving Picture Painters Union, local 644, issued tliat warning liere today as trade-unionists and liberals rallied to tlie call of the local Schneiderman-Darcy defense committee. I ask that that be received in evidence. Mr. IvEARNs. No objection. (The photostat was filed witli the committee.) Mr. Levy. The next item in the letter is No. 9, "Excerpt from Illustrated Daily News, dated November 2, 1942, re Herb Sorrell, endorsing La Rue McCormick, Communist candidate." For All-Pakty Unity and Victory Poijcies, Elect La Rue MoCoemick, State Senator Free our legislature from labor baiting and Red baiting. Stop disruption of the war effort. This was November 2, 1942. Russia had already gotten into the war, so instead of Mr. Sorrell being found to conduct a peace strike among the students of California, he now endorsed a candidate who wants to stop disruption of the war effort. Among those who endorse this candidate are Dalton Trumbo, John Howard Lawson, and Herb Sorrell, studio painters 644. I ask that this be received in evidence. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The photostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levt. No. 10, "Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated July 24, 1944, entitled "PW" meaning "People's World" "Wins Cheers!" John H. Lawson, Herbert Sokeell Praise Our Hollywood Coverage T>os Angeles, July 23.— The Daily People's World leads the daily newspaper field in understanding the contribution of industry and labor in Hollywood to America's war effort. That's the statement of two prominent Hollywood leaders — Screen Writer John Howard Lawson and Herbert Sorrell, president of the Conference of Studio Unions. Both Sorrell and Lawson are supporting the current $75,000 victory expansion drive of the Daily People's World. I ask that that be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The photostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levt. A "Dossier of action taken by Conference of Studio Unions on matters promoted or opposed by the Communist Party from August 12, 1942, to September 5, 1946." I am not now talking about Mr. Sorrell as an individual in this dossier, I am talking about what appears to be the action taken by the Conference of Studio L'nions itself on matters promoted or opposed by the Communist Party. I will not read them all, but I will point out some with which I think the committee may be familiar. August 12, 1942, passed a resolution endorsing a second front. August 12, 1942, passed a resolution to promote friendship with the Soviet trade-unions. November 25, 1042, appointed a committee to work with the League of Ameri- can Writers. March 10, announced meeting of Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee. March 10, instructed letter be written to President in behalf of Bridges. 1622 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES May 12, 1942, motion that each local be urged to participate in Joint Anti- Fascist Refugee Committee. Sept. 8, 1945, read request of People's Educational Center to conference. The People's Educational Center, from the research we have made, appears to be the Communist School in Los Angeles, Calif. It is referred to in this document as "PEC." October 13, 1945, supported the American Council for Soviet-American Friendship. Januai-y 12, 1944, gave People's Educational Center mailing list of members of Conference of Studio Unions. June 14, 1944, sent brochure of Writers Mobilization to all members. July 12, 1944, voted support of International Labor Defense. September 6, 1946, supported World Federation of Trade-Unions. I ask that this dossier be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The dossier was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. The next item is No. 12, "Manifesto of the World Labor Conference" : The below-named organizations of the American Federation of Labor who en- dorsed the World Trade-Union Congress, herewith submits to the labor movement the manifesto of the Congress and request your consideration. Conference of Studio Unions Among others mentioned. I ask that this be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The photostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. No. 13, "Excerpt from Hollywood Citizen-News, dated December 11, 1946, re Conference of Studio Unions, entitled 'Win Peace' Rally Echoes Reds Minus Marcantonio." I think I ought to read the following : Mr. Kearns. Do you want Mr. Marcantonio here to verify it ? Mr. Levy. I think this document shows Mr. Marcantonio claimed he was detained in New York and was not able to be present at the peace rally, and that therefore the Honorable Hugh DeLacy sub- stituted for him. I think that both Mr. Marcantonio and Mr. DeLacy Mr. Owens. Do you think they walk like ducks, too ? Mr. Levy. Do you want my opinion ? Mr. Kearns. No. Mr. Owens. We don't want your opinion ; we want facts. Mr. Levy. I would not hesitate to give it : DeLacy topped the contributions to "win the peace" fund with two $50 bills, except for one other $100 contribution. * * * Groups from which conti'ibu- tions were announced included several chapters of each of the following: Com- munist Party, International Workers Order, American Veterans Committee. * * * Conference of Studio Unions. Among others. Literature distributed by the American Youth for Democracy, formerly the Young Communist League, included a plea for funds for the Conference of Studio Unions' film strikers in Hollywood. There was also a reprint of an advertise- ment from Daily Variety in which the Hollywood citizens' fact-finding com- mittee, lieaded by Congressman Ellis E. Patterson, denounced the Los Angeles County grand jury and other ofljcials for action taken against strikers arrested for illegal mass picketing. MOTION -PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1623 I ask that that be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The photostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. I have already offered, and you have received, I think, the record of Emil Freed, which was referred to in item 6 above. That is item No. 14 in the letter. Now, we have also photographic reproductions of Los Angeles news- paper headline articles from the lATSE convention, which I will ask at the proper time to have Mr. Brewer, who got these together, present them to you. Mr. Kearns. The editor's name, and the name of the paper, will have to be included. Mr. LE^^r. Mr. Brewer will present whatever material there is on that. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. Leatt. Also item 16, the lATSE Informational Bulletin of September 28, 1945 ; I ask leave to have Mr. Brewer present that. Mr. KJEARNS. Very well. Mr. LE\"r. The letter dated May 10, 1946, from Mr. Brewer to the secretaries of the local unions of the lATSE; I ask leave to have Mr. Brewer present that. And also excerpt from Hollywood Daily Variety, dated April 2, 1945 ; I ask that Mr. Brewer be permitted to present that. Now, we have some additional documents not referred to in the letter that have come in, and I would like to present them at this point. This is a photostat (received, July 8, 1946). People's World $125,000 Annual Drive— 1946 Partial list of sponsors : I do not want to read them all, but we have : Philip M. Connelly ; Leo Gallagher ; E. C. Head, head of shop stewards, painters local 644, AFL ; John Howard Lawson ; Albert Maltz ; Carey McWilliaras ; Anita Whitney ; and Herb Sorrell, president, Conference of Studio Unions, AFL. I ask that this be received. I have no extra copies of it, but I shall try to have them made overnight. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The photostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. Now, People's Educational Center, page 266 of the hear- ings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, winter, 1947, being the brochure of the People's Educational Center. A list is given of the board of directors and of the advisory board, and among those on the advisory board, appearing on page 267, is Herbert Sorrell. Among the board of directors is John Howard Lawson. Among the advisory board is Elmer Birtman. Mr. Kearns. "Wliy don't you just refer to those pages for the record. Mr. Levy. I ask that that be received in evidence in this hearing. I do not think it is necessary to give the entire brochure. I think that will unduly complicate this record, in view of the fact that it has already been printed by this congressional committee. I therefore refer to page 266 and page 267. 1624 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. So ordered. Mr. Owens. What is the date ? Mr. Levt. The date is "Hearings regarding the Communist infil- tration of the motion picture industry, October 20-30, 1947." (The document was filed with the conmiittee.) Now, the Conference of Studio Unions published certain pam- phlets during the period of the strike. I have asked that those pamphlets be sent here from California. Some of them I had in my files. I will present some of them now. This is one that is known as the Picket Line dated January 8, 1947 : "People's Educational Center Offers Scholarship." My point in bringing this to your attention is the fact that the Picket Line, published by the Conference of Studio Unions, is pro- jecting the People's Educational Center. Your committee will come to a conclusion as to what the People's Educational Center is. Mr. Kearns. May I ask if the Picket Line circular you are referring to depicts what was happening along the picket line at various studios ? Is tliat the intent of it ? Mr. Levy. Yes; it was a publication of the Conference of Studio Unions and presents their point of view. I ask that this be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. LE\Tr. Now, here is the Picket Line of February 3, 1947 : "Con- ference of Studio Unions Meets with Toledano," of Mexico. He was the head, until recently, of the Mexican Confederation of Labor. His association with the World Communist Movement is well recog- nized everywhere. Mr. Toledano was invited to speak to the Conference of Studio Unions during the strike. I ask that that be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. Mr. Owens. When you say received, you mean those are all being received for reference purposes ? Mr. Kearns. That is right, sir. Mr. McCann. As I understand, Mr. Chairman, none of these docu- ments are to be reproduced in the record, other than the matter which he reads ? Mr. Kearns. That is right. Mr. McCann. The rest of the documents are to be received as reference exhibits only? Mr. Kearns. That is right. Mr. Owens. Until we decide later as to their materiality ? Mr. Kearns. That is right. Mr. Le\^. February 4, 1947, "Picket Line." Mr. Kearns. I might interrupt to say that any of these documents will be in the office of counsel. Anyone who desires to look at them may go to room 428 and examine them there, although they will not be permitted to be taken out of that office. Mr. Levy (reading): Toledano Pledges Support The presence of Vincente Lombardo Toledano, head of the Latin-American Federation of Worlvers and vice president of the World Confederation of Trade Unions, at the mass meeting Sunday night was an historic occasion, and an MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1625 indication that witli international labor solidarity, no democratic labor union anywhere need fight a struggle alone against employers who consjpire to de- stroy it. Toledano stated that no American film siiot in Mexico nor any film sent to the Mexican laboratories from Hollywood is being pi^ocessed. Furthermore, the great Latin-American labor leader declared that he is calling upon the theater unions in Mexico to suspend operations throughout the country for one Sunday that the people may know of our struggle here in Hollywood. Also, Toledano is seeing to it that the central office of the Latin-American Federation of Workers sends wires to the Presidents of every local in Latin America, informing them of the lock-out and calling upon them for direct aid, either in the form of a bo.vcott, or whatever they can do. I ask that that be received. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The pliotostat was filed with the committee.) Mr. Leat. They have an artist. This picture is on a "Picket Line," February 5, 19^7, Clief Toledano stewing the brew of Latin-American boycott of Hollj^wood films. This was a CSU publication announcing the fact that Mr. Toledano — who last Sunday transmitted to us such an inspiring message of support from our brother unionists south of the Iwrder, will again appear on the platform at Legion Stadium at this coming Sunday's mass meeting. Mr. Kearns. Who introduced him ? Mr. Levy. I don't know who introduced him. "Picket Line" of February 7, 1947— Sunday Mass Meeting Not only will Vincente Lombardo Toledano speak again at Sunday night's meeting at Legion Stadium, but with him will be delegates from Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Egypt, and possibly France. Toledano has already moved ahead on the three-point program of aid to the Conference of Studio Unions and local 683. I think I mentioned earlier that local G83 was an lATSE local, which was participating in joining with the Conference of Studio Unions. Why that was Mr. Brewer will go into in line with the presentation of our proof. That is the studio technicians' local : (1) The Sunday demonstration throughout Mexico wherein every theater in the country will be closed for the day in protest against the producers ; (2) Contact is being made with unions in 17 other Latin-American countries for similar action there; (3) Should the lock-out continue, Toledano will take up the matter of boycotting American films at the next meeting of the World Federation of Trade Unions. At this point I want to read into the record certain portions of the testimony of Howard Rushmore, from page 171 of the hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, from October 20 to 30, 1947. I think it is extremely short. Mr. Rushmore gives his name, his residence, his occupation as edito- rial department of the New York Journal American : Were you ever a member of tlie Communist Party? Answer. I was. Question. During what period? Answer. From 1936 to 1939. Question. Did you ever hold any position in the Communist Party? Answer. I did. Question. Will you enumerate to the committee the positions you held in the party? Answer. Chiefly film critic for the Daily Worker. I was also on the Daily Worker as managing editor of their Sunday magazine, as city editor on Sunday, and a few jobs like that, but chiefly as film critic. 1626 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Skipping to page 179 : By Mr. Stripling : Question. Is the League of American Writers a Communist front? Mr. KJEARNS. "Wlio asked the question ? Mr. Levy. Mr. Stripling, the counsel for the Un-American Activities Committee asked that of Mr. Rushmore. Mr. RusHMOUE. It was founded by the Communist Party and at its first conven- tion in May 1935, was addressed by Earl Browder, Mike Gould, and a number of other prominent Communists. Skipping a paragraph: It is interesting to note that among the other sponsors of this Communist front group, which is going along as of a week ago, are Albert Maltz, another Hollywood writer, Howard DeSilva, actor ; Howard K. Sorrell, the union leader, so-called, in Hollywood. Other names are mentioned. Mr. Landis. Is that "Howard" there? Mr. Levy. I think that is a misprint. I would understand it to mean the union leader, so-called, in Hollywood to be Herbert K. Sorrell. Mr. Kearns. We will have to take the word of the printed testimony. Mr. Levy. Can you give me a few minutes' recess ? Mr. Kearns. How nmch more time do you need, Judge? Mr. Levy. In view of my desire to be selective, I should like to confer with Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer before I give an answer to that question. Mr. Kearns. All right, and may I ask if following the completion of your testimony, you would like to introduce Mr. Brewer? Mr. Levy. That would be desirable. Mr. Kearns. That is so ordered, and we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Wliereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. of the following day, Friday, February 27, 1948.) JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1948 House of Representatrtes, Special Subcommittee of thei Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing ^v\\\ please ci ime to order. Mr. Levy, we were going to continue at ith your testimony, but I see Mr. Mulkey of the IBEW is here. Witli your permission we would like to get his testimony now and have you follow him. Mr. Leatt. That is perfectly agreeable to me, sir. It will give me some additional time to prepare. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Mulkey, will you please come to the stand ? Mr. Mulkey. Yes, sir. (The witness was duly sworn.) TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. MULKEY, INTERNATIONAL REPRE- SENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS Mr. McCann. Will you please state your name and your address ? Mr. Mulkey. George A. Mulkey, 910 Central Tower, San Francisco. Mr. McCann. What position, if any, do you occupy with any labor organization ? Mr. Mulkey. International representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Mr. McCann. How long have you held that position ? Mr. Mulkey. About 12 years. Mr. McCann. What are your duties as an international repre- sentative? Mr. ISluLKEY. To organize, to adjust differences between locals, as- sist members in securing employment in different parts of the country, and generally to represent our international. Mr. McCann. Have you represented your international union in con- nection with the strikes of 1945 and 1946 in Hollywood? Mr. INIuLKEY. Not during the strikes. I am now in charge of local 40 and we are completing the settlement of the strike there. Mr. McCann. Local 40 of the IBEW is the local that was identified through the years with the motion-picture industry, is it not? Mr. Mulkey. That is correct, since 1923. 1627 1628 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Local 40, for a long period of time was identified with the Conference of Stndio Unions ? Mr. MuLKEY. No ; not a long period of time. I believe they became affiliated just about the time of tlie '45 strike. Mr. McCann, Did they participate in the '45 strike ? Mr. MuLKEY. They did. Mr. McCann. Were they out throughout the length of that strike. Mr. MuLKEY. Yes. Mr. McCann. Were they returned to their jobs at the order of the American Federation of Labor council in Cincinnati in October 1945 ? Mr. MuLKEY. They were ; yes. Mr. McCann. They went back to work, then, approximately on October 31, 1945? Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Did they have the positions returned to them or re- stored to them which they previously had held ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes ; with one exception. There was some question on running repairs, but that was not important at that time. Mr. McCann. I am not speaking of the decision made by the three- man committee. That came up after the decision of the three-man committee, did it not ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes ; that is correct. Mr. McCann. I am asking about when the directive of the council itself ordered the return of the men who were on strike to their former positions, were the men in Local IBEW 40 returned to their jobs in the studios ? Mr. MuLKEY. They were, yes. Mr. McCann. Did they continue to work on those jobs in the studios until the clarification of the directive which came down on August 16, 1946? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, they did. Mr. McCann. Did they go out with the Conference of Studio Unions as the result of the action taken against the carpenters and painters in September 1946? Mr. MuLKEY. The official action taken was to recognize the car- penters' picket line when it was established. Mr. McCann. So they did not return to work then? Mr. MuLKEY. That is right. Mr. McCann. At a subsequent time, did IBEW withdraw from this Conference of Studio Unions ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, on January 31, 1947. Mr. McCann. I think that is important, gentlemen. I wanted you to get that. On January 31, 1947, the IBEW 40 withdrew from the Conference of Studio Unions. Did you then enter into a contract with the lATSE to return to work ? Mr. Mulkey. No. We started negotiating with the lA and with the producers at about that time or shortly after the 31st. Mr. McCann. Shortly after the 31st of January, 1947? Mr, MuLKEY, That is correct. Mr. McCann. Did you enter into an oral agreement with the lA to return to work on about March 15, 1947? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1629 Mr. MuLKEY. Well, we returned to work at about that time. There Mas no particular agreement reached with the exception of an agree- ment to sit down and negotiate the terms — not the terms, but the con- ditions that would apply to the replacements, and so on and so forth, that would have to be taken care of. Mr. McCann. Now, under date of January 15, 1948, you did enter into a contract with lA as to the division of work in the studios in Hollywood, did you not? Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. That contract of January 15, 1948 — that is the date of the contract on the face of it — has modifications in it up to February 4, 1948, does it not i Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Now, is it not a fact that after the decision of De- cember 26, 1948, by the three-man committee, IBEW 40 asked for a clarification of running repairs from the three-man committee? Mr. MuLKEY'. They asked Chairman Knight for a clarification or for his opinion as to what they meant and he answ ered that communication. Mr. McCaxn. Do you have a copy of this letter with you ? Mr. MuLKEY'. I have in my brief case. Mr. McCann. Will you please get it, sir. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask him first if he has a copy of the letter written by IBEW to Mr. Knight. Mr. MuLKEY'. No. I have not. The original letter I have seen, but in requesting it from Hollywood there was a note there it had been furnished to the committee through the CSU. Mr. McCann. I have no recollection of our receiving that letter. Is this letter dated Mai-ch 13, 1946, a true and correct copy of the letter written by Felix H. Knight to Roy Tindall, business manager of Local 40, IBEW in reply to his request for a clarification ? Mr. MuLKEY. It is, yes. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to read this letter into the record. Mr. Kearns. No objection. Mr. McCann (reading) : HOTEX jMOKKlSON, Chlcdf/o, III. March 13, 1946. Mr. Roy Tixdall, Business Manager, Local Union No. JfO IBEW, 1225 North Hif/hliand Avenue, HoUyuood 38, Calif. Dkar Sir and Brother : Yours of March ">. to my offiie. requesting a clarification of the words "rumiing repairs," as contained in executive council committee's decision on the Hollywood issues, was received at the Morrison Hotel a couple of days ago. I liave heen delayed in handling this matter due to the fact that I am a memher of the arbitration board which is handling the wage request for approxi- mately 1,100,(XM) railroad employees. "Running repairs," as contained that decision is synonymous with the emer- gency or temporary repairs, each of which is used in jurisdictional decisions of various kinds. ■"Rinining i-epairs," as wh used the term, intended that such temporary or emergency rei)airs as might be made to a machine in oi-dei' to keep it in operation and to prevent the stoppage of proreement be- tween the lA and the IBEW. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The agreement referred to is as follows :) Agreement January 15. 194S. JURISDICTIONAL SETTLEMENT It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties signatory hertto that the following divisions of work and classifications shall belong to the respective local unions indicated, and that the unions and the members of each thereof shall abide by such divisions of work and classifications. A. INTERNATIONAL SOUND TECHNICIANS. LOCAL NO. 695, lATSE AND MPMO — DIVISION OV WOKK 1. All work and classifications of work as follows : First soundmen, second solundtuen, third soundmen, fourth soundmen (including classifications Y-1 to Y-15 .inclusive), sound film loaders, sound pulilic address operators, news-reel soundmen, and men doing work of any nature in or incidental to the recording of sound. This unit includes all sound employees and classifications of work engaged in all operation, setting up, handling, inspection, striking, testing, run- ning repairs, sound servicing, scoring, sychronizing, recording, reproduction, recording, dubbing, play-backs, acoustics, amplification, transmission, transfer- ence, sound effects, research, experimental, development, and/or all speech or audio frequency work of any nature; and all work where electronic devices of any nature are used in connection with sound recording, rerecording, and re- production, except that set forth in the IBEW, Local 40. "Division of work" described in paragraph B hereof. 2. It is further nuitually understood and agreed that the foregoing verbiage shall be construed to include specific jurisdiction to the International Sound Technicians, Local No. G95, lATSE and MPIMO. of all work and classifications as follows: Operation, maintenance (audio frequency), service and repair of movieolas and public address units, iiu-ludiiig walkie-talkie, communications, dictaphones, intercommunicating, sound megaphones, telephones, field radio, and short-wave sets; operation, maintenance, service, and repair of mechanical sound equipment ; maintenance, repair, and testing of all audio-frequency work where electronic devices of any nature are used, including such engineering work as lay-out and drafting, research, development, design, experimental and trans- mission ; and all work other than that set forth in the IBEW. Local 40, "Division of work," hereinafter set forth. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1633 B. IBKW. LOCAL 40- — DmSION OF WORK 1. Iiistallin? of permanent equipment used in the recording, rerecording, or reproduction of sound in connection with the making of motion pictures (exclud- ing engineering worl< and minor alterations of equipment and circuits). 2. Manufacturing of studio electrical sound equipment (excluding engineering work and minor alterations of equipment and circuits). NoTK. — In paragraphs B-1 and B-2 above, the use of the words "minor altera- tions" shall be construed to include any changes, modifications, alterations, and replacements of component parts of sound and/or electronic equipment, channels, and systems, such as. for example, tubes, pads, conden.sers, transformers, resistors, and the like. 3. All operation, maintenance, and repairs on generators and storage batteries, permanent and portable, except battery charging on trucks or compact jwrtable recording units or channels where the charging of batteries or other operation necessitates only the turning of switches, such as where a tungar charge is used. Note. — A local 695 engineer and/oi- service recorder shall be permitted at all times to service and maintain his truck and associates units, and portable units and equipment, on location. 4. All repair work on power unit, such as motors, battery-chacging rectifiers, alternators, and primary power equipment (excluding audio and higher frequency equipment). n. Making up of all cables in sound departments ; service and repair of power cables when not on production. 6. Manufacture, installation, maintenance, service, and repair of the following permanent and fixed installations hi the administration bxiildings and offices : Intercommunicating systems, telephones, dictographs, and buzzers (excluding those used in connection with sound recording and those used on production). 7. Manufacture of public address units ; installation of permanent and fixed public address units. C. IN GENERAL 1. All work and classifications hereinabove set forth as belonging to one local union are hereby w\aived by the other local union, and each union agrees to be bound as specified in the respective divisions of work. 2. It is understood that separate and distinct shops, as between the two local unions, shall be maintained at each studio or place of employment; but that if separate shops are impracticable, then, and in that event, separate sections in the same shop shall be designated and maintained. 5. A man now employed in a job which, by the terms of this agreement, comes M'ithin the .lurisdiction of the other union in which he is not a member, shall remain on that job and shall be forthwith taken into membership in that other union, provided he meets the proper requirements thereof. Both local unions mutually agree, at the earliest opportunity, to make a survey of the sound departments in the various studios insofar as the same concerns or affects the men named on a list mutually agreed upon, which men were em- ployed in specific jobs at particular studios. Upon such survey being made, the unions mutually agree to use every effoi't to insure that the man shall return to his said job. or a comparable job, at his old studio or at another studio, as soon as production reqm'rements warrant, and he shall be entitled to admission into the union having jurisdiction of that job, provided he meets the requirements of membership. 4. Each of the unions agrees to cooperate in establishing a fair wage scale commensurate with services performed ; and where a job or pay-roll classification of work is modified or created by the terms of this agreement, as to either union, such classification shall be evidenced by interlineation or a rider attached hereto, upon the same being d'^termined by agreement between the local union concerned in each instance and the employers. 5. It is further agreed that all actions at law or in equity or other proceedings now pending by one party against the other shall be immediately withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice. 6. It is mutually agreed that the tran.sfer initiation fee for transferees from one local union to the other shall be as follows : For a transfer into the IBEW Local 40, $102; for a transfer into the International Sound Technicians, Local No. 695, $125. Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring either union to accept into membership any particular individual or group of individuals, other than by virtue of the agreements contained herein, because of this division of 1634 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES work, and any such transfer shall be subject to the applicable laws and rules of the union concerned. This special initiation fee is provided for because of the length of service in the industry of the men concerned and because of their previous financial contributions to the other union. 7. It is also agreed that all fines heretofore levied by either local union against its own members who are also members of the other local vinion shall be imme- diately withdrawn and dismissed and a copy of such dismissal sent to the other local union. 8. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent a man from being a member of and carrying a card in both unions, so long as he conforms to the rules and regulations of the respective unions. A member having a card in both unions must wox'k a minimum period of 90 days in the jurisdiction under which he is employed and cannot during that period work in the jurisdiction of the other union. 9. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the business representatives of the two local unions from permitting, by mutual agreement, a deviation from the foregoing divisions of work when a question arises concerning the interpreta- tion of this agreement, or where a deviation is desirable to insure efficiency in the operation of all sound departments. 10. This agreement takes precedence over and ."supersedes all previous divisions of work as it pertains to sound between the respective parties. 11. It is mutually agreed that any future differences will be worked out around the conference table, to the end that peace and harmony will prevail in the motion-picture industry. 12. This agreement shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the respective unions. In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. International Sound Technicians, Local No. 695, lATSE and MPMO, By Harold V. Smith, Business Representative, IBEW. Local No. 40, By Bb:kt W. Thomas, Business Representative. Approved : Roy M. Brewer, International Representative, lATSE and MPMO. Geo. a. Mulkey, International Representative, IBEW. Mr. McCann. Now, is it not a fact that by this agreement the IBEW is permitted to perform certain work as set out in that contract in the studios in Hollywood? Mr, Mulkey. That is correct. Mr. McCann. And that local 40 of IBEW is restricted by that agreement to the enumerated functions set forth therein ? Mr. Mulkey. That is right. Mr. McCanx. Under that agreement is it not a fact that local 40 of IBEW lost jurisdiction over a number of functions which it had previously performed in the studios ? Mr. Mulkey. That question could not be answered "yes" or "no," Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann. Do you know in the first place ? Mr. Mulkey. Well, I know; yes. I know the circumstances very well. I have surveyed every one of them, but you could not answ^er it "Yes" or "No," for the same reason as stated by Casey yesterday, that no two studios work alike. If we would take the pattern of Para- mount, it would be very true that we had lost jurisdiction ; but if we took the pattern of Fox Studios, it would be a case of where we had gained jurisdiction. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1635 Mr. McCaxx. All right. How many men did you have operating in the studios before the strike of 1945 ? Mr. OwEXs. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I get the point of this, and I don't want to unduly interfere, but did you have to get the sanction of your international with respect to this matter^ Mr. MuLKET. You mean with respect to the settlement? Mr. OwExs. Yes; tliis agreement. Mr. MuLKEY. I might say this in answering that, Mr. Owens — that I have been assigned to the Hollywood situation, to the Holly- wood local, in an attempt to straighten out the whole jurisdiction and reestablish the local after the strike. I have been given full leeway and have the full confidence of our president. We did send the contract to our president, and he signed it with Mr. Walsh, but it was already accepted and signed by myself before that time. Mr. Kearxs. Then the local agreed to it? Mr. MuLKET. Yes. It was first agreed to by the local, then I signed it as a representative, along with Mr. Brewer, the international repre- sentative of the lA. Mr. OwEXS. So it is all settled amicably between yourself? Mr. MuLKET. That is correct. Mr. McCaxx*. TVHiat I would like to know from you is this: As a result of the settlement, how many jobs did the IBEW lose in the Hollywood studios? Mr. MuT.KET. Well, they gained a number of jobs, Mr. McCann. Mr. McCaxx. Well, you have a list. I want you to get that list out. You showed it to me the other day. How many men were working in each classification : then show us how many were restored to work and give the net gain or loss which your union suffered. Mr. OwEXS. Would you say they suffered, Mr. McCann, when they made an amicable agreement which adjusted their differences? Mr. McCaxx". Mr. Chairman, the statement I made was this: I have already talked with this witness, who indicated to me that they lost a number of jobs in the studios, Mr. OwEXS. He said they gained also. Mr. McCax'N. But the net is a loss of considerable jobs : so if that is a profit. I have used the wrong word in saying "a loss." Mr. OwEXs. But this is what we want to accomplish in labor rela- tions, isn't it. two unions getting tofrether and settlino- their difficulties ? Mr. McCaxx. I am not objecting to their getting together, but they are srettino- together here by virtue of a sacrifice which I want to indicate through this witness. In order to set back into the studios, thev are losing many of their regular men in the studios through a contract with lA. Mr. O^vExs. It sounds like smart operations to me. ]M"r. McCaxx. It is for I A, sir. Mr. Tevt. I have a right to object to that comment by counsel. Mr. Kevrxs. Xow. I'ust a moment. Mr. Levy. Ai^d I wnnt the record to show it. Mr. Chairman. Mr. OwEXs. We will take care of thp situation, Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy. Thank you. I want Mr, Walsh, please, to be called tift«r Mr. Mulkey gets through. 1636 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Just a moment, jjlease. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, yon will pardon me for making any comments here in the way of a response ; but when I am asked for it, I had to make the comment. I had to exphiin what I meant by "loss.'' I regret that the comment was asked for by a member of the committee. Now I am basing my comment upon the fact that after going over the records with Mr. Mnlkey he indicated a net loss of a great many men for their union. Now will you give us those figures as to how many you had working in the studios at the beginning of the 1945 strike ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, Mr. McCann; l)ut I must qualify that as I did when I talked to you when you asked me these questions, that the studios at the present time are way down. In other words, as I told you, if we took the same pei'centage for the grips, for instance, as to the number of people employed, and applied that percentage to the IBEW, we would be about 145 percent ; but that is not significant, because our work does not happen to paral- lel in its peaks and valleys. Sometimes our construction work is high while production is low. Sometimes they are both high. So, as I explained to you. if the figures given were given in 1945, when production was good, and then at this time, where it is at the lowest ebb it has been for many years, the figures I gave you, in the last few days, have been modified. Not to a great extent, but I will give you those as closely as I can. With respect to the break-down, the total number of men employed in the studios under the jurisdiction* of local 40 on March 12, 1945, was 507 men. Mr. McCann. Break that down for us, please. ^^Hiat were they? Mr. MuLKEY. They consisted of 353 journeymen electricians; 76 sound men, and 48 air-conditioning men. Mr. McCann. How many are at work today under this agreement? Mr. MuLKEY. Let me complete that, Mr. AlcCann, because that is not the whole picture. There are 250 employed in the majors, and those were the people affected by the strike. Mr. Landis. What does that mean? Mr. MuLKEY. I believe we have a list of the majors here. Mr. McCann. Mr. Landis, he is referring to the major production companies that belong to the association. Mr. Landis. I mean the 350. is that including the 250, the 76, or the 48? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes; excuse me, it is 350, and I said 250. Mr. McCann. You gave me the other day 353 electricians went out and 48 air-conditioning men went out. Is that correct, in 1945? Mr. MuLKEY. It is 353 out of the majors. Mr. McCann. And 48 air-conditioning? Mr. Mtjlkey. That is right. Mr. McCann. That makes 401, if my figures are correct. Mr. MuLKEY. I believe that is correct. Mr. McCann. Wlio went out from the majors in the strike in 1945? Mr. MuLKEY. And there were 76 sound men. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1637 Mr. McCann. And 76 sound men — that makes a total of 477 who went out. Mr. Mui.KFA'. That is ri^ht. Mr. McCanx. Now could yon tell us how many have come back under this aofreement? Mr. Mur.KET. Under the agreement there were approximately 255 that have returned to the studios, that is electricians. Mr. McCaxx. Now you have 255 electricians that have returned, which means 98 electricians have not returned? Mr. MuLKFA'. That is correct. Mr. McCaxx. How about the sound men, how many have returned? Mr. MuLKF.Y. Forty-seven sound men have returned. ]\Ir. McCaxx. You only lost one sound man? Mr. MuT^KEY. No, there were 76. Mr. McCaxx. Forty-seven agfainst seventy-six — that means twenty- nine sound men have not returned. Mr. Mui.KEY. That is ri^jht. Mr. McCaxx. How about your air-conditionin that actually made application. To date there are 140 who have either been initiated and are working on the job, or are in the process of being initiated, paying on their initiation. 1638 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now that is part of the arrangement tliat was worked out by Mr. Brewer and myself at the local level. I want to state this: When I went into the situation and took full charge of it in September 1947, I went in without any instructions^ without being bound by any former commitments at the top level, the local level, or any other level. The situation has continued to boil and our international president wanted to see the tiling straightened out one way or the other. He evidently had full confidence in me, because when I asked for instructions from him, he said, "See if the vice presi- dent has anything to give you." Wlien I asked the vice president, he said, "You know more about it than I do, go on down and iron it out." I met with Mr, Brewer, the international representative of the lA^ when I arrived in Hollywood. We probably developed a program very close to that that was established by Mr. Tracy and Mr. Walsh, which has been referred to as some sort of an agi'eement that was never reduced to writing and the particulars were never worked out. We have continued since that time to meet each one of these problems. We have let the local unions argue the question of jurisdiction more or less on trade lines, since 1923. Even before that there was some discussion between the former local, which was local 83, and who had jurisdiction over this work, and the lA as to jurisdiction. So the directive which was handed down by the three men gave us more work in the sound department than we get under this agreement. I asked Mr. Brewer how he felt about the directive. He said, "If the directive is satisfactory to you and we cannot work out something better, we will go along with the directive 100 percent." So in going into investigations and in going into negotiations, and going in to investigate the situation, I felt the directive would only cause more confusion in the sound department. I asked Mr. Brewer if we could get together and he suggested that we let them get together at the local level and see what they could iron out and that we would reiterate to them — the representatives at the local level — that we were willing to abide by the directive. The term used by us was that we would throw the full weight of both internationals behind the directive, if that was what we finally agreed on. However, after exploring this with local representatives and con- sidering this — and I think this is important, gentlemen — the only thing we considered in this was what was best for the men affected, and that is the reason I believe it will work. The men now in the jurisdiction of the lA will by natural progres- sion progress into better jobs controlled by the I A and that have always been controlled by the lA. The men in the IBEW will nor- mally progress to a supervisory capacity in the sound department on jobs under the jurisdiction of the IBEW, or will be under the juris- diction of the IBEW, according to this agreement. We never once considered whether we would lose or gain on this and that was not considered by the local people because that was one thing we asked them to forget; to forget whether the IBEW was going to gain a large number of men, for the lA not to worry about it, or if the IBEW was going to lose a lot of men, not for the IBEW representative to worry about it. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1639 I believe the future will tell whether we have done a job there which should have been done a lon^ time ago, of considering the men first. I want to make this further statement. The statement has been made by some here that jurisdictional disputes have grown out of the desires of internationals and locals to collect dues from certain groups. I will have to disagree with that because we have jurisdic- tional arguments between groups in the same local union, where it makes no difference; all of them pay the money into the same pot. Mr. OwExs. I don't believe I have heard that statement since I have been sitting here. Mr. MuLKEY. I think Mr. Johnston made the statement and some of the others. It is not too important but I just wanted to have that on the record. Mr. Landis. Of course, the first thing is that they want to get to work and get as much work as they can. I suppose then, if it was a question between two unions, there might be a fight to see who would have control and who would get the dues. I think the main idea was that they wanted their craft to get the work. Mr. Owens. As a matter of fact, the men are not fully acquainted with what is their jurisdiction or what is supposed to be their juris- diction, they are interested in having jobs, aren't they? ISIr. JNIuLKEY. Oh, yes, that is true. Mr. Ow^EXS. And that is what you have done for them in this case? Mr. MuLKET. Yes. Mr. OwExs. In fact, you have not only given them jobs but you have solidified their future. You have given them a chance to go ahead and reach higher places in their positions in Hollywood. Mr. Mui.KET. Without carrying two cards, which we very much disagree with, carrying more than one card. Mr. 0^^^=:x's. Could you tell me why it was that you left the con- ference of studio unions? Mr. MuLKET. Well, we left the conference of studio unions for several reasons. The reason given when we sent in our withdrawal was the fact that the carpenters had accepted jobs on the outside and had hired pickets on the picket line. Our men that worked in the studios did the picketing. According to our picket records there were more IBEW men on the picket line than there were carpenters, and it was a carpenters' beef. So we withdrew from the conference over the discussion of this. It was only a period of about ten days, from the 20th to the 30th of January. Mr. OwExs. I think Mr. Hutcheson did testify that last year in March every one of their carpenters who had left there was then employed. That seems to substantiate what you have said. Mr. Mdlkey. Yes. jSIr. Kearxs. Any questions by counsel ? Mr. Le\'y. I have some questions. Mr. MuLKET. I do want to be helpful to the committee. These mat- ters of figures, reasons, and so on are quite involved. If I put in something that is not important I want to apologize, but as I say, there were several reasons. I do not want to say that the whole thing was because of the dispute over the carpenters, but that was quite a major contributing factor. 1640 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES We were, to say the least, very concerned on the report being re- ceived by the CSU by people that we did not care to be alined with. Tliis is no secret because we have told the CSU that on a number of occasions. Wlien we see ads appearing in the Daily Worker with our organiza- tion's business manager's name on that, we became very exorcised and concerned. According to him it was used without his knowl- edge and supplied by the CSU to this advertiser. I might state there was a change in administration. Our former president was defeated in September. The president serving now was elected at that time but he did not take office until January 1. Mr. Owens. You mean Brown was defeated and Tracy took his place ? Mr. MuLKEY. Tracy was elected, yes. I talked to president-elect Tracy in San Francisco and told him how I felt about these people who were alining themselves with our organization through the CSU. He told me he did not like it any better than I did and he said, "The only thing is I cannot do anything about it until January 1." On January 1 he started to do something about it because he met with President Walsli immediately and started the negotiations which resulted in the people going back to work on March 13. I don't want to evade usin^ words here, and it was those people who are usually associated with the Communist Party line that we objected to supporting or intermingling with our difficulties in any way. Mr. McCann. Wlien did you change your mind about the Com- munist Party? You were a member once yourself, were you not? Mr. MuLKEY. Do I have to answer that, Mr. McCann? Mr. McCann. I think it is very important. Mr. MuLKEY. I don't mind too much. I want to qualify it a little bit if I might, because I have a family and I have a great number of friends throughout the country and I would like to get that into the record. I was a member or active with the Communists from 1923 to 1930. I might say that I became alined with them because I was progressive and thought progressively. I believed that the party itself was pro- gressive. I went to Seattle later, I believe in 192G. There, of course, I be- came very active in the affairs of the party. Mr. Landis. What year did you say that was? Mr. MuLKEY. That was 1926. I have been told that I was not mentioned in the Wickersham report, but some of the data gathered by the Wickersham report had my history in it and it is probably in tiie files of Congress. There is nothing particularly bad about it. In 1929 I became very active in the Friends of the Soviet Union. I believed that Russia should be recognized and I carried on that work through 1929 until the spring of 1930. At that time there was change in the whole set-up of the Comintern and they began to shove a lot of fellows around throughout the country. They took on what I considered a very reactionary trend. It wasn't any different than it had been but when I finally analyzed it I could see that it was more reactionary than the most reactionary party in this country. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1641 So in 1930. at a conference of the Friends of the Soviet Union, I was elected as an alternate delegate to the IMoscow conference. It was soon after, only a few weeks after this conference was held — which I be- lieve was in February; I mean the conference in Seattle; that was in February of 1930 — that a man from Boston, whom I know verj- well, although I cannot recall his name right off, came out to the coast and began to reorganize everything and to put some discipline in the people that had been kind of running wild out there, to bring them back into the party line. I told him where to get off and he immediately told me that I would not go to jNloscow. I told him that I did not intend to go anyhow and that I resigned any connection with the Friends of the Soviet Union and began to grow away from the group gradually because I knew what the results would be if I broke off abruptly. I maintained some contact and attended some meetings. I remember I attended one meeting of the party where this dele- gate, which I was alternate for. returned from Moscow. Mr. McCann. When was that and where? Mr. MuLKEY. That was at the Eagles Hall in Seattle in 1931. I attended a bazaar after that, a few months afterward. As I stated, I had in my own mind completely broken away but I was not going to do it abruptly. Mr. McCanx. When did you quit paying dues? ]\lr. Mulkey. As a matter of fact, Mr. McCann, I never did pay any dues. Mr. McCann. You were an organizer for them and did not have to pay dues ? ^f r. Mulkey. No ; I was never an organizer. I was very active. Is it important? Mr. McCann. What I am getting at is, you made reference to the fact that you did not like the subversive element with which the CSU was associated, and I would not have asked this question if it had not been for that statement. I want to find out now your knowledge of those elements and your contact with them in order to develop the fact that you were acquainted with this group. ]Mr. ]MuLKEY. All this takes a great deal of explanation, Mr. Chair- man. If it is important I will go into the whole thing, but I do not like to go into one ]Dhase of it and then qualify it. Mr. McCann. IVIy friend, that is one thing we do not want you to do, I am sure. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to create an unhappy situation for this witness. Mr. Kearns. We understand that and he understands that. ^Ir. INIcCann. I just want to give him an opportunity to lay the foundation so that he can qualify with respect to any discussion of the subversive element in Los Angeles. This background gives us some qualification and I want him to go on and develop it. Mr. Kearns. ]\Ir. Landis has a question. Mr. Landis. The question I think most important is if there are any unions or any individuals within the union, whether you would want to mention those unions within the CSU or any other union in Hollywood or in California, connected with the jurisdictional 1642 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES disputes? Would you care to name the union or the officers in thosft unions? I don't want you to accuse anybody, but I think the most important part is to know those unions who have officers that are con- nected with the Communists. Mr. MuLKEY. I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to say I think there is something to the dues situation because the question of whether you were paying dues or .whether other people were paying dues, that is what is going to finally determine your full break. You will have to develop that yourself. He has developed it himself, Mr. Chairman. He is doing it and I think he should be permitted to do so until the point where he has given a full explanation on his part is reached. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. MuLKEY. I might answer it this way: You realize any dues paid in the United States between 1923 and 1929 were only paid by what we would call small-fry Communist- front organizations. Peo- ple who were really qualified in those things were not paying dues at that time. Mr. McCann. At the time you mentioned when you were active in the Communist Party, were you also an officer of your union? Mr. MuLKEY. No; I was on the executive board of local 77 in Seattle for part of that time. I think I was on the executiv'e board when 1 was chairman of this meeting held at the Olympic Theater in 1930. If not, I was on the board just prior to that where I was chairman at one meeting. Mr. McCann. What meeting was it at the Olympic Theater in 1930 that you were chairman of; is that where they picked the dele- gate to go to Moscow ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes; that was the Friends of the Soviet Union. Mr. McCann. Then were you still an officer of the organization in 1931 when this man returned from Moscow and made his report? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes ; I was. Mr. McCanx. You were an officer of the Communist Party then? Mr, MuT.KEY. No; not of the Connnunist Partv. I was an officer of the IBEW. Mr. McCann. What office did you hold in the Communist Party? Mr. MuLKEY. None at all. Mr. McCann. What was your status there? Will you give us some explanation of your job? You said you were quite active. Now what was your status? Were you an organizer? Mr. Mulkey. You mean in" 1931? Mr. McCann. Up to 1930 when you presided. What had been your status in the Communist Party up to that time? Mr. Mulkey. I was more or less assigned to the Esperanto Society, to the labor movement and on general assignments with no titi*» particularly. Mr. McCann. Under whom did you work? Mr. MuLKEY. Well, nobody directly. Leon Glazer, who was recom- mended for deportion by the Wickersham Committee, more or less coordinated the activities. Our activities were more or less you might say loosely supervised. People would drop off a boat and identify themselves. They would have some information for us. A man MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1643 might come in from New York or Boston, be properly identified, and want to report. Mr. McCann. Were you the head of the local Communist group in Seattle? Mr. MuLKEY. No. I was chairman of. the Friends of the Soviet Union Conference. Mr. McCann. For how long? Mr. MuLKET. Just for the conference. Mr. McCann. When did you sever your connections entirely with Communist-front organizations and with the Communist Party? Mr. MuLKET. Entirely? Mr. McCann. Yes. IVlr. Mulket. Oh, I would say in the latter part of '31, but for all practical purposes it was in February 1930. Mr. Kearns. Did you consider it a general break-down in the party at that time ; that is, so far as your conception of it was concerned ? Mr. MuLKEY. No; I believed the party was going on to become more powerful than it ever had been before, but I finally analyzed it to find out what I thought was progressive thinking was the most reactionary thinking in the world, and I still believe that. Mr. Kearns. You felt that you had made a wrong decision or some- thing like that in your concept of the over-all operation i Mr. MuLKEY. That is right. Probably this discipline that was supposed to be brought into being might have convinced me that I better start thinking about it. It had been a lot of fun up until that time. Mr. McCann. Wliat time did you join the Communist Party? Can you give us the specific time ? Mr. MtTLKEY. I was active from 1923 until 1930. The question "When did you join the party," you just don't go and join the Com- munist Party. You become associated with the party and by steps you make your way into the different branches of it. Mr. Kearns. Sort of serving by degrees? Mr. MuLKEY. By your proficiency; yes. Mr. 0^^'ENS. You w^ere quite young, w^eren't you ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes. Mr. 0^\t:ns. How old were you then, may I ask? Mr. MuLKEY. Twenty-three. Mr. Landis. You may answer this question or not, as you choose, but when you said to break with them abruptly you left an impres- sion there might be some troulile there. Mr. MuLKEY, There is plenty. To break with them abruptly meant being attacked on everv angle, your friends contacted and probably all the filthy gossip and lies and everything else you can imagine given out. ]\Ir. Kearns. Was there danger of physical harm ? Mr. INIixKEY. I did not fear any, Mr. Kearns. Mr. Owens. Wouldn't you be more dangerous to them than they would be to you by being in a position to divulge the names of the various persons who were engaged in this propaganda against you? Mr. ]\ii^LKEY. Well, there Avas no law against it at that time. The only reason thev recommended deportation of Leon Glazer as I recall was that he had erred in some of his requests for visas, passports, or 1644 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES something of that nature. Most all these other people were citizens and they iiad the right to think as they wished, or I tigured they had the right to think as they saw fit, and there was no law against it, Mr, Owens. That is what I mean, so that someone like yourself simply einbraced it because you were progressive in your thoughts^ then realized that you had made a mistake. You did not have any hesitancy about dropping out or worrying about any vicious propa- ganda because you were in a position to harm them more than they could harm you, were you not? Mr. MuLKEY. No; it is like fighting a windmill, because they would pop up every place in the country. I couldn't run around over the country and refute what they would say. Mr. McCann. But in 1945 had you severed and lost all connection with your old Communist associates? Mr. Mt'lkey. I wanted to go on and develop that. I ask for that privilege in order to bring that up to date. Naturally I liad no idea we were going into this or I could have brought plenty of names. In other words, I might have been able to identify this particular person in Boston. I remember his father was particularly active in the police strike in Boston. He was a graduate of Harvard and of Jewish descent, but I cannot for the life of me remember his name now, but he came out to the coast when I broke wnth the party. But to carry on this reaction to breaking with them, I went on to be elected business manager of the local union soon after that. This particular group within the organization supported me. Mr. Kearns. What do you mean, particular group ? Mr. MuLKEY. The Communist element or the group that sympa- thized with the Commuist element within the organization supported me at that time. They supported me for the first administration, which was 2 years. I believe in 1935 was the first time that they really did what I would call turning on the heat. They opposed me with everything they had and I ran for office. I was elected b}^ a very large majority to the office of business manager. Mr. McCann. May I stop you there ? Wlien was it you were first elected business manager ? Mr. MuLKEY. I was appointed first when they supported me. Mr. McCann. When was that ? Mr. MuLKEY. In 1933. 1 believe. Mr. McCann. And then in 1935 you ran again ? Mr. MuivKEY. Yes; in 1935 I ran. I did not run the first time, I was appointed. They had come to the conclusion — as a matter of fact they told me I had gone completely reactionary and although I was doing a good ]ol) for the members and they all appreciated it, I certainly was turn- ing a lot of people down and that they were going to get even with me. Starting in 1935 I had terrific opposition from this element. I was then appointed to the international staff and remained business man- ager in 1936 on a half-time basis, the local union paying half my salary and the interntional union paying half my salary. In 1938 I left the local union completely and did full time with the international. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1645 Now all (luring this period this liad been built up. In many cases they were able to get the suppoit of people who are very unsuspecting. Our present vice president, the fellow I am working under on the Pacific coast, supported this particular group at that time. They had a tremendous amount of influence in the southern part of the State. He is not a Communist b}^ any stretch of the imagination nor has he ever been. I am sm-e he has never been. But quite a number of people like that solicited and supported the terrific fight that they put on against me. I was civil service commissioner for the city of Seattle and you might say a very good target for them at all times. We had to make a great many decisions. We had the former civil service commission that had not paid very much attention to the laws or their own rules. We had 7 or 8 million dollars of suits against us in which they sued the commission, and being in the heat of organizing and negotiating agreements I became a target for a lot of very unpleasant attacks. As a matter of fact, it was so unpleasant I decided to leave the city where I had a great number of friends, a great number of contacts, and where my wife had gone to the university and where she was born and where my girl was born. We decided to leave, close up the apartment without any other place to go, and just go out on the road. Mr. OwExs. It is a mighty pretty city to leave. Mr. MuLKEY. So that you can realize after that number of years and being very bitter on that experience, I did not leave any stone unturned to see that no other one of our people fell into their trap. I have had the pleasure of recommending the appointment of quite a number of our people on thp staff. I have recommended people for business managers of local unions, and in every case I have told them about my experience, and I believe most of them have taken my word for it, especially when you get down to the fact that they make it so tough for you you cannot even live in the cit}^ where you have chosen to make your home. I might say for the record this is not a pleasant situation at all, but I do appreciate ver}^ much the opportunity to develop the whole thing. To answer the question here point-blank would have been most dis- turbing to me. I have been pushed out in front on all of the Communist fights in our organization. j\Ir. Kearns. Purposely, no doubt. Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, and sometimes at my own request, in fact, most of the time at my own request. Now. the Communist-dominated organizations, the ACA, the ITWOC, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen, have been particularlj^ unhappy with me. I have had to combat them terrifically. I happened to have an assignment in the Hawaiian Islands. I see they have the questions here, and I know they are going to ask a lot of these questions, but I am going to beat somebody to some of them. I happened to have an assignment to the Hawaiian Islands. I ar- rived there to find that the infiltration of the sympathizers to the party into our organizations, into the American Federation of Labor, 67383—48 — vol. 3—^10 1646 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES were practically destroying the whole labor movement. Some of the A. F. of L. people who were not Communists at all were cooperating with them because they felt all labor must stand together in great unity, so on and so forth. It was pounded into their heads and I began to break up that little playhouse. Naturally, I became very unpopular in the Hawaiian Islands. They took advantage of a situation where one of our locals was split wide open. They met with the opposition group over a period of 8 months and attempted to take over our organizations in the islands. That was directly from the party itself. Later, this particular individual became information director for the ILWU in the islands. I had very close contact in the islands and had to maintain a very good one-way communication system between the ILWU, which is Harry Bridges' organization, and as to which I do not believe it is necessary for me to give my opinion as to whether they are Communist- controlled or not. It definitely is, and I am positive of it in my own mind. I had a pipe line into that organization. In July 1945 they changed their line about that time, that is, in the Hollywood situation. First, we received in the Hawaiian Islands a terrific blast verbally against us, about the A. F. of L. in the Hollywood situation going out and discrediting labor; fighting amongst themselves; a very vi- cious attack against Bill Hutcheson, our president, and everybody else. But in July 1945 something had happened in the meantime where they had changed their song to the point where it was only the lA who were bad people, and they were very bad. One of the fellows delegated to the central labor council and the pipe line to this organization, was surprised at the action of two or three of the members in the central labor council when the lA letter arrived there or some letter from the lA was read to the local union and was proposed by people. After these particular people in the central labor council attempted to take their organization over to Harry Bridges, so we were not surprised Mr. Owens. What do you mean, the central labor organization? Mr. MuLKEY. The A. F. of L. central labor council. Something happened between March of 1945 and July of 1945 to change it completely. I rather suspect that it might have been the fact that the war was over in Europe. However, it did change completely. Then the strike was settled. Mr. McCann. May I stop you there ? When did you leave Hawaii ? Mr. Mtjlkey. I have made so many trips over there, Mr. McCann, I could not give you the exact dates. Mr. McCann. You told us you moved to San Francisco. I wanted to get some sort of a chronology here. You said you went to San Francisco in 1938. Have you operated out of San Francisco ever since 1938 as the national representative ? Mr. Mulkey. I don't remember saying that I went to San Francisco in 1938. I have operated principally out of that office, although I have worked in Canada, which is the first district; the Rocky Mountains, the eighth district; and so on. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1647 Mr. MoCann. In other words, your oftice was San Francisco and still is, as I understand it Mr. MuLKEY. That is right. Mr. McCann. You have had a wide territory on behalf of your union, the IBEW? Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Will you state what that territory included, so the picture may be in the record here showing why you went to Honolulu, why you went to Canada, and all that? What was your area as inter- national representative 'i Mr. MuLKEY. To answer that question, we have no particular areas. In theory, we w^orked under the president, subject to assignment at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States and Canada, and the possessions. Mr. McCann. Wlien did you first become active in connection with Hollywood, when did you first get into that area ? Mr. MuLKEY. I have been associated with it in different degrees since the War Labor Board case in 1943, 1 think, 1944, or some place in there. Mr. McCann. You first became associated, then, with respect to the Hollywood situation in 1943 or 1944 ? I believe the War Labor Board decision on the set dressers really was in 1944. Mr. MuLlKEY. I had nothing to do with that. We had our own case there. Mr. McCann. You mean in 1944? Mr. Mulkey. I believe it was '43. Mr. McCann. Your office was still in San Francisco? Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. And you would go down when there was an emergency or some issue, down to Hollywood, is that correct ? Mr. MuLKEY. No. I would stop in Hollywood as I traveled around over the territory. I spent very little time in Hollywood. Mr. McCann. At that time, who was your chief of the IBEW in the Hollywood area, when youjSrst went into that field, say, in '43. Mr. MuLKEY. Al Speed. Mr. McCann. What sort of a man was he ; was he a Communist ? Mr. Mulkey. You are asking me for a lot of conclusions here. Mr. McCann. I do not want you to answer a question reflecting on any man unless you personally know that he was. Mr. MuLKEY. I might qualify it this way : As I knew Al Speed he was a very progressive sort of fellow, but very anti-Communist. Mr. McCann. Now, that is fine. Mr. Mulkey. Just a minute, now. Mr. McCann. I am trying to get a line-up on what kind of a man he was. and I thought you had given it to us. Mr. Mulkey. I say, as far as I knew Al Speed, that was the situation. Al Speed became sick and more or less withdrew or was forced to withdraw from the picture. Mr. McCann. When? Mr. Mutlkey. He was pretty well withdrawn from the picture before the 1945 strike. Mr. McCann. Who succeeded him there? Mr. Mulkey. Roy Tindall. Mr. McCann. Is he still there? 1648 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. MuLKEY. No. Mr. McCann. When was lie severed from the organization or did he resign or withdraw from the organization ? Mr. MuLKEY. He did neither. We established a local luiion of radio technicians. Mr. McCann. All right, go ahead. Mr. Mtjlkey. It was known as local 45. He was a radio technician and was in charge of the radio technicians in local 40 under Al Speed so he was the logical man to take that position. Mr. MoCann. Now, w^hen did he go into office, do you know ? Mr. MuLKEY, At the death of Al Speed. Mr. McCann. That was before the strike in -45 ? Mr. MuLKEY. No ; as I recall, it was dui-ing the strike in '45. Mr. McOann. Now, when did Mr. TindalFs connection with your organization cease ? Mr. MuLKEY. February 1947. Mr. McCann. Then he was there throughout the first strike ana until you withdrew from the Conference of Studio Unions? Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Was he removed from office by the president of the organization at that time, Mr. Tracy ? Mr. MuLKEY. Technically, yes; practically, no. I might explain that. Mr. Owens. Now, just a moment. Before you get into that, may it be developed first to show that he was removed, the date he was removed, and who the president of the association was when he was removed? Mr. Mulkey. Tracy came in as president on January 1, 1947. As I say, we immediately started negotiations with President Walsh of the I A for settlement of the strike out there. He sent representative Hughes in to make an investigation and recommendation. While he was in there between January 1 and January 20, there was a request from quite a number of people in the local union for the international to take full responsibility of the local in settling this, because they felt the officers would be unable to survive withdrawing from the CSU, going back to work in the studios, crossing the car- penters' picket lines, and those things. That was done and put under supervision, which places the president in charge technically and the other officers are automatically appointed. The same officers are automatically appointed again to assist the international representative. Mr. McCann. You knew Mr. Tindall very well ? Mr. Mulkey. Very well, yes. Mr. McCann. What sort of a man was he ? Mr. Mulkey. Tindall was a very capable man. He was not par- ticularly familiar with the studio situation, but he did a very good job in the radio field. Mr. McCann. I am not asking this to reflect on him ; I am asking only for your personal knowledge : Do you know whether he was a Communist ? Mr. Mulkey. I am positive in my own mind he is not, but I don't know, naturally. Mr. McCann. Your own judgment is that he was not ? Mr. Mulkey. He was not. Mr. McCann. He was not affiliated with the Communist group? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1649 Mr. MuLKEY. No. Mr. McCann. Nor working on any program cooperating with them ? Mr. MuLKEY. No. Mr. McCann. Proceed with your statement. Mr. MuLKEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe I left off where the 1945 strike was settled and we were coming into 1946. One point has never been brought out in the testimony here as be- in^ significant in any way, and that is the July 2 strike in 1946. Mr. Owens. We didn't bring out anything about a strike, we thought it was a treaty. Mr. MuLKEY. It has always been spoken of as the Beverly Hills treaty. Mr. McCann. Just a moment there. I think for the benefit of the witness and the other members of the committee, I ought to state that we have a great deal in our record on what antedated the Beverly Hills treaty on July 2. It has been developed very fully. Mr, Kearns. Yes. but I want his side of the picture. Mr. Mulkey. I won't go into that, as long as it has been developed, Mr. Kearns. You just feel free to talk the way you want about this situation. Mr. Mulkey. I will feel very free, Mr. Chairman. I checked the date last night to be sure of this. On June 14 1 left the Hawiian Islands for San Francisco. Prior to June 14, I received information through our "pipe line" into the Communist-dominated organizations Mr. Kearns. Pardon me. How did you get that "pipe line" in that jou have been talking about ^ Mr. Mulkey. Well, it is a term that is commonly used. In fighting with these people you have to know something about what they are doing. It is more or less the intelligence of our organizatioii. Mr. Kearns. I see. Mr. Owens. You are talking about 1946, are you not ? Mr. Mulkey. 1946 is right. Before I left the Hawaiian Islands, I received information, as I say, from this source, wherever they had their information tap, that there was going to be a second strike in Hollywood, and since they had called their shots pretty well in the latter part of the 1945 strike, I became more or less concerned. This probably was in the early part of June or the late part of May. Just a few days before the 14th of June 1946, I received a tip that there was a meeting of one of the fellows we suspicioned very keenly in the American Federation of Labor, and a group of the Harry Bridges forces. I drove out on Prince Edward Street at Waikiki and listened to a conversation that was going on inside the house. It was definitely established that this particular individual was figuring on leaving the A. F, of L. and going with the Harry Bridges group. He was a fel- low by the name of Mamori, a Japanese boy. I received this first-hand. Then they began to talk about the line that was to be carried on against the attack on the American Federation of Labor in the Hawai- ian Islands. 1650 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Somebody in the room had jnst returned from the CIO longshore- men's school in San Francisco. I don't know who it was. I knew quite a number who had returned afld it could have been any one of them. So the line, or the attack that was supposed to be carried on over there was to constantly discredit the A. F. of L. When the question was asked if they should spare Hutcheson, they said "Don't spare any of them, Hutcheson is just as bad as anybody else." "But this time this strike is going to be for wages and working conditions. They will have the support of the teamsters. The CSU will have the support of the teamsters, and at least one. and probably several lA organizations." As I say, I landed back in San Francisco on the 15th. I will fix the date pretty close because it was a few days after my birthday, which is the 18th of June. I talked with our man in the office in San Francisco, our representative. Otto Rieman. I told him I had heard this from the "pipe line" and that I was going over and talk to Barney Mays, an old ex-comrade of mine, and see what li,e might have. He said, "Well, that would be interesting to get that information." But he did not think there was anything to it. On June 30, 1 w^as back in the San Francisco office and Otto Rieman told me he had had a report from Tindall that the whole situation was settled, as far as the majors were concerned. They still were going to negotiate, but for all practical purposes agreement had been reached, and after the July 4th holidays it would be signed; there was going to be no strike. Mr. Landis. May I interrupt? You said they might have the support from one or several organizations. Could you name the one that would be expected ? Mr. MuLKEY. No. Probably the individual reporting in the Hawai- ian Islands did not know which local union it was. he probably said teamsters and the lA. Mr. Owens. Without breaking your thought, when you said "a strike for wages, hours, and working conditions," did you mean that was to be the front, or that that was to be the fact ? Mr. MuLKET. That is what they stated, that this one would be con- sidered wages, hours, and working conditions, and at that time, it would be the last of the lA in the studios, because their own members were tired of them scabbing other people's jobs. That was the quo- tation ; and all the other tirades against the I A. I bring that out because I have not been discreet at all in Holly- wood in calling these shots. I know other people have "pipe lines" into my spot, just as I sometimes have "pipe lines" into other people's spots. I know those questions are going to be asked, or I feel they are going to be asked, and I would rather straighten them out at this time. This is probably in the record more accurately than I could give it, but as I understand it, the teamsters did have a. rank and file uprising, supposedly, for support of the Julj^ 2 work stoppage. I am not saying whether I agree with the work stoppage or not. I do not want to qualify it that way at all, but this is significant and I want to bring it out. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1651 The fact is, that our infonnation over in the Hawaiian Islands was very . Mr. jVIuLivEY. No : I am sure there was not any. Mr. jNIcCaxx. Is there in your bylaws or constitution anything similar to the provision which Mr, Lindelof has called attention to, and which Mr. Hutcheson has called attention to, to the effect that to be a member of your organization one must be an American citizen and no Commimists may be a member of the organization? Mr. MuLKEY. Xo, neither are in our constitution. We have Cana- dians and we have locals in Canada. Mr. McCaxx. In other words, a Communist mav be a member of the IBEW at this time ^ Mr. Mttlkey. According to the constitution he may be. We have always construed it that the Communists were a dual organization and had as its purpose the destruction of the American Federation of Labor. Therefore, any proven Conununist would not be eligible to get inembership or retain membership in the IBEW. Mr. McCaxx. Do you have that rule in your organization? Mr. MuuKEY. It has been construed that way, Mr. McCann, and it has been operated that way. Mr. McCaxx. Have they applied that rule that a known Co^nmu- nist must be discharged from the IBEW ? Mr. MuLKEY. Who do you mean ""they"? Mr. McCaxx. T mean your officials, your locals, or your interna- tional organization. Mr. Mtjlkey. No, I would not say there is any set rule. We know the policy of the president. It has not varied since 1920, that I know. Mr. ]\IcCaxx. Has your organization ever thrown a Communist out of it ? Mr. Mtjlkey. Oh, yes. Mr. McCaxx. It has ? Mr. Mtjlkey. Oh, yes. Mr. McCaxx. How many would you say it has thrown out of the organization ? Mr. Mtjlkey. I would have no idea at all. Mr. McCaxx. Has it ever thrown a Communist out of IBEW Local 40? Mr. MuLKEY. I don't believe there was ever anybody thrown out on that ground. AI Speed had quite a battle with some of the people who were carrying the Conununist program into the local a few years ago, but I have no personal knowledge of the actual action taken by the local at that time. Mr. McCaxx. How many years ago was that? 1668 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. MuLKEY. Oh, I think it was about 1937, '38, '39. It went along for quite a ways, over quite a period of time. Mr. McCann. Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is permissible, I will read the questions that have been submitted. Mr. Landis. Mr. Chairman, every time he asks a question I want to ask one. The point came to me that you said you were an alternate delegate in 193(3, 1 believe. Mr. MuLKEY. That is right. Mr. Landis. Did you make a trip to Russia ? Mr. MuLKEY. No, I did not make the trip. It immediately started at that meeting. Mr. Kearns. That is when you were given the brush-oif ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, that is right. I was told by some who thought I wanted to go to the conference that I had better get in line. You see, rigid discipline had not come into the party, especially in the Northwest. I understand California came in quite a bit ear- lier. I believe it was Harry Grebs — there are two of them and I get them mixed up all the time; anyway, it was Jan Valtin, his pen name — ,wlio had made a trip into California. He had whipped them into line down there and made a report that they were toeing the line. You will understand that up to that time the question of boring from within in the American Federation of Labor was carried on in the vein of making them adopt a progressive policy. That was from the outside, to get rid of a lot of the old reactionaries and get a more progressive line. The question of confining the membership to people who were in favor of the destruction of the American Federation of Labor was one of the things that had to be done to bring about the revolution — those people who did not believe it were still tolerated. But after 1929, that was not the case in the inner circles. That was definitely the first program they had to accomplish, because, as I stated before in this answer they always gave the destruction of the American Fed- eration of Labor was the first aim of the Communists. Of course, we in the labor movement were very close to that and that is where the change is made to the point where the evolutionists and the revo- lutionists were no longer tolerated. Mr. Landis. That is really one of the first mistakes they made. Mr. MuLKEY. Yes. Then after Hitler took over they claimed to have changed back, but they never changed back one bit. Their program is just as much today as it was in 1923, to destroy the American Fed- eration of Labor. Mr. Kearns. Did they feel the best approach to overthrowing the Government was by overthrowing the labor party ? Mr. MuLKEY. They believed, as they stated, that the American Federation of Labor was the organization that made it tolerable for the workers. It gave them a mere existence. The great things this country could produce, its resources, and all of that, were bottled up in monopolies, with certain people taking the rake-off. and you know the regular line they follow. Mr. Landis. Now, the line is to get in the A. F. of L, and run it? Mr. Mtjlkey. Well, boring from within. Mr. Landis. Yes, boring from within. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTldNAL DISPUTES 1669 Mr. Owens. I do not quite ^et the principle of that. How do they fij2Tire that a craft union had anythino; to do with upholding- the aver- age Avorknian? It seems to me it gave a certain number of men a good existence. Mr. MuLKEY. Well, that was our contention that all these things coidd be brought about by constant improvement of the system and to bring it into line graduallv with the Karl Marx theory — skipping the revolution part of Karl Marx. But the theory of the Communists in the Northwest at that time became very definitely that the people had to be hungry. The people had to be hungry, and that is all there was to it. Mr. O'^VEXS. i appreciate the fact members of the craft unions could not be called the hungTy ones, because they were getting enough to make a good living. ;Mr. MuLKET. Yes. Mr. 0^^^:NS. But that would seem to me to be a poor place to start. Mr. MuLKET. The American Federation of Labor represented at that time, and set the wage scales, for the American workmen to a large degi'ee. For instance, the Standard Oil argued that they paid a dollar a day more than the teamsters' scale. Any time the teamsters got a raise their workers got a raise. They even set their scale higher than the scale. Other people argued that their scale was the same as the American Federation of Labor because their people got vacations, and so forth. We heard that all the time throughout the country in organizing dur- ing that period. I am quite rusty on some of the arguments that were put forth, but they seemed to be very logical at the time. Mr. 0^^t:ns. Well, you were quite young then ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, I was quite gullible, too. I would like to say this. You will recall that in 1928 there was the tremendous open-shop drive in Los Angeles and probably the worst working conditions and lowest wages that existed any place, except in the deep South. A lot of differ- ent movements sprung up from all different angles, and most of them underground, because you could not carry a union card in Los Angeles on most jobs, if it was known. An employer that even wanted to be friendly to organized labor would be criticized and possibly his busi- ness would suffer, if he worked union people. Mr. OwExs. That is why we needed a labor act, isn't that true ? At least in the State, if not nationally. Mr. INIuLKEY. Yes. The NLEB did a great deal to correct that, especially in the mass production industries and in the low-paid indus- tries in that area. The labor movement in Los Angeles came up from a few thousand to 500,000. That happened during that period, and the NLRB undoubt- edly had tremendous influence. Mr. Laxdis. Do you know Julius Emspak? INfr. MuLKEY. Xo, I do not know him personally. Mr. Laxdis. Do you know what organization he is affiliated with? ^Ir. MuLKEY. He is with the ACA, I am pretty sure. 1670 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Landis. This morning you mentioned the UV^^OC, the Inter- national Longshoremen and Warehousemen, and then another one that started with "A.-' Mr. MuLKEY. That was the ACA, American Communications Asso- ciation. I beHeve that is Emspak's organization. I am pretty sure it is considered by everybody to be Communist-dominated. Mr. Landis. "^Ail right, Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann. Questions by Mr. Bodle adcbessed to Mr. Mulkey : Under your present arrangement with the producers, are you contin- uing to work a 6-hour straight-time day, or an 8-hour day? Mr. Mulkey. Six hours ; overtime after 6 hours. Mr. McCann. Is it your testimony under oath that advertisements of the CSU appeared in the Daily Worker ? Mr. Mulkey. No. I might explain that. This adAertisement in the Daily Worker was brought to my attention in a dozen different places by people that were friends of ours, people that were concerned over this and believed_that we were right in the studio strike. They could not understand how we could be appearing there. It was the People's World. I said the Daily Worker but it was the People's World that this advertisement appeared in. I brought that to the attention of the San Francisco office and they stated at the time they had no knowledge of it. Mr. McCann. Yoii mean the CSU said that? Mr. Mulkey. No, the San Francisco office. I never pursued it any further. Whenever it came up I always gave the answer that the thing was being investigated and I had not heard just what the out- come of it was. But I believe it more or less died in the San Francisco office due to the shift of people on assignments going out, or something like that, and it was not investigated. Last September I called Roy Tindall. I wanted an explanation. I approached him on a very friendly basis. I said, "I want to know how you got broke into this thing.'' Tindall gave me this answer, "It's like this," he says, "we were up against it pretty much, and when I say 'us' I mean the CSU. We had some help from those people. They made a request through us for names and they were supplied by the CSU." " Now that was Tindall's answer to me justifying his name appearing on that. Mr. McCann. Tindall's justifying it? Mr. Mulkey. Yes. He said he had to go along. He said, "You know, I had to go a'long over there. After all, we were all on strike and we Avere grasping for any straw we could get.^^ Mr. McCann. Let's ask that question again and see if you can answer it either "yes" or "no," because I have forgotten Avhat your answer was. Is it your testimony under oath that advertisements of the CSU appeared in the People's World ? Mr. MuT.KEY. No. It was not meant to be that. Mr. McCann. Were you in Hollywood at the time such advertise- ments appeared, assuming they did appear? Mr. Mui^KEY. No, the first one was brought to me in the San Fran- cisco Central Labor Council, but they came to me in a number of dif- ferent places. I was attending a meeting of the telephone workere in San Jose when one of the telephone operators brought one of them MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1671 up to me and showed it to me. They said it had been shown around the office that da3^ Mr. B0DI.E. Mr. Chairman, may I raise this point? Mr. Landis. No. You may testify hiter. Mr. MuLKEY. To clear the record, I want to be sure of this : The money I am talking- about was an advertisement for a money-raising drive with a list of names down the side and quite a number of them being associated with the CSV. The business manager of local 40 had his name there. Mr. Owf:N8. But you have not stated what paper that appeared in. Mr. MmjKET. It was the People's World. Mr. Owens. But you said you did not see them. Mr. MuLKEY. Oh. yes, I saw them in the paper. The paper was shown to me many times. Mr. MgCann. Mr. Levy presents a photostatic page showing the document referred to. I Avill ask the witness, with your permission, if this is a true copy of what he refers to ? Mr. MuLKEY. This is a copy, referring to the $125,000 annual drive. Mr. McCann. I notice this page of the Daily People's World is an advertisement signed by Al Richmond, executive editor. Was Al Richmcmd the executive editor of the People's World ? Mr. MuLKEY. I am not sure whether he was or not, Mr. McCann. That could be ascertained. I always thought he was. Mr. ISIcCann. I am going to ask you to look at this page that has already been i-eceived in evidence, as I understand it, as a reference exhibit, and ask you whether or not you find that the CSU is made a sponsor of that drive ? Mr. MuLKEY. I am sure that they are not, Mr. McCann, but there are quite a number of people in the CSU and it went into the CSU file. This particular advertisement went in there. In my reference to it as coming from there, it was only from the explanation that Tindall gave me to justify his name being on it. He stated the CSU was up against it: those fellows had helped them out when things were tough and he said, "You know how it is, we have to more or less go along over there. I didn't like it any better than you did." That is the way he wound it up. Mr. McCann. As a matter of fact, that is an explanation for the appearance of Mr. Tindall's name, but not any affirmation on your part that it was paid for by the CSU or that it w^as an advertisement by the CSU? Mr. MuLKEY. No. I am sure it was not an advertisement by the CSU. It was onlj^ listing the sponsors of this drive. Mr. McCann. Now I will return to the questions. Those I have just asked were based upon this communication and are my own. Now I return to Mr. Bodle's questions : Is Roy Tindall a business agent of one of 3'our IBEW locals in Hollywood ? Mr. MuLKEY. No ; definitely not. Mr. McCann. Was not Roy Tindall Mr. MuL,KEY. Excuse me just a minute. I am a little fuzzy, I guess; I got the names confused. Yes, Roy Tindall is business man- ager of local 45, of the radio technicians. Mr. McCann. Of the IBEW? 1672 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, of the IBEW. Mr. McCann. Was not Hoy Tindall business agent of local 40 until January, 194T? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes ; that is correct. Mr. McCann. Was not local 40 affiliated with the CSU? Mr. Mulkey. Yes ; that is correct. Mr. McCann. Was he not a delegate and member of the strategy committee of the CSU until the withdrawal of the IBEW from the CSUin January, 1947? Mr. Mulkey. I would not have any personal knowledge of that. I know he was on the strategy committee at one time. Whether or not he was up until 1947 I do not know. I want to make this statement : That the local union affiliated with the CSU — there was no way the international could affiliate or not affiliate. They had local autonomy of the local to affiliate. Mr. McCann. That has been testified time and again. You testified that at the outset of the 1945 strike the Communist members, press and so forth, bitterly attacked the leadership of the strike. You mentioned that Hutcheson and the president of your organization were attacked for participation in that strike. Since Sorrell was the reputed leader of the strike did you not hear and read attacks on him by the same press ? Mr. Mulkey. I don't recall reading that, but it could very well have occurred. I was more interested in the general situation of what the Communists were going to try next and how the party line was going to change. Mr. McCann. You can answer that you do not know, if you do not know. Mr. Mulkey. No ; I don't know. Mr. McCann. It is true, is it not, as you have testified, that the Communist Party line in March, 1945, at the time when the '45 strike started, was opposed to strikes ? Mr. Mulkey. I could not answer that yes or no, because there was a lot of confusion in the party line at that time as to just where they were going. It had just started at about that time to change. Mr. McCann. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am returning to a question of my own based upon your previous question. You stated a while ago in your testimony in response to a question by Chairman Kearns that you were familiar with the party line in 1940. Mr. Mulkey. I was familiar with the party line in 1940. Mr. McCann. And that you were familiar with the party line then after Pearl Harbor "The Yanks are not coming?" Mr. Mulkey. That is correct, before Pearl Harbor. Mr. McCann. When did you cease to be familiar with the party line? Mr. Mulkey. I believe I was f airl^^ familiar with it but there was considerable confusion among them themselves at that time. I believe the Communists in Hollywood or on the coast very definitely figured they were following the party line, and I believe that they were, but I am not definite, I am not positive. Mr. McCann. Wasn't the party line opposed to any strike during the war ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1673 Mr. MuLKEY. Yes. Mr. McCann. All right, that answers the question. Mr. MuLKET. Up until just about that time during the war. There was some change in the party line. I just want the record to be straight. Mr. McCanx. Returning to the questions of Mr. Bodle : It is true, is it not, that each of the locals affiliated with the CSU by vote of its membership voted to participate in the July strike, 1946 ? Mr. MuLKEY. That I don't know. Mr. McCann. How long did the strike last ? Mr. MuLKEY. Two days. Mr. McCann. Is it not true that the unions obtained a 25 percent wage increase? Mr. MuEKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Is it not true that the threat of strike was publicly served on the producers 4 months prior to the strike ? Mr. Mulkey. I wouldn't know that. There were so many threats and rethreats I would not know about that. Mr. McCann. Is it not true that the newspapers had published stor- ies on the threatened strike for a period of 4 months prior to the strike ? Mr. Mulkey. No; I would not know that. I did not see any item in the papers of a threatened strike. Mr. McCann. It is true, is it not, that anyone who saw such stories could have repeated them ? Mr. Mulkey. Oh, yes, surely. Mr. McCann. Is it not true that the last wage increase granted conference unions had been in 1944? Mr. Mulkey. Yes; that is correct. There may have been one of them but I don't believe any of them had any increase after 1944. Mr. McCann. Is it not true that local 40, IBEW, participated in the strike ? Mr. Mulkey. I think I could answer that yes, because I think it participates in all of them. Mr. McCann. Is it not true that local 40, by vote of its membership, supported the strike ? • Mi\ Mulkey. I have so testified. Mr. McCann. It is true, is it not, that the Hawaiian newspapers carried news stories from the mainland ? Mr. Mulkey. Certainly they carried news stories from the main- land, but I want to say this, as far as the question of there being a strike in Hollywood is concerned, it may have been carried in the newspapers, but I do not recall it. Mr. McCann. Well, if you do not recall it, that is the answer. Mr. Mulkey. Yes, but I want to be sure this is straight. The infor- mation I had there was the first information I had received and it was stated by people who had just come back from the Pacific coast, where they had attended a meeting of the longshoremen. Mr. jVIcCann. Are you opposed to the use of economic forces by unions to obtain their wage demands? Mr. Mulkey. I certainly am not. My record will speak for itself. Mr. Oa\t:ns. Is that force or forces ? 1674 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Well, he says "forces," sir. I am trying to read the English as it is given to me. Is it j'^our testimony that local 40, IBEW. was Communist -dominated in 1946? Mr. MuLKEY. No ; that is not my testimony. Mr. Landis. Could we have that question again, please? Mr. McCann. Is it your testimony that local 40, IBEW, was Com- munist-dominated in 1946? Mr. Mui.KEY. No ; it was not my testimony. Mr. McCann. May I ask a question there, sir? Mr. Kfjarns. Proceed. Mr. McCann. Was it Communist-dominated in 1946? Mr. MuLKEY. No. Mr. McCann. That was my question. Returning to ]Mr. Bodle's Questions : ' Did local 40, IBEW, aftiliate with the C8U while Roy Tiiidall was business agent? Mr. MuLKEY. I believe that thev affiliated while Al Speed — I am sure they affiliated while Al Speed was business manager. Mr. McCann. It is tiue, is it not. that Roy Tindall supported such affiliation by local 40 ? Mr. Mui.KEY. I would not know because he was only a member. Mr. McCann. That answers the question. You have testified, have you not, that Roy Tindall is not a Com- munist? Mr. Mui;KEY. To my knowledge he is not a Communist. I have been fooled before, of course, but I do not believe he is a Commmiist. Mr. McCann. It is true, is it not, that the clarification was issued by the three-man A. F. of L. committee? Mr. MuLKEY. The testimony here would be better than any testimony I could give. Mr. McCann. You testified that in the opinion of Roy Tindall the clarification would cause trouble. Mr. MuLKEY. Well, to say yes would not give the whole answer. Roy Tindall said there had been constant agitation since Joe Keenan had left California, and that this was the thing that was going to touch it off. Mr. McCann. Since the clarification, according to your testimony, was a major cause of trouble and since the clarification was the work of three vice preside'nts of the A. F. of L. is it your testimony that they are Communists? Mr. MuLKEY. Ridiculous; certainly not. Mr. McCann. Inasmuch as the refusal of the carpent-ers to work on "hot" sets was a factor in the mass discharge of xSeptember 23, 1946, is it your testimony that the carpenters' local was or is Com- munist-dominated ? Mr. Mttt.key. There was no testimony, so far as I am concerned, about the carpenters local at all. I have no personal knowledge of the car- penters local as to whether they are Communist-dominated or not; so I could not answer. Mr. Kearns. Mr, Counsel, the question has been raised by other counsel to be careful of the use of the term "lockout." Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, if the question written and submitted by counsel to me has that word, should I not use it ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1675 Mr. Kearns. Well, but don't yon use it until there is further proof. Mr. McCann. Well, Mr. Chairman, if using the terms "strike" and "lockout," which I have used together Mr. Kearns. If counsel sends it in, don't use the term at all. I am just saying what we will do. Mr. McCanx. I just want to find out how we were to do it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. We will not refer to it as a lock-out. JNIr. McCann. 1 may run into problems, but I will do my best. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. McCann. These questions are questions by Mr. Levy : The clarification as issued was the result of agitation at the local level, wasn't it ? Mr. MuLKEY. It has been so testified here, and from my examina- tion, I agree that it was. It was at the local level that the agitation began for a clarification. Mr. McCann. And then the top leaders of the A. F. of L. Executive Council took up the matter ? Mr. MuLKEY. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Did local 40 of IBEW inform the lATSE in March 194:6 that it was asking one Felix H. Knight for a so-called verifi- cation on jurisdiction covered by the December 26, 1945, award? Mr. MuLKEY. No. There were no communications exchanged between the two locals on the question that I have seen. That ques- tion was raised to me one time. I might state it a different way. It was stated to me they had both jointly asked. I investigated and found out there was no record at all of the lA petitioning for a clarification in any way. It was strictly our request for a clarification. Mr. McCann. Isn't it a fact that no word or notice or hearing whatsoever was given the lATSE on this matter between December 26, 1945, and March 13, 1946 ? Mr. Le\^'. That last date was the date of the letter. Mr. Landis. Read the next one and then come back to that. Mr. Levy. The last date, March 13, 1946, is the date of the letter, a copy of which Mr. McCann showed this witness as having been received. Mr. McCann. This is off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. MuLKEY. There was no formal connnunication and I know of no contact made. There is no record of any contact made with the lA. Mr. McCann. The next question by Mr. Levy : Did the Communists support and influence the 1945 strike at any time up to October 1945, after the war ended ? Mr. Mm.KEY. I have no personal knowledge and I believe my testi- mony was complete on the fact that the line had changed sometime in the late summer. Mr. McCann. If you have no personal knowledge you have answered the question. Did the Communists support and influence the September 1946 strike? Mr. Mttlkey. I personallv believe they had a great deal of influence on it and the concern of Tindall in our oro-anization becoming in- 1676 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES volved. I gathered, from his conversation that was pne of the things he was more afraid of than anything else that, as he called it, "These babies are really working down here." Of course a lot of this discussion was had with people who were very familiar with the situation, such as Barney Mays, Pat Somerset, ancl several of the members of local 40. Mr. McCann. Barney Mays was a former member of the party ? Mr. MuLKEY. I stated I did not know that he was a former member of the party but he was Mr. McCann, a Troskyite yoli called him ? Mr. MuLKEY. He was active and the legislative committee stated he had been a Troskyite. Mr. McCann. When you refer to the other man is there any identifi- cation as to his being a Communist ? Mr. MuLKEY. Pat Somerset, no, definitely not, but Pat was familiar with the situation there. We had quite a long talk with him at one time at his apartment. Barney expounded at great length on the situation, the infiltration and the agitation that was going on there. Afterward when I met him in San Francisco he stated. "Now, if that outfit up there in the Central Tower gets mixed up in this one they will probably never get back into the studios. So if you are going to do something you better do it now." Mr. McCann. Now, your answer in response to this question is that from the information given to you by the two persons you have named you believe that it was true ? Mr. Mulkey. Yes. There was another man who came to the San Francisco office from local 40 and spent all afternoon with me. I can- not recall his name. I know the fellow when I see him, but I do not know whether I would recognize his name or not. He spent all afternoon in the office and that was his theory. I am not so sure but what he remained in the studio. I think he did; he did not support the strike for that reason. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, that exhausts the questions that have been submitted. Mr. Owens. One question, Mr. Chairman. You were in a far better position to know" what the situation was than the men who were not even at the scene, were you not? INIr. Mulkey. I believe I was, because I became interested in it from that angle and from that angle only, the Communist infiltration and agitation there. Mr. Owens. But I mean you were in a position to know. Certainly you did not have to get information or belief from somebody else when you were in a better position to know than they. Mr. Mulkey. Oh, no, I was not in a better position. Sometimes it takes many heads to chase down all the angles. If a man were on the scene all the time he would still have to have some help from other people in order to tie the ^nds together so that they would make sense. Mr. Owens. But you, like I should be able to tell someone from my own profession what they would be able to do, you with your background were able to tell who were Communists and who were not, were you able to do that ? Mr. Mulkey. I did not have contact with the individuals to that extent to know them all. As a matter of fact, it was limited. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1677 Most of them came to me because I liappened to be in the territory or happened to be in the San Francisco office when they came in. Mr. Owens. Can you name one Communist functioning in the Hollywood set-up of your labor organizations? Mr. MuLKEY. Again, Mr. Owens, I certainly do not want to evade your question. I will name one, but I do not want to be held respon- sible for proving it in a court of law, but I will name Elraar Berg- man. Mr. Owens. Who is he associated with ? Mr. MuLKEY. He is a meml^er of local 40. Mr. Owens. Of the IBEW? ]Mr. MuLKEY. Yes. Mr. Owens. Was he active in any way in the difficulties that took place out there ? Mr. MuLKEY. Yes, but a very smooth operator. Mr. Owens. You mean difficult to catch and tie to a thing? Mr. MuLivEY. He knows who I am and he does not expose himself in any way to me. Mr. Kearns. Will he be expelled then from your union ? Mr. MuLKEY. I might have to be the judge on that, Mr. Chairman. I might have to hear it. Mr. Kearns. But you will not tolerate Communists in the group ? Mr. MuLKEY. We will not tolerate any known Communists in the group. Mr. McCann. One question by Mr. Cobb. Mr. Kearns. Proceed. Mr. McCann. This is the only question asked by Mr. Cobb : Am I correct in understanding that you do not accuse any carpenter of being a Communist ? Mr. MuLKEY. I do not accuse any carpenter of being a Communist. Mr. McCann. That answers the question. Mr. MuLKEY. Wait just a minute, but I am not saying there isn't any carpenter in the Hollywood local. I have worked with carpenters who are Communists, and I think you will find them any place else. I have worked with doctors who are Connnunists, manufacturers, lawyers and quite a number of them. Mr. Landis. If it is possible to get it for the record I would like to have the name of that Harvard graduate. Mr. MuLKEY. I will get that. It will probably take a letter to Seattle to get the name. Mr. KJEARNS. Mr. Landis is personally interested in that. Mr. Landis. I would like to have that for the record. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I have called upon the National Labor Relations Board to produce the record as to whether Mr. Mulkey testified before them with respect to his Communist activities. They inform me that the record is now in the Archives. I wonder if the Chair would request Mr. Mulkey to keep himself available until there is an opportunity to check that record? Mr. Kearns. Were you planning to leave town ? Mr. Mulkey. I certainly was planning on leaving. I cannot un- derstand why there is so much importance attached to that. The onl}^ reason I stated I may have was that there was considerable discussion and barbs thrown, that's all they were. It is just possible it may have been in that record and I did not want to be mistaken here. 673S3 — 48— vol. 3 12 1678 MOTIOiSr-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, I think inasnmch as we have the testi- mony we can refer to that. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I am very averse, as you may have ascertained, to read any document or record without affording a person an opportunity, if there should be anythino; in there that is contrary to his testimony offered today, to have that testimony re- ferred to unless he is present to testify in respect to it. Mr. MuLKEY. It would not be contrary, I know. There would be no statement there that I had never been a Communist or anything of that nature. Mr. Kearns. You are Avilling to wait until any such material as we want to introduce in this record is jjresent^ It is not necessary for you to be present to have that inti'oduced in the record ? Mr. MuLKEY. No, not at all. Mr. McCann. I am asked to read these questions again. This is the only question asked by Mr. Cobb. Mr. Kearns. He just asked one a moment ago. Mr. McCann. He has asked me to reproduce it in connection with the next question, so I am doing so. Mr. Kearns. All right, proceed. Mr. McCann. This is the only question asked by Mr. Cobb: Am I correct in understanding that you do not accuse any carpenter of being a Communist, I mean any carpenter in Hollywood or in connection with the motion picture industry? Mr. Mulkey. That is correct. Mr. McCann. That is all. Mr. Kf^\rns. Mr. Mulkey, in behalf of the committee I want to thank you for your testimony. Personally I want to say for the record I think you have made a great contribution to the youth of America in that testimony given by you where you felt that following the so-called party ideals at the age of 23, you showed clearly and definitely in your testimony that over that long period of ten years you broke away from the party because it did not after all have the philosophy which you thought was good for America. I think probably the statement you have made here today will certainly save many other people from taking that long step. Mr. Mulkey. Tliank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. Eight years, I believe that was. Mr. Levy. May I ask that Mr. Walsh take the stand? Mr. Kearns. Mr. Walsh will take the stand. TESTIMONY OF RICHARD F. WALSH, PRESIDENT, lATSE— Recalled Mr. Kearns. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Landis wants you to testify in re- spect to questions asked Mr. Mulkey pertaining to what lA members do now that was formerly work of the electricians. Mr. Walsh. I requested your permission to get on the stand after Mr. Mulkey because of the agreement mainly that had been drawn up there and the uncanny way counsel has of confusing in my mind some- thing that you do which is right. He seems to pick on everything you try to do that is i-ight and I just wanted to get up here and explain what we think about the agreement that was drawn up between the electrical workers and ourselves. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1679 I was wondering why counsel wasted your time in taking it up here. I could not understand it. Mr. Kearns. We would be glad to hear that. j\Ir. Walsh. This agreement drawn up between the lATSE local soundmen out there and local 40 of the IBEW, is an agreement which settles a dispute that lias been going on between our organizations since 1933. If it was the cause of the 1933 strike. The local union through its representative out there sat down with the representatives of local 40 of IBEW and they drew up this agree- ment as to who should work on what in the sound department. After the ofiicials of the organizations has drawn up the agreement they took it to the membership of the Organization and read it to them. The memberehip of the organization agreed that that was a workable agreement. After that had been done it had been taken up with the international representatives out there. Brother Brewer and Brother Mulkey of the IBEW and Brother Brewer of the lATSE. They signed it and agreed to it. After that was done it was brought to the international president, Brother Tracy, of the IBEW, and myself of the lATSE. We ap- proved it. Now I understand that is the method of procedure Congress would like to have us carry out, to have it done at the local level and then approved by the officials. Mr. Kearns. Local arbitration, if you want to call it that. Mr. Wai^h. It was not arbitration, it was an agreement. Now I got the impression from counsel this morning that we were doing something wrong, that he was kind of peeved about it. If that impression is going to be left to stand here that that is wrong, regard- less of which side loses jurisdiction, whether I lose membership or the other side loses membership, if that is going to be left to stand I don't know how I am going to be able to settle with the painters and carpenters if I ever get them to sit down. Mr. Chairman, I thought counsel's remarks have been not settled and I know he has brought people into his office and has tried to take out of them the fact that the lATSE is stealing this and stealing that. I am a little peeved at counsel and I want you to know it. Mr. Owens. The committee is the one that has to decide this. I made a statement, and I believe it was agreed upon by the other members, that it appeai-ed like a very good method of settling matters. Mr. Walsh. I hope that counsel will let that sink in. Mr. Kearns. I personally feel, Mr. Walsh — naturally you know my stand — that I don't think anyone has tried harder than I have to try to get you together. When you gentlemen can sit down to a table and bargain and decide this, that, and the other thing, that is the very thing I want to see done within the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Walsh. I have no doubt that is the opinion of the committee and your opinion as chairman. I will not be so much afraid to sit down and make an agreement along those lines, because I was a little confused this morning as to what that agreement was doing in here. Mr. Kearns. You will recall out in Los Angeles on October 21, where I even sent you and Maurice Hutcheson up to another room to 1680 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES sit down and get together and talk. You evidently did not get very- far, but yet that was the very thing you did with the electricians. Mr. Walsh. That is right. Mr. Kj5Arns. I think that clears the record pretty well so far as the committee is concerned. Mr. Walsh. And I hope as far as counsel is concerned. Mr. Landis. The point I thought he was trying to bring out was that the electrical workers were losing some work by the agreement. Of course, whether that had any bearing on the case or not, I don't know. Mr. Walsh. That is what I was wondering about, what difference would it make whether the electrical workers lost it or we lost it. Mr. Landis. Just as long as there was agreement between the two^ probably somebody had to lose. Mr. Walsh. Certainly, but some people might get the impression we should not do that again. Mr. Kearns. It was true in this agreement you signed, some of the work you had been doing it was agreed you should continue to do^ and they got other work they probably had not had before, and so forth. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Mulkey explained it very well. The main thing we sold to ourselves was the fact that in this sound department the high paid jobs were controlled by the lATSE. That was jurisdiction that we had. The lower paid jobs where the people belonged to the IBEW, that came under their jurisdiction. These men were qualified to go up the ladder, and some day they might get on one of these higher paid jobs if they belonged to the lATSE. The agreement was made for that reason. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, there is one thing I think you should bear in mind. Mr. Walsh gave testimony here that he would like to have every job in the studio and did not make any bones about it, is that correct ? Mr. Walsh. Of course I didn't make any bones about it but every- body does not agree with me. That is the trouble I have with it. Mr. Landis. Isn't the expansion of some unions due to the prog- ress in industry? Mr. Walsh. There are many causes out there, Congressman. Orig- inally the lATSE had all the jobs in the studios when we started out but they were small studios and as the industry grew and new methods grew, new trades came in there. At the present time we have a slight dispute out there over plastics. Plastics are something new. Things that we used to make out of plas- ter we are now making out of plastic. Things we used to make out of metal we are now making out of plastic and covering with metal, so that will cause a little dispute between us, but we expect to iron it out among ourselves. We can do it if people will leave us alone and not agitate the thing too much. I have been here for quite a time. Congressman. There is an execu- tive board meeting called by law in our lATSE which starts Monday morning. I have to be there to preside over that. I did want to have our counsel there. Now I understand you are going to meet next week, is that correct ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1681 Mr. Kearns. That is correct. Mr. Walsh. I would like to be excused to go there. Mr. Kearns. We can excuse you and if Mr. Levy can finish up the material he wants to present for the record this afternoon Mr. Levy. I would like Mr. Walsh to continue on two phases of that matter before he leaves, then I will talk to you about my testi- mony in a moment. Mr. Walsh, I know, went to Mexico in view of the Toledano situation and also went abroad, and I think he went to London. Before Mr. Walsh gets away — and I am talking about my own client — I would like to have his testimony in the record on that. Mr. Kearns. We would be very glad to have his testimony at this time. Mr. Walsh. After Toledano had been to Hollywood and had threatened to take certain action in Mexico as to motion pictures down there and said he was going to give support to whatever friends he had in Mexico, I flew down to Mexico City to see if it was right, to see if there was any connection between Toledano's forces in Mexico City and the Hollywood studio situation. Mr. Keakns. He was a known Communist there ? Mr. Walsh. Toledano is a known Communist; yes. I was inter- ested in it to find out whether his speech before this meeting in Holly- wood meant anything or not, and to convince myself as to whether the Communists had anything to do with it. I was much surprised when I arrived in Mexico City, because I found out he had already contacted his forces in Mexico City and had talked to them. I found they were trying to close all the theaters in Mexico for 1 day as a token strike to support their comrades in Hollywood. But I did find there was a fight in the labor movement in Mexico. They have troubles down there, too. I found that in the motion-picture studios down there there was a man by the name of Gabriel Figoroa. After I met Gabriel Figoroa I found out wlio he was and what he was. He admitted to me that he was a Communist and he didn't care whether anybody knew it or not, and that his friend Toledano was also a Communist ; that he had contacted him from Hollywood and asked him not to let his laboratory technicians in Mexico City develop any film that may be sent down from Hollywood; that he was going to support Toledano and his comrades in Hollywood. That he told me. There was no hearsay about it. He wanted me to understand that he was going to give his support, and nothing was going to be done in those studios that he could stop. I found out he had great strength there and could stop them. I found out there had been a split in the theatrical unions down there : the motion-picture employees and the operators in the theatres had tlie same type of employees that we have in the United States. They control the studio workers as well as the motion-picture operators and theatrical stage employees, but that this group of Gabriel Figoroa's had withdrew from there. As the explanation was given to me, the}' took the studios over one day with machine guns and rifles. They chased everj^body out that belonged to Carillo's organization. That would be the lATSE of the United States. 1682 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES So I contacted Carillo and talked to him about the 1-day stoppage in the theaters. He told me they had had a falling ont with Toledano, and that they were then squabbling with Toledano, so there would be no 1-day stoppage; that he had been contacted by Toledano and asked to support the comrades in Hollywood, but he had refused to do it. I found out the situation, as far as the Conmiunists were concerned, spread to Mexico City, and I was firmly con^^nced of it. When I went to London to contact the studio workers over there, I found there were two groups of studio workers in London, one that belonged to an organization similar to the lATSE, and another that belonged to an organization which might be termed something like the Conference of Studio Unions. I found the one that was likened to the Conference of Studio Unions was supporting their friends in Hollywood, the same as I found the ones in Mexico City supporting their friends in Hollywood, but the other group which was like the lATSE was against it. When I asked questions about their political affiliations, I found that in Europe they were very closely associated with the Communist move- ment, if I might say that, and that they were going to support their friends in Hollywood just the same way. Now, I heard today that that was the situation around Hawaii also, so it looks to me like it was an international affair. Mr. Kearns. You notice what they did in Czechoslovakia today, took over the theaters, the schools, all the manufacturing plants, and everything. Mr. Walsh. This group had a meeting in Prague after I left there, and the minutes of this meeting convinced me of their political affilia- tions. I have those minutes. So as the president of the lATSE I am firmly convinced that the Communist situation does prevail, so far as this Hollywood situation is concerned. I believe with what evidence Judge Levy can present, and the evi- dence Roy Brewer can present, I do not believe there will be any doubt but that there is something to it. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Walsh, you personally do not want to make any statement as to the status of Mr. Herbert K. Sorrell ? Mr. Walsh. The only thing I could say about Herbert K. Sorrel is, if he is not a Communis he will do until one comes along. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Landis, do you have any questions? Mr. Landis. That would be the same thing as a fellow traveler? Mr. Walsh. Well, I would imagine so. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens. My only remark is that there is a great deal of difference between Communists being about and taking advantage of troubles being fomented by labor organizations such as the A. F. of L., and trouble which is fomented by them in the first instance, in other words. Communist-inspired strikes like we had at the Allis-Chalmers plant where it was clearly shown. It makes a world of difference. I thought that was what you were going to try to prove here. Evidently you have given up your thought that you want to show that. Mr. Walsh, I am not going to offer that proof, because I have not been close enough to it to offer that proof. But I think the proof that MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1683 will be offered through jNIr. Levy and Mr. Brewer will at least show the reason why we think it was done. All the proof will not be in here. It is going to take a while yet foi' all the proof to come out. No niore than all the proof is in these United States about what the Communists are doing. I do not think any Government agency yet can give all the proof as to what is hap- pening in this country. I just saw a headline there that they caught 1'2 of them trying to destroy records in the Array. 1 doirt think anybody can give all the proof today. Mr. Landis. It is your purpose not to attack any Communist, so far as that goes, but to show the part the Conununists had in this juris- dictional dispute ? Mr. "Walsji. It is my firm belief that the Communists took a big part in the Hollywood studio troul)le, and I think they took a big part in creating it originally. I think the Comnuniists would like to get control of the motion-pic- ture industry in Hollywood. I think that is shown throughout the world. If anybody knows Russia's procedure today, Russia has absolute con- trol of the motion-picture industry in its country and any film that comes out of there will prove why they want the Hollywood film in- dustry. I believe that will ])rove itself in the future. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Walsh, I see no reason wh^^ you shoidd be detained any longer. Of course, you are welcome to come back any time we have these hearings going on. I want to reiterate again that I certainly do appreciate the coopera- tion you have given me personally, because you have spent a good deal of time. I asked you to appear, and you have appeared and have given testimony. I personally appreciate your cooperation. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. I w^ill leave the judge and Mr. Brewer here to see that our side of the story is covered, so far as we are concerned. If it becomes neces- sary for me to come back, I will do that, Mr. Kearns. If I have any trouble with the judge I will send for you. Mr. Walsh. Just wire me. Mr. Levy. That Avon't do too much good. May I address a word to the committee off the record ? Mr. Kearns. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Kearns. I would like to call Mr. Hinst to the stand. TESTIMONY OF PAUL HINST. MEMBER, LOCAL 946, BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (The witness w^as duly sworn.) Mr. Kearns. Mr. Hinst, I want it understood for the record, was not subpenaed here as a witness. He and his wife drove across the continent to be here and to hear these proceedings. For the benefit of Mr. Landis, Mr. Owens, and the other members of the committee. I want to hear how Mr, Hinst, after a long tenure of service in the motion picture industry, was a victim of the so-called 1684 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES mass lay-off on September 23. I think his story is quite interesting and I thought it would be interesting for the committee to hear. You may be as brief as you would like to be about it, Mr. Hinst. Will you identify the witness for the record ? Mr. Hinst. My name is Paul Hinst. My residence is 3342 Cainfield Avenue, Los Angeles 34, Calif. My phone number is Vermont 8-7509. Mr. McCann. How long have you been employed in the studios prior to 1946 ? Mr. Hinst. I was first employed in the studios and continuously since August 4, 1925. Mr. MgCann. You mean you were permanently employed from August 4, 1925, until the time of the strike, starting in 1945, and then the other strike in 1946 ? Mr. Hinst. I mean I was continuously employed. Permanently establishes too long a time. Mr. McCann. Wliat organization were you working for ? Mr. HiNST. I am a member of the Brotherhood of Caij^enters and Joiners of America, Studio Local No. 946. Mr. McCann. By whom were you employed in the studios ? Mr. Hinst. I was employed by the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios. Mr. McCann. Will you proceed now and make your statement ? Mr. Hinst. I believe in order to develop my statement I should pref- ace it with the fact that due to the type of my work I did not abso- lutely follow the normal procedure in the studios in this way, in that the ordinary shift went to work at 6 o'clock in the morning. I did not go to work until 8 o'clock in the morning. On the morning of September 23, 1946, I called for work and went to my place of employment, which was not in the carpenter shop. I was working in what is known as the Thalberg Building, which is the administration building of the studio. At about 8 : 30 I received a telephone call to appear down at the carpenter shop. I got on my little bicycle, as it is quite a ways, and drove down there. Upon entering the door I saw one of the men known as a lay-out m.an or the gang boss talking with the personnel director of the studio, Mr. Bill Walsh. I went over and asked him why I had been called down there. The lay-out man or gang boss told me, "Well, this is it." I said, "What do you mean, this is it ?" Mr. Walsh said, "Well, you are to get your money and leave." Mr. Landis. What time of day was that ? Mr. Hinst. This was about 25 minutes to 9. I had been at the studio approximately 35 minutes. I asked Mr. Walsh if I was being discharged, and he said, "No ; we are merely asking you to leave the premises." I said, "Well, it seems quite strange to me when a man is taken away in the middle of his shift, paid up to the minute with his final check — from my under- standino; that has always been a discharge. I feel I am being dis- charged." "Well," he said, "that isn't the case, we are merely asking you to leave." I gave that a little thought and apparently a solution came to me why that was. So I inquired of Mr. Walsh. I said, "Well, I see what it means, if you are not discharging me I will not be able to draw my unemployment compensation." MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1685 And he ssaid, ''That is exactly what I mean." So I said, ''Well, what do I do next ?" He said, ''The shop steward is over there taking the names of the employees that are leavinii'.'' He said. "Yon go over and give them your name then 3on can go in the office and get your compensation.*' The I l)rought up the fact that I thought it was a little unjust, that I should have a little more time, because I had tools scattered all over the administration building and I felt I should have time to col- lect them. Mr. Walsh said, "That is not necessary, yon don't need to take your tools."' I said, "Why shouldn't I take them if I am being discharged?" He said, "Oh, you'll be back in a few days and you can use them." I said. "Well, I think I would rather take them, because knowing the type of people that is going to be brought in here when I leave I don't want to trust them to their tender mercies. Apparently I will have to do it on ni}^ own time." So I signed my name with the shop steward and I was paid for exactly 45 minutes that morning. They had a chart with all the time on it, and at exactly a quarter to nine I was paid off. Mr. Kearns. Was the check already made out? Mr. HiNST. The check for the pi'evious week was made out. Or- dinarily I would not get that check until Thursday, but this Mon- day morning thej^ gave us those checks. It was already made out and for the 45 minutes I was paid in cash. Mr. McCann. Would you mind telling the committee what your regular work was in the studios? Mr. HixsT. I was a maintenance carpenter. I was in charge of the maintenance work for the administration building. There was an electrician, a painter, and of course the janitors and so forth there. I did all the repair work in the building. I took care of the offices, the physical properties, the desks and so forth. Mr. Landis. Did you ever work on one of the sets? Mr. HiNST. I did not work on a set after 1936. I might say there was testimony given here last week that in this particular studio. Paramount, I believe, that the maintenance men and the set men were considered the same. But in the studio where I work by common practice that was not true. At one time we were in the construction department. Around 1937 or 1938, we were taken from the construction department and put into the engineering department on a separate pay roll. We worked separately and had no connection wdth sets. It was customary when there was overtime on the sets that they would divide that time among the men and never any time were we called to do any work on those sets and were not permitted to take it, so we were considered a thing apart. The strange thing AVas that after we came back in 1945, and had been back to work about 2 months, for some strange reason we were suddenly thrown back into the construction department. That was not the wish of the construction department, because the superin- tendent had told me manj^ times that he had a hard time accounting 1686 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES for US because we did not do any work that added to the prestige of the construction department, and were just an expense to them. He was glad when we were taken away because it took us off his ex- pense account and he was sorry when we came back. Why we were suddenly removed right after the 1945 strike, I do not know. Mr. Landis. Have you received any unemployment compensation? Mr. HiNST. I have not, sir. Mr. Landis. How long have you been out ? Mr. HiNST. Since September 23, 1946. I applied for my compen- sation the same day. Mr. Owens. You say you applied for compensation and have not received any? Mr. HiNST. That is right. Mr. Owens. Wliy ? Mr. HiNST. They refused to pay it. I appealed — I was granted a hearing on the appeal. I stated my case. The referee ruled it was a trade dispute and that I had no money coming. I tried to convince him of the fact that it was no part of mine, that I was put out; I had not quit ; but he said they had letters in there from the studio saying I had left, that they were bound by those. Since then, I still have an appeal pending before the final board, but that I have not heard from. Mr. Owens. I am not going into that case because you are a borderline situation. Mr. HiNST. That is true. Mr. Owens. But you did refuse to work that particular day ? Mr. HiNST. No, sir. Mr. OwT^.NS. You say you were willing to work ? You did not take the step like the others did with respect to the "hot" sets ? Mr. HiNST. I was not asked to work on the "hot" sets. What I would have done if I had been asked is mere conjecture. That is a couple of years ago and there has been a lot of water under the bridge, so I could not say. The fact is I was not asked, I was merely told to leave the property. Mr. Owens. You mean to say the evidence in your case out there shows that at no time did you refuse to work, still you were paid off and you did not get unemployment compensation ? Mr. HiNST. That is the evidence; I was never asked to work on a "hot" set. In fact, it was developed later that the unemployment board took the position that the mere fact of membership in local 946 would bar you from compensation. That has been proven several times. All of our members in 1946 did not work in the studies. We had around 2,000 or 1.500. Twelve to fifteen hundred were in other studios and the others did not. Those who were working other places were laid off and they likewise were refused because they had membership in 946. The supposition was that they were mixed up in this deal. Mr. Kearns. Will the gentleman yield at that one point ? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Kearns. Now, he worked at Metro-Golclwyn-Mayer, which is one of the major studios. At all the independent studios that I visited, they were not involved as much as the major studios. On the sets they would have carpenters and lA men working there. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1687 Then as I understand it, as the picture has developed in this length of time, when work has been slack they have laid the carpenters off, which is all right, because the producers had no work for them. Now. they had been working maybe up to a week or 2 weeks ago, but as I understand the situation out there, when they went down to the board to get their compensation insurance and when they men- tioned they belonged to 946, they too were unable to collect, even though they had worked months after this so-called strike, or the walk-out, or any other term you want to give it. Mr. HiNST. Of course, you are not interested in hearsay evidence, but if you are I would like to mention Mr. OwExs. I am interested in hearing first of all every conversa- tion you had with anyone with respect to that particular affair before or after that ])articular date and on that particular date. Mr. HiNST. I would like to mention a conversation with the man who, as ISIr. Kearns said, was working in one of the independents. He was laid off. He went to get his compensation. He asked my ad\ice in the matter. He was told that 20th Century-Fox had put in a stop order for his compensation. When he inquired why they took 20th Century-Fox's stop order, the^' told him that was customary. The fact of the matter was that this man had not worked Mr. 0^t:xs. Just a minute. You are getting into other conversa- tions. Mr. HixsT. This is one which I had myself. Mr. Ow^ENS. I said conversations. I am talking about conversations with the people who were responsible for discharging him. Mr. Kearns. With the employer. Mr. Owens. Before we get into anvthing else, tell me who you talked with? Mr. HiNST. In regards to what ? Mr. Owens. On the day of the discharge. Mr. McCann. Let's start at the very beginning, please. Tell who came over and got j^ou and everything that was said between you. That is what you want, isn't it, sir ? Mr. Owens. That is right. Mr. HiNST. Well, I was called on the telephone to come down to the shop and I did. As I said, when I went in the shop I saw Mr. Walsh, the personnel manager of the studio. Not Mr. Richard Walsh, but Mr. William Walsh. He told me I was to get my pay and leave. Mr. 0"\VENS. What did you say to him '? Mr. HiNsT. I said, '"And I am being discharged?" He said, "No, you are not being discharged, you are merely being asked to leave the premises." I told him my opinion was that when a man was taken off his work in the middle of a shift, was paid off, given his final pay, I felt that was a discharge. But he said, "We are not discharging you. we are merely asking you to get off the property." Mr. Owens. That is when j^ou went and got your check? Mr. HiN>^T. That is right. Mr. Owp:ns. When did you go back there again to go to work? Mr. HixsT. I never went back because they didn't ask me to come back. Mr. Owens. Why didn't you go back? Mr. HiNST. If vou had been kicked out • 1688 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. You were not kicked out. Mr. HiNST. Would you come back on your own initiative or would you f?o back when they asked you to go back ? Mr. Owens. You were not kicked out, were you ? Mr. HiNST. I was asked to leave. Mr. Owens. You were expected to be there in a few days and leave your tools on the premises. Mr. HiNST. That was his statement. Mr. Owens. But if you had left your tools on the premises as he suggested, you would have gone back, would you not? Mr. HiNST. Well, that is problematical, Mr. Owens. But when you took your tools off the premises yourself after he suggested you leave them there, and you never went back again, how can you justify that step and not protect yourself better than that ? Mr. HiNST. I can justify that very well, in my opinion. The mere fact that he told me to get off the property— he also said, "You can leave your tools and you will be back in a few days," led me to believe that if they wanted me back they would call me back. It has been the custom for many, many years in this studio if they send a man home at night and tell him not to come back the next day, he does not come back until they call him back. Mr. Owens. But you leave your tools there. Do you go around from, one night to the next morning and gather your tools up in the dif- fent places where they are located as you mentioned? Mr. HiNST. I did liot, because I was not on any stated proposition. But there are men who carry their tools into the studio every day for weeks and weeks and weeks. Mr. Owens. T am talking about you. Mr. HiNST. Personallj^ I leave my own there, ordinarily. Mr. Owens. I am afraid that one thing is what may be causing your difficulty here, because you knew at that time there was a movement on. the part of the carpenters to declare those sets "hot," didn't you? Mr. HiNST. I did, yes. Mr. Owens. You knew that the men who were there from your own local were stopping work; that is, that they would not work on those particular sets that were to be "hot," that is true, isn't it? Mr. HiNST. I knew that was the intention up until that time, but I did not know that they had. As I say, I did not work right on the lots where the sets were. Mr. Owens. Had you had any meeting before that of your local where they discussed this subject? Mr. HiNST. Yes, sir. Mr. 0\\-ENS. When? Mr. HiNST. We have a meeting every week. Mr. Owens. When did you have the meeting previous to this date — was it the 12th or 13th of September ? Mr, HiNST. The 11th, I believe, was when Mr. Cambiano made the statement. I think we had had a meeting the Sunday before. The treasurer called a meeting. I do not remember what day the 11th was on, but I think it was on Thursday, or something like that, Mr. Owens. This day you w^ere let out was on a Monday? Mr. HiNST. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. When did you have the meeting before that ? Mr. HiNST. The Wednesday before. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIO^^AL DISPUTES 1689 Mr. OwEXs. And what did you decide at that meeting? Mr. HiNST. That was a general business meeting which we have every week, I mean, our membership is kept well informed. The progress of the ultimatum was reported to us and so forth, but there was no decision made outside of the fact that we were not going to work on the "hot" sets. Mr. Owens. Who made that decision? Mr. HiNST. That was a decision of the membership. Mr. OwExs. They had a vote at that point? Mr. HiNST. That is right. Mr. Owens. And all members of the local participated in that situation ? Mr. HiNST. Well, technically, yes. Mr. Owens. Did you record it in the minutes? Mr. HiNST. Oh, yes, sir ; that is all recorded. Mr. Owens. Did the recordation of your minutes get into that situa- tion and into the proceedings involving your requests for unemploy- ment compensation? Mr. HiNST. I don't believe so. Mr. Owens. I am afraid maybe they did. Mr. HiNST. I don't happen to have them with me, but I have a brief or a record of the decision that was sent to me, and there is no mention made of that. Mr. Owens. You made yourself a party to a plan to participate in an agreement not to work. Mr. HiNST. Maybe I am wrong. Mr. Owens. You are not wrong but there is something wrong along the line there. Mr. HiNST. I felt in my particular case and in the case of a small minority in the union, that due to our type of work the "hot" set matter was not too pertinent to us because we did not work on sets and had no interest in them. Our work was highly specialized work. We felt if the men who did work on these sets and who were in the vast majority felt that way about it, that we would agree. Mr. Owens. Can you account for Mr. Hutcheson's statement a year ago. when he testified last March, that none of the men who worked in the studios were unemployed? You heard him testify to that the other day when I examined him, didn't you ? Mr. HiNST. I probably heard it. I was here. I do not remember the exact statement. Mr. Owens. He testified last March that none of those men were unemployed. In other words, he said in that hearing, and I read it, that when their men were not wanted any place they went out and got work other places because there was plenty of work for them. Did jou go out and get work other places ? Mr. HiNST. I am afraid Mr. Hutcheson was misinformed, that they were not all working at that time and they are not all working now. Mr. Owens. Haven't you worked since that time ? Mr. HiNST. I have worked some ; yes. Mr. Owens. Did you go to work right away ? Mr. HiNST. No; it was several months after. Mr. Owens. You did not go back and ask them for any work? Mr. HiNST. I didn't go back and ask them because I stated the cus- tom for years is tliat you only work when they call you. 1690 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. Mr. Hutcheson made the statement yesterday that any man who would go back there would probably do work for them.. Did you hear Mr. Hutcheson say that ? Mr. HiNST. I heard him say that. Mr. Owens. Are you going to take him up on that ? Mr. HiNST. I am in Washington now but when I get in Los Angeles I will settle it. Mr. Owens. I would be interested in knowing Avhether what he said is true or not and whether when you got there they would refuse you. Mr. HiNST. Personally, I don't know. I know some of the men have gone and asked for work. I know what they have told me, that is all. They did not get it. Mr. Owens. You have been a victim, but the question is who has victimized you. I will not pass on it right now, althougli I have my opinions. Mr. HiNST. With the chairman's permission I would like to make a short observation. I noticed in the producers' testimony last week that they were very much concerned. Their concern was over money. I noticed from the labor leaders' testimony they are very concerned. They are con- cerned over what they think is the best for the men. The thing I would like to know is when is someone going to get concerned over what the men think, what they want. Mr. Owens. My observation of the leaders was that they were concerned over their jurisdiction, not over the men. Mr. HiNST. I am going by their statements. I heard a statement this afternoon. Mr. Mulkey made the statement that he did what he thought was best for the men. That is very fine. But being in my union for as many years as I have I very well know what the men think and how they feel. We are just dumb carpenters like Bill Hutcheson but we get around. Mr. Owens. He is not so dumb. Mr. HiNST. We have our ideas. What they think perhaps has a bearing on us, but we are more interested in what we feel and what we want, and I am interested in knowing when somebody is going to take an interest in us. Mr. Owens. Well, I will tell you this, Mr. Hinst, this Congress had taken an interest in you. Mr. Hinst. I am certainly glad of that. Mr. Owens. And the day is going to come when the men who are willing to work will be able to work and will not be kept from it by leaders fighting over jurisdiction. At least I can speak for myself to that extent. Mr. Kearns. One point there, Mr. Owens. Do you feel that in Mr. Hinst's situation, had he not taken his tools with him, that would have changed the picture? Mr. Owens. I think it would have changed the picture considerably in his own case. He took his tools and never went back there again. After all, a firm has a right at any time to lay someone off. They told him they were not discharging him, that they were laying him off, that he would work in a few days. Mr. Hinst. No ; he said I would be back in a few daj's. Mr. Owens. Yes, but you took your tools and never went back. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1691 Mr. HiNST. I might qualify it and say I was a little hasty when I said I took my tools. I did not take them all. I have several boxes of tools. I took the majority but I left a few and I got those about 4 months ago. Mr. Owens. When you went back 4 months ago you did not ask for any work ? Mr.'HiNST. I did not ask for any work. I just asked for my tools and got them. Mr. Oamsns. I just want to say: As I say, you are a victim. But you did go along with the vote of your union ? Mr. HiNST. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. They were fighting for jurisdiction and you are stilt a victim of the fight for jurisdiction. Mr, HiNST. Of course, I want to honestly say that I felt those men who had worked on the sets had a good case and I felt they were justi- fied in what they did. even though I felt it would affect me, because I do feel they have a just case. Mr. Owens. I suppose you have a right to stick up for your men and you are not going to criticize your leadership Mr. HiNST. I am not averse to criticising my leadership. Mr. Owens. As I say, you are a victim, but where we are going to apply the blame, that is the question. Mr. HiNST. I would like to know that, too. Mr. McCann. One question only, sir. Mr. Benjamin submits it: Have you reapplied for work at any time since you left the studio? If not, why not 'I Mr. HiNST. I have not. As to my reason why, I did not feel that I would get ni}^ work back. I may have been given work but not the work that I had and I would like to have had the work that I had been doing. Mr. JNIcCann. Mr. Chairman, I have a question from Mr. Cobb. Haven't you been told that any work for carpenters would have to be in an open shop and not under the 2-year Beverly Hills contract of July 2, 1946 ? Mr. HiNST. I understand from things I have heard previouslj'^ and the testimony I have heard here that it would be open shop. Mr. McCann. No further questions. Mr. Landis. Thank you, Mr. Hinst, in behalf of the committee for your testimony here. Mr. HiNST. I thank you for allowing me to be here. Mr. Landis. Mr. Benjiimin, do you want to take the stand? Mr. Benjamin. If I may, please. TESTIMONY OF MAUEICE BENJAMIN, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., COUNSEL FOR MOTION-PICTURE COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATION OF MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS, INC.— Recalled (The witness was previously sworn.) Mr. McCann. Whom do you represent at this hearing? Mr. Benjamin. I represent the motion-picture companies in Holly- wood and the members of the Association of Motion Picture Pro- ducers, Inc. Mr. McCann. Do you care to make a statement, Mr. Benjamin? 1692 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Benjamin. I do. Mr. McCann. Proceed. Mr. Benjamin. I should simply like to make this very brief state- ment, Mr. Chairman. Following the strike in September of 1946, the studios continued to operate their business and to that end, the carpenters having gone out on strike, having established a picket line, the studios employed other men to do the carpenter work in the studios. Those men were largely supplied by the lATSE. The studios have no contract with the lATSE covering work prior to the strike that was in the carpenters' jurisdiction. We have no con- tract whatever covering that work. For a considerable period of time, and I might say for a considerable period of time prior to the commencement of the hearings by this com- mittee in Los Angeles, the members of any of the unions on strike — and here I include not merely the carpenters' union tliat originally went out on strike and established the picket line, but also the members of the other unions that joined in that strike by respecting that picket line — have been free to work in the studios by applying for employment. That employment is available to them as and when there are vacanclt^s, without any discrimination in relation to their membership or non- membership in any union whatever. During the past several months a considerable number of members of the unions that went on strike in September of 1946 have been so employed. Employment in those crafts — as jobs arise, as vacancies occur, those jobs are filled from applications made at the studios and, as I said before, they are filled without any inquiry into or any condition of union membership. A certain number of applications have been made from the various striking unions and a certain percentage of those applications have been accepted as vacancies occurred. I should point out, as it has been pointed out heretofore, production in the studios at the present time is at a very low ebb, not in relation to the strike but in relation to the general economic situation of the motion-picture industry. As a result of production being at low ebb consequently the amount of employment is reduced proportionately. I simply want to make that statement in order to make it crystal clear that a carpenter, a painter, or what not who may have engaged in the strike in Hollywood, in the 1046 strike, is free to make application to the studio for employment. His application will be received and if, as, and when there is work for which additional workers are needed, he will be employed and employed without any discrimination what- ever as to union membership or nonunion membership. I need not point out to this committee in relation to the question that was last asked the witness, whether lie had been informed that to go back to work in the studio meant that he had to go back to work under an open shop — I think the Taft-Hartley bill answers that question. Now, while I am on the witness stand, I would like to make one other statement merely for the record. Mr. Landis. Is it in connection with this ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1693 Mr. Benjamin. No, Mr. Landis; it is not in connection with this; it is in connection with previous testimony before this committee. Mr. Landis. On the same thing? Mr. Benjamin. No ; not on the same thing. If you prefer me not to do it I will not. Mr. Laxdis. No, that would be all right, but I want to get this point clear that j^ou just made. A carpenter would not have to join the I A if a job was open and available for him? Mr, Benjamin. Definitely not. Mr. Landis. He could still be a member of the carpenters' union? Mr. Benjamin. Definitely. Mr. Landis. I did not ask Mr. Hinst but is there a picket line at the plant now ? Mr. Benjamin. There is a token picket line at the studios now. Mr. Landis. At all the studios ? Mr, Benjamin. I believe at the most of the studios. If the indi- vidual carpenter sees fit to go through that line to get employment, that is up to him. If he sees fit to respect that picket line that is also up to him, I should say this : The statement was made here a few moments ago that Mr, Walsh had testified to the same effect as I have now stated, and that perhaps this gentleman who last testified might take up Mr. Walsh on that proposition. That does not rest with Mr. Walsh. That rests with the management of the studios. It does not rest with ]\Ir. Walsh to say w^hether this gentleman or any other carpenter may work in the studios in carpentry work. If there is employment available and he is the only applicant we have, he will be employed. It does not make any difference whether he is a member of the union or not ; it does not make any difference whether he has joined the lA or not. We do not make ^nj inquiry as to that. Mr, Landis. Do you know of any nonunion men employed or did you have any nonunion men employed before the strike that you know of? Mr. Benjamin. In what craft, Mr. Landis ? Mr, Landis. I would say carpenters, painters, Mr. Benjamin. No ; I don't think we had any nonunion carpenters or painters. Mr. Landis. But you had the privilege of employing them ? Mr. Benjamin, Up to that time, ]\Ir. Landis, I believe it operated more or less under a closed-shop arrangement. Then the strike came along and completely changed the picture. I would not say closed- shop arrangement ; I would say closed-shop conditions. I\Ir. Landis. Did you want to make another statement ? Mr. Benjamin. I do unless you want to ask some further questions ? Mr, Landis, No ; I think that is clear now, Mr, Benjamin. iVt the beginning of the hearings in Washington some considerable capital was made in relation to the deception of the three-man committee. That charge appeared in the opening statement of the chairman of the subcommittee. It appeared in the same state- ment in which were contained charges of conspiracy and collusion between the producers and the lATSE. 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 13 1694 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES It would be a fair inference from that statement that the charjje of conspiracy and colhision may have been related in some measure to the deception referred to. I simply want to make this statement : I believe it has appeared without contradiction in the testimony before this committee in Wash- ington that the three-man committee when it went to Hollywood to make its investigation had no contact with nor any discussion with representatives of the producers and that the producers did not par- ticipate in any way whatever in their investigation. I have no knowledge at all other than what I have heard in these hearings, and in the meeting at Miami at which I hap]Dened to be pres- ent, of what took place before that committee in Hollywood. I was not present. I do not know what took place out there from any personal first-hand knowledge. I simply want to make it clear that whatever may have happened or may not have happened, as far as the three-man committee was concerned in its dealings with the various unions that appeared before it in Hollywood, the producers had nothing whatever to do with it. Personally I do not believe there was any deception. I think the record has made that quite clear. But even assuming there were it is hardly deception which can b*» tied into the studios. Mr. Landis. The committee that was appointed by the A. F. of T- directors made the decision? Mr. Benjamin. That is correct. Mr. Landis. I understand the statement that was made had the word "might" in it — "might lead to collusion." Of course, the board 0"f directors set up this three-man committee who made this decision, then they handed down the directive and later made the clarification. Mr. Benjamin. That was all within the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Landis. That is correct. Mr. Counsel ? Mr. McGann. I have three or four questions I would like to ask Mr. Benjamin. In the first place, I would like to make the statement that so far as I know the record sustains him 100 percent on the position he has stated that there was no conference between industry and the three-man committee out there. I think in fact the total evidence on that subject was that they communicated with Pat Casey to secure permission to go into Paramount Studios. I may not be entirely correct, but that is my impression. Mr. Benjamin. I believe you are correct. Mr. McCann. Now I would like to ask two or three questions that relate to the testimony of the last witness. The minutes of the Producers Labor Committee of September 23, 1946, state: Benjamin says studios liave perfect right to lay off men because of no work. Is that a correct statement? Mr. Benjamin. That probably, Mr. McCann, is a correct state- ment taken out of context. Mr. McCann. That answers the question. Did you believe when you were there that they had a right to lay off a man who had not been asked to do any work, as in the case of the last witness ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1695 Mr. Benjamin. Mr, McCann, that assumes the truth of the last witness' statement and I cannot assume that. Mr. McCann. Assuming that he told the truth, that he was called to the office, was not assigned to a job, and was told that he was to get his check, was that the sort of situation you had in mind when you made the statement I have referred to ? Mr. Benjamin. The statement you referred to in the minutes has no relation whatever to the situation that you now speak of. Mr. McCann. Isn't it a fact that at the meeting of the Producers Labor Committee Mr. Wright, of counsel to the producers, on that occasion stated: The producers cannot morally or legally lay off maintenance men. Mr. Benjamin. Mr. McCann, I have seen that statement in the notes you have before you. I believe I was present at the meeting. Mr, Wright may have made that statement. I do not question that he did. That may have been his own personal viewpoint on a legal question that may have been propounded. As of the moment I do not recall the statement having been made by him but I do not remember that he made it as it appears in the notes. Mr. Landis. Let me go one point further on that. Do you think they have the privilege of laying off men ? Now that was Mr. Wright's statement ? Mr. McCann. That was Mr. Wright's statement, which I was not quoting verbatim. I was quoting it from memory. Mr. Benjamin. If you will ask me what my answer is, I will give it to you. Mr. Landis. No ; I want to know his answer. The way I understood it you could lay off men if you wanted to. Now is that correct ? Mr. Benjamin. Under what conditions, Mr. Landis? I would be glad to answer the question Mr. Landis. Well, if there are conditions you can name your own conditions. Mr. Benjamin. Let me say this : The studios employed carpenters. They are all members of the carpenters' union. The assignment of work in the studio rests with management. That is one of the few prerogatives still left to management in the motion-picture industry. If John Jones, a carpenter employed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, is assigned to do certain carpenter work in the studio and he refuses to do that work, in my opinion his employer is entitled to ask him to leave the premises. I should hate to think of a business condition that did not permit that. ' Mr. Landis. That is correct. Mr. Benjamin. I might say this : We have no means of compelling John Jones to do any work we assign to him. It rests with him to determine whether or not he chooses to do that work, but he cannot expect both to refuse to do the work and to continue to be paid. Mr. Landis. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Mr. Landis, I cannot find the statement at this mo- ment in the records. Mr. Landis. Let's finish this point first and then go back to it. The point I w^ant to cover is this. Let's say they have hired 350 carpenters working on the job. Perhaps tomorrow there will only be 1696 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES work for 300 carpenters. Do you mean to tell me you can't lay off the 50? Mr. Benjamin. Of course you can. Mr. Landis. Or do you have to keep the 50 ? Mr. BenjaVmin. That is an ordinary economic business condition. Mr. Landis. That is what I thought. Mr. Benjamin. I should say this in all fairness : In connection with this strike situation, that isn't the kind of a situation we were dealing with. Mr. Landis. In the testimony it was brought out that men were laid off at some of the plants — perhaps not all of them — in order not to have any trouble on the premises. Mr. Benjamin. We were faced with this alternative, Mr. Landis. It is quite true that as a matter of normal operation — let's talk about carpenters, because we were talking about carpenters — we had carpenters working the studios who would normally be called main- tenance men. They were men who, by and large, we will sny, did not work on sets. Nevertheless they are all carpenters; all members of the carpenters' union. Now, we are faced with this ultimatum from the carpenters' union that commencing at G o'clock tomorrow morning "we declare 'hot' all sets erected by the lATSE." Now, that was an ultimatum from the carpenters' union. It is not an ultimatum from a section of the carpenters' union or from only that portion of the carpenters' union representing people that work on sets. The carpenters' union repre- sented all of the carpenters working in the studios. We were making motion pictures. It has been testified here, I believe by Mr. Kahane, quite clearly as to the work that has to be done in connection with the preparation of sets for pictures. You cannot prepare sets for pictures the night before. We were very fast running out of sets. We had to know whether we were going to build sets. There isn't any mystery about the fact, there isn't any question about the fact, that because we had to know where we stood, because we had to know whether these men were going to do this work or not, we decided to put them to the test and find out. We had to know where we were going. We had carpenters working in various phases of carpentry work in the studios. Some of them built sets. Some of them w^ere main- tenance men. Some of them did something else. We knew that if the carpenters were going to refuse to work on these sets, we would have to have that work done by others. We knew that as long as thei'e were carpenters in the studios and we brought in replacements to do the work the carpenters' union refused to do, we would have trouble in the studios. We would have a strike in the studios instead of a strike on the streets. A strike in the studios would mean not merely an attempted stop- page of work, it would mean violence in fact, it would mean propert}^ damage inside. That was one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to find out where we stood, to find out whether these men were going to do this work or not, and bring it to a head. There isn't any mystery about it. Mr. McCann. May I continue with two or three questions ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1697 Mr. Landis. Proceed. Mr. McCann. Mr. Cliairinan, for the benefit of the record I have found his statement which I want to read into the record. Minutes of September 23, 1946. It is entitled, "Maintenance Men," and reads: Metro and some other studios have requested maintenance men to work on sets and upon refusal have dismissed them. Alfred Wriglit stated the studios cannot morally or legally assign maintenace men who never have worked as journeymen on sets, to set work. I just give that for what it is worth, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Benjamin. May I make a statement in relation to that, Mr. Landis ? JVIr. McCann. I think that you have. Mr. Benjamin. I would like to make an additional statement. Mr. Landis. Proceed. Mr. Benjamin. We not only have a number of studios in Holly- wood, but we have a number of lawyei's, perhaps too many. I be- lieve, as you can well understand, that faced with a strike situation as we were, inevitably there were a great many legal questions bound to come up. You will find, I believe, at the meeting of September 23 to which Mr. McCann refers — I do not have it before me, but I am cjuite sure you will find that present at that meeting there were quite a number of counsel, were there not, Mr. McCann ? Mr. McCann. 1 will read the names off that I recognize. Mr. Price, I think, is counsel; Mr. Benjamin, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Silverberg. They are all counsel. Mr. Benjamin. Yes. Mr. McCann. There may be others here on the list. Mr. Benjamin. May I see it? Mr. McCann. Yes, right there. Mr. Benjamin. Price, Benjamin, Wright, Silverberg are all law- 3^ers. There may have been others. The point I am making is this, Mr. Landis, that there are differ- ences of opinion between lawyers, as well as between laymen. There was undoubtedly an extended discussion of what our legal position was in relation to the situation with which we were confronted. Mr. Wright may have made the statement that is attributed to him in these notes. I do not recall it at the moment, but I do not ques- tion that he made it. My own opinion then was and is now completely contrary to the opinion stated in those notes that may have been given hj Mr. Wright. Apparently some of the other counsel must have also taken a con- trary position, because in the handlinof of the situation with which we were faced, we did proceed along a different line. Mr. McCann. May I read one other statement in the record that I think is rather important at this point, in view of the last witness' testimony. Under date of September 16. 1046, and Mr. Chairman, that is 7 days before the incident, I find this notation at the head of the "pro- ducers labor committee" minutes : Unemployment compensation — Pragin of tlie Loeb office wanted instructions for the controllers as to what position the producers wanted to take on state- ment to he made to the State unemployment fund. It was agreed to say, "The 1698 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES employee left his work on account of a trade dispute" and to ask the depart- ment to disqualify him from unemployment compensation. Mr. Benjamin. May I make a statement in respect to that, Mr. Landis ? Mr. Landis. Go ahead. Mr. Benjamin. Mr. McCann was I present at that meeting? I do not believe I was. I believe I was in New York. Mr. McCann. I don't believe that shows you present. Mr. Benjamin. Is that a meeting of the labor committee? Mr. McCann. Yes, sir. Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Cragin is one of my partners. Mr. Cragin is a lawyer, specializing in tax matters. I doubt very much whether Mr. Cragin would have appeared before the labor committee and would have asked the labor committee what he should do in relation to un- employment insurance claims that he knew inevitably would be made. I rather believe Mr. Cragin would have presented the situation to the labor committee and would have given them his judgment as to what the legal position was. That is my judgment. I do not believe I was at the meeting. Bear in mind, that meeting, according to Mr. McCann, was a meet- ing on the 16th of September. The ultimatum from the carpenters was delivered on the 11th of September. The issue had been drawn by the carpenters. We were in a strike situation, although perhaps it had not fully crystallized. I believe we would have been very much remiss had we not anticipated the obvious, that we were going to be in a strike ; that people would be out of the studios ; that unemploy- ment insurance claims would be made; and I believe it was only ordi- nary business caution to analyze and evaluate that situation and de- termine what our legal position was. I do not have to state to Mr. Landis, nor should I have to state to Mr. McCann, that the right to miemployment insurance in the State of California is something that is determined by the law of the State of California. The determination of whether an individual in a given situation is entitled to unemployment insurance, rests with the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the State of California, a State institution, a State agency. The findings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the State of California I believe are the best evidence of the basis for the final opinions that they rendered. Mr. McCann. May I ask some questions by Mr. Cobb, Mr. Chair- man ? Mr. Landis. Proceed. Mr. McCann. Do you mean that there has been an open shop for carpenters ever since September 23, 1946 ? Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Landis, there is pending in the Federal Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of California, a lawsuit insti- tuted by Mr. Cobb as a lawyer on behalf of a certain group of carpen- ters as plaintiffs. I would prefer to leave that question to a determi- nation in that lawsuit. We are not trying that lawsuit before this committee. Mr. Landis. You have that privilege. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1699 Mr. McCann. Have the carpenters been free to work for the studios since September lio, 1946, under tiie hours, wages, and working con- ditions specified in the Beverly Hills agreement of July 2, 1946? Mr. Benjamix. Same answer. Mr. McCann. Have they been free to work under tlie employment features of the July 2, 1946, agreement? Mr. Benjamin. Same answer. Mr. McCann. The minutes of September 20, 1946, recite Mr. Benjamin. September what? Mr. McCann. The minutes of the producers labor committee of September 20, 1946, recite: "Dead line. By 9 a. m., Monday, clean out all carpenters first, and then clean out all painters, following which proceed to put on lA men to do the work.'' Was that done? Mr. Benjamin. Am I shown as having been present at that meet- ing? Mr. McCann. Yes, sir. Mr. Benjamin. Will you state the last sentence in the question, please? Mr. McCann. Was that done? Mr. Benjamin. Mr. McCann, as I stated before, I am a lawyer. I do not operate the studios. My offices are not at a studio, so that I cannot tell you just exactly what was done at each studio on any par- ticular date. But I will endeaver to say that it is my understanding that in order to bring this thing to a head and to find out where we were, I think generally it is true that the studios called these carpen- ters in, and I believe subsequently the painters, and asked them to do work assigned to them, and if they did not do that work, they asked them to leave the premises. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may we adjourn ? Mr. Landis. Are you through? Mr. McCann. I am through. Mr. Landis. Are you through, Mr. Benjamin? Mr. Benjamin. I am through ; yes. Mr. Landis. On behalf of the committee, thank you for your testi- mony. Mr. Benjamin. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Landis. We will adjourn until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. ("WTiereupon. at 6 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m., Monday, March 1, 1948.) JUEISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTEY MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington^ D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order. We shall proceed this morning with Attorney Levy, representing the lATSE, as the first witness. TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY— Recalled Mr. Levt. There are one or two odds and ends that I want to cover before I proceed with the main communication which I was privileged to send to the honorable chairman of this subcommittee on the 28th of November 191:7. One of the questions which I was asked was the make-up of the membership of the Conference of Studio Unions, and I stated that I wanted to give the list more or less accurately rather than to rely upon memory. I think I made it clear that the Confer- ence of Studio Unions was an organization not of international labor organizations but of certain local labor unions, and from time to time, the membership of the Conference of Studio Unions consisted of the following : Studio Painters Local No. 644. Screen Set Designers, Local No. 1421. That was affiliated with the painters' organization. • Cinema Lodge No. 1185, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists. Local No. 40 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers. My recollection is that local No. 40 withdrew in about February of 1947. The precise date of the joining of the Conference of Studio Unions by local No. 40, I do not have. I am not sure that it was one of the organizing local unions of the conference. The Screen Office Employees Guild, which my records indicate withdrew by dissolution as of April 1946. The Carpenters Local No. 946, which appears to have officially joined in early 1946. The Studio Guards and Set Watchmen, Local No. 193, of the Build- ing Service Employees International Union. That withdrew about July 1947. 1701 1702 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Studio janitors, also affiliated with the building service employees organization. That withdrew about April 1947. The sheet metal workers local union were members of the Conference of Studio Unions for a very short while preceding the 1945 strike. The Plumbers Local No. 78, and the blacksmiths local while parti- cipating in the negotiations with the conference, its actual membership in the conference was doubtful. The Screen Story Analysts Guild, which was affiliated with the painters organization. My recollection is that left the conference about the middle of the long 1946 strike. And the Screen Publicists Guild, which was also affiliated with the painters organization, did not go on strike in 1946, and left the Con- ference of Studio Unions about a year ago. Another incidental matter that I should like to have cleared up is the matter of the communications between International President Richard F. Walsh and the chairman of the House Labor and Educa- tion Committee, Hon. Fred A. Hartley. I read a letter from Con- gressman Hartley which refers to the telegram which had not been included, and I think the record can be made complete. On March 19, 1947, the following telegram was received by Mr. Walsh : "Richard A. Walsh" — that is a misprint for the middle initial — Washington, D. C. International Axmance of Stagehands, 630 Fifth Avenue, 'New York: I am advised that Mr. Lansford representing Mr. Roy Brewer of the lATSE has threatened to close the Eagle Lion Studios unless its president, Mr. Bryan Foy, discharges Mr. Oscar Schatte, who recently appeared before my committee. Kindly advise me if this information is correct and if it is the reason for this ultimatum. Fred A. Hartley, Jr., il ember of Congress. The following telegi'am on March 21, 1947, was sent from New York City: Hon. Fred A. Hartley, Jr. Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. Your telegram of March 19 received. Checked contents with our international representative in Hollywood, Mr. Roy M. Brewer. The information contained in your telegram is completely incorrect and as false as some of the statements made by Mr. Oscar Schatte in his recent testimony before the House Labor Com- mittee. I desire to point out to you that on March 11 I sent you a telegram in your official capacity as chairman of the House Labor Committee pointing out Mr. Schatte's one-sided, false, misleading, prejudicial, and untrue testimony and urging a complete investigation for the benefit of the American people as a whole. (Signed) Richard F. Walsh, International Alliance, Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada. I bring these telegrams up now simply because in Congressman Hartley's letter to Mr. Walsh dated August 14, 1947, he referred to the subsequent telegrams which had not already been placed in evidence. I desire to present to this committee a photostatic copy of a paid political advertisement in the Studio Call of June 30, 1938, on behalf of the Motion Picture Democratic Committee of Hollywood, Calif. I do not want to mention all the names that are listed as officers and executive committee members of the Motion Picture Democratic Com- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1703 mittee, but I will mention two. One of them is Jeff Kibre and the other is Herb Sorrell. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I move that it be received in evi- dence for reference purposes only. Mr. Kearns. There is no objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levt. Since this is the only photostat I have, I shall appreciate it if I may be a'iven an opportunity during the day of having another copy of this phostostat made before I turn it over to the clerk of the committee. Mr. Oavens. That is the negative, and I think the positive of that would be better, anyway. Mr. Levy. Yes. sir. Thank you very much. Now, Jeff Kibre's name has been mentioned, and it was mentioned in my testimony when I read the letter of November 28, 1947, and I mentioned Jeff Kibre and Herb Sorrell on this committee in 1938. I want to read to you from the testimony of the carpenters, given before the three-man committee, which has not yet been brought out, the three-man committee of the American Federation of Labor, on December 6, 1945, the testimony of Mr. Joseph Cambiano, on pages 3 and 4, and I quote : We had an element in there (8 oi' 9 years ago in the studios) that was up to disrupt every decent organization in the industry. We were all pretty well disturbed over the situation, and while the carpenters themselves had some jurisdictional disputes, they were all set aside to clean up this disturbance. * * * Then on page 4, from Mr. Cambiano, we have : Now, I referred to the "bad boys" in this language. There was a gentleman by the name of Kibre who was the ringleader of an opposition group, and I do not mind telling you in ray own language that he was a Communist if there ever was one. But he was and is today, so far as I know, and he had quite an organization. * * * I mention that because our investigation has indicated not alone that Jeff Kibre was a Communist and was known to be a Communist and was exposed as a Communist and not alone that he had "quite an organization," but that the only prominent local leader of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor in Hollywood who supported Kibre during this period was Herbert K. Sorrell. On page 43 of the carpenters' presentation to the American Federa- tion of Labor Executive Council committee of three, Mr. Cambiano states : I am telling you gentlemen all this (as to jurisdictional conflicts) to show you that we want to clean up this situation once and tor all time, because we certainly cannot carry on the way things are around here now. We will fool around here imtil somebody else comes into take over, which will happen just as sure as you are living, because such a moment is here ali*eady and implanted in those studios. I mentioned that because that is the testimony for the American Federation of Labor Executive Council, presented by the carpenters' group. I have a pliotostatic copy of the Provisional Committee for the People's Educational Center in Los Angeles, Calif., signed by William Wolff, its executive secretary. Among the persons who are listed here as participating on the advisory board are — and I will mention here for tliis purpose two or three names only : Helmer Bergman, 1704 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Herbert Sorrel 1, John Howard Lawson. I mention Helmer Bergman in this connection because Mr. Bergman was the gentleman who was referred to by Mr. George W. Mulkey, the international representa- tive of the electrical workers as the person who in local 40 was, in his opinion, the Communist in that organization. John Howard Law- son's name is familiar to the gentlemen of this committee, and I asked in line with the previous requests that this document be marked as an exhibit, with permission to get it rephotostated, so that I can present the positive rather than the negative photostat. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. That should be marked as a reference exhibit, I ask that there be received as a reference exhibit a photostatic copy of a circular entitled "The Case of William Schneiderman," issued by the so-called Schneiderman-Darcy Defense Committee, Los Angeles, Calif. The chairman of that committee is Leo Gallagher, who has heretofore been a Communist candidate for public office in the State of California. Listed among the names of the sponsoring committee is that of Herbert Sorrel 1. I ask that there be received as a reference exhibit a circular dated February 21. Our research indicates it is for the year 1940, and it is entitled, "In the Court of Public Opinion, State of California, City of Los Angeles, in the matter of the People against Martin Dies." It says : We command you, that all and singular, businesses and excuses being laid aside, you appear and attend at Philharmonic Auditorium in the Court of Public Opinion, State of California, in the city of Los Angeles, on Wednesday, the 21st of February 1940, at 8 :15 p. m., then and there to hear testimony in the matter of "Dies and the Hollywood Dupes." Then next to that is an article from the Los Angeles Times of Feb- ruary 22, 1940, on behalf of the Hollywood League for Democratic Action. It says in part : Herb Sorrell, head of Labor's Nonpartisan League, used the strongest lan- guage in striking back at Dies, declaring "Mr. Dies is kind of yellow and ovight to get a little red himself." Sorrell asserted that "If Dies would concentrate on the Bund (the German- American Bund) instead of just the Communists, he would have less to hear of anyone overthrowing the Government." I ask that be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. A news letter issued as of March 26, 1940, from the Mo- tion Picture Democratic Committee, Hollywood, Calif., with ref- erence to the delegation to the National Democratic Convention says : Paired with Patterson in the sixteenth district, M. P. D. C. representative on the slate is the secretary, Maurice Murphy. Another member, Herb Sorrell, will represent craft members and Labor's Nonpartisan League. This statement in News-Letter has been referred to in the earlier testimony with respect to the Patterson slate, and the programming of the Patterson slate in the primaries during the spring of 1940. I ask that that be received as a reference exhibit. (The document was filed with the committee.") I have here a Call, California Action Conference, sponsored by the so-called Civil Rights Council of Northern Califoraia and MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1705 the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, Southern Cali- fornia Branch, Los iVngeles. Among the sponsors listed in this pam- phlet is Herbert Sorrell, Los Ano;eles, Calif. The National Federation for Constitutional Liberties is a Communist front has been established before a congressional investigating committee. I ask that that be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. Kearxs. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) ]\Ir. Levy. I w^ant to go back a moment to the Patterson slate. This Patterson slate is mentioned in another circular date May 1, 1940, according to our research, with the Presidential primary on May 7. I want to say that that was during a period of the Stalin-Hitler pact, and its program, among other things, is as follows : Peace, not war. No men — no arms — no loans to foreign powers. Stop intrigue leading us into war (Remember 1916 — "He kept us out of war"??? in 1940, we must keep ourselve.s out of war). On that program there was listed the liberal democratic delegation, so-called, among others Herbert K. Sorrell. I ask that that be marked as a reference exhibit. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. Some doubt was raised the other day by the international president of the painters' organization with reference to the petition which I stated was filed at the painters' convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 1941, to free Earl Browder, then the head of the Communist Party of the United States. I ask that that be marked as a reference exhibit, this photostat indicating an excerpt from the Communist newspaper, the Daily People's World, September 24, 1941, in which the following appears : One hundred AFL delegates sign Browder plea. New York, September 23. — More than 100 officers and delegates to the Sixteenth General Assembly, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, held in Columbus, Ohio, signed the petition addressed to President Roosevelt asking for the immediate release of Earl Browder from the Atlanta Penitentiary, was announced today by the officers of the Citizens Committee to Free Earl Browder. * * * Amongst the officers and delegates to the painters convention who signed the petition were — I will not mention them all, but there appears the name of Herbert Sorrel], business agent, local union 644, Hollywood, Calif. I ask that that be marked as a reference exhibit. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. Now, bringing it down to date a little bit more, here is a communication on behalf of the Communist west coast newspaper, the People's World, dated July 5, 1946, calling a conference to build the People's World. Among the persons who are listed as the Los Angeles sponsors for this drive for $125,000 for the Communist news- paper is Herb Sorrell, president. Conference of Studio Unions, AFL. I ask that that whole list of names, including Albert Maltz, John Howard Lawson and others, be marked as reference exhibit. Mr. Kearxs. Are you including all the names that are listed on that, even though you did not mention them ? Mr. Levy. No. I am perfectly satisfied to have them all listed as a reference exhibit. 1706 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Very well, sir. It is so ordered. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. I ask that there be received as a reference exhibit the ad from the Los AnNS. Then he would certainly mean the CIO. Mr. Brew^er. I think that is a fair presumption under those cir- cumstances. As I go on, you wnll see. The CIO, if they had organ- ized an independent union, it w^as the custom of the CIO to charter those organizations and to hold them up as being official CIO organi- zations. That was not the case in the case of the Screen Writers Guild, because it masqueraded as an independent union not affiliated with any organization. Mr. Owens. He could have been boasting. Mr. Brewer. That is true, he could have been. Now he goes on. He finally draws some conclusions, which I think are rather signifi- cant. He says : It has already been pointed out we plan to develop the Unemployment Con- ference into a federation. This move, as we see it, involves three basic points : First, the mechanics of transforming the conference into a mass movement for joint action ; second, smashing the present lA leadership, and thus preventing a jurisdictional war; and, third, neutralizing the motion picture operator locals of the lATSE so that they cannot be used as an economic lever against events in Hollywood. In connection with the first point, our strategy calls for a huge mass meeting to present the findings of the Unemployment Conference. This meeting has already been demanded by the anti-IATSE Conference. It is proposed that in addition to the report on employment conditions, a member of the National Labor Relations Board be invited as a main speaker. In effect, we plan not only to present the program to at least 10,000 workers, but also to see that the work- ers are effectively told that they have the right to put into practice their demo- cratic decisions. With regard to the lATSE we plan to redouble rank-and-file activity in pro- portion as the mass sentiment of the Unemployment Conference develops. Whik calling for support of the program of the conference we at the same time wil i present through pamphlets a complete plan for the reorganization of the lATSU along democratic lines so the program itself can be achieved. Our plan is to bring this movement to a head simultaneously with the mass meeting sponsored by the conference. Then, in closing this very lengthy report, he again outlines the im- portance of Hollywood. He says : Establishment of an industrial union in Hollywood will have rei)ercussions far beyond the industry itself. It will open up the virtually untouched field of the amusement industry as a whole — approximating close to 300,000 workers. More- over, it will have tremendous influence on the entire development of the CIO in Los Angeles County. As the largest compact industry in the county, it will be of inestimable value in giving the industrial union movement a solid base. And with Hollywood and its prestige linked to the harbor and the longshoremen, a tremendous spurt would be given the organizing movement as a whole. Respectfully submitted. (Signed) Jeff Kibre. Then a field representative for Hollywood. Then a significant note. He says : It is of extreme importance — because of the nature of work being carried on — that this report and the name of the representative be kept as confidential as possible. 1754 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. If you were to leave out all thoughts of communism there, or this man's communistic affiliations, there would be nothing peculiar about the report at all ; it would be just a very keen report, would it not, of what an industrial union could accomplish in that particular area ; is that not true ? Mr. Brewer. That's true, I think. I think that it shows specifically that the industrial-union movement in southern California, of which Mr. Bridges has been the spearhead, had a competent agent there who was laying a foundation for an industrial movement which would strengthen that industrial movement in the CIO. Mr. Owens. That is all we have so far. Mr. Brewer. Yes, but the next report is a little different. The next report was written to Mr. Bob Keed in New York City. Mr. Bob Reed was identified by Mr. Howard Rushmore in his testimony before the Un-American Activities Committee. Mr. Rushmore, who was a Communist agent at the time that this was taking place, identified Mr. Bob Reed as follows, and it is on page 176' of the hearings of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representa- tives, held in October of last year : That was the meeting I spoke of, in late 1937 or 1938, at whicli Hathaway was present, Lawson Jerome, as chairman, Bob Reed who was the commissar in Actors Equity, an organization on Broadway, and two or three others whose names I have forgotten. So Mr. Rushmore identified Mr. Reed as being at that period the commissar in Actors Equity. So on February 5, and presumably this was 1939, although the date is not shown, he says : My dear Bob — Well, one thing about Reds — they seldom write except on business — A number of things are on my mind. But first — it appears that the long- awaited siiow-down in the industry between the lA and real unity is now on its way. And that's the main business of this note. Also, I'm "still the undercover field rep. for the CIO in Hollywood." I point out, if he were writing to Mr. Reed as an agent of the CIO, he would not give that designation. Then he says : Rudy Kohl had to go back into the painters. Rudy Kohl, as I understand at that time was a local officer of local 644. It's been a slow, hard job, but we've been shaping things our way for the present crisis. Until the first of the year, our big fight was in the lATSE. For the first time, really had a rank and file movement going. Maneuvered State Assembly Comm. into an investigation of the outfit. Put the situation on the front page and blew it wide open, but was prevented from driving down the stretch and taking control when the Assembly Comm., because of weak-kneed progressives and powerful pressure, welshed on us. Nevertheless, we forced lifting of the special assessment and were on the way to building the union when the officials struck back with a stacked meeting and maneuvered a vote against local autonomy. The meeting was so phony, however (no discussion, goons, etc.) that it merely stopped us temporarily, forced us underground again. In the past month the situation has broadened considerably. Two main developments : First, worst unemployment in history of industry ; second, at- tempt of I A to secure complete jurisdiction over Hollywood by carrying on Holy Crusade against CIO. On the first issue, we've built an unemployment conference for joint action with all unions and guilds, except lA, participating. The conference has set up a central bureau to alleviate distress, and now is carrying on survey of working conditions, yearly income, et., with a view toward joint action to stabil- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1755 ize industry and force better working conditions from producers. I tliinli you can see the significance of this development. On the second issue, developments are in process ; main step is a move to establish a federation of all independent guilds for joint action, to secure recognition of defense against lA. Because of the developments nationally — lA threat, defection of Whitehead, et. — we may be able to bring the SAG into this conferenec ; if not, we will have all other guilds, plus cooperation of SAG as immediate prospect. Since the AFL has declared open war on CIO, it is only logical to espect that they will throw all support behind lA as best means of protecting their preserves in Hollywood and the amusement industry generally. However, we have built up, as a result of investigation, etc., terrific opposition to lA ; and this opposition to lA — as result of national developments — is now being trans- ferred to AFL. One strategic move remains to be set in motion ; the emergence of a progres- sive movement in key locals of the lA motion picture operator unions. Threat of using the operator locals as an economic lever to enforce their policies in Hollywood has been voiced by lA officials. Then he goes on to say : In the meantime, I wish you would discuss matter of lA action with Jack Statchel. Now, Jack Statchel was identified by a representative of the Thomas committee, the Committee on Un-American Activities at the time I testified. Here is the identification which the representatives of the Commit- tee on Un-American Activities made of Jack Statcheh They said: Jack Statchel is a member of the national committee of the national Com- munist Party. He is national director of the trade-union division of the Com- munist Party. At the Communist convention held on January 30, 1936, in Cleve- land, he made a report on the trade-union work at the convention. He has also been a member of the New York State Trade Union Commission of the party. He is a very well-known Communist figure. So here is Mr. Kibre reporting to Mr. Statchel and discussing with him the necessity and the procedure of building up what is later referred to as a national fraction in the lATSE. He said : In the meantime, I wish you would discuss matter of lA action with Jack Statchel, necessity of my getting in touch with contacts in the various cities, etc. I've taken it up with Paul Kline, but he feels personal appeal by you or VJ, rather than communication through official channels, would get quicker results. Now, the persons who have analyzed this have decided that VJ is V. J. Jerome, who at that time was head of the cultural commission of the Connnunist Party, and who was doing a great deal of work in Hollywood. He says : I know definitely that a Morris lushewitiz, publicity director of the MPO local of New York is one of our people. In this, 1 think. Congressman, he could only mean one of our people, one of our comrade Communists. Because this is written to a man who has been identified as a Comnumist, and he is referring in this letter to Communist activity. Mr. Owens. Did not the man have other affiliations than with the CIO? Mr. Brewer. This man was a member of our own union in New York City. He was writing to Mr. Reed about setting up a national fraction within tlie lATSE. And this man, Morris lushewitiz, is a member of local ;306 of the lATSE, New York. 1756 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. He could be "union people," could he not ? Mr. Brewer. He could be, but he is a member of the lATSE and they are talking about setting up a Communist fraction in the lATSE. Mr. Owens. They did not say that, though, did they ? Mr. Brewer. Yes ; they did. Mr. Owens. Communist fraction ? Mr. Brewer. The letter refers to it as a national fraction. Mr. Owens. He did not say Communist fraction, did he? Mr. Brewer. No, but he starts out the letter by saying, "One thing about Eeds, they seldom write except on business." Tliat is the first sentence in the letter, and he is writing to a man who is identified by Howard Rushmore, who was at that time an official of the Communist Party, and the commissar of Actors Equity in New York City. He says : Also, I understand we have a person in the Cleveland local who pulls con- siderable weight. It is Imperative that I get hold of all of these contacts, send them report on role of lA in Hollywood, exposure of Bioff, etc. Now, the next report which Mr. Kibre wrote is to Mr. Louis Gold- blatt. It is sent under date of November 8, 1938. Mr. Louis Gold- blatt was the then secretary of the State CIO, and who is associate of Mr. Harry Bridges in the longshoremen's union in San Francisco. In this report he outlines the developments that have been made, which to some extent follow the same line which 1 have read before, but he brings in a couple of very important items. In the first place, he outlines a change in strategy in this report, pointing out that the National Laboj- Relations Board has now entered the picture, and because of the indication that they will probably grant them an elec- tion, that he is going to abandon his program of the conference idea of setting up as a basis for industrial union, and is going to organize a frontal attack on the lATSE and petition for an election. In this he points out how he intends to utilize jurisdictional disputes as an instrument. He says as follows: Mr. Owens. This letter is to whom ? Mr. Brewer. Louis Goldblatt in San Francisco. He says : However, there are various factors present in the situation which lay this per- spective open to some serious question. The NLRB action against the lA has encouraged the filing of a great many other cases, some of which seek to raid the lA jurisdiction, and others merely seeking to cause trouble. Claims and counterclaims of jurisdiction are emerging. At the same time there is a deep- rooted conviction in the minds of the workers that the present set-up is hope- less— that it simply can't be really straightened out. Some fancy jurisdictional beefing through the Labor Board is likely to so com- plicate the picture that the workers will become disgusted. Such a situation is a fairly good possibility on the basis of present developments. This might demand not that slow prospective of amalgamation, but the more drastic method of an organization drive by the CIO. The latter is now a legitimate possibility because the Labor Board case prac- tically opens the field to a new organization. Such a drive would demand careful preparation. All of our tactics would have to be oriented immediately toward such a perspective, preparation of our rank and file groups, utilization of juris- dictional beefs. Labor Board actions, etc. Then the CIO drive would have to be so timed as to appear in a dramatic manner as the only means of cleaning up the situation. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1757 Then in closing he says : I am also sure that you can point out that our work in Hollywood has produced fairly good results. This is in connection with selling the ideas to the CIO convention. Certainly there have been major developments, initiated by us toward industrial unionism. And the substantial sum collected for our committee against Propo- sition No. 1 ($3,200) is an indication of the death of the influence we have developed in the major organizations. That is important, as I say. in my jndgment, as a further indication of the strategy which they were using. Mr. Owens"'. That was in 1939 ? Mr. Bkewer. That was in 1938— November 8, 1938. That ^vas the plan which eventually developed into the drive of the United Studio Technicians Guild, led by Mr. Kibre, and which, significantly enough, was, as Judge Levy pointed out. supported by Mr. Sorrell. He sup- ported the etlorts of tliis USTG, which was purportedly an independ- ent union, but which was pretty generally recognized as having CIO connection. So there has been a trend, through this whole period, that as far as I am concerned, is a part of a single drive to get the control of the studios into unions which were Communist dominated. Mr. Ow^ENS. So far you have really shown just a drive of the CIO, aside from that one letter to that one party where he mentioned the possibility Mv. Brewer. If you study the letter, the references to Jack Statchel, and to Bob Reed, who are now known to be Communist fimctionaries, I think you will see it. And there is some other testimony that comes along a little bit later, which so far as we are concerned, definitely estab- lishes the fact that it was a Communist drive. The next report here does not say just to whom it went, but I pre- sume it was to the CIO. and it is more or less of a progress report setting forth the proirress which they have made in their developments. One reference which is brief I will read. It seems to have some sig- nificance. It says : Further impetus for unity will be generated through the establishment of several Assembly Non-Partisan League clubs in and around Hollywood. These clubs are in process of formation at present. We hope to bring professional and craft members together in these clubs. It has been pointed out that Mr. Sorrell was the president of Labor's Non-Partisan League in the State of California. The next report which is set forth in here is probably one of the most interesting in the series. This has to do with the attendance of the national convention of the lATSE by Mr. Irving Henschel. Irving Henschel was a member of local 44 of the lATSE, and was appointed 1o the convention of the lATSE in 1938, and attended as a delegate. At that convention there was quite a little fuss about his presence. And this conmiunication points out that the acting secretary of the Communist Party in Ohio, Mr. Mac Weiss, wrote a protest to Roy Hudson in New^ York, who was the trade-union secretary of the Com- munist Party in New York, and has been so identified by the Committee on Un-American Activities through their testimony, complaining about the activities of Mr. Henschel at this convention and complain- 67383 — 48— vol. 3 17 1758 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ing about the actions of Jeff Kibre in his direction. And it reads in part as follows : The following is a brief report of the recent convention of the lATSE and motion picture operators which was lield in Cleveland last week. The outstanding feature of the convention from the viewpoint of the guest speakers invited — and so forth. Then it goes on to say : One of the delegates to the conventi(m. a party member from Hollywood by the name of Irving Henschel, came to Cleveland prepared to introduce a resolution which according to him was the position of the rank and file movement in the Hollywood studios. He immediately got in touch with Comrade Onda and another party member who is an officer ■' * * showing the resolution to them and asked their opinion. I would like to point out that in his letter to Mr. Bob Reed, Mr. Kibre pointed out that there was one of their group who carried considerable weight in the Cleveland local. Then he goes on to describe what went on there. He says : In the meantime, he had received a telegram from Jeff Kibre as well as a phone call from this same person who is the leader of the rank and file move- ment in Hollywood and according to Henschel, a party member, advising him to leave the convention tloor at once. We concurred in this advice. Then he summarizes his complaint by saying : It is our opinion that you should communicate with the west coast to follow up on this situation because there may be a whole series of explosions or i-e- prisals against the rank and tile movement there following the action of the convention. It was further the opinion of the fraction at the convention, that there is needed in this international a national fraction to coordinate the work as well as some medium through which the progressives can keep informed of developments in different part of the country. Comradely yours, Mac Weiss, Acting State Assistant Secretary, Ohio. Roy Hudson sent that communication along with his own communi- cation to a Walter Lambert in San Francisco, with a copy to Paul Cline. Lambert was a Iniown official of the Comunist Party at that time. He says : A few words in connection with the convention of the lATSE. I am enclosing a communication from Comrade Weiss of Ohio, who worked with our people in the convention. Incidentally, there were about 10 party mem- bers that we know of there. Also, I liad an opportunity to discuss the convention with people from New York on their return. Their remarks are in agreement with the points raised in Weiss' letter. It seems to me that this situation requires some immediate investigation in California. First, as to who Henschel is. The way he conducted himself at the convention aroused suspicion upon the part of the comrades. Whether it is en- tirely justified or not, we do not know. Nevertheless, it is important that we have the definite opinion of the party in California in order that our people may adopt a correct attitude toward HenScliel. Secondly, considering the situation in the international, our relative strength, etc., I think that in presenting such a resolution to the convention is nothing short of sheer stupidity and certainly must reflect a lack of guidance upon the part of the party to this work, because I cannot conceive of the party's advising such a thesis being sent to the convention. Thirdly, the manner in which it was sent by someone signing himself chairman of the lA Progressives — it is pretty hard to conceive of any of our people being so naive and inexperienced in trade-union tactics as to sign a resolution in this form, as it just lays the basis for an attack. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1759 On the basis of the above it seems to me there should be a thorough reexamina- tion of the methods of work of our people in Hollywood, and especially the approach to the lATSE. Secondly, in view of the fact that the administration is going to utilize this resolution for probably launching an offensive against the progi-essives in the union in Hollywood, we will have to do whatever can be done to prepare to meet this attack. Thirdly, the convention also adopted reac- tionary decisions regarding the various guilds in Hollywood. I think we should consider what can be done to try and counteract these reso- lutions, and to further campaign for unity of all the crafts. Finally, I think that we should try and keep closer contact with and have a more systematic exchange of information between our people in the lATSE in Hollywood and the people here in New York. Hereafter, when communications are sent, they will be brought directly to the attention of our fraction here. Like- wise, we would like to have the names of people in Hollywood in this organiza- tion with whom our people here could correspond directly. We expect to hear from you as soon as possible on the points raised in this letter. Comradely yours, Rot Hudson. Mr. OwExs. And Weiss' letter was addressed to Hudson? Mr. Brewer. Yes. Mr. Owens. What is your reaction about that? Wliat was your contention ? Mr. Brewer. It seems to me that that letter establishes very defi- nitely the fact that there was an undeground secret organization of the Communist Party working within the lATSE, and at this point it had been sort of disconnected; that there were fractions working in New York and in Cleveland, but that there had not been much coordi- nation between those activities and the activities in Hollywood. Mr. Owens. Who did Hudson address his letters to? Mr. Brewer. To Walter Lambert, an agent of the Communist Party in California. The next report is an interesting one because it is the answer of Jeff Kibre to the charges contained in Weiss' letter and Lambert's letter. I will not read much of it, but I will read the points with regard to Henschel because Henschel shows up in the 1945 strike. That is why I think this is important. He appears in the early Decem- ber of 1945 strike as the actual leader of the so-called rank-and-file movement that developed in the 1945 strike in support of the strike of the Conference of Studio Unions. This is dated July 14, 1938. It is directed to Comrade Walter Lam- bert, State trade-union director, San Francisco, Calif., with a copy to Paul Cline: Comrade Hudson's communication of June 21, based on Comrade Weiss' report on the recent lATSE convention in Cleveland, was turned over to me for discus- sion by the Studio Industrial Units. Discussions on the above have been held as follows : First, a thorough discussion with Comrade Henschel. who was a delegate from the Studio Local No. 37; second, detailed discussions with leading comrades in the lATSE and other studio unions ; and, lastly, the industrial trade- union commission, which represents both crafts and guilds. So far as the industrial-union commission which he refers to, that presumably is an undeground organization, because he says "which represents both crafts and guilds." There is no aboveboard organi- zation that we know of that compares to that at all. Mr. 0"W"ENS. What underground organization would be represent- hm crafts? 1760 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Brewek. It would seem to me that that is an indication that there was a commission that was part of the Communist secret or- ganization which represented the Communist Party members who were in the crafts and guilds, which was a sort of an over-all strategy, or for activities in the studios. That is the implication that I see in it. He says: The following conclusions were readied : 1. That the differences of opinion with respect to the resolution, approach to the lA, etc., grows out of a thorough luck of understanding by the comrades in the East of the role of the lATSE in the motion-picture industry, the prob- lems of the industry and, consequently, of our basic line. This lack of under- standing is also apparently wedded to a gross underestimation of the motion- picture industry as the foundation of the amusement industry. 2. That we affirm our confidence in Comrade Irving Hentscliel, who is a party member of 3 years' standing in the industry ; and further state that Comrade Hentschel, despite numerous mistakes, attempted to the best of his ability to carry out the instructions of the local party organization; and, finally, that most of his mistakes were the product of the tremendous pressure and intimi- dation exerted upon him by the lA officials, plus the lack of proper party guid- ance and counsel in Cleveland. 3. That because of the serious consequences of the lack of nmtual under- standing by the comrades in the East and our party in the industry, that we immediately prepare, with the participation of the county leadership, a thorough analysis of the general situation here; and that such analysis be used as the basis for a thorough discussion of the national situation — with the advisability, if possible, of a conference between a representative from' Holly- wood and the East — or vice versa. And then in the latter part of that report he says : As far back as last fall we suggested the necessity of a national fraction. Subsequently, I wrote to various contacts in New York, but received no answer. In February I sent a more urgent plea, through the secretary of the * * * actors' fraction in New York, to Comrade Statchel. Obviously, that is a reference to the Bob Reed letter. No answer was forthcoming. In addition, I urged Bob Kaye to secure I A contacts and put them' in touch with me. There were no results. Certainly we welcome a national fraction. In conclusion it should be reiterated that the role of the lATSE in the in- dustry is that of a company union. And because the industry faces a growing shrinkage in income, and thus will demand further cuts in wages, the lA as a company instrument must become industry-wide to fulfill its role. That is the situation in Hollywood ; and if Hollywood is accepted as the foundation of the amusement industry, then certainly this situation must be a determining factor in the approach toward the lA nationally. That completes the high spots of these reports. I will leave copies of them. Mr. Owens. Where did you get those? Mr. Brewer. Those were published by the Los Angeles Citizen. Mr. Owens. Where did you get them ? Mr. Brewer. I was not there at the time, but the information which I have received is that during all this activity in Los Angeles, there was a great deal of litigation, and there were contempt proceedings, and in one proceeding Mr. Kibre was cited for contempt, and was sub- penaed. and he failed to respond to a subpena. Mr. Owens. We will accept that for reference purposes. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. BREA^^ER. In order to follow through on that, I want to present to you as evidence of this rank-and-file activity some of the articles which appeared in the newspapers in connection with the 1945 strike. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1761 Mr. Owens. We are waiting for some facts from you, you know. We have had a great deal of newspaper items in the hearings. Mr. Brewer. All right, Congressman. The facts are that one of the first individuals that I ran into, as I stated, in Hollywood, was Irving Henschel. Irving Henschel failed to go through the picket lines at AVarner Bros., and participated actively in an organization of prop makers, which was his particular line of work. Mr. OwExs. AATien was that? Mr. Brewer. That was in March of 1945. Mr. Owens. At the time of the strike ? Mr. Brewer. Yes ; in an effort to keep these prop makers from going into the studios. Mr. Owens. He was a member of which of the lA unions ? Mr. Breaver. Local No. 44. Mr. Owens. That was what? Mr. Brewer. That was the Allied Property Craftsmen's local. In the course of this activity, as I said, he indicated to me personally that he was very antagonistic to our organization. Mr. Owens. What did he say ? Mr. Brewer. He said that the lATSE was racketeering organiza- tion, and we were asking our men to become strikebreakers, and that we were taking the wrong position with regard to the set-decorators issue, and that the lA had in some instances usurped the jurisdiction of the carpenters, and was repeating all of the things that were being generally said at that time with regard to the position of the lATSE in controversy. Mr. OvrENS. WTiat did you do about it? Mr. Brewer. At that time, of course, we were very busy. We at- tempted to persude the people that they were wrong and we were acting, as we saw it, in the best interests of the International Alliance. We were not successful at all with Mr. Henschel in convincing him, but before too many days went by Mr. Henschel and his group did go through the picket lines. Mr. Owens. uHien did the}^ go through? How long after? Mr. Bre-^^-er. I would say it was probably the second or third day of the strike they decided to go through. Then, of course, one of the very major problems with which we were confronted in the studios was that of getting sets built. Because the carpenters had walked off the sets, and if we did not build sets, the studios would close, and if the studios were closed, that would gi\^e Mr. Sorrell and the carpenters' union an opening to force jurisdictional concessions which would injure our organization. And the principal craftsmen that we had to rely on to build the sets during this period, which we hoped at that time would be a short one, were in local 44 of the Allied Property Craftsmen. So at a meeting of this local on March 29, which it seemed would be a rather routine meeting, and as a general thing our meetings had been rather poorly attended in these unions wliere they had this agitation, Mr. Henschel and the same group of property craftsmen came in and presented a motion to tlie local union which stated in substance that these men should not move out of the jurisdiction which they had, and that any man that did so would be subject to penalty by the local. This motion was presented, and this action was taken, notwithstand- ing the fact that President Walsh had, using his powers under the 1762 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES constitution, in this situation which he considered to be the most seri- ous one that the alliance had ever faced in his period, instructed our local unions that it was imperative in the interest of the alliance to do everything within their power to see that the studios did not close. If this motion was successful in its objective, it would mean the clos- ing of the studios. And Henschel led the fight to get that motion adopted, and was successful in getting it adopted. Mr. OwExs. Did you know prior to that time that he was supposed to have communistic affiliations? Mr. Brewer. I did not. Mr. Owens. No one knew that ? Mr. Brewer. As he began to appear as a troublemaker, I got in- formation about it from individuals. They referred to him as being a "commie." Mr. Owens. Was his name mentioned 5 or 6 or 7 years before that? Mr. Brew^er. Yes. Mr. Owens. You mean to say that his name was mentioned 7 years before that, and you would not have known it up to that time? Mr. Brewer. That's right. I was not an officer of the lA. I be- came an international officer of the lA in January of 1045, and up to that time he had not been called to my attention as a particular person- ality in the situation. However, as I say my associates there pointed out to me that he had been one of the principal troublemakers in the other controversy and that he had this reputation of being a Com- munist. Mr. Owens. I see. Mr. Brewer. He led this fight and was successful in getting this motion passed. I think there were about 200 members at the meet- ing. The membership of that local was about 1,600. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, I immediately then reported to President Walsh, who had gone back to New York in an effort to negotiate with Mr. Hutcheson, and recommended that the emergency powers of the international be invoked and the local be taken over under an emergency. That was done in the course of time, in accordance with our consti- tutional provisions. Then Mr. Henschel organized a rank-and-file movement. He organ- ized a mass meeting at the Legion Stadium of I A people who were challenging the authority of President Walsh, who were holding them- selves out as lA members, who were not in sympathy with the lATSE but were in sympathy with the Conference of Studio Unions. It is in connection with this that I have some excerpts from the news stories which were written about those meetings, which I thought might be valuable to us, as to what the press, at least, thought and saw in these rank-and-file movements. That controversy raged. In due course we filed charges against Henschel, under our constitution, and started a trial. During the course of this activity on the part of Henschel he had had the sup- port and cooperation of four of the local unions of the International Alliance in varying degrees. The principal local union that seemed to support him was local 683, the film technicians, which are the per- sons who process the film in the laboratories. The other local was the costumers local. No. 705. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1763 In the first organization the officers were Russell McKnight, presi- dent, Norvall Cnitcher, secretary, and John Martin, business agent. In the costumers' local the principal officer was the business agent, whose name was Ted Ellswoi-th. and in the cameraman's local the principal officer was Herbert AUer, and in local 659, the sound tech- nicians, the principal officer was Harold Smith. Their activities appeared not as clearly as the activities of Henschel, but at Henschel 's meeting it was reported that a committee of busi- ness agents had met with him in an effort to wait upon President Walsh and ask him to take certain action which seemed to be in the interest of the Conference of Studio Unions, and in due course a com- mittee of these four locals appeared. So it became our responsibility, insofar as we could, to determine what was causing this disaffection within our own organization, and to what extent the Comnumist influence played a part in that. We analyzed the activities of these local unions, and it began to develop that local 683, the film technicians' union, had a pretty consistent rec- ord of supporting Communist Party activities. Communist Party pro- grams, and generally followed the Communist Party line. They also had on retainer a law firm known as Katz, Gallagher & Margolis. Mr. Owens. What made you determine the fact that you just said? Mr. Brewer. First of all, by the fact that on the opening day of the strike, in direct contradiction to the instructions which President Walsh had send as international president to all of our local unions, they went out on strike with Sorrell. It took quite some argument and maneuvering with them to get them to agree not to support the strike and go back to work, and in their pronoucements of the situa- tion they were critical. They followed about the same line, so far as public statements were concerned, resolutions', and so forth, that Mr. Henschel and his group followed. Mr. Owens. Yes; but they went back to work? Mr. Breaver. They did go back to work ; yes. As I say, it was under the direct instructions of tlie international. Mr. Owens. How long did they stay out? ]\lr. Brewer. They were out from Monday until Thursday. Mr. Owens. Just like Henschel? Mr. Brewer. Just about that long, yes ; the first few days. I have here a communication which I sent. Another thing that this local did as time went on was to begin send- ing circulars throughout the United States to our other lATSE locals, criticizing the conduct of the strike insofar as President Walsh and my- self were concerned. They circularized all the other locals in the lATSE through the Xation. As a result of a study of the whole situa- tion, we reached the conclusion, positively, that that local union was under the domination of persons who were following the Communist Party line. Mr. Owens. Yes; maybe you did in your own mind, but what else brought you to that conclusion ? ]\Ir. Brewer. Well, it is pietty hard at this point to recite all of the things. But I set forth some of the things in this letter which I think are pretty pertinent. It is much easier for me to give the specific things; if you would like to have me read it I would like to do that. 1764 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. Just read the pertinent parts, and then we will take it in as a reference. Mr. Brewer. All right, here are the points: In the first place, we began looking back at this local union. These three officers that I men- tioned came into power in that local union in 1940. Mr. McCanx. Mr. Chairman, do you have tlie date of the letter? Mr. Owens. That was in March of 1945 ; was it not? Mr. Brewer. The date of this letter was later, but it sets forth the acts which they carried on, Mr. (JWENS. What date shows on that? Mr. Brewer. May 10, 1946. We found that the official publication of this union had followed the Communist Party line in the violent turn which that line took at the time of the attack upon Russia by Hitler. Mr. Owens. Of course, back in that time, talking about 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940, when you are talking about the lA being cut from the union, and so forth, from some of the other things that were hap- pening, they probably had some right to feel that way, did they not? Mr. Brewer. Yes ; as a matter of fact, they did. I would like to say in connection with that, that this local union, ever since these officers had been elected, had been known in our organization as at least antago- nistic to the officials of the lATSE. They made themselves quite prominent in the various conventions. There was a feeling at that time that they were antagonistic, but after this matter came out and Brown was convicted, and Biolf was convicted, there was a feeling on the part of President Walsh and myself that perhaps there was some justification, and that these people were honest people. President Walsh told me that he had sincerely tried to go in and work with this group of people, because they seemed to be qualified leaders. On the surface they seemed to have the interests of their organization at heart. So I know that President Walsh and myself under his instructions approached this situation with this local union with the idea that we were going to assume that they meant well, and that if the things they had objected to were corrected, that they would become the same as any other union of the lATSE. Unfortunately, when we got in a right critical period, and when there were none of those things to which they could object, they found other things to object to. And they raised false issues, and they misled our membership, and they did everything they could in times of crises, not only at this time, but at a later time, to help those who were trying to destroy us. Here is a list of the things which I pointed out. They were against war. Here is a brief paragraph from an editorial in Flashes, which was their official publication, edited by the president, Mr. McKnight. Mr. Owens. The film technicians ? Mr. Brewer. Yes; our own local union. He said in March of 1941, during the time of the pact : Does lend-lease mean warV Although senatorial debate on the lend-lease bin * * * if g official and somewhat ironic title, is now drawing to a close, American labor is still wondering whether bill's passage will make for democracy or dictatorship ; national strength or national weakness ; peace or war * * * even the bill's proponents do not deny that the measure gives more unrestrained power, actual dictatorial power, to the Pi-esident than has ever been dreamed of in American history * * *. Once the bill becomes law, America can only MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1765 hope that the Chief Executive will be guided by discretion, honesty, and a love of country that is even greater than his hatred of Hitlerism * * *. But even these vital considerations are submerged by the danger of an all-inclusive catas- trophe—American involvement in the war, a war which would inevitably bring the dictatorship, chaos, and poverty, in which labor would find itself on the firing line at home as well as on foreign battlefields * * *. Labor cannot be blamed for wondering, too, if tlie Government, against overwhelming public sentiment, and like the Wilson administration in 1917 is not already secretly committed to America's entrance into Europe's war. And after the Hitler-Stalin pact: Hitlerism shall be triumphant — nowhere. Today, in America, there is another problem facing rich and poor alike — which overshadows in importance everything else — and that is the fear of a Hitler-dominated world^and inevitably — a Hitler- dominated United States. Mr. Owens. What was the date of that ? Mr. Brewer. November 194:1. Mr. Levy. That was not after the Hitler-Stalin, that was after the breach. Mr. Brewer. That was after the attack on Russia by Hitler. That, we felt, was somewhat significant in view of the develop- ments that were taking place. Here are some other things : Local 683 was active in the founding and promotion of the Peoples Educa- tional Center — which was branded by the California Legislature's Joint Com- mittee on Un-American Activities as a "Communist School," serving the program of the Communist Party through the propagation of Marxism-Leninism. Mc- Knight is at present listed as one of the directors of the school. That was on May 10, 1946. He was a director of the school. Mr. Owens. What was the name of the school ? Mr. Brewer. Peoples Educational Center. McKnight, Crutcher, and Martin, have retained as legal counsel of local 683, the law firm of Katz, Gallagher & Margolis. This firm, openly recognized as a Communist law firm, is counsel for most of the conference unions, as well as for CIO unions and openly recognized Communist organizations and movements. Katz was attorney for tlie Communist Jeff Kibre, and the Communist-inspired United Studio Technicians Guild — which tried almost the same scheme to wreck the lATSE in 1939, that the conference tried in 1945. Mr. Ov^ENs. You mentioned Kibre a number of times. How was the communism developed, that he was actually a Communist? Mr. Brewer. It was through the publication of those reports, which he did not deny, finally, and after he left Hollywood, as a result of his defeat in the election which ensued, he went to work for the CIO and was engaged in the North American Aviation strike at Englewood, Calif., which President Roosevelt said was a political strike, and is at the jiresent time an officer in the CIO Fishermen's Union on the west coast, which is considered to be Communist-dominated, and he was designated by the Committee on Un-i^merican Activities of the California State Legislature. Mr. Owens. That I think is what I inquired before, where Frank- enstein was involved. That is where he was involved, was it not? Mr. Brewer. That may have been. I was not there at the time, but it is possible that that was it. Mr. Owens. He went with the fishermen ? Mr. Brewer. Yes, the CIO Fishermen's Union. He was recently indicted and convicted in a Federal action involving restraint of trade, and that case, I understand, is now on appeal. 1766 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Going Oil further, it says : Gallagher is an openly admitted well-known Communist, having been a candi- date on the Communist ticket in California elections. The tirm was offlcially condemned by resolution of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council in November 1944. Mr, Owens. Is that his real name, Gallagher ? Mr. Brewek. Gallagher, yes. The firm was officially condemned by resolution of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council in November 1944, for supporting known Communist causes and CIO jurisdic- tional rating against AFL unions. I would like to say at this point that I don't completely share the views of our counsel, Judge Levy, in that this firm has played a very important part so far as we were concerned in the efforts of unions which we were firmly convinced were Communist-dominated to wreck our organization. They ap- peared time and time and time again. They were tlie attorneys for Henschel, in addition to being the attorneys for 683. Mr. Owens. You have done pretty well so far. Mr. Brewer. Thank you. Mr. Levy. I should say that. Mr. Brewer (reading) : Local 683 paid Katz, Gallager & Margolis a legal fee of $3,000 by a curious coin- cidence, just before the firm filed suit against the international on behalf of 21 members of local 44 who were cooperating with the conference program by trying to persuade lATSE members to disobey instructions of President Walsh, issued to protect our organization during the strike. Also, when charges were filed against these members of local 44, they were defended at the union trial by John Miirin and other oflicers of local 683. There never has been a satisfactory explanation of the legal services for which the $3,000 fee was paid. Mr. Owens. You expect attorneys to talk about that^ Mr. Brewer. No, we wouldn't expect them to. Now, the one item we think significant : Sam Goldblatt, an able assistant to McKnight in the disruption program of the officers of local 683, is the brother of the secretary of the Communist domi- nated CIO State Council of California. He was a member of local 683, actively working with these three officers, and he is the brother of the same Louis Goldblatt to whom Jeff Kibre wrote in the reports which I showed you. 5. At the height of the Communist-organized and directed violence at the Warner Studios in Burbank in 194.1, McKnight spoke at a mass meeting of a fake citizens committee, organized by the Communists and fellow travelers, with the usual full complement front groups respresented, and publicly condemned the IATSE for attempting to resist the efforts of the Communist mob to create a reign of terror in Hollywood, that became a Nation-wide scandal. Mr. Owens. Who was present at that meeting? Mr. Brewer. I am sorry, I do not have that information, but I can get it for you and I shall do so. There are so many of these things that it is just impossible to get everything. But I will supply that. Mr. Owens. I just break in at a certain time where I think it is material. Each time I am disappointed. I do not get what I ask for. Mr. Brewer. I will see that you get it. Mr. Owens. I do not mean disappointed, necessarily ; at least I feel when you testify, when you testify so definitely that it is a fact, that you hit out, that there should be some specific proof at that point. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1767 Mr. Brewer, I will supply to this committee a list of those persons and a dossier of their background in Communist activities, and Com- munist front organizations. All of these things, as I say, began to fit together as far as I was concerned, into a pattern. The attitude of this local union, while they did not go out on strike in support of the Conference of Studio Unions in the first strike, their activities and their attitudes during this whole period were belligerent and antagonistic to our organizations, and conveyed the impressions to the public in almost every instance that seemed available to them to condemn our organization and to show sympathy and to show favor- abl.y the position of the CSU. Mr. Owens. How do they explain their going through the picket lines, then ? Mr. Brewer. They were not permitted by the laws of our organiza- tion to do anything else. As a matter of iact, there did come a time when they did observe the picket lines. It was in the second strike. But all their agitational capacities were thrown into the efforts of the Conference of Studio Unions, and we had meetings of our business agents at various offices of our unions, and it got to be a standing joke with all of our officers of our other unions that we would look at the CSU Xews, and we knew what position John Martin and his officers were going to take in our meetings. So he came into our meet- ings and attempted to put over the line of the Conference of Studio Unions in our meetings. He did it not once but consistently, day after day, week after week, and month after month. Mr. OwEXS. Do you have any copies of that CSU News ? Mr. Brewer. Yes; I have volumes of it. As I say, there was an- other organizaiton that cooperated with them, local 705. While they were not as belligerent as 683, generally speaking the business agent of local 705, Ted Ellsworth, went along with them, and he was active in organizations which we considered to be Communist fronts, and at a critical time in the 1945 strike he went on the air and spoke against the lATSE with the citizens committee, which included Phil Connoll}^ of the CIO, Carey Mc Williams, a writer who has been in many Com- munists fronts, Artie Shaw, the band leader, and Mr. Sorrell was on the same progi-am with one of our own business agents, attacking the position of the lATSE on a broadcast. Mr. OwEXS. Was that before the Cincinnati meeting? Mr. Brewer. Yes. So that all of these things added together, any one of these instances that we had to contend with, you could isolate it and say that proves nothing, but when you put them all together, there developed a pattern that as far as we were concerned seemed conclusive that there was something wrong. Now we come to the second strike. During this period of January, after the Cincinnati settlement, and the meetings held in Miami, there was a series of incidents. The studios were kept in a turmoil during that entire period. When the directive came down, they challenged the directive and went down to Miami, and attempted to have the direc- tive set aside. They failed in that. So upon returning from Miami the Conference of Studio Unions issued an ultimatum to the studios, in which they said that unless we have a 50-percent increase within 10 days, we will go out on strike. 1768 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. OwEXS. Who said that ? Mr. Brewer. The Conference of Studio Unions. They set February 16 as the date which they were going to strike unless their demand for a 50-percent wage increase was met. It was no secret around the lots that the strategy behind this move was to create a wages-and-hours issue, that they had put up juris- dictional picket lines, that they had been unsuccessful in closing the studios, so this time they were going to create a wages-and-hours issue, and they thought they could bring enough moral pressure on the actors and other unions to force their cooperation on a wages-and-hours issue, even though it were a 50-percent increase in 10 days. Mr. Owens. It was rather a heavy increase to create a moral pressure. Mr. Brewer. We felt it was not right for one union to get that. That was the situation that caused these unions to join together with the central labor council and demand that they go through tlie procedure of the central labor council and serve public notice on them, that unless the}^ did go through the procedure of the central labor council we would not observe their picket lines for that any more than we did tlieir jurisdictional picket lines. They backed down on that strike, and they continued to negotiate. On April 18 another strike threat came up. I heard Mr. Bodle's question that they did not threaten to strike in April. At least we thought they had. We thought they had strongly enough that we issued another ultimatum with our unions. The unions all got together, the actors and all of them. In any event, the strike did not come out. Then the agitation continued and there was a series of hot sets in June. Mr. Owens. Wlio created hot sets in June? Mr. Brewer. That is a story of itself ; and if you want to, I will go into that. Mr. Owens. You can do it briefly. Mr. Brewer. That came to pass over the machinists' issue. When the Cincinnati strike settlement was made, there were some 40 ma- chinists who had gone back to work and had joined the lATSE, who had previously been members of 1185. When the Cincinnati settlement was made, CSU demanded that those 40 men be taken off the job as a condition of going back to work. We protested vigorously that action to the producers and to tlie CSU, but without avail. So that the pro- ducers, for the most part, were paying tliese people but were not letting them Avork because of the opposition of the CSU. Those men were all members of the TATSE. The situation went along; and at that time, as you know, the machinists were not members of the American Federation of Labor. So these men applied, and I make no hesitancy to sav that we assisted them because they were members, and we felt obligated to them, and we were very concerned about the fact that these 40 men were being deprived of jobs; so they got a charter from the American Federation of Labor, and when they got that charter we went to the producers' association and demanded that these men be peimitted to work, in cooperation with the other A. F. of L. unions ; the central labor council and the other A. F. of L. unions requested that these people be permitted to work. Mr. Owens. Did they get a charter as a machinists' union? Mr. Brewer. Yes; they did. The stand that had been taken here- tofore by the CSU was that they were scabs, and therefore they couldn't MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1769 work. When they got membership in the American Federation of Labor we said they should be permitted to work. I think it was at that time that the Conference of Studio Unions said they would strike. My recollection is just a little bit hazy about that, but I think that was the incident which created what we thought was tlie April 18 threat. But some place along this line there were some hot — the central labor council and our unions took action against the producers' asso- ciation to get them to put these machinists back to work. We said that if the Conference of Studio Unions won't work with A. F. of L. machinists, then we won't work with 1185 machinists. I mean that was the position of the central labor council, and we supported them. Mr. Owens. Was it covered by the directive ? Mr. Brewer. As was i)ointed out by Mr. Brown, the directive was very hazy in that regard. It was work on cameras ; it was not work on motion-picture machines. So that we, in cooperation with the other A. F. of L. unions, said that if the CSU will not work with A. F. of L. men on the cameras, we won't work with the CSU men. That resulted in a retaliatory action by the Conference of Studio Unions, and it was something to do with technicolor cameras. The issue seemed to come to a head on technicolor. So the conference in June took the position that they would not work on technicolor sets. Finally the producers filed a petition for certification with the Board, and we agreed to be bound by what the Board decided in the matter, and finally the conference did, too, and that situation was alleviated. But that issue came back into the July 2 strike. Mr. Owt:ns. You created that issue yourself, did you not? Mr. Brewer. To some extent we did; yes. We do not hesitate to say that our men were being unfairly treated, we felt, and we did use our position to help protect them. So that issue came into the July 2 strike. And then there was the July 2 strike, which was another confused situation, in which the issues seemed to be over a demand by the conference that they be given a closed-shop agreement for machinists, or at least a preferred position on machinists, and the producers dis- agreed; and then after the strike had been called, Sorrell sent out a telegram to all the local unions, including our union, saying that it was not a jurisdictional issue at all; it was purely a wage-and-hour issue. Mr. Owens. You are talking about what date now? Mr. Brewer. July 2. Mr. Owens. The day of the so-called Beverly Hills treaty? Mr. Brewer. Yes. When he sent this wire, it came into my pos- session that he was withdrawing the machinists' issue and agreeing to let it be settled by the National Labor Relations Board. When I got that wire, I immediately sent him a reply saying that if what he said was true in that wire, I would personally go with him to the producers' association and help adjust the issues which were creat- ing the strike. About that time I heard that Mr. Sorrell was address- ing the meeting at Grips' Hall, which was a combination of grips and 1770 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES teamsters — the meeting that was described in connection with Mr. Mulkey's testimony. I immediately went over there and went on the platform and publicly made the same challenge. Sorrell said he did mean wliat he said. We set up the meeting which resulted in the treaty of Beverly Hills. That is how that came about. That was the 2d of July, and we had a period of approximately a month, then. There was' a lot of turmoil. Incidentally, that took place immediately preceding our national convention in Chicago, when we were most of us getting ready to go to Chicago, so that things remained quite a bit in a status quo. We were trying to nego- tiate wages and clean up some of the odds and ends, and then we left for Chicago. It was during the time that we were at Chicago that the executive council met and handed down the clarification, which opened it up again. So that there was no period when there was any calm in the studios during that whole period. In addition to these things that I have mentioned, the conference had what they called a conference of stewards. They were attempt- ing to organize, independent of our union lines, an organization of stewards on the back lot. One of the individuals that was very active in organizing this council of stewards was Mr. Helmar Bergman, who has been mentioned here. So, in every phase of this thing, there was an indication to us that the drive for power was still on, the agita- tion was continuing; and I do not deny that we did not begin setting up our defenses, because we did. W^e felt if this thing was going to be a fight to the finish, we were going to protect ourselves, and we began to organize our own groups and gather as many groups as we could around to protect ourselves. That was the situation we were confronted with when the clarifica- tion came down. You know the testimony pretty generally from there on. After the 1946 strike was called, we found the same attitude on the part of the costumers' local, and on the part of 68.3 with res})ect to public statements. The other two local unions that I mentioned were solid behind the lATSE in this new situation — that is, the canieramen and the soundmen — but these two locals, local 705, and particularly the business agent of local 705, the costumers, and the film technicians' local (JSS, were still pursuing the same type of tactics that they had pui-sued before. The strike ran on from September until the 13th of October, and on the loth of October local 688 called an illegal strike under our con- stitution and went out in sympathy and joined completely the forces of the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. Owens. How about the other group ? Mr. Brewer. Seven hundred and five did not. There was an effort made to do that. A great deal of agitation was created ; but when the show-down came, I went to the meeting myself and talked to the local union, and the local itself voted it down. Mr. Owens. That was the costumers ? Mr. Brewer. Yes. The local union voted it down, but there was a great deal of opposition to our position by the business agent of that local. The way the situation developed, it got out of his hands. In MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1771 analyzing it, I think I can honestly and safely say he did everything he could to create the same situation in that local union but failed. Mr. Owens. AVlien did 683 join the CSU? Mr. Brewer. October 1^3, 194(). On October 15 the international placed the local under emergency and suspended the powers of its officers. They defied the power of the international union ; said that they were not going to surrender the properties ; they barricaded their offices, created a sort of arsenal up there, put up a trap door, and carried on a game of cops and robbers that was pretty fantastic; but they successfully retained control of that headquarters for a year after that. They apparently thought we were going to try to seize the local by force, which we did not do. We served the official notices on them, and they rejected the notices. Then we proceeded to establish a new local union in accordance with our constitution, and set up new headquarters, and carried on. We established ourselves as the legal successors for the local unions, negotiated the contracts, got as many of the people back to work as we could persuade to go back to work, and carried on. Mr. Owens. In other words, the men had not crossed the picket lines, and you organized with either new men or some that you could get from the old local ? ]Mr. Brewer. They officially declared a strike. They officially went out on strike with the Conference of Studio Unions. One of the things they had done was to prevent us from closing the V7age negotiations for both of these locals. We had worked very hard to get a contract for these two local unions; and, as a matter of fact, thev had up to that point received an offer which averaged 41-percent increase for the total membership of their local union. And they had rejected it. They had misled their membership and had led their membership into believing that they were not going to get a contract, with the result that they presented to their members that a part of this problem was that they had no contract, and the real reason they did not have a contract was because the international had not helped them; and that was part of their agitational program to get the people out on strike. That was despite the fact, as I say, that they had received an offer from the producers of better than 40 percent increase over-all. ]Mr. Owens. How do you justify the fact that while you were repre- senting them, they were getting pay that would, in turn, permit the producers to be able to pay 40 percent more, at that time ? Mr. Brewer. I am not sure I understand youi- question. Mr. Owens. In other words, you were representing them. jVlr. Brewer. Up to that point, we had not been representing them; we had only been sitting up with the officers. ]Mr. Owens. In other words, handling their own deals with the producers? Mr. Brewer. That is right ; we Avere only acting as assistants. Mr. Owens. They evidently were not being paid enough then ; that is a cinch. Mr. Brewer. Their wages, relatively speaking, were low; but the average scale for the bulk of the workers was at that time $1.26 an hour-, and we had received an offer of 40 percent over that, on an average. 1772 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Speaking in terms of the studios, their wages were relatively low ; but speaking in terms of over-all, they were not bad wages, because a large percentage of their members were women, and $1.26 an hour at that time was not a real low wage, comparatively speaking, for women. There were many women that were working for less. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Brewer comes on in the morning with what ques- tions we have, and we will take Mr. Sorrell directly after the ques- tioning. We will meet tomorrow up in room 429. We stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the hearing adjourned until 10 a. m., Tues- day, March 2, 1948.) JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION -PICTUEE INDUSTRY TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington^ D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon, Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order. We will ask Mr. Brewer to resume the stand. I do not know whether you had finished, Mr. Brewer. TESTIMONY OF ROY M. BREWER— Continued Mr. Brewer. No ; 1 had not finished, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. All right; let us move along. Mr. Brewer. At the close of the hearing last night I had outlined the efforts and the success which the officers of this local 683 had achieved in preparing their membership, in convincing them that there was a wage issue involved, which was really not the case, and in getting them to go out on strike. As I pointed out, we placed the local under emergency in accordance with our constitution, and the headquarters of that local was barri- caded by these local officers and became a virtual arsenal. Reports that filtered out told of the weapons that were available there. And it was at this point, or shortly after this, that the real violence in the strike situation developed. Mr. McCann. Would you give us the date to place that by, sir? Mr. Brewer. 683 joined the strike in October 13, 1946, and it was following that period, between October 13 and the first part of Novem- ber of that year, that tlie real violence began to take place. One of the very key factors in the situation was the Technicolor laboratory. At that time these men walked out there were $20,000,- . 000 worth of unfinished negatives ready for processing in the laboratory. At least, that is the estimate that has been given. A large proportion of the product which was available to the major producers was in Technicolor. Therefore, the closing of the Techni- color laboratory was a very serious situation. And, as a matter of fact, if the laboratories had been closed and stayed closed, it would have closed down the studios, because in the process of making pic- tures it is necessary for the directors and the producers to see the dailies. After they have shot a set, before they will tear that set down, they look at the pictures they have taken on film. So that, 1773 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 18 1774 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES without the availability of processed film within a reasonable period after it is shot, the studios would have slowly closed. The strike at the outset was quite effective. We bent our efforts toward <>etting the Technicolor laboratory operating. Ordinarily when an international union disavows a strike and orders the people back to work, that has a rather substantial effect on the attitude of the workers because, particularly under our union constitution, the su- preme authority of the union is the international. But in this case it had very little effect. The first case of major violence was the bombing of the home of Norman Potter, a member of our union in the Technicolor laboratory. He had gone back to work about, I guess, 4 or 5 days after that local had gone out, and one morning a bomb was thrown in front of his place and the front end of the house was blown off. There were a series of such incidents — five bombings in all — and there were some severe beatings, and they seemed to concentrate on the men that were employed in Technicolor. So that we arrived at the conclusion that the headquarters of this violence was the old officers of local 683. We were, however, successful in getting these laboratories rolling for a period of 30 days after October 16; the Technicolor laboratory was very seriously crippled, so far as output was concerned, but at the end of 30 days quite a sub- stantial number of the workers started to come back to work and in a reasonable time the laboratory was operating satisfactorily. On October 21, as I recall it, I went to the headquarters of this local and served the request on them to turn over the papers and properties to our international, in accordance with our constitution. I went there with an agent of the sheriff's office, who was not an officer, but rather a process server. As far as I am concerned, that was the only time during the strike that I felt that I was in physical danger. We had quite a little time there, but f ortunateh^ a car from the Los Angeles Police Department drove up and there were no serious difficulties but they did refuse to turn over the properties of the local. From the point of October 13, local 683 was, then, an integral part of all strike activities. They joined in the picket lines, they partici- pated in the mass lines, and as I say, their headquarters was open day and night. There were guards in front of their place day and night. In the course of events we filed a suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asking the court to require them to turn over the properties of the local. That lawsuit was never tried because just about a year afterward they did turn over the proptMlies voluntarily and the lawsuit was dismissed. When we took over that headquarters, we saw the effects of that, activity that had gone on. They had constructed a huge door, a trap- door that could be released by the pulling of a string, which would close the entrance. In addition to that, they had brought all of the files from the offices and set them right close to the stairway so that if you got by the trap- door, they could shove the files down on anyone that tried to get up there. They had systems of bell alarms rigged up. They had a man watch- ing out on the roof. There was a building adjoining. They had a MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1775 man posted there, obviously with a button, so if lie saw anyone, they could rino- the bell and spread the alarm. The headquarters of that local union was completel}^ wrecked so far as any further use was concerned. The furniture was broken and scratched, the place looked like it had not been cleaned for months. We have just now finished reconditionin When I asked through Mr. McCann the question- of Mr. Hutcheson "Doesn't the resolution itself say that it is itself on strike," he saySy MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1823 "I can't control what the resokition says." But the convention unani- mously adopted this resolution. So the statement that they were merely recognizing a picket line is, I repeat, a euphemism for the purpose of the situation — out of their own mouths. Whereas the executive council of the American Federation of Labor ordered the termination of the strike, and a committee of three, comprised of vice presi- dents of the American Federation of Labor were appointed to review the studio situation ; and Whereas they handed down a directive which would give work that rightfully belongs to the carpenter to the lATSE : Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this convention go on record protesting the action of the execu- tive council of the American Federation of Labor in accepting the report of the subcommittee and ignoring the fact that the general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America was not given an opportunity by the subcommittee of the American Fedei-ation of Labor to present claims of jurisdiction for the work in question ; thei'efore be it further Resolved, That this convention instruct the general executive board of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America to protest to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor against the action of the executive council in accepting the report of the subcommittee in issuing the di- rective which they did, and ask immediate restoration of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America jurisdiction over that work that rightfully belongs to them. Respectfully submitted. C. A. Sproul, President, Local 946. Ben Pkice,, Vice President, Local 9.'f6. H. L. Leake, Local 1313. V. E. Whalen, Local 772. Frank Hyatt, Local 767. H. E. Herron, Local 767. Your committee recommends concurrence in this resolution. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the report of the committee. Delegate Sproul, Local 946. Mr. President and Delegates to this convention : The only purpose in bring this before the convention is to let you boys know the meaning of this resolution. We were on the picket line 35 weeks. We observed the picket lines of the painters and were ordered back to work after 35 weeks, and they said they would settle the strike on the matter of juris- diction. President Green, of the American Federation of Labor, appointed a committee of three to go into the studio and give him a report. The bad things about this report was- that they did not, in the way it was handled, give our general president the right to appear before them, as I under- stand they were a.sked to do, that he might make a certification of the points involved in this studio situation. As a result, it has taken away much of the work that rightfully belongs to the carpenters. We feel that if this is sustained on this floor today it will give our general president a great deal more power when he appears before the executive council of the American Fedei-ation of Labor this coming month so we can get a clarification of this directive handed down and in that way return to the brotherhood the work that rightfully belongs to them, work tliat has been done by them for years and now being done by the lATSE and also involving the jurisdiction of four different locals doing carpenter work, which is all right in its way for them, but we need one organization that can handle our own work that we should do. Let me put this in parentheses. Mr. Owens. You do not have to put in anything. That speaks for itself. ]Mr. Levy. Not alone were they interested in set erection, but they were interested in work which four of the I A locals were doing, prop 1824 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES making, miniature building, and that will appear from the later discussion. For that reason I hope you delegates will pass this resolution only to show our power behind the general president in going before the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. Delegate Oambiano, Local 162, California. Mr. President and Brother Dele- gates : Further clarifying the action taken by the executive council of the American Federation of Labor with reference to this 10 months' strike in Hollywood, this has been going on for some time, where the lATSE have been endeavoring to encroach upon and take over the entire studio industry. This came about when our notorious friends Bioff and Brown preceded with threats of what they were going to do with the entire Industry. That was before 1941. It got so bad in our painters over a collective-bargaining agreement it became necessary to strike in order to enforce the Government's decision, and the only friend the carpenters had was the painters. The painters in the movie indvistry had definitely refused to do any work on work done by others who were not members of the Brotherhood of Carpenters. Local 946, with a membership of 2,200, hit the streets. They carried the picket line there for practically 10 months. In addition to the money that the brotherhood puts in there, some $185,000 was spent during that time and we have not commenced to pay off the bills that we have gotten so far as litigation and one thing and another is concerned. It was not the desire — Please listen to this — nor the wishes of the Carpenters Union 946 to terminate that strike. That was the 1945 strike. The moving picture industry had spent $7,000,000 attempting to break the strike and brought in all types of men from all over the country. Our ranks stood firm. We lost less than 20 men during that entire 10 months' strike. It was the pressure that was brought on by the movie industry that went to Washington, together with the executive council of the American Federation of Labor that brought on the termination of the strike, and in so doing they gave us 30 days to try to arrive at a settlement between ourselves. Mr. Owens. You are certainly proving that it is the carpenters who are controlling the painters, and not the painters controlling the carpenters. Mr. Levy (reading) : We were not able to do so, and then they set up a committee, three vice presi- dents of the American Federation of Labor, who were to survey the situation and determine the story. We sat in with President Walsh of the lATSE and we were involved with two groups. I don't know how many of you delegates are acquainted with the studio work, but to put it in plain language they claimed everything in the props, what they term "props," they wanted all the work that had belonged to the brotherhood for the past 25 or 30 years, and had been done by the brotherhood members. That is not so. We disagreed, and as a result the committee took over. Mr. Owens. Why did you say at that point it was not so ; could you not have said that sooner ? Mr. Levy. I say that because of the fact Mr. Owens. You could have said that in almost every sentence. Mr. Levy. All right. Now I am not criticizing the integrity of the three gentlemen who came to Los Angeles. But I will say this, before we presented our case it was very definitely explained to them it was being done with one sole purpose, that General Presi- dent Hutcheson would be given an opportunity .to represent the Brotherhood of MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1825 Carpenters. That was not done, and even to this day we have not received the transcript of some of the documents that we presented to them. I don't want to take too much time here. I do know that the general president " has been somewhat concerned about this, and when the verdict was handed down by the executive council our general president did not accept it. We went out on strike only after this directive order was handed down, and we find now upon returning that practically all the work that is being done in the studio was given to the lATSE. I want to tell you now that in a matter of 6 months' time there will be no local 946. For several years out there they have been invading our work by setting up prop shops and buying new machinery. That committee spent one-half a day going through one studio alone, they didn't take in the rest of them, and then they handed down a decision which would give all the work that rightfully belonged" to the brotherhood to the lATSE, and that is the reason why 946 is in here with that resolution. President IIutcheson. Mr. Chairman and delegates, the. records in this matter are very lengthy. I am not going into them in detail, but I think I should give to you a short verbal synopsis of the situation, as has been explained by Delegate Cambiauo. A controversy arose with the lATSE. They were claiming work that right- fully belonged to members of our organization. In a conference I offered to agree with them that if they would give to us what is usually referred to as carpenter work, plus the running of all woodworking machinery, we would accept that settlement. But they would not agfee to that and they went so far as to claim that props consisted of furniture. Please let me add that we claim props on stages, furniture, was our job, not furniture in permanent construction or permanent homes, or studio permanent construction of any kind. This is going back to Mr.. Hutcheson : As an illustration, in connection with this moving-picture industry, if they came into this room and took a picture of this room and furnishings as it is, the lATSE was claiming that they should make all of this furniture and set it up. They call that props. Historically, I add, that is correct. I could not agree to their demands, of course, naturally, because it was an im- position on our autonomy and on our trade jurisdiction. As has been stated, our members were on strike, along with the painters, the electricians, and others. After many months the moving-picture producers had their representative, Mr. Eric Johnston, intercede with the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, and they sent a committee to appear before tlie executive council. Naturally, the executive council was anxious to get the controversy settled, so that they could proceed with the production of picture*, and finally stated — and I agreed to it as a member of the executive coun- cil— that the organizations that were in this agreement would be given 30 days to see if they could reach an understanding. If not, a committee of three members of the American Federation of Labor was to be apjwlnted to make a survey of the situation and reach a conclusion. A committee was appointed consisting of Felix Knight, of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen ; William Doherty, of the Postal Employees ; and William Birthright, president of the Barbers International Union. They proceeded to Los Angeles, notified me of their meeting, and in immediately answering the communication I set forth the fact that I could not appear before they reached a conclusion and drew up their report, and I wanted permission to appear before the committee and present the claims of the brotherhood before they did that. I received a letter from jMr. Felix Knight, saying that I would be given an oppor- tunity to appear before them. They arrived in Los Angeles and they wir?d the general office, asking that a representative of the brotherhood meet with them to assist them. The general office wired back and told them we were notifying General Representative Cam- biano to appear before them and to render what assistance he could. One the first things he did when he appeared before them was to remind them of that fact that before they reached a conclusion they were to give the general president of the brotherhood an opportunity to appear before them. 1826 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES We came to Miami last February for the meeting of the executive council of the American Federation of labor. Prior to going there, on the 4th day of January we received at the office a publication that comes out of Washington, known as Daily Report on Labor-Management Problems, and in that periodical was printed the report of this subcommittee, their findings. Later on that same day we re- ceived from the committee a copy of their findings. Naturally, when the case was presented to the executive council of the feder- ation, I protested the acceptance of the report and presented evidence to show that they had agreed in writing that I would be given the opportunity to present the brotherhood's claim to that committee. I showed that we got the notice through this publication I have referred to on January 4, and it was on the same day that we got the written report of the committee. The matter was before the executive council for several days. I notified the executive council, on behalf of the Brotherhood of Carpenters, that we would not accept the report of the committee. I prodviced the records, the reports of the executive council made to previous conventions of the American Federation of Labor, cited and read the communications I had received from the chairman of this committee, and the committee said that there was a representative of the brotherhood who appeared before them in Los Angeles and they did not think it was necessary for them to listen to the general president or any other representative of the brotherhood after they had had one representative before them. Without boring you with any further details, which would take hours to present, it was quite apparent t^ me that the executive council was going to accept the report of this committee. In fact, the chairman went so far as to say that the executive council had no other prerogative than to accept, that the three members were supreme (meaning the committee of three). So in order to keep the record clear I had the following inserted in the min- utes of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor at their Miami meeting last February. I do not have to read that, because that has ah-eady been put in the record. I think it ought to be added by the reporter in sequence at this point, and I will give him the book, with Mr. McCann's per- mission, for that purpose. (The insertion referred to is as follows:) The United Brotherhood of Cai-penters and Joiners of America does not rec- ognize the report of the committee that was selected by the executive council of the American Federation of Labor to make an investigation and award in the controversies in the studios at Hollywood, Calif., as in any way abridg- ing, annulling, or interfering with the actions of the 1920, 1921, and 1922 con- ventions of the American Federation of Labor, or the reports of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor made to those conventions ; more specifically all reports on the part of the executive council, and setting forth actions taken by that body in reference to understandings and agreements entered into between various building-trades organizations and the 'lATSE, ^nd more specifically the agreement entered into in O'uly 1921 between the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America cannot accept the findings and decision made by the committee appointed by the president of the American Federation of Labor to investigate and make decision as affect- ing members of the several organizations employed in the studios in Holly- wood, Calif., for the i-eason that the committee did not give the general pres- ident of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America an oppor- tunity to appear before them when they were giving consideration to the situ- ation. Mr. Levy (continuing reading) : I even went further and I said to the executive council, that, on behalf of the brotherhood, I would not accept those decisions nor would I attempt to influence, direct, or try to persuade the members of the brotherhood to accept their find- ings, and that if the chairman of the executive council felt that that was an abridgment of the laws of the federation and they wanted to punish the brother- hood, they had better start in right then, because we would not accept it. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1827 This is the Miami meeting. Mr. 0^v^:NS. It somids lil^e the 1914 situation all over again, does it not? Mr. Levy (continuing reading) : And, of course, the full punishment they could give us would be to put us out •of the federation. I said, "If you care to do that, go ahead and do it now so I will know what your action will be." They denied any desire to do anything of that kind, however, after which I had inserted this statement I have just read. Now, the situation is that in passing this resolution you place it in the hands of our general executive board, whicli will support the position taken by your general president before tlie executive council of the American Federation of Labor. At the present time and during these months of controversy the brothei*- hood did not take any action. Several of the other organizations that were in- volved considered action, namely, the placing of tlie "We don't patronize" list of any pictures produced by these moving-picture producers. We did not do that, and when tlie representatives of the other organizations came to me and said, "If you want to do that, go ahead and do it." I did not intend to confer with them, if we did get to that point, for the simple reason that conspiracy consists of conclusions reached by two or more people. I had some experience in that when I went before the grand jury in St. Louis, when they were trying to show that I had been conferring with the general secretary or somebody else, but I denied the allegation. I had not conferred with anybody. It was just my own foolish thoughts. So the time may come to let these moving-picture producers know that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America covers the entire North American continent in its jurisdiction. The time may come when they might want some new moving-show houses built. Right now and for a time during the defense period tliey were not building any, but we haven't come to the end of the world as yet, so perliaps they may want some work done before long. The time may come when it will be the bounden duty of every member of the brotherhood to refrain from going to moving-picture shows and to get his friends to joint with him. We haven't, as yet, up until the convention came here, stopped showing pictures that were sent down here gratis by these moving-picture pro- ducers to be shown to the occupants of the home. But it is just a question in my mind whether we will ever put the screen back up here to show pictures until this controversy is settled. We might as well begin this fight sometime or other and get it over. I just wanted to give you that synopsis. Much more could be said, but I think I have said enough to show you that it will be to the interests of the members of our brotherhood to concur in this resolution. Thank you. • Vice President Maurice Hutcheson in the chair. Delegate Price, local union 946, spoke briefly in support of the resolution and urged its adoption, and in doing so he iwinted out that the members of the lATSE had been taking work right along that belonged to the carpenters, since they received their charter in 19.37. The motion to adopt the report of the committee on the resolution under dis- cussion was carried by unanimous vote. Mr. OuTiNS. Our guess as to what that was going to contain was not very much off, was it ? ]Mr. Levy. That is why I asked for it, sir. Mr. Owens. I mean when you were about to read it. Mr, Levy. I m,isunderstood your question. I thought that Mr. Hutcheson's comments were phrased in liis inimitable style, and I thought it ought to be put on the record. I also stated that from the picket line the publication of the Con- ference of Studio Unions showed that the Conference of Studio Un- ions took the position during the set-dressers strike, the painters' strike, that they would not go back to work until all of the jurisdic- tional problems, including the carpenters, were resolved to the satis- faction of the carpenters and the others. 1828 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Here again, as I read from the mouths of the carpenters, now I want to read from the months of the Conference of Studio Unions for those publications which they had. Mr. Owens. Can you not just put those in the record for reference purposes ? We will never get through. Mr. Levy. All right, sir, I will be glad to do it. I ask that you look at the Picket Line dated April 3, 1945. Mr. Owens. I am leaving here the day after tomorrow, for another hearing in Chicago. I would like to finish what we are doing here. Mr. Levy. All right, sir. I am going to adopt your suggestion completely. All I ask is for permission to make photostats, as I have arranged with the chairman, before I turn these. over to the counsel for the committee or the secretary for the counsel. The Picket Line, published by the Conference of Studio Unions of April 3, 1945 ; the Picket Line of the Conference of Studio Unions, published April 6, 1945 ; the Picket Line of the Conference of Studio Unions, published April 4, 1945 ; the first Picket Line, which is not dated at all, and is the first one issued. I am unable to specify the date. But there was the beginning of a daily series. And since this is a short paragraph, I want to put this in at this point. This is the first issue of a bulletin we intend to have every day, and it will have the latest developments to date. Always read it through each day. We want you to know that the painters, carpenters, machinists, set designers, IBEW, electricians, plumbers, blacksmiths, watchmen, and guards, foremen, janitors, SPU — SPU means Screen Players Union — and a great many of the rank-and-file members of the lATSE are actively participating in our strike, and are respecting the set designers' picket line. And their various groups have met together and pledge not to go back to work until everyone has agreed as a body on their disputes. The Picket Line of June 27, 1945. I have received a telegram from the Screen Actors' Guild, which I have been requested to place in the record : March 1, 1948, Hollywood, CaUf. Mr. Owens. I would say the same, for reference, there. Insofar as these telegrams are concerned, I never like the reading of telegrams into the record. Mr. Levy. May I tell you what this is, then? Mr. Owens. Just describe it. Mr. Le^'Y. Congressman Kearns, and I am sorry he is not here, at the opening session read a statement to the effect that the screen actors' guild were participants in an alleged collusion between the lATSE and the producers. Tlie screen actors' guild sent a telegram to the Congressman and asked that that be inserted in the record, unless Congressman Kearns has inserted it himself. Mr. Owens. I know something on that. He answered them and said there would be no objection to them coming here and testifying personally. What Mr. Kearns said, of course, is not evidence in the record. Mr. Levy. Oh, yes, it is. Mr. Owens. It is not evidence. Mr. Levy. Oh, I see. They were accused of collusion. The tele- gram was signed by Eonald Reagan, George Murphy, Robert Mont- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1829 gomery, and Edward Arnold. I have just received this request to have it inserted. Mr. Owens. We will accept it as a reference exhibit. Mr. Levy. All right. I will make photostats of that, too, if you please, sir. You asked me some questions about criminal prosecutions of Mr. Sorrell. That I think ought to be in the record. I wanted it accu- rate— obtained from our counsel on the west coast. This telegram was received March 2, 1948. Mr. Owens. What I wanted to see was a copy of the record of the <;ourt. Mr. Levy. There were three or four indictments, several prosecu- tions. I can get that, too, but this describes it, if you want me to. Mr. Owens. We will admit that as a reference exhibit, too. Mr, Levy. It is all right with me, sir. Tlien I also ask that this letter dated November 28, 1947, which I read in part, and which on the basis of selection I did not complete, ought to be included at its appropriate place^ not as a reference exhibit, but completely, so that the entire communication will be before the committee. Mr. Landis. All right. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, on that, it has been read from re- peatedly, and I think it ought to be received as a reference exhibit, too. Mr. Li^vY. There are at least three pages which have not been read from. And you know, Mr. McCann, that letter was sent out on the 28th of November 1947, to you. Mr. Owens. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is in the nature of a state- ment of a witness who is testifying, and you have let it in, and I think it is proper. Mr. McCann. Do you want it reproduced ? Mr. Landis. Yes, sir ; so we will not have any criticism. Anything that the witness wants to put in. we will put in. (The letter referred to is as follows:) New York 7, N. Y., November 28, 19-'f7. Hon. Carroll D. Kel^rns, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Hollyivood Studio Labor Strikes, Commit- tee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Congressman Kearns: On behalf of Mr. Richard F. Walsh, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, and Mr. Roy M. Brewer, international representative in Hollywood of that organization, and pursuant to the authorization of the subcommittee, Mr. Michael G. Luddy, of Los Angeles, west-coast counsel, and I, as special counsel for the lATSE in the Hollywood labor situation, herewith submit the following statement to be included in the record of the Hollywood hearings in the inquiry conducted by your subcommittee in the matter of the Hollywood studio labor strikes. I. Normal jurisdictional labor problems existed in the studios for some years, largely as a result of the many unions and of the nature of the work. These normal jurisdictional differences might have been peaceably resolved in ordinary trade-union channels were it not that the pro-Communist elements in the studios had irritated and magnified the jurisdictional differences into internecine labor explosions. More is involved in the Hollywood labor situation than ordinary jurisdictional differences. No investigation of the jurisdictional strikes in Holly- wood from 1044 to date can or will give a complete picture of the situation, with- out a recognition and study of Communist infiltration and tactics in the Holly- wood studio unions. (a) One Jeff Kibre, as the representative of the Communist Party in Holly- wood prior to 1939, planned to form an unemployment conference of various 1830 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES studio unions for the purpose of laying a foundation for an industrial union in opposition to the lATSE, which was and is a bulwark against Communist supremacy in Hollywood, and for the purpose of capturing control of studio labor for the Communist Party. Upon receiving information that it was possible to obtain an election to designate a collective-bargaining representative under the National Labor Relations Act, Kibre changed his tactics, and organized the United Studio Technicians Guild (USTG), petitioned for an election, obtained an order for such election from the National Labor Relations Board, and en- deavored to win control of all studio labor by this method. This plan was thwarted in 1939 when the Conununist sponsors behind Kibre were exposed. This exposure showed among otlier things that Kibre was reporting to Bob Reed, a Comnuuiist Party representative in New York, and to Harry Bridges in San Franci.sco ; that one Irwin Hentschel was a part of the organization which assisted Kibre; that Hentschel was sent to the 1938 convention of the lATSE with instructions from Kibre as to a certain resolution which Comnuuiist Party representatives in California wanted passed by that convention ; that the acting secretary of the Conununist Party of Ohio objected to Hentschel's activities, as indicated in correspondence by Roy Hudson, then trade-union secretary of the Communist Party and later editor of tlie Daily Woi'ker in New York; that Hentschel's Communist motives and reliability were vouched for ; and that Kilbre's efforts were directed to establish a Communist faction within the lATSE. This is the same Irwin Hentschel who was the leader of the so-called rank-and-file movement of the Sorrell-directed strike of the CSU in 1945. (b) The same program which Kibre had outlined originally in his reports (that is. before he changed his plan to procure an election under the auspices of tlie NLRB, and which election he lost in 1939) was used by Sorrell later, and Sorrell was aided by the same Hentschel. Many of the same persons who had previously supported Kibre supported Sorrell in the strikes from 1944 to 1947. (c) Since its organization, the CSU has followed the Communist Party line. The president of the CSU, Herbert K. Sorrell, since 1937, has followed the Communist Party line. It has been testified by noted handwriting experts before the California Committee on Un-American Activities that Herbert K. Sorrell (under the name of Herbert K. Stewart) w^s a member of the Communist Party. One of the purposes of the CSU was to bring certain American Federation of Labor imions into its orbit and to bring those unions into conformity with the Communist Party line. (d) One of the lATSE's own local unions. Film Technicians' Local No. 683, participated in the organization of the CSU in 1941, and participated in formula- tion of the policies of the CSU along the patterns of the Communist Party, until the latter part of 1944, when Local 683 officially withdrew from the CSU. It was almost immediately after this withdrawal that the open attack began by the CSU against the lATSE. (e) The 1946-7 strike was only one of a series of strikes, all of which were a part of the pro-Communist agitation to disrupt labor relations in the Holly- wood studio, to destroy the lATSE as a collective-bargaining representative of the studio unions, and to install in its place a pro-Communist industrial type of union which would, at the appropriate time, join hands with the pro-Com- munist elements in the studio talent guilds, and especially in the screen writers guild, so as to place the motion-picture industry under the domination of the Communists and their pro-Conununist friends and sympathizers. if) The following documents are annexed hereto in support of the foregoing: 1. lATSE Informational Bulletin, dated November 13, 1945, showing record of Herbert K. Sorrell. 2. Photostatic copies of Communist Party documents and exemplars of the handwriting of Herbert K. Sorrell, dated January 4, 1946. 3. Partial report, Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities in California, dated February 19, 1946. 4. Report of the Congress of American Soviet Friendship, November 7-8, 1942, re Mr. Herb Sorrell ; 5. Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated September 6, 1946, re Herb Sorrell, entitled "Support for WFTU." 6. Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated March 8. 1940, re Herb Sorrell, entitled "Movie City Forming First Alliance Local." 7. Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated April 14, 1940, re President Herb Sorrell, entitled "Million on 500 Campuses to Join Peace Strike Today." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1831 S. Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated May 17, 1940, re Herb Sorrell, entitled "Schneiderman Case. AFL Leader, Liberals Rally to Defense." 9. Excerpt from Illustrated Daily News, dated November 2, 1942, re Herb Sor- rell. endorsing La Rue McCormick, Communist candidate. 10. Excerpt from Daily People's World, dated July 24, 1944, entitled "PW (Peo- ple's World) Wins Cheers! John H. Lawson, Herbert Sorrell, Praise Our Hollywood Covei-age." 11. Dossier of action taken by Conference of Studio Unions on matter promoted or opposed bv the Communist Party from August 12, 1942, to September 6, 1946; 12. Manifesto of the World Labor Conference, submitted by Conference of Studio Unions et al. 13. Excerpt from Hollywood Citizens News, dated September 11, 1946, re Con- ference of Studio Unions, entitled " 'Win Peace' Rally Echoes Reds Minus Marcantonio."' 14. Record of Emil Freed, referred to in item 6 above. 15. Photographic reproductions of Los Angeles newspaper -headline articles, published in 1939, and incorporated in 1940 proceedings of lATSE con- vention. 16. lATSE Informational Bulletin, dated September 28, 1945, showing excerpts from lA Local 683 publication. Flashes. 17. Letter dated May 10, 1946. from Roy M. Brewer to the secretaries of all local unions of lATSE, with respect to lA Local 683. 18. Excerpt from Hollywood Daily Variety, dated March 28, 1945, entitled "lA Rebellion as Peace Meet in Strike Opens." 19. Excerpt from Hollywood Daily Variety, dated April 2, 1945, entitled "lA Rank and File Move to End Studio Strike." 20. Additional documents will be forthcoming, if desired. II. In 1944, a conspiracy was entered into among the CSU, the painters, and the carpenters and other organizations, for the purpose of taking away from the LATSE its historical jurisdiction in the studios. The congressional committee will, no doubt, thoroughly examine the offi- cials and records of the CSU, Communists, painters, carpenters, and other international and local unions involved, from which will appear the conspiracy against the lATSE and the real reasons behind the calling of the strikes from 1944 to date. III. The strikes conducted by the CSU, painters, carpenters, etc., from 1944 to date, were conducted as a part of this conspiracy and alliance. Even the public reasons of these jurisdictional strikes were baseless. Historically, the work of set dressing or decorating — The ostensible cause of the 1945 strike — and the work of set erection — The ostensible cause of the second 1946 strike — belong to and were within the jurisdiction of the lATSE. The 1945 strike was called while representation proceedings were pending before the NLRB, and even the NLRB said, in its decision, that the strike showed "a disregard of the orderly processes of the Board and an unwillingness to rely upon the machinery which Congress had made available as an alternative to the strike." The Board also said that the strike "contributed materially to the prolongation of a dispute which the Board could otherwise have decided many months ago." Moreover, the 1945 strike was called during wartime, in violation of labor's no-strike pledge; it was in violation of the contracts with producers under whicii the internationals of the striking unions agreed to resolve jurisdictional disputes by discussions among the international presidents; and the strike was declared illegal by tlie president of the painters' union and by the American Federation of Labor. The 1946 strike was called in violation of the Cincinnati 1945 settlement agree- ment: in violation of a solenni arb'tration award; and it was purportedly supported by an illegal and void "clarification" and "interpretation" which were forced through the executive council of the AFL by the internal power politics of William L. Hutcheson, international president of the carpenters' brotherhood. It was in violation, also, of the "treaty of Beverly Hills," July 1946. 1832 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The congressional committee will undoubtedly examine the appropriate wit- nesses and documents in support of the foregoing. IV. The jurisdictional strikes against the lATSE, particularly in 194.5 and 1946, were conducted by the CSU, the Communists, and their allies with a maximum of violence, disorder, and violations of law, and of court orders. The congressional committee will certainly obtain the records of the producers, the CSU, its allied organizations, and of the local law-enforcement officials, from which will be gathered proof in support of the foregoing. V. Since November 1941 the lATSE has been democratically operated in compliance with its constitution and bylaws and the laws of the land; its top officials, pursuant to its laws, have been duly and democratically elected, its representatives have been legally appointed ; and its affairs have been honestly run. VI. The livelihood of lATSE 'members not only in Hollywood, but throughout the country, depends upon the prosperity of the moving-picture industry. On the other hand, the members of the CSU. such as carpenters, painters, etc., have work available for tliem in other businesses, and therefore they care little for the stabilization of Hollywood studio labor-management relations. Moreover, to permit otlier unions having relatively little at stake to control the studios, the source of all supply to the moving-pi cure theaters, throughout the country, would be extremely dangerous for the lATSE. The CSU, being Commu :nist-dominated, its ultimate purpose in seeking to displace the lATSE in the studios is to gain a foothold there in support of un-American doctrines. Nevertheless, while the CSU strikes have been aggressive in character, the conduct of the lATSE has been purely defensive, necessitated by the CSU's re- peated utilization of the strike weapon, violence and false propaganda as means of forcing compliance with its jurisdictional demands. These the lATSE has resisted and will continue to resist in conformity wth the law of the land. The claim that there has been a conspiracy between the Producers and the lATSE to deprive any employee of work or any union of jurisdiction is entirely false. I assume, in accordance with our understanding, that you will accept the foregoing statement in lieu of the uncompleted testimony of Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer in the Hollywood hearings. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Mr.'Luddy and I send you our kindest regards. Very sincerely, Matthew M. Levt. Mr. Levt. I want to direct the committee's attention to the People's Daily World of Tuesday, April 16, 1940. Mr. Landis. May I ask a question there? Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. Mr. Landis. That will be included, but I wanted to ask the ques- tion whether or not you had any information on the People's Educa- tional Center. Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. I do not have that with me. As I said, I did not know that Mr. Kearns was going to call me. I thought the arrangement was that when Mr. Brewer got through another witness would take the stand. But I will bring that the first thing in the morning. [Indicating] "Peace or War Made Issue in May Primaries." And then the statement is made : Fresno, April 1.5, 1940. — Lines were clearly drawn in the California Demo- cratic Presidential primary contest today, and on May 7 the State will go to the polls to vote on the most momentous issue of a generation, peace or war. Then this statement appears: Final stand, it was not easy travail, but with labor spokesmen taking the lead, step by step the convention moved to its final position which was ex- pressed in the following terms : "We are definitely opposed to and cannot support the following actions of President Roosipvelt and the Roosevelt admin- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1833 istration, which are placing our Nation on the very brink of hostilities abroad, and are depriving our people of their liberties at home : "1. Repeal of the arms embargo ; "2. Sale of planes, munitions, and materials to nations at war ; "3. Extension of loans and credits to nations at war ; "4. The sending of secretly instructed emissaries to nations at war ; "5. The extralegal use of the FBI as a political and labor spy agency." We will oppose the nomination of Roosevelt or any other candidate dedicated to the war policies herein complained of. Then some discussion, and the following : Herbert K. Sorrell, State president of Labor's Non-Partisan League, business agent of Moving Picture Painters Union, A. F. of L. : "Jack Shelley bet me a half-dollar the Patterson ticket couldn't get 15,000 votes in San Francisco. Of course, we can elect it in Los Angeles alone, and I am going to win that lialf from Mr. Shelley anyway." In this People's World there is on the same page : Johnnie Got His Gun, by Dalton Trumbo. Anyone who listened to the Un-American Activities Committee hearing on Mr. Trumbo will remember what "Johnnie Got His Gun" meant. And then also by Jack Young : This Generation of Yanks Not Coming. I ask that that be received as a reference exhibit. I will make a photostat of it for myself. ]Mr. Laxdis. What is the date on that ? Mr. Levy. 1940, during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact. I understand, sir, that the Committee on Un-American Activities has a dossier on Mr, Herbert K. Sorrell, and I would appreciate it if this committee would make inquiry of its committee of the House for the purpose of presenting that before the committee. Mr. Landis. Wliat is the name of that ? Mr. Levy. Dossier on Herbert K. Sorrell, by the Committee on Un-American Activities of this House. Mr. Landis. You do not mean the whole record? ]Mr. Levy. Just the dossier on Herbert K. Sorrell. Mr. Landis. Yes ; that will be all right. Mr. Levy. That is all that I have at this time. Mr. Landis. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. Sorrell goes on at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 4:15 p. m. an adjournment was taken in the hearing until Wednesday, March 3, 1948, at 10 a. m.) JUEISDICTIOML DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D. C. The subcominittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order. Before going into the statement of the witness, I have a telegram to read. I think Mr. Brewer received a copy of this telegram, but I want to put it in the record. It is addressed to me : Newspaper accounts today have involved our organization in the hearings before your committee. During the many days in which I attended your hear- ings in Los Angeles, our organization was ne.er mentioned in this connection. I am sure that had it been, we would have been given a fair opportunity to refute any charges made against us. In view of the fact that we are not in attendance at your present hearing, I am sending you a copy of the telegram sent to Roy M. Brewer as follows : '"Newspaper account here states that you have testified under oath that the motion-picture costumers are Communist-controlled and that I am an adherent to the Communistic Party line. I am surprised and shocked to read such statements made under the cloak of congressional immunity against our or- ganization, myself, and my fellow unionists. You are well aware that I testi- fied under oatii in 194B before the Tenuey committee that I am not nor never have been affiliated with the Communist Party in any manner whatsoever. Also understand that you stated that it might be- well to force our officers to sign non-(;omniunist .-stMdavits. Yo;! are aware that our organi':atinn went on record in December instructing our ofticei'S to file such affidavits, and this action was taken at my request even though we had no action pending before the National Lalior Relations Board. This action was duly published in our paper dated December r,, of v'hich you have a copy. My non-Communist affidavit is completed and will be filed along with our semi-annual financial statement for the period ending February 1. This statement is now at the printers and will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board this week. All activities, expenditures and minutes of the meetings are published by our local monthly and are available at all times to our members, our international officials or to the Kearns com- mittee. We invite you or the committee to question either Charles Boren or Pat Casey, both of whom I understand are in Washington, as to representations and activities of my.self or our local in its dealings with them over a period of the past 10 years. " Again I want to affirm that neither our organization nor any of our ( fficials are in any way Communist-controlled and that I am not and never have been affiliated in any manner whatsoever with the Connnunist Party. I have never followed the Communi.st Party line nor am I a so-called Communist sympathizer, as I have opposed actively totalitarianism in all its forms including totalitarianism in unions, and I am willinr" to s^ate under oatli at any time. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this telegram to Congressman Kearns and am asking him to embody it in the committee record and am further 1835 1836 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I'equesting that I be allowed to enter additional evidence in denial of these totally unfounded, absurd and malicious charges. Ted Eixswokth, Business Representative, Motion Picture Costumiers, Local No. 105, IAT8E. Mr. BRE^\^:R. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I did not re- ceive the telegram. Mr. Kearns. All I know is what it says here. Mr. Brewer. But I heard his statements, and I hope his future actions will substantiate the statements that he made. Mr. IvEARNS. Counsel, will you read the other statements into the record ? Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, a communication has been received by me as counsel : Dear Mr. McCann : Recently, while appearing before your committee in Washington, D. C, request was made that I produce data relative to authoriz- ing the Hollywood strike as of March 12, 1945. According to the records in my office, the strike was called March 12, 1945, at which time Herbert K. Sorrell, business representative of Motion Picture Painters' Local Union 644 called me via long-distance telephone asking strike authorization. I thereupon proceeded to get in touch with the six vice presidents consti- tuting our general executive board and under date of March 19. 1945, I tele- phoned Business Representative Sorrell that the strike had been oflficially sanc- tioned and authorized by the general executive board. There was no written notice to this effect-^-but assure you — the strike was authorized by the members of the general executive board as stated. Under date of July 12, 1945, we received a telegram from Thomas Ranford, secretary of Painters' District Council 36 of Los Angeles, Calif., that is attached' hereto and that reads : Los Angeles, Calif., July 12, WJ/S. L. P. LiNDELOF, Painters and Decorators Buildinf/: Have been instructed by this council to charge several of our members for working behind motion-picture studio picket lines. Several have threatened suit. Reason not authorized strike. Please advise if strike is authorized by Paint- ers Brotherhood. Thomas RAnford, Secretary, Painters District Council 36. My reply to the foregoing (July 13, 1945) is also enclosed and reads: Jttly 13, 1945. Thomas Ranford, Secretary, District Council 36, Los Angeles Calif.: For the information of yourself and District Council 36 I herewith emphati- cally state that strike called by local union 1421 has sanction of general execu"- tive Board of Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of Amer- ica and local union 1421 complied with Smith-Connolly Act before striking. Every assistance should be given strikers in Hollywood studios to the end that a speedy adjustment may be reached. L. P. LlNDElX)F, General President, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America. Now, Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, I have been presented with a statement which is notarized and which bears the title of Los Angeles County. District Council of Carpenters. This has been furnished by Mr. Cobb and he asks that it be made a matter of record at this time. Mr. Kearns. No objection. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1837' Mr. McCann. It is dated March 1, 1948. (Reading:) Mr. Zach Lamab Cobb, Attorney, WasMngton, D. C. My Dear Mr. Cobb : This is to advise yoii that Willis J. Hill, who held member- ship in Carpenters' Local Union No. 634 and was an officer of that local, was charged in this council by the undersigned with giving aid, comfort, and support to revolutionary organizations or to organizations which try to disrupt or cause dissension. A regular trial was held and the trial committee in his case found him guilty as charged and he was expelled from our brotherhood. Very truly yours, Eaei, E. Thomas, Secretary. State of Calitoknia, Los Angeles County, City of Los Angeles: Sworn to before me this 1 day of March, 1948. [SEAL] Walter R. McCoy, Notary Public. My commission expires July 25, 1949. Mr. Landis. Does it give the date that he was expelled ? Mr. McCann. It does not, sir. I have read it exactly as stated. Mr. Kearns. Does that complete the documents you have ? Mr. McCanx. That completes the documents I have, sir. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Sorrell, will you stand and be sworn ? You were- sworn before me, but since the additional committee has come in, I will ask you to be sworn again. Mr. Sorrell. Yes, sir. (Mr. Sorrell was duly s-worn.) TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL, PRESIDENT, CONFERENCE OF STUDIO UNIONS; BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, PAINTERS LOCAL, NO. 644 (Recalled) WITH WHOM APPEARED GEORGE E. BODLE. ATTORNEY FOR MR. SORRELL Mr. IvEARNs. Do you have any statement you would like to make ? Mr. Sorrell. Yes. Mr. Kearns, there have been so many assertions and assumptions and analyses and so much hearsay that I am a Communist that I would like to outline as much as possible, go through it as fast as I can,, because I have a tremendous lot to say here. I have a lot of things that need to be read into the record. I have had a little trouble with one eye since I got here, and I wonder if I could have my attorney sworn in so that I could have him help me do the reading. Would that be possible, or must I go through all the reading? Mr. Kearxs. I have no objection. Mr. Sorrell. I want him to help me read in some of the material. Xow, I am going to cover as much as I possibly can in a preliminary statement in which I hope I will not be interrupted too much. Mr. Owens. You will not be interrupted at all. Mr. Sorrell. I am going to skip a lot. I will not be able to tell you: the first time over, but I purposely skip a lot of things because I do not want to repeat when we put in evidence. At least, I do not want to do like Mr. Levy. I do not want to make an opening statement and then make another statement and put it in and then make another statement and tell about it. I realize that my time is limited for the- 67.383— 48— vol. 3 22 1838 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 11 years I have to cover, and I want to do everj^thing as concisely and as quickly as possible. Is that satisfactory? Mr. Keakns. Yes. Mr. Landis. Now, wait just a minute. Do you object to the com- mittee'S stoppfng you? I mean, I think you shoulcl have no inter- ference from the outside, except from this committee. Mr. SoRRELL. Not at all. Mr. Landis. As far as we are concerned and our committee is con- cerned, your time is not limited. I want that clear, that you can present your whole case. Mr. SoRRELL. I do not mind at all, as long as it is a constructive criticism or a constructive question. I will try to clear it for you, be- cause I am not a college graduate, I never went to college, and I may not be able to express myself as intelligently and as clearly as these high-priced lawyers that have been on the witness stand previous to my getting here. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Boclle, will you stand and be sworn ? ]\Ir. BoDLE. Yes, sir. (Mr. Boclle was duly sworn.) Mr. Kearns. You may proceed, Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Sorrell. Now, I want to say for the record that I was born in Deepwater, Henry County, Mo., on April 18, 1897. My mother was born in Illinois; my father was born in the northern part of Missouri. My mother takes great pride in tracing her ancestors back to the Mayflower. I am told by my father that his father was a Senator from Missouri. I am an American, first, last, and always. So we will get that straight. My father, when I was first born, worked at a factory in Deepwater, Mo. They organized a union. They had a strike. The company imported Negroes to break the strike. My father was more or less a leader of the strike. They ran the Negroes out. And this is hearsay. This is what he told me. They ran the Negroes out of town. They probably killed some of them, drowned some of them. No Negroes ever came to that town any more to stay overnight. So I did not see a Negro until I left that town. They won that strike. There was another strike that happened while I was still very young, and that strike was broken. The men went back to work. jNIy father never went back to work. Instead, he moved away. After that, he always M'orked as a superintendent or he ran factories, part of the time for the same company where he had worked previously. I heard him say many times, "If you can't pull the men up with you, pull out and leave them." Now, another thing that my father always warned me was, "A liar is worse than a thief." I do not think that you can even get my enemies to say that I am a liar, and I know that you will never get me for perjury. I will tell the truth whether it hurts or whether it does not. Wlien I was 12 years old, my home was broken up, and I had to go to work to support my mother and brother and sister. I received what at that time was a man's pay, $13.75 a week. I worked for over 2 years. I worked in a factory among a group of Portuguese people, some of whom were very nice and some of whom were morons. One MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1839 fellow in particular chose to whip me about twice a week. If I did not do my work a certain way, I got a beating. If I did it the way he told me, another fellow licked me. I was in betw^een. I was where the producers say they are. This went on for a long time. Other people remonstrated with these men, but it did not do any good. One day one of them came up to whip me, and 1 knew it, and I grabbed a shovel and I went after him and I sent him to the hospital. A few hours later, the other man — and I have to explain the work just a little bit. I had to pick up clay sewer pipe, turn them over, set them down on the other side. The sewer pipe weighed as much as I did at that time. It was hard work. The rest I got was picking up the boards that the sewer pipe set on. Now, these boards were about 10 inches square with cleats under them and holes in them to let the air circulate. The other man that I was work- ing with would spit tobacco juice all over these boards. I asked him not to do it. and I was right behind him picking them up, and I again asked him not to do it, and he turned around and kicked me. And when he kicked me, I went down right into the spit. I picked up a board and I beat him up. I sent him to the hospital. From that time on, and that goes for yet, nobody bullied me into anything. Now, when. I make up my mind I am right, I am willing to go all the way. I can be convinced that I am wrong. I have changed my mind many times, but I tell the whole world about it. I think that that is the way to do, and you will find that that is the policy that I have followed ever since. Now, later I became a shipyard riveter. Another thing my father always did, he tried to do everything the best and do the most. And I had that instilled in me when I was young, and I won prizes driving rivets in a shipyard. I did not believe that this country should go to war with Germany. I was opposed to that. But once we went to war, I wanted to go to war to see the fun, I really did not think it was right that we should go to war, but if we were going to be in it, I wanted to be in the fight. The shipyards put me in class II-D. That was industrial exemp- tion. I .carried a class I-A card. We had strikes in the shipyard. I was picked up in one of these strikes and taken tc jail, but not put in jail, but taken before the judge immediately without going to jail. And I do not know whether I was booked or not, I explain some of my criminal activities, now. The judge gave us a lecture about stopping work in wartime. I pulled out my class I-A card, and said, "Let me go to war. If we have to go to work and make monej^ for people, I want to make them for my kind of people, too." And I gave him a talking to, and he turned me loose. Now. I do not know about that. I hear that my criminal record is going to be brought up here, and I mention that because that is one of the crimes that I committed that I do not know whether is on the books or not. Now, eventually I quit the shipyards and worked under an assumed name in order to be drafted, because you could only join the Army as an encjineer and go up and cut spruce. And I wanted to see the fight. They found that I was working under an assumed name, and again the}' put me in class II-D. 1840 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES After many months, thinking that I was in class I-A, I fomid out what had happened; so I quit akogether and I was finally drafted. But just when I was drafted, I think on the 8th or 9th of November,. 1918. the Kaiser heard I was coming, and he called off the war. I explain this because it was not my fault that I was not in the fight. Now, later, and I do not know the exact date — it could have hap- pened between 1919 and 1923, because I left Oakland, Calif., in 1923 — - I was approached and invited to attend a Ku Klux Klan meeting. I attended that meeting, and it was very impressive. They had drill teams and they stated the things that they advocated, and the- things that they told me were that you had to be a pure lOO-percent Ameri- can ; you could not have any allegiance to anything but the American! flag. It seemed to be fitted for me. You had to believe in the Bible;; you had to be a Christian. They pictured it as a very fine organization.- I decided to join. Then I happened to think that I had a very good friend that I would wait until the next week and bring this very- good friend in with me. Then I happened to think that tliis very- good friend — and believe me, he was the kind of friend who would split his last dime with me. and I would with him — he was a Catholic^ and Catholics were not allowed to join the Ku Klux Klan because they claimed they had some allegiance to the Pope or something, who' was a foreigner. Now, I could not join the Klan because I had a friend who was a Catholic, and it would have been an insult to him if I did. If it had not been for that, I would be a Klansman today; that is, I would have- been a former Klansman. I explain these things to you, because I want you to know that I ami not holding back anything. If I joined the Communist Party, I could just as well tell you, because there is not anything you or anybody- else could do with me at the present time. You could not deport me back to Missouri, because that is one of the States. There is no- law against belonging. There is no reason why I should not belong to the Communist Party if I so see fit. I tell you now, so that you will not be in any suspense, that I am not now nor never have been a member of the Communist Party.. I say that under oath. As you see as I go along, you will understand exactly the reasons for the things I have done. I will expose the filth in the labor relations of the motion-picture industry. I have- never had an opportunity before. My name has been dragged in mud throughout these United States- as a Communist, as a subversive element, and people who have known me all my life think that something is wrong and they do not under- stand it. People who have fought me have had access to the press. I have not had it. The people who have advertised these things- carry huge — pages, I will say — of advertisements in all the papers- throughout the Nation. They have a large staff of publicists. They get their word out much better than I do. Now, I am glad to have this opportunity to begin to clean up the- situation and expose those racketeers who are responsible for it. I do not mean to pull any punches. I mean to expose them. I ami going to call names and I am going to call n,ames who' are high im your Government offices. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1841 Now, I went to work in the motion-picture industry in 1923. Wlien I went to work in the motion-picture industry, up until that time, 1 had been more 'or less of a rugged individualist with one thing in inind. Tkat one thing was that if I made enough money I could liave an easy time in my old age. I made considerable money a couple of times, and I had it taken away from me, because there was always somebody a little bit smarter than I was ; and, in order to make money, you had to plunge, you had to gamble ; and you always plunged one too many times : and, when- ever you did, you would lose the money. I sold my business in Oakland, Calif., my painting business, and came through Los Angeles expecting to make a little visit and then go on some place »to a small town of probably 25,000 and start up in lousiness again. I have been an employer. I know that side. I have employed many people. I know the problems an employer has. I feel that I know that, and I hold no prejudice against employers or people "v\'ho hire men to do the work. It is a necessary thing, and, having l)een one. I feel that I know that end of it. I went to work at Universal Studios. I walked in there to see how pictures were made. I had to crash the gate. I met the boss; first, I saw painters in there, and that surprised me. I did not even know they needed painters in motion pictures. I met the boss and asked him for a job. He said he did not need ■anybody, and I said, "I do not need a job, either. I have just sold my business and I am traveling, but the only reason I thought I would like to have a job is to see how pictures are made." He said, "If that is all you wanted, you can work today and tomorrow." That is all I wanted. He put me to work. I worked all that day until 8 o'clock that night. I worked all the next day until 8 o'clock the following night, and continued to work that way all the rest of the week. On Saturday I went in and told him that I understood they only paid up to Thursday on Saturday, and that my folks were in a hotel 'down in Hollywood, and that I wanted to move on, and I wondered if it was possible for him to pay me up to date. He said, "No; I do not want to pay you up to date." He said, "I •want you to stay here." I was not particular about staying, but even working 12 hours a day was much easier than the contracting business I had had where I had to get up earlv in the morning, work all day to see that the men were going, and after they had gone home, work half the night. It was Tike a vacation. He asked me to stay. He said, "Am I paying you (enough?" I said, "No." So he paid me more. I said. "I have my folks over in a hotel." He said, "I know where there is a furnished house." I got in his car. This man's name is Van Alstine, if yau want to check on it. I got in his car. We went over to the hotel. We got my folks. We took them over and put them in this furnished house, paid the rent on it, and he took me back to work. That is how I jrot to work at Universal Studios. 1842 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now, I begin to learn something. In the first place, I got acquainted with an Italian by the name of John Patriarca. Old John was a great old guy. He was an Italian. I think he was a naturalized citizen, but he could not talk very well, and it was very hard to understand- him. At first I resented it. because at that time a foreigner was — he might as well have been an animal to me. A Jew was — well, he was a pawn-shop proprietor or he was a clothing merchant or he was a. big-business man, far removed from me. And I had these — not exactly prejudices; I had an open mind — but I did not understand these people. I went to John Patriarca's home, and I found out he was working fer- tile same thing that I was. He was raising a nice family, he wanted to see his children go and he well educated. In fact, other than his; language, he was just like me. I liked him. There was Ben Simons. Ben Simons was a Dane. He had come to this country and brought his family, and he was a very important sort of a man. He wore a goatee, an excellent artist, but a foreigner, talked broken. Mr. Simons, we used to call him, because he was so dignified. Nobody ever called him by his first name. It was always Mr. Simons — ■ had two boys who also worked in the motion-picture industry as painters. The two bo^^s have worked there ever since, until this black- out, and they have not worked during this black-out, and they are not Communists. Mr. Simons was so dignified, yet, although he weighed much over 200 pounds, if he would get tickled and exulted about somethings he would tip himself up and walk around on his hands. That attracted me because I had always been a bit athletic, and I liked that. I went to his home and I learned how he lived, and I learned to love that guy, too. There was a couple of little Jews, Harry Abels and Jack Holeii. They worked together. They fought all the time. They worked hard, but they i ought all the time, and anybody that stepped in between them got the worst of it. They were Jews to me. T didn't want to have much to do with them at first. But little Jack Holeii^ he was the cleaner of the two and the smaller of the two, although neither of them were very big, and somebody picked on him one day and I took his part and I became a friend of his, and he came over to see me, and I went to see him, and I found out he had a daughter and a son and a home, and he also had a fruit market, and he would get up at 3 o'clock in the morning and go to the wholesale place and bring back fruit to the market for his wife to run. Then he would work all day and sometimes until 8 o'clock at night,, go home, and do" more work in the market. He was a slave. No wonder he only weighed 110 pounds. He could not pick up anything. He was working to bring himself up to a standard where he could put his boy through college, own his home,, and have the things that most of us want. I found ihat underneath this shell was a guy just like me. The other- little Jew was one of these particularly nasty little fellows. He would come up to me and he would slobber when he talked. I could feel the spit hit my face when he would say, "Herb, Herb, give me a, cigarette; got a match; vat time is it"; I did not like him. This was much later, but while I was working in the studios I had a streak of very bad luck. My wife went to Michigan, and while MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1843 there she was very seriously sick. She had to have bk)od transfusions and was lots of trouble. 'My father was killed. He lingered on a month. He was killed by an automobile. He lingered a month, and I stayed that month by his bedside, I came back to work and I was broke, but I did not say anything about it, and this little guy who had spit in my face for years was the only one of over a hundred men that came up to me and said, ''Herb, Herb,'- and I expected him to say, "Got a cigarette" ; but instead, "you nnist be broke ; you must need some money." I said, "Yes; I'm broke, and I need some money, but I don't want to borrow any, I want to pay what I owe.'' He says, "Veil, maybe you need some now. I got some money and I Avant to give it to you." I took his money. I went to his home. I found that he had two boys and he was struggling to put them through college, and he wanted to make good Americans of them. These things I tell you because I made up my mind, from working in the studios with these people, that anything that I could do to benefit those people I was going to do it, because in doing that you make better citizens, better Americans, and you do not necessarily have to be born here. I was in a minority group when I worked in the sewer-pipe shop, when I got kicked around, and I had to fight my way out. Some of these people are minority groups, because people are ignorantly dis- criminating against them because they happen to be foreign-born, even though they come over here and make good citizens. I worked in Universal without losing any time except when I stole the time off or just refused to go to work sometime in 1926; I do not know the exact time. Now, in 1925 the vice president of the painters' brotherhood held a meeting to organize the painters in the studios. I heard about it. And they supplied a barrel of beer. This was in the times when it was outlawed. You know, you just were not supposed to drink beer and whisky in 1925. I went to the meeting because I had belonged to the union and I had to take out a withdrawal card because I became a contractor, and I went to tlie meeting, for one reason, to see if they really gave the beer and, for another reason, because I could see that was one way that we could raise the standard of living in the studios. I joined the union that night. I was very proud of my union card. In 1926 the boss made a tour and he asked everybody if they had a union card. Some of the boys said they did; some of them that did said that they clid not. He came to me. I will never forget it. I pulled out mv union card and I said, "You bet I have got one, always had one; when I was in business I always hired union men, and I am very proud of it. And if you do not belong to the union, you should," I said. • In other words, I could be called an organizer, because I believed in the union, and my father had belieted in the union, and I saw no reason why we should not all belong. I Avas fired because I was honest enough to tell them I carried a union card. I went to other studios. When they fire me for carrying- a union card, I go to other studios and get new recruits. Pretty soon 1844 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I was fired out of all the studios. That did not bother me as far as making a living is concerned, because I was a mechanic, and I never worked for the wage scale, I always get more. And I went to work for an outside firm, Arans & Warne. I worked for Arans & Warne about 6 months, but I never missed a week attending my union, and I knew what happened, I know what pressure was on, and I think I am going to be very frank and tell you some of the pressure we put on in trying to organize the studios. Now, you have heard here someone says historically the lATSE had all this work, and all this and that. There was not any lATSE or anybody else in there in 1926, because we all got fired. And what had been before, I do not know anything about it, but I do know what has happened ever since. We had a little gag, and I will probably get hell for telling you this, but at that time the studios did a lot of their work in the sunshine. They would have locations, go out along Hollywood Boulevard, Vine Street, nearby places, and shoot the exterior of stores where they could get the benefit of the sunshine. Some of us thought it was our duty, because Ave were discriminated against by the studios, to disrupt these places. My duty was to go and represent myself as a union organizer. I was not getting paid or anything, but I was a union man. And I would say, "I want to see your union cards." If the cameramen did not have a union card, and that is an lATSE card, then as well as now, and if the grips did not have a card, and so forth, we usually ended up by smashing the camera. I know that is admitting something that I should go to jail for, but I never went to jail. Why, I don't know. We smashed the camera, and that stopped the company, and the company had to go back to the studio. Now, later, in 1926, an agreement was made, the first agreement with the studios, and that agreement was not for wages or hours. The only agreement was that they would not discriminate against union men working in the studios. I went back to the studios. I like studio work. In fact, there is a little story, and I think I will take time to tell about that. The boss that I worked for had about 300 men, and I found that they were graded in seniority and ability, and I found only two men graded ahead of me in seniority and ability, and they were getting a dollar a day more than I was, and I said, "Look, I want that dollar a day." He said, "Well, you know , we have only so many $6 a day, so many $7-a-day jobs, a few less $8-a-day jobs, a few less $9-a-day jobs, and very few $10-a-day jobs." I, of course, was getting $9. "I want the 10. If you don't have the work, that's all right, I will work some place else." He gave me the 10. He worked me Monday, Tuesday, and Wednes- day and told me to lay off Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and come back Monday. On the couple of days that I was off I dropped into a studio where I knew the foreman, and he asked me if I would work those couple of days. I said I would. I worked those couple of days. He said, "We will pay you the $10 if you stay here.'' So I was then privileged to go back and tell the employer who had laid me off for a few days that it was his hard luck, that I was leaving, and MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1845 I would not be back. I never went back to work for him. I worked in the studios from then on. The union gvew in importance because a lot of the men did not realize what good it was to them, but it grew in importance because they would choose the union men to go on the locations so they would be sure to not have any interference. We organized into a local which, if I remember right, ran about 500 or 600 people. In 1933, as has been testified here, the lATSE pulled a strike. Now, I have heard both sides of that story. I have heard all sides, and I do not intend to try to tell you anything about that. Maybe it was jurisdictional, but maybe it was not jurisdictional, but they pulled a strike. And this is the way they pulled that strike. They sent the men telegrams not to go to work. They told them to stay at home, go fishing, have a good time, and, if the producers did not capitulate, they would pull the operators out of all the theaters throughout the Nation, and they would shut her down and they would win. There was no picket line established. I never went through a picket line in my life but once, and that is when I came out of the place, out of my office where they established a picket line. Brewer's men established a picket line in front of my office, so I came out and went through it. I did not go back to the office. I did not give them the privilege of saying that I had even gone through a strikebreakers' picket line. I did my business from another office. So in 1933 I did not lose a day's work, because there was not any picket line, and we just waited. In a few days the men began to drift back to work. You understand, that was open shop. It is true that in places the carpenters did the grips' work. This I know, because I was on the sets and I saw it. At that time the staging around the sets, where the lights are set to pour it down into the sets, they were not hung as they are now. They were constructed, and they were constructed by grips. The carpenters constructed those. Some of these carpenters belonged to the union, and some did not, and they were out to the gate to hire people in open-shop conditions. The grips automatically got a raise because they hired in as carpent- ers, and carpenters were getting a dollar a day more at that time than the grips and the electrical operators. It has been mentioned here, the assemblage or the erection of staging was given to the grips; the carpenters could not claim the erection of staging ; the erection of staging is assembling the stage, which is hung- by chains from the roof ; and, of course, there are nails driven on braces and planks to connect them. I just want to bring that in, and I really should not depart that far from what I have to say. Now. I think you can find where Walsh testified, and I think it has been read into the record, that the lATSE could not even get a laborer on the job when they go on location. Thej^ were impotent. Now, then, in 1935 — 1934 or 1935, and I am stating this completely from memory — the lATSE made a deal with Nick Schenck as heading- this deal, and this is where the conspiracy started ; Nick and Balaban had been dealing with George Browne in Chicago. George Browne had a very firm hold, and he was a very liked man. People liked George Browne. He made deals with the producers for their work in 1846 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES their theaters, and he controlled them pretty well by all of the projec- tionists belongino; to his union. I am not going into that. There was a lot of graft at that time. When he became president of the lATSE, he naturally went to his friend, Nick Schenck, who is the general when it comes to the bosses in the motion-picture industry ; Nick Schenck is the general. He made a deal with him. Consequently, the lATSE — or signs were posted. There was also the basic agreement crafts come under a deal, and signs were posted that the men must show a paid-up card in the lATSE, and so forth, on a certain date— and they were signed by Pat Casey — or not report to work. It is a beautiful way to organize. By Walsh's own testimony, less than 200 men in the studio, ITASE men, when we painters had two or three times that much, but we got nothing, but they got a closed shop. Now, it so happened that that was the most destructive thing that could have happened to the workingmen in the motion-picture industry. There was no meeting. The business was run by Willie Bioff. He was appointed by George Browne. He was never elected. And I think that we can show that he never carried a union card in his life and never was a product of labor. He was a filthy panderer. He was rotten to the core, and we will prove that. But he was appointed by Browne to come there and run motion- picture labor. He received a 10-percent raise. Immediately he ab- sorbed a lot of jurisdiction that no one in their right mind should think that he should have. It looked good, 10 percent, everybody was tickled. But what hap- pened ? They took in 50 percent more members. The high hourly wage looked so good that people rushed to join the union, and they took their money. The consequences were that wages would go up 10 percent; men who worked in there steady and made two or three thousand dollars a year now sit by their telephones and waited for a call of maybe 2 or 3 days, maybe 3 or 4 hours. Men who had worked steady all the time — suddenly their earnings per year dropped from three or four thousand to eight or nine hundred. It did not work out so good. For a few, yes. A few people in key positions benefited greatly. Production costs were being whittled in spite of the fact that the men got a larger hourly rate. Competition was terrific, because when they would get in there they would pile over each other and just ravenous to get an extra day's work, at first. Then wages went up another 10 percent, and more people joined the union.' In the meantime — I was a painter at the time — I was working on the sets, all of the union halls were supposed to supply new, all they wanted on a minute's notice. Our conditions were af- fected alsa. Now, there was many of the crafts, not only the painters, who did not get either of these 10 percent raises. And I think tliat there were about 12 crafts. I could name some of them offhand. I do not have them before me, but there were the painters, the scenic artists, the make-up artists, the machinists, the molders, the sheet-metal workers, the craftsmen who are now called set designers — no carpenters; car- penters got one 10-percent raise, but they did not get the next one. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1847 I cannot think, but there were a number of crafts that were being pinched out of this. They were discontented. The lA were discontented, and our people were discontented, too. "We formed what was called the FMPC, Federated Motion Picture Crafts. All that was was a conference of union heads. The actors were a part of that group. The actors were not recognized at that time, either. Kenneth Thompson and Audrey Blair were in charge of the actors, .and I understand they went to New York with our boys and tried to get something and got nothing, and eventually it wound up we went on strike. We went on strike April 30, 1937. The actors got a union-shop agreement, and everyone who was an actor in the studios had to join their union, and so, consequently, they did not go on strike, but they felt sorry for us, so they sent us $500. Now, this strike lasted from April 30, 1937 to June 10, 1937. I am •quoting these things from memory, but I lived them. I know that that is a fact. As soon as we went out, Bioff and Browne said we were Communists. 1 think that we have clippings here to show that at that time the j^apers, through the papers and every place, we were called Commu- nists and disrupters, and a man by the name of Charlie Lessing, a scenic artist from New York, came to be more or less the head of the group. And he was accused of slandering people, and they said if he got out they could settle it. And Bioff said when it was settled it would be settled in his office, and so forth. The studios ^^retendecl to be in a position not to quote their own minds, but that they were in the middle ; they are the greatest people in the world for being in the middle. They put themselves there. This strike was very vicious. We had the underworld connected with this strike to such an extent, we had a fellow by the name 0(f Nitti, Frank Nitti, who seemedto carry the most dougli and have the most connections, even more, I would say, than Willie Bioff. Bioff was the spokesman appointed by Browne, but Nitti was the under- cover man, so to speak. Now you say. Where do you get your infor- mation^ I am not going to get a chance to give you all the informa- tion I knew about Nitti and Bioff, but Nitti paid the bills to the goons that they brought in from other towns. Now, they made a mistake. I can say now that they made a very serious mistake when they went down to the gymnasiums in Los Angeles and hired a lot of old pugs. These old pugs scare people iDecause they get their ears all rolled up, aiid so forth, but you under- stand when a man has got tin ears it is because he is softened up and he is not too good. Some of these men knew me because I used to do a little boxing, too. I had a pipe line through these fellows, and they would tip me off to the moves that were going to be made. They would meet in the Taft Buildiiig, and they usually started from there. I can say very clearly that I am not the kind of a fellow who is going to set like a pigeon and let somebody bump him off. So when I got word, and here I think I skipped something that I should put in the record. 1848 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I was not an officer at the start of this strike. I was not an officer during this strike ; but they made me a captain of the Warner Bros, picket line. The first day I w^alked continuously from 6 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night. There was an ordinance throughout southern California, and all these cities around southern California, that you could not picket across a driveway. Now, it so happened that all the studio gates are driveways. So they told me about 9 o'clock the first day of the strike that we had to disband the picket line. I said, "I won't do it. If you've got men enough, you take them off,, but I won't do it. You tell the chief of police to come out and see me."' I knew the chief of police of Burbank. His name was Elmer Adams, and this you can check. He came out to Warner Bros, studio, and he drove right through the picket line. You understand, we had a mass picket line, but we let people through. He drove through the picket line, and then he came out and he said, "Herb, you will have to disband the picket line, because there is an ordinance that you cannot picket across a driveway." I looked Elmer Adams over and I said, "Look, Elmer, see all these people across the street," and there were a couple of thousand. I said,. "We came out here to win a strike. We will do it the hard way or we will do it the easy way. If we have to take the picket line* off, we are going to chase all these people out of the neighborhood so they do not come into the studio. Now, it is probably going to be a riot, because if anybody tells me I have to do something, I am going to fight, and I expect these people to do the same thing. If you think you have got enough people here to handle the situation, you give me the word, and I will go to work." Elmer Adams thought a little bit and said, "Go ahead and picket; it's public property; and I will have to get a ruling from the city attorney or something." So we continued to picket Warner Bros. ; very good. That night I went to a meeting, and they made me picket captain over all of the studios, general picketing captain. You understand, the main reason for calling this strike was not be- cause it was Communist, but because we were 20 percent behind. W© had a cause, and we wanted a closed shop like the other people. We did not have it. Our men would be laid off and others brought in, effi- cient sometimes, and sometimes no efficiency at all, but to keep us off" guard. We wanted to stop that. As soon as I became over-all picket captain, we started to picket all of the studios, driveways or no driveways. I had a number of conferences with Major Shaw and Chief Davis of the police department. They took me for a ride one day and showed me how the teamsters were picketing back and forth on the sidewalk but not across the driveways. I could not help that. I refused tO' pull the pickets off, and I said we would fight for our rights, and I felt that that was one of our rights, and we had a man by the name of Bill Heinz — we called him "Red" Heinz — who was in charge of strikes and such as that, and he pulled a very foolish trick. He drove with a squad of men, he drove the picket line off the Lemon Grove gate at Paramount, drove them right out, and saw that everybody came throuffh. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1849 So we had, you know, just like a wrestler, j^oii get a hold, the other giiy gets a hold to brejik it. So I contacted a lot of people and they drove their automobiles down to the end of this blind street, and they could not get back because peo- ple piled in behind them. They did not only pack that street, but they packed the street crossways. There was a fire station; there is a fire station on that street, and finally it was blocked, and people turned in the fire alarms and they could not get out. "We finally came to an agreement that if I would clear the streets they would allow the picket line to go on. AVe picketed for the full 6 weeks. I got off the track a little bit to show you why I came to be one that was sort of in the lead. When my friends would call me and tell me that we were to be attacked at a certain place, we formed our strategy ; Ave did not wait for them to attack us; we went and attacked them. We went to their hotels when they were having a meeting, and we would catch them coming out and we would slaughter them. That is, we never carried a firearm, we never carried anything but our fists, but we knocked the devil out of them. We would i-eport to the police, •and the police would not do anything about it. So we had to do it ourselves. Frank Nitti himself had a large group of men who were particularly going to take care of me one day, and they came out of the Taf t Build- ing. I was tipped off, and, instead of waiting to be picked off, we met them at the Taft Building and surprised them. It is probably in the police records. Now, understand, I am telling you something that I was not con- victed for. I am laying it bare. We took those fellows, and I told •one of my friends to put his hand on Nitti's shoulder so I would know who he was, and I think he did, and I think he was very well taken care of. Maybe I have not explained who Frank Nitti was. My attorney says maybe I have not explained it. I cannot explain too much; I do not want to go into too much detail. Frank Nitti was one of Capone's boys. He was high up. And he was one of the worst people. He was not one of the loud-mouthed ■ones like Willie, but he was one of the bad boys. jSIr. Owens. He was high up and low down at the same time? Mr. SoRRELL. He was high up among the low-down people. Mr. Owens. How tall was he, and how much did he weigh ? Mr. SoRRELL. You know, I do not know, because it did not matter to me then, because — here is another thing — I had just turned 40 years old on April 18, and I thought that a man was all done at 40, he should not live any longer. I had been told that a man's activity was gone, and from 40 on he was done, and I was through living, and lived a good life, and I raised a couple of children, and they were big •enough at that time they could take care of themselves. And I felt I had a job to do, and I felt at that time that I would be killed before I got through, because I realize you cannot live by the sword but what you will die by the sword. Mv. Owens. You do not believe with Mr. Pitkin that life begins ;at 40 ? 1850 MOTION-PICTURE JUETSDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr, SoRRELL. No, I don't. I think if I were to die tomorrow, I liave> had a good, full life. I have lived far enough thftt it does not matter. Now, I want to say that a lot of this will be brought out by the- things that I will have Mr. Bodle read. They did everything they could to plague us. We had our union offices at the corner of Wilcox, and Santa Monica. lATSE also had union offices in the same build- ing. They suddenly decided to use those offices to hire men to take- our jobs. They put ads in the paper; and the ads in the paper said to come to that address for union jobs, they would give them a union card and send them into the studios. I came up once at the request of the laborers, and I think it was Lou Helms that asked me to come up there. He said, "We have got. to capitulate, and our executive board is meeting." I went into the executive board, knocked at the door, and they let, me in, and in there was Joe Touhy telling them, "You have lost every- thing, fold up, pick up the pieces, start all anew," and those were; fighting words for me. Joe Touhy, they let him out the back way. I said, "What do you: mean, quit?" He said, "Look at those people." At this time the lATSE did not have a laborer in the studios. But they said, "Look at those people, the stairs are jammed, the halls are jammed, those people are being sent out to work to take oun- places. If we do not go back, we will never get back," Mr. Kearns. What year was that ? Mr. SoRRELL. That was in 1937, during the period of the strike in 1937, I said, "Lou, you come up and take. a look at that place in 30 minutes." I wedged my way up to the office. I got hold of four or five fellows. There was a hunch-backed fellow there and I said, "Yoiu go across the street, and when you see all these people come that I am calling up, you sit down. That will be the signal for us to start from within, and we will clean this place up." I called up people to come to catch these people that we drove out,, because we were going to clean them up. There were over 200 peoplet there. Mr. Owens. Were they not your own people ? Mr. SoRRELL. No; they were not our own people, it was Skidwell bums, and trash, and God knows what. They would come there for jobs to take our places in the studios. The lA had their office there,, and they were supplying not only cards but jobs. Of course, the guy sat down too quick, but we emptied the hall. This is a fact, that two or three men — or there were five in this case, organized men — can do a lot of things, and believe me that does not only go for fighting, four or five Communists can do a lot of things too. But in this case we emptied the hall, and the ambulance made 1^ trips hauling them away. So you see, I told you, or I tell you the facts, and I am not pulling any punches. We had to fight for everything we got. Finally, I was at a meeting at this same hall, and believe me they did not hire any more people there, but I was at a meeting at this same hall one night and Lesging came over to speak to us, and when he went to go away he was picked up by the police. It was reported to me immedi- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1851 ately. and since I had ^Yorked very good with police in this "way, that if a striker got drunk or a little nnrnly, and they took him in, and I got there before they booked him, they wonld turn him over to me and I would see that he was taken oiff the picket line and kept off. And in turn, if an officer got out of line and unbearable, I would report him, and they would transfer him some place, and put another man in his place. We had a sort of working agreement. So when they reported to me that they had picked up Lessing and some of our boys, and took him to the police station, immediately T went to the police station. When I got to the police station I said, "Thers are some of our boys here," and they said, "Go around here," and I went around, and there I found Blayney JVIatthews. He is the chief of police of Warner Bros. And he had Mr. Lessing in handcuffs. Some of the other boys had handcuffs on. There were four or five of them. And they did not have enough handcuffs to go around. "Well," I said, "what's this ?" And Blajmey immediately says, "Pinch that man." Well, none of these officers wanted to pinch me because I was not. doing anything. I was used to coming in there, and they did not do it. So Blayney tried to do it himself. At feast he tried to push me around. Now, it is natural for a man to protect himself, so he made a run. at me, and I pushed him very gently in the face. Mr. Kearns. Let us have order, please. Mr. SoRRELL. He made another run and I caught him by the arms, just as a boxer will to protect himself, but he was heavier than I was at th-e time, and the floor was slippery. It was a tile floor. And he shoved me down the hall, and I stepped into an office. And when I stepped into the office he pushed me until I felt my legs touch a desk. And you know that is no business, you cannot be pushed across a desk. So I quick whirled and, you know, I let him have it. There was a man sitting behind the desk, a lieutenant, who was kicked off his chair. The typewriter, the telephone, everything was cleared up. I held Mr. Matthews down close to the desk so that he could not hurt anybody. And then one of the officers came in with a spring leaf that he had gotten out of a car that they had picked up, that j^ou change tires with, it was an old Cadillac, and he swung that on my head. When he did that, I wrung Blayney's neck. Of course, I had to duck and roll, and I took the spring leaf, and threw it over to one side, and I said, "Look, I don't want to get hurt ; I don't want anybody to get hurt, but more than anything else, I am not going to hurt." So I said, "I don't want to be resisting an officer, and I am willing to go along, but I will take none of this pushing around." I was handcuffed and put in jail, and I was kept in jail for 10 hours. They brought people there to look at me, to see if they could spot me in any mischief. In the morning I heard a very familiar voice, and I could not see out, but I called out and found it was the man's voice who I thought it was. I lived in Burbank and they had put me in the Burbank jail, although they picked me up in Hollywood. I told them to get a few pickets and put around there, and look at the finks that are coming in to look me over, me and five others. There 1852 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES were 17 or 19 of iis arrested, but there were 5 or 6 of us put in a cell. They did that, they surrounded the police station with pickets. In a little while there were two or three hundred around there, and then they turned us loose. Now, I tell you that because, again, I do not think they booked me, though, I do not think that will be in the record, because I sued Warner Bros, for false imprisonment. Certain people w^ho I am sure were Communists came to me and said, "Withdraw the suit." I said, "I am not going to withdraw any suit." And more and more pressure was brought to withdraw the suit. Finally, a fellow who admitted that he was a Communist, "Lou, I have been talking to the Communist Party down there, and they are pretty good guys, and thej^ can give you the reasons for withdrawing the suit." I am departing a little bit, getting a little bit ahead in time, but I want to get this told. Two or three men, and I do not remember their names now, but it may come to me later, who were known Communists, wanted to talk to me. They said, "But j/^ou will have to meet them some place." I said, "I will meet them right here in this office. Anybody can come to my office. I'm not meeting anybody on the quiet." After some haggling they came to the office. I talked to them. They tried to convince me that I had been connected with a lot of violence during that strike and that the producers would put me in the peni- tentiary for my part. I said, "Well, I have a clear conscience, any violence that I participated in was pushed on me. It may not look like defense, but any violence that I participated in was done in my own defense." Mr. Kearns. You cannot remember those names, though ? Mr. SoRRELL. Paul Cline was one, but I do not remember the others, but you can get that because I testified before the Tinney committee, and at that time it was fresher in my memory, and I think I told this story at that time. Mr. Owens. Are you telling us that the Communists at that time, some of these people who were helping you, that because of their helj). that they had given to you, that they were coming and asking you to take this other step of withdrawing the suit? Is that what you are telling us inferentially ? Mr. SoRRELL. No; let us get this clear. You see, I am ahead of my story. I should not tell this until after I have cleared up some other things. But it will clear up, you will see it. But anyhow, these Communist people come to me and they tried to get me to withdraw this suit, with the thought that I was now a martyr, because I had gone to jail for a cause, and I did not want to be a martyr. Then finally they said, "You can't win under the present system, you must, we must teach you that we must change the system, and then you can win all the time. Labor will have the reins and labor will drive them." I told them at that time I was not interested in any system that I can win all the time at. Because if I could win all the time at it, it would not be any good, because I only wanted to win the just things. The suit went on. I got a jury's verdict. The judge returned judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, and changed it. I knew be- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1853 fore we did it, because some iiewspapennen told me that Warner Bros, had gone to him just before election and told him that they had con- siderable campaign contributions but that they were not going to give it if they did not get some action out of this. So he held it on his desk 85 days and returned judgment notwithstanding the verdict. I appealed it. It cost me $1,250 to buy enough transcripts to appeal. I had spent a few hundred dollars in suing. I won in the next court above. Then Warner Bros, appealed it. and I won again, and finally I collected, and with the money I bought my home in Glendale. So I now say that is the home that Warner Bros, bought me. Mr. Landis. How much was that? Mr. SoRRELL. There were two of us, Ralph Peckham, the fatlier of the man that Mr. Brewer spoke about, and myself. We sued for $10,000. I sot $5,000. Rali)h got $7,500. Then I got all my costs back, whiclfran $2,000 or $;3,000, with interest. I got that in 1941. The suits came in 1937. Mr. OwExs. You , really found that justice would triumph when jou went into the courts of law ? Mr. SoRRELL. I have always found that you get justice. Some- times it is very slow coming, but we are going to get justice in this <3ase. Now, I am getting a little bit ahead of things. We have a lot of stuff that we will ready to show you why I could not be any part of the Browne and Biotf set-up. When it came to settling the strike, I was in jail — no ; I was not in jail, I was out of jail, but I was trying to get Ralph Pecldiam out of jail, who stayed 4 or 5 days. The fact of the matter is he said to me, "You've got so many hundred dollars an hour, and I only got half as many hundred dollars per hour." Al- though I got more, it's all right, I had been in jail once before and he had never been in jail before. He was 47 years old. He says, *'I am an apprentice, so I only got half the hourly rate that you did." Xow we get back to the sentiment of the strike in 1937. After most of these unions were broken and destroyed, practically destroyed, we got a lot of threats. I was standing on the curb on the boulevard in front of our strike headquarters one day, and I was handed a letter and then opened it up — and the fellow was gone in a flash — and its said, "Get out of town iii 12 hours or find yourself on tlie curb." I laughed and tore it — I did not tear it up, I handed it to Joe Marshall, who is the international representative of the laborers. He took it very seriousl}^ He said, " Ton do not understand ; this is a terrible thing; it will happen; it will happen." He began telling me about things that had happened. I saj's, "Let it happen. I bet you I get a sandwich while they get a meal." The laborers did not sell out, but they were scared, and they sent their people back to work. The laborers themselves came to me and wanted to know what to do. And I said, "Look, I will go to your hall and I will tell you fellows, all sticking together, do not sacrifice yourself in this cause, because your officers are honest, I think, but they have capitulated and you just cannot hold on any more." I went to their meetino: and told them that. Tlie strike was settled with an agreement which M^as entered into with the make-up artists, the scenic artists^ and my Local 644 and the machinists. The agreement 67383 — 48— vol. 3 23 1854 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES said that we should return to work immediately — that was on June 10 — and that on July 1 all nonunion men would be eliminated, fired; and that negotiations would be completed within 30 daj^s from July 1. Xow, the business agent of our union, his name was Rudy Kohle. He has been mentioned here. Rudy I knew very well. I knew his family. I knew his wife and his daughters. He had a very bad per- sonality. During the strike he was so centered on what he was doing he forgot to talk to people. One man who had been a foreman in the studios came up to Rudy one day and said, "Riuly, how's it going!"' He says, "Who the hell are you; why shoidd I talk to you," and he turned around and left him. I went to that man and I said. ''Look,. Van, I can tell you how it is going; I know as much as he does. This is your fight the same as it is my fight." What did he want, to drive the men back to work? And then I tried to bring him up to date. That was something that Rudy could not help, it was his personality. I would not have run against him for business agent, because he was the business agent. But he w^anted me, aftei" leading the pickets through the strike, to i-un for secretary of the union. I told him, "Rudy, I can't take care of my own money, why should I ever take any of the union's money? I wouldn't have the job." He said, "Will you run for business agent if I run for secretary?'^ I said, "Yes." So I was nominated for business agent along with nine others. They all dropped out but one. That one onh^ got a few votes, so I got to be business agent. But I told them at the time — but Rudy was defeated for secretary. And that was solely due to his bad personality. He is a good fellow. I told the people, "I don't want this job; I am a painter; I like to make things look pretty; I like to make things look clean; I like to go into a house or a set that is just boards or just filthy, and I like to when I walk out have it look nice." Mr. Owens. You usually used your hands in making things look pretty, did you not ? INIr. SoRKELL. Yes, sir. I like that. Tliat is the reason I chose to be a painter, because I like the work. "I'll take the job, but I only want it for about 3 months. I want to make a good agreement. I am in this thing pretty deep." You knoAv, I very fortunately just switched a loan. I had some property in Burbank, and I just switched a loan, and my wife had paid oil a lot of money I did not know about, so I had a few hundred dollars which I loaned to the bovs, and borrowed a few hundred more. So I said, "We will make it up.'"' So I was elected business agent because the business agents in our union are elected in June. I took office July 1, when the nonunion men were to be eliminated, 1937. My job was to go up to Pat Casey's office and ask him why he did not eliminate the nonunion men as the agreement stated. Pat Casey said, "Now, boys, you've won a nice 97 percent victory; you'll now absorb these nonunion men and we'll go happily along." Now, it so happened that when we went out we had 876 members. We had everyone organized in the studio. Out of that 876 we only lost 12. And we did not want to absorb more men. We wanted work for those ]Deople who were in the studios. We did not want a Bioff union ; we did not want our people sitting by the telephones. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1855 I said. ''Look. Pat" — I did not speak it first, because I waited for the others of my committee : there were four of us. But when they did not speak of it, I said, "Look, Ave thought we won a hundred percent victory, but since we did not, we will go out and win the other 3 percent." "Now," Pat said, "wait a minute." He said, "Don't do anything right now; give me until 2 : 30 this afternoon." At 2 : 30 his secretary called and said Pat wanted another half hour. Then he told me, "You go over to MGM, you will find all of the nonunion men are gone. You go to Columbia, you will find all the nonunion — " he named all the studios except Warner Brothers. I said, "What about Warner Brothers?" He said, "Don't go to Warner JBrothers, I can't get ahold of the right man," or something, I don't know what excuse he gave me, "but come and see me at 11 o'clock in the morning." I went to see Pat at 11 o'clock in the morning and he told me that Joe Gilpin had told him that he knew how to handle the painters, and that he would not lav off his nonunion men. Pat came back rncl he said, "Now, I don't think you were kidding me yesterday. Other- wise. I wouldn't have given them this notice," And I was not kiddnig, and I meant what I said, that we would go out and with the other 3 percent. So I went over to Warner Bros. and I sat down with Gilpin and I tried to convince him that he should send these men out. He would not be convinced at first, but when I left Incidentally, I told him that it was a terrible situation, because the next day was Saturday, and the following day was Sunday, and the next day was the Fourth of July, or at least Monday was celebrated as the Fourth. I do not know whether it was the Fourth on the calen- dar or not, and it meant that our people would have to concentrate and picket on Warner Bros, theaters during that time, ,and they were footsore and I hated it because a lot of them had planned par- ties and so forth, but if we had to do it, we had to do it. Just as I was leaving the policeman detained me, and Gilpin came down and capitulated to the extent of taking the people out tempo- rarily, until he thought about it. He took them out, and we did not have to picket over the week end. On Tuesday, at 1 o'clock, they caught me at Paramount and told me that they had brought eight of these nonunion men in. I imme- diately went to the office and communicated with the men and ar- ranged for them to walk out at 3 o'clock. At 3 o'clock they came out, and I say everj^one except one old man that they did not notify down in the trainshed, and he was very much perturbed about it, and they packed up their kits and they walked out and were escorted by the police and the place practically shut down and Gilpin got on one phone and Pat Casey on the other, and he said, "Now, get the people back in." I said, "You have got another shift coming on at 6 o'clock." He said, "Get them back in ; get them back m." I said to Joe Gilpin, "You are going to dock them for the time they are off anyhow." And he said, "Yes." "Then you will wait until 6 o'clock." 1856 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES And he said, "Then I won't wait until 6 o'clock." I said, "I will call the boys and see what we can do." I called them and said, "We have not seen the undesirable people come out yet, and we won't go back." I called Gilpin. He said, "I sent them out the back gate, because you don't think I would send them out with that bunch of Reds." I picked a couple of the most militant ones and told them to go in and look the place over, fumigate the place, and come back and notify the boys that it was important to get back to work. They went in and some of these undesirable people had left their bags and overalls, so they took them down and put them in the incin- erator. They did not need them anymore anyhow, because they never came back. Then I went to the business agent of the scenic artists, and the business agent, Verne Murdock of the make-up artists, Charlie Elrod was business agent of the scenic artists, and I told them, "Now, here is what has happened. Our house is all clean. Nobody but our people are in there. But your house is very dirty, they've got all the non- union people of yours in there, and the goocl people who have come out for a purpose are not working, so let's go up and give Pat Casey no- tice, 24 hours' notice to clean house for you people." Well-, they told me that during strikes that was one thing, but now the strike was over; so we had to take it through the Government channels. And they took it through the Government channels. This is what happens to a union when they go to the Government for help. If they have untold resources and they can go on forever, eventually they get help. But this is what happened to those unions. Mr. Owens.' Which two were those ? Pardon me. I missed that. Mr. SoPuRELL. The scenic artists and the make-up artists. Bioff started to take them over. They could get no place. Nobody paid any attention to them. They had no economic force, unless we all went together, and those two unions were destroyed. The lATSE took in all the nonunion people and some of the strikers, and they got them a raise, and they are in the lATSE today. The next to last time that I saw Bioff , I went up to him and I said, "Look ; you have some people that you have taken in as scenic artists, and you will have to give them up. And if you don't give them up, we will make the fight now rather than later, because I know that scenic work and decorating are so close to each other than there will be jurisdic- tional difficulties from now on." He at that time had 48 of these scenic artists. We had only seven. He agreed to give them up. He agreed not to try to argue any more. Now, we never force anj^body in our union ; so these people, quite a few of whom had gone back to work, did not join our union. They formed an independent union. I will tell you more about that later, or I will bring them into the picture later. Now, the next time I went up to Casey's office, I met with Pat Casey, Jack Gaines, Charlie Sullivan, and Victor Clark. And I think it was Charlie Sullivan, but I am not sure— but you can check with Pat Casey— they had cut a clipping out of a Chicago paper which told about a business agent, and I think it was a painters' business agent, who had been shot to death just getting off a train. In some slurring way, it showed that he was connected with the — you know how newspapers get around things — that he was connected with an under- world or something of that kind. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1857 I was told that that was an honest man. He never took a dime; he died a poor man, bnt he did not play ball. They said, that man could have had a nice home in the country. He could have been a respected citizen. He could have been a leader of labor, but he didn't play ball. So he died, and it is asserted that he died because he was a rouohneck. I thought considerable about that, because I had determined not to have anything to do with any rackets or any pay-offs or anything of that kind. You will check with Pat to see whether it was Charlie Sullivan or not. But one of the group told me that. I told them, "Look, I am not interested in that. I am not going to keep this job. I am just going to make a good contract for these painters so that they get back what they lost in that strike, and I am going back to work." Then Pat told me that Jie liked to make a deal but, of course, he says, "I can't give you over 10 percent. I will just make you a straight 10 percent deal." I said, "Oh, no. you won't. We didn't say we would just take a 10 percent deal. We want a 20 percent deal," So he said. "Well, I can't give you 20 percent. If I give you 20 percent, Bioff will strike." "Oh, no," I said, "he won't strike." He said. "But he will." "Well," I said, "what kind of union man is he supposed to be, any- how ? You and I know what he is." He said, "Well, you go up and see Bioff, and if he will give us permission, we will give you the whole 20 percent." I said, "I will go right now." T went up to see Bioff, and, oh. he had an illustrious set-up. First you come to a telephone girl. She punches a buzzer, and then you wert into another room, and she punched a buzzer, and eventually you got in to Bioff. Eioff was sitting at a big desk, and Harland Holmder — I haven't seen Harland Holmder, I don't know whether he is living or not — but he v'as there sitting at a desk. Ha^^land Holmder was a vice-president or pn international representative of the lATSE. Pioff jumped up, put out his hf nd to shake hands with me, and T said, "Oh, I didn't come up here to shake hands with you," because Pat just told me he was tough and he did not like painters. So if son^ebody don't like me. I don't like them first, T said. "I didn't come up here to shake hands with you. What kind of T acket have you got up here?" " tVell." he said, "this is a labor union." I said, "It don't look like any labor union to me. and it don't act like one. Anytime anyone acts against a laboring man getting a raise, he i^ off with me. I don't have no part of him." " ^Vell." he said, "he wasn't standing in the way." He said, "Who told you that?" T said, "Well. Pat Casey just got through telling me that 3^ou wouldn't stand for me getting a 20 percent raise." Well, Bioff was a very vile talking, slimy individual, so he cussed Pat UD one side and down the other and said it was not true, and I said, "Well, look, I will shake hands with you on the condition that 1858 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES you come down and tell Pat that tomorrow." Then I said, "I don't want any interference other than that." WqII, Bioff got all white, and he sat down and he got sick. So he did not get back to work for several days. Now, I thought he was pulling a fast one on me, so I went up there and I planted myself in the office, and he didn't come, and Harland Holmder didn't come, and I pinned him clown, and so then he sent his doctors and the dentists, and I don't know who all, up to his office to tell me that he was actually sick, that he had had a heart attack. Finally he came to Pat Casey's office, and he sat down with Pat and me and he said, "Look, Pat," he said, "I don't want to stand in the way of this man's getting any money, but my peoj^le won't be satis- fied if he gets that 20 percent." He said, "They will make me strike you." I said, "Well, now, that is a different song than you sung the other day when I was in your office. What is this ?" "Well," he said, "Pat, you go outside." So Pat went outside. He said, "Now, look, these movie people have got a lot of jack." That is the words he used. He said, "Suppose they give you 10 percent raise and we give you 10 percent retroactive to the first of March, including the time that you were out on strike." "Well," I said, "that is impossible. Each individual producer would say he didn't have that many men, and he wouldn't pay off, and some- body would be short." He said, "Look. I figured it out. The most that your painters could make would be $56,000. We will give you $56,000, and you spread it around among them." I said, "It is no deal. I don't like it. I want the 20 percent. I got it coming. It will amount to manj^ more times than that." And he said, "Now, wait a minute, just hold your peace." He called back Pat, and he said to Pat, or repeated what kind of offer he had made me for the producers. He said, "Will the producers go through with that?" Pat savs, "It sounds like pretty good business. I tlunk that I can sell that." You can get this from Pat. He said, "Go on outside again." He went outside. Then he says to me, "Now don't be a fool. We will give you the money in nickels, dimes, quarters, dollars, credit, any damned way you want, and if you are foolish enough to give it to your people, that is your business. If you've got any sense vou will keep it for yourself." I said, "Call Pat back in." I told Pat, "I don't want anything to do with this deal. To hell with it. I don't want anything to do with this deal ; I don't want anything to do with this any." He left, and he didn't do any more. Pat and I sat down and made the contract. Now, Pat is a pretty shrewd guy, but exceedingly honest. I have never had him lie to ine yet. Sometimes he's got around talking to me and ducked me and ditched me, and he is an employer, and I respect him as such. But he never has lied to me yet. So he made a deal with me by which we would classify our painters. The painter who just paints the floor, and just the flat painter, would get one rate, which would be a 15 percent raise. In fact, we got a 15 MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1859 percent over-all raise. But those who did decoratino- would get aai additional raise; those who did spray-gun work or work that was not nice — a spray-gun man don't live long. 1 wouldn't go it at any price — but he would get the decorator's rate. The sign painter rates were not established. They were high in one studio and low in another. So we would get 15 percent on the highest, wdiich was, maybe 40 percent for some. And in lieu of getting the higher rates for certain crafts of the paint- ing trade, I would let him off for a 15 percent raise, a 15 percent gen- eral raise, wath the understanding that when another raise was given to anyone else, we would get an additional 5 percent, or if there was a cut in the industry, we would get cut 5 percent less than the other crafts. Now, that was the deal that Pat and I wrote up. Now comes more trouble. Pat and I could have a thorough understanding. We would draw it all up, he would give it to the attorneys, and I would pull my hair, and I couldn't make anything out of it. They put so many words in it that I did not understand it, and we would end up throwing it in the wastepaper basket. Finally I said to Pat, ''Look, you write this thing out or let me ■write it out so a third grade student can understand it, and then maybe we won't have to get a lawyer to interpret it." Pat agreed with me. He don't like lawyers, either. We wrote out an agreement which I submitted to the union and which they adoiDted and which we lived under for a couple of years with absolutely no trouble. There was no trouble whatever. There was a provision for arbitration in this agreement, and Pat and I had quite a fight over that, because he wanted to put it in there that you could arbitrate any time, and eventually we ended up with getting the agreement to reach that — and I haven't got the exact words — there would be no stoppage of work by the painters for the producers, and that any disagreement should be arbitrated, but pending the decision of the arbitration, the -cause of the dispute must be removed by the producer. Now, it was a very nice clause, because very shortly after that, Warner Brothers hired sign painters from the sign painters union. Now, that is another union of the painters' brotherhood, but they were Avritten in our contract, and they had a different scale, and we had nothing to do with it. Now, it so happened that the painter that was liii'ed was one who worked in there while we were on strike, who had gone over to the other union and joined, and he said one card was as good as another, and he insisted on hiring him. I said, "That is a clause which must be removed." And I would have removed all the painters on the lot had he not abided by the contract and removed the man, and it never went to arbitration. There were onh^ two cases of arbitration that ever came out of this contract: Oiie was Ralph Peckham, the man who has gone to jail with me and sued, and eventually, later, obtained judgment, and an- other fellow by the name of Price, William Price. Peckham was abused by the foreman in RKO. He was laid off repeatedly, although he had worked there for 3'ears continuously. He was just kicked around and laid off until it became unbearable. And I finally took up the case, and I told Pat that they had to keep him on until they arbitrated. That was the only way we could get quick action. 1860 MOTION-PICTUEE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES So they kept him on the pay roll steadily until they arbitrated, and they said, "You pick an arbitrator." I picked a man, and I can't think of his name now, but he came from Nebraska — Omaha, Nebr. When they heard that I had this fellow, a former judge, from Omaha, Nebr., they said, "Well, we can't pick anybody better than that. Suppose we pay him half and you pay him half, and let him make the decision," That was all right with me. We only picked honest men. We didn't want to pick a man that had the edge. Stalnaster was the fellow, Irving Stalnaster. He arbitrated it, and they had to put these men on and keep them on a year at the highest rate to make up for what they had lost. So we Avere right. The second arbitration came over the same two men, because at the end of the year, they kicked them around again. They really kicked them around. In that arbitration I got Mr. Bodle here for my arbi- trator, and I have forgotten who they got, and they submitted a list of people, and we submitted a list. They picked out Judge Bob Ken- ney, and he arbitrated that. And if I remember right — I won't be positive about the figure — they had to give them, one in the neigh- borhood of $1,200 and the other in the neighborhood of maybe $1,500, cash. We were right again. We never lost an arbitration, and we never asked the producers to arbitrate if there was anj^ doubt about our winning an arbitration. Mr. Owens. You had fairly good success each time you used those methods ? Mr. SoRRELL. That is the only two times we ever had an opportunity. Now, I want to say here that we never have threatened a strike or threatened economic action on anything that we would not arbitrate on. We have always offered to arbitrate everything. But we can't get it. Now, let us see. I get off the track a little on some of these things. Mr. Kearns. Well, Mr. Sorrell, I think it is 12 o'clock, and you have been going pretty hard here. We will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. Mr. Sorrell,. I am sure going to have a hard time getting it all in. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed until 2 p. m.) afternoon sessk »n (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order, please. Mr. Sorrell, you may continue with your testimony. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. Sorrell. So far, I hope that you realize that I am just laying the background and the basis for a lot of things that have happened since in the motion picture industry. Now, I have testified to some small extent about what happened in the 1937 strike. One of the things that I have not told you is that during that strike we not only had the opposition, or the lATSE, who did their utmost to hire people to take our places, but they also used their influence on the American Federation of Labor. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1861 George Browne was a vice president on the American Federation of Labor Execntive Board. Mr. Kearxs. Was he a member of the council? Mr. SoRRELL. Of the executive counciL Now. I am not positive if he was right at that time, or not, but he was close in there. And if he was not at that time, he was shortly after. He made his influence felt on the other A. F. of Lf. unions. Since the producers had built up Willie Bioff to be the dictator in the motion picture industry, the}' had influenced all other A. F. of L. unions, almost all other A. F. of L. unions, to go along with the racketeers. There was in charge of the Central Labor Council a man by the name of Buzzell. J. W. Buzzell. He tied in with Willie in every way, as you will see in some of the things we are going to read into the record, and I won't go into that. The reason I mention him now" is that when we went to the Central Labor Council to ask for help, we not only got help, but we got letters sent out from the Central Labor Cxjuncil not to help us because we were a bunch of Communists and disrupters. That may not be exactly the tone of the letter, but it was a letter which barred us from going into the American Federa- tion of Labor unions where he had any pull at all. As you must know, it takes money to run a strike. We went where we could get it. There were some CIO unions who donated very freely. Harry Bridges' CIO longshoremen in San Francisco donated $500 a week for that strike. Mr. Kearxs. That was in 1937? Mr. SoRRELL. That was in 1937. The Wilmington local — I think it was the Wilmington local, I am not very well acquainted down at the harbor — sent down $200 a week. Some of the liberal actors, writers, directors, and sympathetic people who may or may not be Communists and who may or may not be accused of being Communists helped us substantial Iv with contributions. AVe o"ot absolutelv nothina- out of anyone excent our own inter- national people from the A. F. of L; The painters' organization was wholeheartedly? behind this move- ment. It was sanctioned by the president, and I know that we re- ceived money from painters' organizations all over the country in that 6 weeks. So you can see that my allegiance is due to the people that helped us, including the painters' international and some of the other interna- tionals who were on strike with us. I have mentioned that I got no help, but only abuse, from the lATSE. I have told you how Bioff was injected into the negotiations with Pat Casey and what he gave. Mr. Laxdis. Was Bioff connected with the lA ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes. He held the same job then that Mr. Brewer holds now. Bioff, as I tried to tell you before, was not a labor man. He was a bum. He helped in the muscling in of Browne into the lATSE and was appointed to run things in Hollywood wdiile Browne took things easy, I suppose. I don't know. The same as Brewer was brought in from Nebraska to run things in Hollvwood today. Bioff was then a fellow who dictated thino-s for the lATSE. 1862 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I don't want to go into detail on my reasons for knowing that Bioff was crooked, but it appeared from tiie record, I think, yesterday or the day before where Cambiano spoke before a committee of A. F. of L. people, and I know that some of the people thought that that was the 3-man committee, and he spoke very disparagingly of certain interests which sounded like Communist interests. 1 know that that was made back in the Bioff and Browne days. Mr. McCann. For the record, Mr. Chairman, that occurs m the opening statement of Cambiano on behalf of the carpenters before the 3-man committee. Mr. SoRRELL. Mr. Bodle has just shown me Mr. Bioff 's officuil title,, so we can get him straight. He was the personnel representative of International President Browne. Now, I am purposefully skipping over a lot of things, because I do not want to repeat them, because 1 am going to answer them when I answer some of the charges that have been thrown at me. But I want to clear up one other thing about Bioff. We negotiated the contract^ and upon signing the contract Bioff' wanted to see me. I went up to see him, and he said — no. First, I talked to him on the phone. He saw, ''Will you give me a letter thanking me for the help I have been to you in concluding your contract V And I laughed at him. I said, "What do you think I am?" He said, "You had better come up and see me." I made an appointment; I went up to see him, and he said, "You know, we have to cooperate, you know, we have to live together,' and he gave me a nice talk, and 1 knew that he was making an inroad on these scenic artists that we were going to fight about, and he said, "Now, why not be good friends?" And I said, "Well, I guess it is all right with me." He said, "Why don't you give me a letter that I have heli:)ed you in negotiations?" I said : "No, I won't do that. That would be a lie. But I will tell you what I will do. I will report our conversation at the meeting^ and if they see fit, the secretary can send you a letter. Is that satis- factory?" "Yes," he guessed that would be all right. "Now," he said, "let us call in the press and make a joint press state- ment." He called, but he could not get anybody. And he cussed around a little bit because he could not get anybody from the Variety. I said : "Well, what is the difference ? You make a press statement, and I will join you." That is the only time in my life I ever made a mistake about a press statement, because when I saw the press statement, I was thunder- struck. The press statement said, we were the best of friends, we were this and that, and that Willie Bioff got up out of his sick bed to come and help me negotiate an agreement. And it was very, very bad. I could not holler, because I had told him, "Tell them what you want, and let it go at that." I brought it up at my meeting. I told them without any malice, I told them that we were probably going to have to live with Bioff, and that I refused to give him a letter, but if the secretary wanted to give him a letter, that was all right. I think the secretary sent him a MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1863 letter. I liave been accused of sending him a letter of thanks myself, and I defy anybody any place ever to show me anything where I have commended or thanked Willie Bioff. Xow, it so happened that 1 had a discussion with Variety who car- ried this story, and they got straight what I meant, that I felt bad, very bad about being placed down with the dregs, like Bioff. Mr. OwExs. Did you tell the truth about what he had offered to do, to pay you $50,000 to keep for yourself? Mr. SoRRELL. At that time? Mr. Owens. Did you give the paper that at any time ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes. Mr. Unger of the paper knows all about it. Mr. OwEXS. Did you give him the story at that time ? Mr. SoRRELL. I told Mr. Unger, but he did not put it in the paper. This is not a new story. This came out in an assembly investigating committee, and I testified to that before. But Arthur Unger then wrote — Arthur Unger is the editor and may be the owner of the Variety, a trade paper in Hollywood which carried the news of the studios — he wrote an editorial complimenting me about something. I do not know what is was. And Mr. Bioff demanded that he write an editorial about Bioff. He refused to do it. He said he only wrote as he saw fit to write. He then told Mr. Unger that none of the major motion-picture pro- ducers would put any ads in the Variety until he wrote that editorial that he demanded. I became rather close to Arthur Unger at that time, because he knew that Willie was crooked. I told him what I knew, and he had told me what he knew, and in that way, Westbrook Pegler got some of the items that you have probably seen in the papers since then. Now, I was harassed by Bioff, Browne, Buzzell — I don't know. There were several. We had a very prominent representative by the name of Licks at that time. It seemed like they were all "B" boys. I could get no help from the Central Labor Council, because they dominated that, and I will show you by some things that I will read in the record in a little bit. But I did get help, as I told you before, from liberal people. Whether there were Communists or not, you will have to be the jiidge. Now, local 37 of the lATSE" was one big local, with no meetings. We put the heat on them and, you know, we advertised among the men. In order. to stop a revohition, they decided to call a meeting. They had a meeting, and they allowed them to elect a board of governors. Now I do not know who was on that board. I knew then, but I do not remember, except the leaders. One of the leader's names was Joe Carpenter. He was the president of the board of governors. We were quite elated at the time that they should get that much autonomy, and we sat clown witli the board of governors to adjudicate all of the jurisdictional differences in the studios. And you understand, the painters did not have any. We cleaned that up completely at the end of the strike. But there were juris- dictional difficulties between the lATSE and everyone else. One man that we all agreed has no beef and would not be partial in any way was an actor. We chose Aubrey Blair of the Screen Actors' Guild to sit in as the chairman, so to speak, impartial chairman, with committees from each and every local. 1864 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The jurisdictional issues were worked out with everyone except the carpenters. Now, we had an ace in the hole. The producers told me, "If you get that ironed out, we will give you another 10 percent raise." I worked hard. I was instrumental in getting this put over. And the only thing left was an argument between certain carpenter in- terests, as to who was to get the carpenter work, the lA or the car- penters' union. They had it worked down until it did not amount to more than 15 or 20 meii. I sided with the lATSE boys there, and I told them, "Look, I will see that the carpenters accept that. That is a just deal. I will take it to their meeting, and I will explain it to them. And what is the difference if 10 men from the lA take carpenters' cards, or 5 men from the carpenters take lA cards, and so forth? But we will wean this deal up and we will get 10 percent and won't have any trouble. And nobody will lose anything and everybody will benefit, and I will over- ride that stubborn business agent in his own meeting." Just when we thouirht we had everythino; in a])ple-]5ie order, the international stepped in and took over local 37 and divided it into many locals, which made it utterly impossible. They appointed people and put the head of this local, that local, and so forth in. Out of what we thought we had spooned out they caused a complete disruption. Mr. Owens. Who was controlling the international then ? Browne ? Mr. SoERELL. Browne was the president, and Bioff was controllingj and he brought in J. W. Buzzell from the Central Labor Council to divide tliese locals and take care of it and help in the appointing of the people to run it. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask something. Without breaking your thought too much at this time, but just to get your mind running on this trend, you are up into 1937, now, are you ? Mr.SoRRELL. That is right, 1937 or 1938. Mr. Owens. And you have already passed by 1936, when Mr. Hutche- son and Mr. Browne were supposed to have had some deal together that TQU purportedly knew.^bout with respect to the jurisdiction between the lA and the carpenters? Do you recall he discussed that the other day? Mr. SoRRELL. In 1936? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. SoRRELL. I did not. Mr. Owens. You heard me ask Mr. Hutcheson the question, and he didn't want to answer it? He didn't want to answer about what deal if any he had with Browne in 1936 ? Mr. SoRRELL. Now, look, so as to straighten you out, Mr. Owens, that is right. They had a deal to cover over everything, but it did not go into detail. There has always been the argument of what is a prop, or what is not a prop. There have always been certain small argu- ments, not enough to cause a strike, but sometimes enough to cause a hold up of production for an hour or something to decide who should do it, the carpenter or the propman. Mr. Owens. Of course, at that time, you remember, I asked him if lie had a deal with Browne whereby they agreed to accept the February 5, 1925, agreement, and he didn't say he didn't have. He said he did not want to discuss it. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1865 Mr. SoRRELL. Well Mr. Owens. And I was thinking that inasmuch as you were sitting- down with them to straighten it out, you probably must have been aware of what took place then. ]\Ir. SoRRELL. Well, I am aware of what took place, and I am aware of the practices that went on in the studio. And I can bring that out in detail. But I wish to do that a little later. Mr. Owens, But I want you to have that in mind while you are doing it. Mr. Sorrell. Yes. Just hold that in your mind and I will bring- that out in detail later. Now, there was formed Labor's Nonpartisan League. I encouraged m}' local union to join Labor's Nonpartisan League because in that way I could help to pay off some of the debts that we owed some of the CIO unions. In Labor's Nonpartisan League were not only American Federation of Labor unions, but also CIO unions. That has been tabbed here as a Connnunist-dominated organization. I want to say now that if that was a Comnumist-dominated organi- zation at the time we were in it, I am a Chinaman. Mr. Landis. Could I ask you a question there, if you please? Mi\ SoKRELL. Yes. Mr. Laxdis. Do j^ou recall anj^ Republicans that they backed in Labor's Nonpartisan League? Mr. SoRRELL. I am not sure. INIr. Bodle tells me they backed Richard Wejsh in San Francisco. Mr. Landis. I see. Mr. SoRRELL. Labor's Nonpartisan League was a league of labor^ and they did not back anybody that was not for labor. Now, in California, I realize that the Republicans are much anti- labor. Up in Oregon, the Republicans are much prolabor. That varies in the different parts of the country. I do not remember too many of them they backed, but I know^ they did back some Republi- cans. I forgot to mention also Mr. Kearns. Right there, Mr. Sorrell, on what criteria do they say the Republican is antilabor, and somebody else is prolabor? Is that just hearsay? Mr. Sorrell. No. Labor gets together and backs the people that say, "If I am elected, I will do this for you" ; they say, "I am against the hot-cargo law"; they say, "I am for labor unions," and so forth. We only know what they say. Sometimes they get in office and do other things, and then we do not back them again. I will go into that later, more to your satisfaction. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. Sorreljl. On Labor's Nonpartisan League executive board, were two people who will become permanently mentioned in this hearing. One was Jack Tenney; another was Jack Shelley, and there will be others named as we go along. I am going to skip a lot of this, because I want to take up some of these things chronologically with respect to the accusations that have been thrown at me. Tenney. I thought at that time — it was my opinion secretly — that he was a Communist, because he went down into the — I think it was 1866 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES the fruit growers, something like that, mingled with them, and got himself arrested — at least that is what I was told — and served 30 days. Now, he studied to be an attorney, and was supposed to be a lawyer. He was very, very radical. On th« executive board of Labor's Nonpartisan League, he advo- cated the things that if someone would do today, I might, like Mr. Brewer, think he was a Connnunist. We had those types. We also had straight thinkers. I forgot to mention that prior to this time, one of the organiza- tions that I joined was called the Utopian Society. I do not know whether that is considered a red organization or not. It never amounted to anything. They really didn't know where they were going. I joined it to find out what it was. and it fizzled out. Also, I joined the Epic Movement. That was a movement to elect Upton Sinclair as governor; Downey, who is now Senator from California, ran for lieutenant governor, I believe, or something of the kind. Culbert Olsen ran for tlie State senate, and we elected a number of these people. Now, that might be considered a regular organization, because Upton Sinclair — that was during the depression, and he advocated production for use for the surplus of the people that couldn't make a living. It made very good sense to me, and I worked very hard on that in that campaign. It is necessary that you know these things because later they will appear. Mr. Owens. Did Eric Johnston address that group, by any chsitice, when he addressed them on Utopian production? Mr. SoRRELL. I did not know Eric Johnston then. I will tell you more about Eric Johnston as we get along, too. I am not going to leave out anybody. I want to tell you how the forces worked, and 1 am gonig to give you an illustration. Everyone knew that I detested Willie Bioflf. One other thing : I met Willie one time later in a parking lot next to the Brown Derby in Hollywood. He walked up to me very bellig- erently and he said, "I hear something about you saying that I got some money off of these producers." I said, "Yes ; what are you going to do about it ?" "Well, I didn't get anything. If there is anything got, you got it." I said, "Well, Willie, I know different, and I hope you are lucky, but I hope to see you behind the bars." , I cannot give you the exact date, but to my recollection, that is the last time I talked to him. You will see by the number of things in the press that he was com- pletely on one side and I was completely on the other side, and he set out to get me, and he told everybody he was going to get me, and he was going to do this, and he was going to do that, and in his gutter language he was going to have me doing things to him down on Seventh and Broadway that nO man should do to another — very bad. And he repeated that time and time again. So I set out to get him. AVhen he bought his mansion out in the valley, I knew about it immediately, because everybody knew that I did not like him, and everybody knew that he did not like me, and everybody that had anything on him came to me. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1867 1 give you this as an illustration. I am not a policeman. I have been accused of being a policeman because I am built big, and people think I am a policeman. One time I walked into a bookie joint, not knowing what it was, and they jerked the telephone off the wall. I am not a policeman, but with Willie I had to defend myself. When he got his place, he had it altered extensively. So I went to the business agent in the community and I said, ''Check the guy's cards on this fellow's house, because if he was not using union people, and him being a high union official, it would be em- barrassing.'' He checked the cards and they all worked for War- ner Bros. X used to go way out of my way, to go out in the valley and go past the jilace. Across the street was a real estate sign, a place for sale. I marked down the real estate man's office, went by his office and asked him how much the place was; I wanted to know what things cost out there. He very graciously told me, said, "I just sold the place across the street. I sold it to a big movie man by the name of Bioff."' He said, "Very peculiar man, never goes alone, always has people with him. And he should, because he carries a tremendous lot of cash. We went to the bank and he took out his billfold and paid me in $1,000 bills." I said, "Did he have anv particular bank that he wanted to*go to?" "Oh, yes." He told me where it was. 1 told this to the FBI. They always wanted me to make an affidavit for everything. So I get the affidavit made and take it up to them. Then if I was lying, I would be in trouble, and if I was not lying, they would look into it, ]Many of these things, and I can go info that, because we have things here I have reported, because if the guy was going to get me, I was going to get him. Mr. Bio't". when he was accused of ])andering, which we go through the CIO Xewspaper Guild', the FBI boys, and the boys in Internal Revenue Department, says, "If you can knock the glamour off the guy, 3'ou can get rid of him." So, that is something, that kind of a terrible thing is something that would knock the glamour off of any- body. So we made it public and did a lot of work on it, and Governor Olson was asked for extradition papers, to issue extradition papers. It so happened that because I was State president of Labor's Non- partisan League, and I had campaigned with Governor Olson, and it was purely accidental that I had campaigned with Governor Olson because there was on the ticket at the same time proposition no. 1, which was an antipicketing ordinance, a hot cargo ordinance, so to speak, and I did itot want that — that meant that we could not picket the theaters, if we had trouble in the studios. Governor Olson did not want it either. So I appeared at one place and I got to speak before the then Senator Olson and I told all about Olson because I knew all about him, and I used up my whole 15 minutes telling about Olson. And then I said, "You know, I came here to speak about proposition no. 1. I have lost it, I don't know what my people will say, but maybe the next Gov- ernor of the State will help me out a little bit because I don't want to encroach on his time." * Mr. OwExs, Is this the dumb painter that was doing this, that you weref telling us about ? 1868 MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoRRELL. It was purely accidental the first time. Governor Olson did not want to talk about himself, then; he talked against proj^osition no. 1, and it worked so good, we played that trick. It was not accidental any more. I am quoting this from memory, but labor all appeared to want to save Willie. So they sent us a delegation to Sacramento to meet the Governor, to see that he did not sign the extradition papers. I am talking from memory, and names are very hard for me to re- member. But if I remember right, A. H. Peterson, or Pedro Pete, as we knew him, a discredited former longshoreman who became an A. F. of L. organizer who was later thrown out — eventually these fellows always discredited themselves, but he was still no good — he and Hal Moore, who at that time was connected Avith the ASC camera men, that was the top camera men, who were not in the lATSE ; I believe Herb Aller of the lATSE cameramen ; Joe Touhy, Lou Helms, and there were others went to plead for Bioff. I called the Governor and told him I heard they were up there and asked him if he would not see them until I got a chance to get uj) tliere. "Well," he said, "O. K..'' he would not see them until I got up there, "when could I get there?" I could not get there for nearly a week. So they waited around up there until I came up and had dinner with the GoA^rnor, and we had a very nice time, and ^hen he said to me, "Now, Tom, bring in your committee against Bioff," because he knew Bioff 's manipulations pretty well. I did not have any committee. I came up there alone. All I had was a stack of Variety's that Arthur Underwood had given to me. He expected me to bring in a committee. I went to the hotel and scratched my head and said, "What am I president of Labor's Nonpartisan League for. I have got an active vice president in Los Angeles, an active vice president in San Fran- cisco, both on the pay roll." I was not on the pay roll, I was just the president. I called him up and I said, "I want a committee up here at 10 o'clock in the morning," or 11 o'clock, or whatever time it was. "I want 30 people if you can get them. I want people who can come in and shake hands with Governor Olson and he can call them by their first name." He said he would do the best he could. Tlie next day he brought up people who were behind me and against Bioff, and he brought up people that Olson knew and could call by their first name. Among the people was Plarry Bridges, a man by the name of Bulcke who Olson had appointed to something in the harbor; I believe Dewey Meade, a San Francisco supervisor, was along, I am not positive ; Tom Mooney, whom Olson had pardoned, who had suffered a long im- prisonment for something he was not guilty of, and Olson pai'doned him ; and I cannot think, as I say, names do not come to me very clear very fast. We walked in and we saw Olson. We told him, "Now, look, for labor's sake, send this panderer back." He said, "You don't need to come and tell me this, but I know that you know I must have this pressure becatise I was going to do it anyhow." And we shook hands. There was a man by the name of Egan there, who came back from Chicago. I do not remember Mr. Egan's AfOTIOX-PICTT^RE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1869 first iiiUiie. He came to take Willie back; and he was waiting. We came back and I met him and said, "What's Touhy doing here r' He said, "Who r' "Joe Touhy.'' And he said, "Yes."' He said, "I should take him back too." Then he proceeded to tell me some of Touhv's background in Chi- cago. Of course, he did not take Touhy back. I do not want to go into that at this time. And Touhy was linked up with the mob in some way before he came to Hollywood, and he was a very firm friend of BiofF, and was trying to help Bioff . The (xovernor told this other group, he said, "There isn't any use of our discussing it here. We will discuss it at the hearin^cr." At the hearing the Governor made quite a talk, and I spoke to Jack Shelley, who was then a senator from San Francisco, and while I was talking to him in his ofHce, Bioff called him and told him he would get rid of Myer Louis, if he would help him in this crisis. Myer Louis was, I believe, an appointee of William Green, and was at loggerheads with Jack Shelley. Jack Shelley, as well as being a senator from San Francisco, was a president of the Central Labor Council in San Francisco. Jack Shel- ley was also beat up at the 1937 convention at Long Beach of the State federation of labor, because people accused him of being a Communist. He was in the hospital quite some time. Wlien he came out he was elected as the senator from San Francisco, and Jack Shelley is a very good friend of mine, is not a Communist ; he is a devout Catholic, which as you know they can't be two things. These people influenced me to do certain things, not to join the Communist Party, because I am very — well, I have a very rigid mind : 1 do what I think is right, and I do not do things when I think they are not right. Jack Shelley turned down Bioff's request and did not interfere for him. Consequently, as we all know now, Bioff was extradited, he went back, he served his term as any crook should. Just before this happened, he formed a conference of A. F. of L. studio unions. Now, I have heard a lot of stories about the Conference of Studio Unions, did not have a charter, had no right to exist, and so on, and so forth, but of course it was all right when Bioff formed it. There is a report of this in the 1940 proceedings of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. There is also in this book on pages 86 and 87 a resolution that I am not going to take the time to read now advocating that Bioff be brought back and cleaned up, and so forth. Those signing this were the International Moulders Union of North America, Local 374, Robert Black, business agent-secretary; Plumbers Local Union No. 78, Ralph A. MacMullen, business agent; Sheet Metal Workers International Assistants, Leonard Graham, business agent ; International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Deep Forgers and Helpers, George Kej^^endall, international representative: Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers A. L. U., No. 831, Sign and Picture Painters, Howard L. Hanners, president. Now, I must explain that fhe sign painters in Los Angeles wanted the sign painters from us. That is quite a story in itself and would take too long to go into here. Eventually they gave it up. But they 67383— 48— vol. 3— — 24 1870 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES were in Bioff 's corner. That was only one small local, and a very small local at tliat time, of the painters, who were in Bioff's corner at the time. Local Union 40, IBEW, Al Speed, business manager; Metal Polish- ers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers, by James Murphey, business repre- sentative; Motion Picture Studio Projectionists, No. 165, lATSE, by Richard H. Watson. Los Angeles Central Labor Council, H, B. McMurry, assistant secre- tary; International Union of Operating Engineers, by Henry E. Schapel, assistant international representative, Mr. Owens. What did you mean by saying, "Wanted them brought back and cleaned up" ? Mr. SoRRELL. I think Ave should read the resolution. Maybe you should know what this resolution is. Maybe it should be in the record. Mr. Kearns. I think it is all right. My. Owens. It is not very long. Mr. SoRRELL. Would you read that ? Mr. BoDLE. This was a resolution that was entered into the proceed- ings of the International Alliance at the 1940 convention at Louis- ville, Ky. : Whereas, for the past 3 years tliere has been considerable turmoil in the motion picture studios concerning tlie relationship of the various American F-Hleration of Labor unions therein with their employers ; and Whereas there has been and is a concentrated att^ick upon these unions, by the CIO influenced by tbe Communist Party; and Whereas one point of attack by this Comnmnist-CIO combination is to con- tinually attack and harass William Biolf, chairman of this conference, and representative of the lATSE ; and Whereas these attacks seem to be so perfectly timed that each of them com- mits on the eve or in the midst of negotiations between the unions of this con- ference, and the Motion Picture Producers Association, said negotiations affect- ing the hours and wages of the combined membership of the American Federation of Labor motion picture unions : therefore be it Resolved, That the Conference of Motion Picture Studio American Federation of Labor Unions, that we use this means of expressing our resentment against the attempted use of law-enforcement agencies to embarrass the labor organiza- tions in tlie studios, and to hamper the negotiations between the unions repre- sented in tills conference and their employers, and inasmuch as Mr. Bioff has been instrumental in aiding the studio props, in recently securing increase in wages, and in securing contracts that protect their organizations and member- ships ; it is further Resolved, That tliis conference express its confidence in him and convey a copy of tliis resolution to the national security board of the lATSE now meeting in Miami, Fla., and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor now^ meeting in the same place, and that a further copy be sent to the Honorable Culbert L. Olson, Governor of the State of California, this last copy to set forth the names of the unions that are members of this conference. I might point out that at this time a request had been made by the State of Illinois for Mr. Bioff's extradition on a pandering charge, on which he had been previously convicted, but on which he had never served a sentence. He was also under an indictment in the Federal courts for income-tax evasion, for failure to declare $100,000 which he had received from, I think it was either Joseph or Nicholas Schenck, in 1936. Mr. SoRRELL, I tell you this because I want you to know who was lined against us. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1871 You will also see that there are" a number of letters. The letters -all read similar to this : Membership absolutely refused to accept resignation of our chairman ne- gotiating committee. Imperative that you represent us, producers taliing greater advantage daily. Request immediate return. Membership feels entire future depends on you. Rely on us for any assistance possible. Best vpishes for good health and early return. Fraternally, Eric Carruthers, President. Dei- Crawford, Secretary-Treasurer. Ted Hansard, Business Representative, Local U, lATSE. This is one of the locals that was a part of local ?u . These men mostly at this time were appointees. They were appointed, and later ■confirmed by elections. In the meantime, a crew of men who were so resentful at the way workino: conditions were in the studios, started what was called the United Studio Technicians Guild. It will be noted here that it was brouglit out that all A. F. of L. unions supported the lATSE except my union and myself. That was deliberate. I did it then, and I would do it a^rain. I am not afraid of communism because I know how to take care of that. I am not afraid of racketeers, but I don't like them any better than snakes. There are similar letters, and I do not want to take up your time reading all these, coming- from Owen Compton, business representa- tive; Douglas C. Thompson, financial secretary, local 80, lATSE. Another one from local 165, Edward M. Egan. Another from Herbert Aller, local G59, lATSE. Another from Dave Lorv, President, local 683, lATSE. Here is one I wish you would listen to, for the way it is signed : • International Sound Technicians of the Motion Picture Industry, Local 695, lATSE, 1219 Taft Building. That business agent would not put his name on it. That was Harold Smith, who ]\Ir. Brewer said the other day was favorable to the Con- ference of Studio Unions, one of the men. Harold Smith is so well thought of by his people, he does not have to cater quite so much to the international, and the international does not dare do too much about it. William L. Edwards, executive secretary, local 705, Ix\TSE. Willard Cooley, business representative, Make-Up Artists Local 706 . That is the make-up artists that" stole from the painters. Guy Rusliing, secretary, local union 728. That is the local that absorbed the laborers that the}' stole from the laborers organization in 1937. I made a mistake. 728 was the "juicers," the electricians, by Zeal Fairbanks, business representative of local 727, lATSE. That is the one'they stole from the laborers. He was eventualh^ defeated as busi- ness agent of that organization and more recently was assistant to Mr, Brewer in the recent cons2:)iracies in Hollywood. The Secretaiy of the conference of A. F. of L. Studio Unions, Joseph F. — excuse me, I will let him read it. 1872 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. BoDLE. Myer L. Louis, representing the American Federation of Labor. These are all telegrams, by the way. They will be read into the record later, but they are all telegrams demanding that Willie Bioff continue to represent the studio unions. A. H. Peterson — that is Pedro Pete — representative, A. F. of L. ; I W. Buzzell, secretary, Los Angeles Central Labor Council ; Anthony L. Noriega, secretary, California State Theatrical Federation; and then on behalf of the Conference of American Federation of Labor Studio Unions, a resolution similar to that which I first read, signed "Joseph P. Touhy, secretary of the Conference of A. F. of L. Studio Unions." Mr. SoRRELL. I know that there are others. I know that O. T. Wayne, of the machinists, sent a letter like that, too. People were browbeaten and thought that they had to go along with this racketeer. I tell you this to lay a basis and a background so that you will understand, when I answer the charges, my reason for doing certain things. I want to get along as fast as possible. I have got so much to cover, and I want to do the quickest thing possible. Mr. Kearns. Just take vour time. Mr. SoRRELL. I know my attorney knows that I am missing a lot, because he was with me at that time. Mr. Bodle was with me most of that time. I released him to go to the War Manpower Commission at the beginning of the war. Later he went into the Army, and it is only recently that I have been able to associate myself with him. 1 know he is worried for fear I will not get things in. I want to get everything iu, but I do not want to get it in twice. I would like to answer each and ever}^ charge they made against me and explain to you so you can judge, and believe me, I want you to know whether I am a communist or not, in your opinion. As soon as I clear myself of that, then I am going on the attack, then I will tell some things. Xow, if you will tell me what I am charged with here, I can answer it. The first thing 1 look at here is [reading] : One Jeff Kibre was the representative of the Communist Party in Hollywood prior to 1939, planned to form an unemployment conference of various studio unions for the purpose of laying a foundation for an industrial union in opposi- tion to the lATSE. Let me tell you about the unemployment conference and Jeff Kibre. Jeff Kibre I met, I think, the first time at the unemployment confer- ence. The unemployment conference I was the chairman of, if I re- member right. I called the meeting. They made me chairman. The reason for calling the unemployment conference at that time was that so many people in the studios were not working. We invited the producers. They did not accept. We invited all local unions. They all accepted except the lATSE. We met in the carpenters' hall with the doors wide open. We discussed plans of alleviating the distress among the workers during this unemployed period. Mr. Kearns. Was there a public notice of this meeting? Mr. Sorrell. I do not remember whether it was a public notice or not. I think it was in the trade papers. I am not sure. 1 know that all the unions received a notice. I know it was boycotted immediately by the lATSE, and later the teamsters ordered their men out. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1873 It was at this unemployment conference that I first became ac- quainted with Jeff Kibre, and I see, according to what was read in the record, that a letter or something, that Jeff Kibre was on the CIO pay roll, and he took credit for organizing it. If he did, he was get- ting money under false pretenses, but 1 can understand how an or- ganizer might do that. We accomplished quite a number of things in this unemployment conference in spite of the fact that it was called communistic. We jnade a survey to show how much per year our people made, or how little per year, in spite of the fact that they got high hourly wages. That survey was made at the combined expense of the local unions whose representatives were there. It was made by, the name of, Oershenson who is now the statistician of the labor division in Cali- fornia. He is a very fine statistician. I hope to be able to get a copy of this. We had several copies, but I have left them in various hear- ings, and A^arious trials, and it is very illuminating. It shows how little the average guy working in the motion-picture industry made, considering what high hourly wages were paid. We used this very ■effectively in bargaining. Jeff Kibre I have not seen, I do not think, since probably in 19?)9 or 1940 ; and furthermore I want to say that it is said that the things that they read here about Jeff Kibre were printed in the Los Angeles Citizen." Now, for your information, the Los Angeles Citizen was edited by J. W. Buzzell, a thief, who stole money and who was re- moved by President Green because he used money that did not come to him on his pay check. ^ I traveled to Miami along wnth a representative of the actors, a representative of the teamsters, and a representative of the musicians. We got a man sent out there, and I have forgotten his name now, to investigate Buzzell. He investigated him. We did not send him to jail, but they removed him. And they elected the present man, W. J. Bassett, in his place, and we got rid of the guy who put this stuff in the paper which I do not know whether it is right or not. He would put in anything that Mr. Bioff told him to put in there. If Mr. Brewer went there to get his facts, they are mud. If you look through the 1940 convention proceedings of the lATSE, you will find following page 95. you can read all of th' stuff that you have been hearing here about Jeff Kibre, and all of this Communist stuff. You can go right on through and you will see that each one is headed by I. W. Buzzell as the contributor. He is no better than Bioff; he is just a cheaper chiseler. I make these allegations knowing that I am under oath, and knowing that I have to back them up. I am not going to spare anybody. Mr. Oa\t:ns. In otlier words, you ai-e telling us that Kibre was not a Communist? ]\f r. SoRKELL. Oh, no ; I did not say that. I said that I do not know whether Kibre is a Communist or not. I am saying that I met him first at this unemployment conference, but all this stuff that I have heard read here I heard for the first time, and all of this stuff that I heard read was published in the Los Angeles Citizen, edited by I. W. Buzzell. and also i)ut in the 1940 convention proceedings of the lATSE. So I doubt anything that Buzzell says.. It may be true or it may not be true. Do I make myself clear ? 1874 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owp:ns. I was just wondering about Kibre. They were not referring so much to that as the fact that there was a regular plan that seemed to emanate from him which was followed in later years. That is something I w^ant you to cover. If you can show that Kibre was not a Communist, it will make a great deal of difference. Mr. SoRRELL,. I am not going to try to show that Kibre was not a Communist, because I do not know. He did not tell me he was a Com- munist; he did not tell me he was not; in fact, I never asked him. I do not think I ever thought about it. I met with many people who could have been Communists, or could not have been Communists, but I am saying because all of this stuff that they read from the Los Angeles Citizen could or could not be true. I do not think it means anything. Probably Kibre could answer better for himself. I am not going to protect anybody in this. So much for Kibre. Another thing: Kibre never was a member of any of our unions. Kibre was only a member of the lATSE. Kibre came and repre- sented himself as being a progressive lATSE man. Anybody, and I do not care if it was Bioff himself, could have come in and sat in at that unemployment conference, as I tell you. and as can be testified by people who were there. It was always held in the downstairs hall of the Carpenters Building with doors open, and everybody welcome. That explains Kibre and the unemployment conference, which is sup- posed to be communistic. Now% I will go along here. It says here [reading] : Mr. Levy. Our statement sets forth that Mr. Kihre planned to form an un- employment conference of various studio unions for the purpose of laying a foundation for industrial union in opposition to the lATSE, which was and is a bulwark against Communist supremacy in Hollywood. I think I have answered that, partly, because if Kibre said he or- ganized that, he lied, because we organized it ourselves. Here he says — was and is a bulwark against communism. Let me tell you, Mr. Owens and you other Congressmen, that Willie Bioff made more Communists in Hollywood than any other Commu- nist organizer could possibly make. He laid down the racketeering, domineering attitude to the workers, and he made them do things that they did not want to do, and they resented it. If there were Communists in there, believe me he should have done very well, be- cause if he did not do well in that situation, they will not ever do well in this country. Now we go on a little further and I may miss some things because I am depending on reading the things that my attorney has marked. This, I believe, is from Mr. McCann : That one Irving Henschel was a part of that organization and assisted Kibre. In another spot he shows me : This is the same Irving Henschel who was the leader of the so-called rank- and-file movement of the Sorrell-directed strike of the CSU in 1&45. I know who Irving Henschel is. He is not a member of any of our organizations: that is, I do not think he is. Irving Henschel, who I became acquainted with when he talked to me after he had been to the 1940 convention of the lATSE, told me that Willie Bioff hit him on the jaw. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1875 Now, as I remember Irving Henschel, lie was a very little, slight- built man. I may be mistaken. In the course of years you forget. But I know at the time he would be no match for my wife, much less Bioff or anybody else. I told him at the time sometime I would meet that scum and I would get even with that punch in the jaw. I do not remember having met Mr. Henschel any more for many years. I might have seen him, might have spoken to him and not recognized him. As to him being the so-called rank-and-file move- ment, the leader in the 1945 strike, that conies as a bolt out of the heavens. I do not know a thing about it. I know that many of the ] ATSE boys are with us heart and soul, and if Henschel was working, he was probably one of them. Here is something : One of the lATSE's own local unions, Film Technicians Local No. 683, parti- pated in the organization of the CSU. Now, I think I have to go into that slightly. I am going to have to go into this several times, but this you must know. We started to organize the screen cartoonists. The reason we started to organize the screen cartoonists was because they came to us. The CIO also tried to organize the screen cartoonists. Here may be I did some- thing that may not look right. I knew that I had strength in the major motion-picture studios. And the CIO was trying to organize Disney's. So I deliberately went out and got myself acquainted with some peo]3le who worked at MGM. Among them was a man by the name of Bill Littlejohn, who was an animator, and who is one of the greatest guys I ever knew. Bill Littlejohn they all looked up to because he made in excess of the average wages, probably $100, $200, $300 a week. I don't know. But I talked to him, and I discussed how poorly paid the cartoonist was, and if a local union, if we could make a union there, we could bring up the standards. He and a little boy by the name of Pepe Ruiz cooperated with me. We got the whole cartoonist studio organization at ]\IGM signed up. I went to Eddie Mannix of MGM and I said, ''Look, Eddie, we have got your cartoon department; the painters is the right place for them to belong; I don't think there can be any question of juris- diction, and I want to make an agreement for them." I met the usual opposition. "Well. I think there should be 15 or 16 internationals in there. Some guy washes the film; he should be- long to the laborers. Some guy writes or traces the film ; he should be- long to the office workers," and so on and so forth. I discussed that at great length with Eddie ^Mannix, and I told him that he had people working in there for, I think, $18 a week. He told me he did not have anybody working that low. I said, "Well, I will prove it to you. Call up." He called up and found for the first time that he had people working for. and I think it was as low as $18 a week. I said, "You can either sign that up and keep it in one unit — Ave don't want the cameramen ; we don't want anything that the lA claims; we don't want anything but the artists and the people that draw." We concluded an agreement with MGM, which was much better than any place else in the industry. Then, naturally, the other car- 1876 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES toonists all wanted to oo to work there, and we told them, "Look, join the local and make your studio fit to live in too." Mr. Kearns. Let us recess for 5 or 10 minutes. (Short recess.) Mr. Kearns. You may proceed, Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Sorrell. I have forgotten where I was, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Owens. You said you made a fine contract with MGISL Mr. Sorrell. No; it was not a fine contract, it was a good contract for the cartoonists, as the first one. They still did not get what they should. I am not jDroud of that contract. They got much better than they had gotten before, but all over the industry the cartoonists were very badly underpaid. In answering this, I am going to have to get into the Disney strike. I will sketch over it quickly. The next place that we got a hundred percent organized was Leon Schlesinger Cartoons, who made cartoons for Warner Bros. We then organized most of the artists with Disney. We could not hold them in check, and there was a strike at Disney's. I nuist go into that, but I can go into that on another question. Those who helped us, who contributed to the winning of that strike in Disney's were : No. 1, the machinists ; No. 2. local 683 of the lATSE ; No. 3, the little office workers independent guild, who had a few people there ; and the painters, who paid me Avhile I organized them ; and I think that was all. After we had won that strike, and I will have to explain that, as I said, but I will do it on another question, we had to do something for the people that helped us. The machinists were 20 percent behind. They managed to survive the '37 strike, but they did not get the wage increase that we did. Mr. Kearns. You speak about all these various organizations that are either 1 percent behind or 20 percent. Did they ever catch up? Mr. Sorrell. I was just going to say, we put the lug on the pro- ducers to give the machinists the 20 percent that they had coming, in our estimation. We think that mechanics should all be in one cate. gory. We do not believe that because we are painters we should get more than the carpenters, or because we are carpenters we should get more than the machinists, and so forth, and we A^ery successfully negotiated the deal with the producers for the 20 percent that the machinists were behind. Mr. Owens. You were in a peculiar position on that, were you not ? Were the machinists not part of those who went through the picket lines in 1937, so you had a divided proposition when you were through with that strike, did you not? Mr. Sorrell. Look, the machinists went out in 1937. I did not w^atch. I do not know. I do not know how many went through the picket line. I know nothing about that except what I heard Mr. Wayne testify here the other day. I know that Mr. Wayne stayed out, because I got acquainted with him in 1937. Now, the machinists refused to cross the picket line. We did not establish a picket line, but if we did, they would refuse to cross the picket line at Technicolor, therebv helping out the strike against Disney, and we felt indebted to them. And we obtained by joint MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1877 action — the machinists, \Yith onr concentrated help obtained the 20 percent tliey were behind. The next in line was Icx^al 683. We took the officers of local 683 into the ])rodiicers and we obtained a contract for them; 683 seemed to have been forgotten by Bioff. They worked steadily and there was no, probably no chance to get a rake-oft', so he forgot them. So we took them in and with joint action got j|:hem a deal. That we will read in the record later from news accounts of it. Then the office workers, and that is another story. We organized them, making a few local unions who were working together. We decided to call it a conference. That is all that the conference of studio unions is today, is a conference of democratic unions bound together to maintain the democracy and the automony within the union. It is our opinion that the man who pays the dues to make a union possible should have some say in the running of it. Only those unions are eligible to join the conference of studio unions. I think that that answers this question, or the reference that 683 was one of the conference unions at the start. Mr. Landis. What is the name of 683? Mr. SoRRELL. The Laboratory Technicians, who develop and print the films after they are shot. Mr. McCann. It is an lA union, is it not ? Mr. SoRRELL. It is an lATSE union. Now, then, we slip down here to where there is some reference to the "motion picture democratic committee which brands -Roosevelt a warmonger." As I have testified before, up until 1931 or 1932, I was a Republi- can. I would have voted for Hoover when he ran in 1928, but I hap- pened to be a little bit filthy rich and I had hit the stock market, and my wife and I were on a tour. We toured all over the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We just had a grand time. And I did not get a chance to vote. As I say, I changed then, and I voted for Roosevelt. I voted for Roosevelt everytime he ran. I realize that I do not agree with you on this. ]Mr. Owens, and that would make me a Communist if you were Mr. Brewer, but this is a fact. Mr. Owens. You do not know how I voted. ^Ir. SoRRELL. You are a Republican I understand. Mr. Owens. I did not vote for Roosevelt at any time, though, I will grant you that. ]Mr. SoRREEL. All right. I did. Mr. Owens. You wei'e one of the deceived persons. Go ahead. Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Owens, maybe I was deceived, but I liked it. I was a member of the motion picture democratic committee, and I never heard RooseA'elt branded as a warmonger. However, let me make it very clear that I did not think that this counti^ should go to vrar. Now, don't get this confused. I did not think they should go to wai*. but T did think they should arm and keep armed and be prepared if attacked. I cannot sav exactly Avhat the motion picture democratic committee did, because t did not only belong to the motion picture democratic 1878 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES committee; I belong to the Biirbaiik democratic committee, the motion pictnre democratic committee, and I am not snre at that time whether i was a democratic central conunittee man or not, but I was out to help elect Culbert Olsen and the friends of labor. I do not ever remember their e^ery branding- Eoosevelt as a war- monger. However, I do not think the motion picture democratic com- mittee was Communist controlled, and maybe I do not know some of the things that happened at Ihe motion picture democratic committee. To make it very clear to you, as they would like to make it appear that I followed the Communist line, this brings up an incident where this country started to issuing defense bonds. Now, I do not know the date that they started to issue them, but the Connnunists did not believe in that. Thej did not want to arm us. The}^ did not care if Russia armed, but the}' did not want to arm us. Now, I believed in defense; so I could not follow the Communist line. To make it clear to you, since these people are trying to make you think I followed the Communist line, I have to make it clear that I did not, by the fact that Mr. Gavery, the superintendent of construc- tion at INIGM called me one day, and he said, 'T would like to talk to you. Could you drop over?" I dropped over, and he said, 'T've got a proposition here. We are going to make some shorts, and Frank K. Whitbeck is going to write these shorts, and he wants to make a picture of a union in meeting, and someone get up and make a motion hj the nnion to buy $5,000 or $10,000 worth of defense bonds, and have it passed, and so forth." He said, or rather he discussed this with me, and I only know one democratic union that can do that and do it snappily. And he said, "You hold meetings every week, don't von?" And I said, "Yes." He said, "Could you do that for us?" And I laughed, and I said, "Mr. Gavery, don't you know that I am supposed to be a Red, and that the Reds do not believe in defense bonds?" He said, "Yes, I know, but I know different. I know that you are not a Red." I said, "You are right." And naturally they wanted the union actually to do this, so it would be an authentic story, but they wanted to reenact it on the stage where it could be shot properly^ I said to Mr. Whitbeck and Mr. Gavery, "Now, understand, I think that it would be better for the musicians to make this picture, because the musicians have musicians in every theater, most of the theaters where it will be shown. They are a little more impressive, and they have more money, and maybe they could buy $10,000 worth, where we could only buy $5,000, but I will take this up to my union on a Monday, and I will make the motion to buy the $5,000 worth of defense bonds, and I am sure that it will carry. But I will also talk to Spike Wal- lace, who was then the president of the musicians, and see if he can buy $5,000 worth and make it more imposing." He thanked me, and the next Monday meeting, I can truthfuUy say, and the minutes will bear me out, I made the motion to buy $5,000 worth of defense Ijonds and we were the first union in Hollywood to buy defense bonds when they first started issuing them here before the war started. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1879 Xow, that, I happen to know, is not the Communist line, because I paid the People's World, and it is supposed to represent the Com- munist line, and they oave us hell. I think I have answered that question. While I am at it, I will ao to another one ISIr. Keakxs. Did the nuisicians make the movie? Mr. SoRRELL. I do not know whether they made the movie, or not, but they bought the bonds, the same as we did, but we bought them first. That was the thing I wanted to bring out. Xow, it is said in here that I did not support Roosevelt because I— Mr. Oavexs. Some inquiry was made as to the date. You said you did not know, but I do not recall. I think it was 1939, was it not ^ INIr. BoDLE. In 1989, I believe, when lend-lease first came in. Mr. SoRRELL. You can check the records here, and I can check, and if you wish, and I would like to do this, I will check my minutes when I get home, if you will make a note of it, Mr. Bodle, and I will send a certified copy of the minutes of that motion. Would you like that ? ]VIr. Kearxs. Yes ; that would be very good. Mr. Sc)RRELL. You shall have it. Mr. McCaxx. Mr. Cliairman, may the minutes, when they arrive, be received in evidence at this point ? Mr. Keaexs. No objection. The date will have to show there, Mr. ■Counsel. Mr. McCaxx. I know. But I mean, inserted in the record at this point. Mr. Kearxs. Very well. {The minutes referred to are as follows :) Extract Fkom the Minutes of Moving Picture Painters Local Union 644, Meeting of May 19, 1941 ^Meeting called to order Monday evening, May 19, at 8 p. m. by Brother Warnock. Roll call of officers. All present or excused. ^Minutes of the previous meeting were read ; approved as read. * * * . * ^;= * * (Sections here omitted: Proposals of membership; communii-itions and bills; accident, sickness, and death report ; secretary's report ; reports of delegates and committees; business representative's report; and unfinished business.) New business : Letter from Brotlier Halstenburg asking for time to pay note. Motion by Brother Ball seconded by Brother Friedman, that he be allowed to Tiay 10 percent per month. Motion made by I'rotlier Sorrell that the treasurer by instructed to buy $5,000 worth of Defense bonds, seconded by Brother Friedman ; 21 for motion, 13 against motion. Motion by Brother Hoffman, seconded by Brother Friedman, that $5,000 be taken from the general fund. Amendment that matter be left to the trustees to transfer the money from the fund. Amendment and main motion carried. Brother Pilsner requested that his ob.iection to the motion go on the minutes. Receipts, $149.-30 ; expenses, $686.81 ; $40.00. Meeting ad.iourned at 10 : 15 p. m. BespectfuUv subn)itted. • E. C. Head, Acting Recording Secretary, Pro T&m. 1880 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The foregoing extract from the minutes of the Moving Picture Painters Local Union 644, 4157 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles 5, Calif., consisting of portions of the minutes of a meeting of May 19, 1941, is, to my best knowledge and belief, a true and exact copy from records in my possession. Vernon K. Mangold, Recording Seefetary, Local Union 644- State of California, County of Los Angeles: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of March 1948, by Vernou K. Mangold, personally known to me. [seal] Wm. F. Heyler, Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My commission expires August 5, 1951. Mr. SoERELL. Also, I am listed as being on the pro -Communist slate to support Ellis Patterson in preference to President Roosevelt. In other words, I am supposed to throw down President Roosevelt to- support Ellis Patterson on a peace plank. That is correct to a certain extent. It was the understanding and it was laid down to me as cold facts that there would be an Ellis Pat- terson slate and that we would vote for Roosevelt, but they would put a plank in the democratic platform which was a peace plank. And that is my reason for supporting Ellis Patterson, and if you subpena Ellis Patterson — believe me, he is not a Communist — he is a former Congressman here — he will tell you that he rah on that ticket to put a peace plank in the platform. And I supported it, and they used my name as one of the delegates. Now, another place here, it says : The official literature of this organization will show that right up to the time- "of the Stalin-Hitler pact, it supported Franklin D. Roosevelt and advocated his running for third term. It will also show that right after the announcement of the Stalin-Hitler pact, when the Communist Party line changed to isolation, it opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt and his foreign policy for aiding the allies. Now. I cannot remember it, because the Communist Party line crosses the Herb Sorrell line. I cannot help that. If they want to go along on my road, that is their business, and if they want to gO' on another road, that is their business, too. But I do know the lATSE bulletins have said that I changed coats every time the wind changed, like the commies do. That is not true. In 1940, when the Communists were tearing Roosevelt to pieces, I was miMving speeches on national hook-up, and let me see if I can think of some of the people oh that. There were several stars, and I represented labor, and among others, one of the others was Fred Meyer, from 20th Century Fox. That was on two national hook-ups, supporting Roosevelt. I have a kind of bum photostatic copy of a certificated membership in the Democratic National Committee, and this certifies that Herb Sorrell is a member of the 1940 campaign of the Motion Picture Divi- sion organized for the purpose of helping to elect Franklin D. Roose- velt President and Henry Wallace for Vice President, and there is some more here. My name is engraved on it. They gave it to me for the parts that I played in the election of Roosevelt. I had it framed, and it is hung in my office, and I sent for a photostatic copy,' and 1 would like to put it in the record if there is no objection. Mr. Kearns. No objection. Mr. McCann. As a reference exhibit. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1881 Mr. Keaens. As a reference exhibit. Mr. 80RRELL. I do not care Nvhat yon use it for. It is a fact. (The document referred to was filed with the committee.) Mr. Owens. When these cliarges were made against you with respect to that particuhir matter, was it charged that you were moving sepa- rately along that same line, or that your name was linked right w^tli that particular Communist front organization'^ Now. which was it? Mr. SoRUELL. The}' said that I was a member of the executive board of the motion picture democratic committee. They said that I was a member of the — I don't know. You heard all the stuff they heard, and I am supposed to back it all up. ]Mr. Owens. I do not mean it that way. Did they make any separate charges that you made any talks about peace during that time, or was it because your name was linked with these organizations that were standing for that program ? Which was it ( ]\Ir. SoRRELL. I think that it was the latter. Mr. Keakns. We will have to watch the prompting on questions. Mr. BoDLE. He is not familiar with the record, Mr. Chairman. . JNIr. Keakns. That is all right with respect to reference to the record. Mr. SoERELL. T think it was the latter. However, I talked for peace, too, and I want that understood. And I wrote President Roosevelt letters for peace. I do not know that it did any good, but I wrote them. Mr. Owens. Don't you think that would be the time, even though they might seemingly be adopting your program, be a time for you to keep yourself separate from them, rather than having your name linked with them in any way, inasmuch as you were thinking about the same thing, just as though at the present time I might have, say, some of the same views that, say, Mr. Wallace would have, and I should be very careful in keeping my name separated and showing that I did not stand for the things he stands for? Don't you think you should have been in the same position ? Mr. SoRRELL. Look. I always work to get a thing done. I work to get a thing done. And if I think the people are all right, I work with them. And when they depart from my way of thinking, I break Avith them. Now, I do not know when I broke with the democratic com- mittee, I just do not remember. That was several years ago. I know that they did some things that I did not approve of. I know that it graduated from the motion picure democratic commitee to some bunch of letters. I have forgotten what the letters are now. But it was mentioned here, and I did not go along. I know that at the present time that organization is called the* — I can't remember the name, but it is the Artists — I can't remember the name. But it is a long name, and I am not a part of it. I am not a part of it because I can't see where I would gain anything by being a part of it. Their views are not like mine. I think we will come to it in here, because I think they have men- tioned that the Motion Picture Democratic Committee became some- thing else and then something else, and they probably think that I am still behind it. They would like to make you think that I think that. 1882 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. In other words, you feel that they feel, that yon were using them and they were not using you ; is that the point ^ Mr. SoRRELL. Xobody uses me. Mr.LANDis. Was that the HICCASP? Mr. SoRRELL. HICCASP. Mr. Landis. HICCASP. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes. I think I did pay a little dues to it, but I quit, because they got far afield from my thoughts. Then they went in to the Associated Arts and Sciences, or something — one of these high mental names that is over my head. And I had nothing to do with it at that time. Xow, it says here, when Mr. Douglas and Mr. Dunne resigned, that I was a member of the Motion Picture Democratic Organization and one of the executive board. Now, to clear this, I may have had some meetings with the executive board of that organization, and I may not. I don't remember. I made one speech to the Motion Picture Democratic Committee, and I spoke for money. I distinctly remember I told them — in California at tliat time there were a lot of })ension plans. There was the Townsend plan, and — I don't know — all kinds of old-age pension plans, and I told them I had the Sorrell plan, and as I was a member of the executive board, they could not stop me from saying it, and mine was a retirement plan, too, and I needed some money to start it with, and I wanted to retire ]\Ierriam as (lovernor and elect Olsen. We had some stars there, and we got a tremendous amount of money. But I do not remember meeting with the executive board. Those were just names. Mr. Kearns. Were the stars interested in a retirement plan? Mr. Sorrell. Retiring Merriam and putting Olsen in? Yes; they were, because they contributed heavily. Then they wanted me to make money speeches all over, and I do not like to make money speeches. Money and I don't get along, anyhow, and I just didn't make any more speeches, and I kind of dropped off from the organi- zation. NoAv, I Avant it clearly understood that I was opposed to this country going to war before and after Russia got into the war. I was opposed to this country going to war until Pearl Harbor, but I was not opposed to this country l3eing prepared for war. And when Pearl Harbor came, I wanted to go to war. But I had gotten too old. Mr. Owens. You mean, you are telling us any organization you are affiliated with took no step wliatever to show any change in your position at the time that Germany took steps against the Soviet Union ? ^Ir. SoRRELi^. That is right. Any organization Avhich changed their policy when the Soviet Union went to war with Germany — any of them that clianged then, I was not a part of them. And, believe it or not, it was hard for even those people who were pro-Communists to change quickly, and that came over a several months' period. Well, this is all about Communists, all the time. I want to skip over this as fast as I can, because I have so much to tell you. Oh, here it is : On June 6, 1945, the Hollywood Democratic Committee became the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts and Sciences and Professions. That is what I was trying to think of. And I do not think that my name is linked with that at all. I am not saying anything against that MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1883 organization. Those people have a right to think. And I think that everybody has a right to think and do as they please, but I have an independent right, too. I think 1 have already explaiiied why Labor's Non-Partisan League said. "The Yanks are not coming to fight Stalin and Hitler." I think I made that plain. It states here that Herbert K. Sorrell was State president of the organization — this is speaking of Labor's Non-Partisan League — during this latter period opposed his third term for President Roosevelt, and Sorrell denounced him as leading us into war, that being from the People's World. JVIay 2. lOJrO. I want to say something about Mr. Sorrell's supporting President Roosevelt. I understand — then he explains, because Matthew Levy knows that I have told a lot of people that that kind of thing would not hold up ; that I have proof that I was supporting Roosevelt. Now, it seems to me — well, I will come to this later. ]Mr. Laxdis. But you sujiported Roosevelt at that time? jNIr. SoRRELii. I have always supported Roosevelt. Mr. Landis. You have always supported Roosevelt. Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Owens and I were not in accord. He thinks it was not good, but I liked it. Mr. Owens. It may have been good for you, but I did not think it was good for the country. Mr. Sorrell. I think it was good for the country, too. because I only do what I think is good for the country, because only by doing what is good for the country can you raise and improve your own living- standard. You can't do it individually^ yh: Owens. I don't hold it against you, you may be assured of that. Mr. Sorrell. I don't care whether you do or not. Mr. Owens. That is my opinion. I keep seeing repeats here — repeats. The Patterson slate. I have explained that. Now, the Workers' Alliance — tliis is a laugh. It tells about all this Communist business, and I want to say some- thing about this. I think, and I am not positive about it, but I think that I did speak at that place, but I was up there looking for offices and hall rents for a union one evening, and they had this Workers' Alliance, or whatever it is, there, and they heard I was there, and they asked me to s])eak to them. And I spoke a few minutes. I don't know; it didn't amount to anything. But that is all of the recol- lection that I can possibly get through my head. And I think that was a Workers' Alliance meeting. It was a group of people — probably, as I remember it, 150 or 200 people. I guess if that makes me a Communist, I must be a Communist, but you had better be careful, the kind of people you speak to, you Congressmen, or you will be fellow travelers of mine. Now. here we see Emil Freed. Now, let me tell you my connections with Emil Freed. I know Emil Freed as a newsboy, and so help me. I never knew until I came here that he ever made speeches. It says I spoke from the same platform as Emil Freed and LaRue McCormick. Now, if I spoke from the same platform as Emil Freed and LaRiie McCormick, I didn't know it. And I don't know it now. I think 1884 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I have met LaRue McCormick ; I am not positive. I would not know her if she came in. I supported LaRue McCormick, and that will come up a little later. Incidentally, Emil Freed was arrested on a Columbia picket line across the street from the picket line selling People's World papers. He was arrested, and he was given a year and several hundred dollars' fine, because they picked him up with the rest of the pickets in a zone that was supposed to be only so many pickets. Now, the people had formerly gone into the studio and gone to work, so they could not go in, so they demonstrated outside. So they all got pinched. There will be more about that later. And Emil Freed was selling People's World papers across the street, and they took him in, too, and they gave him a long jail sentence, and we are appealing that, the same as we are appealing the people that we had in there, because we do not think that is just. Mr. Landis. Was it the zone or what was in the People's World? Mr. SoRRELL. Nothing in the People's World, but he happened to be in the wrong part of town. He was in the zone where they sur- rounded them and pinched everybody. Mr. Owens. Was that a Communist publication? Mr. SoRRELL. Some claim it is, and I am inclined to think it is Communist — everything is for the Communists in the publication. I don't say everything, but I am inclined to think it is a Communist publication. I can't swear to it. I take it, and I will continue to take it. I even take the Times, which is antilabor, completely. Mr. Owens. The People's World ; is that the one where the editor is now up for deportation? Mr. Sorrell. Oh, I don't know. Who is that ? Mr. Owens. Zanis, or some name of that type. Mr. Sorrell, I don't know. I am not that well enough acquainted with it. Mr. Owens. You mean, .you take the paper, and you never notice who the editor of the paper was? Mr. Sorrell. No. I just take the paper to see whether the Com- munist line is following the Sorrell line or whether they are fighting me. Mr. Owens. You don't know that the editor of that paper is now up for deportation ? Mr. Sorrell. No; T don't know that. I don't read it that close. I should read it close like Mr. Brewer, and then I could pick out all the things that I need to, but I don't read it that close, and, in fact I should keep a file of the copies, so that I could go through. I sent a hurrj^-up call to Hollywood, and I got a few extracts which will be introduced in here. But I will be more careful in the future. Now, the National Federation of Constitutional Liberties, southern California branch. I think I endorsed that. I usually endorse things like that, because the ))eople who helped me when I needed help are the people who endorse things of that kind. I also endorsed the Jewish Relief, something about the Jewish Relief, or something, and they put a big paperful of publications. Of course, they did not bring that in, because I think Frank Freeman and some of them got on there with me. Now., I am not a Jew. But, of course. I have been accused of being a Jew, because I have been accused of being everything. But that MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1885 is one thing I can prove. You know — well, we won't go into that. But I can prove that I am not a Jew. And look, I am not saying that disparagingly, because some of the smartest people I know are Jews. Well, all It says is that 1 am one of the sponsors of that organiza- tion, and I think that is right, and I think 1 was prevailed upon to sponsor that organization by a man by the name of Abe Isserman. Now, Abe Isserman is connected in some way — I think he is, I am not sure — he is an attorney. He did some work for us, and he will come up in this hearing again. I know Abe. He is probably tabbed as a left-winger. But 1 know him as a very able attorney, and he did something for us here in Washington that I do not want to go into now, but which is going to surprise some of you probably wdien I bring it out. Abe Isserman's name is mentioned here. He is the national chair- man. Yes ; that is it. Abe Isserman is a friend of mine, and has done some things for me, and I think the organization is all right, or I would not have endorsed it. Now, some of these things that I think are all right, you might tab as a Communist front, and I still do not think they do any harm. Now, I see something about — To induce the students to peace strike, a demonstration under the auspices of tlie committee in cooj)eration witli the American Student Union, a Communist- controlled group, was held in the University of California at Los Angeles on April 18, 1940. The purpose of the meeting was to induce the students at the college to stage a peace strike. That was during the period of the Stalin pact. Herbert K. Sorrell was listed as one of the speakers. So help me God, I never spoke there at all. April 18 is my birthday. How I know I did not speak there was that April 18, 1910, I spent with my daughter and my grandchildren up in Oakland. Now, I place it because it just happens to be one day in the year that I covdd place. I have spoken at U. C. L. A. I have spoken at Stanford. I have spoken at Cal Tech ; I have spoken at U. S. C. I have spoken at a ninnber of these places to the labor classes. The last time I spoke at U. S. C, they packed Bovard Hall with, I think they said, 2,500 people, or something like that. I spoke for an hour, or something like that. It had nothing to do with politics. I did not even discuss the studio strike. But where they get some of this is beyond me. Mr. Kearns. What did you talk about to those students ? Mr. Sorrell. I talked about democratic labor unions, not the racket- eering kind. I have definite ideas on how unions should be run. I have very definite ideas on labor relations, and anybody that wants to hear it, I am glad to tell them. Mr. Owens. Are your thoughts along the line for instance, of the AFL. the CIO, the English system, or the Soviet Union? I don't know which. Mr. Sorrell. Well, I will tell you. I am a craft unionist, and I think it is necessary to have good labor relations, and to have it done by craft unions. I have never advocated a vertical union in any indus- try, as the CIO, except in the automobile industry, or something like that, where they have failed to organize under the craft union set-up. Mr. Landis. How about the coal miners? 07.383 — 48— vol. 3 25 1886 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoRRELL. The coal miners — I think they pretty nearly have to be a vertical union, too. Let us put it this way Mr. Landis. We have united crafts, too, in the coal mines. Mr. SoRRELL. What is that? Mr. Landis. They are united like the studio unions, I imao;ine. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes. But you will need some central control there, I imagine. Mr. Landis. That is right. Mr. SoRRELL. Because the trouble you run into, the only trouble that craft unions have is when you have one engineer ; so he belongs to a union by himself. You have one electrician; so he belongs to a union by himself. You have a couple of maintenance carpenters, and a couple of painters: they belong to a union by themselves, and then you have a mass of people. Now, in a case like that, in order to organize them, I think they have to be organized in industrial unions. The racketeers in this industry have hollered that, talking about BiofF and all his stooges all the way along, that I advocated CIO unionism. Now, there are a lot of people that think the way I think, and at the end of the 1987 strike, it would have been very easy to have affiliated with the CIO or any- thing else, because they were pretty disgusted with the treatment they got at the hands of the central labor council and the treatment they got by many of the A. F. of L. unions. But I don't think that that was proper. We are still painters; I am loyal to the painters' brotherhood. I voted for President Lindelof . I respected him as the president of the organization. And as we go along wnth this story, you will see that there is complete cooperation there. I spoke at the request of the faculty of each of these organizations that I mentioned. Mr. Kearns. If you can find that out, I would like to know what member of the faculty invited you to be the speaker. Mr. SoRRELL. Now, there was a doctor — I am speaking from mem- ory— a doctor — Dr. Graham, a Professor Graham, invited me to U. S. C. I wish Charlie Boren were here. He knows some of these people better than I do. Mr. Kearns. If you get this information for me, I would like very much to have it; I mean, as many as you can get, of the particular faculty members who extended you the invitation. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes ; now, some of these people have changed. Mr. Kearns. I understand. j\Ir. SoRRELL. Dr. Robert Gray at Cal Tech is still there. I will try to furnish them. Mr. Kearns. Yes; I will appreciate it, as many as you can give, Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Sorrell. Yes. Now, we go along here and we find the Schneiderman-Darcy de- fense committee. I want to tell you about that. I was speaking at some kind of meeting some time, and I was telling them that I believed that you should not kick people around because they are members of a minority group. If you kick them around enough, they have a right to fight for what they believe is right, and if they can't go to the ballot and they can't talk about it, then they will' probably start a revolution. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1887 I don't believe in kicking the Connnunists out of anything. I make that very plain to yon. Mr. Kearxs. You mean, of any labor organization? Mr. SoRKELL. I don't believe in kicking them out of a labor organiza- tion, or anything else. jVir. Landis. As an officer ? You mean even as an officer ? Mr. SoRRELL. Now, after all, I have a streak in me, too. I think that that is the labor organization's job to do it within themselves. That is my opinion. ]\Ir. Laxdis. Well, that is all right. Mr. SoRRELL. It is my opinion that when you kick people out, for every one you kick out, you make a dozen. Schneiderman and Darcy were a couple of foreign Communists who admitted they were Communists, and I admire a guy who admits that he is a Communist, because so many do not. And they were up for deportation. I voiced my opinion on that, and somebody said, "Would you get on their defense committee?" And I said, "I never say anything to you that I wouldn't say to the whole world. Sure, I will get on their defense committee."' I sponsored Schneiderman and Darcy ; that is, on their committee, and 1 said that they should stay in this country. Now, it so happens that Wendell Willkie defended these people, and I am told that he did not defend them for the price, that Mr. Lfevy has said he was entitled to, but I understand that that was his theory, and I understand that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled just like this lousy painter thought. So if I am a Communist, I have got a lot of comrades. Is that clear? Now, that is my opinion, and as an American, I have a right to my opinion. Mr. Kearns. Then vou oppose the noncommunistic phase of the Taft-Hartley bill? Mr. SoRRELL. I wish you would not put me in such damned spots as that. I signed one myself. ^Ir. Kearns. All right. That is good enough. You signed it. Mr. Owens. Tlie only thing that I say is that there is no difference between your beliefs and those of the Communists, then, inasmuch as you make the statements that you do ? Mr. SoRRELL. That I do what ? Mr. Owens. That they should not be taken out of anything, it is up to themselves to handle it as they wish, that you would defend them ? Mr. SoRRELL. Look- Mr. Owens. Maybe you know more about them than I do. Maybe I have been misled as to what their thoughts are here. Mr. SoRRELL. Let me give you a little illustration. In the first place, it is ver3\ very hard to pick out a Communist and kick him out of your organization. I think Mr. Brewer told you that. I have learned that you are a labor attorney, and I think you know that. Now, we have in our organization some Communists, and I know down deep in my heart they are Commmiists. We also have in our constitution a provision for kicking these Communists out, and I was there; I voted against that, but I go along with the majority. I am 1888 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES a strict believer in democratic procedure as far as unions are concerned. One of our members was investigated since I have been here. His name was Frank K. Spector. He was investigated by the Un-Ameri- can Activities in California. He has been driving and cutting my throat and doing everything he could, and that will be brought up, because I have some minutes here from my own union to show, and they naturally want to destroy our organization. They want to go into the lATSE. They want us to make ourselves available for work and go back so that they can go back into the lATSE, which they can cut the throat of quickly. Frank K. Spector testified before the Un-American Activities Committee that he was a Communist, and had been a Communist since 1919. And he was also a foreigner, and not naturalized. Then they said, "we should report you to the Immigration Authorities and have you deported." He said, "You are a little late. That was done 21 years ago, and I am still around." Now, that was communicated to me over the phone, and I said, "Well, so long as he has committed himself, he is a Communist, you have to prefer charges against him." They said, "Well, now, it is lucky that you are back there and don't have to do it, because we will have somebody else do it." . I said, "No, you won't. I take the bitter with the sweet. I don't like it. It is against my principles to throw Communists out, be- cause he is only going to go some place else, and it is only going to cause more trouble. It is in the constitution, and we will live up to it, and you prefer charges against him in my name, and I will sign them as soon as I get there. You will take the usual procedure. I think that you should call an executive board meeting, and I will wire the recording secretary accordingly and tell him to get the findings from the Un-American Activities to use at the trial, and I won't crawl out from under the obligation." I wired that. I have a return wire. I cannot put in the telegram, because I sent it to them, but I can put in their answer. I will put in their answer to show that I go along with the procedure that was laid down in democratic courts. However, I don't agree with it. Mr. Kex\rns. Don't you keep copies of telegrams you send out, too? Mr. SoRRELL. No. They keep them at the office. When I am away from the office, my attorney is a veiy poor secretary. He might have it and he might not. At the office, yes, we keep everything there. This is a wire from Los Angeles dated February 26 : Washington, D. C. Following your wired instructions have preferred charges in your name against Frank K. Spector who last Wednesday admitted before the State un-American activities committee he is a member of the Communist Party. Charges are based on sections 107-A and 107-E of the brotherhood constitution which bars Commiinists members. Executive board tonight removed Spector as delegate to Painters' District Council 86 as you suggest. I contacted committee and am authorized to obtain their transcripts. Vernon K. Mangold, Recording Secretary, Local Union 644- Mr. Landis. You don't believe your constitution ought to have that section in it ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1889 Mr. SoRRELL. I don't believe it should. But I will go along with it. Mr. Landis. The point I was making is that if there was not some individual who believed in the American system and another indivi- dual who believed in the overthrow of the government by force. I think the Communists believe in that. Mr. SoRRELL. Now, let me give you my views on that. I think that as long as a man has a right to express his opinion and a right to vote, he does not have a right to try to overthrow the country by force. Now, if any Communist — I don't care whether he is a Communist — if an}^ Republican comes to me Mr. Landis. Yes, any subversive. Mr. SoRRELL. and snjs, "I have an idea to overthrow the country b}^ force," brother, he's got a fight. Mr. Landis. That is right Mr. SoRRELL. But if you bar that man from expressing his opinions, if you bar that man from telling you his thoughts, and trying to con- vince you, then you drive him to do the very thing that we don't want him to do. That is my opinion. ]VIr. Owens. You know that Spector was a Communist before he admitted it, didn't you? Mr. SoRRELL. I didn't know. There was no way for me to prove it. I didn't ask him because I didn't think he would answer me. If I had had any idea that Spector would have said, "Yes, I am a Com- munist.'' I would have asked him, and believe me, he wouldn't be a part of our organization. But as a rule. Communists don't answer that way. I have read that in the record ; so we will save that, because we have copies. Mr. Landis. Most of them don't answer; is that right? Mr. SoRRELL. Most of them give you a lot of double talk. Now, let me tell you.^ A certain group of Communists headed by Frank Spector, because there was one now that I know was a Com- munist, have been contacting Mr. Brewer about putting some scenic artists back to work. They come to our organization and they call a special meeting. It only takes a few signatures to call a special meet- ing of the painters' organization. So they called a meeting, and they said, "Let us make ourselves available for work." They are voted down overwhelmingly. They vote another meeting, and they say, "Let us make ourselves available for work." They are voted down overwhelmingly, and this goes on and on. We h^ve a lot of meetings, and unlike Mr. Brewer's organization, although we have been on strike for 8 months last year and been .locked out for a year or a year and a half now, we had 1,000 to start with, we call a meeting, and we get 600 or TOO or 800 to the meeting. Our people want to know what it is all about. And that is the reason they are not racing back to the studios, and they are not Communists. Well, they didn't get far ; so they got a little group that they call the Scenic Artists' Group. They tried to needle that scenic artists' grou]) to go back to work separately. And in order to do it, they sent a delegation to see the executive board when they met the last time; that is, the executive board of the painters' organization, to ask for a separate charter. Believe it or not, one of the boys went with the delegation to prefer charges against two of the other boys, two or three years ago, calling 1890 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES them anti-Semitic, pro-Hitler, and everything in the book. I suspect the guy is a Communist. I suspect the other guys are just as bad a little bit on the other side. But in this, they group together, and they all rode back to St. Louis in one little car, and they were all cramped in together, the Commies and the Fascists, they all mixed up. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Well, those fellows became strange bed fellows within union politics. Mr. Landis. You never suspected Hank Spector of being a Com- munist ? Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, I suspected him. Sure. I suspected him because he is a very clever strategist on the floor. He will do to me what Mr. Owens did to me the first time I testified. He will break in in the middle of a sentence and break the con- tinity of my thoughts and destroy my effectiveness when I try to say something. Mr. Owens did that to me the first time I was up here. Mr. Owens. I assure you it was accidental. Mr. SoRRELL. And do you know, I came pretty near saying, "Mr. Owens, you act just like some people I suspect of being Communists or fellow travelers.-' I think you did it in trying to help me get myself expressed, but that is the reaction. It confused me very badly. I am pleased that you are not doing that today. I like you better as we go along. I have explained the thing about Darcy. Here I see Leo Gallagher's name. I might as well catch these as I go along. To go back for a minute. I signed a petition to release Earl Browcler from jail, and I did not remember that I did it at Columbus. But I not only signed the petition : I wrote President Roosevelt a letter requesting him to release Earl Browder from prison. Now, let me tell you why I did it. This I am told, that Earl Browder falsified in some way his signa- ture on a passport, and I was told that the most anybody ever served was 6 months for that offense, and I was told that Earl Browder, because he was of a minoritv group, got either 4 or 5 years. Is that right? Mr. Landis. I forget that. Mr. SoKRELL. You seem to know the case, Mr. Landis. So that is why I asked you is that right. Now, that is unjust. If you are going to penalize the guy because he is a Communist, because he is a Communist to penalize him, but if you are going to put him in jail, give him the same treatment, whether he is a rich man, poor, beggar, Republican, Democrat, or Communist. I signed it, and not only did I sign it, but I wrote a letter to Presi- dent Roosevelt, and believe it or not. President Roosvelt pardoned him. I do not know who is the biggest Connnunist, me or the man I admired so much. Mr. Landis. But you mentioned the Browder case. Of course, I have not said anything about the Browder case, except that I used to be on the Un-American Activities Committee. But I want you-to un- derstand my position in this, since you mentioned that I knew some- thing about the Browder case, that Comnninists or any subversive in- dividual that believes in the overthrow of the United States Gov- ernment, if he is foreign-born, I say deport all of them. If they are MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1891 American citizens, let us put them in tlie penitentiary. That is the way I feel about it, anybody that believes in the overthrow of the Government by force. That is the point I want to bring out. Mr. SoRRELL. You have got to show Mr. Landis. I did not speak of a political party, either. I do not speak of the Communist Party as a political party. Mr. Kearxs. You are speaking of them as individuals? Mr. Landis. I am speaking of them as individuals, or an or- ganization— any individual or an organization. Mr. SoRRELL. I will go along with you to a certain extent, but I say that when you drive them underground, you are breeding trouble for yourself. I think that if I were a Communist, I would want to be the kind of Communist that said, "Look, Mr. Landis, this is a better idea. Let us endorse it. Let's go along. Let me show you why." Only I have never come to that conclusion. ]Mr. Landis. They have never showed me why, either. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. But maybe they have not showed either of us, because they were driven underground. I am not sure, because I don't have as much time to devote to laws and legislation as you do, and I don't intend to try to get up there and debate with you about something that I don't know anything about, any more than I expect you to come and debate with me how to paint a very nice back- ground, or even to paint that wall. Mr. Owens. You can paint a very good background, all right. ]\Ir. SoRRELL. I don't know about that. Now, there was some mention here : Herbert K. Sorrell, who was a delegate from his Hollywood local 644, signed the petition, citing the People's AVorld, September 24, 1941, United Spanisli Aid Committee. I don't just remember this. It says further here : The pnrpose of the committee was to furnish aid to the Communists who took part in the Spanish Civil War in 1936-38. Who said the Communists took part in the Spanish Civil War? I am not a Communist, and had I been a young fellow, I would have gone over there, because I think that was a terrible thing. It is my opinion now — you might convince me that I am wrong — but it is my opinion now that Hitler and Mussolini and Franco all got together and put on a little preview of the World War, and I think it should have been wiped out at the time. I think that the people there who voted those people in office should have had no outside interference. If they were going to have a revolution, I think we should have kept everybody out of there and let them have it. I did not ask for any aid for any Communists. If my name appeared, and I just can't remember, but it is my opinion that if my name appeared and there was relief for the people wdio participated in the Spanish War, that is all right. And it didn't have to be Communists, either. Now^, I see Leo Gallagher's testimonial to defend the rights of the Commvniist Party. That is a lie. There was a Leo Gallagher testimonial. Why anyone should put "to defend the rights of the Communist Party" in there, that is simply more smokescreen, typical racketeering hiding behind a smokescreen, because there are things going on in their 1892 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES camp wliich I want to brincr out. They Kfeep yon off balance. They left- jab you with those things, just as a boxer keeps a man off balance. Believe me, I never, and I am sure you can't show me anything in that Leo Gallagher testimonial that says, "to defend the rights of the Communist Party." And I signed and proposed and went to that meeting, that testimonial dinner of Leo Gallagher. Now, let me tell you why I did that. I know Leo Gallagher. Leo Gallagher is a little Irishman, and he ran on the Communist ticket one time, so they tell me, and Leo Gallagher will defend Com- munists, but he will also defend anybody that is behind the 8-ball. I know Leo Gallagher as a little guy who goes to mass every Sunday. I know Leo Gallagher is a guy who has been over in Russia, who knows all about these things. I admire Leo Gallagher for the things he has done, and not just defending the Communists, be- cause that is only one of the very many nice things that Leo Galla- gher has done. I am a business agent. I get everybody's troubles. I got people that were sunk in trouble until they had to have attorneys. I got an attorney here. I have had other attorneys. They worked their nails off. They don't have time for this; they don't have time for that, but Leo Gallagher always has time for the guy that is in trouble, until I wonder how he lives. And if they have another testimonial dinner for Leo Gallagher, I will not only sponsor it, but I will go. I owe it to Leo Gallagher for the many good things he has done, and in spite of the fact that Leo Gallagher will run on the Communist ticket at some time or other, he is not what you would term a "Communist." Do I make myself clear ? Mr. Kearns. Was there proof entered here that he was a Communist ? Mr. SoRRELL. I don't know. Pat Casey said he supposed he was a Communist, and somebody said that he ran on the Communist ticket at some time. That is quite possible. Mr. Owens. I am beginning to wonder whether the Communist Party would need you in there to champion their cause, and if you were not doing a pretty good job outside the party. Mr. SoRRELL (to his attorney) . Well, I'll be damned ! Mr. OwExs. I mean, would you ever find a better champion of the things that they stand for than what you have been saying here, during the last hour? I mean, sincerely. Mr. SoRRELL. Well, I will tell you. Mr. Owens. Here is what I mean by that. If things happen once, as you know, that they say you stand for the very same things, it might be an accident ; twice, it is coincidence, third, it is a habit. Mr. SoRRELL. Well, I will tell you. Wlien I get through testifying here, maybe you will think I am a Communist: but I do not think so, because I have not started to tell you the disagreements that I have with Commies. Mr. Owens. I wouldn't say that. Mr. SoRRELL. I am answering their charges. I have not brought in anything here to show that I do not follow the Communist line. I am just trying to answer their charges. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1893 Now, some of these charj^es are true, and they make it sound like I am a Communist. Some of them are an awful stretch of the imagina- tion, or a stretch of the truth. It is beyond imagination to think that some of these things that I appear as sponsoring here could make a man a Communist. Mr. OwExs. You are beginning to show us that a Communist is a pretty good fellow here. I will have to be frightened and get out before you convince me. Mr. SoRRELL. Well, look, I don't think so. If I thought they were good fellows, I would belong to the Communist Party. So far, they have not convinced me that they are good enough fellows that I should join the Communist Party. I haven't told you a^iy of the bad things about it yet. I will, in the course of this, as we go along. Mr. O'wExs. All right. Mr. SoRRELL. Harry Bridges' defense, to defeat the deportation of Harry Bridges. I hardly think it is worth while, my taking too much time on that. I signed on the committee to defend Harry Bridges. He was found not guilty of being a Communist. As he told me, "I am the only man in America who can say that I am not a Communist. I have been found not guilty in court.'' Harry Bridges gave me help when I needed it, and the least I covdd do was to get on Harry Bridges' committee, which meant no work, to keep him from being deported. Now, I have talked to the former international president of the musicians' union, Mr. Weber, who is now a member of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, and he told me that he also felt that they did not want to deport Harry Bridges because he was a Communist ; they wanted to deport Harry Bridges because he was a good labor leader, because he got something done. And that is what I think. And that is all I can say on that Harry Bridges incident. ]Mr. Kearxs. Do you have the testimony of Joe Weber's where he said that? Mr. SoRRELL. No. He said that to me in private conversation. But Joe Weber is an honest guy. IVIr. Kearxs. Yes, he is an honest man. Mr. SoRRELL. If you would care to ask him that, he would tell you that. Now, there is LaRue McCormick. Now, I have told you about Jack Tenney. I mentioned Jack Tenney in my preceding talk, and I told you that Jack Tenney, I thought, was a Communist ; at least, I thought he leaned that way. I told you I had heard that he participatecl in some fruit pickers' strike or something, and he went to jail, and he was opposed to Buzzell. But I couhln't link the guy up. I didn't per- sonally like Jack Tenney. He suddenly, after he got the job with the musicians at $150 a week, which at that time was pretty good money, decided that he should run the musicians all bv himself. Jack Tenney all of a sudden did a flip-flop. I found he was not a Communist, but he found fault with the Communists, and I said, "Wliat is the matter. Jack?" And he said, "My union is full of Communists." He said, "My executive board is dominated by the Communists. The union is dominated by the Communists." 1894 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES He had a proposal, and if I remember right, the proposal made a proposition that made him the king of everything he surveyed in the union. He was the boss. He would have one meeting per year. I am quoting this from memory, and I might be a little bit off, but I am not far off. He would run the union, and they would have one meeting a year to O. K. what he did, and he did a lot of Red baiting. At the 1939 meeting of the State Federation of Labor in Oakland, he was invited by J. W. Buzzell, who was his old-time enemy, to come and make a speech. At the same meeting. Jack Shelley, whom I have already mentioned, almost had his credentials pulled because they thought he was a Communist, but Tenney, who had been even more radical than Shelley, was now invited to come and make a speech. He came and talked, and he harangued and harangued, and when he got through, I said, "Jack, you know, you are thinking about running for United States Senator. I do not think there is any use of your running. I don't think anybody would vote for you. I think if your members could have heard you talk today, I don't think you could be elected president of the musicians any more. "Jack, I am surprised at you. I am not too surprised, because I never did think much of you, but I am convinced now that in my own opinion I am a pretty good judge of human nature." I never liked Jack, and he don't like me. That was in September. In December Jack Tenney was beaten 2 to 1. His program was beaten 2 to 1, excepting one thing, and that one thing was that you should eliminate Communists out of the organization. > Now, he said the Communists beat him yet they voted to eliminate the Communists out of the organization. Jack Tenney and I have never been very good friends since then, never. Jack Tenney once ran for United States Senator. He didn't get any votes, so it didn't matter about that. But he ran for State senator from Los Angeles County, and he obtained both the Demo- cratic and Republican nominations. In California you can run on both tickets. There is cross filing there. There was only one person left. That was LaRue McCormick, who was running on the Communist ticket. I not only sponsored LaRue McCormick, but I told them to use my name and put it in the paper, "Democratic Committeeman for LaRue McCormick", using anything they wanted, anything against Jack Tenney. Even for a Communist I would vote ; even for a dog I would vote in preference to Jack Tenney. Now, I think that explains the LaRue McCormick phase. Mr. Landis. But Jack won, though? Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, surely. She did not have a chance. She got more votes than they ever figured she would get, and she got my protest vote, too. Mr. Owens. I would just be interested in knowing wdiat he said, what particular thing that turned you against him in that meeting. Mr. SoRRELL. It was not only in the meeting. You see, he was in Labor Nonpartisan League, and he did a lot of things that went against my grain. You know, I gradually come to like people or dis- like them. Mr. Owens. You know, it is pretty tough that that is the way it is with yourself, and you say you have always disliked lawyers. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1895 Well, go ahead, anyway. Mr. SoRRELL. I get along with Mr. Bodle. Here is one sneaky little thing that he did, just one of the things. There was an investigating committee. Jack Tenney gets on all these investigating things. If he was a good active lawyer, I guess he would have to practice, but this State senator's job that he gets pays him $100 a month, so he gets on the investigating committees to make a little extra money. And the committee he went into — I think it had something to do with Bioif, I am not sure, but it had something to do with labor leaders, and so forth, and he got Pat Casey on the stand, and he put a question to him like this : Mr. Casey, didn't you supply INIr. Weber, the international president of the musicians with a car and a driver, and so forth? • And, of course, Pat had to say "yes." Now, let me give you the inside on that. Pat Casey and Joe Weber were old-time friends. They are both old men; and they are both honest men, I am sure. Pat Casey was in New York and Weber was coming to California. Pat says, ''Go out and use my house instead of going to the hotel. You have your wife with you. Go out and use my house and my car, and so forth." So he went out and he stayed in Pat Casey's house for a couple of days and used his chauffeur. Now, Jack Tenney, at the time he asked this question, was president of the musicians under Joe Weber. That is ]ust one of the sharp tricks, you know. And he was full of such things, because he got thrown out of the musicians, and he tried to pass a lot of antilabor legislation. I don't have that legislation with me, but I could get it from Spike Wallace, his successor. Mr. Owens. Why was he thrown out of the musicians ? Mr. SoRRELL. He was voted out. I just got through telling you. He was voted out 2 to 1 when this election came up. Mr. Owens. I thought you said he lost his office 2 to 1. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. But after he lost his office, and before LaRue McCormick ran against him, he tried to inject a lot of anti- labor — what we think is antilabor — propositions. Do you get me clear now? Prior to the time LaRue McCormick ran against Jack Tenney and after he had been thrown out of his job as president of the Musicians Local 47, he had tried to put through some antilabor legislation. Now, in spite of that fact — in spite of that fact he had the support of Buzzell of the central labor council, but not the musicians, so much so that the musicians for a long time withdrew from the central labor council. Now, of course, I do not believe in withdrawing from an organization that don't do what you want them to do. We still belong to the central labor council. You seem to be puzzled. Mr. Owens. I am still wondering what he was put out of the union for. Mr. Landis. He was not elected. Mr. Owens. No, no, he only lost his office in the election. But I want to know 1896 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoREELL. Wait a minute. I did not say he was put out of the union. I meant that he was defeated as president of the union. No, he is still in the union. Mr. Oavens. Oh, I see. Mr. SoRRELL. Let us get that clear, because he ran for president again, but the next time he ran he did not get 10 percent of the votes. Mr. Owens. You used the term "put out of the union." Mr. SoRRELL. I could see you were puzzled, and I am glad you cleared me up on that. I didn't know LaRue McCormick. Let us make that clear. I didn't know her. All I know is that it was a name on the ballot. Now, I have probably met her, but if she walked in here, I would not know her. Now, then, there is something about the American Youth for Democracy, and it says here : On October 17, 1943, the Youtis Communists League held its national convention in New York City. At that convention the name was changed from Young Com- munists League to American Youth for Democracy. Now, I sponsored something like that, but American Youth for Democracy is something that I used to know back in 1939; and if I sponsored something that I did not know what it was, I have made a very serious mistake ; and I am not sure. This is such terrible evidence here. I don't think that is a fact. I thing the AYD, as I remember, was an American Youth for Democracy, and that was in 1938 or 1939. And if I have sponsored a Communist organization as this says I have, then I need to check up and not do it any more. I might have made a mistake. It has other sponsors here. Among them I notice Judge Stanley Moffatt. Now, Judge Stanley Moffatt is a presiding judge in Los Angeles County, and not being an attorney I don't know what kind of court it is. But he works at it. He sits on the bench. And Judge Stanley Moffatt is a pretty good guy. Judge Stanley Moffatt is a pretty good friend of mine, and it may be that I signed this. It says that I signed it, and it says Judge Stanley Moffatt was a signer also, and signing his name on a thing would make me think that it was all right, too. They also have Mr. Laxdis. What is the name of that? Mr. SoRRELL. What is that? Mr. Lakdis. What is the name? Mr. SoRRELL. That is this American Youth for Democracy. They also have a sponsor of this, Ellis E. Patterson, Congressman, Sixteenth District, and Ned R. Healy, Congressman from — it doesn't say what his district is, and I forgot. Now, Ned Healy, in my book, is all right. You will hear more about him as we go along. I know that Mr. Brewer does not sponsor Ned Healy. He thinks that because he is out for clean unions and democratic unions, and Mr. Brewer is out for a different kind — there is a difference of opinion. I do not agree with Mr. Brewer there, but that does not make me a Communist. And I sav that this might have influenced me. seeing the names on here — Ellis Patterson, Ned Healy, Ernest Caldecott, and Judge Stanley Moffatt. They are friends of mine, and I do not think they are Communist. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1897 Frank Scully is another friend of mine, and he is a newspaper writer. I see Albert Dekker, assemblyman from the Hollywood district, acted as master of ceremonies. And it also says : Ellis E. Patterson and Ned R. Healy, Congressmen from the IHth and 13th Dis- tricts, respectively, were honored guests. It also says that Reuben Borough welcomed the o;iiests. That is to a press conference for the People's World ; is it ? I don't know. But these are pretty good people, and I don't mind having my name linked with them. I wasn't there, but it may be that I sponsored that on the belief that they were on it, and it would be all right. It says here that I have upheld the People's World and so forth, and that is right. I get the People's World. I don't get a chance to read it, but I get it just the same, as I get the Times. I think it is very biased. I think the Times is very biased. I think the right line is to draw between them. And I will continue to get it as long as they put it out and as long as it is lawful. I will go even further than that with you. I even used to get literature from the Public Library of Information from New York that gave me Hitler's side of every- thing. I think that is what it was called. I think I have some of those things yet ; and I believe as an American I should read everything. Of course I don't get a chance to read much of anything. These people keep me too busy. But I get them, and if I get an opportunity, I will read them. It says that both Sorrell and Lawson were supporting the current $75,000 victory expansion drive for the People's World. I remember the People's World calling me up and asking me if I would sponsor their drive for money, as usual. I said, "With money — not a cent. I haven't got any. They said, "Well, do you mind saying something in my favor?" I said, "Wliat am I going to say?" They read me a statement that somebody said. I said, "That is good enough for me." That is what happened. Mr. Landis. Did you know Lawson? Mr. Sorrell. I have met him two or three times. I can't tell you where I met him. All I know is that he has a great big nose. I don't know him personally; that is, I have never been to his house; but I would know the man if I saw him. Now, here its says that at the third annual convention of the (^ommunist Party, I am supposed to have been there, I understand, . held at 121 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles. I was never at that address, to my knowledge. I never was at a Communis-t convention. Now. also, the photostatic copy of the Communist card is here, and I want to explain something about that. During 1937 I had many threats and sometimes actions taken against me. That was in 1937 and 1938. Among other things, I had a fellow come and tell me, "Look, there is a Communist Party card going to be planted against you." I questioned him a little bit, and I said, "Look, do you know this to be a fact?" And he .said, "Yes." 1898 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES And he told me a little bit about it. He gave me liis name. This was in 1937 or 1938. I wall called to hearings by the then Yorty investigating committee, and they kept me cooling my heels out- side, but they didn't give me a chance to come inside. In 1941 there was a strike going on at Disney, as has been testified before here, and this strike was supported by all unions for 4 weeks, or maybe 5 weeks. I don't know exactly. The strike lasted 9 weeks in all. When Willie Bioff who had, I believe, gotten back from his jail sentence and who was supposed not to have any further dealings for the lATSE — he was*supposed to have been fired by the lATSE. but was living in his beautiful home in the valley — entered into the negotiations Mr. Kearns. What year ? Mr. SoRRELL. 1941. Now Mr. X.EVY. For November 1941, I think it is important for me, Mr. Chairman, to rise Mr. Kearns. No. . Mr. SoRRELL. No; I am trying to keep my thoughts in line here, and as I should tell them all about the Disney thing. I want to get over it quickly, but I must go back and tell about the Disney thing. Walt Disney and Willie Bioff made a contribution to Art Samnick, a lobbyist, through Bill Jaspar. Now, I have to explain that. If you went in to see Art Samnick and you had less than $100,000, he did not take it. But before you got outside Bill Jaspar would get you. So they made a contribution, anyhow, and I got this. Mr. Landis. Did you finish the card part of it? Mr. SoRRELL. No ; I am just getting started. Mr. Landis. That is what I thought. Mr. SoRRELL. I am trying to tell you that in 1941 Mr. Landis. Now, who was Samnick ? ^ Mr. SoRRELL. Art Samnick is a high-priced lobbyist in California. Mr. Kearns. For whom ? Mr. SoRRELL. He lobbies for the whisky interests and lobbies for a lot of them. He is a noted lobbyist. Mr. Landis. All right. Go ahead. Mr. SoRRELL. So I found this out. Never mind how I found it out, but I found it out. Tenney then became the head of the un-American activities. He succeeded Yorty. So they came immediately to Los Angeles and opened hearings, and they called me. But it so hap- pened that we were in the process of settling the Disney strike. The people had gone back to work, and we were settling the Disney strike. Now, James Dewey, from the Conciliation Service, was the man who settled the strike, and first he notified Madam Perkins, and then he notified them down there that I would be there to testify, but that they shouldn't call me and have me wait ; that I would make it and come right back ; that I was needed in the negotiations. I went down and testified before this committee, and I told them what I knew. I said, "You people are being used by the vested in- terests. This is a planted deal." I said it was paid for, and so forth. And then they told me that that committee had to be — it came from the two houses in California, and I said, "I know, but you do whatever Art Samnick tells you, and I know he got paid to tell you to do this." The papers came out, and I don't know whether I can get the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1899 clippings or not; but they said, "Committee investigates Sorrell; Sor- rell investigates committee." At that time they were supposed to have this Commmiist Party card, and I tokl them so, because I had been tokl by this man, and I can't think of his name now, that it was planted in there, and I told them so when I went there, and I said I wanted to see it. They did not show it to me. They showed me instead a copy of a letter which said, Comnuniist Delegation or Communist Convention, or something, and then it was all blocked out, top and bottom, and in the middle it says, "Committee consisted of Herschel Daniels, Herb Sorrell" — well, there were five of us, Tom O'Connor, and I knew what the committee was. That was a committee where we each put in $1,000 from our locals, and we called it the C. U. R. A. L. Committee — I don't know where we got the letters "C. U. E-. A. L,." but we used it under that name. We printed banner strips for automobile bumpers, bumper strips. We bought radio time, which the A. F. of L. had contracted for and was going to lose. We spent the money, had it audited, returned it to our locals, the audits, and so forth, where the money was spent, and they knew all about the committee but it had nothing to do with the Com- munist Party. They said that this girl — her name is slipped to me now, Rena Vail — had turned in an affidavit that I, among many, many others, was at this convention, and that I was a doorman. Now, of course, Rena Vail was a confused female, I knew. She was pointed out to me at the hearing. However, she did not take the stand or anything, and later I am told she went to the insane asylum. Well, it is no wonder. She w^as seeing things. I wasn't there. The party card was not shown to me, but when I went down, I alerted this guy, who told me he knew something about it, and I was going to bring him; and unfortunately, I told somebody outside about my plans, and I think that they got that, be- cause they didn't present the card. They have never shown me the card. Now the guy is dead ; but I still think we can prove where that card came from. I am not positive, but I know that they can't prove that it is ni}^ card, because I never saw a Communist card, and so testified at that time. And they didn't present it to me then. The card is a fake. There is no card like that, or if there is, it is manufactured. I have no reason for telling you that I didn't belong there, because if I did, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. I could say that I belonged or I didn't like it any more, or I can say that I didn't belong. As an American I can say what I please. It says here that I denied that. Now, I tell you Mr. Laxdis. Was this the one you were talking about [indicating] ? Mr. Sorrell. I don't know for sure if I recognize it. The only time I ever saw it was in the paper. [Document handed to Mr. Sorrell.] Mr. Sorrell. This is some of the same stuff. Mr. Kearns. You say the only time you saw that was in the paper ? Mr. Sorrell. The only time I remember seeing anything like this was in the newspaper. They put it in the newspapers. Mr. Kearxs. When you were at this hearing, did they show you photostats? 1900 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoRREU/. They didn't show me, I wanted them to because I was going to pin them down on it. But they didn't show me this. That was in 1941, and I know that they had this in their possession, because I was tokl that they had it in their possession in 1938, and at that time I was ready to come back, but they didn't show it to me then. It didn't come out until later. Mr. Kbarns. Did you personally ever contact the handwriting expert ? Mr. SoRKELL. No, I did not. Mr. Kearns. Weren't you interested enough to ? Mr. SoRRELX,. Well, I will tell you. When I get through talking here you will understand why I did not. Let me tell you. There are many things I haven't done right. One time — and this is departing from the usual run — in 1945 the strike was settled in Cincinnati, but we didn't go back to work immedi- ately because there was a little difficulty there. We took the picket lines — except Warner Bros. And Lindelof called me, and he said, "Get them off of Warner Bros." He says, "You will ruin me. I won't have any prestige left," and so forth. And I said, "Boss, it is an awfully hard thing to stop this right now, just when we are winning. And the people trust me, but they don't know you." But I w^ent and took them off, anyhow. Then, I think it was around October 30 — I am not sure of the date, transportation was hard to get. Eddie Mannix called me and said, "Are you ready to go with me?" I do not remember whether it was Washington or Cincinnati. He said, "Would you go along ? We want to get things straightened out." I said, "Sure, I will do anything; but I don't think I can get transportation." He said, "I am chartering a plane for Paul Mantz." I said, "O.K." So then, after a while, somebody called me on the phone, an anony- mous person, and said, "Say, do "you think you are going to Cincin- nati?" I don't know whether it was Cincinnati or Washington — in that plane, in Paul Mantz' plane. I said, "Well, I am figuring on it." And they said, "Well, make different plans. You are not going.' And, bang", they hung up the phone. So Eddie's secretary — I didn't taUi to Eddie any more — but Eddie's secretary called me and said the plane — at first l" think it was supposed to leave at 9 o'clock in the morning, and they said, "It won't leave until 2," and then she said, "We postponed it again." This fellow called me again, and he said, "Do you think you are still going on that plane?" And I said, "I intend to." "Well," he said, "you are not going." And I got to thinking, and I said I had better get hold of Lindelof, and I might have a nice talk, and I had better get him to take care of it because I figured I might get ditched in this thing and maybe this guy is giving me a tip. So I got hold of Lindelof and then we had a long talk. It was not necessary for me to go then. Then I heard that the plane was going to leave at 9 o'clock at night, but neither Eddie nor his secretary told me. Somebody else told me ; somebody from the airport. I went home, I backed out of my garage, backed my car out of my garage at 8 o'clock, just to go down and get 5> MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1901 the paper, and Avhen I backed out, a car drove across and filled my car full of slugs. They shot it up. Now, when you open the door to my car it lights a light. So I didn't realize what happened until I saw holes coming all around. I opened the door, and that lit the light. So I closed the door. My next in- clination was to take out after these people. I took out after them, but they were gone. Zip ! and they were gone. I called the police and made a report because there were bullets in the house, bullets in the garage, bullets in the car. Some of the neigh- bors had noticed this car cruising up and down. One of the neighbors wrote down the number of the car and gave it to my wife. The police came up and examined everything and found the bullets and took them out, and this and that, and my wife handed me the number, and I handed it to the police. You know, we never got these guys. I forgot to copy the number on something else. I am negligent too. But it seems to me that there should have been more effort made. But that shows how negligent)! am in some things that, later, you know, maybe I should have taken care of. But I thought I had too many things to do there. Now", I have not seen any handwriting expert. I haven't seen any- thing but photostatic pictures in the paper, and I don't even know whether a handwriting expert can judge on photostats or not. I don't know. I am not worried about the thing. I know it can be cleared. By telling this, do you understand how it is that I don't go into these things ? Mr. Levy. I said that the original Mr. Kearns. No. Mr. Owens. He was just saying that he had the originals. Mr. Levy. I said the originals were available. I had those in my testimony. Mr. Kearns. Now, just a minute. Let us keep this thing going the way it should. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have those submitted to the committee. Those originals are there, and I think we should have them. Mr. Kearns. There is no question. I think we ought to have had the originals out on the coast. There were some forms submitted out there, even. At least it was asked to put them in the record, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Owens. While those are being looked at, Mr. Sorrell, are you against the plans and program of the Soviet Union ? Mr. Sorrell. Yes; I am against the plans and the program of many things in the Soviet Union. Now, I do not know all the plans and the programs. I am against aggression, and it looks to me like, at the present time, the Soviet Union is an aggressor. I don't know too much about the internal workings of the Soviet Union. I have been told a lot of things. Some day I am going to Soviet Russia and find out, if they lift the iron curtain. I would like to go and find out. Mr. Landis. I don't think they will let you over there. Mr. Sorrell. "V^Hiat is that? Mr. Landis. They might not let every man over there. We have about 21,000 here and about 155 now over there. 67383 — 48— vol. 3 26 1902 MOTION -PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoRRELL. Maybe I will be a lucky one. I don't know. But I would like to see. I believe that every man has a right to his own home. I think that if every man in this country owned his own home— I don't say every man, but if the big majority of men in this country owned their owii homes and had an interest in this country, no other system could take its place. Mr. Owens. Then you would be against the program of the Soviet Union? Mr. SoRRELL. I have heard— now, I have heard in the Soviet Union they built apartment houses, and if you get an apartment, that is all right, and if you don't, that is all right. I am against that way of living. I want to own my own home. I want my own car. I want my own airplane. I want my own clothes. I want the things that I want. I don't desire a lot of wealth to be used for power. I just want to be one guy who can raise a family and send his kids to school and make good citizens out of them. Mr. Kearns. Well, you admit, then, you don't have to go over there ? You can just read the Constitution of the United States of America and that tells the whole story about what we can do. Mr. SoRRELL. I am quite satisfied with the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, I am quite satisfied with the Bill of Eights, and also I realize that we must watch that or we let some guy think you are a Communist or something and destroy your rights. I realize that that can be done, too. I>o I make myself clear ^ Mr. Landis. How far would you go with me on my statement that I made a while ago ? You said, "I will go pretty far with you." Do you remember that statement ^ Mr. SoRRELL. Pretty far with you in what way ? I have forgotten. Mr. Landis. I, of course, believe in a different kind of organiza- tion; but when an organization or an individual goes so far as to want to overthrow the Government by force, then I say that is too far. Mr. SoRREix. Now, listen Mr. Landis. That is, would you go that far ? Mr. SoRRELL. Mr. Landis, let us put it this way : If anybody wants to overthrow the Government by force, they have to take me on first, because I am a firm believer in democratic procedure, and I think as long as that don't break dowii, there is no excuse for force. Now, sometimes I have been a victim of the democratic procedure. In our unions we allow everybody to talk. We shut nobody off. Some- times a guy hits on something very unpopular, and they boo him ; and I am always the first one to say, "Look, he has just as much right on this floor as you or I have, and if it is any other way, I don't want anything to do with the union." i am a firm believer that if we stick to the democratic principles of our unions and of our country, you and I may disagree, but we will always come out arm in arm. I think that the same thing goes for management and labor in labor relations. Mr. Landis. That is true, but I would go a step further. If you let this kind of people, these subversive individuals, whether they are Fascists or Nazis, of Communists, or anybody else, if you let them get in and get control of the labor unions and the churches and the schools, then is when they work from within. And I do not believe in that, letting them get too strong. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1903 ]\Ir. SoRRELL. Now, here is another thing. I have heard — I don't know whether this is true or not — that to be a good Communist you must be an atheist. Mr. Landis. I have heard that. Mr. SoRRELL. I have heard that, but I don't know whether it is true or not. If that is true, I can't be a Communist, because I was raised — as a kid I went to the Methodist Sunday School that was the nearest. Later I was baptized in the Baptist Church. Now, I don't believe that one sect should prey on the other. I think there are just as good Catholics, Unitarians, Presbyterians, or Ortho- dox Jews — it is my opinion that they are all trying to do the same thing. My oldest daughter married a Catholic, and became a Catholic, and I didn't get mad at her. In fact, I said, if that is what she wanted to do, that is all right. She has five of the most beautiful children you have ever looked at. They go to parochial school. And that makes no difference to me. And my daughter says, '"We are all try- ing to go to the same place, but we are probably using a different staircase to get upstairs." That is the way I feel. Mr. Kearns. Let us just end this business right here, until we get this record established on this original. Mr. Owens. I do not see any original card of Herbert Sorrell. Mr. Levy. There is not any of Herbert Sorrell. There is an origi- nal card of Herb Stewart. Mr. Kearns. Is that supposed to be his "Commie" name? Mr. Le\t. That is correct. That is the information that has been testijBed to before the Tenney committee and before this committee. But I have here the originals which I said were available, and got them from California for that purpose. Mr. 0^^'ENS. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Sorrell mind if we have an original of his signature? Mr. Sorrell. Sure. Mr. Oavens. I don't think it is fair to be given a signature^ Mr. LE\Tr. Then I misunderstood your question. Here are the photostats. Mr. Oavens. I do not want the photostats. I want the originals. Mr. Levy. I misunderstood what you said. Mr. Sorrell. I tried to write that just off like I would write it Mr. Kearns. Pass that to the Chair. That is what we are going to submit in the record. Mr. Landis. I think we ought to recess now, sir. Mr. Kearns. We cannot go on this way all night. We are going to recess now, and we will take this consideration up the first thing in the morning. Then, if it is all right with the members of the committee, we will stand adjourned. Mr. Sorrell. I go on the first thing in the morning ? Mr. Kearns. Yes, at 10 a. m. Tlie committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4: 30 p. m. an adjournment was taken in the hear- ing until Thursday, March 4, 1948, at 10 : 00 a. m.) JUEISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTUEE INDUSTRY THURSD'AY, MARCH 4, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order, please. Mr. Sorrell, you may continue your statem«snt. TESTIMONY OF HEEBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. SoRREix. I realize I am not making the progress that I ex- pected to make. I am going to depart from time to time from an- swering the many charges that have been laid to me, to go on with other parts of the story, because I want my attorney, George Bodle, to read in some of the evidence confirming it. One of the things that I remember offliand, one of the charges — Walt Disney was brought into this. I started to tell you the other day about organizing cartoonists. I got through that period where we organized them at MGM and wrote a contract without, apparently, any trouble. And the cartoonists throughout the industry were very mucli underpaid. Tlie next studio where we obtained not only a majority but a unanimity of the membership was Schlesinger Studios who make cartoons for Warner Brotliers, and I believe was owned by Warner Brothers. At least I think Mr. Schlesinger was in the Warner family, a brother-in-law, or something of that kind. At the same time the organization was going on at Disney's. Dis- ney has said something, if I remember right, about me controlling the National Labor Relations Board. I cannot imagine me controlling the NLRB. He organized a company union which was found by the Board to be a company union and was dissolved, but the next day after he dissolved that company union he changed the initials and made a new company union. We tried very hard to make a deal with Mr. Schlesinger and we of- fered him the same deal that we had with M-G-M. It has been the policy of myself and the people connected with the Conference of Studio Unions to treat all employers alike, large or small. We cannot give special consideration to small people that we would like to, because that hurts the people we represent. We do not 1905 1906 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES take advantage of small people because we do not believe in taxing the little fellow more than the big fellow just because we can do it. However, in the case of Mr. Schlesinger, we told him that if we were forced to strike, we would have to raise the ante on the very low- paid people each day that the strike lasted. We did that in order to try to get him to make a deal without a strike. The employees in his organization had voted to give us the power to pull a strike if necessary. Mr. Schlesinger worked on the basis that he was friends with all of his hundred or two hundred employees^ whatever it was, and that any of them could come into his office and borrow money. But, of course, we used the argument, if he paid them enough, they would not have to borrow the mone3% and we would not put him out like that. I liked Mr. Schlesinger very much. He was formerly a partner of Mr. Disney. It may amuse you to know that he finally closed down, or we struck him, and he put a sign on the door "Closed on account of strike." He told his people working for him, "Now, I am going to get in my yacht and go down to the South Seas and you won't have any more work." Of course, we told them that we thought Mr. Schlesinger was four- flushing, and when he drew his fifth card, he would open his studio again. So the second day we went to see him. Mr. Brodle, I believe was along. He whined and said we were killing him, and that he onlv got so much for his pictures from Warner Bros. We told him, "Raise the price to Warner Bros., they have to pay it." Finally he asked to look at the contract again, and it cost him $2,600 a day more the second day than it woukl have if he had signed it before. He drew our attention to that and we drew his attention to the fact that we were raising the very low-paid brackets, that is, the people who got $18 or $20 a week, each day, and it would cost him $1,300 a day for every day he prolonged the opening. He finally said, "Give me," after he had abused us and raked us over the coals. He said, "Give me that." He signed that and said, "Now, what about Disney?" We told him that Mr. Disney was really giving us a bad time, and that we did not want to strike Disney until we had all of the people organized, but we did not know but what it might happen right away because he had now resorted to firing the people who persisted in be- longing to our organization. I have forgotten the number he fired that day, but it rings in my mind about 28. Included in that group was a man by the name of Art Babbitt, who was a very fine animator and got way above the union scale. The installation of a union would not raise his salary, but the man was like Bill Littlejohn that I men- tioned at M-G-M, and he insisted that the poorer-paid workers should be raised, and he went along with us. It so happened that against the advice of myself they voted to strike Disney's. I have to tell you a little bit about this strike, because it has a bearing on the studio situation. We established mass picket lines MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1907 in front of Mr. Disney's stndio. That is, the workers who usually went through the lines assembled and picketed. Mr. Disney called the chief of police at Burbank, whom I have spoken about before, Elmer Adams, and he said, "Send me 50 police- men." Elmer Adams said, "I don't think you need 50 policemen, but if you will get Herb Sorrell, who is supposed to be leading that strike, and you two request 50 policemen, I will send them ; otherwise I will send down a man to investigate," I was told this and I said, "Send two policemen to govern the traffic through the picket lines." This was a peaceful picket line, like we always have. There were a lot of people there and we did not want anybody run over, and we did not want anybody buzzing through the line, tearing through and liurting anybody, and we wanted to keep it peaceful, and those that want to go through our line, we want them to do it. Naturally we hope they won't, but we do not want any trouble. Consequently, two policemen were sent by the Burbank Police Department, and the strike went merrily along. It was particularly picturesque because these artists insisted on depicting everything on their picket lines. They had all kinds of signs. The best of them, it was their duty when off the picket line to make gags and signs. Gunther Lessing was Mr. Disney's attorney, and all of the dealings I had had were with Gunther Lessing. I had never met Disney but once. Gunther Lessing was a red-headed attorney who bragged that he was comisel for Pancho Villa. I told him, of course, I never had heard of Pancho Villa ever winning a legal victory. I thought it was the other kind, and I did not see where he got any glory out of it, but he still brought it up to everyone who met with him. The kids hung an effigy of Gunther Lessing, with the red hair, in front of the gate upon a pole. Disney had made a picture something about a dragon — The Keluctant Dragon. One day the picket line assumed a dragon three or four blocks long, the head weaving, with Disney's face as the dragon's face. There were all kinds of things like this. Then, lo and behold, about 5 o'clock would come along the Schles- inger group in automobiles decorated all about Disney. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Schlesinger's artists, I think, spent all their time making up gags about Disney, so that when work was out they picketed him with them. We had a sound wagon there, and we talked over the sound wagon, and we had a sound system which we installed across the street on a side hill. Every morning Ave would picket, the kids would picket from 7:30 to 9, and then they would go over to this side hill and from 10 to 11 or 11 : 30, we would talk to them on a loud speaker system, and of course they could hear in Disney's what we were saying across the street. Also, on this hill we had a cafeteria set up, the carpenters built tables, and in California it was summertime, it was all sunshine, and it did not have to be protected from rain. So they built tables and the culinary workei^s furnished us a chef, and we served lunch. 1908 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES At dinnertime we served dinner at 6 o'clock after the mass picket line would go off, after the workers had gone through. And then the musicians many nights would send down a truckload of musicians and they would play and these kids would dance in the street in front of the gates. They kept busy all the time. The average age was less than 25. They became the most enthusiastic strikers I have ever seen in mv life. Mr. Disney, when he could not get any police from the city, decided to hire 50 private police from outside the city. These fellows came in and the usual rough tactics — began to push these kids around, and some of the young kids were not to be pushed around, they were strapping young men. So I ordered them all inside. I said, "You are working for Disney, you get inside." We almost came to blows there. But the Burbank police joined me in ordering the people that Disney had hired inside the property line, so they lined up inside the gate, they were helpless, nothing happened, and there was still no violence. This strike lasted 9 weeks. At the end of 4 or 5 weeks, suddenly this Art Babbitt that I have spoken about, and three or four of the people were picked up by Joe Touhy, Lou Helms, Audrey Blair — I don't know if there was anyone else — and taken off to Willie Bioff's house. It so happened that on this knoll where we had the loud speaker, and which our kids called Pleasure Knoll, and where the kids work- ing in the studio called it Skunk Hollow, but on this knoll I had warned them that Roy Disney had been out to see Willie Bioff and I did not know what the gag was but Willie Bioff was evidently going to enter the picture, because I was paying a fellow to keep track of Willie Bioff. I was not getting much money, but I split my salary with a man to watch Willie because I knew that he would stop at nothing, and naturally the feud was on. These kids were taken out to Bioff's house. And thev came back; and they said, "We have been made an offer by the lATSE to settle the whole strike." I said, "By the lATSE you mean Willie Bioff, you were out there todav." And they admitted it. "Well,'' I said, "it is all right for the lATSE to settle the strike, but not Bioff, because Bioff had severed his connec- tions with the lATSE officially and was not supposed to have any- thing to do with the lATSE and was living out on his ranch, out in the valley." We had a meeting on the subject and then they had to have some- body who represented the local, as none of these people were officers. So we sent one or two, or told one or two of the officers to go with these kids but not have anything to do with Bioff. But if the lATSE had a method of settling it, it would be all right, and that I would retire from the picture. That was the condition. I said that was perfectly all right, I only wanted to see them get what they had coming, and I did not want any part of it ; personalities should not be injected. I did not turn up at the meeting that night, purposely, and everyone wanted to know where I was. Audrey Blair told them that I had got disgusted with the strike and that I was through. Always it has been my attitude that if I get MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1909 people in trouble I M'ill , who had gone in — most of them had worked only a day or two — ^but who had been thrown out of the union. After that time, I think I am sorry in saying that there have been less than 60 people of our organization going in, and without excep- tion they are dissatisfied, and without exception they will all back us to get back legally with 644 as their union. They went back to 8 hours a day instead of 6 at straight time. Mr. Landis. Wliat was the penalty? Was it expulsion? to- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1977 Mr. SoRRELL. -The penalty was equivalent to expulsion. 1 will have Mr. Kearns. And fines, too, were there not ? Mr. SoRRELL. I will have to explain that. You see, our constitu- tion says that if a man is expelled by a local union, he can't attend the local union meetings any more. He has no rights as a member, but he has a right to work on the job until the expulsion is ruled on on an appeal. If he appeals within ?>0 days, he has a right to continue work until that appeal is heard at headquarters by the general ex- ecutive board of the painters' brotherhood. The general executive board is supposed to meet every -3 months, but sometimes they do not. Sometimes they skip and meet every 6 months. Now, if we expel a man and then can't take him off the job, and have to wait 6 months, that would have a very bad effect on our people. So we fine them an unheard-of large fine. We fine them $12,000 for ordinary painters — that is 2 years" earnings — or $20,000 for the higher- paid group, which is equivalent to 2 years. The constitution of the painters' brotherhood says, where a man is fined, he must pay the fine before he can work, or post the fine before he can work, until it is appealed to headquarters. We knew those fellows could not post that fine, or most of them wouldn't, and we would be rid of them. So you will find that we have fined most of the members $12,000 and $20,000 up to that time so that we would be rid of them. But until this date, October 26, 1947, 1 think it is. and from then on, we didn't fine anybody. We let them go in and find out for themselves. But the Communists sort of like this. I am trying to make clear this clause in here so that you will under- stand. The Communists don't run the painters, the CSU. We don't deny that we have Conmiunists. We do deny that we have as many Com- munists as the lATSE. But the Communists in the lATSE do a job. The Communists in our organization have to come out and whip the whole membership into line, wliich they are very efficient in doing. But they are soon tabbed. They don't carry the weight, as has been borne out by the minutes. Are there any further minutes? Mr. Laxdis. Now, before that point is covered, could I say this? On the subject of picketing, I have heard this was a carpenters' strike from the beginning. I mean, it is labeled as started by the carpenters, who were first on the picket lines, and then the carpenters left and got jobs, and afterward the picketing was done by someone else, maybe the electrical workers, or painters. Now, could you straighten me out on that ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes; I can straighten you out on that, ]Mr. Landis. It was carpenters and painters who were fired, kicked off, because they wouldn't work on the hot sets, who started the picket lines. Now, the other unions joined, and each union had its own method of picket- ing. For instance, the carpenters — and I am quoting from memory, 1 might be wrong — the carpenters picketed 2 hours a day. Mr. Landis. Did you picket every plant? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes; 2 hours a day. Each carpenter had to picket 2 hours a day or pay — I think it was — $2 and — I can't remember — the equivalent of 2 hours. I don't know exactly what it was. 1978 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The painters picketed 6 hours a day at first, and later I think they reduced it to 4 hours a day, or pay a fine of $5 per day. Mr. Landis. How does it come that they would spend more time than the carpenters ? Mr. SoRRELL. We were more intense on it. That was the will of the majority of the painters. Each one took it up in their own union separately. Of course, later there was some difficulty. The painters said, "Why do we have to work 4 hours and the carpenters only work 2 hours, and the carpenter only gets fined $2 or $3, and we get fined $5?-' and those things. And we would say, "Well, if you want to change it, this is the place, at the meeting." And eventually they would go out, not changing it. Now, where strike benefits were paid, they were onlj; paid to men who were registered on that picket line every day in our organization. Some men didn't try to work. We had many men who have been fore- men and in one case in particular, Joe Case, of Paramount, had been on that picket line, I think, every day since the lock-out occurred. He was formerly the head of the department at Paramount. He is a man over 75 years old. Later because of his age he was demoted to foreman, which meant that he was just under tlie head of the department, but his pay was never reduced, and he has been on the line continuously. And he doesn't put in 2 hours or 4 hours ; he is usually there 5, 6, or 8 hours. We have many people like that. And he doesn't ask for any strike benefits, because he is ready to retire. When this thing is over, he is going to work a week and celebrate, and retire. He is a man of con- siderable means. The electricians worked it differently, the IBEW. Their men all picketed, and if you had a good picket record, you were switched at the independent studios every 2 weeks. If you worked 2 weeks, then you would picket 3 or 4 weeks. And that worked out all right for the elec- tricians, but it wouldn't work for the painters, because certain artists have certain ways of doing things, so that the studios want that one man all the time. Now, we assessed those people who were working and didn't picket $5 a day. If the^? were in the higher brackets of work, that is, earning over $200 a week, they paid $60 a week. That money came into the treasury and was paid out in strike benefits to those who diidn't get any work. This carried on until we made this motion, or until we put over the resolution, which said that you could go to work anywhere. Then we altered the plan, and I have forgotten— I will have to get the minutes if you want the present plan we worked under. Now, all picketing by painters is voluntary. At times I can name gates where you can go and find painters all the time, because they took over certain dates that they would picket, and there is always, some- times one, sometimes five or six, painters at those certain gates. The carpenters are doing the most picketing. The carpenters have received considerably more help from their international than the painters. Now, the machinists have received considerable help from their in- ternational, and I think that if you want to find out their plan, the best one to testify would be Mr. D. T. Wayne, who is here, because I can't keep in mind all the various unions' plans for picketing, because tliere are several unions, and there are several methods. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1979 Does that answer your question? Mr. Landis. That is all right for that part. Now, I want to go one step further, and this is all. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes. Mr. Landis. I don't want to interrupt, but if you would care to give your views of picketing, I wonder if you would give them ? Mr. SoRRELL. My views on picketing? Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. SoRRELL. I would be glad to give that on picketing. Mr. Kearns. Do you mind if we take that up right after lunch? Mr. Landis. No. Let us have this first. Mr. SoRRELL. I would be glad to give my views on picketing. I don't believe in hired pickets any more than I believe in hired goons, period. I don't believe that anyone who doesn't work in a place or an industry should picket that industry. I know that our ranks have been infiltrated by undesirable people who we don't want there, but in a mass, you don't always get them. I do think that if a man has a right to walk through a gate to work and he comes out to protest, he should have the right to picket that gate. I don't think that the man should have the right to interfere with people going through. I think that it should be a line to adver- tise and a line to humiliate people who go through, but I don't think they should be roughed up or touched in any way. If they have got the guts to walk through brothers' picket line, I say, let the dog go through. Now, that is my view on picketing. Mr. Landis. That is about my view, too. I just wanted to know how we differed. I mean, it is right of free speech and free assemblage, but it was not a picket line of force to prevent people from going to and from work. But if they did want to go through that picket line, that is all right. Mr. Kearns. That establishes the right to work. If he wants to go through, he can. Mr. Landis. Yes. fir. SoRREix. Yes ; if a man Mr. Landis. I think we all have the same views on picketing. Now, the old style, of course, was force. That picket line was there to stop and prevent people from going to work. But they have the signs there, and they say it is unfair to organized labor, or whatever the signs are, and that is giving the free speech part of it, and that shows that labor says they are unfair to organized labor. Mr. SoRRELL. I want to point out that in the Disney strike there was a bigger mass picket line in front of the Disney studio than there was in front of Warner Bros, studio, and there was nobody prevented from going through the line. Ingress and outgo from the studio was respected by the picket line, although there was a mass line on there. And it may please you to know that sometimes these kids, as I call them, were very versatile. Sometimes they would sing on the picket line, and sometimes they wouldn't say a word. They would just scowl on the picket line. That would be one day's program. The next day they would sing. The next day they would say, "Scab," or something. They would have certain words that they would say, and they would all do the same thing in unison. There was no individual action there at all. 1980 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now, the same thing could happen at Warner's, but when a mass picket line is out there, the people don't go through it. Now, there are other gates at Warner's, and testimony in plenty of court cases will show that people went in and out of Warner Bros., at a lot of gates, but the one gate where the mass picket line was, was the advertisement. When Warner's attacked that line with the fire hose and tear gas, many of the lATSE and other union people, people who weren't union people, people who were directors and actors, that saw that thing, refused to go back to Warner Bros, until that picket line was elimi- nated. Mr. Kearns. You brought up that point there that your union decided after 13 months, after a man had been on strike 13 months and had established himself a good union member, that you felt that if he needed the work, it was all right for him to go through. What is the status of a fellow today, who might have been called on strike, and who probably has had a lot of financial difficulty in the family — maybe his wife has been sick, or his children, and maybe he needs to go back into the plant to work the next day after the strike is called — what is his status, while maybe there is some other fellow who stayed out 13 months to prove to you that he is a good union mem- ber? What are you going to do in cases like that, where "you cannot take care of a fellow ? Mr. SoRRELL. Mr. Kearns, I will tell you. There is no use in my kid- ding you. The people automatically, at the settlement, when this thing is settled, will have to come to the union and make arrangements before they can go back to work, because it is not right to have one man find himself a job outside and work for less money and pay $5 a day into the union for a couple of years and another man go into the studio and go to work and earn bigger money and not pay anything. I think you can understand that. It isn't right for one man to practically starve — and there has been, you know, desperate misery — and because of his principles, stick by his principles, and be punished by letting the other fellow go through the line and not get punished. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. Sorrell. So there will have to be a settlement of these things when the thing is over, and these men who have gone through, some of them won't work in the industry any more. Some of them, there will be provisions for them. Now, I want to make an illustration of what happened in 1937. I think you should know this. In 1937, I told you there were about 12 men who went back to work. At that time we could throw them out of the union, and they couldn't go to work. It was not in the constitu- tion then as it is now. The constitution has been changed to give the general executive board of the painters the final vote to take men off their jobs. So the strike was settled, and all of the nonunion men were taken out. Now, there was a question of the men in our own union. They hadn't been to tiial yet. A democratic union has certain methods of doing things. Charges had been preferred against them, but we couldn't take them off the job because we hadn't tried that yet. Naturally, the producers would like to save these men. Pat Casey asked me what I thought, whether we would fine them or whether I thought we would expel them. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES * 1981 I told Pat, ''We don't have to expel them, because people despise them so much that that in itself is punishment. However, it is going to be my recommendation to the union that these men be fined every- tliing they have made during the strike, plus $100 for going through tlie picket line, plus $5 a day for each day that they didn't appear on the i)icket line."' That was the picket plans. They thought that was severe. I didn't think so. That is the rec- onuneiidation I made to the union, and naturally, the majority of the union wanted to eliminate those people. I didn't agree with them, and I have been very much pleased that I did not, and it was a very close vote, but I won. Now, here is what happened. One of the members of our organi- zation went crazy afterward. Another one I met on the M-G-M lot, and I had forgotten — this was two or three after — and I walked up and I says, "Hello, Ed." And I shook hands with him. And tears come into his eyes, and he says, "I guess you are the only friend I've got." Now. it so happened he was a pretty rugged individual, and when he went back to work, I met him on the street, and we had a little mixup. And he rolled in under a car, and, of course — well, he got away that way. But he said, "I am awfully sorry I didn't take your advice." He says, "I thought you were my enemy then. Now you seem to be the only friend I've got. You come up and shake hands with me." I said, "Wliat do you mean?" He says, "I just mean that they give me the silent treatment. They don't speak to me. Even the boss, if he wants me to do a job, writes it down on a piece of paper and hands it to me." It must have been terrible. Another of these fellows joined the Navy when the war first started, and he wrote a letter, and I had the letter printed in the Painters Journal, and I would like to get that. I will try to get that, and send it in here. He says — I realize that I made a mistake in 1937. I broke strike on my brothers. They have never treated me like they should, and I am now going to join the Navy and rehabilitate myself and fight for my country, and hope that when I come back, the union will recognize me as having paid the penalty for what I did in 1937. It was a very nice letter. We have not had aiiy trouble with any of those fellows in this altercation. Well, now, maybe we have. I come to think there might be one. Mr. Landis. But in finishing your answers there, the union helps out financially in those cases where they are hard up, in a long strike? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes ; that is right. Mr. Kearxs. Do they? How, wait a minute. Do they? We had the steel strike down there. They called a steel strike one night, and the next day they had people in the union going up and down the streets in the towns trying to get a collection from businessmen. That was a CIO union. They tried to get a collection from businessmen to pay the families of those who were not able to be out of employment. Then the businessmen met to decide whether or not they should go along on that, and they decided that the union probably had the money 67383 — 48— vol. 3 31 1982 * MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES to take care of them. But the men did not get the money from the union, Mr. SorrelL Mr, SoRRELL. Now, let me explain that. The union is not a rich organization. You can take a union of 1,000 men, and if they have $100,000, that still is not a rich union, because when you divide $100,- 000 up between 1,000 men, it is not going to carry them very far. Mr. Kearns. That is true. Mr. SoRRELL. So the union must have mone}^ coming in, in order to disburse money. You can't sell two glasses of water out of one glass. In our union, we have a committee that examines the people, the same as charity does. If they come up to us and say they are going to lose their home unless they make a payment or something, they scrape it up. They try to give to the people who need it the most. Mr. Kearxs. They have a welfare committee ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes, it is a welfare committee. They try to take care of the people who are in the worst need. Now, naturally, the man does not get money as if he was working. You understand that. Mr. Landis. But you give them supplies? Flour? Mr. SoRRELL. No. Our union neyer gives a man supplies or flour. We give him money. But if he is a drinking man, we give it to his wife. We refuse to give a man who comes in with liquor on his breath — that is, I know that onr committee refuses to give a man who drinks, money, but they send it to his wife. Now, that is just one of the little peculiarities of our union. We don't advocate drinking people. When a boss can fire a man for drinking, believe me he gets no question from the union. We even go so far in that line that we have recommended that when a foreman finds a drunken painter, he .has the shop steward take him off the job, because, you know, painters are noted for being drunks. Mr. Kearns. Are you still convinced after all these years that being with the union and having leadership in the union, that after all you have gone through, that strikes and picket lines are the answer to obtaining objectives in labor? I mean, in view of what you have gone through now ? Mr. SoRRELL. Mr, Kearns, I think that strikes and picket lines, if eliminated, eliminates democratic unions. Mr. Kearxs. That is your honest belief ? Mr, Sorrell. That is my honest belief. I think that is the su- preme— that is the farthest you go. When you take away the right to strike and put on picket lines, you tell your people, "You work as slaves." Mr. Landis, Now, excuse me for interrupting you, Mr, Kearns, Yes, Go ahead. Mr. Landis, But I was talking about picket lines. Of course, a picket line, according to the Constitution, is one sort of free speech. Of course, we have State laws that are supposed to take care of the violence and destruction of property. But State laws are not always enforced. Now, there might be something proposed or that has been proposed in the Taft-Hartley Act to stop violence and destruction of property, and to allow peaceful picketing. Mr. Sorrell. Let me tell you. Congressman Mr. Landis, I mean, you don't believe in that? MOTIOIS -PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1983 Mr. SoRRELL. Let me tell you, Congressman, I don't believe in violence, and I don't believe it is necessary, and I have demonstrated it in the Disney strike. Mr. Laxdis. That is right; yes. Mr. SoRRELi.. But yon can't say that the violence is all by the strikers. Mr. Landis. That is true. Mr. SoRRELL. Most of the violence is not caused by the strikers. Now, I put in an affidavit in the record — and I can look it up — where M-G-M hired every policeman employed by Culver City, and they got a lot moi-e money from M-G-M than they did from Culver City. Now. I am prepared to show also, whenever this comes to court, which eventually iit will, that Eddie Mannix told these people when and when not to create trouble. Now, Eddie Mannix is a general manager of M-G-M, and I may say, I admire the guy. I think he is a great guy. I just got through telling you the other day how he took out of his own pocket when the people wouldn't live up to their obligations and pay off. And Eddie Mannix won't lie about this. But Warner Bros, not only hired the people in Burbank but in Glendale and surrounding cities. And don't you think that when a policeman is hired by the studio, he does what he is told? Do you mean to tell me that when these policemen threw these tear-gas bombs, thej^ did it because they liked to ? Let me tell you something else. It has been testified here that some guy said that some policemen seen him beat him, and said, "Well, he says he is a scab," or something, and so forth. That is a little hard for me to believe. But when we had the mass picket line attacked at Warner Bros, by the people who came from without and the people who came from behind, I have seen pictures that showed these policemen didn't want to hit the pickets. They didn't want to. Mr. Landis. Now, yon are talking about a mass picketing? Mr. SoRRELL. That is correct. ' Mr. Landis. Does that block the entrance? Mr. SoRRELL. The mass picket line blocked that entrance, yes. And instead of — the people who legitimately worked at the studio wouldn't go through the other gates. The advertisement was too strong. So they attempted to destroy the picket line with mass violence. Now, the police came out, and sheriffs, from within. They formed a corridor across the street on both sides so that to picket, we had to walk clear across the street, down the block, and back again. We still picketed. Instead of our picket line being six or eight deep, it was a single line going one way, and single line going the other way around these offices. Mr. Landis. Did you have pickets at every gate ? Mr. SoRRELL. Pickets at every gate, but not mass pickets. Mr. Landis. That is what I thought. Mr. SoRRELL. Now, this is what I did. You will be interested in this. I took a pad out of my pocket, I took a pencil, and I went up to each man, and most of these were sheriffs, and wrote down the num- ber of his badge, and they were standing just so that they could touch hands like that, when they were stretched out. Then they were scat- tered along. And to each one of these fellows I would say, "I am tak- ing your- number because eventually you will probably be called to 1984 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES testify as to what happened today and why you are here, and I don't want to take you off your guard. I want you to know what is hap- pening. I don't mean any trouble for you, I only want you to testify to the truth." And many of these fellows said to me, "This is the most terrible thing I ever had to do. Get me as a witness." Some of them said, "My father is a union man," or "JNIy brother is a union man, and this is awful." Now, that is where I got a lot of my information, believe me. And I made friends all the way around that line. Occasionally some of them didn't say anything. Mr. Landis. Now, let me ask you this. I mean, just from the gen- eral appearance, if every gate had been picketed the same as the other gates, there might not have been any trouble. Now, what I want to know is why at one gate you had a mass picket and at all the other gates you had what we call peaceful picketing. Now, what was the reason ? Mr. 80RRELL. This was peaceful picketing, but we put all the people at one gate. That is, not all the people. AVe had a few pickets at all of the gates. But the mass line, to advertise the line, was out where people could see them, on the street, the main boulevard, where people went by, to show that the strike was still in progress. Mr. Kearns. That is why you picketed Warner Bros., was it not? Mr. SoRRELL. What is that ? Mr. Kearns. That is why you picketed Warner Bros. ? Mr. Sorpell. That is one reason, it was on the boulevard. Mr. Landis. Wait a minute. Why couldn't you go from the gate out to show a demonstration, and leave the entrance open? That is the point I was trying to bring out. Mr. SoRRELL. Believe me, that wouldn't be a picket line. Mr. Landis. Well, if you had your pickets by the gate and had your signs up all along there snd had the people there, I mean- Mr. 80RRELL. Look. Did you ever work at a place and come up and see pickets scattered around? Mr. Landis. I have seen a lot of picket lines. I have seen a lot of kinds of them. Mr. SoRRELL. But not the kind that attacks you ? Mr. Landis. When they mass at the gate and prevent your entrance, of course, you are using force, if you prevent them from going in. Mr. Kearns. You know, they took them off when I went through the studios out there. They didn't have any pickets up there. Mr. SoRRELL. We didn't want to send Congressman Kearns through a picket line. You know, even I went in the studio while you Avere there, and believe me, that is the only time I got in there, on official business. But I wouldn't go through a picket line. Mr. Landis. Now, when they are around a store, they will be around in a circle, and they will be moving. But if someone wants to pass that picket line and go into the store, he can. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. That is the way it should be. Mr. Landis. How could they, in this case ? Mr. SoRRELL. They can get through there. Mr. Landis. They can get through the gate ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1985 Mr. SoRRELL. At Disney's there was a mass picket line, but people went through. They drove cars through. The officers were there to see that they drove carefully, just as you would on a crowded sidewalk. We had no trouble at Disney's. We didn't even have one fist fight. I tell you today that that was absolutely a peaceful picket line, and Ave had some boys in there who liked to get a little too much to drink, and who have caused trouble. We took care of them. They were not arrested. We took them off. ]Mr. Landis. I am talking about the cars, the day the cars were turned over. You said some of them drove through. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. Look; if somebody comes up and smashes you, you smash back. If somebody comes up and says, "Let me by, please," you let them through. But when they start smashing you, you start smashing back. When they start tearing cars through there and hurting people, they started dumping cars. Violence brings violence. Mr. Laxdis. But did you allow those cars to go through if they wanted to go through? Mr. SoRRELL. Well, they had these cars turned upside down when I got there that morning. This is hearsay with me, but I know it is a fact, that several cars drove through. They were driven through deliberately by people to smash up the picket line. There were some people went to the hospital. I think the records will show that there were three or four of them that went to the hospital that morn- ing. And then they just deliberately went out and dumped over the cars to block it. And after that, no cars went through. Mr. Landis. I was trying to get the picture of the mass picket at the gate, and then a car was allowed to go through. I mean, I thought they prevented the cars from going through. Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, no, no. No cars was ever prevented that I know of, except that morning when they turned over some cars to keep them from racing through. Mr. Landis. That is the point I wanted to make. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes. Mr. Kearns. I think we had better recess until 2 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12 : 50 p. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing was resumed at 2 : 10 p. m., pursuant to the recess for lunch.) Mr. Kearns. We will call the meeting to order. Mr. Sorrell, we will continue. We left off on the picket is&lie, as I recall. The question I was going to bring up on that was the fact that you still think that good, sound, bargaining with industry and labor getting together, and with the guaranty — there should be a guaranty of no stoppage of production and no stoppage of work — all the disputes should be settled before jon ever have to have a strike or a picket line. 1986 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. SoRRELL. That is what I have stated, yes. Mr. Kearns, Do you agree with that ? Mr. Sorrell. I agree with that, yes. Mr. Kearns. In my book that is the answer. Mr. Landis. If they do not get together, they lose the privilege of striking to gain their point. Mr. Kearns. Was not the decision in the Lea bill that one picket, even though he be a blind man, was just as effective as mass picketing? Mr. Landis. I think that several pickets scattered along is more effective that one picket. Mr. Sorrell. Do you want me to express my opinion on that ? My opinion is that every man has the right to go through a gate to punch a card to- go to work, has a right to picket that gate. In other words, one picket may be fine. For me, one picket is as good as a thousand. But to the average man who takes a job in the studio, for instance, he sees a picket there, he knows there is some disturbance, but he says, "That does not apply to me. I will go in and go to work.'' If he sees all the people are not working in those shops, and that they are there, and are not simplj^ idling away at home as drones he says, "No, I won't go in and take those people's jobs." I liave one man in mind, and the name just does not come to me. It is too bad I do not remember names better. He went in to work in 1045. He joined the lATSE, I think it was 468, the catch-all local. He was a painter at Paramount. He went in because at the time he went in there was only a token picket line there. And he was a re- turned veteran. And he heard inside that there was a strike, but it was a Connnunist-led outfit and did not mean anything. Then he lost his job when we came back in 1945, but they kept him (;n the pay roll. They not only kept him on the pay roll for the couple of months that they were supposed to, but they kept him beyond that. He became suspicious that maybe he was being held on for future trouble. He went back to work in the studio because he did not want to take money under false pretenses, as an electrician or grip or some- thing in the lA. When the lock-out occurred, he left the studio. He sent me a letter and he said, "I have investigated, and I now believe I was a strikebreaker at the time I started to work here, but I would not have done it had I known what I know now. But there was only a couple of pickets and I was given to understand that they represented a bunch of 'Commies' and trouble-makers." He says, "I am not going back in the studios, I do not expect any- thing of you, because you will only know me a strikebreaker, but I will preserve my own conscience by not going back in the studios." I answered the letter, as I answer every letter written to me, and thanked him for not going back in the studios, and gave him my best regards and told him that I would appreciate him calling me. He did not call me, or if he did, he did not get ahold of me. Things went along for 4 or 5 months, when one of our boys came in :ind began to tell me about this man, that he was pretty hungry, and that he did not belong to the union, but he would not go into work. I said, "I remember getting a letter from him, and I'd like to talk to him." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1987 So he gave me his telephone number and I called him up. I asked for him by name, and he said, "Oh, he's gone. He's down in Texas some place." He said, "Who's calling?" I said, "Well, this is Herb Sorrell, and I wanted to just talk with the man, but if you give me his number down in Texas, maybe I can wi'ite him." He said, "Thafs different. I thought it was the damn studios pester- ing me to come back to work again." He said, "That's me, and I will be glad to talk to you." He came down and he talked to me, and I took him to another painters union, which does work outside on buildings and so forth, introduced him, and he was taken into the painters union. Whenever this thing is settled, it will be brought up to our membership, and I am sure tliat they will vote him into the union, because the man is sincere, he is a good union man, he is now working every day, because he is also a pretty good painter. But he would not have gone in had he known that there was a lot of just honest working people off their jobs, but he went in because there was a weak picket line, not the proper advertisements. I tell you that story to impress on you the reasons that there must be a demonstration to show that it is not a stray man locked out here or there, but it is a mass of people who have forfeited their positions in the studios, which is their fortune, which is all they have. In many respects they have made big contributions to the motion- picture industry. They have put their life in it. They know it better than anything else. And then to be locked out, and they pick up some Skidwell bum and send him in there, and claim the same rights for him as those who have made their contribution to the industry Mr. Laxdis. JSIy point was to get the mass on each side of the gate, if you wanted numbers, put 500 on each side of the gate. ^Ir. Sorrell. That would not work in the motion-picture studios, because they would think it was a bunch of extras w^aiting to go to work or something. If you are going to have a picket line, you are going to have to have a picket line. Mr. Laxdis. They could all carry banners to show who they were, of course. Mr. Kearns. Mr^ Sorrell, when you had the mass picket line in front of AVarner Bros., all the company officials, any of the executive officers of that company, any directors were permitted to go into that plant and were not molested in any way; is that not right? Mr. Sorrell. I never heard of them being molested. Mr. Kearns. AVhat people had to stay in the plant for fear of going outside ? Mr. Sorrell. The producers bedded down people in the plants. ^Ir. Kearns. I mean in what capacity ; what was the personnel that they bedded down? Mr. Sorrell. They did bed down people in the plant, and I am trying to think who the people were. I imagine that it was — in fact I know it was laborers and electricians, and common working guys like us who refused to go through the picket lines who if they stayed in the studios where they did not have to go back and forth through the studios, they stayed there ; but if they let them go home, they did not come back. 1988 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. What about the industrial-relations men and things like that? Mr. SoRRELL. Industrial relations? Mr. Kearns. Labor relations, or whatever j'ou call it. Mr. SoRRELL. I never heard of one of them being bedded down in the studios. I never heard of that. Mr. Kearns. You did not interfere in any way with the executives of the company going in and out of the building? Mr. SoRRELL. There was only one time that I can ever — that I ever knew of anybody being Mr. Kearns. This, in my opinion, is serious, because I saw a West- inghouse strike up in our District where the office force were not out on strike, nor any of the company's officials, but there was not one of those men who could go into that building; they had to move 15 miles over in Ohio so they could operate their drafting work, and get ready to work, and get their plans made, and blueprints, so they could manu- facture when they did go back to work. Mr. SoRRELL. That was not the fact in the motion-picture industry. I was just going to say, to my knowledge, no executive had any trouble going in and out. To my knowledge, only one man I ever saAv was stopped by the picket line, or had trouble. That was Blayney Matthews, the chief of police at Warner Bros., and he went through the picket line with shoulders, going out, and then he waved for the fellows to come on across, and he came back with his shoulders going through, and he got roughed up a bit. Mr. IvEARNS. But as chief of police, though, he was part of manage- ment, protecting property rights; is that not correct? Mr. SoRREiiL. That is what he was supposed to be doing. But when he bullied the line going out, and then came back pushing people, knocking them over, they roughed him up a little bit. And waving his arms. Mr. Kearns. In other Avords, that was a personal attack rather than a company attack? Mr. SoRRELL. Had he walked through gently, nobody would have touched him. To my knowledge, no executive was touched or harmed, and I do not think you can find any record of any executive or anyone in that kind of a position going through the lines, unless they joined in a mass attack, like this dancing director said, and I do not think it carries much water. Mr. Kearns. You believe in property rights in America ; you must, because you sat here the other day and you said you would not have communism in America if everybody owned his own home and had a little piece of property. Mr. SoRRELL. Let us put it this way, Mr. Kearns : I think that the basis of good citizenship in this country is the people who own their own homes, have their own gardens, have their own automobiles, and have a part of this country. They are the people that vote. The fly-bv-nighters. who are in one town one day and move to an- other, and on relief another day, and who follow up labor troubles to take other people's jobs, and who hibernate down around Skid Rows, they don't contribute anything to this country. They are misfits, sometimes for one reason and sometimes for another. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1989 But you must depend on the people that defend this country, the people that make this country. It will oo right down to the guy, even though his home might be humble, he has one. And 1 would rather put my dependence on a man with a two-room home of his own than a man who lives in some very fine apartment and paj^s rent on it. I think when you take that away from the man, then you have made a tool out of him. I am not here saying how other countries should run their affairs, but w^hen they come over here and try to run my country, and try to take me out of my place, brother, then it's a fight. Mr. Kearns. You are not referring to the Congressmen that live in the apartments; we do not get elected long enough to own our own home ? Mr. SoRRELL. Mr. Kearns, I think that most of the Congressmen that live in apartments here have their homes that they come from, and most of them at least when they are elected they have them, they may not be able to hold on to them because I understand their obliga- tions are pretty heavy here, but I think that they come from that type of people, or they would not be elected. Mr. Landis. Could I ask you to make an observation? It is a new subject, developed here by different groups and different witnesses. I have been given the impression by some of the testimony that first the carpenters said they were not ^oing to work, and they made that statement on account of the conditions, and the producers argued around whether they were going to close the studios or keep open. They finally decided to keep the studios open. They went to the lA to see if they could furnish them the men to keep the studios open. That is the impression I got. All right, they probably promised to furnish the men or do the best they could to furnish the men. I have heard about Bioff and the past deals. I do not want the past deal. I want from then on up, if you will give me your picture from that position on up to now, or just in that time. Mr. SoKRELL. When we get the basis of everything laid here, and bring it up chronologically Mr. Laxdis. I mean this investigation, this starts in with the con- spiracy, the lA and the producers. Mr. SoRRELL. You understand, I think that when I get through testifying here, you will see, and if you. do not want to believe anything I tell you, if you do not see fit to think that it is authentic, there will be people's names here that will be mentioned, that can be put on this stand under oath, that will be honest, and they will tell you, and I did not even know this myself at the time, that when the 1945 strike ended the conspiracy to destroy the Conference of Studio.Unions was intensified, and the producers made plans from that day. I ho])e that we can go along in this and build up to that, because I am positive that I have enough evidence, whether I can convince you that Ave have enough evidence or not I don't know, but I do know that we have enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy between the lATSE top officials and certain members of the major motion-jjicture producers association. 1990 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES And I am going to try to build that up. I am coming at it slowly, Mr. Landis. That is all right. You use your own way about coming at it. Mr. SoRRELL. I do not want to get ahead of myself. I want to build it up so it will have a firm foundation. I did not realize it was taking so long, would take so long, and it would not have taken near so long, but they throw in these phony Communist charges and they tangle you up, so to speak, and they get you off the track, and it takes me a long time to answer those questions because just as I will answer every letter that is written to me, I will answer every charge that they throw at me, if I can, whether it has any basis of authenticity or not. Mr. Bodle says this can't be, and it does not matter, and so forth. It does not make any difference to me. They have been publishing these things for 10 or 11 years, about me. And they have no basis of au- thenticity, maybe, but by gosh, the things that I answer have a basis of authenticity. I do not sidestep when you ask me if I signed a petition to release Browder. I had a reason for that. I had a reason for writing him a letter, or writing the President a letter for him. I do not duck any issues. I will meet them right straight on. and when they lie about me, I may quibble a little bit because I want to be absolutely sure that they have lied against me. There have been lies put in here. I do not mean that they have perjured themselves, but they pick up a book or something and they take out a paragraph which distorts the truth to the extent that nobody can recognize it. It has taken me quite a long time, and I have used a lot of valuable time. It has been valuable time to me, to my attorney, and to everyone else, to untangle a lot of this filth that has been thrown up as a smoke screen to hide things that go on behind that. Mr. Landis. Those attorneys ought to have one job like we have, and then they would not have to go to another job. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes, I think my attorney has a lot of work to do, and I have used all kinds of pressure to keep him here, and I may have to go on alone, eventually, anyhow. It is too bad that I force him to stay here and listen to all this smoke screen of communism and this distortion of facts. But he realizes there is a job to do here. I realize there is a job to do here. And we are trying to get through with it as fast as we can, and we do not want to get ahead of ourselves. Mr. Landis. You go ahead and proceed. That was a point I wanted cleared. You proceed in your own way. Mr. SoRRELL. Thank j^^ou, Congressman. Mr. BoDLE. This is the last of the excerpts from the minutes of the painters' union meetings : Regular meeting November 17, 1947. Meeting called to order at 8: 05 p. m. at 4157 West Fifth Street, Brother Rusk, presiding. (Excerpt trom the business agent's report, p. 3, par. 4) : Brother Sorrell said he had been accused of Red baiting lately because he opposed the party line of giving up the strike and going back to work. While he respects personal rig'its to voice opinions, union policy must come from this rtoor only, not from outside. Vebnon K. Mangold, Recording Secretary, Local Union G4-'i. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1991 Tlie foregoing extracts from tl'e minutes of the Movinu Picture Painters Local 644, consisting of pages 1, 2, and 3 are true and exact copies from records in my possession. VEENori K. Mangold, Local 64',. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February 1948. Bill F. Edwakds, Notarii Public in nnd for the State of CuUfornio. My commission expires October 13, 1950. There are other exhibits we are going to introduce on this subject of communism, but they have not yet arrived from the coast. In the meantime, there are a couple of remarks I want to make. The only alleged proof of any sort of Communist relationship on the part of Sorrell was the alleged membership cards which were intro- duced, and two, the statements that were selected from the affidavit of Rena Vale, and which previously have been introduced in the Tenney committee hearings, and which were brought before you by Mr. Levy. I want to say this about the Rena Vale testimony. It is a very serious thing. Rena Vale, as I understand it, sat with that committee during its hearings, yet to my knowledge, Rena Vale was never called at any time as a witness before that committee. Her statements are contained in an affidavit made ex parte, not under oath, in the absence of counsel either for the committee, as I understand it, or for any- body else, no opportunity for the persons she accused to confront her, and of course no opportiniity for either examination or cross- examination. Mr. Landis. Did Mr. Sorrell know her? Mr. BoDLE. I will have to ask Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Sorrell. She was pointed out to me at the Tenney committee. I woidd not know her if I would see her. But that is where she was pointed out to me, and the first time I ever remember having seen her. However, she might have been some place where I was, because I have been in big gatherings, and she might have been among them, and you do not pick them out. Mr. BoDLE. The alleged Communist conspiracy is claimed by both Mr. Levy and Mr. Brewer to date from the time that Jeff Kibre, a person by the name of Jelf Kibre appeared on the Hollywood scene. Mr. Levy, in the letter which lie sent the committee, made this statement : The same program wliieh Kibre liad outlined originally in his reports was used by Sorrell later, and Sorrell was headed by the same Henschel. Mr. Brewer, as I have already stated, followed the safne line, and he said at page 1792 of his testimony : Much to my surprise the picture unfolded to me. I found thiit Jeff Kibre had been a member of the lATSE, that he had been exiiosed to Communists, that he had been exposed directing a fight against the lATSE in a dual capacity as a representative of the CIO and as an associate of Harry Bridges, as well as an agent of the Communist Party, taking directions from the Communist Party leaders in New York. And I found there was a set of documents that liad beeii published at the time Mr. Kibre was active, and it was only after a careful study of those documents that I began to see some light in the forces that were at work in this controversy. I think this is very important, because apparently the whole case of the lATSE is built up upon these assumptions "that are stated in 1992 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES different terms, but are substantially the same, by both Mr. Levy and Mr. Brewer, that Mr. Sorrell is a Communist, because Mr. Kibre was a Communist, and Mr. Sorrell is carrying out the so-called Kibre policy, as laid down in the letters which Mr. Brewer, I believe, read into the record. I want to point out that one of the primary charges made against Mr. Kibre, and one of the primary bases for tying Mr. Sorrell with Mr. Kibre was on the allegation that Mr. Kibre had formed or had something to do with the establishment of the unemployment conference. There is Mr. Sorrell's sworn testimony in this record that Mr. Kibre had nothing to do with the organization of the unemployment conference. Mr. Sorrell and the representatives of all of the other unions in Hollywood at the time, except the lATSE, organized and were members of that conference, and that the one union withdrew from it during the course of its life, which was the teamsters, but the inference is certainly clear, and I do not know whether there was direct testimony to this, that all of the other craft unions in Hollywood continued to be members of it. That means the plasterers and the laborers and the carpenters, and so forth, and the meetings were held, as Mr. Sorrell pointed out, in the hall of the carpenters union. Mr. Sorrell further testified that he had never read the letters, nor had seen the letters which Mr. Kibre is r.eputed to have sent to CIO and Communist Party officials, and hence, I think, it is difficult to conclude that his policy was influenced by something which he had never seen or read. Thirdly, he testified that he had never seen Kibre, had not seen Kibre since 1939 or 1940, 1 am not sure which. The testimony is clear that his association with Kibre was only in the unemployment conference where Kibre sat in as a so-called I A progressive, as any person might have sat in. With regard to the policies which Kibre enunciated, the policy as indicated by both Mr. Levy and Mr. Brewer, and this, I think, is probably clear from the letters, was one of creating an industrial union in Hollywood. If there is any testimony in this record that indicates that Mr. Sorrell at anytime was concerned or interested or active in the formation of an industrial union, I would like to see it. The truth of the fact is that Mr. Sorrell was the leader of the build- ing trade craft unions and has been since 1937, and his whole activity has been toward protecting the rights of those crafts against the activity of the lATSE. And we will show that if any policy of in- dustrial unionism, such as outlined by Mr. Kibre. was followed it was followed by the lATSE. Whether that makes it communistic or not, I don't know. But we will show at the time of the 1937 strike, when the Federated Motion Picture Crafts were on strike, a group of craft unions, that Mr. Bioff made the statement that nobody is going to make a deal with the producers except through me, and that if the producers deal independently with these crafts, we will strike them not only in Holly- wood but in the theaters. We have already introduced evidence to show that at the time of the Disney strike in 1941. Mr. Bioff tried to inject himself into the picture, and insist that the Disney strikers, another craft union, deal through MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1993 him, and when they did not deal throngh him, he made a deal for the other xV. F. of L. crafts and pulled them off the picket line. And we will show that the same thing happened in 1945 and in 1946. We will further present testimony before we are completed that as late as 2 weeks ago in the hearing room downstairs Mr. Rich- ard Walsh, in the conversation with Mr. Harvey Brown of the ma- chinists, which was overheard by 10 or 15 people, made the statement that the machinists are out of the studios, that they will never get back, the studios are the exclusive jurisdiction of the lATSE, and they intend to have it. So if there is anj^ showing of industrial unionism, which is, I pre- sume Mr. Levy is accurate in saying, a policy of the CIO, and which apparently was the policy of Mr. Kibre as the representative of the Communist Party, assuming he was a representative of the Commu- nist Party, it is the policy which has been followed by the lATSE. I have a number of documents here which I want to read into the record, which will show first that it has been the consistent policy of the lATSE to destroy the craft unions in the studios; secondly, that in this work they have had the complete and constant cooperation of the producers ; and, third, that the C4'y of communism was raised only against Mr. Sorrell, and the people with whom he is associated, be- cause, one, they opposed racketeering in this industry, and secondly, because they stood up for the rights of the craft workers in the in- dustry. The first clipping that I have to read is from the Los Angeles Times of ^May 22, 1937. This concerns the 1937 strike during the settle- ment of which, as you will recall, according to Mr. Sorrell's sworn testimony, he was offered $56,000 by Willie Bioff. I am not going to read the whole of it, because it is a very long clipping. In a four-point statement which was interpreted to mean that an early settle- ment of the difficulty is an outstanding possibility, the lATSE leaders declared : That the striking Painters Union must first apologize to the lATSE for as- serted slanderous accusations made by the former during the current strike difficulties. That the lATSE dictate any jurisdictional disputes involved. That the producers have been served notice by the working studio union groups not to negotiate with the FMPC leaders. I might state parenthetically that the group that went on strike was called the Federated Motion Picture Crafts. That, if the producers sign an agreement of settleipent with the painters on strike, the lATSE will pull all members out on strike and darken every union- ized motion picture theater in the United States and Canada. I should have said before I started this that at this time Willie Bioff was the head of the lATSE in Hollywood, as the personal repre- sentative of (jeorge Browne, the international president. This is a quote from the Los Angeles Herald-Express of the same day, May 22, 1937 : George E. Browne declared that when the strike is settled the TATSE will define the jurisdictional rights of the scenic and make-up artists, affiliates of the painters and, with the latter, comprising most of the 1,000 men and women of the FMPC still on strike. "If any studio negotiates a settlement with the FMPC unbeknown to us," Browne continued, "we will call a strike at that studio and call out the motion- picture operators of every theater where the studio films are exhibited. 1994 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "If the major producers as a group make such a secret settlement, then we will call out our men and women at all major studios and close practically every motion picture theater in the country." The FMPC has continued indefinitely the deadline previously established for 27 independent studios to sign an agreement providing for union shop and nego- tiations for new wage and working condition matters. The independents' repre- sentatives and f'MPC officials conferred several times during the last few days but failed to come to terms. It was reported, however, that the lATSE had quietly warned the independents to "lay off signing up with the FMPC or we will call a strike in your studios." Although Browne would not comment upon the report, it was declared in Holly- wood today that he had been sent here ironi his headquarters in New York by William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, to settle the strike as quickly as possible. I might point out, too, that at this time Mr. Sorrell was a picket captain. He had no office in the union. The business agent of the union was a man by the name of Lessing, who came here a few weeks ago from New York, according to the clipping. This is from the Sunday Los Angeles Times, May 23, 1937 : From LaFayette, Ind., came a telegram, addressed to Charles E. Lessing, executive secretary of the FMPC, and signed by L. P. Lindelof, president of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Paperhangers, parent group of one of the striking studio organizations, Assailing the lATSE stand in the motion picture dispute. In the wire to Lessing, Lindelof said : "The general executive board (of the IBPPU) has endorsed and approved the strike of the local unions affiliated with our brotherhood. Any statements to the contrary are false and without foundation. A special meeting has been called at Cincinnati for Monday and it is expected the internationals afliliated will take action for greater cooperation and join with the brotherhood's representatives in their appeal to President William Green (A. F. of L.) against the action of the lATSE in infringing on other internationals' jurisdiction." Informed of the content of the telegram sent Lessing by Lindelof, George E. Browne, executive head of the lATSE, declared that his organization has served notice o'n Joseph M. Schenck, spokesman for the Association of Motion Picture Producers, in which the latter was told "He was mistaken in stating that the door is alwa.ys open to the Hollywood painters for negotiation if Schenck thinks the door is open," Browne declared, "and if Schenck negotiates on behalf of the producers with the FMPC painters' group, then his Twentieth Century-Fox studio will be one of the first to be closed in this fight. "The door is not open and this is strictly an interunion fight," Browne said. "The painters (Hollywood local) must come to the lATSE and to no one else. If the producer keeps butting in, we will be forced to bar the showing of their pictures. "If Lindelof wants to inject himself into this picture," Browne's statement sets forth, "the lATSE is prepared to take him on. Regardless of what Lindelof says in his statement charging encroachment of jurisdictional issues, it is still clearly cut that the lATSE demands will stand unwaveringly." Mr. McCann. Mr, Chairman, I think that what he has read here is adequate without adding anything more to it. Mr. L.vNDis. I might ask a question there, if I may. I do not want to break the continuity, however. Do the locals in the Conference of Studio Unions pay dues, or pay into the Conference of Studio Unions some fee or something? Mr. Sorrell. To the Conference of Studio Unions ? Mr. Landis. Now, what I am trying to get at is this. Tell me the difference between the crafts and their connection with the studio unions and the crafts that are connected with the lA. Would there be any difference that you know of ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1995 JSIr. SoRRELL. Yes ; there is a difference. To be eligible to belong to tlie Conference of Studio Unions, the unions must have local autonomy. There must be democracy and autonomy within the union. JMr. Landis. That is right; yes. Mr. SoRRELL. In other words, some lA unions would be eligible and some would not, because in the constitution of the CSU, it is very clearly stated that the elected business representatives and two elected officers shall constitute the delegates — not two elected officers — but two elected delegates shall constitute the required delegates to participate in the Conference of Studio Unions. In other words, we didn't trust just the business agent to carry the word back and forth from the meeting of locals to the union meetings. We want three people, so that when the business agent makes his report, it can be checked on by other people. Now, some of the lATSE unions, you know, have been taken over by the international, and, of course, they would automatically not be able to fulfill the requirements of the Mr. Landis. You mean, run by the international instead of the locals ? ^Ir. SoRRELL. That is right. jSIr. Landis. I was trying to see first whether it was based on the central labor union, where they accepted delegates from the different crafts into the central labor union, or based on the industry-wide set- up, where they could bargain and be effective in bargaining together. Mr. SoRRELL. It is similar to a central labor union. There are con- ferences of unions in many studios. In fact, you will see here that Bioff' set up a Conference of Studio Unions. He called it the Confer- ence of A. F. of L. Studio Unions. And he was joined by most of the unions. Of course, that conference was a top group. Joe Tuohy represented the teamsters. He didn't have anybody there with him. He was the dictator over the teamsters. Different ones representing their craft, they met in a group, and there was no real, down to earth union par- ticipation in it. It was just a set-up where the business agents got together and discussed these things. The Conference of Studio Unions is practically the same thing, only that when we have a meeting, the business agents discuss their problems and bring in a couple of members from each meeting who sit in to check on them so that it is completely democratic and kept that way. Does that explain^it to you ? Mr. Landis. Yes. * Mr. Kearns. Now, anything you 'do not want to read, or that is not important, you can just ask to have it put in the record without reading it. ' Mr. Bodle. I am going to skip through this pretty much. I am not going to read all of this. But a lot of this, I think, is important for the record. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, it might be well at this point to indi- cate your recent instructions to me, which is going to make it ex- tremely difficult to advise these persons whose names have been men- tioned as possible Communists. 1996 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The chairman has directed me, Mr. Landis, not only to write a letter to these people, informing them that their names have been mentioned, but I am further directed to quote the evidence which refers to each of them. That meajis we have a 2,400-page record now, and there is no telling what we will have before we are through. Mr, Kearns. The reason for that is that some of the people have been quoted as being Communists and others are quoted as being affiliated with Communist-front organizations. Some are just quoted as being fellow travelers, and you cannot cover them all in one cate- gory of terminology. You have to break it down. Mr. Landis. I suppose he means the main charge. Mr. McCaxn. I just want you to see what the task is going to be, with the record we are building up. Mr. Landis. I do not think he wants the entire evidence. Mr. Kearns. No ; in what category they are placed. Mr. McCann. I will have to read the record with great care to pre- pare those letters. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. Bodle. Willie Bioff was the personal representative of George E. Browne in charge of the lATSE in the motion picture industry from, I think, approximately 1936 until, as we will show, around 1942. As evidence which we will present later will indicate, the first deal between Bioff and the motion picture producers was made about 1935, at which time there was a pay-off on the part of the Balaban interests who operate theaters in Chicago. The story of Bioff is important not only as shoAving the background of the lATSE, but there can be no question to anybody who reads the story that the charges against Sorrell arise out of his opposition to Bioff and his racketeering activ- ities in the motion picture industry. I want to start the story of Willie Bioff by reading from the Novem- ber 24, 1939, issue of Variety, in which the story of Willie Bioff up to that time was told : Willie Bioff, the labor dictator of the entire amusement industry of the United States and Canada, and sole arbiter, on the union side, of problems affecting the 35,000 men and women of the mechanical crafts of Hollywood, was convicted of pandering in a trial before Judge Arnold Heap of the Chicago Municipal Court in February 1922. He was sentenced to serve 6 months in jail and fined $300 and $6.50 costs. Bioff was committed to the Bridewell on February 24 and was released on March 3 on an appeal to the appellate court. The appellate court in the October term of 1922 affirmed the verdict and sentence, and a mandate was issued to the sheriff on March 2, 1923, to return him to ,iail. On March 23, the appellate court recalled this mandate because a motion had been made to permit Bioff to appeal to the State supreme court. The documents on file in the appellate court ordinarily would contain a record of the completion of such a further appeal, but there is no trace of any such action in the clerk's office. Inquiry by telephone at the office of the clerk of the State supreme court at Springfield brings the reply that there is no record there of an appeal to that body. The court record stops at the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction and sentence. The Bridewell records, nevertheless, fail to show that Bioff ever was returned there to finish his sentence. The arresting officers in the raid on the house of prostitution, of which Bioff, by his own admission, was an employee and in the contention of the State one of the three proprietors, were the late William Shoemaker, then a detective, later chief of detectives of the Chicago Police Department, and Policeman Arthur Wathholz. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1997 Both policemen gave testimony, aiul Wathliolz signed the official information which was the hasis of the prosecution. In this document Wathholz said he raided a saloon on South Halstead Street, on the West Side, on January 14, 1922. It alleged that Bioff on that day received from Bernice Thomas, alias Rose, the sum of $29, earned by prostitution. The description of the premises said there was a rear room in which prostitutes sat waiting for men. Bioft waived a jury and entered a plea of not guilty. On the sUind Wathholz said that for a few hours before the arrest he observed the Thomas woman, alias Rose, taking men through a gangway at the rear. He said the place was operated by Bioff and two others and described in detail the six upstairs rooms used for prostitution, particularly as to the filtliy condition of these quarters. John Young, an elevator operator by trade, testified he was employed as manager of tlie brothel. He said he had charge of the cash and the books, which latter consisted of score sheets bearing the names of women frequenting the back room. Yoting said that when he ^vas hired at $2 a day, Bioff took him upstairs to shovr him the place, instruct him in his work, which in- cluded chambermaid chities, and showed liim how to keep score on sheets provided for that purpose. He said that in the performance of these duties he woukl obtain fiom each woman $2 to $3 after each visit to a room with a man, and would mark down the amount opposite the prostitute's name and hand the agreement between producers and Screen Publicists Guild was reached yesterday at conference between SPO representatives and producer committee composed of Joseph M. Schenck. Y. Frank Freeman, and Eddie Mannix. Then an editorial signed by Arthur Ungar, same day : WiLUE Fading Out It must have been a most regrettable situatioi in Willie Bioff's life when the producers agreed on a contract with tbe Screen Publicists Guild. No doubt it was more regrettable than the situation Willie has been in for the past 17 yenrs — that of heinc: a fugitive panderer. Willie tried to badger the screen publicists into letting him be their spearhead. He did everything conceivable to whip them into line. But Willie found that the publicists liave a sense of decency and respect for womankind, and want no Tiart of the stigma of being represented by a fugitive panderer. Variety, December 11, 1939, a signed editorial by Arthur Ungar: Willie's Guest Abraham L. Mnrovitz, who recently was retained as Chicago attorney for Willie "The Kec^^le" Bioff to tbwart extradition proceedings, is a guest at the Encino ranch of his fugitive client. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2009 Marovitz, who lias been in town for a couple of days, no doubt must have been impressed with the beauties of his surroundings — the artistic landscaping, the largest olive tree in southern California, the rare trees and plants of the lay-out, as well as the inside furnishings. Willie's lay-out is the last word, we are told, and no doubt he made certain to impress that fact on his Chicago attorney. Whether Willie told him how he negotiated the set-up or not cannot be said. But really Willie should have been fi'ank with his attorney and told him how he got a studio to buy furniture, for which he neglected to i)ay; how another sent out drapes gratis, how he used new, crisp $1,000 bills with which to pay for the land, and how he spent thousands on landscaping and tree planting— all on a mere wage of $110 a week and expenses he got from the lATSE, many of whose members, who work now and then in studios, are worrying as to how they can pay for Christmas gifts and food. Variety, December 14, 1939 : SAG Quits Labor CouNcrL — ^Aid to Bioff Results in Split Screen Actors Guild is withdrawing from membership in Central Labor Council. Actors are reported to have become incensed over political maneuvering of CLG leaders, which culminated recently in their pledging support of Willie BiofE in his*fight to escape extradition to Chicago to serve a 6 months' sentence Vju a pandering conviction. SAG is said to take position council should confine its activities to strictly labor affairs and that it should not attempt to interfere in law-enforcement matters. Daily Variety, December 15, 1939. There has been some testimony in here with reference to J. W. Buz- zell, and this is in relation to that : BUZZELL Is BUKNED BY SAG LoSS Apparently angered over withdrawal of Screen Actors Guild from affiliation with central labor council, J. W. Buzzell, CLC executive secretary, charged yester- day that actors' objection to endorsement of Willie Bioff by the council was a "subterfuge." Daily Variety, December 16, 1939 : SAG W.VB ON Rackets in Labor Screen Actors Guild announced yestei'day it was mailing copies of its with- drawal from central labor council to all American Federation of Labor unions in California to make clear guild's position "that unionism must leave no room in the ranks of labor for racketeering or rackets." Letter of Kenneth Thomson, SAG executive secretary, to J. W. Buzzell, secre- tary of CLC, follows : "For some time it has been apparent to the Screen Actors Guild that the officers and controlling faction of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council have not con- ducted affairs in the council along the lines of democratic, honest unionism advo- cated by the guild. "The guild has been informed that the central labor council has adopted a resolution calling upon n'C Chicago Federation of Labor to intervene with the Governor of lUiaois for the purpose of opposing the extradition of William Bioff from California to Illinois on a criminal charge. "We regard this action of the central labor council as a climax to a course of action which will bring not only the central labor council and its member unions but also all organized labor into public disrepute. "The nature of the crime of which Mr. Bioft was admittedly convicted is such as to stigmatize any group condoning or defending ^Nlr. Bioff. It is not the func- tion of the Screen Actors Guild to pass on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Bioff, and it is merely noted in passing that he has admitted the essential facts and pleaded the defense of 'youthful indiscretion.' It is the purpose of the guild to state that it believes labor unions should not interfere in a matter which rests between Mr. Bioff and the law-enforcement officers of the States of Illinois and California. No union issue is involved here. 2010 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "The central labor council conceives as a primary duty the protection of its reputation, and the good name of all labor before the bar of public opinion. "It protests against the central labor council resolution in the case of Mr. Bioff, and to make plain to law-enforcement officers and the public that this resolution does not represent the position of the Screen Actors Guild, the guild hei'eby withdraws its membersliip in the council, effective at once. "This action has been authorized by unanimous vote of the board of directors of the Screen Actors Guild." Variety, December 18, 1939, a signed editorial by Arthur Ungar, entitled "The Sorrell Way." Herbert Sorrell is entitled to take bows for the businesslike manner in which he negotiated a 15-percent wage increase for the studio painters. Sorrell did no threatening; he did no muscling; he just presented his problem to the producers; Pat Casey stuck by an agreement made two years ago and Sorrell got a square break for his men. Sorrell is a biz agent from the ranks of his own organization. His pay is the same as that received by a member of his craft. His mannerism is frank. His opinions and demands are always for those he represents. He is fearless, as he proved by refusing to have anything to do with Willie Bioff. Bioft told Sorrell it would be just too bad if the latter did not let him negotiate for painter* as well as other AFL crafts. After these threats Sorrell told Bioff he needed none of his help and wanted none of his conniving tactics. Bioff respected Sorrell and his wishes, and left him alone. He knew liere was one man who would not stand for any threats — a man who had his number. Bioff had passed out the word that "Only crafts under his wing" would get an increase of 10 percent, and insisted tbat producers would deal with none except through him. Sorrell .just let Bioff know tliat this town would not be big enough for both of tliem if Willie tried any monkeyshines. Willie maneuvered around and got 10 percent for the AFL crafts, outside of the lA, whom he represented. Willie made strike threats, etc., prior to getting it. Sorrell made no threats, talked cold turkey and got his 15 percent. Willie made his deal retroactive to October 10. Sorrell, besides getting 5 percent more than Willie "negotiated," made the increases retroactive to August 25. Sorrell is the type of representative of which all labor can be proud. He makes a deal. His men live up to it. He is from the i-anks of his craft. There are other "Herb Sorrells" in the ranks of studio labor crafts. These are the men who should negotiate for their respective unions. Their brother workers will believe in them and will observe contractual obligations to tlie letter. These men should be brought to the fore. They should be given their union reins, the racketeers given the gate, and Hollywood given a chance to forget that iui endeavor was made to stigmatize labor by forcing Willie Bioff on the unions as their repre- sentatives. A new year will soon be here. New resolutions will be made. Undoubtedly one of them will be by the individual studio crafts to break the hold that Vv^illle, the panderer, has had on their economic future, once and for all. Variety, December 29, 1939 : WnxiE TiUEs New Labor Grab — Carpenters' Jobs Asked for Grips Willie Bioff has renewed his drive to assume control over all film industry woi'k with the demand for about 50' percent of work now done by studio carpenters. Jurisdiction claim filed with producers also would require plasterers, plumbers, molders, and sheet-metal workers to carry cards in the lATSE when employed on special effects to go before the camera. In list submitted to Pat Casey, producer labor contact, Bioff claims grips ar« entitled to handle all cut-outs, remakes, erection, and wrecking of scaffolds, storing and caring for sets, etc. Propmakers would he allocated all work pertaining to erection of special effects, whether wood, plaster, sheet metal or iron. Plumbers and plasterers would be permitted to continue some of this woi-k on special effects but would be required to carry an lA card in addition to one from their own local. Under jurisdiction claim ornamental iron work, sheet metal, laths, floorboards, etc., would have to be installed by an lA man if used on an Imitation ship or other special effects prop to go before the camera. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2011 Work of carpenters would be confined ex'-lusively to the carpenter shop. It is estimated by studio labor contacts that carpenters would lose about 50 percent of present jurisdiction. Bioff claims this worli formerly was done by grips and propmakers, but that the carpenters gradually took it over. Was disclosed, however, that the work originally belonged and was allocated to the carpenters, that the lA grabbed the jurisdiction, but that it was taken back by the carpenters during the internal strife in the Ia! Producer representatives indicated yesterday that Bioff would be advised the matter was a jurisdictional dispute between two unions and should be settled by representatives of those organizations. Joseph Cambiano, international repre- sentative of studio carpenters, has been advised of situation, and is expected liere first of tlie week from liis home in San Mateo. In meantime, William Castle, business representative of carpenters, was seeking list of work claimed by lA, but said nothing would be done until he talked with Cambiano. Jurisdiction claim came as surprise since Bioff. when he was pleading for united front of all American Federation of Labor studio craft, stated all juris- dictional disputes would be settled around conference table after completion of producer negotiations. Castle attended Bioff's AFL studio conference sessions and his name was listed along with other studio business heads on oflBcial announcements handed out by Bioff's office. Moving picture painters local 644 and Screen Actors Guild were only AFL crafts wliich refused to have anything to do with Bioff and his negotiations. At that time Herbert Sorrell. business representative of painters, warned otlier unions against tieing up with Bioff. Daily Variety, Thursday, January 11, 1940; headline : Government Indicts Weeping Willie — Evasion of 85 G Tax Charged Willie Bioff, who boasted he made as much as $3,500 a day for liimself while negotiating for "the little fellows," was indicted by the United States grand jury yesterday, cliarged with income-tax evasion of approximately $85,000. Attor- neys for Chicago hoodlum made arrangements to surrender him at 1 : 15 a. m. today. Bond has been set at $5,000. First count charges Bioff swore his income in 1936 was only $5,720 and paid a tax of $105.92, although his actual income was $33,573.25. It claimed Government was defrauded of $4,384.93 in taxes. Second count covers Bioff's income for 1937. Charges he reported a total income of only $7,205 and paid a tax of $193.05, although his actual income totaled $176,416.38. Is alleged the Government on income for that year was defrauded of $80,057.41. In 1936 Willie listed liis income as $5,720 in salary received from International Alliance Tlieatrical Stage Employees. The Government alleges that in 1936 he had other income of $27,853.25. In 1937, Willie listed his income as $5,830 in salary from international and $1,375 in dividends from domestic and foreign corporations, bringing the total to $7,205. The Government insists that lie had othei- income during the year of $169,211.38, making his total income for that year $176,416.38. Daily Variety, January 16, lO-lO; headline: Bioff Plans Phoney Fadeout "Keedle" hopes to hold command back stage to quiet men's clamor. Fighting to keep his stranglehold on film labor, Willie Bioff was reported last night as planning to step out of union limelight, at least temporarily, with the idea of manipulating strings from back stage. A front man would be selected for window dressing, with Willie calling shots from behind the curtain. Move is said to be under consideration to head off: clamor from rank and file workers that Bioff get out of picture until he can satisfactorily explain charge of United States Government that he made more than $200,000 during 1936-37. Daily Variety, Monday, January 29, 1940, headline : "Keyolt in lATSE Oyer Bioff, 'Ro^x'Over Loyalty Pledoe.*' Open revolt b.v 10,000 film technicians against domination of Willie Bioff is brewing over demands of International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees 2012 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES that local members sign a loyalty pledge. Several workers branded demand as an insult and violation of constitutional rights and National Labor Relations Act. Copies of pledge which binds workers to accept any phony rules or regulations that may be promulgated in future by Willie and his associates have been turned over to Department of Justice operatives and ofHcials of the National Labor Relations Board. jNIany workers are signing pledge in fear of losing their jobs, but others have indicated they will tile a mandamus action in court if refused the right to work unless they sign the loyalty binder. Secret meetings of workers are being held to discuss situation. All of them are opposed to signing such a document, but claim they have been told that they would have to sign up in order to get a paid-up membership card. None of them can work without this card because of the present closed shop agreement between the lATSE and the major companies. Many fear if they refuse to sign they will be secretly black-listed and will be unable to get work. Mr. Landis. Let us take a 5-minute recess. (Short recess.) Mr. Landis. We will proceed with the hearing. Mr. SoRRELL. Reading from Dailj^ Variety, Thursday, February 8. 1940, "Governor Refuses to See Delegation for Bioff." Sacramento, February 7. — Five members of Studio Conference organized recently by Willie Bioff sought conference with Governor Culbert Olson today to ask for continuance of lViof£ extradition hearing set for Tuesday (13). Stanley Mosk, executive secretary to Governor Olson, said Governor was "too busy" to see them and that scheduled hearing would be held. Delegation told Mosk that fugitive Chicago pander was needed to negotiate for studio workers with producers at parley supposed to start Thursday (15). Mosk said he couldn't believe that with an asserted 30,000. mem ]3ers only one man could handle the negotiations. Names of delegates appearing in behalf of Bioff were listed as: Hal Moore, prexy of International Photographers Local 659; Herbert Aller, business repre- sentative of that organization ; Joseph Tuohy, business representative of Studio Transportation Drivers: L. C. Helms, business representative of Studio Utility Employees : and A. H. Peterson. Variety, February 10, 1940 : A. F. OF L. Prexy Slaps Bioff — Asks Courts to Punish Guilty MiAMi. February 9. — Prexy William Green of American Federation of Labor, admitted today he was powerless to rid AFL of racketeers and indicated it was up to courts to punish and remove them. Replying to criticism over his failure to oust Willie Bioff, fugitive Chicago panderer, from labor ranks, Green stated : "No president of the AFL is vested with authority or clothed with the power to interfere with the administration of any of its international unions or to remove any officer elected. I have no more authority to interfere in nationally chartered unions than does the President of the United States have authority to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign state. "That is why we must rely on the courts and our judicial authorities to punish criminals who may fasten themselves upcm the AFL. If a man is guilty of the commission of a crime, if he is a racketeer, he ought to be puubished and removed." Green's statement that men guilty of a crime should "be punished and re- moved" was interpreted V)y some labor leaders as a direct slap as AVillie Bioff. who muscled into labor ranks as a l)odyguard tor George E. Browne, prexy of International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees. Willie was convicted of a felony in Chicago, taking money from a prostitute, and was tined $300 and sentenced to 6 months in jail. His sentence was affirmed by appellate court, and fugitive faces extradition hearing Tuesday (13) before Gov. Culbert Olson, of California. Mr. Landis. Is that a quotation ? Mr. BoDLE. Green is a quote ; yes. Mr. Landis. The point I wanted to make there was that he came before the labor committee and did not want to make any changes about MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2013 the racketeer. We were after racketeers and labor abuses. We wanted to work with hibor leaders and correct the bad situations. He said the house of labor will settle them, and they did not want any laws. Mr. SoRRELL. According to this, you think he lays himself open to criticism '^ Mr. Landis. Yes;' because we were after labor racketeers and labor abuses. It was not solved. Mr. SoRRELL. Mr. Landis, I agree with you. If you go after racke- teers, 3^ou have to use everything you have got, the Congress and the investigating committee, and then they are hard to get. It is very hard. Nobody knows the years and the money that went in to get this guy any better than I do. , Mr. Landis. That is right, and I say we worked the bill out, and we may have to make some changes in the Taft-Hartley law, but I think if labor will sit down with us and help us pick the thing, it would be to their benefit. I think where they are making the mistake now is not giving us some suggestions and working over the Taft-Hartley law that we have in effect. Go ahead. Mr. BoDLE. February 17, 1940, headline, "Chicago gets Bioff, Gover- nor signs extradition ordering panderer back." You will recall from the testimony that Mr. Sorrell was the one Hollywood labor leader who went up to see Governor Olson and de- manded that the extradition papers be signed. Variety, February 19, 1940 : Signed editorial by Arthur Ungar : Willie and His Kind Exit Gov. Culbert OLson has ordered Willie Bioff back to Chicago to serve that pandering sentence. It's thfe verdict which all clean-miuded and honest workers wanted. And from now on, labor in studios and elsewhere should be represented by legit labor people. No more hoodlums or strong-arm specialists — but men who through experience will know what they are bargaining for and about. Herb Sorrell, of studio painters local 644 is of this type. Sorrell would not stand for Bioff in any way. And Sorrell had the fortitude to urge Governor Olson to send Bioff back to Chicago, so that studio labor would be purged of his ilk. And we are conJBdent that there are many men of the Sorrell caliber in the ranks of the lATSE here. This is Variety, February 21, 1940, page 5 : Union's Conference Blames Everybody But Willie About same time Willie Bioff was entering Bridewell Prison in Chicago yester- day, Conference of Studio Unions — and this is the Conference of Studio Unions which Willie Bioff formed, not the one which Mr. Sorrell was instrumental in organizing — was ex'tending him a vote of confidence. Later it was announced resignation of fugitive pander as chairman of conference would not be accepted, and that demand for immediate resumption of negotiations would be filed with producers unless date for next meeting had been set by end of week. Conference adopted a resolution containing several thousand words in which Willie's troubles with the law were blamed on producers, moneyed interests, Communists, CIO, Tom Mooney, newspapers, in fact, everybody but Little Red Riding Hood. Resolution also criticized Gov. Culbert Olson for approving Illinois requisition. 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 33 2014 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Daily Variety, March 7, 1940 : Jtjdge Stops Bioff Complaint ; Labor Issue Barred in Trial Chicago, March 6. — Hearing on the Willie Bioff habeas corpus writ was re- cessed today until 2 p. m., Thursday (7), after the fugitive pander had testified, "I was led to believe the case was settled." Willie was on the witness stand for some time today. He gave his age as 39 and his residence as Los Angeles. When the pudgy hoodlum and his attorney attempted to throw up a smoke screen by blaming the Congress of Industrial Organizations for the prosecution, Justice Prystalski stated : "I can't see where the labor situation has anything to do with this case. I am not going to let a CIO-AFL controversy on the west coast be brought in here. I'm not trying to settle a labor dispute on the west coast." Variety, March 8, 1940, headline: "Bioff linked to gangster hood- lum's bond fixed by Zuta." Chicago, March 7. — Willie Bioff today was detinitely linked with Chicago gangsterism. Testimony tliat the loud-mouthed hoodlum was a hireling of Jack Zuta, boss of West Side vice spots before his murder in 1930, was introduced in criminal court during a hearing on a habeas corpus writ by which Willie hopes to escape serving a 6 months' jail sentence for pandering. The unexpected and sensational testimony was given l)y Morris Green, disbarred attorney, who appeared to testify without having notified either the defense or State's attorney's office. He said he came in to clarify certain statements previously made by Bioff. Green said that Zuta, one time known as vice king of the West Side, had tried to aid Bioff escape serving the pandering sentence. The attorney said he was hired by Zuta to appear for Bioff and that he did not receive any fee from Willie. Green said he appeared in morals cases for Zuta, who operated room- ing houses, hotels, and saloons, including the brothel where Bioff was employed at the time he was arrested for sharing the earnings of a prostitute. Continuing further : Zuta, with whom Bioff was associated at that time, was shot to death in a dance hall near Delafield, Wis., in 1930, after reportedly being put on the spot by a telephone call from Chicago. He had previously been listed as being a member of both the Al Capone and Bugs Moran gangs. Variety of March 16, 1940, simply tells how the conviction was up- held and Mr. Bioff was ordered to jail. Daily Variety, June 3, 1940 : lA Convention Opens Today Louisville, June 2. — With delegates from all over the country gathering here for the opening tomorrow of annual convention of International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees, indications were that Prexy George E. Browne would he reelected if and when his name is presented for another term. Also was reported that lATSE tops would try to prevent any mention being made from the floor of Willie Bioff, former coast lA head who is now serving a 6 months' jail term in Chicago on a pandering conviction. Variety, June 5, 1940, page 7 : Browne Praises Willie, Sating He's Victim of Persecution Louisville, June 4.- — A vigorous defense of Willie Bioft' was made at Inter- national Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees' convention here today by Prexy George E. Browne. The lATSE head said Bioff was the victim of an unfriendly newspaper columnist who dug up an old court record of a youthful indiscretion anud secured Willie's jail commitment. Browne expressed gratification that California studio unions refused Bioff's resignation and wanted him to continue to represent them "even if he had to do so from a jail cell." He claimed Bioff was the victim of persecution by anti- labor interests who wanted to "keep this leader out of circulation." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2015 The speaker reaffirmed his administration's confidence in Bioff and recited nnmerous A'ictories that Willie had won for California workers. The delegates listened attentively while Browne read a 34-page address. Browne referred to the resignation of John P. Nick, of St. Louis, former vice prexy, whom he said was now under the care of a physician. In case ,you have not followed the sequence of this, I should point out that this is not only after Bioff had been extradited on the pander- ing charge, but after he had been indicted for income-tax evasion, which stemmed in part from the receipt of $100,000 from a producer. At least that w^as the claim. This is Daily Variety, June 6, 1940 : Bioff Gets IATSE Pat, George Beowne a Medal Louisville, June 5. — Delegates to annual convention of International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees today endorsed Willie Bioff, gave Prexy George E. Browne a medal, heard a report on coast litigation, and referred to executive board various resolutions, one of which would extend lA studio jurisdiction. Here again we return to the charges of communism which I think unmistakably were thrown up as a smoke screen. George Breslin, Los Angeles attorney, read a written report discussing case of Joseph Carpenter against Browne. Breslin said a vicious concentrated attack is being made against IATSE, and that radical subversive elements of west coast were spearheads in litigation now concluded, aided and abetted from many sources. I might point out, too, that it is clear from the Arthur Ungar edi- torials, that Bioff was a racketeer as of this time, and if he were not, then Bioff certainly had grounds for libel. Daily Variety, December 17, 1940, headline : Pkobe Labor Racket Charges — Studio Workers Tell About Strike Deals Los Angeles city and county authorities are making a preliminary investiga- tion of charges of labor racketeering here, including the film industry, to deter- mine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant placing it before the new grand jury. It is understood that Herbert Sorrell, business representative of moving-pic- ture painters, local 644, will be questioned or has already been asked about set- tlement of the strike of studio painters. At that time, it was disclosed Sorrell had nixed an offer of $55,000 to pay pickets if he would take a 10-percent increase for his men instead of insisting on 15 percent. In urging he accept the offer, it was understood Sorrell was told by a union executive he could pay the pickets and still have half the amount left for himself. Sorrell scorned the offer and demanded the full 15-percent raise for his men. Mr. Landis. Is that the $56,000 deal ? Mr. Sorrell. Yes; that is a misprint; $55,000. Mr. BoDLE. This is Daily Variety, August 19, 1941. Lab Workers Win New Pact — 683 First IA Local To Set Deal Sans Bioff "The producers labor negotiating committee has reached an agreement with local 683." That terse announcement yesterday by the producers' association made studio labor history. Union leaders said it averted a threatened strike of 10,000 film technicians, recognized the rights of local crafts to deal for them- selves, and marked the beginning of the end of eastern hoodlum control in industry-labor negotiations. It is the first time that a studio local of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees has been permitted to negotiate a deal for its membership. Contract negotiations formerly were handled by Willie Bioff, a Chicago hood 2016 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES now facing trial in Federal court on charges of extorting vast sums from picture companies on threat to call strikes. Of course, this came out after Bioif finished serving the jail sentence on the pandering charge, then Federal indictments were brought against both Browne and Bioff for extortion. And this came out sub- sequent to that. On the back page there is an interesting advertisement, particularly in view of statements previously made by Mr, Levy with reference to the laboratory technicians, local 683. There is a full-page advertise- ment here placed by the laboratory technicians, 583, which reads as follows : Laboratory technicians, local 683, affiliated with the lATSE and the A. F. of L. Announces a satisfactory agreement has been reached with the producers' association. Local 683 acknowledges the support and wishes to thank the following : "Herb" Sorrell and moving-picture painter local 644 ; D. T. Wayne and machinists local 1185 ; Glenn Pratt and the Screen Office Employees Guild ; The Screen Cartoonists Guild ; also The Hollywood lATSE locals. Daily Variety, September 8, 1941, headline : Bioff Back in Deivee's Seat — Dickeeing by Locals Halted Local wage deals for 10,000 studio technicians have been blocked by Willie Bioff, pudgy labor hoodlum who is now facing trials in United States courts on extortion and income-tax-evasion charges. Telephoning from New York, Bioff flashed word to the unions and the producers that negotiations were being trans- ferred east, implying they would be supervised by the international of the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. Most of the locals expressed opposition to the move, but said it was indicated they would go along with the plan or "else." The "else" was explained to mean their local charter might be jerked if they Insisted on negotiating their own deals under the home-rule plan given the unions more than a year ago. And then on page 4 there is an item entitled, "Dismissal Plea by Browne Nixed."' That is New York, September 7, with reference to a motion for dismisal of the extortion cliarge^ against Browne. Variety, October 8, 1941 : "Oust Beowne" Move Sweeps IA — Canavan Favoeed As Sub •New Yoek, October 7. — With the spotlight on George E. Browne and Willie Bioff, who go to trial in Federal court here tomorrow, a movement is reported gaining momentum with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees to return William Canavan to the presidency. Variety, October 9, 1941, headline : $2,000,000 Bioff Bite Charged — Extortion Trial Opens Mew York, October 8. — The original demand of George E. Browne and Willie Bioff from five major picture companies was for $2,000,000 made on the direct threat: "You pay us or we'll wreck your business". United States Attorney Matthias Correa declared today in his opening address to the jury as trial of the two labor officials began before Federal Judge John C. Knox. Arguments by the company executives finally reduced the amount to be paid to $50,000 per company per year, paid off and on from the time of the original demands in April 1936, until Browne and Bioff were indicted last May, Corea said. "Of the $550,000 total paid, $400,000 was in cash, which is an eloquent point in testifying to the racketeering nature of the demands," declared the prose- cutor. Explaining how the remaining $150,000 was paid, Correa said Loew's became scared of the large cash payments showing on its books, and arranged with Smith & AUer, distributors of Du Pont film, to make the Bioff payments through them. Smith & Aller, anxious to get the Metro business away trom the Eastman Co., agreed to appoint anyone Metro named as a contact, Correa said. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2017 The prosecutor said Metro went to Bioff and asked him to appoint someone as "salesman" for Smith & Alter. He named his brother-in-law. The studio then started buying Du Pont film, paying a premium which Smith & Aller turned over to Bioff's brother-in-law (unnamed in court) as "commission." Telling the jury that Browne and BiofE were "racketeers of long standing," Correa said that the motion-picture producers had no alternative but to yield to their demands. He said Browne and Bioff insisted upon "secret transactions" and refused to accept checks. Daily Variety, October 10, 1941, headline : 100 G Tossed on Bioff's Bed — Pay-offs Told by Schenck New York, October 9. — Loew's handed George E. Browne $100,000 and RKO paid an additional sum to prevent a strike of New York projectionists in 1935, Nicholas Schenck testified today in the second day of the George E. Browne- Willie BiofE labor-racketeering trial in Federal court here. Throughout his testimony Schenck made the effort, whenever possible, to pro- tect Browne and put the onus on BiofE, giving the indication that BiofE was coercing Browne into doing whatever he did. Wednesday, October 15, 1941, Daily Variety, headline : Phony Vouchers Pay Off Bioff — Loew Exec Tells of Cover-Up New York, October 14. — A series of falsified expense vouchers by Loew's executives provided the $100,000 which Nicholas M. Schenck testified he, as president of Loew's, turned over to George E. Bowne and Willie Bioff in 1936 and 1937. David Bernstein put up tlie coin from his personal funds and got it back over a period of time via phony vouchers. Going over Loews payment of $100,000 to end threat of a projectionists' strike in New York in 1935, Correa, in redirect examination, brought out from Schenck that RKO liad handed over $50,000 at the same time. Schenck said Charles Moskowitz came to him at that time and told him a strike was threatened at Loew's and RKO houses. Schenck suggested seeing Browne and Moskowitz reported back to him after the meeting that Browne said : "Yes, I could do that. But I want $150,000 from the two companies." The money was paid through Mort Singer, but it amounted to considerably more than $150,000, Schenck said, as Singer w^as given a check and had to pay income tax on it. The studios added the amount of the tax to their payments. Monday, October 20, 1941, Daily Variety. You may recall I read earlier an article in Variety of how the SOEG had voted to remain independent and effect any tie-np with the lATSE. Headline : "SOEG votes painter tie-up. Collarites link with Sorrell." The Screen Office Employees Guild, by a majority of better than 3 to 1, has voted affiliation with the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper- hangers of America, an American Federation of Labor International. The vote followed a report by the SOEG executive board recommending such affiliation and outlining the advantages to be gained from it. The executive board vote in favor of the move was 26 to 3. The only serious opposition came from a Metro leader and an RKO group. The board stated that the SOEG had never been anti-A. F. of L., and that it had been a question only of finding a proper place to affiliate. It was stated the painters were selected because it was a democratic union, was uonracketeering and gave complete local autonomy to its local unions. Mr. SoRKELL. Reading from Variety, of Tuesday, October 21, 1941, headline : 10 G Bite "Peanuts" To Bioff — Warners' Squeeze Told Harry M. Warner, testifying in Federal court here today, stated that Willie Bioff referred to a $10,000 pay-off as "peanuts." He said the pudgy labor hood- lum demanded more coin, conjplaining that "the biggest part of it goes to some people in Chicago." It was the first time that the Chicago gangster angle had been injected into the extortion trial of George E. Browne. 2018 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I don't know how much he wants me to read of these, so I am going to ditch them as fast as I can. Eeading from Variety, Thursday, October 23, 1941, headline: " — And then Bioff shook Par. Pay-oflf told by Keough." New York, October 22. — The Government closed its case today against George E. Browne and Willie Bioff, who are charged with extorting more than $550,000 from four major picture companies on threats to call general strikes of workers. Motions are scheduled for tomorrow. Attorneys for the defense have indicated it will take 2 weeks to present their side. Mr. BoDLE. Variety, Oct^ober 28, 1941, headline: WiLtiE BioFF Sings Bass — "I'm Errand Boy" Aj^e Lyrics The lid blew off the film industry today. Willie Bioff, taking the witness stand in Federal court in his own defense, tossed the lie in the teeth of every witness against him. Bioff declared that he acted only as a receiver of the huge sums handed to him and turned every cent of it over to Joseph Schenck at Nicholas Schenck's request. The annual edition of Daily Variety, October 29, 1941, signed edi- torial of Arthur Ungar : Had the industry, or a few company heads of it, revealed to the trade press the demands and threats of Bioff, there would not have been chaos and trouble encountered when the phenagling of "Weepin' Willie" was brought to light by Uncle Sam's criminal proceedings against him. Daily Variety had no fear of Bioff. He made threats to us, tried to drive us out of business, attempted intimidation in every way he could conceivably think of or do to whip us into line. But Daily Variety wanted no truck with Bioff or his ilk. It told him off personally and in no subdued or timid manner. The industry could have done likewise. Those of Bioffs caliber have never had the confidence or sympathy of the public. I^t's hope the industry has benefited sufficiently from this experience not to fall for a similar one. No matter what the "shake" may be, they should not go for it. The industry has nothing to hide, nothing to atone for, and no one to be afraid of as long as it deals from the top of tlie deck. This is from the same anniversary edition, page 12 signed article by Kalph Roddy, entitled "Studio Labor Rides Gravy Train. Pay Tilts for Everybody." Sorrell also played a big part in getting a contract deal for Film Technicians Local 683 and the studio machinists headed by D. T. Wayne. His strength and recognition as a leader is attested to by the fact that producer representatives appealed to L. P. Lindeloff, national president of the painters, to try and keep Sorrell from throwing too much aid to union groups outside of his painters. Lindeloff is said to have received the protest with a grin, laughing behind his hand as he promised to talk to the husky leader of the studio painters. Sorrell directed the 2 months' strike of the Cartoonists' Guild at Walt Disney Productions, which finally resulted in a closed shop deal for the workers. The guild was supported 100 percent by D. T. Wayne and his Studio Macliinists, Film Technicians Local 683, and the Screen Actor's Guild. Some of the other locals started out with the Guild, but were ordered by Willie Bioff to withdraw their support when the Cartoonists refused to accept any settlement in which Bioff was involved. Bioff had tried to hoi-n into the picture and grab credit in an effort to pose as the indispensable man and to try to take credit away from Sorrell. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Bodle, everybody has been very patient. I know you are tired reading, so we will recess the hearing at this moment until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning. ( Wliereupon, at 4 : 45 p. m. an adjournment was taken in the hear- ing until Tuesday, March 9, 1948, at 10 a. m.) JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTUEE INDUSTRY TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D. C. The subcpnimittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order, please. We will proceed with the hearing. Mr. Sorrell, I think you were still on the stand. Will you continue where you left off Friday. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. Sorrell.. Yes, sir. I received quite a few wires over the week end. I sent this wire to Gunther Lessing this morning: GtTNTHER Lessing, Burbank, Calif.: Papers evidently misquoted my testimony. There was no violence in Disney strike. Now, I thought I made that very plain that there was no violence in the Disney strike. However, the papers on the west coast printed it that Bioff w^as connected with some bombings. In case the record is not clear, what I testified to was that it was re- ported to me that Bioff and some "torpedoes," as they are called — or some professional bombers from Chicago — were in the lobby of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. I reported it to my attorneys who re- ported it to the authorities just prior to the bombings during the pres- ent lock-out. I would like to get that clear. Mr. Brewer testified that he picked up copies of the minutes of CSU meetings which were left with the local 683 effects. He reported there was something to do with Eddie Rickenbacker, some opposition to mak- ing a picture by Eddie Rickenbacker ; that the picture was made and nothing came of it. I think I should make it very clear to the committee, since it has been brought up. you will probably remember when Eddie Ricken- backer was picked up in the ocean after having drifted for several days, he came back to America and made some antilabor speeches, thev were directed at unions. We received communications from unions in different parts of the United States, when it was announced that he was to be glorified in a 2019 2020 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES picture, stating that atg should oppose these things, because of his antilabor stand. We took it up with the Fox west coast people. I am quoting this from memory, but I remember writing a letter to Wendell Willkie asking him if he didn't think it was poor policy to make a hero picture of a man who came back and raised so much Cain with labor and labor unions. He answered me. I think possibly I have the letter in the files. Again, I say, I am quoting from memory. He said he had contacted Skouras, they had discussed the matter, that they would hold up the picture temporarily, that Skouras would contact William Green and either Phil Murray or John L. Lewis, I have forgotten who was in the saddle at the time, before they would proceed to make the picture. There was never any vote taken. There was some talk, but there was never any vote taken in the conference as to our disposition on working on the picture, because, if I remember correctly, this was during the period when we were under contract to the producers. It would have been a violation of our contract not to have done the work. As I say again, I am quoting completely from memory. I have no notes on the case, but I think this should be explained to the committee. Mr. Brewer also testified the notes showed local 683 withdrew from the CSU without any apparent notice or reason for it. I am prepared to give you the reason. Again I am quoting from memory, but I think it will be borne out very authentically. There was a move by certain people to tear up the Conference of Studio Unions. Now, if I were Mr. Brewer I would say there was a move by the Communists to destroy the CSU, but my statement to you is there were people who wanted to destroy the CSU. Among those people were some of the officers of local 683 ; also Bill Pomerance, who has been spoken of here, who was the business agent for the cartoonists. In order to destroy or dissolve the Conference of Studio Unions another outfit was formed, called the Council of Hollywood Guilds and Unions. Now, that would take in not only unions, but the talent guilds. I could not participate in that because I could foresee a minority group controlling the council, since a minority group can always be obtained from little guilds who have no affiliation, and so forth. Our union, by vote of the membership, joined the Council of Holly- wood Guilds and Unions, but I refused to be a delegate; 683 dropped out of the conference because they thought their affairs could be handled better by the Conference of Hollywood Guilds and Unions. That was one reason. It seems that some of the members came to see me duving that time. I had home discussion with them and thev brought it back on the floor. I think I kind of knocked the Hollywood Guild Council, or whatever it was. They used that for a reason to get their people to vote themselves out of the conference. Mr. Brewer told you. I believe, that local 44 voted on a resolution to do only their own work, and they had to be taken over by the international. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2021 Mr. Brewer did not tell you the cameramen's local voted the same thing, the same resolution; the sound local voted the same resolution; the wardrobe local voted the same resolution; and local G83 voted the same resolution. 1 think if you will check you will find these other locals voted also not to do any of the work in the jurisdiction of the CSU people. And I think you will find also in their minutes that the locals mstructed their business agents to defend the propmakers who were thrown out of the IAT8E for refusing to do w^ork out of their -jurisdiction. There was no action taken by the international against the camera, sound, wardrobe, and 683 locals since very little of that jurisdiction would overlap into the CSU work, so that the people were not at all capable of handling any of the work done by the CSU unions. Mr. McCann. Correction. I would like to suggest you said, "No actum was taken against union 683.'' Mr. SoRKELL. ^o action was taken against 683 union at that time; no action by the international. Mr. McCann. I thought you stated a few minutes ago that the international had taken over 683. Mr. SoRRELL. No ; the international took over local 44, that is, the prop union. Now, later the international operated local 683, when local 683 joined the picket lines of the Conference of Studio Unions. But at the start of the strike — and I think that was in 1945 — local 44, because the members refused to do the work of the carpenters and painters that went on strike. Now, the local 44 business agent is Cappy DuVal. He was brought out here from Chicago under the Bioff-Browne regime. He was given a job to supervise the collecting of the 2-])ercent assessment which every lATSE man was supposed to pay. At least I know every lATSE man working in the studios was supposed to pay. Cappy DuVal was called 2-percent Cappy. He came there when I was working in the studios. I had him pointed out. He was a very much hated sort of individual. He went to work as a propman, when Bioff and Brown went to jail, for a short time. He was manipulated back into the union and as I remember the business agent of the prop unions name was Hansert. He was thrown out and Cappy installed temporarily, later confirmed by election. Cappy DuVal was business agent of 44, as I have stated, at the time of the take-over, and cooperated with the international officers in taking over the union. Later, when a convention was held of the lATSE, the officers or trustees of local 44 called a meeting to elect a delegate to the lATSE convention. Cappy DuVal naturally ran as a delegate and was de- feated by a man who was later thrown out of the union, and went to work in local 1421's jurisdiction. He testified on the stand in Los Angeles. Cappy. however, went to the convention because he was sent as an appointed delegate from one of the unions created to do the work of the striking carpenters and painters . There will be more about Cappy DuVal later. 2022 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Brewer also stated that somewhere he read that Louis Weinstock donated $10,000 from his unions to the striking Hollywood unions, Louis Weinstock was labeled a Communist here. I wonder why, since Mr. Brewer knows so much, he did not mention that Jake Wellner, who is a right-wing leader of some of the painters' unions in New York and Brooklyn, and has as much prestige, I believe, as Louis Weinstock, donated as much or more to the striking unions in Holly- wood as Louis Weinstock. I am sure that Jake Wellner would be very much displeased if he were accused of having Communist ideas, even, by reason of the fact that he contributed to a cause that could be labeled a communist cause. Jake Wellner knew the story as well as Louis Weinstock. I am sure he went to his unions to get money for the striking unions, with as clear a conscience as any trade-union leader would have. If Louis Weinstock is a Communist and if all of the people that donated money to our cause are Communists that still doesn't make any difference, we will take the money. Mr. Brewer also made quite a to-do about an election in the State federation of labor between a man called Shelley and a man called Bitters. Mr. Bittersis a carpenter. His nomination was seconded by Mr. Cambiano, who is also a carpenter, but Mr. Bitters' chances for winning were ruined when he was also seconded by Mr. Roy Brewer. Eoy Brewer is a much-hated man by many elements of labor in California. The main reason for this is that Mr. Brewer is looked upon as an impostor. Mr. Brewer was brought in from outside the State to run the lATSE and the motion-picture labor. At the time he was brought in there were two vice presidents of the lATSE who lived in Los Angeles and who, I have been told, received more votes tb.an Mr. Richard Walsh. They apparently have nothing to say about the way the lATSE is run. Instead, an appointed man is brought in to run labor there. The people who work for a living and pay dues to the lATSE don't like this. They supported Bioff because Bioff did some of them some good. Those who had steady jobs and those keymen in the studios who re- ceived hourly raises, benefited by them and Bioff was looked upon as a man who did some good for some of tlie ])eople in the motion- picture industry. ' Brewer is looked upon as a man who has done no one any good. One of the vice presidents of the lATSE, William Barret, who was business agent for local 80, and then was elected vice president of the lATSE, followed the line of the international and began to up- hold their acts vociferously. He was defeated for reelection as busi- ness agent and now is working in the studios. The mere fact that Mr. Brewer suported Mr. Bitters against Mr. Shelly bears out the fact that the same relations now exist with the Walsh-Brewer ma- chine that existed with the Bioff-Browne machine. What I am trying to do is to point out that the only difference we have been able to detect is a difference in personalities. Now, I mentioned Frank Nitti as being one of the gang. There was a group of so-called hoodlums' in Chicago who were supposed to be connected with Bioff and Browne in their manipulations in the studios. The only two of those people that I Icnew when an indict- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2023 ment was requested for them, were Johnny Grafelli and Frank Nitti. I know considerable about these characters. 1 do not intend to go into it extensively because I realize that we want to get away from here. But a man b}^ the name of Joe Park, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, called me in my office and said, "You will be interested to know that an indictment has been requested or issued against the following people." He named over a lot of so-called hoodlums. Among them were Frank Xitti and John Rosselli. I told him at the time the only two I knew were Rosselli and Nitti and I considered Rosselli a minor figure in the underworld, but that Nitti, I could not believe that they had issued an indictment for Nitti and that I didn't believe they would ever bring Nitti to testify ; that they either would not find him or they would kill him because Nitti, as I knew, was a liaison member who contacted the big-shot producers, who had too much money to let him testify. About 5 hours later Joe Park called me and said. "You must have been looking in a crystal ball because Frank Nitti has just shot himself twice through the head ; committed suicide." You can check this conversation with Joe Park, who is the labor editor of the Los Angeles Times. I think it is important that I bring these things out because I want to show that although we are accused of following the Communist Party line, we certainly are not doing it. But I am now accusing the lATSE of following the same line laid down by Browne and Bioff and the producers in 1935, and it hasn't changed. I was talking to Eddie Mannix one day — and as you know I like Eddie Mannix. He was telling me he was innocent of all this man- ipulation going on between the producers and the lATSE gangsters, that he did not know anything about this money being passed around and that he fought his heart out trying to do a job for his people. T called him lip on one thing. I said, "Eddie, you know I like you, you are a likable guy. I know you would cut my throat from ear to ear but I like you." Secretly the reason I like him is because when he makes a deal with you you don't have to sign it, he is honest. But I said, "You know, I'm probably going to have to send you to jail sometime, and I want you to know when I send you to jail it's not because I have any personal dislike for you but it's because if you were my father, my brother, or my son I'd have to do the same thing." Now I said, "Eddie, you know you're still paying off." He said, "Oh, no, I am not." I said, "All right, I'll just show you." The central labor council, who I think I have told you before was corru]5t under the leadership of J. W. Buzzell, entered into the split- ting up of these locals of the lATSE and one man was so dumb they could not take care of him. That was Harry Sheerman, who acted as president of tlie central labor council. Yon put him to work as inspector of police. Now the police on this lot don't like the pny : they don't trust him. He didn't do anything, but he collects a check and he is still collecting his check and I don't think lie comes in except on pay days, hut he comes in for that check ever.v pay day. Now. don't tell me that's not a pay-off, Eddie, you know its a pay-off. 2024 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Eddie immediately called Whitie Heiidrix. He asked if he had this fellow Harry Sheerman on the pay roll. Hendrix said that he did. Eddie said, "Where is he?" Harry said, "How do I know, see him pay day." He said, "Fire him." I mention this because I want you to have the feelino; of what is going on in the studios. I want you to know that in California they still carry the same attorneys that defended Bioff and I think the rec- ords will show that many, many thousands of dollars were spent with Luddy, who still officiates for and gives advice to the lATSE. Mr. McCann. Just a moment. Mr. Chairman, could we have the date when Mr. Mannix laid that man off ? Could he place that some- time ? Mr. Kearns. If he has it. Mr, SoRRELL. I am talking completely from memory but we have a_lot of things to go into the record which will probably fix it so I can fix the dates later. I cannot give you exact dates, but it was after Walsh came into the picture that this happened. Now it has been said that a fellow by the name of Merrill, an office worker, told Walsh that I had a deal with him for office workers. I would like to get this guy Merrill on the stand and see who is lying. I never made any deal with Merrill in my life. I was introduced to him and I might know him if I should see him, but there was no deal between me and Merrill. I have forgotten his first name. He is not a man I think I would make any deal with. He is a little insignificant Jewish boy who to me has come out of the office boys' ranks, or something. There was no deal between me and Merrill." Particularly, I think I saw the man in New York. If I am not mistaken I went to his office and looked at some contracts or asked to see some contracts he had signed with some of the motion-picture producers in New York. The contracts called for a 10 percent all- over raise, but no classifications. If I remember rightly at that time it meant that if a girl was getting $15 a week she got raised to $16.50, which I did not consider any raise. I considered it a deal where no benefit was given to the low-paid people. I told Mr. Merrill that at the time. When we left his office — I think I went there with Glen Pratt, business agent of the office workers — when we left his office I think we went to Pat Casey's office. I told Pat Casey what I thought of Merrill and his union, I did not think it was doing a job for the workers. If you ask Pat Casey I think he will tell you something about that. Glen Pratt would be glad to testify to that, too. I am trying to pick up the loose ends as I go along to get it all in the record because Mr. Brewer and Mr. Levy say these things and those things, and I might pass over some of them. If my attorney has something to read into the record maybe as he goes along I can break in to explain things. Mr. BoDLE. I have some more clippings on the allegations of com- munism that have been made against Sorrell, which I would like lo read into the record at this time. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2025 The first is an editorial from the Hollywood Sun of April 3, 1946, entitled "Nailed, Hollywood's Most Vicious Lie of the Year." [Read- ing:] It is almost impossible to write about communism plus Hollywood without appearing a defender of the faith or being ranged among those damned as its persecutors. In short, you are either a "Commie" or a Red baiter. This, nevertheless, must be written. The most pernicious lie to circulate in studios in recent months is that the 1945 film strike was Communist-inspired. It is the exact opposite of this charge which is true. Communists opposed the starting of this strike. Once it began, they fouglit to end it. If, by taking part in picketing they were active in closing days of the long walk-out, so too, was the general public appalled by the police brutality and a studio's wanton use of tear gas and fire hose on peaceful citizens. So Communists, far from sparking the 1945 walk-out, were actually on the side of unions and studios that opposed the strike. For proof of these statements which will astound some, we want to turn back the pages of the People's World, popularly viewed a's the voice of the party in these parts. This is the publication so generously drawn on by those who spread the lie that this strike was Red-inspired. INIonday morning, JMarch 12, the day of the walk-out, broke with disquieting elfect on Hollywood's assorted liberals, progressives, freethinkers, and those who veer so far to the left they may be said to "follow the line." It broke disturbingly because America was .still at war. Labor had given a no-strike pledge. Hollywood liberals, like the Nation's stuffied reactionaries, desired until above all in pursuit of the war effort. At the same time they recogniz.^d the justice of local llL'l's picket lines, strung after 2 years of imposi- tion by studios. That morning, not a line about the strike appeared in the World. Tuesday, the same. Wednesday there was a news story about the start of the strike. Then it broke. Thursday, in a front page, two-column editorial, the World demanded, "End the movie strike at once." That was the head. It went on : "Strikes in this war period are impermissible under any circumstances. We have said this many times before and we repeat it again." Does that sound inspiring, except to persons subject to influence by the paper? Some undoubtedly were influenced, for there was a prompt demand for a return to work from certain quarters, including a telegram from New York City. Pressure from these elements caused at least two unions to vote nonobservance of picket lines ; others to return to work. Thus, the "Commies" and others did make themselves felt in the strike. But on whose side? The lA's and the studios. And to what end? One end. To "end the movie strike at once." To break the strike, with justice be damned, if only unity could be preserved and the studios kept open. The World editorial, after an analysis of the issues involved, concluded : "The strike is a blow at our wartime morale and unity. "It is being utilized by reactionaries to attack labor and the national admin- istration. "The walk-out should never have taken place. It should be called oft" at once." Who else echoed these demands? That's the "Commies" talking. Strike inspiring? The World editorial, besides refuting a vicious lie, also proves this : Some persons found a way out of their betwixt-and-between funk in its words. Most factually and emphatically, the strike leaders did not. They called the strike fully knowing they would have opposition from various unity-above-all quarters. They continued to prosecute it when had the People's World been their master's voice, they would have listened and acted otherwise. Others did heed the cry "back to work." But the strikers — They didn't listen and they didn't act otherwise. If communism was behind the 1945 film strike it served to stab the strike in the back. 2026 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES You will recall Mr. Sorrell testified that charges against him had been filed with the central labor council alleging that he was a Com- munist. This is a news report of his appearance before the central labor council. The date of the report is July 10, 1946, the Hollywood Sun. SoRREix Refutes "Commie" Charges Herb Sorrell dramatically took the central labor council floor in his own defense Monday night. By sincerity and danger in admitting and explaining leftist associations that had been counted on to damn him as Communist, observers felt Sorrell had turned the tide of opinion among the 300 AFL delegates at the fourth trial session. The plan to wind up the trial in one all-night session abruptly collapsed when the central labor council voted Sorrell more time to answer his accusers. Date was set for July 29. Worst blow to the lA camp was the certainty that lA prexy Dick Walsh had now lost his last chance to report as the crowning achievement of his regime, that Sorrell had been exposed as the Communist disrupter of Hollywood labor. Explaining that he stood up for men and principles regardless of political connection, Sorrell admitted protesting deportation moves against Harry Bridges and Communist William Schneiderman, and Browder's imprisonment, and pointed out proudly that men like Wendell Willkie and FDR had taken similar stands. Emphatically Sorrell denied any membership in the Communist Party and dis- avowed handwriting that the experts had claimed was his. Now an editorial from the People's World of March 4, 1948. That is of very recent vintage : The Case of Hekb Sobbell Herbert K. Sorrell was a militant trade-union leader once. Now he has lined up with the racketeers and the Red baiters in the labor movement, with the Jack Tenneys and the labor haters. Sorrell has filed charges against Frank Spector, a member of studio painters local 644, on the grounds of membership in the Communist Party. And he initiated thes'e expulsion proceedings the week after Spector was pilloried before the Tenney committee. The Red-baiting leaders of the International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees in Washington still call Sorrell a Communist at hearings of the Kearns House Labor Subcommittee. But Irving McCaun, the notorious free-swinging committee counsel, knows better. He defended Sorrell. We hope Sorrell gets whatever satisfaction he can out of his associations with the antilabor Kearns committee. Sorrell has been playing along for some time with the Kearns committee which includes among its members none other than Representative Fred Hartley of ill fame. At one time he went so far as to recommend to the committee that it bring forth ideas for labor legislation — although the kind of legislation it would recom- mend was only too clear. ThiS dalliance with the labor baiters was the inevitable outcome of Sorrell's break with progressives over the conduct of the studio lock-out. Progressives, while supporting the picket lines to the limit, felt that the best way to preserve democratic unionism in the studios was to get back on the job. They understood that the one thing the producers and their agents in the lATSE wanted was to get militant rank-and-file workers out of the studios. But Sorrell in rejecting this policy also rejected reliance on the rank and tile, and began to depend on maneuvers with the Kearns committee. Now lie has completed the circle with the attempted purge of Frank Spector. Maybe McCann and Kearns and Harley and Tenney will applaud. Maybe Sorrell will work out some top-level deal. But this policy won't build strong, democratic unionism. As Sorrell has said in the past. Red baiting always helps the employers, never the workers. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2027 They don't like a lot of people, apparently. I might point out that the reference to the proposed legislation which Sorrell suggested, refers to suggestions made at the hearings in Los Angeles, so this opposition goes back to that date, as well as before, as we have indicated. Now I want to return to the record of BiofF and Browne up to the time of their conviction. I want to read from Variety of Novem- ber 3, 1941, a leading article which refers to the organization of Conference of Studio Unions, at the time that Browne and Bioft" were on trial. The headline reads: "Unions launch united front — ■ Painters lead new set-up." [Reading :] The Confereuee of Studio Unions was launclied yesterday when tlie confer- ence constitution was unanimously approved at a specially called membership meeting of Moving Picture Painters, Local 644. Studio Machinists Local 1185 already has instructed its business representative, D. T. Wayne, to participate in organization of the conference and to bring back the constitution for early consideration. It also will be acted upon at early meetings of the Screen Office Employees Guild, Screen Cartoonists Guild, and other American Federa- tion of Labor crafts. Tbe organization is said to be looked upon favorably by officers of Film Technicians, Local 683, and that group, as well as other locals of tbe International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, are ex- pected to affiliate. The conference, organized for the purpose of bringing about joint economic action and closer unity of the unions and to protect individual autonomy of the crafts, will establish ofHces in Hollywood to handle research, coordinating problems, etc. When the organization is completed it will be governed by a chairman, vice chairman, and a secretary-treasurer, to be elected by secret ballot and to hold office for 1 year. Any craft affiliated with the American Federation of Labor will be eligible to join the conference. The constitution states tlie purpose of the conference shall be "To unite the motion-picture unions for the protection of the autonomy and democracy of each'' and "to advance through joint consultation and action the economic welfare of the motion-picture unions and their members." Each conference member is to be represented by three accredited delegates, one of which shall be the business agent. Each union shall pay the conference treasurer a monthly per-capita tax of 5 cents per member to defray operating costs. Meetings will be held at least once a month. Special meetings may be called by the chairman upon written requests from 7 delegates. Standing com- mittees or at least 3 persons will be appointed to liandle research, negotia- tions, coordination, and publicity. Other clauses in the constitution provide : In the event that any union a member of this conference calls a strike or taikes other economic action, after the sanction of the conference has been obtained, the members of the conference shall be bound to respect the action so taken and any picket lines established thereunder. Any member failing to respect such action and/or picket lines shall be automatically expelled from the conference. "This constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the conference, provided written notice of such meeting specifying the amendment is mailed to the delegates thereto not less than 4 days prior to the date of said meeting. Before any such amendment is effective, however, it shall have been approved by not less than two-thirds of the unions which are members of the conference. "All action, unless otherwise specified in this constitution, shall be by a ma- jority vote of the delegates present at any conference meeting. A quorum for any meeting of the conference shall consist of 25 percent of the delegates to such conference, provided that not less than .50 percent of the unions members of the conference are represented by one or more delegates." A two-thirds vote of delegates is required to expel any union from the conference. The painters, after approving the conference and its constitution yesterday, appointed Herbert Sorrell business representative of Local 644, Carl Head and William Ball to represent them as delegates to the conference. 2028 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Then, from the same issue — and again I call your attention to the fact that this is the time when the trial of Browne and Bioff was con- tinuing— the following press release : Ouster of Browne by IATSE Denied New York, November 2. — A statement denying that George E. Browne had been, ousted as president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees was issued here by James J. Brennan, fifth vice prexy of the IATSE. From Variety of November 4, 1941, headline : 40G Pay-off to Browne Told CHARLES MOSKOWITZ BARES DELIVERY OF SHAKE-DOWN New York. November 3-^Testimony that George E. Browne was paid $40,000 to prevent theater strilves, that Eddie Mannix instructed an executive to call Willie Bioff "Link," and that Bioff expected to make a "couple of million" out of his union connections was given in Federal court here today. Charles Mos- kowitz, head of Loew's theater department for years, said he personally handed the money to Browne in Moore's restaurant. Then, on November 7, 1941, Daily Variety, headline : "Bioif, Browne Guilty. — Jury out for 2 hours." xlncl Variety of Tuesday, November 11, 1941, head line : "lA Dumps Browne for Walsh — New Prexy Pledges Clean-up." [Reading:] New York, November 10.— The resignation of George E. Browne as president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees has been accepted by the IATSE general executive board, and Richard F. Walsh has been elected to fill the unexpired term, which runs to June 1944. Walsh was third, vice prexy of the IATSE, having been elected to that post at the Louisville convention in 1934. He also is president of local 4, Brooklyn stage hands. Variety, November 12, 1941 : "Burned locals seek revenue — Pay-offs to bring new demands" : New York. November 11. — Locals unions of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, resentful of the large sums paid George E. Browne and Willie Bioff, and claiming increased living costs under the war economy, are reported preparing a wave of new severe demands as their contracts expire. Variety of November 13, 1941 : "Bioff Gets 10; Browne 8 — Convicts Lashed by Judge." Then, quoting from the article, which has a date-line "New York, November 12," Judge Knox said : My idea is that di.shonest men, whether they be found in trade, industry, or in the ranks of union labor, should pay the price of their sins. In this case the wrong of these defendants has indeed been heinous. Not only have they violated the laws of the United States, but they have signally betrayed their trusts that were committed to their care. Their concern, instead of being that of the members of the union, was for their personal gain and advantage. Through their acts they disregarded the welfare of the union and brought their organi- zation into disrepute before the public. Right between the eyes, and upon the face of union labor, these men have dealt a blow that will leave its scars for years to come. Recreant to their trust, dishonest in heart, mind, and action, these defendants have served to make clear our knowledge that when personal gain is to be achieved the leaders of labor can be as reprehensible and base as any dishonest leader of capital. Variety, November 24, 1941. Headline: "lA Beefs at 125G Bioff Fee. — Coin for Appeal Nixed." [Reading :] MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2029 New York, November 23. — Considerable resentment has been aronsed amony International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees over the fact that the organization will pay around $12o,000 legal fees for the defense of George Browne, ex-president, and Willie Bioff, his personal representative, who were convicted of racketeering and sentenced to 8 and 10 years, respectively, Federal penitentiary. Richard F. Walsh, new prexy of the lATSE, made it known on Friday that the organization would stand the legal expenses of the duo up to the time of their conviction but tliat it will not pay any attorney fees subsequent to that, including the appeal now pending in their behalf. Walsh said that witli Browne resigned from the lA, and since neither he or Bioff are any longer officers of the union, they would have to shift for themselves to provide coin for their future legal maneuvers. It is reported that authorization for the union to pay the legal freight was in the hands of Browne while he was president of the lA, since an amendment to the international bylaws was forced through by him to cover such contingencies in case of legal complications for international officers. * * * In view of the nature of the indictments against l>rowne and Bioff, and the evidence adduced in some union quarters, it is felt that the lA could have con- tested any payments at all to the attorneys for the two convicted racketeers. Now, I want to retiti-n for a moment to the lA convention proceed- ings which occnrred Jnne 8 to June 6, 1940, at a time after the extradi- tion proceedings against Bioff had been brought and after his indict- ment for income-tax evasion in Los Angeles. I want to read certain matters into the record which will indicate that this cry of communism raised against Mr. Sorrell was a smolve screen that was raised to protect the lA officials in their racketeering activities. These quotations are from the president's report of President George E. Browne at the 1940 convention of the lATSE. He makes reference to a meeting of the board of the lA and then says this : At this same board meeting, my personal representative, William Bioff, tendered his resignation, which your executive board unanimously refused to accept, knowing the tremendous strain he had been forced to work under and the brutal, slanderous attacks being continuously heaped upon him, which, as we all know, was only done because he was successful in furthei'ing the closed-shop conditions for our studio local members. Although the board members tried collectively and individually to get him to reconsider, he refused to alter his decision. There being nothing else to do, his resignation was reluctantly accepted, with the understanding that continued efforts be made to have him return to his post. The letter of acceptance of the esignation follows : Mr. William Bioff, Personal Representative, International President Browne, Bismarck Hotel, Chicago, III. Dear Sir and Bkothfr: The general executive board of the lATSE and MPMO of U. S. and C, in session in Chicago, September 10, 1938, was indeed shocked to have ])laced before it your letter of resignation from the organization activities of tlie lA. Your work for this organization in years gone by has been outstanding, not only in the results obtained but also in the quiet, businesslike, and efficient manner in which you have gone about your work and the high in- tegrity and honesty .vou have displayed in all your dealings. We have discussed the subject of the resignation fully in our session today and are of the unanimous opinion that the welfare of the lA as a whole wcmld be advanced if it were possible to persuade you to withdraw that resignation. Please give consideration to this request that you continue in active participa- tion in our affairs. Should you find, however, that it is not possible to comply with our request and withdraw your resignation, the general executive board has unanimously voted that there is now and always will be a place in our ranks for you and. 67.383— 48— vol. 3 34 2030 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES further, in appreciation of your valuable services in the past, has voted you 1 year's salary. With best wishes to you in whatever your future endeavors may be, we remain, Sincerely and fraternally yours, George E. Browne, International President ; John P. Nick, First Vice President ; William P. Covert, Second Vice President ; Harlaud Holmden, Third Vice President ; Richard F. Walsh, Fourth Vice President ; Floyd M. Billingsley, Fifth Vice President ; James J. Brennan, Sixth Vice President ; Roger M. Kennedy, Seventh Vice President ; Louis Krouse, General Secretary-Treasurer. Then the following from the president's opening statement : William BiofC has done the most remarkable job any man has ever done for labor against terrific odds, but what a price he and his family have had to pay for that our members and their families might enjoy a better livelihood in their own pursuit of happiness. And then to indicate the manner in which attention was attempted to be distracted from the racketeering activities of Bioff, we find the following in the opening statement : If someone were to ask what is the most imminent and dangerous force standing in the path of our continued success, without hesitation and with bitter venom my answer would be "communism." It is not my intention to create the im- pression that our international is singularly vulnerable in this respect for its debilitating effects are universal. * * * I am much concerned over what might happen to the locals who refuse to treat these continued warnings seriously, being deeply conscious of what will be its eventual disintegrating effect on our international as a whole. We have seen the havoc they can cause as attested by the incessant strife that has ranged in this country throughout various industries and particularly the dissension created and kept atlame in the west coast studios. Only recently did the inter- national succeed in suppressing the communistic element that was threatening the existence of our west coast locals through the spread of insidious propaganda. Mr. SoRREi.L. Now that the attorney has read some of his stuff — and believe me we are jumping a lot and cutting a lot, for we want to get over it — I will again talk from memory. As is plain here, what we have tried to show up to this time is the line followed by Bioff and Browne. We will try to show from there on that it has not changed any, that it is being followed even now by Walsh and Brewer. In 1942, we had a little rest. When Bioff went to jail I was quite relieved. I was relieved in many respects because I had not taken the job as business agent of the union with the intention of staying at it. I announced when I took it that it was only to get an agree- ment, and I had been forced to stay on because I had been picked on and hammered at and if I quit everybody would take credit for running me out. Now, I am that kind of an American that is not going to be run out of anything. I don't know why, but if people ask me to do some- thing nicely I am inclined to do it, but if people tell me I am going to have to do something, I back up. Maybe that is the mule in me from Missouri. I don't know what it is, but it was sheer onery stub- bornness that kept me on the job for as many years as I put in. I was attacked by this thief Bazell and by this other thief Bioff and by many other cheap, chiseling racketeer.s. In 1941, everything seemed to be peaceful — and I do not know whether I testified to this before or not — but Bioff Avas in the "can." We had gotten rid of Bazell. The sign painters' union, who had linked up with my opposition to Bioff — I think the leader of that MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2031 organization died. It just seemed that Ave had arrived at a time when I could now quit and no one coukl say anything about it. I pro- ceeded to quit before I got into any further trouble. 1 announced to my union that I thought now for the first time everything was accomplished, everything was going right, and it was now time to get someone else. Yes ; I had even collected from Warner Bros, on the suit for false imprisonment. I was "nigger rich," so to speak. I was able to pay all my bills, all the debts I had contracted. I was really in clover. So they refused to take my resignation. I told them at the meeting, "Well, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," so I didn't show up. I took my things home from the office and began to get ready to go to work. I was called by the studio manager of Uni- versal. He said, "They tell me you are really going to work." I said, "1 am." He said, "Do you want a job?" And I said, "I do." And he said, "Well, come right on over." I said, "No ; I wouldn't come over when you call me, because I don't know whether you need any more men over there or not ; if I go over there and they lay somebody else off, I would have a guilty con- science. In the meantime, when one of the painters' foremen calls me I will come to work, but not to replace anybody or not to take a preferred job." The next day I got a call from the head of the paint department asking if I would come to work. I asked him if I would be replacing anyone, or if he really needed somebody. He said, "I really need you. We have a job, and we have to get it out today." He said, "If you will come to work immediately you will probably work all night." That suited me very well, because that night they had called a meeting to see what they would do about me quitting. As I remember. I worked until about midnight that night. I got a call from the union after they had gotten in session. They said, "Everybody has their price. What do you want to come back to work?" Well, you understand in all these 4 years the wages had gone up considerably in the studio, but I was still working for the same price. I had not asked for a raise because 1 was not prepared to quit and because if I quit everybody would say they were running me out. Again I am quoting from memory and I might get this wrong, but I said, "I don't think you want me any more at the price that I would ask." They said, "Well, you name it." Well, first I said, "There are four or five fellows T don't like very well and I am liable to hurt them, I am liable to push them around a little bit. and if I ever do I will be arrested, so the union would have to pay any fines that I would acquire by such actions. "Second, you would have to irive me — " I have forgotten now whether I said a $60 or $75 a week raise it practically doubled my salary, plus $40 a week expenses, plus 5 cents a mile for driving my car, plus a 3-year contract, and T don't think that is unconstitutional. I made it impossible, so I thought. 2032 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Then I went back to work, and we all had a laugh about it. The boys who had heard me tell them over the phone got a laugh, and we all enjoyed ourselves. We went along and did a fine job. In about a half-hour they called up and said, "You are hired, you get everything you asked, come on back."' Well, I said, "I am sorry, I don't think that is possible. The con- stitution says you can't raise a man's salary only when he is to be reelected and Joe Clark, the vice president, was there, so you better check with him." "No." they said, "he says it's fine." I said, "I'm sorry, I can't come. I have a job to finish, but I'll start next week." So I got hooked back in again. Mr. McCann. What date was that* Mr. SoRRELL. I am quoting from memory. I think it was in March 1041. It was about that time. We had pretty smooth sailing. We signed agreements in 1942, and we had no troubles. Our troubles began to come at the end of 1942 or the end of 1943, when we were unable to sign new agreements. Now. it has been testified here. I think it was by Rothvon, that the Conference of Studio Unions said it was not a jurisdictional strike, it was a strike for wages, hours, and contracts. This is a fact, because to my knowledge no contract has been written for any Conference of Studio Unions member, any union belonging to the CSU, since 1942. Now when you don't have contracts you have troubles. The producers used all kinds of conniving and manipulating in order to avoid signing contracts. They would put this thing in your way, that thing in your way, and it was particularly exasperating. The lATSE unions were able to sign contracts. Our unions were not. Our members would read in the papers, "Such and such union lATSE has signed with the producers." They would say, "Why don't you get something signed?" I was unable to do it. It was just one thing after another. . Tile set decorators they used for a hold-up. They admitted — the War Labor Board told them — and everybody admitted that the I ATSE did not have any set decorators ; that a few people who worked both in the set decorators' jurisdiction and when things were dull carried a card in the lATSE, was their only basis for saying that they had any connection with them. But the producers refused to sign up until we could get it clear. It has been testified here as to the attempts we made to get it cleared. We have a lot of evidence to be read into the record here of the efforts that we made to clear this situation up so that our unions could get con- tracts. The strike in 1945, 1 think by the evidence that will be read into the record, will show it was almost impossible to avoid. I think if the at- torney has some of these records now it would be a good time to read it in and then as it comes off or as he reads it, so as to place dates, I will butt in to explain the reasons for our actions. Will you go ahead ? Mr. BoDLE. Yes. This is with regard to the background of the 1945 strike. The evidence I will present later will indicate that the Society MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2033 of Motion Picture Interior Decorators and Independent Incorporated Labor Organizations liad entered into a 5-year contract with the pro- ikicers in 15)42, the contract to expire in 1947. This contract contained the following provisions, and I am reading now from the award of the arbitrator appointed by the National War Labor Board to hear the dispute : Section 2. Recognition. — The producer recognizes the society as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all employees covered by this agreement. The society makes this agreement in behalf of such employees, a majority of whom the society wants, are members of the society in good standing. ******* Section 10. Change of bargnining representative. — In the event that a majority ■of the interior decorators and assistant interior decorators in the employ of the producer should designate a diffei"ent bargaining representative, the name of such representative shall be inserted herein in lieu of the name of the society or the producer may, at its option, declare this agreement null and void. Now under the terms of the contract, as the arbitrator subsequently found, there was a legal obligation on the part of the producers in the event of a change of affiliation of the society, to either declare the contract null and void or to insert the name of the new affiliation into the contract and to continue to bargain with the new affiliate, pursuant to tlie terms of the contract. The members of the set decorators affiliated with screen set designers local 1421, affiliated with the Brotherhood of Painters, and with the Conference of Studio ITnions on October 28, 1943. As the decision of the arbitrator later will indicate, the producers Avere notified of this change of affiliation and the producers bargained with local 1421 as the representative of the members of the society, up until sometime late in 1944. The evidence will also indica^te that the various studios which are represented by the Motion Picture Producers Association, recognized the business representative of local 1421 as the representative of the set decorators and bargained with him with reference to the adjust- ment of grievances and so forth. In about June or July of 1944 the producers for the first time in- dicated that they would not recognize local 1421 as the representative of the set decorators because of a counter claim that had been made bv the lATSE to representation of these set decorators. Local 1421 then agreed to present to the producers authorization cards signed by each one of the employed set decorators in the studios, by which cards the set decorators had designated local 1421 as their collective-bargaining agent. This was unaccejDtable to the producers. They thereupon insisted that local 1421 file a petition for certification with the National Labor Relations Board in order that it might be certified as the collective- bargaining agent for the set decorators. Local 1421 thereafter filed such a petition and shortly after it was filed the lATSE intervened. At that time there was a rule in the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board in Los Angeles — ^find I think this rule was general throughout the country — that the Board would not accept petitions for certification where the certification was contested bv a sister union of the same general affiliate. In other words, if a petition were filed by an A. F. of L. union and another A. F. of L. union intervened the Board would not accept 2034 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES jurisdiction, but took the position that this was an internal matter within the A. F. of L. and should be determined by the A. F. of L, The regional director of the NLRB took that position. At the time the motion for intervention was filed by the lATSE they informed the local repreesnt actives of 1421 that the Board would not proceed to hear the petition for certification and hold an election to determine who represented the men. Local 1421 thereupon witlidrew its petition for certification. Thereafter as Mr. Sorrell has testified there was a 2-day strike by a Mr. Sorrell. A few of the set decorators. Mr. BoDLE. By some of the set decorators, the strike having been called to force the producers to bargain to recognize 1421 as the bar- gaining representative of the set decorators. Mr. Sorrell. I might explain that 2-day strike. The decorators on their own accord pulled out. Mr. Landis. Was that 1421 ? Mr. Sorrell. No; they were in 1421, but just the decorators; the people M^ho would not be recognized decided to quit their jobs all over. When they quit their jobs that naturally caused confusion and other people quit with them, and so forth. All of our ]3eople come to meet- ings. Mr. Brewer has stated he doesn't have many people come to meetings, but the people in our unions know that they run the union. They tell me what to do, and we don't tell them what to do, so our people attend the meetings. When something comes up they usually understand very thoroughly what it is because of our completely democratic set-up. Mr. Landis. Do you think the Board should allow the election here in this case? Mr. Sorrell. Do I think the Board should have alloT^^ed the election ? Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. Sorrell. I think had the Board allowed the election it would have cleared the thing up completely. But since the Board would not allow the election all we had to do was to pull the thing out of the Board. This temporary stoppage of work caused the War Labor Board to step in because since it was tied up in the NLRB and nothing could happen, the War Labor Board then stepped in. I think he has some communications on that. ]\Ir. Landis. But don't you think then it would have been all right if the employer could have petitioned for election and held an election? Mr. Sorrell. I sure do, but you see the employer is so com]5letely tied up in this conspiracy to destroy the Conference of Studio Unions, that he refused to do anything. Mr. Landis. I mean under the new law, the Taft-Hartley law, it gives the employer the right to petition for election. Mr. Sorreijl. The employer at that time could also step in. If the employer had stepped in and they would have held an election l^etween the two A. F. of L. unions, if the employer requested it. But the em- ployer refused to request -it. The employer sat aloof and refused to deal with anyone. When he did that he refused to make contracts with any of the CSU unions. We were all tied up by the employer's obstinacy in not dealing with us, and the lATSE tying it up in that way. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2035 That is what created the strike of 1945. I think we have wires to that effect that will clear this up so that 3"oii will understand. Mr. Landis. Did they sign contracts with 1421 before? Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, yes ; but they haven't si^ied contracts with anyone since 1912, except when we pulled another strike in 1946 on the 1st of July when they signed an interim contract. That interim contract is the onl}- thing we have a producer's signature on after 1942. In other words, the strike was not a jurisdictional strike of our making. The strike was for wages, hours, and contracts, and the producer, with the cooperation of the lATSE, turned it into a juris- dictional issue, for the public's sake. Mr. Landis. Were any of these dealings with Pat Casey during that time ? Mr. SoRRELL. Pat Casey sat in on a lot of them but Pat Casey seemed to lose his punch. I will come to that a little bit later. He seemed to lose the authority to consummate deals that he had had in the past. I will come to that a little bit later as we get into this. Mr. BoDLE. There is a reference in the transcript to a statement Casey made with reference to this situation. I am sorry Mr. Owens is not here because there has been a lot of talk about the sanctity of contracts. There can be no question but that there was a legal obligation on the part of the producers in this situation to either declare the contract with the society null and void, or to recognize 1421 as a new affiliate of the members of the society. The War Labor Board arbitrator who heard this matter subsequently came to that very same conclusion. As a matter of fact, Mr. Burton Zorn came to the same conclusion and so did Pat Casey. I would like at this point to quote their language when they were on the stand in Los Angeles. At that time Mr. Case}^ testified — and this is with reference to the contract with the society — I am quoting now : There was an obligation on my part to accept tlie other bargaining agent or cancel the contract. Then he goes on to state that he did neither. Mr. ZoRX. Mr. Chairman, could we have the page? Mr. Kearxs. ]May we have the page in reference to that ? Mr. BoDLE. It is page 1137. Then with regard to Mr. Zorn's views on the subject, at page 1159, Mr. Zorn, I think somewhat lightly, tosses the legal implications of the contract off when he says, and I quote : ■ They may have been remiss perhaps, strictly legally, in their duty. That is their duty, either to cancel the contract or to recognize 1421 as the new collective-bargaining agency. The point I want to make is that here there was a clear legal duty and that the cause of this strike was the failure of the producers to live up to the terms of the contract into which they had entered. INIi'. Laxdis. You talked about the contract ; was it a signed contract ? INIr. BoDLE. Oh, yes ; it was a signed contract signed in 1942, a 5-year contract, with the Society of Motion Picture and Interior Decorators It had this clause in it that I have already read. 2036 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now after this walk-out of the set decorators occurred the f ollowmg telegram was sent to Herbert Sorrell, president of Conference of Studio Unions, by Gene L. Green, director of disputes. Tenth Regional War Labor Board. The telegram is dated October 11, 1944: Information lias been received by the Board concerning the existence of a strilce involving: members of the Screen Set Designers, Decorators and Illustra- tors Local 1421, the Moving Picture Painters Local 644 and Motion Picture Machinists Local 1185, A. F. of L. imions affiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions employed at the studios of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount, Columbia, and Warner Bros. I am advised the strike has resulted over conflicting claims of jurisdiction by the unions listed above and the International Alliance of Tlieatri- cal Stage Employees Local 44, a sister A. F. of L. local. Your attention is directed to the reaffirmation of labor's no-strike pledge as made by the executive council of A. F. of L. and as ainiounced by President William Green in Miami, Fla.. in January of this year. "No matter how great the grievance or how aggravated the situation might be there can be no justification for local strikes or local stoppages of work." This strong language against the use of strikes in wartime as an economic weapon is even more appropriate to a strike involving a jurisdictional dispute between sister locals. I have been informed today that the dispute has been certified by the Conciliation Service to the War Labor Board as case No. 111-11414-D. for processing before the Board in accordance with the orderly procedure established by the President and Congress for handling disputes during the war. Under the usual policy of the Board no action will be taken directly toward effecting a settlement while the members of the union involved in the dispute continue on strike. Will you therefore take the steps necessary to bring this information to the attention of the employees involved and take the steps necessary to effectuate a resumption of the employment by the members of the local unions involved in the di.spute? When advise by collect wire, Address to the attention of Gene L. Green, Disputes Director, War Labor Board, IS.I.^ Market Street, San Francisco, stating employees involved have re- turned to work has been received, the Board will commence action toward ad- judicating this dispute. Copies of this telegram are being addressed to the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., and the Intei-national Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees Local 44. Gene L. Green, Director Disputes, Tenth Regional War Labor Board. Mr. Landis. Do you have a copy of that contract ? Mr. BoDLE. I do not think I have a copy of the contract but the relevant portions of the contract are incorporated in the decision of the arbitrator, Thomas Tongue. That I am putting into evidence. Mr. Landis. What was their excuse for breaking the contract? Mr^ SoERELL. What was the excuse of the producers ? Mr. Landis. Yes. They evidently broke the contract. Mr. Sorrell. Their excuse that the lATSE wanted these people and said they had a claim to them; that they could not deal with us; that the lATSE would not allow them to deal with us. They did not give any excuse for breaking the contract, never have. Mr. BoDLE. In the transcript of the Los Angeles hearings there is a statement by Mr. McCann directed to Mr. Casey to this effect, "Don't you think, Mr. Casey, that you were derelict in your duty when you didn't either cancel the contract or accept 1421 as the new collective- bargaining agency?"' And Mr. Casey said, "I think you are right," or words to that effect. I do not have the exact quotation before me but so far as I know there was never any justification given by the producers. Mr. Landis. How could he cancel the contract ? Mr. BoDLE. Well, the producers had an option to cancel or to insert the name of the new affiliate in the contract in lieu of the name of MOTICBSr-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2037 me society. It was an option to do one or the other. They did neither. Mr. Keakns. They should have gone from the society to 1421? Mr. BoDLE. That is right. Not only did they do neither but they actually misled 1421 because as the Tongue award will indicate they bargained with 1421 for these people over a period of about 8 to 10 months. The studio managers actually recognized the business agent of 1421 as the representative of the set decorators in the studios. Then suddenly they raised this question of the counterclaim of the lATSE. Although I think it will be clear froin what I have to read there was never any doubt but that 1421 represented not 90 percent of these people, but 100 percent of them. After the receipt of the telegram of October 11 from Mr. Green, the following telegram was sent to Mr. Gene L. Green, dated October 12, 1944, by H. K. Sorrell. Painters Local 644, D. T. Wayne, Machinists Local 1145, Ed Mussa, Set Designers Local 1421 : Mr. Gene L. Green, Tenth War Lahor Board, 1335 Market Street, San Francisco, Calif.: Have advised all painters, decorators, and machinists to return to work on their regular shift immediately in compliance with your request. Sincerely hope you will expedite final decision of this case. Will cooperate to the limit. A telegram dated October 21, 1944, Washington, D. C. Herbert K. Soereli,, 1153 Norden Avenue, Olendalc, Calif.: Re your tel case No. 111-11414D will be placed before new case committee next week. George T. Brown, NWLB. Then, a telegram dated October oO, from Washington, D. C, ad- dressed to Herb Sorrell, president, Conference of Studio Unions, 415T West Fifth Street, Los Angeles : Hollywood studio cases 111-11414D has been referred by new case committee to A. P. of L. members of National War Labor Board in accordance with estab- lished practice involving jurisdictional disputes requesting every effort to obtain early settlement. Bebnakd Weitzman, NWLB. Mr. Landis. At about what time was this? Mr. BoDLE. This was October 30. Mr. Landis. Of what year? Mr. BoDLE. 1944. Mr. Landis. The last part of 1944? Mr. BoDLE. Yes, sir. INIr. Landis. AVas the big long strike in 1945 ? Mr. BoDLE. lA 1945. Mr. Sorrell. This is bringing it up to the 1945 strike. Mr. Landis. This is really the 1945 strike? Mr. Sorrell. Yes. You see, we exhausted our efforts. We spent months, and months, and months going to the National Labor Rela- tions Board, only to be pushed out of the National Labor Relations Board, due to the fact that they would not intervene between two A. F. of L. unions unless the employer requested it. The employer refused to requestyt, thus lying us up. 2038 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Then at seme of the studios the decorators quit work, caused a stoppage of work, which brought the War Labor Board into it. We immediately went back to work as requested by the War Labor Board because they said that they would settle. Now the War Labor Board assumed jurisdiction of the thing. The wires I sent the War Labor Board do not appear here, but their answers to me do appear. I w\as always needling them; "get something done; we want con- tracts; contracts are being held up, due to this dispute.'' It was referred to the A. F. of L. committee. I figured it would die there. I needled them and needled them. There was a vote taken — and I do not remember now whether the NLRB or the War Labor Board held the vote — to see if these people would actually strike or not, after a 30-day period. After the vote was taken, William Green called me and caught me at Warner Bros. I was going around to see how the vote was going. I had my first disagreement with William Green there. I said : If you had not held it up in your'ofRce so Ions we would not be voting today. If we could get some action we don't want to strike, we want to <'ontinue work, but we find ourselves in an untenable position, and it is partly your fault. Mr. Landis. When was the arbitrator appointed, do you know ? Mr. SoRRELL. Dates are very poor for me, but he will bring it up very quickly. Mr. BoDLE. On January 26. Mr. Landis. 1945? INIr. BoDLE. Yes. There was a delay here from October 11 to Jan- nary 26, while the Board had jurisdiction and before the arbitrator was appointed. The point I want to make is that there was no hasty action taken here. Mr. Landis. What is his decision? Mr. BoDLE. May I just read through these? I will be up there very soon. Mr. Landis. Go ahead. Mr. BoDLE. This telegram of December 27, 1944, to Mr. L. P- Lindelof, Painters and Decorators Building, Lafayette, Inch, signed by Herb Sorrell : Unable to contact you by phone today. Hope you will be able to influence President Green to make some move prior to January 6, so tliat I will be able to call a meeting and assure the decorators some positive action is being taken and arrange to postpone the strike vote. Failure to receive some action prior to January 6 will mean a complete tie-up in the motion picture industry. This is a telegram from Gene L. Green, director of disputes. Tenth ' Regional War Labor Board, to Herbert Sorrell, d^ted January 4. 1945 : This is to inform you that the Tenth Regional War Labor Board sent the fol- lowing telegram to the National War Labor Board "in dispute case 111-11414D, in- volving the major motion-picture producers, Hollywood and Local 1421, Screen Set Designers. A. F. of L., previously referred to William Green, president, A. F. of L., the Tenth Regional War Labor Board today unanimously adopted the following resolution" — I might say, parenthetically, of course, there were A. F. of L. mem- bers on that board designated by the A. F. of L. — , 1. That the chairman be directed to report to the National War Labor Board the seriousness of tliis situation aggravated by the failure of the Board's pro- cedures to effect an early settlement. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2039 2. That the regional board feels responsibility in this matter, since the em- ployees returned to work after a previous strike upon persuasion by a labor member (-f the board on its behalf that if the employees return to work and stayed at work the case would be settled peacefully under board procedures. 3. That there is now grave doubt that the men will continue to work if this matter is not promptly disposed of. 4. That the Tenth Regional Board urges the National Board to take whatever steps may be necessary to settle the case on its merits, and soon as possible, in- cluding, if necessary, referral of the case to the regional board for determination of the dispute on the merits. Thomas Fair Neblett, Chairman, Tenth Regional War La'bor Board. Then a telegram of January 18, 1945. Mr. Kearns. Pardon me at this time. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock. (Tliereitpon, at 12 noon, an adjournment was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day. ) AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. KJEARNS. The hearing will come to order, please. You may continue, Mr. Bodle. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. BoDLE. I think I had just finished reading a telegram from Gene L. Green, director of disputes, Tenth Regional War Labor Board, to Sorrell, quoting a telegram from Thomas Neblett, chairman of the Tenth Regional War Labor Board, to the National War Labor Board itself. The next telegram is a telegram of January 18, 1945, to Mr. William H. Davis, Chairman, National War Labor Board, Washington, D. C. Regarding dispute case No. 111-11414D, President Green notified me January 6 this dispute would be settled by arbitrator appointed by Board and requested holding off strike action. Twelve days have now elapsed with no further word of settlement. Please confirm or deny statement by Green. Imposible to keep situation in check much longer. Appreciate an answer before Sunday. Signed, "H. K. Sorrell, president, Conference of Studio Unions." The telegram of January 23, 1945, to Herbert Sorrell, Screen Set Designers' Local 1421, 4517 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, states: Pursuant to Board's earlier letter to William Green, arbiter is not being se- lected in case 111-11414D, involving Local 1421, Screen Set Designers, A. F. of L., and the major motion-picture producers, Hollywood. Name of arbiter will be announced shortly. Signed, "Gene L. Green, Director, Disputes Division, Tenth Region.'' Then a telegram of January 26, 1945, to Ed Mussa, business repre- sentative. Set Designers, Decorators, and Illustrators, Local 1421, Brotherhood of Painters. Decorators, and Paperhangers of America. A. F. of L., 4157 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles : Re case No. 111-11414D involving Hollywood studios, Hollywood and vicinity, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. ; Columbia Studios ; Paramount Studios ; Warner Bros. ; and Twentieth Century-Fox and Set Designers, Decorators, and Illus- trators, Local 1421 ; Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, A. F. of L. ; International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Or>erators of the United States and Canada, A. F. of L. ; 2040 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES National War Labor Board has appointed Mr. Thomas Tongue, of Portland, Oreg., as the arbitrator to decide the case. Mr. Tongue will communicate with the parties directly with regard to time and place for hearing. WnxiAM H. Davis, National War Lahor Board. The telegram of January 26, 1945, addressed to Herbert Sorrell, Screen Set Designers, Local 1421, A. F. of L., 4157 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles. Yeon Building, Portland, Oreg. This will advise .you that I have today been appointed arbiter in NWLB case No. 111-11414-D involving the major motion-picture producers association, Holly- wood, Screen Set Designers Local 1421, A. F. of L., the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Union, A. F. of L. Hearings are scheduled to com- mence at 2 p. m., February 8, 1945, in the offices of the Board, William M. Garland Building, 117 West Ninth Street, Los Angeles. It is suggested the parties as- semble at 10 a. m. on the morning of the same day at the Board offices for the purpose of framing the issues and for preliminary discussion of them. I will be available for consultation. Letter of confirmation follows. Thomas H. Tongue. Pursuant to that notice, Mr. Tongue sat as arbitrator in this dispute. On February 17, 1945, he handed down the following award, which I want to read : United States of America, Before the National War Labor Board February 17, 1945 Case No. 111-11414-D— Award of Arbitrator In the Matter of: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures (Loews, Inc.); Paramount Pictures, Inc. ; RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. ; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. ; Universal Pictures Co., Inc. ; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. ; Republic Productions, Inc. ; Columbia Pictures Corp. : and Samuel Goldwyn Inc., Ltd. and Screen Set Designers, Illustrators, and Decorators, Local 1421, AFL and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 44, AFL ; befoi'e Thomas H. Tongue. ARBITRATOR BACKGROUND On October 11, 1944. this case was certified by the Secretary of Labor to the National War Labor Board under Eixecutive Order 9017 as a labor dispute be- tween the producers and local 1421, which might interrupt work which con- tributes to the effective prosecution of the war, following a strike by local 1421 at one of the studios. Since the dispute arose largely because of conflicting claims upon the producers by the local 44 and local 1421 for jurisdiction over interior decorators, an attempt was then made to have the case settled by the AFL mem- bers of the War Labor Board, following which on November 3, 1944, it was referred to William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, Mith a request to settle the dispute with the presidents of the two international unions involved, in accordance with past practice in jurisdictional disputes between two AFL unions. On January 9, 1945. no settlement having been arrived at within the AFL and the danger of a strike being imminent (as evidenced by a strike vote of 254 to 42 under the War Labor Disputes Act) , the — May I interject to say that was a strike vote conducted among the members of local 1421 pursuant to the provisions of the so-called Smith- Connally Act — The War Labor Board resumed jurisdiction over the case and notified Mr. Green that an arbitrator would be appointed to settle the dispute by a decision binding upon the parties. It was pointed out that this was also in accordance with established procedure in jurisdictional disputes between AFL unions. This action received tacit approval from Mr. Green by letter dated January 13, 1945, acknowledging the War Labor Board letter of January 9, stating that he was MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2041 assured by local 1421 that there would be uo strike until further efforts had beeu made to bring about a settlement, and noting that an arbitrator would be as- signed to give attention to the controversy. On January 20, however, the lATSB advised the Board that it would not submit to arbitration. Nevertheless, on January 26, 1944, the Board notirted the parties that the undersigned had beeu appointed "as arbitrator to decide the case." On February 8 and 10, 194.">, hearings were held before the arbitrator in Los Angeles upon the issues as stated below, despite continuing objections by local 44 of the lATSE to the jurisdiction of the Board. Evidence was received, includ- ing 17 exhibits introduced by local 1421 and oral testimony from witnesses on behalf of both local 1421 and the producers (whose only witness except for state- ments made by their attorney, was the attorney for local 44). Oral argument was also made by attorneys for the same two parties and it was agreed that memoranda upon the question of jurisdiction might be filed by all parties, in- cluding local 44 as amicus curiae, on or before Februai-y 14, 1045. The only memorandum submitted, however, was on behalf of local 1421. In view of the refusal bjHhe producers to take any part in discussion of the issues, even to the point of declinino- to admit or deny statements by local 1421 of its position and in view of the refusal by representatives of local 44 to take any part in the hearing, except by te.stifyino- on behalf of the producers, it was not possible to arrive at any agreed or written stipulation of the issues. After calling upon the parties to state their views of the issues and their positions thereon, and after hearing such discussion as was forth-coming, it was ruled that the issues in- volved were as follows : 1. Whether local 1421 has bargaining rights for interior decorators by virtue of a contract signed May 3, 1942, between the producers and the Society of Motion Pi'-ture Decorators, which local 1421 claims to succeed, and by virtue of conduct by producers since such alleged succession which is claimed by local 1421 to constitute de facto recognition of it as the successor to the bargaining rights for such employees. 2. Whether the National War Labor Board and an arbitrator appointed by it has jurisdiction to finally decide a labor dispute involving such an issue. PREUMINARY RULINGS 1. Title of case: Employer 'parties It was first ruled, upon motion by the producers, that the producers association should not appear as a party to the case and that the individual employer parties should be amended to include those listed above. 2. Jurisdiction to hold hearing The objection by local 44 to the jurisdiction of the Board and its arbitrator to hold a hearing in the case was overruled, without prejudice to the right to renew this objection on appeal from the award of the arbitrator. In view of the power of the Board to decide all labor disputes certified by the Secretary of Labor as apt to interrupt work which contributes to the effective pro.seeiition of the war, so long as it does not invade the jurisdiction of other Government agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, there can be little doubt concerning the jurisdiction of the Board to at least precede with a hearing of this case. No showing was made or attempted that this is not such a dispute. In fact, not only local 1421 but the producers conceded this poiift. It is plain that jurisdictional disputes between unions can effect the prosecution of the war fully as much as other t.vpes of labor disputes. Moreover, under an agreement between the Board and the AFL, jurisdictional disputes, altliough first to be referred for settlement within the unions themselves, as is by all means most desirable, may then, if such settlement fails, be submitted for final decisions to arbitrators appointed by the Board. Thus arbitration of such disputes, although individual unions may object, is essentially voluntary rather than compulsory, for the reason that it is based upon this agreement. The letter from William Green on this point has already been noted. If, however, any doubt arises con'-eriiing the power of an arbitrator to decide such a case, it coidd be quickly resolved by the adoption of his award by the Board as its own directive order, after due review. 2042 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 3. Jurisdiction to decide which union represents majority of employees in appropriate bargaining unit Near tbe outset of the' hearing local 1421 took the position that one of the grounds for its claim to bargaining rights is the alleged fact that all interior decorators are members of local 1421 and that the appropriate bargaining unit is limited to interior decorators. It was ruled by the arbitrator that these issues are beyond the jurisdiction of the War I.abor Board, since they are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. This rule has been so firmly established by the War Labor Board that no citation of supporting authority is necessary and no authority to the contrary was submitted by local 1421. If. Jurisdiction to decide dispute to exclusion of rights to applg to NLRB Finally, it was ruled as a preliminary matter that even a decision upon the question of whether local 1421 has bargaining rights by virtue of the contract and the conduct of the producers could not preclude any party from applying to the National Labor Relations Act for a determination upon the question of representation. Objections by local 1421 to this ruling were rejected. Again, it seems obvious that the War Labor Board cannot preclude any person from at least filing such an application with the NLRB. This does not mean, however, that the War Labor Board cainiot proceed to determine the condilions of employment under which employees and employers shall work, including the important con- dition of whether an employer shall continue to recognize and bargain with a union of which all of the employees involved are members, at least pending a final determination by the NLRB of the question of representation. POSITION OP PARTIES 1. Local 1421 (a) Local 1421 succeeded to the bargaining rights of the Society of Motion Picture Interior Decorators by virtue of its contract with the producers ; including provision for assignment of bargaining rights, and by virtue of the fact that the, producers did not exercise their option to cancel the contract when local 1421 succeeded to such rights and did not object until many months later. (&) Local 1421 also acquired bargaining rights as the result of a course of conduct under which the producers gave de facto recognition to it as the bar- gaining representative for interior decorators. (c) The National War Labor Board has jurisdiction to make a final decision of the case, wdiich does not involve any questions of representation for the National Labor Relations Board to decide. 2. Local 44 («) The National War Labor Board and its arbitrator have no jurisdiction to decide a jurisdictional dispute between two Ai^L unions unless all parties agree to the arbitration. (&) (Testimony on behalf of producers.) Jurisdiction over interior decorators was claimed since January 1942 by virtue of the charter granted to local 44 by the AFL and by virtue of its contracts with producers covering property meh ; also by virtue of its claim that more than a majority of members of the society were members of local 44. 3. Producers (a) The National War Labor Board has no jui'isdiction to decide the case be- cause it involves the determination of a question of representation, which only the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction to decide. ( ft) The producers will not bargain now with local 1421 for interior decorators, but will bargain with whatever union the NLRB decides represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. (c) The producers will, however, abide by any decision "within the reasonable scope" of the powers of the National War Labor Board. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1. On May 3, 1942, the producers entered into a contract with the Society of Motion Picture Interior Decorators, effective from April 1, 1942, to April 1, 1947, which included the following provisions, among others : Section 2. Recognition : '"The producer recognizes the society as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all employees covered by this agreement. The society makes MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2043 this agreement on behalf of sxich employees, a majority of whom the society warrants are members of the society in good standing." Section 10. Change of bargaining representative : "In the event that a majority of the interior decorators and assistant interior decorators in the employ of the producer should designate a different bargaining representative, the name of such representative shall be inserted herein in lieu of the name of the society, or the prodvicer may, at its option, declare this agreement null and void. In the event that the society should affiliate with any other labor organization, the name of such labor organization shall be inserted herein in lieu of the name of the society, or the producer may, at its option, declare this agree- ment null and void." 2. The society by contract had never been certified by th'e National Labor Kelations Board, but the employers recognized it as the bargaining agent for the interior decorators. 3. On October 28, 1943, the members of the society voted that the society should affiliate with local 1421 and designate it as exclusive bargaining representative. Thereafter, all members of the society became members of local 1421. 4. On November G, 1943, local 1421 notified the producers that the society had affiliated with local 1421 and that it desired to adjust certain provisions of the agreement between the producers and the interior decorators. 5. On November 8, 1943, the producers were notified by local 1421 that the agreement between them (for groups other than interior decorators) would expire on January 1, 1944, and that it desired an early date to proceed with negotiations for a new contract, to include interior decorators. 6. On November 11, 1943, the producers acknowledged this letter and sug- gested that local 1421 forward a written proposal of the amendments desired. No mention was made nor question raised concerning its claim to represent interior decorators. 7. On December 30, 1943, negotiations were ofiicially o])ened, no objection being raised by the producers, and were then transferred to New York where further negotiations were held on April 11, 1944. 8. On June 8, 1944, at a further meeting in Hollywood, local 1421 proposed a form of contract to cover all groups represented by it, including interior deco- rators. At this meeting wages, hours, and conditions for interior decorators were discussed. No express objections were made by producers at this meeting. 9. On July 25 or 28, 1944, there was a further meeting, at which the producers requested the union to obtain a letter from the society notifying the producers of the change in affiliation. This was understood by local 1421 to be regarded as a mere legal formality required by attorneys for the producers. On July 28, 1944, such a letter was sent to the producers over the signature of the secretary and former president of the society. By reply dated August 10, 1944, the pro- ducers notified the society that they were not vx'illiug to recognize local 1421 until certified by the National Labor Relations Board and that until then the pro- ducers would continue to recognize the society. The society, however, had ceased to exist, except for "cultural" purposes and to retain and disburse its funds, which had not been turned over to local 1421. 10. On August 8, 1944, the producers advised local 1421 that as a formality it should be certified by the NLRB, following which, on August 8, a petition was filed with that Board. On August 16, local 44 intervened in this proceeding. Local 1421 concedes that some decorators had cards with local 44, but only in order to work as property men when no work as interior decorators was aA'ailalile. On August 30, local 1421 withdrew its petition, claiming it to be an unnecessary step for the reason that there was no question of representation. 11. There is no evidence that after October 28, 1943, the producers ever actually dealt with the society as the bargaining representative for interior decorators. On the other hand, the producers l)y a course of conduct, gave de facto recog- nition to local 1421 as the bai-gaining representative for interior decorators, at least to the extent of hiring all decorators through local 1421, calling upon local 1421 to furnish work permits for some 80 decorators, a practice not effec- tive until local 1421 succeeded to the rights of the society, and to the extent of settling at least two grievances with local 1421 for interior decorators. Recog- nition also was granted to the extent that representatives of interior decorators were included on the union committee with which the producers met to negotiate a new contract and to discuss wage rates for interior decorators. 12. On August 31, 1944, local 1421 notified the producers that it had withdrawn its NLRB petition, but stood ready to submit proof that it represented 100 per- 2044 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES cent of the former members of the society, enclosing a list of alleged members. In a reply dated September 13, 1944, the producers requested that local 1421 submit a description of the bargaining unit claimed by it to be appropriate. This was the first time that any reference to this point had been made by the pro- ducers. On September 14, local 1421 replied by enclosing a copy of the jurisdic- tion granted by its international union. By letter dated September 19, 1944, the producers notified local 1421 that they did not agree to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit suggested by local 1421 insofar as it would include interior decorators, did not recognize it as collective bargaining representative of the employees in that unit, and would not negotiate with local 1421 for interior decorators. Relations then deteriorated until a strike on October 5, 1944, follow- ing which the War Labor Board assumed jurisdiction upon certification by the Secretary of Labor. 18. Testimony to establish the responsibility and professional nature of work by interior decorators was introduced by local 1421, showing the differences be- tween their work and that of property men. A copy of the jurisdictiort granted to local 1421 by its international union^ including jurisdiction over interior decorators, was introduced in evidence as well as membei'ship cards purporting to show that all interior decorators had designated local 1421 as their bargaining representative. It was not denied that at least a majority of interior decorators were members of local 1421. 14. The charter granted in 1939 to local 44 Iby its international union gave it jurisdiction over property men and set dressers, and its contracts with producers included references to the emergency origination of set dressings by property men as well as the handling of all "props" and property men. There is no incon- sistency, however, between the origination and designing of sets by interior decorators, except in emergencies, and the manual handling of "props" for such sets by property men. Evidence is conflicting on the question of the number of interior decorators with cards from local 44. No petition, however, has been filed or is now pending with tlie NLRB on behalf of local 44. OPINION 1. Acquisition of bargaining rights by local 11^21. Aside from any question of representation, as discussed below, it appears to be clear that local 1421 not only succeeded to the bargaining rights of the society under its contract with the producers, but also was given at least some degree of de facto recognition by the producers as the bargaining representative for interior decorators. It may be true, as argued by the producers, that the society did not "affiliate" with another labor organization in the strict sense of the word, since it retained its funds and continued in existence as a "cultural" organization. It is not dis- puted, however, but a majority of the interior decorators designated a different bargaining representative, as provided for in the first sentence of section 10 of the contract. This placed the burden upon the producers of either recognizing local 1421 as the successor to the bargaining rights or else of declaring the con- tract void. It is admitted by local 1421 that the company was entitled to notice of this change in bargaining representation. It may also be true that the producers were not required to take cognizance of notice given by local 1421, a stranger to the contract. But the producers do not deny that they did acquire knowledge of this change and by their silence and their entrance into negotiations with local 1421 without objection to the change, they are estoiiped now to object to the lack of adequate notice. Moreover, even after receiving formal notice from the society by letter dated July 28, 1944, the producers still did not and never have declared the contract void. Consequently, they are bound by its terms to recognize the successor to the society as the bargaining agent for interior decorators, aside from any question of representation. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the producers, by dealing without objection with local 1421 as the representative of interior decorators to the extent of requesting the union to issue work permits for interior decorators ; meeting with a committee of local 1421, including representatives of interior decorators, and discussing wages for such employees ; as well as dealing with local 1421 in the .settlement of at least two grievances, accorded at least a sub- stantial degree of de facto recognition to that union as the bargaining agent for interior decorators. Moreover, it is not denied that at least a majority of interior decorators are members of local 1421. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2045 It does not follow, however, that local 1421 had the right to demand the abandonment of the former contract with the society and the negotiation of an entire new agreement. By the terms of that contract it was to extend until April 1, 1947, and could only be reopened for negotiation on changes in wages, hours, and working conditions during the month of April 1944. If local 1421 is to be the successor to the bargaining rights under that contract, as it urges, it is also subject to the duties imposed by the term of the contract. The question whether that contract is to be amended, which might ei^ect a complete change in all of its terms, or whether a new contract should be nego- tiated covering not only interior decorators, but otlier groups represented by local 1421, is largely one of mechanics, although the producers have the legal right to insist upon the former alternative. The only remaining question, inso- far as the contract is concerned, is whether demands made in November 1943 are to be considered as having been presented during the month of April 1944, as strictly required under the contract. This question was not an issue at the hearing and is thus beyond the power of the arbitrator to decide. Since, how- ever, this might become the seed of a further controversy, it is recommended that because the demands were still pending negotiation in April tliey should he considered as in the nature of continuing demands and thus of the same effect as though expressly renewed during that month. Thus, a.side from any question of representation, it is concluded that local 1421 has succeeded to the bargaining rights of the society under its contract with the producers, with the result that both producers and local 1421 are bound by the terms of that contract and with the further result that they should proceed with the negotiations upon union demands now pending either for the purpose of amending that contract or negotiating a new contract to cover all groups represented by local 1421. 2. Juyisdiction of the War Lahor Board over issues in case As already noted, it is recognized by the War Labor Board that it has no power to finally decide questions of representation, which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. It does not follow, however, that the AVar Labor Board should therefore refrain from directing that employers and unittns should continue to work under the terms of previous contracts or to proceed with the negotiations of new contracts. The War Labor Board has adopted the rule recognized by both the NLRB and the courts that a union which has acquired bargaining rights as the representa- tive of a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit is presumed to retain such rights until the contrarv is shown. As stated by the Board in the case of U. S. Gi/psum Co. (14 W. L. R. 3SS) : "It has been the policy of the NWLB to require an employer and a union with which the employer has had a past history of collective bargaining to negotiate and sign contracts to continue in effect according to their terms or until the NLRB shall have determined that the union is no longer entitled to represent the employees as the exclusive bargaining agent." The announced policy of the War Labor Board in cases of jurisdictional' dis- putes, as stated in W. L. B.-N. L. R. B. Agreement on Cases Involving Wagner Act Question ( 14 W. L. R. VIII) , is as follows : "C. Where there is a prior collective-bargaining contract between the parties, whether or not there has been an NLRB certification, or where an NLRB certi- fication has become "stale." "(a) Cases involving competing unions. These situations are presented to the WLB in a variety of forms. We set forth here two typical cases : "(1) Union X has had a collective-bargaining contract with the company, At the expiration of its contract (which occurs more than a year after its certification by the NLRB), union Y claims to represent a majority of the employees. At the time the dispute is certified to the WLB, neither union Y nor the company has filed a petition with the NLRB for an election, but in the dispute case before the WLB they both question the majority status of union X. "Under the NLRB rules either the company (because there are competing unions) or union Y lias the right on its own motion to petition the NLRB for a determination of the representation question. It was felt that, unless prior to certification of the dispute to the WLB the company or union Y had petitioned neither the producers nor local 44 challenges the claim, that it represents a the NLRB, the WLB could properly assume that there was no bona fide doubt as to union X's majority status. The WLB would therefore treat the previous NLRB certification as still conclusive of the majority status of union X." 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 35 2046 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I might point out at the time the case was certified to the Board neither local 44 nor the producers had filed a petition for certification. It is to be noted that this policy is to be applied whether or not there has been an NLRB certification and even where a competing union is pressing its might be assigned and, as we have found, an assignment was actually made to local 1421. The producers also continued to deal with local 1421 and even now claim. The mere fact that local 1421 received bargaining rights by assignment would not aitpear to be a valid reason for not applying this policy in the instant case, nor to override the presumption that local 1421 has the bargaining rights. The producers by contract recognized the society as having exclusive bar- gaining rights for interior decorators and by contract agreed that these rights majority of the interior decorators. As held by the Regional War Labor Board in the case of Spicer Manufacturinff Corporation ( Case No. 111-4472-D ) : "We could scarcely subscribe to the principle that the bare act of affiliation of an independent union with a national labor organization constituted such a change in the organization as to deprive it of the benefit of concessions pre- viously obtained in the course of collective bargaining." Further support for this view is to be found in the case of Northern Indiana Brass Co. (20 W. L. B. 119) , to the effect that— "If a mere change in national affiliation or, by analogy, a change in name, were to be considered a sufficient reason for breaking off contractual negotiations, untold confusion and delay might result in American labor relations with grave consequences for the effective prosecution of the war." Nor will the mere unsupported claim by employers or by a rival union that the union in question no longer represents a majority of employees in an appropriate unit rebut this presumption, for the reason that : "A bare assertion that a union, previously certified by the NLRB, has lost its majority status, will not persuade the WLB to deny to the union the bene- fits of certification. Substantial evidence must demonstrate in each case that events occurring since NLRB certification have been of so compelling a char- acter that opportunity to seek a redetermination of the question should not be foreclosed." Chicago Transformer Company (14 W. L. R. 666). The conclusion is thus reached that the producers and local 1421 should continue to work under the terms and conditions of the contract of May 3, 1942, and should continue to negotiate either amendments to that contract or, if pro- ducers are willing, an entire new agreement and that these conditions should continue until anj" question of representation that may exist is determined by the NLRB. In so holding, the War Labor Board is not invading the province of the NLRB. Rather, any question of representation is reserved for exclusive decision by that Board. The War Labor Board is doing no more than applying its usual policy in jurisdictional disputes of preserving the status quo pending final determination of any question of representation by the NLRB. A further reason for applying a status quo policy in this case is that there appears to be a conflict between the two locals over the scope of their charters, which can only be resolved within the AFL. In order to fulfill the responsibility of the War Labor Board in disputes threatening to interfere with work connected with the war effort, it is necessary that the public interests be protected by directing the parties to maintain the status quo until a decision on iiny question of representation can be made by the NLRB or until the question of conflicting jurisdiction can be resolved within the AFL. As held by the War Labor Board in the Chicago Transformer case (14 W. L. R., 666) : "If it is proper to order the unions to refrain from exercising their right to strike, and we entertain no doubt that it is, we think that it is equally proper to order an employer to refrain from exercising his right to refuse to continue collective-bargaining relations with a union in circumstances such as we have here." AWAKD 1. In view of the past history of collective bargaining involving interior deco- rators between the producers and local 1421, including the transfer to local 1421 of the bargaining rights for such employees from the Society of Motion Picture MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2047 Interior Decorators pursuant to its contract witli tlie producers dated May 3, 1942, tlie producers and local 1421 shall proceed to operate under the terras of said contracts and to negotiate either amendments to that contract or, if the producers are willing, an entire new contract including interior decorators with other groups represented by local 1421. 2. These conditions shall continue until either : (a) The contract of May 3, 1942, together with any amendments agreed upon, or any agreement negotiated to supersede said contract has expired in accordance with its terms ; or (&) In the event of disagreement over the terms of such amendments or agree- ment until the National War Labor Board has decided such t6rms and until such conti'act has then expired in accordance with its terms; or (c) In the event that the National Labor Relations Board should assume juris- diction to determine any question of representation, until a final determination is made by such Board of a different bargaining agency or unit ; or (d) Until, the conflict in jurisdiction between local 1421 and local 44 is re- (Solved within the organization of the AFL; or (e) Until the further order of the National War Labor Board. 3. It is understood that this award is without prejudice to the rights of either the producers, local 44, or local 1421 to petition the National Labor Relations Board to determine any question of representation that may exist nor to the rights of either union to request the AFL to determine the conflicting claims of jurisdiction, but is solely an award to preserve the status quo in the public interest unless and until such a final determination is made of this controversy. Thomas H. Tongue, Arbitrator. ]Mr. Kearns. Well, when you are all through with that you are right back where you started from, is that right ? Mr. BoDLE. No ; I wouldn't say so. I don't know what you mean by just right back where you started from. Mr. IvEARNS. Well, you still have to go before the Labor Board to make any decision on it. They were merely establishing the valid phase of the contract as having existed. Mr. BoDLE. No ; that is not correct. The award says that pending the determination of any question of representation the producers shall recognize local 1421 as the assignee of the rights of the society under the contract between the society and the producers, and shall bargain with local 1421 on behalf of the set decorators. That was all 1421 was actually requesting, that the producers bargain with it as the representative of the set decorators under the contract. Tongue in his award ordered the producers to do that, on his au- thority as an arbitrator appointed under the National War Labor Board procedure. The producers refused to do that. They are the ones — and that is certainly contrary to the testimon}^ that has been given up to now — who followed the War Labor Board decision and are actually the moving parties in bringing about the strike which subsequently oc- curretl. Mr. Kearxs. What you are trying to establish here definitely is that the 1942 contract which had a tenure of 5 years to run, was not kept, is that it? Mr. Bodle. That is right. Tongue decides as a legal matter that because the producers failed to cancel the contract when they were notifiecl of the change of affiliation, that they were bound to accept local 1421 as the collective-bargaining representative of the set deco- rators. He ordered them to do that. It was tlie failure of the pro- ducers to conform to the order of the National War Labor Board that precipitated the strike. 2048 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Sorrell was there and I was not, but he has ah-eady testified to that effect. I might say one other thing. There was here an obligation on the part of the producers and the lA to comply with the order of the Na- tional War Labor Board. There was further an obligation on the part of the producers under the National Labor Relations Board to bargain with the organiza- tion which represented the majority of their employees in an appro- j)riate unit. When they finally concluded the NLRB proceeding, you will see from the record of ballots cast, that I think every single one of the set decorators employed by the studios at the time of this War Labor Board proceeding were members of local 1421, had designated it as their collective-bargaining agent, and voted for it when the ulti- mate NLRB election was held. So the producers were subject to two responsibilities, both of which they failed to live up to, the responsibility under the Wagner Act to bargain with the representatives of a majority of their men — because there was never any dispute but that 1421 represented a majority. Tongue makes reference to that at two or three places in his award. When the election finally occurred it was conclusively proved be^ cause all the men who had gone out on strike, who were the employed set decorators at the time of this hearing, voted for 1421. Mr. Landis. When was that election held finally? Mr. BoDLE. It was held sometime prior to June 12, 1945, a few days prior to that — here it is, May 24, 1945. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Sorrell, you stated this morning this was the only contract the CSU ever had with the producers, is that right? Mr. Sorrell. What was the only contract ? Mr. Kearns. This was the onlj^ recognized contract you ever had with the producers. Mr. Landis. Since 1942. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. Sorrell. We haven't had any kind of contract with the pro- ducers since 1942, except the interim agreement which we- obtained by going on strike in 1946. What I testified to was that the producers continuously held us all out. They dealt with the lATSE, signed contracts with the lATSE, but did not sign contracts with the CSU, and kept us off balance all the time by claiming somebody was asking for jurisdiction. In other words, they tied us up on jurisdictional arguments so that we could not have contracts. It is very nice to say that this is a jurisdictional "beef" and thousands of men go out on strike, but those men went out on strike l:)ecause they knew that they had no contracts, and that due to a smoke screen of jurisdictional troubles which was put on by the lATSE and the mo- tion-picture producers to hide the fact that we were working without contracts. Mr. Landis. This was a 5-year contract? Mr. Sorrell. This 5-year contract mentioned here was a contract the producers made in 1942 with the society, with an independent group of people. That independent group of people joined with the screen-set designers. So that you will understand that more specifically, a set decorator is a man who studies periods of furniture, periods of arcliitecture, MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2049" knows what kinds of rugs go in certain kinds of castles, what kinds of furnishings go in certain kinds of homes, and so on. He is in a wjiy an artist. He works out of the art department. He comes in contact with the art director, the set designer, the illustrator, et cetera. Often in decorating a set he cannot find the type of furniture that is needed to depict the time and mode of decoration that is needed, so he scours the city, and if he still cannot find what he wants he gets together with an illustrator, roughly draws out what he wants, and gets it made. That is, it is sometimes necessary to make the furniture or the dressings of the set. He does no actual w^ork. He does not move a chair. He is not a manual laborer in any way.* Now the lATSE propmen handle all the furniture but the decorators study the script and take care of the decorating of the sets. That is why he wished to join the organization which had the other artists, draftsmen, and so forth, that he worked with. Now he had a 5-year contract which stated that if he joined a national organization or another organization, the producers had the right to either cancel the contract with him or insert the name of the new organization he had joined. Mr. Kearns. Or negotiate for a new contract? Mr. SoRRELL. That is right; but the producers did not do that. They went along with us. They paid dues for many months. The business representative of the set designers ironed out problems in the studios, and we had no idea for many months that there was going to be objection. But when our contracts ran out and it came time for us to write more contracts we were unable to do it because the producer said, "Establish that these people belong to you ; the lATSE won't let us sign these contracts with you." Mr. Laxdis. Did they belong to the lATSE ? Mr. SoRRELL. No. Mr. Landis. What did they belong to? Mr. SoRRELL. They belonged to local 1421. As a body they had joined local 1421. Now some of them had been prop handlers, so to speak, doing manual work and still carried a card in the lATSE. That is, there were enough names so that they could get — I don't know whether it was 3 percent, 10 percent, or something like that — to file intervener to stop the National Labor Relations Board from handling the case because the two unions belonged to the A. F. of L. Do I make myself clear ? Mr. Landis. They did not belong to the I A ? Mr. SoRRELL. No. Mr. Laxdis. That is the point I was trying to make. Mr. SoRRELL. No. I don't think the record will show that this group of men ever belonged to the lATSE. Mr. Kearxs. But still you will have to admit the producer had the right to deal with them, that they could be affiliated with whomever thev wanted ? Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. The producer had the right to cancel the contract, insert the name of the new organization, or write a new contract. The producer didn't do any of these things. He just refused to bargain. 2050 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Did he refuse to bargain or didn't he know just where the recognition should go at that time ? Mr. SoRRELL. Well, he said we don't know who to recognize, the lA claims it. Mr. KearjSts. Then it gets back to that again, doesn't it — recog- nition ? Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. So the lA said, "For every man you have on your pay roll we will furnish you a card with his authoriza- tion, and make it fast and snappy." They said, "No; you must be certified." So we filed for certification. THen there was an intervener filed by local 44 of the lATSE which automatically tied it up. Then there was one more way out. We asked the producer to file. He refused to file. In refusing to file he had us hog-tied. Mr. Kearns. Well, he was all right there. Mr. SoRRELL. Sure he was all right, but— — Mr. Kearns. It was still an A. F. of L. fight? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes, but he said, "We don't take any part in it, you just figure it out your own way. We just won't bargain." So consequently we did not bargain, we waited. Then the set decorators themselves pulled a strike which looked like it would spread. Mr. Kearns. You did not have anything to do Avith that? Mr. SoRRELL. No ; the only thing I had to clo with it was to get them back to work. AVhen Gene L. Green sent me a telegram stating if I would get the people back to work the War Labor Board would assume jurisdiction — that telegra.m was read into the record here this after- noon— I immediately sent him a wire saying, "I will get everybody back to work." Then I bombarded him with Avii-es, "Now I have done my part, you do your part." Eventually Thomas Tongue was appointed and I figured that as loyal American citizens and since our officers had taken an oath not to strike and since the employers had taken an oath to live up to the AVar Labor Board decisions, that that ended it. But it did not. Mr. Kearns. The producer did not know, with regard to whom he recognized, whether he was going to have production or not ? Mr. Sorrell. Had the producer followed the dictates of the War Labor Board as we all agreed to do, it was a closed instance because the lATSE voiced themselves, were quite willing to go along. I will illus- trate that a little bit later, I will tell you now when the vote came — now I am getting ahead of myself. I will wait until we get into the NLRB. I have some things to explain there. There was never any doubt where these people be- longed. There was never any doubt who thev would A'ote for. The only doubt was that the producer used them to hold us up and keep us from signing new agreements, to keep us in turmoil and try to destroy the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. Landis. Was that a slow period of work at that time? Mr. Sorrell. No, sir. All during the war, believe me, we had a 6- hour day in most of the crafts. All crafts worked 8 hours for 9 hours' pay. They worked 6 days a week and they worked continuously ; no- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2051 body lost any time (liirino- the -war. The studios run full blast. There was no let-up at all. They did not have the foreio-n market then; they did not need it; they had the American market. They made picures, made money and they did not have to depend on the 75 percent from England, France, Italy, and those places. That didn't slow them down at all. Mr. Kearxs. This 1942 contract changed the picture, though, after that of the unions out in Hollvwood, did it not? Mr. SoRRELL. The 1942 contract? Mr. Kearxs. Yes, the one here that had 5 years to go, the one you were just talking about. ]Mr. SoRREi.L. That was a contract by an independent union. Mr. Kearxs. That is right, but it changed the whole picture there because they did not have to bargain with them, they decided they would not recognize them, is that right ? Mr. SoRRELL. It didn't change the picture. They decided they would not bargain with us for those people. Mr. Kearxs. Well, it seems to have changed your picture. Mr. SoRRELL. As we are trying to show you, we tried from 1943, 1944, 1945, to get a new contract. AVe could not get a new contract. Mr. Kearx'S. You never did get it, did you ? ]Mr. SoRRELL. We never did get a new conti-act. We got an interim contract, an interim agreement on July 2, 1946. There will be more about that as we go along. You will see the picture as it unfolds. Mr. Kearxs. The decision that ]\Ir. Tongue handed down didn't mean anything anyway, it was not abided by, was it? Mr. SoRRELL. The producers did not abide by the decision, no. Mr. Kearx's. So things went on. Mr. Sorrell. So things went on. Instead of abiding by the decision and appealing to the XLRB, they appealed to the NLKB, they ap- pealed to everything and left us standing without contracts. I think we should go on with the NLRB thing. I am awfully anxious to get the whole story told. I will inject in spots to point up what happened. Mr. BoDLE. I want to comment on one thing. I got the impression you said that what the producer did was all right. Mr. Kearx'S. No. I was just inquiring as to what they did after this was handed down. Mr. BoDLE. There was a contract here. The producer could only do one thing and remain in compliance with his contract. He could either cancel or he could insert the name of local 1421 in the contract. Mr. Kearx'S. Yes. I understand that. Mr. BoDLE. He did neither. Mr. Toitgue held that inasmuch as he had not canceled he was bound to insert the name, so you had a legal obligation here which was violated by the producers. Since there has been so much made of the fact that the conference struck during the war period, I think it ought to be pointed out that an employer or union can violate the no-strike pledge just as fully by refusing to comply with orders of the War Labor Board, and hence precipitate a strike, as he can by engaging in the strike himself. I mean both parties have an obligation. Certainly the producers did not fulfill their obligation here. 2052 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Was 1421 a member of the A. F. of L. ? Mr. BoDLE. A members of the A. F. of L. It was an affiliate of the Brotherhood of Painters and an affiliate of the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. Kearns. Then there is where the producers have a different way of looking at it. Mr. Landis. But it was not mentioned in the 1942 contract? Mr. SoRREix. 1421 wrote their last contract in 1942. Mr. Landis. For 5 years? Mr. SoRRELIi. No. Mr. Landis. For how long? Mr. SoRRELii. Well, it presumably was for a year, it went from year to year. In 1943 we didn't have such good luck. In 1944 we still didn't have any luck because we had the argument about their absorbing the small group called the Screen Set Decoratore Independent. Now the screen set decorators "voted unanimously to join 1421, came over, paid dues and went along for months before they found there was any objection by the producers. It was they who had the 5-year contract and it was that contract that the producers violated by not saying to them, "We tear up your contract or we accept 1421 as your bargaining agent." They accepted it in principle by dealing with the business agent of the 1421 group, then all of a sudden when it came time to sign con- tracts they said, "Your title is clouded to these ]:)eop]e. The lATSE claims them. Go get certified." Mr. Kearns. Was Mr. Casey handling the labor relations? Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Casey was the one who told me to go and get certified. I discussed it with Mr. Casey. I told him it was an outrage. He said, "That's right, but I don't run this, that is orders of the at- torneys and they have to get certified." Every time I would meet him he seemed to have the idea that the attorneys were running the labor relations and that they would say we had to be certified, if we couldn't be certified they could not deal with us and we couldn't get contracts. Mr. Landis. Does that take us up to the election of May or not ? Mr. Sorreij:.. That takes us up to the National Labor Relations Board. I think I should sfo on a little bit there because it was while we were in the National Labor Relations Board hearings that we finally went on strike. I was on the stand just before the strike started. While I was on the stand I asked everyone there. "Look, what good is this? We are going to live up to whatever any Government agency said, we always have. But it seems the painters are the only ones who are willing to live up to anything." Up to date the lATSE had not made it clear whether they would or would not abide by the dicision of the National Labor Relations Board. So I said, "I want to know now. if anyone here is going to abide by this decision or is this just another stall?" I could get no answer from anyone. The business representatives and the committee from 1421 went back and told their people and their was no holding them thereafter. The strike started. ]MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2053 The National Labor Relations Board then took up the matter. There was a decision by the local regional director, Stewart Meacham. I would like to have you hear that decision. Mr. BoDLE. The Board issued a direction of election and the election was held. I think all the ballots cast by either side were challenged by the other, so this is the report on challenges of Stewart Meacham, regional director, twenty-first region, National Labor Relations Board : Case No. 21-RE-20 et al. In the Matter of Columbia Pictures Corp. ; Loew's Inc. ; Param'ount Pictures, Inc. ; RKO-Radio Pictures, Inc. ; Republic Productions, Inc. ; Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., Ltd. ; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. ; Universal Pictures Co., Inc. ; and Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. ; and Screen Set Designers, Illustrators and Deco- i-ators. Local 1421, AFL ; and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em- Bloyees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 44, AFL The report on challenges is dated June 12, 1945. I am not going to read all of this, Mr. Chairman, but some of it is pertinent. On May 7, 1945, the National Labor Relations Board directed an election by secret baUot to be held within 30 days among the set decorators of the above- mentioned companies. The Board directed that both the set decorators who struck on March 12, and replacement workers would be "presumptively eligible to vote, subject to the right of challenge." On May 24, 1945, the election was held and 112 ballots were cast. All were challenged. Sixty-one ballots were challenged by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 44, AFL. hereinafter called the lATSE, and the employers listed aliove, hereinafter called the producers. Fifty ballots were challenged by Screen Set Designers, Illustrators and Decorators, Local 1421, affiiated with the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers, of America, AFL, hereinafter called Local 1421. A tally of ballots was issued on May 24, 1945. BALLOTS CHALLENGED BY THE PRODXJCEBS AND THE lATSE TJie producers and the lATSB challenged the following 52 employees whom they agreed were employed by the producers as set decorators immediately prior to the strike which began on March 12, 1945. Mr. Kearxs. Is that the number of people who belonged to the local before the strike ? Mr. SoKRELL. That is right. Mr. Kearns. Fifty people? Mr. Sorrell,. No, more people than that belonged to the union, there were 77, but 52 of them worked in the major motion picture studios. Mr. BoDLE. Then follows the list of those employees which I will not read. BASIS OF PKODUCEBS' CHALLENGE The producers challenged the above-named 52 voters on the following grounds : "Vote challenged upon the ground that voter was not an employee during the pay-roll period immediately preceding May 7, 1945." BASIS OF THE lATSE CHALLENGE The lATSE challenged the 52 above-named voters on the following grounds: "1. Was not an employee during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the direction of election Ijy the NLRB — " Then there are certain other grounds such as that they were super- visory employees, had quit or had been discharged, and so forth. 2054 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now with respect to the decision of the regional director. It is under the heading "Background of dispute." In. order to make clear to all concerned the reasons for the recommendations which will appear below, we are setting forth herein a short review of the events which lead to the dispute concerning the set decorators. This summary is based in part on the information developed by the hearings conducted by both the War Labor Board arbitrator, Thomas H. Tongue, and National Labor Relations Board Trial Examiner, Maurice J. Nicoson. Then the pertinent provisions of the contract between the Society of Motion Picture Interior Decorators and Producers is set forth. I have ah^eady read those into the record. Then Mr. Meacham follows generally the outline of Mr. Tongue's award in setting forth the facts. I am not going to read that again be- cause it is already in the record. On December 7, 1944, local 1421 filed a strike notice in accordance with the provisions of the War Labor Disputes Act. On January 6, 1945, a strike vote was conducted among all of the employees of the producers over whom local 1421 claimed jurisdiction, including set decora- tors. The overwhelming majority of the voters voted in favor of permitting an interruption of work. On February 17, 1943, a War Labor Board arbitrator, Thomas H. Tongue, issued his award in which he held as follows — Then there is a quotation from the award in which Mr. Tongue stated that the producers and local 1421 "shall proceed to operate under the terms of the contract" between the society and the producers, and that these conditions shall continue until the contract of May 3, 1942 — that is the society contract — shall have expired in accordance with its terms, or in the event that the National Labor Relations Board should assume jurisdiction to determine any question of rep- resentation, until a final determination is made by such board of a diiferent bargaining agency or unit. Then Mr. Meacham goes on : On February 26, 1945, the producers filed a petition witli the War Labor Board for a review of the award, asking the War Labor Board to set the award aside and requesting the War Labor Board to order the lATSE and local 1421 to join the producers in requesting the National Labor Relations Board to resolve the question of representation. On February 27, 1945, the petition in the instant case was filed by the producers. Mr. Sorrell has already testified the producers were requested earlier to file such a petition, but never did. On March 7, the hearing in the above-captioned case began before Trial Ex- aminer Maurice J. Nicoson. On March 12, local 1421 went out on strike. Numerous other employees in- cluding carpenters, electricians, machinists, painters, refused to go through the picket line and joined the strike. On April 4, 1945, producers notified each of the set decorators who were on strike that "You are hereby notified that your employment is terminated. Such action was taken because of your failure to report for work, and perform services in accordance with your obligation so to do." RECOMMENDATION REGARDING. BALLOTS CHALLENGED BY THE PRODUCERS AND THE lATSE Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act states : "The term 'employee' shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the act explicitly states other- wise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agri- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIOlSrAL DISPUTES 2055 cultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse." Basing itself on this clear statement of the act, the Board has consistently held that strikers are employees and entitled to vote in elections held during the pendency of the strike. Thus, in A. Sartorious Co., Inc., 9 NLKB 19, the Board held that : ."Since the employees who were out on the strike which was current at the time of the hearing have continued to be employees of the company within the meaning of section 2 (3) of the act, they must be counted as employees in the appropriate unit." Then follows a series of case citations with some discussion. In the instant case, there is no showing that the employees failed scrupulously to observe all of the terms of their contract so far as affiliation with another labor organization was concerned. It was the producers and not the employees who failed to observe these provisions. This failure persisted over a long period of time and in the face of repeated importunities by the employees. It even persisted beyond and in spite of the recommendation of the War Labor Board arbitrator. It was marked by a belated contention on the part of the producers that a question of representation existed and a still more belated filing of an employers petition for determination and certification of collective bargaining agent. It was only after this lengthy process that the strike occurred, which the producers now claim breached the same contract, which they themselves had refused to observe and despite which they successfully contended the existence of a question affecting representation. In brief, it seems to the undersigned that the only relationship between the Sands case and this instant matter is that in each a clear contractual obligation was breached by a party to the contract. In Sands, the defaulting party was the union. In the instant case, it ^^ as the producers. We do not mean to imply here that the producers were in error in their refusal to observe the contract and in their contention that a question affecting representation existed. We are con- cerned simply with the effect of the producers' conduct on the contract. Whether that conduct was thoroughly jjroper is not the question. The question rather is whether, despite the producers' conduct in breaching one part of the contract, the employees were still bound to consider themselves obligated under other pro- visions of the contract. Thei-e is certainly nothing in the Sands case to cause one to reach such a conclusion. Neither does it seem to the undersigned to be a posi- tion consistent with the general equities. We are not impressed by the producers' argument that the employees, faced with a refusal of the companies to observe the contract respecting affiliation with another labor organization, failed to invoke the arbitration machinery set forth in section 9 of the contract. If, as the producers have elsewhere asserted, and as the National Labor Relations Board has found, the change in affiliation was matrix to a question concerning representation no arbitration board set up vmder the contract could resolve the issue. This could only be done by the National Labor Relations Board. That the employees were willing to arbitrate and that the producers were not is strongly indicated by the conduct of each with respect to AYar Labor Board Arbitrator Tongue. If this contention has any point at all, it is rather that employees should not strike where adequate relief is available under the representation machineiy of the National Labor Relations Board. With this we readily agree. However, we are not aware of any ground for contending that a failure to so conduct themselves may render employees subject to legal discharge. The clear language of section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act would lead to the exactly opposite conclusion. Mr. Landis. How could you have arbitration if the producers did not agree to arbitrate? Mr. BoDLE. Well, the producers apparently made the point in the proceedino- before the National Labor Relations Board that under the contract with the society there was provision for arbitration of grievances. Mr. Meacham's point is that assuming there were, it was only for the arbitration of grievances and could itot resolve a question of representation. Now if you have reference to the Tongue arbitration — is that what you had reference to ? 2056 MOTION-PICTURE J^TRISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Landis. That was it. Mr. BoDLE. Mr. Tongue in his award pointed out that an agreement had been reached with the A. F. of L. and I presume the CIO, although I don't know, that where jurisdictional disputes arose and they could not be settled within the body of the A. F. of L., then by agreement they would be resubmitted to the War Labor Board which would take such steps as it saw fit, including arbitration, to bring about a resolu- tion of the issue. So Tongue said that this was a voluntary type of arbitration inas- much as the president of the A/ F. of L. had agreed voluntarily that jurisdictional disputes should be arbitrated by the War Labor Board. He proceeded on the basis of that agreement in part, as well as on the powers of the War Labor Board under the relevant statutes of Congress. Mr. Landis. Would you say that the War Labor Board and the National Labor Relations Board gummed up the works? Mr. BoDLE. No ; I wouldn't say so. Mr. Landis. That they were too slow in acting ? Mr. BoDLE. I would say the producers gummed up the works when they did not abide by the ruling of the War Labor Board. After all, this was wartime. Presumably the War Labor Board had jurisdic- tion. It made a specific finding that it did have jurisdiction. You would have expected that persons who claimed to be patriotic would have observed its rulings, but they didn't. Mr. SoRRELL. Could I say something here? Congressman, you understand that labor took a pledge not to strike. Mr. Landis. That is right. Mr. SoRRELL. But when they did that they realized that to do that without any strings on it meant there were no unions left, because in many cases they would be dissolved because they had taken a pledge not to strike. But to get that pledge the War Labor Board was put in effect. Be- fore striking everything was to be submitted to the War Labor Board. That was the reason for the War Labor Board during the war. Now here was a case where you couldn't hold the people, but a wire from the War Labor Board immediately put everybody back to work and they would resign the case, they would complete it. They completed it, but the producers were not patriotic enough to live up to the War Labor's Board's findings. The lATSE, who screams "We are the patriotic people," said, "No, you can't live up to it." The producers said, "We are in the middle." We said, "What do we do, lay down and die, or fight?" So we were forced to strike. There wasn't any other way around it. As he gets a little further into the National Labor Relations Board issue here I will tell you more about that. That is quite deep. Then we begin to expose some of the people that I told you we would in high Government positions. Mr. BoDLE. Then follows a discussion of some cases. Then Mr. Meacham says : The set decorators did not strike because the producers refused to change provisions of a contract. They struck because the producers refused to act in conformity with a clear provision of the contract. Also it is apparent that the court, in Columbia Enameling considered significant the fact that the strike MOTIOl^-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2057 occurred prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. That circum- stance is absent here. In the instant case, the set decorators did not strike to force the employer to violate any laws, but, on the contrary, went out on strike only after the producers refused to abide by the award of the WLB arbitrator. The producers further state that the discharge of the strikers was lawful and the strikers are no longer employees because the employees struck in violation of the War Labor Disputes Act. The undersigned does not know in what manner the producers claim employees have violated the War Labor Disputes Act, for on January 6, 1945, a strike vote was held in accordance with the War Labor Disputes Act. . The producers further allege that the discharge of the strikers was lawful inasmuch as the strikers ignored the orders of the tenth regional War Labor Board and the National War Labor Board to return to work and, further, because this strike is in violation of the no-strike pledge made by the president of the American Federation of Labor. By these contentions the producers are request- ing the Board to extend the doctrine enunciated in the American News case so as to remove from the realm of protected concerted activities any strike of a union affiliated with the AFL, and/or any strike continued after an order by the War Labor Board directing strikers to return to work. The Board has given no indication that it contemplates such an extension. The undersigned, therefore, recommends that the challenge of the producers and the lATSE of the ballots of all employees listed on page 2 of this report, ex- cepting Charles C. Nields only, be overruled, and that the undersigned be directed to open and count these ballots. SUMMARY OF KECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the challenges affecting 54 persons, i. e., all of the strikers, plus Gleason, Spencer, and Boltz, be denied and their ballots considered valid. It is further recommended that the challenges affecting Nields, Clifford, Conway, and so forth, be sustained. This leaves 50 replacement workers con- cerning whose ballots no recommendation can be made without formal hearing to determine facts. It is possible that the 54 ballots considered valid could decide the election regardless of the 50 remaining possibly valid ballots. There is little likelihood that the present strike can be settled until after the result of this election is established. If it is necessary to defer establishment of results until a hearing on challenges is held the prospect of an early strike settlement is dis- astrously impaired. The undersigned therefore recommends that the 54 ballots considered valid be opened immediately and counted. If they establish a decisive result regard- less of the 50 ballots considered possibly valid an appropriate certification or order of the Board may issue without delay. As I iinderstand it, tlie recommendation of the regional director was adopted. The 54 ballots of the striking- set decorators were opened. A count of these indicated that a- majority of the men involved Mr. SoBRELL, I do not think yon are right. Mr. BoDLE. I am sorry. Mr. SoRRELL. You better let me carry it there. I was there. Mr. Kearns. Let us take a 5-minute recess. (A short recess was taken.) Mr. Ivearns. The hearing will come to order, please. Let us proceed. Mv. SoRRELL. I don't remember the exact figures, but I remember when the votes were taken I looked over the people who voted, and saw some people that I recognized from the studios. I made the mistake of saying, "Here is the first scab ballot." That was a mistake because I looked up and I looked right into the eyes of a friend. Now, you will understand that local 44, who presumably was asking for these people, did not want these people. They did not want the set decorators. They didn't want any trouble with them, only the lATSE International wanted the set decorators. 2058 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES It was voiced later in their meetings that they didn't want to have any part of it, they didn't desire these people. But replacements were hired. It was a very peculiar group of people that was hired to take the place of these highly educated set decorators. There was one case of Miss Hansert, who was the wife of an ap- pointed business agent over one of the locals to do Work that was ordinarily done by CSU members. His wife took a job at $130 a week as a set decorator. Shoe clerks took jobs. There were salesmen and people from — oh, even housewives had put iji their names and took these jobs as set decorators. At some of the studios they made the mistake of taking a few lATSE people who had worked with. the set decorators, handling the furniture, and so forth, and elevating them to a set decorator's salary. That meant they put on a collar and tie, quit work, and drew $130"a week instead of the 60 or 70 they had been getting. Some of these people refused to take the job, but some took the job and in the case of four or five they contacted me and said. "I am being a 'fink', but I am true to you. I might as well hold this job until a man who is capable of taking it comes back to work, because I won't keep the joli after he comes back, and should there be a vote or any- thing of that kind, I would vote for you people, because I realize I am only acting as a strike-breaker and will be eliminated eventually anyhow." It turned out it Avas a long time before these votes were counted. There were watchers there. I was one for the CSU. We all signed across all the envelopes after they Avere sealed. We sealed up tlie ballots and put them away in a safety-deposit box. Tlien they brought in a man by the name of Denham to act as trial examiner. I got reports that it was all in the bag now, that Denham would handle everything for the producers and everything would be all right. I visited the hearings. I don't know where the transcript is, but I think we should try to get that and put it in evidence because it brings out the background of all these people. Some of the people were fired for stealing. They lost the $130 a week job, because they not only took the $130, but they stole everything they could get their hands on. This was brought out in that hearing. If it is possible for me to get that hearing transcript I think it should be in this record. Mr. Landis. What is Mr. Denham's first name ? Mr. SoRRELL. I don't know, but it is the Mr. Denham who is now the head of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Kearns. Chief counsel. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. He is in the pockets of the motion- picture producers, I was told. Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order at this point '( Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. ZoRN. We are having too much character assassination without proof here. Mr. SoRRf:Li.. Well, wait, I am not through yet, I will tell you some more. Mr. Kearns. Go ahead. Mr. Sorrell. We knew what was happening with ]VIr. Denham, we knew what kind of a deal we were getting, but after all there are three MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2059 members on the board, at least three, maybe more, because I was not there. Among them were Mr. Easton, ]\Ir. liilej', Mr. Millets. We have friends that work around that board. They kept in touch with us and told us what was happening. Mr. Benjamin was sent to the board by the producers — although they are in the middle they are very much interested in this, so they sent Mr. Benjamin there and he makes a lot of contacts. We have that, and we know considerably about it. We did not do anything about it because we were busy in the strike until we got word that there was now a decision being mimeographed "v.hich did not allow any of the set decorators to vote, but only allowed the replacements to vote. Mr. IvEARNS. The ones who were out on strike could not vote? Mr. SoRRELL. The ones who were out on strike could not vote at all, but the people who had been put in their place would be the only people to vote. We couldn't win on that kind of a iieal. I immediately called our attorney. I told him a few things I knew. He knew some of these things, too, and they called the board together. Xow, I am stating this from memory and I don't know which was which, but Mr. Huston and Mr. Eiley, I believe it was, one admitted that he had large stockholdings in a theatrical chain; the other was a trustee for a chain of theaters, or something of that kind. They were asked why they didn't disqualify themselves. There was a quick meeting held. I also contacted Ellis Patterson, Helen Gahagan Douglas, and I can't think of all the Congressmen and Congresswomen. It seemed there was a calling together of the attor- neys, there was a sit-down and a confab. The attorney who attended tliat meeting has been ducking me. I can't get him. I went to New York to see him and he goes to Washington. I come to Washington and he goes to New York, but this is a fact. They admitted they should have disqualified themselves. But there was some kind of a deal cooked up there whereby every- body would get a chance to vote. That is all we wanted, because we knew that 100 percent of our people would vote for 1421. We knew the lATSE had no one. We also knew that a few of the lATSE people themselves would vote for us because they had said they would, and they did. I think that the record will show that out of about 50 replacement votes, only 45 of them voted for their own jobs. Five of those replace- ments voted for us. Consequently we not only won the election 100 percent, we won it by about 110 or 115 percent; in spite of all the conspiring and manipulat- iug of the producers and the lATSE to destroy us, we still won it. That didn't settle the strike. It is one thing to win a thing legally, it is another thing to actually obtain it. The strike went merrily along. You first have to win in courts, then you have to win in public opinion, and then Lord knows where else you have to go, but eventually under our present form of govermnent, you get justice. It has been stated here how the peo]:)le at Warner Bros, refused to go to work at Warner Bros, any more because of the demonstration we put on there and because of the demonstration of malice and cruelty that the Warner Bros, people used against our people, and they were tied up. They were anxious to get their studios open. 2060 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES That was what brought on the Cincinnati agreement. After the Cincinnati agreement Avas reached, I didn't feel com- pletely satisfied that everytliing was all right, but I am the kind of a guy who looks at things as they are. I said to everyone I spoke to, "I believe the rest of the differences can be patched up." I soon found that they couldn't be i)atched up so easil}^ because in the first place the very first move of the producers was to keep the people on the pay roll and advertise that they were keeping the people on the pay rol] for a couple of months because Mr. Walsh said they had to. But why did they insist on keeping people on the pay roll who were not members of Mr. Walsh's union? They kept office workers and people who had never joined the I A union on the pay roll also, not only for the 2 months, but they kept those people on the pay roll until we were forced out on September 23, 1946. They did no work, but they continued to come and get paid. I was talking to Arthur- Unger during this period when our people were working. I said, "Arthur, you haven't given us very good publicity; I haven't had time to see you and ask you about it, but it seems to me that you are letting me down a little bit." He said, "No, no ; 1 go along with you all I can." He said, "After all, you know I've got a business that I've got to run." I said, "You didn't think we'd win that, did you ?" He said. "You didn't win anything. You don't know it, but you didn't win anything, That is just a temporary lull." I talked to Ralph Roddy who was the reporter for Unger, and asked him, "Does Unger put the pressure on you not to give the news exactly straight?" Ancl he said, "Unger thinks it is only a matter of time until they will destroy your unions anyhow." I would like to get Unger on the stand under oath and ask him some very embarrassing questions, and believe me, it isn't because I want to hurt Arthur Unger, because I like Arthur Uhger because of the stand he took against Bioff. Later, Ralph Roddy had to quit the Variety. If this thing goes further it will be very interesting to have Mr. Roddy on the stand and ask him some questions about what he knows about the conspiracy betw^een the producers and the lATSE. Mr. Landis. Who was he? Mr. SoRRELL. Ralph Roddy was a reporter for the Variety. He is now working for the central labor council putting out this Los Angeles Citizen that Bizzell used to put out. Now, the next move that was made has been brought out here by the machinists. In spit of the sanctity of the award that was written, the first local to be destroyed was the office workers, which didn't mean so much to us and didn't throw us out. because they had to be trans- ferred anyhow from the painters to the office workers' new inter- national. The next move was to destroy the machinists. I called Eric Johnston. I had talked to Eric Johnston before and I had come to like Eric Johnston because he has ideas according to mine, the same as mine, about labor relations. I think I should drop back and mention that in 1945 just before the Cincinnati agreement, Johnston and I had many hours of talk together. I felt that there was a new era in labor relations coming in when Johnston came in, and I feel that today if any honest man MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2061 such as Johnston, such as Pat Case.y, such as Eddie Mannix, who cuts my throat, but is honest — if any one of those fellows were given full power .that the labor relations in Hollywood would be completely different. Mr. Landis. You would say Pat Casey didn't have full power? Mr. SoRRELL. I don't think Pat Casey had full power because Pat is a sort of driving personality. When he has the power to make a deal he makes a deal, but I think from 1942 on he was handicapped. He always said it was the lawyers, but I think I know who it was. I don't want to make any allegations here that I can't back up, because I expect to be cross-examined, and I expect to be able to answer every- thing that I have said here. I remember Eric and I sat down in the Ambassador Hotel and dis- cussed the situation. He said to me, "I took this job not for the money that it pays, but because I think I can be of more help to other human beings in this job than any other job that I could work at." He said, "I visited Russia and while in Russia I talked to Russians. They didn't know Tom, Dick, or Harry, they only knew Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and every motion-picture star you mentioned they said, 'Ah.' " "Now," he said, ""that is the biggest propaganda in the world. The motion picture can be spread all over the world to spread the American way of life, and in order to make it positive we must have the best labor relations where the pictures are made, or it won't click, and we certainly have the worst now." Now, in talking to a man like that you would think, "Here comes Utopia." I believe that if Eric Johnston had the power, if they wouldn't handcuff him, he could clean the situation up. I discussed the threat of the lATSE. I told him the whole story that they would say one word, the producers would fall in with them, and I said, "It is nice to see that somebody has so much power that they will do this or that, but it is not nice when you have to violate the law of the land to abide by decisions that are apparently made and handed to you as threats." He told me that he was not afraid of the projectionists throughout the country going out, but that he realized he had to get along with the lATSE also, because they could harass him to death and hurt the pro- gram which he had outlined himself for decent labor relations by pull- ing little quickie strikes all over the country, in Timbuctoo, Chicago, Birmingham, and some other place; they could cause him a lot of trouble and he would like to settle it on a friendly basis if possible, and that he was going to make every move to do it that way. When the machinists were first moved in, I mean, the replacement machinists who were moved out to make room for the legitimate machinists who had worked in the motion-picture industry — and I have heard it testified here there were 40, but they moved in 125 — I was tipped off — and I don't want to disclose the person's name, but I will when the time comes, if we ever get to where an indictment is issued against these producers for conspiracy, then I will have to ex- })lain a lot of things — that the machinists' union was to be destroyed. Next would be the carpenters' union. They would destroy the car- penters' union by increasing the set erectors to enough men to take over the carpenters' work in case they got out of line, to the effect that 67383 — 48— vol. 3 36 2U62 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES they would like to move in without any strike or demonstration of a stoppage of work. We noticed that particularly the set erectors who were supposed to erect sets suddenly became stairbuilclers, suddenly became this, that and the other thing until the carpenters almost couldn't go on a stage. This was particularly harassing to the people I represented because thev did not like those undesirable people. The lATSE grips, electricians, and many of the crafts of the lATSE didn't like them either. It wasn't unsual to go on a set and have some lA member call you over and say, "Don't get over there, that is cloudy," we will stay here, but they didn't like those people either. But ithe fact that Hutcheson is supposed to be the big bad wolf is not altogether true, because it was pressure put on him bj^ his people to 7-emove the objectionable people from the jobs that they used to do. Now, when you get down to the man who does the work — and I am not talking about the officers who run around the country and say, "Well, one union man is as good as another, and we take them all in" and all that, that is all right for them. But the men who work.- the men who work shoulder to shoulder, to carry lA cards and car- penter cards, are still good friends. Sometimes they are brothers. Many times father and son, one will be an lA man and the other will be a carpenter or CSU man. They resent the encroachments that have been brought about by top officials of the lATSE in the settlement. Now, we get down to this three-man thing. I have heard a lot about that. You lieard that Mr. Lindelof wrote a letter commending the "three .wise uien", or the three men that made the directive. I want to tell you that I think they did a good job. I will have to explain it this way : Those fellows were in the middle. They were in the middle, and 1 am not just saying they were in the middle. They fried to do an honest job. They gave set erection to the lATSE. I am not so sure but what had I been in their place I would have given set erection to the lATSE also. For years in the studios it had been the carpenters' job to construct sets. For years in the studio it had been tlie grips' job that once a set was constructed to take it apart, put it away, bring it .back and set it up or erect it. Wlien he set it up again he used his hammer and nails and so forth. He erected the set that had been constructed. These fellows went through the studios. I was with them. Had they put it in another way that all construction of sets should be done by carpenters and that only the assemblage of sets should be done by the grips, the carpenters could very well have said, "Well, you can bring it here, but I will drive the nails and I'll put it up, and I'll put the braces on." But that is not what they meant. They meant to assemble them, to bring them, to set them up, to put on the braces, to nail them together and then any trim or millwork the carpenters would do as they had done in the past. Now, to me, the "thi-ee wise men'' — as we call them — did a good job. but the producers did a rotten job of interpretation Avith the help of the lATSE, and I am positive that the committee of three men did not MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2063 mean tliat there should be a new local of set erectors originated, out of the one word "erection'' that they pnt in there. Had the lATSE not brought into being this new classification and had to use the objectionable people to do this work; had they depended on the grips who had always done it before and who had a. deal with the carpenters, there would be no trouble today. But I am positive that the conspiracy between the lATSE and the motion-picture producers existed at that time and exists yet today to destroy the Conference of Studio Unions, to destroy the carpenters, to destroy the machinists, eventually to destroy the painters and put things completely in their own hands. Mr. Landis. Who took over the machinists ? Mr. SoRRELL. The machinists work was being done by a federal union chartered by the American Federation of Labor, called Federal Union No. so and so. Xow, the lATSE had the machinists, but the directive completely eliminated the lATSE from that field, so the people wnth the same business agent, the same man who had been the lATSE business agent applied for the federal charter and he applied for a federal charter reading, "'Cinema Technicians". Now, I talked to George Meany. He told me that he would not issue a charter saying that they were cinema technicians, but that it was the policy of the board, wdierever a charter was asked for machin- ists, to issue a federal charter. So the federal charter he issued was federal charter so and so for machinists in Los Angeles County. That is the ruse that they used to put the people back to work in the studios to violate or to make one of the first violations of this agreement that they claim we are in violation of. I know I am skipping over a lot. I expect Mr. Bodle to read in some more and catch me up here and there, but I am trying to make time. I don't want to stay in Washington all my life. I have an awful nice place that I come from on the west coast where the weather is better and 1 W'Ould like to get back. But there are a number of these things I have to tell, then we will back them up with dates and so forth afterward. Mr, Landis. Have you covered all those Government officials now^? Mr. SoRRELL. Don't you think that is enough ? Mr. Landis. Well, I expected a little more. Mr. SoRRELL. Let me tell you something. I don't want to go too deep in this. I want to go just det- p enough to let you know that there is a conspiracy between Eichard Walsli, Roy Brewer, and some of the major motion picture producers who have lots of money, who ^an plant attorneys here and there who can get things done. A little later I want to show you some more instances of that. Mr. Landis. Was the National Labor Relations Board involved in this with Denham? Mr. SoRREix. Sure. Denliam was a trial examiner with the Board I am just telling you about. I am telling you ; you can check for your- self. I have a lot of witnesses. I don't have to call one. I can call several who will tell you that what I have told you here is the truth about them i)utting it through. And when we finally put the pinchers right down on them, they were biased and prejudiced and did not 2064 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES disqualify themselves ; they called the attorneys together and rewrote the thing. All we asked was an even break. We got it, but by the hair of your head, almost; we just barely got that. Now, you will understand that when the machinists were brought in, these strangers — not strangers, but these objectionable people — were brought in and put right with the machinists themselves, and that was done deliberately to cause trouble. For my part, I say if 3^ou want trouble meet it now ; don't wait. We called a meeting immediately, and my recommendation was for the people to tell the producers to get those objectionable people out of there and go along with the directive they had agreed to go along with, or we would all walk out. The machinists themselves, said, "Look, we are out of the A. F. of L. There may be pressure put on you people to desert us ; let us see if we can't work it out, let us ask them to take it up to the National Labor Relations Board." So as long as the machinists were willing to go along the peaceful road, naturally I would be the last one in the world to say that you shouldn't. So we let it go. I think there were only 25 who went to work the first day just to see how we would take iit, but inside of, I will say, a couple of weeks, there were 125. Then came further pressure by the lATSE representative coming on the stage one day and saying, "The technicolor camera here is being serviced by an lAM member. Unless you put an A. F. of L. federal charter machinist on here we won't turn the cameras." There was a little stoppage — just a little stoppage. The machinist who had been working there for years was fired. That was too much for me. You know, blood is a little thicker than water. I couldn't help it because the machinist wasn't in the A. F. of L., but those machinists there have my sympathy and they are the people I am looking to — the people who have worked there. So I immediately said, "Look, we don't want to paint these techni- color sets if we have to paint them so that an undesirable machinist can work. We just won't paint any more technicolor sets until you jDut the machinists back." What happened ? We were fired. I knew that. I Imew that the tie-up was that close. So painters were fired wherever they wouldn't work. We called a meeting. I don't take drastic action, only temporarily. We called a meeting and got the voice of the people. They were fired all over. We couldn't be right. We had to be wrong. I told Pat Casey, "Look, any time you decide to take this to the Board — and only you can take it and get action — any time you take this to the Board I am ready and willing to send everybody back to work." Well, eventually they decided to leave it in the hands of the National Labor Relations Board and the minute they did we sent the painters back to work. We still did not have a contract. We couldn't get one. This was in June 1946. We had not had a raise. We had had 5 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2065 percent handed to us with no contractual obligations in 1943, I be- lieve— '43 or '44, But we had not had a raise for a long time and living costs were going up. Now, the producers had offered a 10-percent raise and 15 percent for those who worked on a 36-hour week, but the straight hours' pay would be stretched to 40, \^'hich would make really, on the week, an 11-percent raise. Now, it has been testified here that we asked for a 50-percent raise. In one way that is right and in another it is not. We asked the same pay that we had been receiving during the war for 36 hours, that we had been getting for 48 hours. You understand, we had been paid time and a half after 36 hours, so hours worked meant we would get a reduction of hours at the same rate of pay. Of course, we were willing to bargain on that basis. Mr. Landis. Did that give you 8 hours' pay for 6 hours' work ? Mr. SoRRELL. No ; we were getting 9 hours' pay for 8 hours' work. For instance, if a man made $100 a; week, he worked 48 hours. We now wanted liim to go back to the 36 hours and still get the $100, because we had the veterans coming back and we didn't want people laid off. In other words, we wanted to shorten the hours. The producers' counterproposal was a 10-percent raise for those working 40 hours and a 15-percent raise for those working 36, but their hours to be stretched to 40, which amounted, I think, to about 11 percent. We were never able to do anything, because they would holler, "Jurisdiction." So once we got clear of the machinist thing we set a deadline both to the majors and to the independents. We met with two groups of independent producers one day. We came to an agreement with the first group that we should get a 25- percent raise. That was half of what we were asking for. You understand, when people talk business — you might ask a lot, but if they talk business you are ready to do business with them. We came to an agreement on 25 percent, and certain conditions. They offered these conditions and we accepted them and considered it was a great improvement on what we had had, because we said, "That is a 25-percent-per-hour raise, but it is a 25-percent cut because now instead of our men working 48 hours a week, we know that you will only work them 36 hours a week, so their take-home pay will be cut, but their hourly rate will be up, and it will put more rnen to work." But there was one thing we stalled a little bit on. That was that they would have a habit of calling men in after 6 hours, calling addi- tional men, and it would be hard for us to supplj^ them. In order to get over that hump we said, "Now, a man must be guar- anteed a week's work. If j-ou call a man, you must call him for a week. In other words, if the crew has 2 hours' work to do at the end of the day, you can't send the crew home and call in a couple of men to work 6 hours to do that work, and then lay them off, because the goal that we have always tried to attain in the motion-picture studios is steady work. So if it isn't enough to guarantee a man a week, the men working will do the work at overtime." So when we concluded with them we had an agreement which called for a 25-percent hourly raise, but a 25-percent weekly cut, but it would put more men to work and give them more stability. 2066 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES We also guaranteed them that the majors would have to pay as much or more than they. We then wrote a letter to Pat Casey embodying- the whole contract. Rather than write a letter, I believe Vic Clarke, who wrote the minutes, took down verbatim the contract arranged for by the independent studios and submitted it to the lawyers, so to speak. It came back so that you couldn't recognize it. Instead of saying a 25 -percent minimum raise, they had a 25-percent raise with 40-hour people looking toward negotiations, or something. It was the most jumbled mess I ever saw. It didn't mean a thing. That was their counterproposal. I remember we liad a mass meeting called for the Hollywood Legion Stadium. I read it to them and they just booed it all over. That is what started the 1946 2-day strike. It was not jurisdiction. We had put out a notice to the Central Labor Council that eventually we intended to use strike action to get agreements. The next day in the trade papers there was a list of unions saying that they were satis- fied, that we were troublemakers, -and this and that. I think we may be able to produce some of those ads stating tliat they were not be- hind us. Now, that was signed by the lATSE and some of the business agents inthelATSE. It was signed by the culinary workers' international president, and I believe by the actors. We didn't say when we were going to strike. We dicln't give them a deadline. We said, "We would like to have an answer to a letter by a certain date." They took it for granted we were going to strike. Later, Eddie Mannix said we were going to strike, or something, and they put in another ad. Then we put in an ad saying. "Mannix has got the panics; Mannix creates a strike, but we are the people who've got to do it." There was a lot of that horseplay around there, with them trying to make us strike all the time. Now, when we got the interim agreement, it really began to look like we were going to get things settled because, as members of the CSU, when we get an agreement we abide by it. We had that repu- tation. We bend over to make the agreement work. I don't know whether I told this as an example before this com- mittee or not, but there was a time when they used to call our boys out at midnight on Sunday night to do work that should have been done during Sunday in the daylight; but they would call them at midnight because from midnight Saturday night to midnight Sunday night was time and a half, and after that they could call them in for straight time. So a man would fool around all day Sunday, and about the time he would get ready to go to bed he would get a call to work. He would stay up all night Sunday night and work. He would naturally lose Monday. He wouldn't gain anything by it, but he would have his life all upset for the week. It would take him 2 or 3 days to get over having to work all night. We wanted to remedy that. We made an agreement for the painters. This agreement said that overtime should be paid from 12 o'clock midnight Saturday night to the time of the first starting shift on Monday morning. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2067 It worked beautifully. It cut out all this moukey business of being called out at midnight and losing a nighfs sleep. The men would go out and work during Sunday, then they could come home and sleep noi-mally, or they would put off the work until Monday morning. I drew it up, and the way it was written, Pat said, "I'll send it out like that." I said, "Now, you don't send anything out until I read it over at the meeting." So I read it at the meeting. . Everything went along all right until along came a holiday. They called out about 100 or 150 of our people. They all went out at mid- night thinking they would get time and a half. They worked and when pay day came they only got straight time. I was prepared for that because some of them called me on the phone and wanted me to get the extra time they had coming. So at the next meeting the}' took me on. I said, "Yes, I wrote that agreement. I wrote that and I read it and I think there were either 350 or 375 people here when I read it to you. I asked you if it was all right. I am just a dumb painter and I know I can make mistakes, but I wouldn't let Pat send it out until I read it to you. "Now, that day all of you dumb painters came here and heard it. You accepted it and I put it in and nobody said anything about a holi- day, so I didn't put the holidays in. Now all you smart painters come today; you worked a holiday and got paid. You should have been here instead of staying away that day. You got straight time for the holiday and there isn't anything you can do about it. I refuse to make any move about it. When we write another agreement, I will try to put it in." Nothing was done, and there was no trouble had. That is the way our unions work. If we have an agreement we work on it, but we could not get an agreement from 1942 until 1916, and then when we got an interim agreement we had the same trouble completing the agree- ments that we were supposed to complete within the 30 days. They were not sincere. The issuing of the clarification to the directive simply gave the pro- ducers the opportunity to do the thing that they could not force us to do. It gave them the opportunity to have an excuse to fire the people that belonged to our unions and completely cooperate with the lATSE to take the jobs. I am not stopping because I have a lack of things to tell you. There are so manj^ angles to go into I do not know just which avenue to take, I have an abundance of information I would like to give to j^ou, but I do not know which is the most important, which road to enter right now. I have been accused of being a Communist. I want to tell you now that the Communists have accused me of everything. I have been told that the Communists call me an economic syndicalist. Now, I was always going to look that up in the dictionary, but I never did. ' Mr. Landis. How long ago was that ? Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, for years. I was alwa3^s going to look it up in the dictionary. I have had it explained to me that it is not the thing that they want, but I don't know exactly what it is supposed to be. 2068 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The Communists occasionally get on a program which I think is all right. I was talking to one of the members of local 1421, He had a pam- phlet. It was put out by tlie Morgan Hall section of the Communist. Party of Los Angeles, 124 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles. I looked at the pamphlet and it said, "Motion-picture workers, keep your eye on the ball, the eight-ball ; you are behind it." Then there is a theater marquee which says, "Eeissue." Then therft is a worker going up and it says, "I wonder why I got laid off." I read this pamphlet. I asked for it and this member of 1421 said, "I am not a Communist and I don't know where they got my name, but I want to send it to Mr. Kearns." I don't know whether Mr. Kearns got it or not. So I said, "Well, I want one, so I will call up this Communist Party place if it is in the book — " and it was — "ancl see if I can get some." I asked for a couple, and they sent me a couple. They did a lot of double-talking around there when I told them who it was, and I didn't know for sure whether I was going to get one, but they sent me a couple. Now, I was interviewed by a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor. I was telling him about this. I said, "You know, the Com- munists occasionally adopt a program which in this case was my pro- gram. It is a program I have been hammering on for about 11 years. It is a program I used to dream about when I was working in the studios. It is a very attractive program." He said, "But you can't go along with that program now. The Com- munists are in it." I said, "You know, it's just too bad. If I didn't go along with that program now because the Communists are in it, I couldn't go along with any program because the Communists would find that out and they would get on every good program that I got on," Now, in this program they give everybody the devil. Everybody has done wrong. They give the lA a black eye ; they give us a black eye because they say we are the "irresponsible leadership," I think this should be read into the record because I think 'it tells some things that are going to happen. I think there will no doubt be another drive on the lATSE and I wouldn't be surprised if the lA wouldn't holler, "It's a Communist drive." Ancl I wouldn't be sur- prised if some of it wasn't originated by the Communists. Mr. Landis. Is there a date on that? Mr, SoRRELL, I don't think there is a date on it, but I got it within the last 3 months. It says in here that this'is one of five that will be issued. It says — This leaflet is the first of a series that will analyze the situation in Hollywood from the worker's viewpoint. Later issues will further explain the program and policies of the American Communists who work beside you in the motion- picture industry. But very definitely it is telling everybody, everyone of our people to get back to work, throw off the irresponsible leadership, and get good rank-and-file workers to lead them. I am just trying to make up my mind now whether I should have it read into the record or \Yh6ther I should just give you this and put it in the record. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2069 Ml'. Landis. INIaybe tliat is a new line tliej' have, to work on the rank and file instead of the hxbor leaders. Mr. SoRMiLL, Well, I don't know whether the Communists work on the rank and file or whether the Comnuuiists try to work on the labor leaders. In some cases, I think they try to work on the labor leaders to the extent that they can take advanta:o-e of them. In most cases I think that is so because as I see it — as I think I told you — everythino- the Communists do isn't bad, because they had to do a lot of good things on their way by in order to attract attention. Tlys is one of the good things that I think will hit any studio worker. Any studio worker reading this would say, "The Communist line isn't so bad." Even you would say it if you had any ideas of making a living in the studios. You would say, "This isn't bad, this is what we want." But it seems when you get that things change a little bit and they have a new line which supersedes the other one. Mr. Landis. Then that is a false-front thing ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes, I guess you would call it a false front. I agree with 3^ou that it is a false front, as far as the Communists are concerned, but they do come out with stuff that is good. Mr. Kearns. There are a number of those copies here, so we will just put it in the record. Mr. SoRRELL, Did you get one? Mr. Kearns. Yes, we have one. Mr. Bodle. We offer this for the record, then. Mr. Kearns. No objection; so ordered. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Landis. You might clear up those front organizations a little better if you want to. Mr. Sorrell. What front organizations? Mr. Landis. Some of them may be considered front organizations. Did you sponsor any of them, or did you belong to any of them ? Mr. Sorrell. Well, I tell you, I belong to a lot of things I thought were good that have been called Communist- front organizations, and maybe they were, I don't know. They were good. The things I belonged to were good. Maybe they were Communist-front organizations. How does a thing become a Communist-front organization ? Com- munists get into it, isn't that it? Or maybe Communists start it. Mr. Landis. Tliey usually start it. Mr. Sorrell. They didn't come around and say, "We started this," but certain things appeal to me. If anybody gets picked on I usually help the under dog. If some- body gets thrown in jail for speaking his piece, for expressing himself, his mind, I am sympathetic with him. I believe that we liave to protect the Bill of Rights and that we can't allow minorities to get picked on, because if we do eventually we become a minority of some kind ourselves. That is what has enticed me to sponsor things that I still think are all right, but maybe they are Communist-front organizations. I don't know just what harm the}'' could do. That hasn't been ex- plained to me yet. 2070 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Landis. Tliey could do a lot of harm. They could get people in there to furnish them funds in order to carry on and improve their conditions, improve their membership. Mr, SoRRELL. Well, yon see. Congressman Landis, they never get any funds out of me, because I dbn't have any money. All they get is my name to use, and I didn't figure that was so much. The President came out with his liberal views that the southerners don't like too well. I am for him for that. Some people think I as a southerner and I have a little prejudice of my own. I am preju- diced in some ways,, but I don't allow that to govern me. I think Truman was right in coming out and I didn't hear anybody call him a Communist for it. But if he had sponsored some of these things that called for the same thing, human rights, or something of that kind, he probably would have been sponsoring a Communist-front organization, or somebody would have interjDreted it that way. Of course, it depends on who does the intei'preting, too, because some of the things that are called Communist-front organizations to me are just good organizations doing good. Mr. Landis. Of course, they use those things to get the membership and then wait until they get ready to take over, such as what just happened in Czechoslovakia and other places. Mr. SoRRELL. Well, I tell you. that is a rather sickening thing, that Czechoslovakia situation. I think that is one of the worst things that could happen. I could understand how that could happen over there, but I don't think it could happen here. It is my opinion it is one thing to take over Czechoslovakia Mr. Landis. Of course, they are closer to the Soviet Union than we are here. Mr. SoRRELL. They are sitting in the lap of the Soviet Union. I think that is one thing and this is another. However, I think it is too bad, and I thought it was too bad when Hitler took it over. I think it is too bad when Russia takes over. I think it is too bad when anybody encroaches on somebody else's freedom. Now, it was very nice that there was no bloodshed when Hitler took over. There don't seem to be any bloodshed when Russia takes over, but before it ends there will be plenty of bloodshed. You were speaking of these front organizations. Do you have any particular front organizations in mind ? Mr. Landis. Well, the Workers Alliance. They might not have started out as a Communist-front organization, but then ended up as one. Mr. SoRRELL. I don't think I ever sponsored the Workers Alliance. The only connection I think you have of me with the Workers Alliance is that I am supposed to have spoken at one of their meetings with LaRue McCbrmick, who ran on the Communist ticket, and with Emil Fried, who I thought was a newspaperman. However, there are such a string of things here I am supposed to be connected with I thought perhaps you had the list. Mr. Landis. Well, we have the list here, we can go over the list. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2071 Mr. SoRRELL. I thought you had oue or more of them iu your mind. Mr. Landis. I think one of them is the National Federation of Con- stitutional Liberties. Mr. SoRRELL. Now, well, look, let's get right down to cases'. Mr. Landis. That is considered a Communist-front organization. 1 don't know whether you belong to that or not. INIr. SoRREM.. I think I sponsored that. And if I am not mistaken, I sponsored that at the request of Abe Isserman. I would like to get Abe Isserman here because there are some things I would like to ask him. I didn't sponsor it because it was a Communist -front organization, I sponsored it because I thought it was something good. I think I sponsored it at Abe's request. I think if you will look there you will see he is a sponsor or connected with it in some respects. I respected the fellow for his — he is' a very brilliant man. I know that he has the same feelings about minority groups that I have. We could get into that quite deeply, and I am quite willing to go into it but I don't want to waste too much of your time. Mr. Laxdis. I think that is a part of the charge made against you and I thought perhaps you would have something to say on that. Mr. SoRRELL. Mr. Bodle is showing me a bunch of the things I am supposed to be connected with, but I don't think you want to go all over that again. If you do. if there are any particular ones I have missed, I would be glad to elaborate on it or tell you about it, tell you my feelings about it. Mr. Laxdis. The only Communist-front organizations I meant were the ones declared as Communist- front organizations by the Attorney 'General. Mr. SoRRELL. Now I have tried to show the continual policy of the lATSE today and the lATSE under Browne and Bioff. I check over here a list of officers. We know that George Browne went to prison. He was an officer in 1940. Harland Holman, William Colbert, Kichard Walsh, Floyd Billings- ley, James J. Brennan and Felix D. Snow were then on the board of thelATSE. Today I still see Richard F. Walsh, Harland Holman, William Col- bert, Floyd Billingsley, James Brennan, and Felix Snow still on the board — same people^ I s^e that they have added Carl Cooper, now a vice president, who I happened to know at that time was some kind of an international repre- sentative. There have been a few added, but very few dropped. Louis Crouse, who was general secretary— -I understand he retired for physical reasons. I think he was sick or something of that kind. There was another man put in his place. I want to read here of some money that was received by Walsh and the dates that it was received. As I have told you I believe there was a 2-percent assessment put in effect by the lATSE. Everyone who worked in the studios had to dig up 2 percent of their earnings along with their dues. This was to go to Browne and no questions asked. 2072 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES It seems that this was distributed around among the family. "Walsh received from Al Lannigan the following sums : $2,392 in 1935; $8,932 in 1936; $6,344 in 1937,; $5,700 in 1938; $5,200 in 1939. Walsh also received from John L. Riseley the following amounts : $3,300 in 1937; $5,700 in 1938 ; $5,200 in 1939 ; $2,800 in 1940. Mr. Landis. Could you tell us who Riseley is ? Mr. SoRRELL. I don't know, but I could check for you. I would have to go and get the whole transcript. Mr. Landis. Is this the 2-percent money? Mr. SoRRELL. This was 2-percent money given to Browne to do with as he pleased and no qeustions asked. Now what Walsh did with it you can ask him. Mr. Landis. You said given to Browne. Mr. SoRRELL. It was supposed to be taken up for Browne but this shows that Walsh cut in on the cake. Mr. Kearns. That was turned over to the union. You are just mentioning those names because they are heads of the union, isn't that right? Mr. SoRRELL. Well, the official family of the lATSE met in Wash- ington, D. C, December 28, 1935. $125,000 was withdrawn from the 2-percent assessment fund and divided among certain vice presidents. Richai'd Walsh was given a check in the sum of $4,080, which was cashed in New York City and on which Richard F. Walsh paid income tax. Mr. Kjearns. Where do you get that information ? Mr. SoRRELL. Well, I would not like to divulge my information source right now, because it was given to me and I want to go back for more. Unless I have to I do not want to divulge the source of my informa- tion, but you ask Mr. Walsh. You understand, I think this is going to go far afield before we get through because this thing was not just started here. You just don't kick people around. You don't put people on the street for months and run it into years. You can't kick principles around ; if you dance, you pay the fiddler. Now, I just give you these. You can ask Mr. Walsh about it and let him explain it. Riseley swears under oath this money was given to Richard F. Walsh, but he paid income tax on the same. I hope that you won't press me for the source of my information, but I will give it to you if I have to. I would not read it here if I could not support it. I only react that to show you that at that time Walsh was one of the family. I don't think he has changed too much. I am not a policeman. I am not a prosecutor and personally I don't care anything about these people. So far as personalities are con- cerned they don't mean a thing. I have a duty to perform for the people I represent who have suf- fered so much and if I can perform that, duty by not telling too much, I am going to keep still. If I have a duty to perform where I have to tell everything, I am willing to tell it all. I have been dragged around here in the dirt quite considerably. I have been accused of everything, almost. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2073 I have been asked if there were reasons why anyone would want to forge my name on a Communist Pjirty card. I could give you plenty of reasons. Thei'e have been a number of attacks on my life, which is really a worse felony than getting caught forging a guy's name. This has been a pretty dirty business. I am not interested in punishing anybody but I am interested in seeing that it is cleaned up. I think that the minutes of the producers and the testimony in the Los Angeles hearing prove conclusively that you were right on your first summation — that it appeared that this was a lock-out. There is testimony that says that at the time Mr. Walsh made the following proposition it was agreed to by Mr. Nicholas Schenck and I quote, "We will run the studios, but only on one condition, that you have no contracts whatsoever with any of the people who are on strike." The conspiracy to deprive our members of their jobs failed in 1945, but its purposes were not forgotten. Much importance has been given in this hearing to the sanctity of contracts. The machinists were brought in, not by the CSU, the un- desirable machinists, they were brought in by the producers and the lATSE to complete the conspiracy to break down the sanctities of the directive. There was no excuse at that time. There was no directive. There was nothing telling the producers that they should hire these unde- sirable machinists, except the lATSE, directive or no directive. There is so much of that that has been testified to here that I don't see how you can get out of or get around the fact that there was any- thing but conspiracy, which caused most of this trouble. Mr. Landis. Was that an open shop there or a closed shop? Mr. SoRRELL. Now you bring it up, at the time there were closed- shop agreements with all these unions. Now we say closed shop. Maybe I am stretching it a little bit because I don't think in any of the agreements in Hollywood it deliberately says "closed shop." If you ask the producers they will say they have closed-shop rela- tions with the machinists, the painters, and so forth, I am sure. Maybe "closed shop" does not appear. Mr. Landis. The reason I mentioned that is that I think it is in the testimony that there was an open shop there. Mr. SoRRELL. Oh. no; never open shop. Mr. Ki:arns. He means originally. Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, you mean after the undesirable machinists were brought in they made it open slpp ? Mr. Landis. No ; I do not mean that; I mean before that. Mr, SoRREUL,. Before that, prior to 1937, yes ; there was open shop prior to then. But since 1937 there was no open shop. The men doing that work had to belong to the machinists' organization. Now the reason I drew a difference between closed shop and a pos- sible union shop was that in all of our contracts I believe it says that the producers should call the union and if we are unable to supply the help he can go outside. Mr. Landis. Of course that would not be an open-shop proposition, Mr. SoRRELL. That would not be an open shop and maybe you would not interpret it as a closed shop. 2074 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ISTow Mr. Kahane said lie answered a phone call and returning stated, "Brewer say*s instructions to man the company means furnish painters, carpenters, et cetera." That is a quotation out of the min- utes that Mr. Clarke wrote down at the time that it was happening. I believe that was on September 11, 1946. These minutes reveal the highest executives in the motion-picture industry played a role in this vicious plot. Thus the minutes of Sep- tember 12, 1946, of the Producers Labor Committee state, and I will quote : Mr. Kahane reported the recent conversations with the presidents and Eric Johnston which contain the following recommendations : "Lay off carpenters ; if they refuse to perform the services to which they are assigned do not be in any hurry ; take as much time as you can before crossing jurisdictional lines ; work with the lA to get sufficient number of carpenters, electricians, painters,, et cetera." Now is that conspiracy or is that baby talk ? It is clear from this that as early as September 12 the producers had laid plans for a mass discharge of the painters employed by the studios; that the workers were framed is proved by the following quotation from the minutes of September 12 : It was agreed each studio would assign work to carpenters by Monday ta create an incident. Mr. Landis. Now let me ask you a question right on that. The part I can't get clear is this : The carpenters said they were going to walk out. That is the picture I have. Mr. SoRRELL. No ; they didn't say that. Mr. Kearns. Yes, they gave that ultimatum. The carpenters gave that ultimatum. Mr. SoRRELL. The carpenters gave the ultimatum that unless they gave the work described they were not going to work on the sets. Mr. Landis. They were going to call them hot sets. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right, and they would not work on them. Mr. Landis. They said they would not work on them. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes ; but the}' were not going to walk out. Mr. Landis. Now, if the employees said they were going to walk out why can't he go over to another union and hire other carpenters or other men to take their place ? Now if you get a nonunion man — they used to call them scabs — but if they are going to walk out now, now you called it a conspiracy for them to go over to another anion and see if they would furnish men. I cannot see the conspiracy in that angle of it. Mr. SoRRELL. Now wait a minute. That is all right. You know we are supposed to have an agreement and the producers are supposed to do everything legal. They have legal counsel for everything. Mr. Landis. That is right. Mr. SoRRELL. The carpenters say, "We won't work on this." Did the producers get a restraining order ? Did they take any legal steps ? Did they say, "All right ; if you don't work on it we will lay you off ; we will put somebody else on"? I wouldn't call that conspiracy. Mr. Landis. But what if they were following the directive or if they thought they were following the directive? Mr. SoRRELL. We will grant you if they were honest about that and said, "Well, if they don't do the work we will have to have somebody MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2075 else do it; if tliey don't do the woi'k we will send them home; we will have the lA do it.-' Still that would not be conspiracy. Mr. Laxdis. Xo; I don't think so. Mr. SoRRELL. I don't think so either; we a^ree on that. Mr, Laxdis. All rioht. Mr. SoRRELL. But when they say, "Get rid of all of tJiem," because there are man}^ painters and carpenters that don't work on sets. There is testimony in the hearings in Los Angeles where I put one of our painters on — Elmer Ruff, an old man. He is probably a man up in his sixties or seventies. Mr. Landis. Now let me interrupt right there. You put the picket line on. Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, no ; no picket line. Look, we didn't strike. We said, "We want to carry out the provisions of the clarification, the same as the " Mr. Landis. You mean when the carpenters walked out ? Mr. SoRRELL. The carpenters didn't walk out. Let us get this clear. Mr. Landis. They were paid off, then. Mr. SoRRELL. They were paid off, but not the carpenters on the sets. Now, you understand, if the producers had been honest about it they would have fired those people that didn't do their bidding. Al- though we think they .would have been wrong, they wouldn't have conspired with anybody. They would have said to the lATSE, "Well, if you want these sets done you do them." And the lATSE would have done them, wouldn't they, and that still would not have been conspiracy. Mr. Landis. Let me get this one point in. Perhaps I am wrong but the carpenter who testified here said he was handed a check. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. Mr. Landis. He left work. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. Mr. Landis. They told him, I believe, at the time, that he was not fired but here was his check. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. Mr. Landis. Now he never returned to take a job. He never re- turned to ask to be put on again. I think that is what he testified to. Mr. SoRRELL. That is right. Mr. Landis. Now, how could they hire him back if he never went back to get the job ? That is the point. Perhaps one reason was that I understood there was a picket line; he respected the picket line and would not cross the picket line. The point I am trying to get at, that that is the case — that there was a picket line, how could you expect these fellows to get their jobs back if there was a picket line there and they respected the picket line ? Mr. SoRRELL. Now, wait a minute, and I will try to draw this pic- ture as clear as I can. We will take this carpenter, for instance. He worked in the ad- ministration building. He was friendly with many people I know out there. He spoke to Eddie ISIamiix and people out there like that. He was strictly in the administration building. Now there was a quarrel about a set on the back lot. The carpenters said, "We won't do it." So they could have sent the carpenters home and the lATSE could have done the job. The painters said, "We won't paint it." All right ; the lATSE could have painted it. 2076 * MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES But what did that have to do with this man in the administration building ? Wlien they called the man from the administration building, when they called the painters who had never painted a day on sets in years, when they pulled them all in and gave them their checks and said, "Get out," they established a picket line. What would you do in that case ? Mr. Landis. The point that was brought out, as I understood it is that it looked like there was going to be trouble when they were going to call them hot sets. They did not want to have any trouble in the plant, Mr. Kearns. They wanted the trouble on the outside, Mr. Landis. That is right, so they gave all the fellows their checks. They did not say this fellow was fired — I forget exactly what they told him but they did not say he was fired ; I know that. Mr. SoKRELL. I think I have it here. That is a part of the con- spiracy. Here it says : It was agreed each studio would assign work to tlie carpenters by Monday to create an incident. That is a quote from the minutes of the producers' association. Look how well planned this is : Unemployment compensation : Cragen of the Loew office wanted instructions from the comptroller as to what position the producers wanted to take on a state- ment to be made to the State unemployment fund. It was agreed to say, "The employee left his work on account of a trade dispute," and to ask the department to disqualify him for unemployment compensation. Mr. Landis. Now if this fellow hadn't taken his tools would he have received compensation? Mr. SoRREEL. No. Let me tell you Mr. Landis. Or if he had returned to work? Mr. SoRRELL. The fellow didn't take his tools. He came back in and got them later, I think he testified here that he came back and got his tools. Mr. Landis. Well, he got them and took them out. Mr. SoRRELL. But when the man went to get his unemployment in- surance he was told he had nothing coming; that there was a trade dispute. It says further, and this is quoting from the minutes of the producers' association : Put lA men on the sets so carpenters and painters will quit, provided : No. 1, the lA is advised in advance when and where. 2. Put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self-protection. 3. Keep procedure quiet so the CSU can't gang up at one spot. Now was that conspiracy or not? Mr. Landis. Well, they were getting ready for trouble. Mr. SoRRELL. Let me tell you that conspiracy is a very hard thing to prove but it can be proved, and I am positive we can prove conspiracy in this case, not only from these minutes but from things that have happened and are still happening. Mr. Landis. You may prove it, I don't know, but I cannot see the conspiracy myself. Mr. SoRRELL. The whole thing hasn't been told here by a great deal yet. and if it is necessary I guess we will have to get it all out. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2077 My. Landis. Well, I would certainly like to hear it all. Mr. SoRRELL. We will take, for instance, the Eagle-Lion Studios. Mr. Landis. Are they independent ? Mr. SoRRELL. Eagle-Lion is an independent studio. Now at Eagle-Lion Studios, Congressman Kearns went through there and saw how they are working. If you should go through there today. Congressman, you would jfind that the lATSE has injected more people in there. I think I named Johnnie Rosselli, who was one of the boys that served time in a Federal penitentiary. He is employed there as a writer. There is a Dominick — I have forgotten his last name now — who came there to run the set erectors. He is now superintendent of construc- tion, I believe. The painters who have worked there for years are laid off occasion- ally when things are slack. Wlien they are hired back they are hired back after a few painters from the lATSE have been hired. Mr. Kearns. That was not the testimony we received the other day. We received testimony here that they took them back in order, regard- less of what group they worked for. Mr. SoRRELL. Who gave the testimony ? Mr. Kearns. I don't recall, and I wouldn't mention the name unless I read the record. ISlr. Sorreix. I will tell you the facts because I was there. I received calls that one of the oldest men in seniority in the studio was not able to work because there were several undesirable painters there. I went over to see Ray Young. First I went over to the paint shop. I saw the foreman painter and I said, "What is this, are you hiring nonunion painters now?" And he said, "No; they've got lA cards." Well, I said, "Wlio's putting the pressure on ? Are they good men ?" He said, "They ain't worth a damn, go take a look at them yourself." I said, "Are you featherbedding them?" And he said, "Well, we are putting them to stripping plaster or any kind of a laborer's job we can get for them." I said, "Who demands that you hire them ?" He said, "I can't talk." I said, "I won't put you on the spot. I will go up to the studio manager and have a talk with him." I went up to see him. I had a talk with Ray Young and he said, "Look, we got open shop here, open shop for painters." I said, "Well, Ray, I realize that Eagle-Lion was not a part of the Independent Producers Association that signed the interim agreement on June 28, because at that time PRC owned the studio. But it is my belief that when PRC took over the studios they also took over the obligations of the contract." "Well," he said, "I am told that we didn't take over the contract and we shouldn't keep open shop; I can't have any trouble with the lATSE." I said, "You are afraid of the lATSE." He said, "No, you know I am not afraid of the lATSE, in a knock- down, drag-out struggle we could beat them, but," he said, "we are trying to make pictures here. The lATSE is in a position where if 67383—48 — vol. 3 37 2078 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES they stop us for 3 or 4 hours on some day when we have a big pay roll on, they can boost the cost of the picture maybe two or three times because conditions are such that when the sets are ready the electricians are called, the big cast is called, or something like that, and some business agent causes a little stoppage of work ; it paralyzes them for that day. It isn't a matter of a few thousand dollars, it may run into a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars, and I will be very plain with you, I am taking no chances." He said, "All we want is to be left alone, I am going to see that your people don't lose any work." I said, "They are losing work because you are hiring these bums and we have good men who have seniority here, and regardless of the fact whether it is closed shop, open shop, or whatever you declare it, these people should be working. I have tried to play along with the independents because I know you get hell from the lA ; I realize that is a part of the conspiracy to destroy your effectiveness, to make it cost you so much that you can't make pictures, just the same as it is to destroy the CSU^n the other hand. "I understand that^nd I go along with you as far as I cau, l)ut in this case I see no reason why you should have to featherbed skid-row bums in here when you have men who have a seniority of years in this studio." I could get no place. They still have them in there. Mr. Landis. None of your men work there? Mr. SoRRELL. Oh, yes, sure. It is open shop so far as that is con- cerned. They haven't driven our men out yet but they haven't gotten quite that bold yet. Now we have Monogram. Monogram Studio is still owned by the Monogram Co. that was a part of the independent producers that signed the interim agreement on June 28, 3 or 4 days before we had the strike and signed the interim agreement between the majors. We have had contractual relations with Monogram ever since it existed. I worked there myself when they built the studio. We have had good relations and we like those people. We like the smaller people. We like to help them along. We never give them any gratuities, we don't work for them any cheaper than we work for the majors, but we don't charge them any more. Now the lATSE or some of the unions in the lATSE take ad- vantage of these smaller producers and get a larger wage scale. We have never done that. We believe that if a man is going to make pictures he should have the same competition, as far as labor is con- cerned, big or small. If he is too small to pay the price he shouldn't make pictures, he should go to work for somebody. If he is big enough to pay the bill he should pay not more, not less, but the same as the major. That has been our policy. ]Mr. Landis. Are some of your men in that plant working? Mr. SoRRELL. They have always been there, yes. Now Monogram called me and said, "We are on the spot. An lATSE painter came in and asked for a job. We told him we were sorry but we had a contract with local 644 and we could only hire local 644 painters." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2079 "So he said, 'Well, I'll look into this.' "We get a call from the lATSE and they say, 'You have no con- tract with local 644, and that is open shop. When we send a man over there you will put him to work.' " So the manager of the studio contacted Mr. Chadwick and asked him what his opinion was. Chadwick said, "We are in the middle, can't we put some of them to work?" I said, "Xo; our contract is just as good as anybody else's. Our men have always worked there. Why should we go out in the street and let you put in some more of those guys ? They can't do the work anyway. It takes years to become a studio painter." ^Ir, Brewer said the other day that the painters had to cater to the carpenter, that the carpenter was the important man and that the painter wasn't so important. Now I will have to give you a little example. A painter can make or break a picture. If an outside house painter came into the studio he is like a pig in the park. He has to learn his trade over. I know that. I considered I was a very good painter. I was maybe a little egotistical, but I didn't think that anybody was much better. When I went to work in the studios I was surprised because the ingredients that go into the paint make the picture what it is. For instance, I can draw two yellow lines on that wall, and they will look identical to the eye. One will photograph very light and the other will photograph very dark, almost black. One will be made with a base of rosiana, the other will be made with a base of chrome yellow. They look the same to the eye but they do not photograph the same. Now when a location goes out — for instance M-G-M sends a loca- tion to Florida. They send along a painter, especially if it is techni- color. The painter goes along. He must know. He must match the natural colors with the colors in his box. He must remember what that is and knoAv what it is so that when they get back to match them at the studios he can make them match, because if he doesn't they will have to throw all the stuff out that they took in Florida. If the picture is worth a million dollars they insure that painter's life for a million dollars. If they are going to spend that much thej insure that guy's life for that much. They need that guy, they must have him. True the}^ send to Xew York for other motion-picture painters to come down and help, but they do not go to the average house-painters' union unless they just want strong backs and weak heads. Mr. Landis. For rough work ? Mr. SoRRi^LL. Yes ; for rough work. You know you can have some- body spray and wiggle a brush, but it is one thing to be a studio painter and another to be a finished mechanic. Now no producer is going to start any picture that is worth anything now. He has a hard time building it in the first place. He has a hard time getting the mechanics to build what he wants and get it done on time. Of course, you can put a lot of men on a set and get it built to a certain extent and after a fashion you will get it done, but pictures are not made that way. They want the set, they want it at the time they want it and they want it to be fit to shoot. 2080 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES One painter can sabotage a thing so that after the company is all called in they go to shoot it and all of a sudden one part of the wall drops out of sight, due to the paint. As you know, shadows are not put in by lights, they are put in by paint. If you were to see a shadow of these curtains [indicating] the intense lights of the set eliminate all shadows. You draw those in. Those are put in with colors. Now it so happens that nobody wants to start to make a picture for a million dollars and have it cost many million. A good example is this: This will show you the extent of the conspiracy also Mr. Landis. Before you leave that, no movie producer would hire a hand painter to do the technical work ; would he ? Mr. SoRRELL. He hires the best he can get. He goes to the lA and says, "Send them in here." That is what I am telling you. At Monogram they don't want these bums, they want people who know their business. At the smaller studios especially they want all-around people, people who can fill the bill, and we have those kind of people. But if they are forced to take the others, it just forces the cost of the picture up, it practically forces them out of business, because when they go to bring the people to shoot it is ruined, it is a loss of not just the little painter's salary, it piles up the loss in wages of more expensive people to do the job. I had quite a discussion at Monogram as to whether we would or would not let them hire an lA painter just to get by. I said, "Abso- lutely not." So I was told we would have to post a sign that this was now open shop for painters. Now this was pressure by the lATSE. I said, "Well, you post the sign, then I'll see whether I shall sue 3'ou to see whether our contract is good or not." Then he said, "Well, you see I am in the middle, I'm not kidding,** and he was. The independents are gradually being forced to close down, close down, just peter out. Now let me give you the example of Duel in the Sun. Duel in the Sun had 6 weeks to go to finish in 194:5 when we went on strike. Selznick was making the picture at RKO-Pathe lot, which is over in Culver City and is owned by RKO. He had spent several million dollars making the picture and he wanted to complete it. Danny O'Shea was his production manager. He called me and I like him very much. He said, "Is there any chance that we can complete this?" I said, "Well, sure, as long as RKO doesn't butt in and take advan- tage of the people we have on the lot." He said, "Well, I hope they won't, but I guess they will." It was only 2 or 3 days and over moved RKO. Well, we were forced to put on the picket line at RKO-Pathe. Danny O'Shea said to me, "It's a shame, but we can't make the picture with the kind of help we get from these people, so we'll shut down." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIOXAL DISPUTES 2081 So lie shut down. But he only shut down for a short time. He had to open up again. Do 3'Ou know who made him open up? Not the union, but the major motion-picture producers made him open up with this threat, he had hii'ecl contract actors from the major motion-picture producers and unless he made a noise like working, as soon as the date ran out for the actors they would take them back and he* couldn't finish the picture. Now you can't change a personality in the middle of a picture, you know that. It is utterly impossible to start with one star and switch him in the middle. After you have so many millions of dollars in the picture, which was the same picture, to stop it there is disastrous. It was explained to me and I said, "Well, I'm sorry, but that is just proof of the fact that it is not just an lA move, it is lA and producer." He worked on that picture the full time we were out, nearly 8 HLonths. At the end of the 8 months he threw out everything he had done and 2 months later he completed the picture, and he completed it with our people. Then he just got his prints rolling good in 1946 and the lab tech- nicians came out and cut him down on some of his prints and caused him further trouble. In spite of the fact he managed to finish the picture, which he would not have been able to finish had he done what he desired, and what I claim any American employer has a right to do, make a picture without interference from a combination of unscrupulous labor leaders, combined with unscrupulous employers to put the man out of business. These are facts I am telling you. Mr. Landis. In a case of that kind, it looks like whoever they con- tract with should go through until the picture is finished. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes; and they did, but in order to do it he had to work, he had to appear to be making pictures so that they could say, "There are so many pictures being made now," so that they could tell our people, "Look, the thing is lost, go on, sneak back on your bellies." Mr. Kearns. We are going to have to close up tonight, or the National Labor Relations Board wiLl be after us. We will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. ( Wliereupon, at 5 : 30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m. the following day, Wednesday, March 10, 1948.) JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY WEDNESDAY, MiARCH 10, 1948 House of Representattves, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington^ D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Carroll D. Kearns (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order, please. You may proceed, Mr. Sorrell. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. BoDLE. Yesterday Mr. Sorrell testified about the dispute related to the machinists which arose after the isuance of the December 26, 1945, directive, and the demand by the lA and the teamsters that the machinists be taken off certain work. In connection with that a number of machinists were discharged by the studios and a charge was filed with the National Labor Relations Board on which there was a hearing and on which an intermediate report was issued April 30, 1947. Since the intermediate report throws considerable light upon this whole controversy, I want to read certain portion of it in the record. The case is : Case No. 21-C-2735. In the Matter of Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., Paramount Pictures, Inc. ; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. ; Loew's Inc. ; Universal Pictures Co., Inc. ; RKO Radio Pictui-es, Inc. ; Columbia Pictures Corp. ; Samuel Goldwyn, doing business as Samuel Goldwyn Studios ; Republic Productions, Inc. ; Hal Roach Studio, Inc. ; and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., and International As,sociation of Machinists, Lodge 1185. ■ FACTUAL BACKGROUND ANTEDATING ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT This is reading from page 13. On March 12, 1945, screen set designers, local 1421, affiliated with the Brother- hood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, A. F. of L., called a strike in the motion-picture industry. The strike drew the immediate support of the CSU with which local 1421 was afiiliated. Members of the CSU such as the painters, carpenters, and machinists left their jobs in support of the strike. At the start of the .strike Richard F. Walsh, international president of the alliance, issued instructions to alliance members that they were to cross .iuris- dictional lines and fill the jobs vacated by striking employees and not to honor picket lines established about the studios. The alliance had 12 locals under con- tract with the producers, but at the time of the strike had no one local for em- 2083 2084 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ployees engaged in machinists' work. Tbe first week of the strike, President Walsh made an agreement with tlie producers' representatives thus described by Brewer : The arrangement was that if this group or any subsequent group went out on strike in tlie studios in an effort to cripple their operation for the purposes! of prosecuting a jurisdictional strike against the lATSE, then the lATSE would, insofar as it was possible, furnish the people necessary to keep those studios in operation. That was the general terms of it. It was not a written instrument. It was an understanding which we had. Pursuant to this arrangement, the alliance engaged Harry M. Shiffman, a mem- ber of the alliance projectionist local to find machinists who had the ability to fill the jobs vacated by the members of the lAM. About May 1, 1945, Shiffman organized the Alliance of Cinetechnicians, Local 789, which took into membership, not only employees furnished to the studios to fill the jobs of the machinists, but those who likewise filled the jobs of other striking employees. Local 789 never had a contract with the producers but enjoyed some sort of verbal understanding that it represented those members which it had supplied the producers. Also, during the strike, alliance local 44, the propmen's local, furni.shed some 30 to 40 propmen to the various studios to perform the work of lAM members. All in all. Shiffman recruited about 300 employees during the strike to fill the jobs vacated by. lAM members. The strike was settled and the striking employees returned to work on October 31, 1945, after the executive council of the A. F. of L. had issued a directive terminating the strike. Following the strike, there was no further occasion for local 789 to supply employees to the various studios, and it has admitted no further members. One of the provisions of the strike settlement provided that the employees who had filled the strikers' jobs were to remain on the producers' pay rolls for a period of 60 days, the first 30 of which were to be used to compose jurisdictional differences, failing which, during the next 30 days, a three-man committee of the A. F. of L. executive council would "investigate and determine * * * all jurisdictional questions still involved." When lAM members returned to work on October 31, 1945, members of the alliance locals who left their own jurisdictions to fill strikers' jobs returned to their accustomed occupations. Members of Shiffman's local 789 remained on the pay rolls for the afore-mentioned 60-day period. At the October 1945 convention of the International Association of Machinists, its executive council was directed to withhold payment of per capita tax to the A. F. of L. Late in 1945, or early in 1946, the Los Angeles Central Labor Council was directed to disassociate from participation in its councils, representatives of the lAM. In January 1946, Brewer demanded of the producers that alliance members who had been replaced by return of lAM members be reinstated to those positions for the reason that the lAM was no longer affiliated with the A. F. of L. At or about the same time, according to Shiffman, he made an agree- ment with the producers association, the labor committee, tha<^ members of local 789 who had been taken off the producers' pay rolls at the end of the 60-day period would be granted an indefinite leave of absence without pay. He testified that the agreement was that "everybody that received the 60-day pay, they agreed to carry them on leave of absence without pay." Both Brewer and Shiffman on other occasions renewed demands that members of local 789 be employed in machinist jobs instead of lAM members. On February 12, 1946, Shiftman sent the association a wire asserting that local 789 represented a majority of the employees, employed as machinists in the respondents' studios, and demanding recognition as the bargaining agent. This claim was discussed on various dates in February with the labor committee, Shiffman demanding in addition that his members be given jobs. On March 7, 1946, the A. F. of L. executive council issued a charter to the federal union. Upon issuance of the charter, local 789 turned over most of its members to the newly chartered union. Shiffman remained on as business rei^resentative and financial secretary of the federal imion. Following this and on March 18, 1946, Shiffman sent the association this telegram : "This is to formally notify you that a federal labor union charter No. 23968 has been issued by the American" Federation of Labor covering the jurisdiction formerly held by the International Association of Machinists. "We. the imdersigned charter members of this local union hereby demand an end to the discrimination being practiced by the producers association in MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2085 denying work to any but members of the JAM, and demand an immediate i-einstatement of those men who were replaced by reason of the Cincinnati directive. The issuance of this charter is conclusive proof of the fact that the lAM is no longer entitled to any recognition as an A. F. of L. union and we must insist that no further recognition be given it as such " According to Brewer, when the charter was issued the producers were "con- vinced" that they were under no further obligation to the JAM and agreed to engage members' of the federal union. This brought a strike threat from the CSU which was settled, according to Brewer's testimony, by an agreement worked out between Eric Johnston, then president of the Motion Picture Produc- ers and Distributors Association, and * * * Harvey Brown, international president of the lAM, that henceforth only machinists would be hired who had been on the producers' pay rolls. On. March 2.5, 1946, the producers engaged about 3.J members of the federal union for work as precision and journeymen machinists. There is no record evidence that any JAM member was displaced by this hiring. On April 25. 1946. ShifEman posted a notice, containing the following, on the bulletin boards in the respondent producers' machine shops : "To Whom It May Concern: "By precedent, the motion picture industry has always been recognized as an American Federation of Labor industry. "Federal Labor Union No. 23968 has been granted a charter by the American Federation of Labor covering the machine work formerly done by lodge 1185 of the lAM, which has withdrawn from the American Federation of Labor. * * H: 4: H: % » "Therefore, we are offering the opportunity to any machinists now working in this jurisdiction to join Federal Labor Union No. 2896S by contacting our office at 6636 Hollywood Boulevard, room 216, or our stewards on the lots, and make application for membership in the new American Federation of Labor local." In this same period of time, the federal union continued its demands of the producers that in view of the lAM's suspension, they cease discrimination against A. F. of L. men and hire members of the federal union who had been taken off their jobs as a result of the Cincinnati directive. The federal union also applied to central labor council for assistance. Accordingly about May 22, 1946, Brewer, representing the alliance ; Joseph Tuohy, the teamsters ; and W. J. Bassett, secre- tary of the central labor council, met with the labor committee at the association. The labor committee was told that since the lAM was no longer affiliated with the A. F. of L., members of A. F. of L. unions, including the alliance and teamsters, would not handle any equipment worked on by the lAM. Concerning this meeting, Kahane testified as follows : "At that time * * * they made the demand that they cease having this work done with the lAM machinists involved or else they would declare the sets hot and their members wouldn't handle them. We protested very vigorously against any such demand and said that it was very unfair, putting us in a very bad position. We pleaded with them not to ask us to take any such action and asked them not to characterize sets as hot, and again said that this was a juris- dictional situation that we weren't concerned with, and "Why can't it be handled by the National Labor Relations Board? * * *" "And they said they had given the matter their thought and this was their .studied and deliberate decision and it was up to put this into effect, and we said. 'When?' and they said 'As of now.' And we said, 'Well, now, that is too quick for us to make any decision. At least give us a chance to think this thing out' : and he said, 'All right : we will give you 24 hours ; we will send j'ou a wire and tell you as of 24 hours that it must be put into effect.' "The producers then met among themselves — the meeting adjourned and the producers met among themselves; and the first time that it happened, we had our choice of doing the same thing, laying off the teamster who refuses to handle the automotive truck equipment and lay off the cameraman who refuses to work on the set. but we were well aware of the fact that to do that would paralyze the entire industry. In the one ca.se it meant that the lATSE in control of projec- tionists throughout the theaters and exchange employees throughout our ex- changes would mean that we would have to close our studios, close our exchanges, close our theaters — " and so forth. "As against taking that course or taking tlie " 2086 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr, Ejearns. Just a minute. Mr. ZoRN. Are you purporting to read all of this this ? I just want to be clear. Mr. BoDLE. No, sir. Mr. ZoRN. I noticed you were skipping some of it. Mr. BoDLE. Yes ; I thought I had made that clear when I started. Mr. Kearjsts. He stated that in his opening statement. Mr, BoDLE (continuing) : "As against taking that course or taking the — or letting the machinists go, the few machinists tliat were involved go, we decided on operating our studios, on keeping our studios and theaters open." Following the meeting, Bassett sent each of the respondent pro^ ducers the letter confirming the demands, and then a telegram. After the central labor council took its action, members of the carpenters and painters union in retaliation about June 13, 1946, refused to work on technicolor sets where the technicolor camera had been or was being serviced by members of the federal union. Alliance members refused to work on cameras unless serviced by members of the federal union and teamsters refused to handle automotive equipment that had been serviced by lAM members. About June 22, 1946, repre- sentatives of the producers conferred with Brewer and informed him that they were going to file a petition for certification of bargaining representatives to resolve the conflict. The producers wanted Brewer's assurance that the alliance would accept the Board's determination as to who represented the machinists. Brewer agreed to withdraw the order on hot sets provided the producers agreed not to discriminate against members of the federal union. Shortly thereafter, the "hot sets orders" were revoked. In this connection, before passing to a consideration of the individual dis- charge cases, it sliould be pointed out that no member of the alliance or teamsters was discharged, or otherwise disciplined because of refusal to work on equip- ment served by the JAM. Likewise, as is clear from Kahane's testimony, set forth above, and as will appear more fully herafter, employees were discharged or otherwise discriminated against because of their lAM membership. Finally, Brewer testified, contrary to Kahane's testimony, that he knew of no specific threat to take out alliance pro.ieetionists and distribution employees throughout the country over the "machinists issue" or over any other issue in dispute between the unions and the producers in the spring of 1946. Thus it may be that Kahane's testimony more accurately reflects, not an actual threatened course of conduct, but rather the producers' fears of ultimate retribution unless they acceded to the alliance demands. C. The Discharge Cases 1. eespondent universal The complaint alleges the discriminatory discharge of John M. Mobley and Reginald G. Hill on May 29, 1946, and a refusal to reinstate until June 26, 1946, and July 5, 1946, respectively, for the reason that both Mobley and Hill were mem- bers of the lAM. Mobley and Hill are automotive mechanics employed in the garage of re- spondent Universal. Both are members of the lAM. Their superior is George Smith, superintendent of transportation, who supervises the work of the team- sters who drive automotive equipment and lAM members who repair it. Day-to- day assignments on the job are given by Foreman Lon Price. On May 29, 1946, on reporting for work. Price asked Hill if he luad seen the bulletin board. There Hill read a teamsters' notice that effective as of that date, the teamsters "were not going to handle any wox'k coming to or from the machinists." That evening Hill and Mobley were assigned to work on a bus. While the two men were at work. Hill was called to the shop telephone to speak to Lewis B. Shank, assistant business agent of the teamsters. Shank told Hill that the "heat" was on ; both men would have to take out cards in the teamsters to retain their jobs; but that they would be permitted to retain their lAM mem- bership. Some time between 10 and 11 p. m. Smith returned to the garage and MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2087 according to Mobley's uncontradicted testimony addressed the two mechanics as follows : "If I had known you fellows was going to be laid ofC and if I had known this was going to happen I would not have had you do the work. * * * You will have to report to the personnel office. Mr. McCausland, on Friday morning." Mobley and Hill reported to McCausland on May 31, 194(5. Hill testified that McCausland told the men they were laid off "due to the teamsters refusing to move the bus." The men were told to take home their tools. The undersigned finds based upon the above testimony of Hill and that of Kahane quoted hereto- fore tliat Hill and Mobley were in fact laid off because of their lAM membership and the teamsters' refusal to drive equipment repaired or served by them. * * * 4: * * * 2. RESPONDENT LOEW ±ne complaint alleges that respondent Loew discharged W. E. Zimmerman on May 29, 1946, and refused to reinstate him until June 28, 1946, because Zimmer- man was a member of the lAM. Zimmerman was employed as an auto mechanic in respondent Loew's ga- rage * * * On May 29, 1946, Zimmerman read the teamsters' notice, similar to the one referred to in the cases above, posted on the garage bulletin board, that the teamsters would not handle any equipment "worked on" by lAM members. Sometime during the day. Small told Zimmerman that he was fired. When asked for an explanation. Small answered that all he could say was that the orders to that effect had been issued by William R. Walsh, director of labor relations for respondent Loew. Zimmerman then saw Walsh and asked why he had been dis- charged. Walsh replied there was no explanation ; tliat Zimmerman's work had been satisfactory but that orders had "come from higher-ups." * * * The respondent introduced in evidence a pay-roll notice showing Zimmerman's "lay-off" on IVIay 29, 1946. Zimmerman denied ever receiving a copy of the notice and vigorously asserted that Small told him he was fired. His testimony is credited and the undersigned finds Zimmerman was discharged on May 29, 1946, because of his lAM membership. « * * 4: * ^ * 3. RESPONDENT RKO The complaint alleges that respondent RKO discriminatorily discharged William J. Pickering on June 13, 1946 and refused to reinstate him until June 26, 1946; discharged Robert Skager on June 13, 1946, and thereafter refused to reinstate him ; and on June IS, 1946. transferred Carl H. Homuth to a less de- sirable position and refused thereafter to reinstate him because all of the fore- going employees were lAM members. » Pickering and Skager are the two automotive mechanics employed by re- spondent RKO in its garage. Skager has been employed since 1920 and during the last 10 years of his employment acted as a working foreman. In this capacity he picked up work orders and divided tasks with Pickering. There is no record evidence that Pickering was an JAM member except as may be inferred from the provisions of the lAM's last contract, since expired, which provided that the producers would employ only workers who are members in good standing of the lAM. Skager was a member of the lAM as well as the IBEW. On two occasions prior to June 13, 1946, Shank, the teamsters' agent, on visits to the garage asked Skager to join the teamsters. Some time early in June Harvey Leavitt, superintendent of transportation, instructed both Pickering and Skager not to work on any automotive equipment without his express authoriza- tion. Between the time of this instruction and June 13 Skager spent most of his time idling about the garage. About 2 p. m. on June 13. Shank asked Skager by telephone to join the teamsters, stating that they were "about to take over the auto mechanics, and it would be best * * * to join their local." At about 3 p. m. Pickering and Skager were called to Leavitt's office, wliere they were laid off. When asked to give a reason for the lay-off Leavitt stated, according to Skager : "* * * You have been around here every day, like I have, and you ought to know * * * the teamster or driver refused to drive the equipment you worked on today." ******* 2088 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Carl H. Homuth is a precision machinist, employed by respondent RKO since January 1946. He has been a member of the lAM since 1937. Prior to June 18, 1946, the date of the alleged discrimination against Homuth, he worked in a small machine shop adjoining the electrical machine shop, at the then precision-machinist rate of $1.97 an hour. On June 18 Homuth was instructed to adjust an optical printer, which he accomplished by fashioning a special shaff for the printer. Shortly thereafter Glen Farr, superintendent of the electrical department, called Homuth to the office of Earl Miller, chief electrician. Homuth testified credibly and without contradiction as to the following incident with Miller : "* * * mj._ Miller held up the shaft * * * and he says, 'Do you know this shaft?' I says, 'Yes ; I know.' He says, 'It is declared hot and so I have orders to fire you.' I asked him, 'What do you mean "hot"? and he says : 'You know the members of the scab local or scab union, or whatever we call them, called their business agent in and he declared it 'hot' l)e('ause I was a member of 1185 ; so they made another shaft and they used the machine after that." * * * * * ' * * 4. RESPONDENT WARNER The complaint alleges the discriminatory discharge, transfer, and demotion and refusal to reinstate six named employees. The answer pleads a general denial. Edward J. Lorenz has been employed by respondent Warner since 1939 as an auto mechanic and machinist. He is a member of the lAM. There are about 12 auto mechanics in the crew working under Foreman Ira Roland and department head, A. H. Klein. Some time in March 1946 Roland called Lorenz to his office and there introduced him to Shiftman and Herman R. Lentz, president of the federal union. Accord- ing to Lorenz' credible and uncontradicted testimony, Shiftman stated to him, "We are taking over here and we are giving you a chance to join our union," showed him a copy of the federal union's charter, and gave him an application card. Lorenz asked if it was not necessary to hold an election to determine this. Shiftman answered that he would not argue the matter ; the federal union was "taking over" and if Lorenz wanted to join this was his opportunity. Lorenz stated the teamsters also claimed auto mechanics and he doubted whether the federal union had a majority of employees. Following the conversation with Lorenz other mechanics were called in "one at a time" to speak to Shiftman. On May 29, 1946, the notice of the teamsters that they would not handle any equipment worked on by lAM members appeared on the iDUlletin board. On May 31 Klein told Lorenz to collect his tools and he was laid off. When Lorenz asked the reason for the lay-oft" Klein answered that there was no point in discussing the matter because Lorenz knew the reason. Shortly thereafter Klein told Lorenz he was laid oft because "The teamsters refuse to drive that car you were working 'on, the Buick. That is why you were laid off." And the other discriminatory charges at "Warner Bros, follow gen- erally the same line. C. CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING THE DISCHARGE AND/OR LAY-OFFS From the foregoing it appears that on various dates following May 29,. 1946, certain respondent producers discharged, laid off, or transferred machinists who were members of the lAM. This action coincided with that of the Central Labor Council, the Alliance and Teamsters in declaring work performed by lAM members "hot" and not to be handled by A. F. of L. members. As set forth above, in retaliation, conference unions notably the carpenters and painters, declared "hot" certain work performed by members of the federal union. Thereupon, certain respondent producers laid off the carpenters and painters. Kahane testified : "By Mr. Rissman : "Q. Now, let's get to this July 1, 1946, strike. I think you testified that members of the teamsters union at some time in the spring of 1946 refused to handle equip- ment that had been worked on by members of lodge 1185. Is that correct? — ^A. That is right. "Q. And likewise, members of certain locals of the lATSE refused to work with or handle equipment that had been worked on by members of lodge 1185. — A. That is right. "Q. They declared certain equipment hot because it had been worked on by 1185 people, is that correct? — A. That is the expression that was used. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2089 "Q. Do yon know that when the work of members of lodge 1185 was declared hot by the lATSE and by the teamsters union the members of 1185, who had worked on that equipment and machinery, were discharged from the studios? Isn't that correct? — A. Laid off is probably a better expression. "Q. Then you said. I think the words you used were, 'thereafter the carpenters and painters refused to work on sets where lATSE members or federal local machinists had worked" : is that correct? — A. That is correct. "Q. In that case the sets were declared 'hot' by the painters and carpenters ; is that correct? — A. That is right. "Q. In that case, who was laid off, the painters and carpenters who had de- clared the sets 'hot' and refused to work on them, or the members of the federal local who had performed work on the camera which resulted in declaration of 'hot' sets? — A. The painters and carpenters refused to work. "Q. Were any lATSE men or any teamsters laid off, fired, disciplined, dis- charged, taken "out of work because they refused to handle or work with equip- ment that had been worked on or serviced by members of lodge 1185? — A. They were not. None of them, to my knowledge. "Q. Do you know of any explanation for the difference in treatment in one case and the other? — A. Yes. "Q. There was a difference? — A. Oh, sure." Later Kahane testified, as set forth fully in his testimony at the beginning of this section, that the difference in treatment was due to the "economic pres- sure on the producers." Mr. McCaxx. As I understand it, that is the report of the trial examiner? Mr. BoDLE. That is the report of the trial examiner and the quota- tion I just read is from the testimony of Kahane at the NLRB hear- ings before the trial examiner. INIr. McCaxx. On what date was that report fiotten out ? ]Mr. BoDLE. The date of the report itself is April 30, lO-iT, aUhouo-h this hearing was held some time prior to that. The hearings con- cluded October 28, 1946. Mr. McCaxx'. In other words, your object in reading this is to estab- lish the fact that there was a difference in the treatment of the ma- chinists and the members of the lATSE. The machinists were laid off when the lA declared sets "hot," while the lA members were not laid off when they refused to work on sets that the carpenters and painters declared "hot." but the painters and carpenters were laid off. Is that the distinction ? Mr. BoDLE. That is correct. I think actually this pretty well speaks for itself, but I do intend to comment on it. ]Mr. McCaxx. Are you establishing that through Kahane's testi- mony ? Mr. BoDLE. Tlirough Kahane's testimony. Mr. McCaxx. And on the basis of the economic pressure applied bythelA? Mr. BoDEE. Tiiat is correct. [Continuing:] The decision to submit to Alliance threats was made by the labor committee, of which Kahane, of respondent Columbia, was chairman. Respondent Columbia did not follow up the decision by discharging lAM members. But other respond- ents did carry out tlie undertaking of the labor committee. The close interlocking relationship between the labor committee and the association has been shown. It has been found that the association is an employer within the meaning of the act. And it has been found that the labor committee acts for the association. In this instance the labor committee acts for the association and bound it and all respondent producers who took tlie action which the labor committee approved. I want to point out right there that this situation is very similar to the situation which preceded the 19-10 lock-out. You had the asso- 2090 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ciation acting through the prockicers' labor committee, making cer- tain decision which, in that case as in this case, were binding upon all the members of the association, and you had concerted action taken to carr}^ out those decisions. The undersigned is satisfied that respondents' association, Warner, Loew, RKO and Universal submitted to the threats of the alliance, teamsters and Central Labor Council and with full knowledge of the meaning of their acts, determined to discharge, lay off or transfer the JAM members. There is absent here any persuasive proof tliat the action taken was mandatory in order to avoid immediate financial loss or cessation of operations. It is true that such might have been a future result in view of the dominant position of the alliance in the industry ; and the costly strike of 1945 which had caused us so much confu- sion over a period of 9 mouths was no doubt uppermost in mind. Yet it is sig- nificant, that at the time the respndents took the aforesaid action, no harm or loss had actually resulted and Brewer, according to his testimony knew of no specific threat to take out Alliance projectionists or distribution employees throughout the country, over the "machinists' issue." The undersigned thinks it is clear that the acts related above constituted dis- crimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment on the part of respond- ents' association, Warner, Loew, ItKO, and Universal and that they necessarily discouraged membership in the lAM. * * * * * ■ * * Threats of economic pressure arising out of jurisdictional conflicts, have never been held to justify a violation of the act by the Board — This is with regard to the contentions on unit. Commencing in .January 1946 the teamsters demanded of the labor committee representation for the automotive mechanics. Its last contract, however, exe- cuted in September 1946, did not include auto mechanics. Furthermore, despite their claim, Shiffman, representing the federal union, sought recognition for auto mechanics, as well as machinists, welders, and molders. The conflicting claims of the federal union, the Alliance, and teamsters repre- sent one aspect of this jurisdictional controversy. On the other hand, the lAM's demands as opposed to those of the other unions rested upon formal agreement of prior years. Hence, where a prior contract does define an inherently appro- priate unit, the bargaining history should be accorded controlling weight. * * * Before the strike of March 12 — that is 1945— the contractual unit functioned. After the strike, the unit became subject to attack not so much because of inappropriateness, but because competing unions were resolved not to relinquish the advantage the strike gave them of filling the lAM jobs in the unit classifications. Thus basically the problem became and remained as to what union or unions could claim to represent the employees in the contractual unit. The unions opposing the JAM and seeking to upset the unit did not feel sufficiently strong to test this question by petition. The undersigned sees no reason to depart from time-tested achievements and disturb, because of unsettled claims to job rights, a unit established by the parties. Now, on page 37 : The question of the lAM's majority was not seriously questioned at any time during the protracted negotiations between the parties, during the hearing, or in briefs submitted to the undersigned. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial examiner ordered the re- instatement of the employees about whom I have read earlier, and the matter is now before the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I ask that that document be received for reference exhibit purposes. Mr. Kj:arns. Yes, sir ; so ordered. ( The document was filed with the committee. ) Mr. BoDLE. I went to such lengths in reading this because I think this is a most important document. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2091 There has been a great deal of emphasis in this hearing placed upon the desirability of maintaining contractual relations and observing contractual obligations. The directive of the A. F. of L. executive council provided that the workers would be reinstated in their jobs. The I AM members were reinstated in their jobs and mention of their jurisdiction was made in the directive. Nevertheless in violation of the original orders of the A. F, of L. executive council, and of the directive, in early 1946 attempts were made to oust the I AM from the jurisdiction which for manj?^ years they had had and here again we find the familiar pattern that the men who were attempting, the craft workers who were attempting to pro- tect their job rights, are the ones who are penalized by the employers, the producers, and it is the lA which is making the demands, which receives the full help and cooperation of the employers. We have the testimony here of Mr. Kahane that when the carpenters and painters refused to work on the cameras which had been processed bj' members of the Federal unions, it was the carpenters and painters who were fired. However, when the teamsters and the lA men refused to work on machinery on which members of the lAM had worked, it was the members of the lAM who were fired. The situation parallels to a great extent the situation that arose in September of 1946. There is one other important point here. Not much is made of it in the intermediate report, but that is that the agreement between Harry Shiffman, who at that time represented an lATSE local, and the producers, with regard to the replacements, was that they should not be discharged or taken off the pay roll after the expiration of the 60- day period following the termination of the 1945 strike, but that they should be carried on pay roll. There has been testimony introduced here already by Mr. Sorrell that the purpose of that was to have these men available for the con- templated further raids upon the jurisdiction of the craft unions in the studios. I want to make one more reference to the machinists' dispute. At page 2226, volume 15 of the transcript, taken in Los Angeles, among a list of jurisdictional disputes at Warner Bros, which were supplied by Carroll Sax, the labor-relations director at Warner Bros., to Boren for the use of the committee, we find the following : During the filming of Life With Father, there was an actual stoppage of shoot- ing just prior to the lunch hour, June 6, 1946. This was caused by Mr. Cooper, in- ternational representative of the lATSE who protested the servicing of technicolor cameras by non-AFL technicians in line with the letter published by the CLC. Shooting was resumed shortly after lunch. There was a total loss of approxi- mately one-half hour. Mr. SoRRELL. I will take over now. I told you in my testimony that dates and names don't come to my memory quickly. Faces I remember and facts I remember, but it is sometimes hard for me to connect them with the dates. I find reference here in a copy of the Hollywood Sun to telegrams sent to all the studio unions requesting their cooperation and their at- tendance at a mass meeting to force the producers to sign contracts. 2092 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES This telegram was sent by Western Union at 1 : 10 p. m. on March 25, 1946. The wire was sent to the Society of Motion Picture Art Direc- tors, the International Photographers Local 659, Joint Executive Board Culinary Workers, Motion Picture Film Editors, Motion Picture Electricians, Motion Picture Studio Grips, Film Technicians, Local 683, Motion Picture Labor and Utility Workers, Studio Utility Em- ployees, Motion Picture Makeup Artists and Hair Stylists, Musicians Mutual Protective Association, Ornamental Plasterers', Motion Pic- ture Studio Projectionists, Affiliated Property Craftsmen Local 44; Script Supervisors Guild, International Sound Technicians, Studio Transportation Drivers, Motion Picture Costumers, Screen Writers Guild, Screen Actors Guild, and Screen Extras Guild, The message is as follows : The undersigned unions invite you to participate with us in an industry-wide mass meeting on wages and liours at Hollywood Legion Stadium, 8 p. m., Wednesday, March 27. AVe know that every union in Hollywood is being sub- jected to inexcusable delays in negotiations. The producers will still refuse to negotiate fair and pi'oper adjustments of studio wages. This matter is vital to the welfare of every studio worker in Hollywood. The problem can be quiclvly solved by unified action by all unions. We hoi^e that you can join us in this effort. It is signed by the members of the Conference of Studio Unions, Building Service Employees Local 728, Cinema Lodg« Local 1185, Moving Picture Painters Local 644, Screen Cartoonists Local 852, Screen Office Employees Guild Local 1391, Screen Publicists Guild Local 1489, Screen Set Designers, Illustrators, and Decorators Local 1421; Screen Story Analysts Local 1488, Special Officers and Guards Local 193, Studio Carpenters Local 946, and Studio Electricians Local 40. Variety reported on March 28 : It was indicated last night that the majority of lA locals are not interested in attending the meeting. The March 27 meeting was flat. Hardly any but CSU miember.s showed up. The CSU decided it had to fight hie wage and hour contract battle by itself and advised locals to hold special membership meetings and give their negotia- tors or boards strike power if necessary. Now that meeting was held. The lATSE and the teamsters were warned not to come to the meeting. Some came an3'how but they were warned on the lots not to attend that meeting. Mr. Kearns. Who warned them ? Mr. SoRRELL. I don't know. They got their warnings on the lots. I don't remember whether it was by written letter or whether it was by posting on the lot, one or the other. ]Mr. Kearxs. From whom, from the producers? Mr. SoRRELL. No, from the unions themselves, the lA and the teamsters unions. We sat down to try to make a deal for the screen story analysts. They had a had a union shop, not a closed sho]:>. They had enjoyed union-shop conditions. We were told by B. B. Kahane that from now on they would only sign an open-shop agreement with the story analysts. I got up at that meeting and said, "An open -shop agreement for one means an open-shop agreement for all. We haven't had an agree- ment since 1942 so we are through," and we walked out. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2093 As you know, when we got the machinists' jurisdictional issue clear by the producer agreeing to go to the Board, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, we then submitted an ultimatum, after making a deal with the independent motion picture producers. I described how we eventually went on strike on July 1. On July 1 1 drove my car past Paramount to see the picket lines. A teamster there told me that the teamsters were calling a meeting, that they knew what the meeting was being called for, that it was to force them to go through the picket lines. I asked him if he thought they would go through and he said, "You know how it is, if we don't we lose our card and if we do we do because we have to. Why don't you go up to the teamsters' meeting?" I said I didn't like to horn in on another local union. With that an lATSE pug, who strung along pretty well with the top officers of the IATSE,.said, "You don't dare go up there." When anybody dares me I go, so I went to the teamsters' union meeting. When I got there the teamsters were all coming from other places and among them were a lot of lATSE people, so I joined the crowd and went up. When I got to the door Joe Tuohy was blocking the door. Natu- rally he didn't want me to go in ; it held up everybody. I said, "I came up here to speak to yourooys." He says, "Why did you bring all your painters ? " I said, "Thesa are not painters, I don't know a single one. They are all your people. Speak to them." The people within the hall and the people out of the hall began to holler at Tuohy and said, "We want to hear him," so I went in. At that meeting Tuohy started to talk and they started to boo him. I think he testified to that some place. He had to get down and I talked. I talked there from a quarter to 9 until nearly 11. I tried to explain everything to those teamsters. I requested that they allow Tuohy to talk. Then in came Cappy DuVal, 2 percent DuVal, who was imported by Bioff and is maintained by Walsh and Brewer, and other business agents, and finally Brewer himself came in. Brewer said to me, "If this is wages and hours as you claim it is, why don't we immediately go over and see the producers ? They are meeting over in Beverly Hills bungalow. They are meeting at the present time with some group and this afternoon they are meeting with the grips. We can go horn in on the meeting." I told him, "We don't do business that way. I will be glad to go with you."' I think I shook hands with him at that time and said, "That is the first decent thing you have said for a long time, and I will be glad to go with you but first I must notify my people because I don't go and make any deals unless I have representatives of unions who can go back and tell each of the unions what it is all about." He called up and made the appointment for 2 o'clock. That was Avhat started or that is where the treaty of Beverly Hills was concluded. I showed up with a business representative or a committee from each of the Conference of Studio Unions locals. Mr. Brewer came with Mr. Tuohy. 67383— 48— vol. 3 38 2094 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES At 'that meeting there was the grips negotiating committee, a Mr. William Barrett, who I testified was defeated for business agent after he had been elected vice president of the lATSE because he insisted on supporting the policy of the international. There are some things I said yesterday that should probably be made more clear. I stated I was told that Mr. Denham was in the producers' pockets. I didn't say who stated that. I will tell you now that notes I have made show that Mr. Benjamin stated at the producers' meeting — and this was in October — Mr. Kearns. What year? Mr, SoREELL. October 1945, after he had returned from Washing- ton— that Reilly was responsible for the appointment of Denham as trial examiner and that he had seen to it that the fix was in. This was said in the producers' meeting. I don't want to tell you who told me, but if you desire Mr. Kearns. It doesn't mean much unless you tell us. Mr. SoRRELL. Well, I can have the fellows subpenaed if you want them. If you are willing to subpena them I will tell you now. I do not like to tell the source of my information if it is not going to do any good because I mean to use this man and use his testimony. Mr. Kearns. Well, you are using a man of national prominence here. Mr. SoRRELL. All right, maybe we can go a little further. The same man who I got this from told Stewart Meacham the same thing. Stewart Meacham can testify under oath and will testify under oath that this was told to him by the same man that told it to me. Mr. McCann. Who is Stewart Meacham? Mr. SoRRELL. Stewart Meacham was the regional director of the Los Angeles NLRB district, or whatever you call it. Mr. McCann. Where is he at this time? Mr. SoRRELL. Stewart Meacham I think right at this time is in Los Angeles. He was over in Korea as adviser to General MacArthur or something. I don't know what it is, but I know he can be reached in Los Angeles. If I have to tell the man's name I can tell it. I am testifying under oath and I am not testifying to things I think, I am testifying to things that I can prove. Now it has been testified liere that the painters have open shop. I testified yesterday that at the independent studios where we have people working we find that the lATSE is trying to push the people out who have been in there, push other people in, and are being success- ful to a certain degree at one place. At another place they succeeded in having a sign posted for 1 day that "This is an open shop for painters." The sign was taken down. I do know that if we sue the company the people who signed the contracts will still say they think it is a good contract. I rather welcome the chance to test this because I think that contract has a bearing on the other interim agreement that was signed with the majors. As has been testified here before we have always been willing to arbitrate any matter. It has almost been a slogan with us that we would never strike over any dispute that we could' not win by honest arbitration. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2095 We have advocated arbitration of jurisdictional matters for years. The producers promised us in 194i that they would not sign any agreements without a clause in those agreements for arbitration of jurisdictional issues. In spite of that fact they signed agreements with the teamsters, the lATSE and some of the other unions. They did not request or did not insist on tlie clause being inserted in the agreement. In that respect we feel it just furthers the proof that a conspiracy existed to drive out the Conference of Studio Unions. It has been testified here by Mr. Brewer, I think, that when the actors got us together to try to arrange some machinery for the ironing out of jurisdictional disputes, that we took the program that was laid down back to our lawyers and the CSU brought back a distorted aJffair which sidestepped the international officers and made it possible for the local unions to put it into effect when 75 percent of them had signed. That is true. We took it back to our lawyers to look at. They said, "This is an agreement to be signed by the internationals only. You know that neither Walsh nor Hutcheson will sign it for possibly 2 or 3 years. It will be held up there. Let's see if we can't get it put to work by two-thirds or three-fourtlis of the local unions signing it. At least it won't do any harm to try." We brought it back as an amendment or added thought. Immedi- ately the lA threw up their hands and said they walked out. We told them. "These are only proposals. We don't want you to walk out. If they cannot be accepted we will go ahead on the other basis." And there was a question of an impartial arbitrator. Brewer and Joe Tuohy submitted a list of six men. We submitted a list of maybe a dozen. The actors put in some names. We took a list, they took a list and we went back to our people and explained that we should pick not one, but several that we could agree •on as impartial arbitrators. We naturally agreed on anyone we had submitted, and we also decided to agree on anyone they had submitted, if we had to. We wouldn't let an arbiter hold it up because even that arbiter in our •opinion would be better than no arbiter at all. We preferred John Keenan, who Mr. Brewer or Mr. Tuohy had submitted. We went bapk to the meeting and found that they had simmered down to four men out of the six they had put on the list, one of whom was Joe Keenan. As soon as we heard the name Joe Keenan we said, "We'll accept Joe Keenan." We weren't going to let a thing like that hold up a matter of this importance. At that meeting where there were many other union representa- tives the only thing Brewer and I had in common was that that man should not be a complete dictator; that if he said the work should go to one union that should be the law at the time. But if the other union thought they had been deprived of something and they were willing to pay for the arbitration, they could go over the man's head to arbi- tration, with the impartial arbiter sitting in, and we would be obliged to abide by the decision of the arbiters, one step over the paid arbiter. 2096 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES On account of that we were willing so that it didn't matter who was in there, we thought it could be kept straight. Mr. McCann. In other words, there was an appeal board of arbiters above the single arbiter ? Mr. SoRRELL. That is right, as long as there was one appeal above the single arbiter we didn't care who got in there. We wanted some- thing to start immediately to eliminate the jurisdictional issues. Now as was expected we had to get Hutcheson in. He sent Morris Hutcheson, the first vice president, his son. As a last resort Morris Hutcheson sat down with Walsh, and AValsh told Morris — at least Morris told me that Walsh told him, "Well, No. 1, you must withdraw from the Conference of Studio Unions; No. 2, you must accept the directive as of December 2G, 1945," whicli was not acceptable to Bill Hutcheson, but on account of a confused telephone call which we had to two of the three wise men, we thought we would accept. However, he would not take the signature of the first vice president of the carpenters for that, he had to have a personal letter from Wil- liam Hutcheson that he accej^ted the directive as of December 26 with- out any clarification and so forth. That was impossible to obtain mider the circimistances. That is what broke up the meeting the actors had sponsored for settlement of jurisdiction. Mr. BoDLE. Now with reference to the arbitration aspect, in 1946, on April 24, the Conference of Studio Unions submitted to Mr. Pat Casey a proposed jurisdictional dispute settlement plan, which pro- vided : That when a jurisdictional dispute arises between any unions or guilds in the motion-picture industry the unions or guilds making the complaint shall im- mediately notify a designated member of the producers' association asking for a meeting, and that then an attempt would be made between the business agents to work out an adjustment of the dispute. In the case that no settlement was arrived at within 4 hours, then the dispute would be submitted to an imj)artial arbiter to be selected by the parties involved. This is the filial paragraph of the proposed plan for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes : The Conference of Studio Unions agrees to abide by all the terms of the above- specified jurisdictional dispute settlement plan, provided the lATSE, the basic agreement group and all the independent guilds within the motion-picture industry likewise agree and sign to that effect. Mr. McCann. I ask that it be received in evidence as a reference exhibit. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. Bodle. I will introduce also the covering letter from Mr. Pat Casej^ to me. Mr. McCanx. I think that can be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. Bodle. This indicates the concern of the conference to find some basis upon which to settle jurisdictional disputes. After the lock-out of September 23, 1946, a number of different organizations and parties intervened in the dispute in an effort to bring about some settlement. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2097 The Inner Faith Council of Los Angeles, composed of ministers of the leading- churches of all faiths in the connnunity, made a proposal ior arbitration of the dispute which the conference accepted, the pro- ducers rejected and so far as any evidence I have the lA did not reply to. Mr. McCaxx. I ask that it be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. Kearxs. Xo objection. ( The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. BoDLE. Subsequently Father Dunne made a proposal for settle- ment of the strike through arbitration, wdiich again the conference accepted. So far as I know neither the lA nor the producers replied to it. ^Ir. McCaxx. May that be received as a reference exhibit? Mr. Kearxs. Xo objection. ( The document is filed with the committee.) ]Mr. BoDLE. At a later date a proposal was made by the committee appointed by the archbishop. That was again accepted by the con- ference and so far as I know was not accepted by either the lA or the producers. I do not have a copy of that with me. Mr. McCaxx". Give us a copy of what you do have, and if you can furnish a copy of the other, please do so, and it will be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. BoDLE. The important thing about this is that there apparently was no desire on the part of the producers or on the part of the lATSE, at any time after September 23, 1946, to find some basis for a solution of this clisptite which had put around 5.000 people out of work. Xow I want to return for a moment to the 1945 directive and the 194G clarification. Here again the impression has been conveyed — and I think im- properly— that the clarification which was issued was beyond the powers of the three-man committee; that the committee in the words of Mr. Levy was fimtus officio ; that when the carpenters insisted upon the producers conforming to the clarification, they were in fact breach- ing the 1945 original directive and hence were in the position of parties Avho had breached a binding arbitration award. Xow I say I think this is an improper interpretation that has been placed upon the directive. I think it is important that this be pointed otit because there has been so much emphasis placed in these hearings upon alleged breaches of faith and contract by the carpenters and other members of the conference unions. I do not think a reading of the directive or of the clarification wall give any basis for a finding that either constituted an arbitration award. The powers of the three-man committee derive not from an agree- ment between the unions who were parties to the dispute, but from authority which was conferred upon the three-man committee by the executive council of the AFL. The fact that the parties agreed to abide by the terms of the directive which the three-man committee might issue, is irrelevant in my opinion, insofar as the source of the committee's power is concerned. This is certainly apparent from a reading of the directive issued by the executive council to the three-man committee and to the unions which were parties to the dispute. 2098 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The directive which was issued by the executive council reads : 1. The council directs that the Hollywood studio strike he terminated im- mediately; that all employees return to work immediately; that for a period of 30 days the international unions attempt to settle their jurisdictional dis- putes— I am paraphrasing some of this — that at the expiration of 30 days a committee of three members of the execu- tive council of the AFL investigate and determine within 30 days all juris- dictional questions still involved; that all parties concerned accept as final and binding such decisions and determinations as the executive committee of three may finally render. The important words here are "The council directs.'' I think it is clear, as I say, from a reading of the directive it states that the power of the committee stemmed not. as in the case of arbi- trations, from the agreement of the parties involved, but from the authority which was conferred upon the committee by the AFL executive council. I do not have to rely fortunately upon any interpretation of the original executive council directive to the three-man committee and the other unions for this interpretation. In the Los Angeles hearings, volume 13, page 1720, Mr. Doherty testified. Mr. Doherty, as you recall, was the secretary of the three- man committee. This initial reference was directed to Mr. McCann. Mr. Doherty said : Counsel repeatedly refers to this committee as an arbitration board. We were not an arbitration board. We were a committee representing the executive council, instructed to conduct an investigation and to make a decision. It was not an arbitration board. I would like the record to be clear on that. Now if we assume — and I think that is the only conclusion we can arrive at — that this was not an arbitration board ; that this three-man committee derived its powers exclusively and solely from the execu- tive council of the AFL, then it is certainly clear that the executive council having once instructed the committee to bring in certain findings and decisions, could instruct it at a later date to clarify those, change them, or do anything it wanted to. Again I say this is important because so much has been made here as to the sanctity of contracts. The finger has been pointed at the carpenters and the painters because of an alleged breach of the arbi- tration award. There was no arbitration award here. There never was at any time. At a later date in discussion the clarification Doherty, Birthright, and Knight made this clear again. They are asked where their power derived from to make the clarification and they say. "From the same place that our original authority came from, not from the agree- ment of the parties but from the direction of the executive council of the AFL." INIr. Landis. What was this board? If it was not an arbitration board what was it ? Mr. BoDLE. It was a board ap]iointed by the executive council of the AFL, directed and authorized to inquire into the Hollywood juris- dictional questions and render a decision. Mr. Landis. And both parties to abide by the decision, is that correct ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2099 Mr. BoDLE. The parties were directed by the executive council to abide by the decision, just as the board was directed by the council to investigate the situation and make certain findings. Mr. Landis. Did the parties agree to accept the directive or not'^ Mr. BoDLE. I don't know. The testimony of Doherty, Birthright, and Knight is not clear on that. They say that so far as they know there was nothing ever signed by the unions which were parties to the dispute, and if there were, it must be in the offices of the AFL. You will find that in the testimony. Whether there was anj^ oral agreement to abide, I don't know. The point I want to make is that inasmuch as the original authority of the committee derived from the executive council and not from the agreement of the parties, the executive council at any time could instruct them to do this, to do that, or do the other thing. Mr. Landis. Yes; but the main point is, if they agreed to accept their decision, that is the whole thing. If they did not agree to accept the decision of course they didn't have to. I think the main point is whether they agreed to accept. The way I understood it Doherty said they agreed to accept, is that correct ? I do not have the testimony of Birthright on that and I think we ought to have that. Mr. Kearns. The testimony on the coast was confusing because they did not get together themselves. They say tliej didn't mean things they said there. Mr. BoDLE. I think it is probably correct that they agreed to accept the decision. I don't know. The testimony is confusing. But the point I want to make is that in the normal arbitration situation the power of the arbitrator derives from the agreement of the parties. The power of the three-man committee did not derive from the agreement of the parties. The parties were directed by the executive council to make an agreement. Mr. Landis. I get that. Mr. BoDLE. The power of the three-man committee derived from the executive council and it was a continuing power on the part of the executive council to instruct them at any time what to do. Mr. Kearns. Yes; but the parties agreed to leave it in the council's hand to set up the mechanics for investigation; did they not? Mr. BoDLE. I don't know and I don't think it is relevant, because the council acted without relation to the parties, sir, obviously. It said, "We direct that," and then it sets forth four things. I don't know whether the parties agreed to it or not. I don't think it is im- portant so far as the council is actually concerned. Now I want to make the further point that if this was an arbitration agreement — and I do not think by any stretcli of the imagination it could be considered as such — then why did not either the lA or the producers take steps to enforce the terms of the arbitration agreement through the courts ? Why did they, on the other hand, secretly plot and conspire to force these men out on the street? I mean it is not a small thing we are dealing with here. It is 5,000 people. People do not normally force 5,000 other people out on the street if there is some other remedy. If there was some other remedy then I say that the failure of the producers and the lA to use that other remedy is strong proof of the 2100 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES fact that tliey did not want a settlement of this dispute, that they did want to force these crafts out on the street. Mr. Landis. Wasn't there some doubt as to the interpretation of the directive ? Mr. BoDLE. Not from their testimony. Mr. Landis. How about the producers ? I thought there was some- thing in the testimony to that effect. Mr. BoDLE. No ; the testimony is tliat the term "set erection" — and I believe Mr. Levy read into the record definitions from Webster's Dictionary — that the term "set erection" is clear, unequivocal, and not ambiguous in any sense. Mr. McCann. On the other hand, Mr. Bodle. if I may make the statement, I think Mr. Landis is correct in that the producers stated there was so much doubt in their own minds as to what the meaning of the directive was, that they insisted on going to Miami to check with the council. I think there is evidence to that effect in the record. Mr. BoDLE. I think you are right with reference to that ; yes. Mr. McCann. There is, on the other hand, much conflicting testi- mony in the record, Mr. Landis, as to what the three men meant to do. That was testified in every possible way before us in Hollywood. One moment they would say they meant to do this, the next moment they would say they meant to do just the opposite. That testimony is in the Los Angeles record. It is replete with contradictory state- ments by the three men themselves. Mr. BoDLE. Now there is just one other phase of this I want to touch upon. There were a number of letters read into the record from Mr. Levy to Mr. Walsh accusing Mr. Hutcheson of pressuring the executive council and the three-man committee into issuing the clari- fication. I just want to point out that there is specific and direct testimony on the part of the members of the three-man committee denying this in toto. The only other matter I want to mention in this connection is with regard to the work which the carpenters had done prior to the time that the December 26, 1945, directive came out. There is a very interesting and important letter from Roy M. Brewer, international representative, to Mr. Dan Flanagan, western director, American Federation of Labor, dated August 1946, in ref- erence to this point, which was introduced into the Los Angeles proceedings. I am just going to read the portion of that letter that relates to this problem : Previous to the strike the set erection work had been done by the United Brotli- ei'hood of Carpenters and Joiners and so far as I know there had never been any argument between local SO and the carpenters local on this particular work. Mr. SoRRELL. Are you through now ? Mr. BoDLE. I am through. Mr. SoERELL. Congressman Kearns, I have been sitting here think- ing. I do not want to miss out on this. I think I better divulge the source of my information so you can go right to the bottom of it. This information was given to both myself and Stewart Meacham by Bart P. Guild. He was sitting in with the producers at the time, MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2101 and I think he was a representative of Republic Studios at that time. My notes were made a long time ago. In referring to them I see that Meacham wrote to Herzog about this. I don't know who Her- zog is. Mr. Landis. Chairman of the board. ]Mr. SoRRELL. AVhen he received the news he called Reilly in and in the presence of a number of people he said to Reilly, "Did you and Denham talk to this guy Benjamin?" And he said, "Yes." It was Reilly who selected Denham to act as trial examiner for the case in California. I do not like to expose the source of all my information but I do not think this is going to hurt. I know these men will testify under oath that this is the truth. Mr. Kearns. Do }• ou know where Guild is now ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes ; I think you can find him in Hollywood. I will be glad to try to find him for you if you like. Mr. KJEARxs. You say his first name is Bart, B-a-r-t? Mr. SoRRELL. Bart P. Guild. The reason I changed my mind and submitted his name is because he is not now connected with the motion picture producers association. I think he is an honest guy and I know that he will tell the truth under oath. Now, it has been testified here that we have had very good relations with the independent producers. We have given no favors but we do not feel that they are a part of this conspiracy. We feel the con- spiracy that exists not only is against the Conference of Studio Unions, but also takes advantage of the independent producers. I want to read a wire to Mr. William Green, dated October 1, 1946, from Donald M. Nelson, president, Society of Motion Picture Pro- ducers, 6233 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, Calif. Copies went to a number of people. There is quite a list down here, and I don't think that matters : The members of the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers have continuously fostered a policy of good labor relations with all their employees. The society since its inception has done everything within its power to cure and prevent the basic causes of the spasmodic outbreaks of distastrous strikes in this industry. Although not involved in the original strike — Departing from the telegram for a moment, this was written on October 1, No picket lines were around any of the studios. They had not been forced to fire a man yet. Going back to the telegram : it now finds itself helpless to prevent a shut-down on production of our inde- pendent pictures. We are told by the nonstriking side that they will not work with members of the striking unions. The present strike, as we see it, is purely jurisdictional. Both the striking and nonstriking groups are members of the AFT,. No question of wages is involved. One group of employees say that certain work in the studios belong to them. The other group say that the work belongs to them. The conflict in basic jurisdiction appears to have been caused by conflicting interpretations of recent directives issued by the AFL in attempt- ing to clear up the jurisdiction in these categories. It is becoming increasingly clear that unless leadership asserts itself with proper vigor, directness, and clarity to resolve these points of jurisdictional combat, there is every likelihood that this strike will grow in proportion and mount in physical violence and destruction of property. After the strike rages perhaps for months, to physical exhaustion to everyone concerned, with great economic loss, both to the workers themselves and the 2102 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES independent studios, somebody has to sit around the table and eventually settle the issues. Why can't this be done now instead of later? As believers and exponents of sound trade-unionism, we fear that the cause will be dealt a severe blow unless the strike is settled immediately. The situation for the independent producers has now become so desperate that we are asking you to invoke your good offices for the purpose of swift clarification and resolution of jurisdictional lines involved in this dispute. I have a copy of a wire dated October 1 sent to Mr. Donald Nelson, Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers, Pantages Theater Building, Hollywood, Calif. : Dear Sir: You have informed us that the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees has demanded that the independent producers of your organization discharge all members of unions affiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions. The lATSE accompanied this demand with the threat of closing down the cui'rent productions of your independent producers by strike action and of refusing to project the films of the independent producers in the theaters. This action of the lATSE is a part of that campaign in the major studios which has precipitated the lock-out of thousands of our members. The major producers have cooperated fully with the lATSE and we charge that these parties have conspired to destroy the unions of the CSU, force all workers into the lATSE, and then to place all motion-picture workers, as well as the Independent producers, at the mercy of the major film companies. We hope you will not accede to the lATSE's demands, but will instead con- tinue to operate and to employ according to your contractual relations those workers for whom we are the legal bargaining representatives. For you to do otherwise would compel us to defend our members with all the legal and economic means at our command. Please know that we shall be glad to discuss with you further this diflficult situation in which your local unions and your body of independent producers have been driven by the ruthless and law-defying tactics of the lATSE and major producers. Signed by the Conference of Studio Unions. October 2, 2 p. m., a wire to myself, Conference of Studio Unions, 4157 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles : Answering your wire of October 1 in a preliminary talk with Roy Brewer, he informed us that the lA had decided that no member of the lA would work with any member of the CSU unions who were on strike against them. Mr. Brewer made no threats nor did we discuss with him what we would do. We intend to have further discussions with Mr. Brewer. The society had not determined a course of action but will certainly discuss with you or your representatives any action we plan to take, this to correct the apparent misunderstanding of what our conversation with Mr. Brewer was. He told me over the phone — and you can see by my letter — that I understood Brewer was taking direct action. By his wire he shows Brewer had told him these things, but he had not told him he was going to take any direct action, or w4iat action he had decided to take at that time. Now, the independent studios are still being pushed around pretty strongly. The independent producers who work at the major stu- dios naturally do not have the benefit of our people because they hire their help through the studio and we all been fired at the studios. There are just a couple of things I want to bring up, and then I am going to be quiet. I want to bring to your attention that the lock-out is not over. It is very much in evidence. I have a telegram here sent to me at the Hamilton Hotel, Wash- ington, D. C. Lawsuit filed here only last Friday — MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2103 this is dated February 23 — Lawsuit filed here only last Friday exposes the absurdity of Zorn's testimony studios normal. Also the problem facing venture capital iu Hollywood. Suit asking $1,000,000 damages was filed in superior court by Bernie Byrons Produc- tions against John Steinbeck, the author, and others. Complaint charges Stein- beck in July 1945 assigned company screen rights to his best selling novel. Can- nery Row. Contract provided picture was to be made within 2 years. Steinbeck recently withdrew the rights because provision not carried out. Company claims it was prevented primarily by chaotic labor conditions, and it seeks compensa- tory damages. Company claims over 2iA years period it approached Paramount, RKO, United Artists, and Republic, among other studios, but arrangements could never jell due to bad labor conditions. Lewis B. Preston. Xow I told you the independents were forced to hire men, put men- on the pay roll who didn't work, and were forced to put men in super- intendents' jobs at the lATSE's request. I could not think of Dominic Bruno's name, who is working at Eagle Lion as one of these men who are put in to run things. It has been said here that Bioff has no connection with this or with the lATSE affairs. I have stated that just prior to the bombing of the homes of Norman Pottle and others Bioff was seen in the company of the torpedoes at the Roosevelt Hotel. This Dominic Bruno has bragged to some of our people that he sees Willie Bioff occasionally and thinks he is a very nice guy. There are a lot of things I would like to put in here, but I am skip- ping everything except where I have direct contact. I am trying to avoid any hearsay because I realize the record is full of hearsay any- how, but it has not been put in by us. What I tell you I will have facts or people to baclv it up under oath. I also drew to your attention that Johnny Eosselli, the only other former associate of Willie Bioff, that I happen to know in Hollywood, is now working at the Eagle-Lion Studio as a writer. You go ahead. Mr. BoDLE. There are just a few things I want to clean up. Do you want me to go ahead ? Mr. Kearns. We will adjourn until '2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m., at the expiration of the recess. ) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will be in order, please. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, by your direction, I will read a tele- gram vou have presented to me. It is dated March 7, lOlS, addressed to Ted Ellsworth, Costumers Local No. 705, lATSE, 2760 Cahuenga Freeway, Hollywood, Calif. Reference your telegram just received. My testimony was neither malicious nor unfounded. It was, rather, a recitation of facts, plus my sincere conclusion regarding Communist infiltration and influence in Hollywood labor. Your afflia- tion or nonafiiliation with the Communist Party is something about which I have no knowledge at this time and on which I gave no testimony. However, your support of those causes identified with Communist motives and objectives, even to supporting the opposition to your own international union, is well known in Hollywood. I have no knowledge of your intentions of filing non-Communist 2104 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES affidavits, and my testimony with regard to such was in response to questions by members of the congressional committee. I sincerely hope that your future actions will substantiate the statements made in your telegram. Rot M. Beeiweb;, International Representative, lATSE. The other message I believe has been read it. Mr. Kearns. Yes ; it is already in the record. All right, Mr. Sorrell, you may continue. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K. SORRELL AND GEORGE E. BODLE— Continued Mr. SoREELL. Mr. Bodle has something to read into the record. Mr. Bodle. Previously we brought Mr. Bioff's record up to the time of his incarceration for a period of 10 years on extortion charges. Since that time I have had an excerpt made or an examination made of the clerk's docket in the Bioff-Browne cases. I find oiit that subsequent to the conviction and sentence of Browne, and Bioff a notice of appeal was filed. This was on November 12, 1941. On November 24, 1941, an election to enter upon service of sentence was filed. The appeal was never completed, but b}^ stipulation of the Government and the attorneys for Bioff and Browne time in which to perfect the appeal was extended from time to time. Finally, on December 22, 1944, the appeal was withdrawn and the present term which originally had been 10 and 8 years for Bioff and Browne, respectively, was reduced to the period already served, S years and 5 months. It is impossible to tell from the clerk's docket the actual arrange- ment which was effected which resulted in the reduction of the sentence to the time served. However, it appears that something most unusual, I think, in crim- inal angles was accomplished here. Apparently a deal was made for the withdrawal of the appeal in consideration of the reduction and commutation of sentence to the time served. Inasmuch as this committee is investigating the whole of the Holly- wood situation I think this reduction of sentence is certainly something which deserves very close and careful scrutiny of this committee. Mr. McCann. Who was the judge that gave the sentence ? Mr. Bodle. It was Judge Knox in the district court. Mr. McCann. Did he commute the sentence ? . Mr. Bodle. He commuted the sentence. As the excerpt from the clerk's docket shows, defendants withdrew appeal and obtained an order from Judge Knox who sentenced defendants, reducing sentence from 10 and 8 years to time already served. 3 years and 5 and 8 months. I would like to introduce into the record excerpts from clerk's docket. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I ask that they be received as a refer- ence exhibit. Mr. Bodle. That is to substantiate the statement I have made. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. Bodle, Since that time there have been repeated references in the newspapers to the reentrance of Willie Bioff into the Hollywood scene. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2105 For example, in the Chicago Tribune of July 28, 1943, in an article by Marchia Wynn we find this statement : The shadow of Willie Bioff still hangs heavily over Hollywood. In the Chicago Daily News of May 29, 1946, in a signed article by Edwin A. Leahy we have further reference to a continuation of the Bioff influence in the lATSE. In the Los Angeles Herald Express of January 23, 1947, a signed article by Walter Winchell, we find the following statement : Don't look now, but isn't that Willie Bioff back in Hollwood. Allegedly having secret meetings with movie producers in connection with the strike. And in the Daily News of November 14, 1947, in a signed article by Dennis Sprague under the following headline : "Bioff, Milker of Film Chiefs, Faded Here," we find the following : Hollywood entertained a distinguished visitor last week. He was a blue jowled gorilla viewed anthropoid who should have been as welcome in the movie colony capital as bubonic plague. Welcome he was, however, and with open arms. His host, who was the general manager of one of the great movie studios, called him Willie and took him around to meet the Beverly Hills elite and say hello to old friends, chiefly big wheels in the cultural art of making motion pictures. Mr. McCanx. I ask that be received as a reference exhibit. The Chairman. No objection. (The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. May we see those reference exhibits, please ? Mr. McCann.^ Certainly. Mr. BoDLE. Yesterday in connection with Mr. Sorrell's claim of a continuing conspiracy between the lATSE and the producers to drive the craft unions out of the industry, Mr. Landis expressed some dissent. Mr. Landis. No, that wasn't dissent, I wanted it explained. Mr. BoDLE. I want to say whether or not there has been a con- spiracy in connection with the 1946 strike, a conspiracy to force out on the streets the members of the craft unions who have been walking the streets these past 18 months, there has certainly been a conspiracy of silence on the part of the producers and the lATSE. The minutes of the producers labor committee meetings occurring between September 11 and September 24, 1946, clearly establish that the plans for the mass discharge of the carpenters and painters were formulated by the lATSE and the producers in concert. Yet at the time certain of the producer representatives and certain of the lATSE representatives took the stand before this committee in Los Angeles, there was a complete denial of any such conspiracy of any such concerted action of any such plot. I want to bring to the attention of the committee at this time the testimony of certain of the people who appeared before the committee in Hollywood at the time the hearings were held there last year, because I think this will indicate that not only was there a conspiracy here, but that the producers and the lA were conscious of it and did their very best to keep it from being disclosed. And the fact that they were so concerned about keeping it a secret, I think, points up the nature of the conspiracy. Fred ]\Ieyer testified during the Los Angeles hearings on August 26, 1947, as the labor-relations director of Twentieth Century-Fox Pic- tures. His testimony was generally to the effect that in effectuating 2106 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES the mass discharge of the members of locals 946 and 644, the painters, from the studio on September 23, 1946, he acted on his own individual initiative m formulating the studio policy, consulting only Alfred Wright, the studio legal counsel, and Joseph Schenck, and no one else. Now I want to read briefly from his testimony : Mr. Meyer first testified that Cambiano presented an ultimatum to the studios at the conference attended by him and other studio representatives. Meyer thereafter instructed his subordinates to discharge any men who failed to do work assigned to them. Now the interrogation of Mr. Meyer : Mr. Keabns. Then you never had to take the ultimatum up directly to any man in your company higher than yourself? Mr. Meyer. No, sir. Mr. Kearns. You acted on your own initiative after you had that ultimatum? Mr. Meyer. Well, that is Mr. Kearns. You didn't call up the other studios? Mr. Meyer. I relayed my discussion with Mr. Wright to Mr. Joseph Schenck» I believe. Mr. Kearns. That is when you turned on the hook-up then to find out what was going on all the way around? Mr. Meyer. I don't understand what you mean. Mr. Kearns. I mean you got in touch with all the other studios to find out what they were doing? Mr. Meyer. No ; I didn't. Mr. Kearns. You acted as an individual? Mr. Meyer. That is right. Mr. Kearns. That is what I wanted to establish. Mr. Meyer. That is right. I didn't consult any other studio, I was guided entirely by the violation of any — of the Wagner Act and Mr. Wright's instructions as to how to proceed. * * * Mr. Meyer. Mr. McCann, I can only speak for myself. There was no trip, no consultation, no telephone conversation, no communication by myself with anyone other than Mr. Joseph Schenck. Mr. McCann. In the conference that followed Mr. Cambiano's ultimatum the studios discussed what do we do from now on? Mr. Meyer. That is right. Mr. McCann. Yet at that conference it was not decided to lay off all the car- penters at one time? Mr. Meyer. No ; definitely not. Mr. McCann. Was there a subsequent conference with these men between that time and the 23d? Mr. Meyer. Which men do you mean? Mr. McCann. With the men of the bargaining committee. Mr. Meyer. You mean the Producers Labor Committee? Mr. McCann. Yes. Mr. Meyer. Oh, yes, we had many meetings after that. Mr. McCann. Was it discussed what they should do. was that discus.sed at all of those meetings between that time and the 23d? Mr. Meyer. I don't know that the 23d ever came into the picture. As a mat- ter of fact, I can't recall how the interlapse between what Mr. Price stated was the 11th and the 23d. The only thing we discussed was that in order to keep operations going we had no alternative but to operate as best we could. Mr. McCann. As an individual and were not influenced by the other com- panies, you said you had not consulted them at that time? Mr. Meyer. That is right, I had not consulted them. Now subsequently at hearings of the subcommittee, specifically on September 2, 1947, minutes of the Producers Labor Committee were introduced which clearly contradict the testimony of Mr. Meyer. The minutes show that the producers labor representatives were in con- stant conference from September 11, 1946, through September 24, 1946, consulting each other and agreeing upon a policy of uniform action and that Meyer attended each one of these conferences. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2107 The minutes further reveal that Eoy Brewer, the lATSE, was called in and present at most of these meetings, and that arrange- ments were made to have the carpenters ordered to work on "hot sets" and upon their refusal to "terminate their employment"; that the lATSE was to provide replacements for the studios ; that the policy was decided after advice from the New York executives to attempt to keep open, call on lA to do the struck work. And that Alfred Wright drew up a set of instructions outlining the procedure to be followed which was distributed to each studio I'epresentative and that in general there was to be unanimity of action, even though this fact was not to be made known. I point this out because there must have been something wrong here or people wouldn't have gone to such great pains to keep it a secret. I next want to refer to the testimony of Roy Brew-er. Mr. Landis. Before you go ahead on that, that was the time when the carpenters said they were not going to work on the "hot sets," was it? Mr. BoDLE. Yes. Mr. Landis. This is a fair question: What would you have done if 3^our boss had told you to keep open, to keep the studio going? That is the point I can't see. You are the fellow out there ruiming the studio and your boss says to keep the studio open. If the carpen- ters are not going to work, what are you going to do then ? You are going to get union men first, aren't you? If you can't get union men then you have to get nonunion men. That is the position I would find myself in. The first thing I would do if I got orders to keep the studio open would be to get other union men to take the job. If they gave me the orders to keep it open and I could not get the other union men, then I would have to go get nonunion men. That is the point I can- not understand. ]Mr. BoDLE. I would like to answer that. That is not what happened here. Mr. Laxdis. That is the way it seems to me. There might be some- thing pise there. Mr. BoDLE. The carpenters came in and gave the producers an ulti- matum on September 11, 1946, that they would not work on the sets erected by the set erectors. Mr. Laxdis. That is right. Mr. BoDLE. The producers had two alternatives they immediately saw, one they could close down, the other they could keep open and use other workers. Mr. Laxdis. That's right, and they decided to keep open? jMi\ Bodle. That is right. I think there were a number of other alternatives that were possible also. If this were an arbitration award as has been argued by Mr. Levy and by Mi\ Zorn, they could have gone into the State courts, gotten an injunction to prevent the violation of the award by the carpenters, assuming there was a violation. Mr. Laxdis. How long was the ultimatum ; do you know ? Mr. Bodle. It was not until the 23d, 12 days later, that the men were discharged in the studios, and it doesn't take any time at all to get a temporary restraining order in California. It is issued ex parte. They could have had it in 24 hours. 2108 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Or they could have brought the parties together. There was no attempt to do that. Mr. Landis. I mean if I had been the carpenters and I said, "I will give you a week to work this thing out ; we are not going to work on these 'hot sets' in a week from now." Mr. B0DL.E. The testimony clearly indicates this condition could have continued for a period of 10 days, 2 weeks, or 3 weeks after the 23d. On the 23d, I think that at one of the studios — I have forgotten which one now — 170 carpenters were discharged en masse. At Fox, as I recall, over 200 were discharged. Now if the men had continued to be discharged as they were put on hot sets it is conceivable that the studios could have continued for 2 or 3 weeks beyond September 23d. But they didn't do that ; they didn't want to do that. I think anybody who reads these minutes must come to the con- clusion that the producers didn t want to settle this, that they wanted to force the construction building-trades crafts out on strike. Mr. Landis. Of course, that is not what they say. They say they didn't want any trouble on the sets. Mr. BoDLE. They say two different things. They have one story now and they have another story that you gather from the minutes. The minutes are pretty clear. The minutes saj, for example, that the studios were instructed to create an incident on Monday, an incident. What kind of an inci- dent? An incident which would place more carpenters in a position to be discharged. The minutes show that all the men are to be ordered on the hot sets on the 23d. The testimony is clear on this. Men who had not worked on a set in 15 years, as at Fox, two old pensioners who had been injured in the company's service and by agreement with the union had not filed industrial accident commission claims, and in turn had been guaran- teed jobs for the rest of their lives, but who were to stay in the paint shop and work on flat work, were on this date, on the 23d, called out and ordered on hot sets. At Paramount and M-G-M, as the testimony of Borin and Walsh establishes, the checks were actually prepared a day in advance of the discharge. Mr. Landis. They claim they were going to have trouble and they wanted to be ready. Mr. BoDLE. That I agi^ee with. They created trouble. I do not see how anybody can get by those minutes. When you ask "What would you do in that situation?" would you contrive with a rival union to create incidents which would bring about a discharge of some 5,000 men who had spent their lives in your service ? Wouldn't you have more consideration for your employees ? Mr. Landis. Now, if I have orders to keep open and I find the car- penters are not going to work, then I am going to try to get more union carpenters. If I cannot get union carpenters then I have to go outside to get nonunion carpenters. Mr. BoDiiE. It wasn't a question of the carpenters not working, it was a question of the carpenters refusing to work on hot sets. Mr. Landis. Well, you have got to have the men for the sets, haven't you? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2109 Mr. BoDLE. No; lots of men do not work on sets. At Universal the testimony was clear that there was no work on hot sets on the 23d. There was no work which had been erected by the so-called set erectors. There just wasn't any. Apparently Universal conld have continued to work with a full crew of painters and carpenters for I don't know how long, but at least beyond the 23d, On the 23d at Universal — and again I am only referring to the testimony in the record — they called the set erectors onto a set and had tliem build a set. Then the foremen of the paint and carpenters departments, in the reverse order, because the instructions from the producers said first the carpenters and then the painters, called the men in, divided them up into gangs, and ordered them to work on the hot set. The testimony again at Universal is clear because I remember this : They took the so-called lay-out men who had not touched a hammer in 15 years. This isn't a question of keeping open, this is a question of contriving, conspiring to bring about the mass discharge of 5,000 men, on an excuse. There is absolutely no contradictory testimony in this record that the maintenance men, the lay-out men, and so forth were not working on sets; that in the normal course of work they never would have been ordered to work on sets. As a matter of fact, there you do not have to turn to me for this. you can turn to Mr. Alfred Wright, the counsel for Twentieth Century- Fox. In the minutes you will find that Alfred Wright says he does not believe it was either morally or legally right to order these mainte- nance men and so forth upon the hot sets. He says morally and legally. Mr. Landis. Of course, they claim they were hired to work any place. That is their testimony before the committee. Mr. BoDLE. Well, if you have employed people you know, if ^"ou have employed a stenographer in your office you do not expect tliciii to go down and shovel coal. Air. Laxdis. I don't mean that ; I am talking about taking carpenters off a l)uilding job here and putting tliem on a hot set. Mr. BoDLE. Why didn't they do it in the normal course? Why did they plot with the lA to have it all on the 23d ? It could have gone on for I don't know how long. I mean I just don't know. Obviously it could have gone on for months beyond the 23d. Why didn't they make some effort to settle this? Wliy didn't they get the injunction? They are quick enough with injunctions on other matters. I understand there are going to be a lot of injunctions that the pro- ducers have obtained read into the record here. Now why didn't they get an injunction there ? It is a common procedure. It is not unusual. I tell you there was no desire to do it. Now this is a very significant thing. As of November 11, accord- ing to the minutes, they had not yet decided what to do, whether they were going to close down or what, but they had already made contact with the lA. Mr. Landis. After they got the ultimatum? 67383— 48— vol. 3 39 2110 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. BoDLE. But before they had come to any conchision as to what course of action they would follow they had already made contact with the lA. I think you can find as consistent a program here as can be built up in a record. You have 1937. I read it into the record. Bioff said : The Dainters will deal with the producers only through me. and if they deal with anybody else I will strike. In 1941 you had Bioff saying, "The cartoonists will deal only with Disney through me." And when the cartoonists didn't he sent the other AFL unions back. In 1915 when the producers were under a clear legal obligation to recognize local 1421 as the successor to the Society of Motion Picture Decor.ators, you find them refusing to do so because the lA didn't want them to do it. In 1946 when you have the clarification coming down from the execu- tive council, you have them following right along with the lA again. I thinlv you have as consistent a record here as you can find. Mr. Landis. The part that I cannot see is that after they did not know whether they were going to keep open or not, then they decided if they could get the men to do the work they were going to keep open. They went to the lA to get men. They said they could get them a sufficient amount of men to carry on, so they began hiring their men. Mr. BoDLE. I agree with you if they decided to keej) open they are going to get the men to keep open, but I don't think that is the point. Mr. Landis. I mean if the lA or anybody else has a union that has carpenters or painters, and they say they cannot furnish enough men to keep open, then they have to shut down. Mr. BoDLE. I asked the producers this question : "Do you want to keep open? Now, if you want to keep open don't you want to keep as many men on the job as you can? The painters and carpenters are highly skilled people. If you want to keep open don't you keep your people working?" That isn't what they did. Mr. Landis. I don't suppose the carpenters would agree to let the other fellows w^ork on the "hot" sets and then work in the other jilaces. Mr. BoDLE. Well, it is good speculation. There was no strike here until, I believe, 3 days after the lock-out. Mr, Landis. The ultimatum is what seemed a little different to me. Just to say you are not going to work on them and that means to- morrow, to me that would be pretty short notice. Mr, BoDLE. The ultimatum said simply, "We won't work on the 'hot' sets." Now, I want to point out about the ultimatums. There have been a lot of ultimatums and they are all on short notice, I suppose. There is testimony in the record that around August 23, 1946, I think it is, the lA gave the producers an ultimatum that "If you vary from the terms of the December directive, we are going to strike, or we are going to take action to x^rotect our interests" I don't know just how it was worded, but the 24-hour ultimatum actually did not mean too much, because there could not have been so many carpenters and painters to be fired 11 or 12 days later if a lot of carpenters and painters had been ordered to work on "hot" sets prior to that time. So actually it was not a 12-hour ultimatum. The producers had plenty of time to work this out. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2111 I think the fact that beginning with the 12th they planned a mass discharge indicates that they had no intention or desire to work it out. Mr. Landis. But there were no "hot" sets between the 11th and the 23d? . • Mr. BoDLE. Yes ; there were. Mr. Landis. Oh, there were ? Mr. BoDLE. Yes; there were discharges at least of carpenters, ac- cording to the testimony. I don't know. Mr. Landis. The discharge was on the 23d ? Mr. BoDLE. Yes; the mass discharge. They were all cleared out on the 23d. Mr. Landis. Did any carpenters work on the "hot" sets between the 11th and the 23d? INIr. BoDLE. I would like to refer that to Mr. Sorrell. Mr. McCann. The record shows, Mr. Landis, if you will permit me to interject there, that prior to the 23d I think it was M-G-M who reported they had let out so many carpenters for refusing to work on "hot'' sets. There were reports that came into the producers labor committee before the 23d showing how many had been let out. Mr. Landis. Is that in the record ? Mr. McCann. That is in the record, sir. Mr. Landis. How were they going to carr}- on business if they won't work on the "hot" sets, that is the point I am trying to get at? Mr. McCann. I don't want to answer any question that is up to the witness. I am simpl}^ s^iying to you there were people discharged prior to the 23d for not working on "hot" sets. That was the question yoii asked. Mr. Landis. The point I am trying to make is if there were carpen- ters who refused to work on the "hot" sets between the 11th and the 23d, then in order to carry on the business they would have to hire somebody else to run those sets. Maybe Mr. Sorrell can answer that. Mr. Sorrell. You see, the producers got this letter from William Green nearly a month before the ultimatum was given. We got no answer. I contacted Eric Johnston to be sure he got the letter, so I know he got the letter. They had the notice for nearly a month. In that month it was circulated around through all of our unions. We have democratic unions, as I have spoken about before. It was taken up and voted on. They cheered ; everybody was pleased. Every- body said, "We will go down the line in support of the carpenters. When are they going to put it in force?" The letter was read from Hutcheson to the carpenters not to get overjubilant, not to step out, to give the producers time to put it in effect. The producers knew it was coming. You only got the minutes from the 11th on. I wish 3'ou had the minutes before that, because this had been talked of in the producers meeting prior to that. Now, they got the ultimatum they were expecting on the 11th. The lATSE was expecting it. That was not the start of the con- spiracy, that was the start of the time when you received the min- utes that are in the record. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, what is the date of the first minutes ? Mr. McCann. Well, we had minutes from August 22 when the ultimatum of Mr. Walsh was received. 2112 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoRRELL. I am wrong on that. Mr. McCann. We did have the minutes from Mr. Walsh's appear- ance. Mr. SoRRELL. I am wrong on that, but I am speaking from infor- mation I got. Mr, Landis. What was it Green said in his telegram ? Mr. SoRRELL. That is in the record. Green said here was the Mr, McCak^x. Clarification, Mr. SoRRELL. Clarification and he hoped everyone would join in to put it into effect. Green has always maintained that everyone should join in to put it into effect. Now, here is the effect on me. When I get a letter from Green, who is i^resident of the A. F. of L. and chairman of the executive council, stating that this is a fact and everyone should get together to put it in effect, I don't expect any Communist to upset the situation, or I don't expect even Brewer or anybody else to kick over the traces. I think since Mr. Brewer is an international representative, and Mr. Walsh is a president of the international and connected with the A. F. or L., and since they say that A. F. of L. is so holy, that they should kick out the machinists and things like that. That is the attitude they had carried on before. I expected maybe they might quibble a little bit, but they would still go along with the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Landis. Of course, that goes down to the big question of whether they were to accept the ratification or not. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes ; only that I knew the producers did not wish that. Mr. Landis. The producers did not wish to accept the ratification ? Mr. SoRRELL. The producers did not wish to comply or do anything for the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. Landis. Were they at Miami when the ratification was decided on? . _ Mr. SoRRELL. They came to Miami, yes. Mr. Walsh hitchhiked a ride with them — I think he hitch-hiked a ride with them to Miami at that time. I went to Miami and got there ahead of them. I was there at the time. But had the carpenters, painters, and others, had it laid before them and said, "This means strike," I don't think they would have voted to strike. As a matter of fact, we would have influenced them not to, because we knew that we were being attacked and we were not going to be stuck out on a strike. The producers sat back from the 11th to the 21st, or something like that, waiting for us to strike, and they were disappointed because we didn't strike. Then they decided to fire us all. Mr. Kearns. Supposing the shoe had been on the other foot, and you had had a chance to stay in and go to work, wouldn't you have kept the studios open ? ]Mr. SoRRELL. You mean supposing the lA would have shut down ? No; I don't think so, because our people would not have worked on their jobs. They said, "This is something that has to be settled." Our unions are democratic. They are not run by one man. They would have said, "We won't do the other fellow's work ; get together and get it settled," and it would have been settled. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2113 Mr. IvEARNs. Isn't it true that they are in a different spot because they testified here that they felt every job in the studio belonged to them? This was a good opportunity to take them over, as long as they felt that way ? Mr. SoRRELL. Who testified they felt that way, that every job be- longed to them ? Mr. Kearns. Well, the lA would like to claim that jurisdiction. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes, the lA, but not the lA men. The lA workmen do not run the lA union. That is the trouble. It has been testified here — I testified, and you can get the minutes^ if you want to subpena the minutes from local 44, the lab technicians, the cameramen, the costumers and the sound men — you will see that the men working in those studios would not take the jobs of the carpenters and it would have been settled. But in one case the charter was lifted or taken over by the inter- national of the propmen. The others did not take the charter be- cause they didn't need to draw on them, they did not pressure them. Tliey did not take our jobs. Our people would have acted the same. You understand there are two ways of looking at this thing. There is a democratically run union where the workers who work run the union . They are not anxious to hurt the other worker. Then there is the organization with somebody way up at the top who doesn't know John, Joe, and Jack who says, "We will do this and we will do that." The workers have to do it or get kicked out of the union and out of the studios, too. Mr. Landis. Do they elect their officials, or do they appoint them? Mr. SoRRELL. Well, Mr. Walsh is elected at the convention. The studios have a few men there. The delegates that go to the convention are elected from the workers in some of the unions, and in the case of Cappy DuVal and others, it is easy enough to pack enough people in, when he is not elected by his own union, when he is defeated by his own union he goes as a delegate for another stooge union. Mr. Landis. But I mean the locals Mr. SoRRELL. Now, Mr. Walsh is elected, and there are other vice presidents elected. I do not understand the way it works because in the painters organization a vice president sits in on the board. The vice president must be considered when decisions are made by the executive board. But although there are two vice presidents of the alliance in Los Angeles, they appoint a guy from out of State and boing him in to run the business. You see, when you put it all together, workingmen will work to- gether for each other's good, Mr. Landis. But don't they have presidents of locals like every- body else ? Mr. SoRRELL. Yes, each of the locals have a president and a busi- ness agent. As long as they do what the international tells them to do they stay in business. If they don't they go out of business. Xow. of course. ]Mr. Brewer will tell you tliat was a Communist- dominated organization because they didn't agree with him. They quit and came out on the picket line, a couple of thousand of them. There was an instance there where they with the help of the pro- ducers practically wrecked that, took it over, and the other lA unions 2114 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES take a lesson from that. They don't try it because they say, "Look what happened to 683." Now, the workers get along all right in Hollywood, but being di- rected by someone at the top — do you think Mr. Brewer could be elected in Hollywood for anything ? He couldn't be a street sweeper. He is the most hated man among all of the workers, both in the lA and out of the lA. Why? Because he says, "You must do this." H sent out a communication that said, the lA People shouldn't speak to the Conference of Studio Unions people. I had people come and tell me, "Gee, I can't talk to my father now, he belongs to the lA ; he got an order not to speak to us." Do you think that kind of a fellow is popular among the workers? He is only popular among, and kept there by, the producers. Mr. Landis. He is not a producer's man, is he? Mr. SoRKELL. Oh, not much ; go ahead. Mr. Kearns. All right, sir. March 8, 1948. Hon. Carroll D. Kearns, House Office Building, Washington, D. G. Dear Sir : I wired you on even date herewith as follows : "I am forwarding today copy of statement issued to press by me as vice president and general counsel of Walt Disney productions re Herbert Sorrell's testimony before your subcommittee. I would thank you to insert it in your record." Enclosed herewith you will find press release issued by our publicity depart- ment at my request. This release was intended to deny categorically all of Herbert Sorrell's testimony before your committee with respect to the strike against Walt Disney Pi'oductions led by Herbert Sorrell as the same appeared in the press. I would thank you to spread this or the pertinent parts thereof on the I'ecord. We wired Madam Perkins, then Secretai-y of Labor, long before the strike, requesting her to intervene in our behalf with respect to an election. I thank you in advance for giving this your attention. i Respectfully, Walt Disney Productions, GUNTHER R. LESSING, Vice President and General Counsel. Herb Sorrell's charges against the Walt Disney Studio before the House Labor Subcommittee in Washington were categorically denied today by Gunther H. Lessing, vice president and general counsel for Disney's who conducted the negotiations with the labor representatives. The charges were branded by Lessing as absolutely without any foundation in fact or truth. Lessing castigated Sorrell's as.sertions that "torpedoes or dynamiters" had been imported from Chicago and that several houses of nonstrikers had been dyna- mited and the blame placed on the strikers. "The truth of the matter is that except for minor flare-ups on the picket line, the strike was very peaceful," Lessing said. "Our only contact with Bioft"," Lessing asserted, "was to be reassured by him that the projectionists in the theaters throughout the country would continue to run Disne,y pictures. Sorrell was endeavoring to bring about a secondary boycott of Disney films by the projectionists." As to Sorrell's assertion that Disney never would agree to an election or meet with the Labor Board representatives, Lessing refuted this charge with a series of telegrams which began with one to Dr. William Leiserson, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, sent on April 30, 1941, nearly a month before the strike was called, urging him to hold an immediate liearing and elec- tion to determine the legitimate representative of the cartoonists. No hearing •ever was ordered, nor was an election ever held, Lessing pointed out, despite repeated requests to the heads of the labor board. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2115 Lessing asserted he urged Sorrell to agree to an election. This suggestion was forcibly rejected by Sorrell who replied : "I once lost an election and I know I can win my way. Unless you make a contract with us, I'll turn this studio into a dust bowl." Lessing asserted he met with Sorrell every morning for days and informed him from the start tlmt Disney would sign a contract with any or- ganization which prevailed in an election. Lessing pointed again that this elec- tion was never held despite continued pleas. Lessing continued : "A very few of our personnel were suspected of being Communists. However, most of them were planted and never returned to work after the strike or resigned soon thereafter. "The wages paid by our studio at all times were the highest and are still the highest within the cartoon industry. The record will prove that." Mr. Sorrell. Could I say a word ? Mr. Kearxs. You may say anything you want. I just read it into the record as requested. Mr. Sorrell. As was explained here the other day, someone made a misquotation when they said, I said there was violence in the Disney strike, which there was not. Mr. Landis. You said it was a peaceful strike. Mr. Sorrell. That is right, it was a most j)eaceful strike. That is due to the difference in the press. The record will show how many company unions Mr. Disney estab- lished and how many were throwm out by the Labor Board. Mr. Kearxs. I recall you claimed low wages there, is that correct ? Mr. Sorrell. The wages were the lowest in the industry at that time. That was in 1941. That was not for everyone. There were a few high-paid animators and artists, but the wages in general, I believe, were the lowest in southern California, in any place, until the settle- ment of the strike by James Dewey from Mr. Steelman's office. Then Disney agreed to meet the highest wages in each category that was paid in southern California, Since then I have not been interest in it. He may still pay the liighest wages, I don't know. Mr. Laxdis. Did you say you were going to make a "dust bowl out of that place?" Mr. Sorrell. No ; Mr. Disney said I said that to him ; I didn't. However, I did say to Gunther Lessing one time, "You know, this l^lace was built with FHA money, I understand, and could be turned into a hospital, and if you don't make a union place out of it, I think we should make a good hospital for Burbank." • Now, dust bowls, if I remember, didn't enter my mind at that time. I am sure I never said that. However, I know I did not say anything like that to Disney because I only talked to Disney once. Gunther Lessing and I used to kid each other considerably. It might be that something like that was said, or he might have interpreted it like that. I do not think Gunther Lessing would lie about it delib- erately, but a lot of that was in kidding. He would say he was the legal counsel for Pancho Villa and I'd say, "Pancho Villa never won anything legal in his life," and there was a lot of horseplay like that on talk. Something like that could have been said, but I don't remem- ber it. You understand, there was a mistake in the publicity put out. ]\Ir. Lax^dis. I understood you to say there was no violance in the Disney strike. Mr. Sorrell. That is rifjht. 2116 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Well, the record will show that. Mr. BoDLE. I want to read from these minutes of August 22, 1946, the Producers Labor Committee, with reference to the ultimatum from the lA. It reads : Discussed new A. F. of L. directive as to its effect on existing conditions and wliat it may lead to later. Walsh advises that any company that makes one single change in the administration of tlie A. F. of L. directive in compliance with the new interpretation will have all work stopped in the studios, exchanges, and theaters. Now, I want to get back to the manner in which the fact that the mass discharge had been planned and plotted by the lATSE and the producers was concealed from the committee in Los Angeles, until iinally the minutes of those meetings were presented. I want to refer now to the testimony of Roy Brewer. Mr. Brewer's oral testimony is found in volume 22 of the transcript at pages 3291-3302. In substance, Brewer testified that although he had several meetings with the Producers Labor Committee between August 22 and September 23, inclusive, he did not aid, advise, or participate in the plan to discharge the carpenters and other em- ployees whose unions were affiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions. Verbatim extracts of Mr. Brewer's testimony are as follows : "Mr. McCann. Did you consult with the Producers Labor Committee prior to the action which they took on September 23, 1946? "Mr. Beewek. I consulted with them, but I did not consult with them about that. "Ml". McCann. You did not consult with them about that? "Mr. Brewer. I did not. "Mr. McCann. Let us not discuss the negotiations. How often did you confer with them after the directive or the clarification of the directive came down with respect to that clarification and the program of the producers? "Mr. BuEWER. To the best of my recollection I discussed it once with them in a meeting and once with Mr. Freeman over tlie phone. "Mr. McCann. You did not confer with them with respect to making the sets "hot" ; did you? "Mr. Brewer. No, sir. "Mr. McCann. And did not confer with them and propose any program to them ; did you? "Mr. Brewer. No, sir. "Mr. McCann. You did not advise them how you would cooperate with them in the event they did make the sets 'hot'? "Mr. Brewer. The only thing I said, if these men refused to do the work which was in their jurisdiction because of the fact that our men had erected the sets, then our men would do what was necessary in order to complete the sets in order that pictures could be shot. "Mr. McCann. I am asking you whether you met with the producers in be- tween the time that you and Mr. Walsh Avere there on the 22d of August 1946, and on September 23d when they laid off these men, to plan for the lay-off of the men? "Mr. BREWiaj. We did not meet with them to plan further lay-off of the men. "Mr. McCann. You certainly did not propose that they should lay off these men or make any program for that time? "Mr. Brewer. I did not ; no, sir. "Mr. McCann. And you did not .ioin with them in making the plans which were to be put into effect on September 23, 1946? "Mr. Brewer. No, sir ; outside of the manner in which I have outlined. "Mr. McCann. Were you the one who suggested the producers put lA men on sets so that the carpenters and painters would quit? "Mr. Brewer. No, sir." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2117 Immediately after Mr. Brewer's testimony the minutes of the Producers LalDor Committee were introduced. The minutes contra- dict Mr. Brewer's testimony in that they reveal he was present at most of the meetings held by the Producers Labor Committee between August 22 and September 24, 1946, inclusive. Specifically, in addi- tion to the August 22 meeting which he admitted attending, his presence was noted at meetings held on September 3, September 12, September IT, September 20, probably, and September 24, 194G. Contrary to his testimony that he was not consulted about it and that he did not aid in the formulation of the plan that led to the mass discharge at the studios, starting on September 23, the minutes show that he in fact did participate in the discussions, that he was consulted about procedure before a particular phase of policy was to be adopted, and that he suggested the procedure of handling Con- ference of Studio Unions men on "hot" sets. Thus the minutes of September 23, 1946, reveal that Brewer was told by the producets that their decision depended on Brewer's posi- tion as to furnishing men and Brewer replied that they would do everything to keep the studios open, and that "we will use the full power of the lATSE to force laboratory technicians to pass picket lines" (transcript, p. 3318). On September IT, Brewer desired to correct an erroneous opinion that independents were not being forced to use erectors. Grips are buttoning up old sets (transcript, p. 3321). And at the same meeting "Brewer said to put lA men on sets, so carpenters and painters will quit, provided (1) lA is advised in ad- vance when and where; (2) put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self -protection ; (3) to keep procedure quiet so CSU can't gang up at one spot." Mr. Landis. I do not get the contradiction there. Didn't you say there was a contradiction between the two testimonies ? Mr. BoDLE. Between the minutes and his testimony. Mr. Landis. That is what I mean. Mr. BoDLE. You do not get the contradiction ? Mr. Landis. No, I do not. "VVliat is it ? I understand he was in the meetings — don't get me wrong there — he was in the meetings with the producers. Mr. BoDLE (reading) : Mr. McCann. Did you consult with the Producers Labor Committee prior to the action which they tooli on September 23? Mr. Brewer. I consulted with them, but I did not consult with tliem about that. The minutes reveal that at the September IT meeting — Brewer said to put I A men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit, provided lA is advised in advance ; put on enougli set erectors and painters in the group for self -protection ; keep procedure quiet so CSU can't gang up in one spot. Mr. Laxdis. I understood in both testimonies he promised to fur- nish some men ; is that correct ? Mr. BoDLE (reading) : Mr. McCann. You did not confer with them with rei^pect to making the sefs "hot" ; did you? Mr. Brewer. No, sir. Mr. McCann. And you did not confer with them or propose any program to them; did you? . JVIr. Brewer. No, sir. 2118 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Again, Mr. Brewer said : Put lA men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit. 1 don't know. It seems obvious to me. I am not ooinir to labor the point. There was something here which the producers wanted to conceal, and they wanted to conceal it because it showed that instead of trying to bring about some solution to the problem, they took this oppor- tunity to force these men out on the streets. That was a part of the long-delayed plan on the part of the I A to gain control over all juris- diction in the studios and destroy the building trades unions. In this instance, as in all other instances, they had the complete cooperation of the producers. Now, I want to refer briefly to Mr. Brewer's testimony. I tliink we have already covered Mr. Levy's testimony. Mr. Brewer has stated he got his first notion of what was happen- ing in the studios from reading the Kibre letters-^that the plan out- lined there was one of industrial organization of the union. I think the record is clear that the only body who ever talked about industrial union or ever taking over all jurisdiction in the studios was the lA. He also said that he got from Kibre some notion of communism in the studios. Mr. Brewer's testimony on the subject of communism is very re- vealing. It really shoulcl be entitled, "An expose of communism in the lATSE," because that is what he deals with primarily. I want to just run through it briefly. At page 1790 of his testimony he tells about how he went into the Central Labor Council and found a representative of his own union, the lATSE, who was on the side of the Conference of Studio Unions. The implication is clear, and later he makes the definite assertion that this man. an lATSE member, was a Communist or subject to Communist domination. On the same page he makes reference to local 44 and how in the 1945 strike a group of the men at Warner Bros., in local 44. had declined to go through the picket line. Again he makes the assertion that these men were Communists or Communist-dominated or Com- munist-directed. On the same page he makes reference to Irving Henschel, again an lA member. At page 1792 he says : The key to the problem lay in the controversy that took place in 1939 — referring to the USTG, and that this controversy hinged around one Jeff Kibre, again an lATSE member. At page 1809 he refers to a member of local 306 of the lATSE in New York as a Communist, Morris Eushowitz, or something like that. At page 1814 he has another reference to a Communist who was an lATSE member, and whom he refers to as Communist Andre of the Cleveland local. At page 1814-A. he refers to the party faction at the 1938 convention ofthelATSE. At page 1815 he states that there were about 10 party members at the lATSE convention in 1938. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2119 At page 1823 he again refers to local 44 and its resolution not to ■work out of their jurisdiction during the 1945 strike, and again makes the direct inference that this was a Communist-inspired move. At page 1826 he discusses the trial of Irving Hentschel, an lATSE member, being nominated b}^ him as a Communist. And he says that in his file, Mr. Hentschel, an lA member, had the support of four lA locals— 683, 705, the cameramen's local, and the soundmen's local. Again there is a direct allegation that two of these are led by Com- munists and an indication that two of the others wouldn't have gone along with this program if they hadn't been subject to Communist domination, too. That makes five lA locals we have now that are Communist-led. At page 1835 he refers to Sam Goldblatt, also an lATSE member^ as a Communist-dominated person. The whole of Mr. Brewer's testimony the first day he was on the stand was devoted to the story of Communist activity, not in the CSU,^ not in the painters, not in the carpenters, but in the lATSE. Now, when he comes down to the painters, Mr. Brewer makes a very interesting statement. At page 1891 he says, and I quote : The history of local 684 would indicate that the number of men in the painters' union who were Communists was sufficiently large to keep that union under control. A little later he is questioned by Mr. Owens with regard to this. I think this is important-, because it indicates the entirely unfounded and unbased allegations of Mr. Brewer. Mr. Brewer testified that about 150 painters have left the painters' union during the strike and have gone back to work in the studios and had joined the lATSE. Mr. Owens. Have they joined becatise they felt it was more favorable to them— that is, to get work out there — or have they left it because of the so-called Communist leadership? Mr. Brewer. As a practical thing, workingmen are not idealists. They left it because tliey have been consistently dragged through the strike situations with no apparent regard for their economic welfare. ;Mr. Owens. They might not be idealists, but out of 1,000' men the percentage would seem to indicate tliat you should have a few that would be rising up and fighting if the things you say were ti'ue. Mr. Brewer. As a matter of fact, I think the history of local 644 would indi- cate that those few who will fight have not stayed in that union. Mr. Owens. Have you anything in proof of that kind? That would be very interesting to me. Mr. Brewer. Yes : there is a man by the name of Ralph Peckham who attempted to circulate a petition to the international to come in and intervene. So we get the name of one man and no allegation that he left because of Communist domination or anj'thing. Then I pass on to page 1895 : Ml-. Owens. You mean out of all the 150 that are now with you, you do not have one who could say that he was approached with respect to joining the Communist Par^^y by someone who was at tlie head of the group? ^Ir. Brewer. I cannot answer that. I have not asked them tliat question, Mr. Owens. This is Mr, Brewer who has apparently, with great assiduity, col- lected data on Communist activities in the motion-picture studios ever 2120 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES since his arrival there, and cannot point to one man who ever said that he was approached and asked to become a Communist member in the moving-picture painters' local 644. I submit the other evidence on this score is of the same character as Mr. Brewer's evidence in this case. Mr. Landis. I wonder if Mr. Sorrell would want to make a com- ment on Ralph Peckham ? Mr. Sorrell. Yes, sir; as soon as he gets through. I want to try- to finish up if we can. Mr. Landis. I have a question here I want to ask on the Peckham thing. Mr. BoDLE. I am almost through now, sir. I think — or I will state positively, the record indicates at this point that the charge of connnunism that has been raised here is a false issue. The only communism we have had any proof of is communism in the lATSE. The Communist issue was first raised b}^ Browne and Bioff in order to divert attention from their racketeering efforts or activities in the motion-picture industry. It has been used for the purpose of divert- ing attention from the real cause of the trouble in the motion-picture industry, ever since then. The only testimony that we have had here with reference to Mr. Sorrell's alleged Communist activities, has been, first, the report of his association with certain allegedly Communist-front organizations. I just want to say that with respect to those Mr. Sorrell testified that he did not know they were Communist-front organizations ; that if he had known he would not have joined them. There is evidence in the record, in many cases submitted by Mr. Levy himself, which proves that many people of the most estimable character belong to these organizations. Mr. Sorrell has testified as to the reasons he joined them, and I think in every case we can say that upon the basis of his testimony he joined them because he thought that they were carrying out a program that was prolabor, in favor of the rights of minorities or in favor of civil liberties. A man who believes in those fundamental principles certainly cannot be considered a Communist in this day and age. Now with regard to the Communist Party card : As I pointed out earlier there has been no foundation, of course, laid for its submission. We don't know whether it is a Communist Party card. We don't know where it came from, who got it, when, under what circumstances it was obtained, and so forth. On purely external evidence — and I have not had a chance to look at the card for more than 1 second, but I have studied the photostats — I think it is obvious that the cards are si\bject to all kinds of objec- tion. I just want to point out one thing. The name "Stewart," for exam- ple, is spelled two different ways, although the two cards are supposed to have been written by the same man. Now assuming that it was Mr. Sorrell and it was his mother's name that he was signing, Heaven knows he ought to have known how to spell it ; he ought to have had some consistent way of spelling it. But a most cursory examination of the cards will indicate that the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2121 name "Stewart"' is spelled in one case S-t-u and in the other it is spelled S-t-e-w. The cards on their face are so open to objection as to be ridiculous as the basis for any sort of charges. Mr. Sorrell, as he told you, has been subjected to this attack, this name calling, this mudslinging, ever since Willie Bioff appeared in the motion-picture industry and Sorrell refused to "kow-tow" to him. This is the first chance he has had to clear his name. , I think it is the duty of this connnittee, in the course of its hearings, to clear Mr. Sorrell of the false, the damnable charges that have been leveled against a man who has done nothing more than give the best years of his life to drive racketeering out of Hollywood and to make it a, decent working place for men and women. That is Mr. SorrelFs crime and that is the only crime he has committed. To have his name dragged through the mud in this fashion is an intolerable thing. I think it is the clear duty of this committee to. clear Mr. Sorrell of these charges. Mr. Sorrell. Are jou through? ]Mr. BoDLE. Yes. Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Landis, I would like to get the drift of that, Mr. Landis. I will read this : Mr. Ralph Peckham, Clarence Thompson, and Al Hoist were expelled from local 644 after beinfe tried by the Communist Party of Hollywood under the guise of union trial committee January 3, 1947. for eirculatins: petitions to our brother members requesting our international president, Al p. LindeU)f, to take over local G44 and remove Herb Sorrell and his officers. Sixteen members signed the request that we be brought to trial. Among those signers was Frank Specter, who last week testified before the State Senate Un-American Activities Committee that he, Specter, as a member of the Communist Party since 1919, and wlio Herb Sorrell, now that the heat is on, has asked that Spector be expelled from local C44 at its next meeting. Now he wants to ask one more question here : Therefore, Mr. Landis, we are appealing to you to send the subcommittee to Los Angeles to take testimony not of the big shots who caused the trouljle, but of the little fellow who has been hurt for we are entitled to know who got the package of Camel cigarettes full of thousand dollar bills at Miami in 1944,. that Herb Sorrell reported to us had been handed to Al P. Lindelof, and why Bill Hutcheson put over $60,000 into the Conference of Studio Unions, a known sub- versive organization under Communist domination. What became of the more than half a million dollars that passed through the hands of the officials of 'local 644 and who were the wealthy people in Hollywood who contributed to the Hollywood Welfare Association for strike purposes, so that the money they contributed could be deducted from their Federal income tax? Those are just a few of the quotes. Mr. Sorrell. ]\Ir. Landis, I don't want to take too much time, but I will try to tell you as much as I can remember. I had something on this, but my attorney isn't a secretary, he is an attorney, so I don't know Avhat has become of it. When Ralph Beckham's name was mentioned I vaguely knew there was something wrong there and I should get the record from the office. I glanced over it quickly. He may be able to find it, I don't know. But I am telling you from memory what happened. Al Hoist weaved his way into our union through clearance from another union, from another painters union. We tabbed him im- mediately as a labor spy. I think we could prove that. The first thing- he did was start to prefer charges against his foreman at Colmnbia 2122 MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Studio. Ill our union if anybody prefers charges against anyone they are tried. The foreman was cleared. He moved to another studio and preferred charges against five other men. They were cleared. When a man does that in a union pretty soon he becomes discredited. We looked into his record. He had been on the pay roll of a private detective agency while he was working in another union, and he had been in a fist altercation with the business agent of another outside painters union. So we tabbed him as a disruptionist and former labor spy. Mr. Thompson has been in our union longer. He has a squeaky voice like this and is very repulsive to a man, you know. He became so repulsive to me in 1945 I would be ashamed to hit him so I slapped his face. There immediately appeared in the papers big items that I had slapped a man down, and so forth. I didn't slap him down, I slapped his face and told him if he was a man he wouldn't take an insult like that, but being a woman probably he deserved to be slapped. He wasn't hurt. Now I'll give you the background on these fellows : Mr. Peckham is the boy who is the son of my friend who went to jail with me in 1937 and who collected from Warner Bros. The father is dead. The boy got mixed up with these people. They circulated a petition on the picket line to try to get the inter- national to come in and take over the union. I am quoting this from memory. There was great consternation among the people. One or two of the boys got in a fist fight over it. There was immediately called a meeting and there was a resolution signed by 16 members that the charges should be preferred against these men, not only for circulating a petition to request the inter- national to take over but for a pamphlet they were also circulating stating that over a half million dollars had been paid into the coffers of local 644 and that its officers — practically accusing them of stealing. Now I was not accused because I don't handle the money, I don't handle the money affairs of my union. We have a bond^ed secretary that does that. Also they wrote a letter to District Council 36 of Los Angeles stating that money that was going from the district council was being spent illegally, or something or other. I in my usual way said, "Look, if there is any money being spent illegally, we want to find it out, and if there is anything wrong here financially this union can't stand it." I was in favor of calling in the auditor because we have an auditor who comes in once a month and checks the books, and if necessary call another one. The resolution that was signed by the 16 men — and evidently Frank Spector was one of them — requested the president to file charges against these three men, according to certain sections of the constitution. They didn't ask me to file the charges, because in some way they had .mentioned that I was not handling things right either, and they loiow that I don't like to throw people out of the union. My belief in free speech goes so far that it lets people take advantage of me at times. However, I disqualified myself from sitting on the executive board where they were tried. They were tried and expelled. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2123 I think they all joined the lATSE. The}' appealed to the brotherhood and I think that the general executive board of the brotherhood upheld their expulsion. Now there were no personalities. Now as to money and a cigarette paper, I never heard of such a thing. Money at Miami, half a million dollars or GO cents, this is all Greek to me. Mr. Landis. It talks about thousand 'dollar bills in a Camel cigarette package. Mr. SoRRELL. That is the first time I ever heard of it. Mr. Landis. It says you mentioned it to them or to one of them. Mr. SoRRELL. I mentioned it ? Mr. Laxdis. That is the way I understood it. Mr. SoKREi.L. Well, it is funny what queer people will say. Mr. Landis. They say here you might say something about that. If they testify before the committee they might mention that or they will be asked about it, of course. Mr. SoRRELL. I never heard of a thousand-dollar bill in a cigarette package. Mr. Landis. "Who got the package of Camel cigarettes full of thou- sand-dollar bills at Miami in 1944, that Herb Sorrell reported to us had been handed to L. P. Lindelof ?" it says. Mr. Sorrell. We have present in the audience here a vice president of the brotherhood and an organizer, Mr. Gallagher, who will take great pleasure in telling the boss that he is getting thousand-dollar bills handed to him. Mr. Landis. You didn't tell him that? Mr. HoRRELL. I never heard of such a thing. This is all news to me. I am astounded they would come through with something like that when they could say they maybe seen my party card or maybe I invited them to join the Communist Party. It seems that would have been more popular. However, from memory that is the best I can give you. But I Avill send you the excerpts of the minutes from that meeting if you wish. If i am here tomorrow I may have that stpff. ]Mr. Landis. Do you think that appeal case is finished, or do you know ? Mr. Sorrell. I am not positive. Mr. Landis. I think they mention something about that here. It says : An appeal of our expulsion has been before the general executive board of the painters brotherhood for 15 months, President Lindelof having assumed original jurisdiction of our appeal. We three men filed countercharges against Herb Sorrell and the officers of local 644, charging them with subversive activity and using the local's funds for illegal political purposes and for other charges, and again President Lindelof assumed original jurisdiction of the trial of these officers of local 644, but the president has done nothing in 15 months to bring these men to trial. That is something else again. Mr. SorRell. Tiiat is right. They filed charges against the entire executive board and all the officers. They filed charges so broad that nol^ody could try them except the international president. I do not know what he has done, either, but he is in town. Mr. Landis. I think that is a question somebody asked him when he was on the stand. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, if they ever settled that appeal case ? 2124 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. No ; I do not. Mr. SoRRELL. I don't particularly remember. I can't give you the information. This I am giving you is from memory but I got a chance to glance over the minutes, because I knew something had happened, but I did not look at them thoroughly. I will get them for you. They may be at the hotel, and if they are I will bring them in and give them over to you personally. You look them over and if you want to put them in evidence all right, and if you don't that is up to you ; that is a personal thing for you. Now, Mr. Brewer entered a violence pamphlet as an exhibit to show the violence that was happening, and I connnented on it. I have in my hand a copy of Flashes. That is a violence exhibit gotten up by local 683 of the lATSE. I has pictures of things that happened on the picket line. I can testify to some of these things. I saw this boy beaten in front of Warner Bros. He was arrested for being within the zone that the police had cleared. He was tried with us in Burbank and I think paid a $25 fine. Mr. Landis. Who beat him ''( Mr. SoRRELL. This policeman that is wielding the club. They were pretty vicious at the time. We were on trial there for quite awhile. When it ended up we paid very small fines. I don't know what it was. I meant to mention that because it says here I have a criminal recbrd. My criminal record is not for stealing or anything that I am ashamed of. My criminal record consists of having been on or near the picket lines wdien there was a court order that said we shouldn't be there. In the September 1946 lock-out we couldn't have a sound wagon. A man came to my place with a box and a big horn, you could throw your voice for half a mile. I bought it from him. It weighed about 10 pounds less than a sound wagon. I carried it around and I talked to people and there was no law against it. Then they got court orders'to keep you away from the studios so I got in my airplane and rode around the studios a thousand feet high and I talked down very successfully with this, because at a thousand feet it was legal. When I w^as at a thousand feet the noise from my motor didn't interfere with my voice and I talked to the boys. Then they chased me with airplanes, the sheriff chased me with airplanes and in order to duck him I would have to fly way out in the ocean until I got clear out to wdiere he thought I was going to China, then I would come back and land at a different airport. I didn't want my plane sabotaged. Eventually, as you know, somebody did fix it up. I don't want to go into it, but I landed in a berry patch, due to the fact that somebody fixed the plane on me. There were pieces in the papers about it. The plane is still wrecked. It is not fixed up yet. That is very painful to me. I like it very much. That is one of the things I like to do. That is one of my ways of relaxing and I hate to pay ten or fifteen dollars an hour to get to fly somebody else's old crate. I would like to put this in evidence and give Mr. Brewer an oppor- tunity to take it apart just as I took his apart. MOTION-PICTURE JURIftDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2125 I think there are some very interesting pictures in here. Some of these people you probably will find were in the pay of the lATSE and are also in the rogue's galleries. If there is no objection I would like to enter it at this time. jNIr. McCann. I move it be entered as a reference exhibit. Mr. Chairman. jNIi-. Kearns. No objection. (The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. SoRRELL. There is a pamphlet inside that pertains to the same thing. Now it has been said here that this Communist Party card — I don't want you to relax on that. I want you to dig into that. You know that 1 asked you. Congressman Landis, to go ahead and open it up^ let them open it up. 1 want that. I have never had an opportunity to have it opened up before. I have been told about that since 1941. I had never seen it until I seen it at this hearing. You know it is nice to talk about something off up in the air, but it tells the people all over the country that you are a Communist and I am not, and my record will show it. My attorney and other people have worried about your hamUing that card and they will frame you and so forth. I am not afraid of being framed. I don't think this committee is out to frame anybody. I live at the Hamilton Hotel. I stay there because that is a 100- percent imion hotel. I am told that is the only closed-shop union hotel in Washington, D. C. I am a imion man and my clothes are union. Everything I buy is union because I think only by paying union can you expect to collect from unions. Mau}^ union people stay there. I was accosted by a union represen- tative from California yesterday and he said, "I see you're sleeping with Kearns." I said, "No, I'm not sleeping with anybody, I'm sleep- ing alone right now. l)ut I am cooperating with Kearns, I'm cooperating with anyone that is elected to Congress. I can't cooperate with the people that are defeated ; they can't do me any good. If that's against the law its too damned bad." Now you understand I will cooperate with you because you Avere elected by a majority of the people from your districts and you are the representatives here. You are on this committee and if you can't do anything I don't knoAV who the hell can. I know that there are a lot of personalities here. I know the CSU is supposed to be a lot of Communists, but the only Communist I hear of is me. Of course, I have a clear conscience, I know that is all right. I know the actors. They are supposed to be neutral. They are not sujiposed to be biased. They're not neutral. They're very much biased. Pat Somerset worked for the actors. Years ago we had an ai'gument. Pat and I. He has been biased against me, and I don't like him. ever since. It was a small matter. It was a matter of when I was trying to organize the office workers Pat said, "What do you want to monkey with those people for?" I said, "Because they are the people that need something. You don't have to help the rich guy, he's got all the help he needs, and if he don't have it he can buy it, but those people need something and I ani iji- terested in them." 67383—48 — vol. 3 40 2126 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "Well/' he says, "I don't know. I oot a girl ; she takes 140 words a minute. She cleans up the desk and she does this and that and I go out with her twice a week and I pay her $25." Since that day I can hardly look at the guy. I don't like him. We have different views of things. We came over here to the AFL building where we had a meeting. Mr. Dullzell reported about that. Didn't Paul Dullzell testify here? Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mr. SoRRELL. Yes ; I think he testified about that meeting. That meeting was called at the request of tlije actors for settling jurisdictional differences within the American Federation of Labor. Well, I came out here from California, Lindelof was here, but Hutcheson didn't come. It seemed it was more or less deadlocked. As I say, I am not holding anything back from this committee. If anybody is going to be criticized they are going to be criticized, no matter if it is my best friend, and I criticize the way that worked. Finally after some talk, Mr. Walsh was appointed as chairman, I think; Mr. Tracy was appointed as secretary. On the committee was Mr. Lindelof, Mr. Dullzell, and Tobin, who also was not there. His son was there representing him. They were to clean up this mess, they were to clean up this jurisdictional issue. Time and again it was mentioned, when we were not getting any place, "Well, they are sitting over there on the Hill passing Jaws against us." Understand, I think you either ought to pass a hell of a lot of laws or you ought to go back to the old times and let us knock it out, one Avay or the other. I think you are holding these hearings for information and if we don't give it to you, you have to go to the merchants and manu- facturers to get it. I know the merchants and manufacturers will cooperate with you, they will give you their side, and I think we should give you our side. I don't care if they criticize me for doing this. However, at the end of the day I went to the hotel. I think I played cards with some of the boys or something. The next day I came back and something had been put in the papers. I think it was a very truthful statement. It practically saicl nothing had been done. So immediately Pat Somerset picked me, and he said, "You gave it to the papers." I am always being accused of doing something that I didn't do. I got mad at Pat Somerset. I cussed him out. Well, just like a building tradesman. I forget that I was — well, Mr. Green said, "Go outside and do it." Mr. Somerset didn't want to go outside and I couldn't get to him in there, but that is personalities. I realize there are a lot of personalities in this, too. And because I realize there are a lot of personalities I have said all along, and am saying now, anytime that this can be settled and these thousands of people who are suffering can be put back where they belong, this personality will not stand in the way. I can be the easiest guy in the world to remove. If they think the CSU is Communist-dominated and I am a Communist, believe me, let them do a job out there and this is one Communist they won't have to bother with any more because I have never seen the day MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2127 that I couldn't make my living — and bread and butter don't worry me at all. I think I showed by the way I testified in here that I inherited this damned job, I don't want it. There are other things I can do better. Now, the Communist Party card I want you to investigate in every way possible. If 3'ou can pin it on me, or anybody can pin it on me, pin it on me and let me go to jail. I will still know I'm innocent, but I know it can't be done. I know eventually we will find out who got that thing out. I know they can be got out. I had a call from San Francisco by a fellow who said, "I can get that thing duplicated for j^ou for $500. Who has got $500 to spend on a thing like that? I know Mr. Kearns had a telegram, or something, from somebody by the name of Robinson. He said he saw my Communist card in 1937, and I have been digging in mj' brain ever since to find out who John R. Robinson is, and I can't remember. Mr. Brewer says he has 150 of our people Avho have joined the lATSE. If he has, he has 50 more than I know about, because we only preferred charges against about 100. There are still 850 paid-up members. That is pretty good out of a thousand, when you keep them out of work 2 ^''ears out of 3. That's better than he can do. iVow, out of that 150, there must be some good friends of mine, people I have known, people who know whether I am a Communist. Why, I should think he could get plenty of people who said they saw my card, people who knew me, and I want him to do it. I want it cleaned up one way or the other, I am not four-flushing on this thing. I have been accused of this thing long enough. Now, I think I have made it clear that if we can straighten up things in Hollywood — I am not a prosecutor, I do not intend to go any further. I think I have to be straightened up. I think this committee would like to see it straightened up in Hollywood. I am positive that people who have had the patience you have would like to see that straightened up. I think it would be a great credit to you. Mr. Landis. Don't you think, though, if the unions won't straighten up a jurisdictional dispute when they have had so long a time to straighten it up, that we ought to pass some kind of a law to straighten it up^? Mr. SoRRELL. Xow. look, I want to tell you something else. You passed a law that said jurisdictional disputes are out the window. You made it possible by that law to settle our jurisdictional dispute. You didn't settle it, did you ? ^Ir. Laxdis. Well, if they had used the law Mr. SoRRELL. But wait a minute; who can use the law? Let's -examine it for a minute. I think that law needs correcting. Mr. Landis. That may be right. Mr. SoRRELL. That^s what. I want to talk to you about. Mr. Landis. But we have settled several of them just like it. 2128 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. SoRRELL, I can understand that law is written so that yon can go in and settle a jurisdictional dispute if it is an honest jurisdictional dispute with the employer actually in the middle. But in this case has the employer come and asked you for any help to settle this jurisdictional issue? No. But I happen to know — and I am not approving of this — I happen to know that some of the undesirable workers in the studios, and some of our unions — I am not sure whether it is our union men — but some union carpenters, some union set designers, and so forth, went to a man by the name of Cameron. He filed with the board. He said, "If the employer can do it you can do it. You are being hurt." He filed with the board and Denham threw him out. I know. Just the other day he threw the whole thing out. Now, if you are going to legislate, let's legislate for both top and bottom. Let's not legislate just to take care of the employer, let's legislate to take care of the employee. Let's don't legislate so that the employer can take one union to his bosom and ruin the other one. Mr. Landis. We meant to take care of the unions. Mr. 80RRELL. Because there you have a one-party sj^stem the same as they have in Russia. Now you understand I don't think I would live very long in Russia. Over here you raise a lot of hell if I don't think the way you do ; you have that right, and I will defend that rii>ht. But over there I understand they take you out and shoot you. so I am sure I would disagree with somebody and I am sure they wouldn't do like they do in Hollywood, drag you out in the desert and leave you out there ; they'd actually shoot you. Now, when it comes down to the Communist Party cards, whoever perpetrated that thing — why, if we find him, nothing much will hap- pen to him. He'll get a few years, maybe. But whiit do you think about a guy who would pick me up and kidnap me? I think I should tell you about that. I got a call on the telephone by an unknown person. He said, ■'Look, I am your friend " Mr. Landis. What year was this, now ? Mr. SoRRELL. It was in the fall of '46. It was after September the 2od. It was in the fall or the winter, because it was dark by 7 o'clock. Mr. Kearns. Were the picket lines on ? Mr. Sorrell. Yes. 1 got a telephone call and he says, "Look, you are going to be taken for a ride and I've got to see you." I laughed because I get a lot of calls like that from a lot of crackpots. They do all kinds of things to intimidate me and my wife. I laughed it off. I got a call later and they said, "Look, will you be liome at 5 o'clock Sunday?" I said, "Yes." "Well, I want to see you because they are figuring on taking you for a ride." I said, "O. K., come up to the house, I'll be there." On Sunday I went to a house warming of an attorne3^ When I got ready to come home I had lost the keys. -Somebody had picked them up and hidden them on me. I didn't find them until it was late, so I got home a little after six. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2129 My wife had been to church. She came home and we had something to eat. Then I took her over to a chnrch in Burbank. I let her out and drove down San Fernando Road in Glendale, to- wards Los Angeles. I crossed the tracks and a policeman picked nie up. He drove up alongside of me and waved his flashlight. I stopped. He said, "Come on, you gotta go with us." Now, I'm used to being taken in. Since I got mixed up in this union thing they let me out of one jail, they put handcuffs on me and take me to another jail. I go over there and the attorneys get me out on a writ of habeas corpus, or something like that. I don't inquire what it is all about. Then pretty soon I have to go back again. But putting the handcuffs on me is nothing new. He said. "Come on, j^ou gotta go with us," so he put the handcuff's on me. Then he says, "Get in," and when he opened the back door of the oar I went to get in, and "boom," he hit me on the back pf the head and I didn't know nothing for a while. When I woke up I had my hands tied behind me and my feet tied up to my hands. If I ever felt like a pig that is just what I felt like then. I couldn't move. I turned around and I tried to look up to see who was there and all I got to see was a fellow with his hand over the front of the back seat. He had a gun in it. He switched the gun to the other hand and "bing," he hit me on the head again. Now, that didn't knock me out because I ducked, but I couldn't duck far enough, and I got hit. The fellow in the back seat says, "Don't hit him with that, you'll only get blood all over the car. Hit him with this," and "boom" then I didn't know nothing again. Now, that is the first time I ever knew that you could get hit so hard on the back of the head that it makes your eyes black, because I wasn't hit in front; I was hit in the back, but I had black eyes. I heard them talking; sure, they were telling what they were going to do. But in that talk I heard a familiar voice, and I think it was the voice that had talked to me over the telephone. Probably the guy was going to tip me off that night, I don't know. I think that that guy saved my life, because they were talking about going to Reno, ^here they were going to dump me and I had to be found so that they could get the paj^-off. I bring this in because when I say when people go that far a little Communist Party card isn't anything. You know, I think that is really quite an offense in California ; kidnaping. Finally, they thought somebody was following them. I laid very quiet. I wasn't scared because I think I am living on borrowed time anyhow. But I was so mad to think that I didn't give them a fight in town where something could happen, that I was kicking myself. They thought somebody was following them, so they turned and chased back and forth. They would go one way for awhile then turn and go the other why. Finally they stopped out in the desert. They dragged me up over a little hill. Well, when they dragged me my clothes all come up over me, the sand sandpapered the skin all off the front of me here, all off my chest and stomach. Then they fired a couple of shots. I will always think that it was the 2130 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES fellow who was going to tip me off that fired the couple of shots, because I felt all around and I didn't feel them. When they were gone I rolled or kind of somersaulted over that little hill and slid down. The police can tell you more about it. They checked it. They found some money I had lost while tumbling. They can tell you how far it was from the road. A fellow came along and picked me up. Well, he was afraid to pick me up at first. I said, "Look, Brother, I don't blame you for being scared out here, but just tell somebody I'm here.'' Well, he put his headlights on me. Then he got out and cut me loose. He took the rope and me and turned me over to the police at Inyokern. I think that is about 150 miles from where they picked me up. They took me to the hospital, sewed my head up. The police took my clothes. I had to stay there 4 days because I couldn't get any clothes. They put a little nightshirt on me and it onh^ came halfway down, so I couldn't walk out in it, I was ashamed. I stayed there for about 4 days until my wife finally got me some clothes, and then I came home. I don't think I have any bad efTects from it. I wore a patch on my head for awhile, and I was pretty sore and pretty scabby for awhile, but it is all healed up. Of course, my wife says it is her prayers that did it, but I think it is my luck, and maybe my prayers, too. My mother sa^'s it is her prayers and my wife's prayers. Anyhow, if they all keep praying enough maybe I will just keep on living a little longer. But it really doesn't matter, because I made up my mind that after 40 it doesn't matter whether a man lives or not ; I think it is borrowed time anyhow. Now,! tell you this. It is a little embarrassing. I didn't think I would tell you. I tell you this because I want you to look into this Communist Party card. Don't think that there aren't people who will plant it on me. Don't think there aren't people who are anxious to do me bad, because if there weren't that kind of people, you under- stand, they wouldn't take the chance they have to take to take me for a ride ; they wouldn't have the chance they have to take to come up and fill your car full of bullets. They take chances when they do that and that is worth somebody's money. Don't think that this was gotten for nothing. Now, in conclusion, I hope that this investigating committee can do something about settling it for the people out there. As far as personalities are concerned, I want it thoroughly under- stood that any time they get a deal I will look out for myself, but I absolutely will not desert them as long as they are outside and the "skid row bums" are in. I feel that you should do everything in your power. I am willing to cooperate with you and I will do anything I can, come here any time, I will do anything within reason, anything that is possible to clean this situation up. You knoM^ how I feel toward the opposing union. But I would still shake hands with them and go along with them, provided they MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2131 would, treat the people just, and if they don't, I'll fight them till hell freezes. I think that's about all I've got to tell vou. Mr. Landis. I was just wondering if you think you have had a fair deal before the committee, a chance to give a fair explanation '( Mr. SoRrell. I think that I have had a square deal. Mr. Kearns gave us an honest, square hearing, and I wrote a letter to that effect and I didn't tell them not to use that letter. Anything I say I say on top of the table. I have no secrets. But when Mr. Green says something I don't like, I write him a sassy telegram back. If you cross me I'll cross you. If I think I'll get a square deal, I'll not on]}' tell 3'ou, but I'll tell everybody else. I think that the connnittee is trying to do a job and I think they will eventually, if not pretty soon. Believe me, this is a blot on me. The Hollywood situation has been classed by some people as a fishbowl. Little things look big when they come from Hollywood. They get undue advertising. Just like Eric Johnston told me, it is important that we have good relations in Hollywood and if we don't have good labor relations in Hollywood, we won't have any work and there is no work there, and the motion-picture business will go to hell if we don't have some good labor relations. That is the worst thing they have right now. If we can't straighten it out — and believe me, I don't seem to be able to do much about it — and if the A. F. of L. can't straighten it up, more power to you, go ahead and do a job. Mr. Kearns. Do you have any questions ? Mr. Landis. That is all. Mr. Kearns. In behalf of the committee, Mr. Sorrell, we thank you for coming in here and giving your testimony. Mr. Levy. I have a question Mr. Kearns. Just a minute, please. I will let you know when 3'ou can talk. You have been accused of some serious conditions pertaining to labor. You have had ample opportunity, I feel, to clear everything as you woukl want to clear them, with the advice of your attorney. You, in turn, have mentioned names, the same as those who made the accusations against you. I feel it is only fair for counsel of the various groups that are here to have some time for any rebuttal that they would like to make. Otlier than that, I think so far as your end of the case is concerned that you have probably given all the evidence that you care to give. Mr. Sorrell. That is right. Mr. Kearns. We excuse you at this time. You may stay the rest of the time. So far as the committee is concerned, your services are all finished, but you are welcome to stay while any rebuttal is being made. Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Kearns, naturally I want to answer any questions that anyone wants to ask me. I will stay here as long as they keep me on the stand and ask me questions. I want to cooperate in every way. INIr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions? Mr. McCann. I have no questions, personally. Mr. Levy. I have one question. Mr. Kearns. Submit it to the counsel. 2132 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Levy. All right, sir. Mr. SoRRELL. I want to stay here and complete the job. Mr. Kearns. If there are any questions counsel have to put to Mr. Sorrell before he leaves, we would be very pleased to have them. Mr. Sorrell. I understand Mr. Zorn is going to read in 15 pounds of restraining orders, and so forth. I don't want to listen to those. I have read them. I don't want to sit around here and waste time, but I will be glad to answer any question or do anything I can to cooperate with the committee. Mr. McCann. I wish you would look that over before I read it. I think it is a repetition of what you have said, sir. [Handing document to the chairman.] Mr. Landis. Let him go ahead and answer it. Mr. McCann. I want him to see the question which is on the next page. Mr. Kearns. I think it is a fair question. Mr. McCann. All right, sir. Question from Mr. Levy : Mr. Sorrell, j^ou have personally testified before this committee in Los Angeles on .the following days, August 14, August 20, August 22, August 28, and August 29, 1947. You have also personally testified before this committee in Washington on the following days, February 19, INIarch 3, March 4, March 5, March 9, and March 10, 1948. Now, have you stated your full side of your case ? Mr. Sorrell. I have stated all that I care to state at this point. Mr. McCann. If your answer is "No," will you please continue so that you will be sure you have been given every opportunity to tell your complete story ? Mr. Sorrell. I thank the committee for the privilege of telling all that I have stated to this point. Mr. Kearns. I had asked Mr. Sorrell that question, of course, but as long as there is any doubt in anyone else's mind, I wanted him to have a chance to say it again, if he so pleased to do. That will be all, then, Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Bodle. Mr. Chairman, may I express my appreciation to the committee for its fairnes and courtesy, and also to counsel representing other parties. Mr. Kearns. All right, Mr. Bodle. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, there are certain things that have not been furnished to the committee yet. Are we holding hearings in the morning? Mr. Kearns. Oh, yes. Any outstanding material that you are going to send in here, such as exhibits, we will expect them to come in. You are excused for the time being. Mr. Doherty will come to the stand next. First we will take a H-minnte recess. (A short recess.) Mr. Kearns. Tlie hearing will please come to order. There has been some testimony here and some statements made per- tanimg to the three-man committee, appointed by the AFL, after Mr. Doherty was on the stand. Mr. Doherty asked permission to clear up a few pomts and offer some evidence which he felt should be in the hands of the committee ; is that correct, Mr. Doherty? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2133 Mr. DoHERTY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. You may proceed, sir. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. DOHERTY, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR— Recalled Mr. DoHERTY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the outset I want to express my profound thanks for having this oppor- tui>ity to retm-n to the witness stand after having been before you on several other occasions. Likewise at the beginning I want to make the record clear that I am not a Connnunist, I am not a Communist sympathizer. I look upon the Communist Party in the United States of America as a low, slimy, despicable group of people, hell bent on overthrowing the Government of the United States. Mr. Kearxs. That would make a good platform for President. Mr. DoHERTY. Thank you, sir. I look upon the Communist Inter- national, Joe Stalin and company, as the same despicable group of people on the face of the earth except that they are trying to dominate the entire world. I make that statement deliberately, Mr. Chairman, because there liave been at least some inferences here relative to the American Fed- eration of Labor. Since I am a member of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, I feel it is incumbent upon me to make the record clear on that score. As you know, there are 15 members on the Executive council. I can say to you very definitely that none of those men are Communists or Communist sympathizers. I look upon the American Federation of labor as being akin to the very poular advertisement that when it comes to communism we are 994 %Q0 percent pure.. I do confess that probably out of 7,000,000 members there are a few Communists in our midst. I would like to mention one other thing before I make these insertions in the record, Mr. Chairman, because the world Federation of Trade Unions has been mentioned here and I am very familiar with that particular phase of the world trade-union movement. For years on end the American Federation of Labor was identified with the International Federation of Trade Unions. We are proud of our membership therein. With the outbreak of war, Russia going into the conflict as one of our allies, a certain group decidedjto dissolve the International Federa- tion of Trade Unions. That group was headed by Sir Walter Sittrene, now Lord Walter Sittrene of Great Britain, then a leader in the British Trade Union Congress, and a Belgian by the name of Skevenelas. They dissolved the International Federation of Trade Unions with- out convention and illegally disbanded the International Federation of Trade Unions. They then started the World Federation of Trade Unions; invitecl the American Federation of Labor and all other trade-union move- ments throughout the world to join the WFTLT, I am very happy to say, sir, that I was one of the members of the executive council that voted against joining the World Federation of Trade Unions. I am very happy about that vote. 2134 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I am particularly pleased that the i^merican Federation of Labor did not join the WFTU because it is unquestionably a Communist- dominated world trade-union movement. I read a report tlie other day saying that the WFTU was directly responsible for the fall of Czechoslovakia. At any rate, the American Federation of Labor has never joined the World Federation of Trade Unions, and according to my reports and the reports we receive from other countries in the A. F. of L., I think the WFTU is on the way out. Joseph Keenan's name was mentioned before your committee. Mr. Landis. May I interrupt at this point? Mr. DoHERTY. Certainly, Congressman Landis. Mr. Landis. Is that the same outfit where we had an international labor movement among all nations at Philadelphia about 4 years ago ? Mr. DoiiERTY. I think, Congressman Landis, you are thinking of the International Labor Organization, which was a government set-up. Mr. Landis. The ILO. They are all right, aren't they ? Mr. DoiiEKTY. Very definitely so, and tlie American t ecleration of liabor has had representation in the ILO over a long period of years. Our representation has from time to time been challenged here in the United States of America, but as the dominant labor movement in this country we continue to have representation on the ILO. Mr. Landis. I wanted to have that distinction made between the two. Mr. DoiiERTY. There is no connection whatsoever between the ILO and the World Federation of Trade Unions, thank God. The name of Joseph Keenan was mentioned here the other day. I should say for the record that Mr. Keenan was in Germany as a special aide to Lt. Gen. Lucius D. Clay. He recently returned from Germany after several years' experience abroad. I can say positively that on the occasion of my visit to Germany in 1946 Mr. Keenan was looked upon in the same light as Mr. George Meany, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL, and myself, in that we were not permitted to peer behind the iron curtain. We were not permitted by the Soviet authorities to visit the Russian zone of occupation in Germany. I make those statements so that we might clear up the record hero relative to the AFL. I might also say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that in 1945 it was my pleasure, along with Mr. Meany, to visit England ag delegates from the AFL to the British Trade Union Congress, which was being held in the fall of 1945 at Blackpool, England. While Mr. Meany and myself were condemning the Communist- controlled World Federation of Tvade Unions and wei'e being cen- sored by the British press for having made the statements we did at Blackpool, strange as it may seem w^e met at the American Embassy in London, Mr. Lee Pressman, the former general counsel of the CIO, and Mr. James B. Carey, the secretary-treasurer of the CIO, who were then heading for Paris, for the purpose of putting the finishing touches on this new instrument known as the World Federation of Trade Unions. I understand later they went to Moscow, and I see according to recent papers they were in Moscow just a short while ago. They are ]iow in London, I understand, trying to start some kind of an additional world trade-union movement. So much for that. I do say, though, very definitely that Mr. Keenan is an absolute American, he is not a Communist. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2135 I think after the revealing- testimony, Mr. Chairman, that has come out here during the past 2 weeks or more, that what I said before you some 2 weeks ago here in Washington is self-evident. There is great need to look into the efficiency experts in Hollywood, or the industrial relations experts to see what makes them tick. I suspected at that time that perhaps they might be behind this wdiole thing by pitting one organization against the other or one group of men against the other, but as this narration is revealed here and each side tells his story I am convinced more than ever that there is great need for investigation of that particular point. I recall that Mr. Pat Casey appeared before your committee while you were in hearing at Los Angeles last August. If my memory serves me correctly, he made some statement to the effect that the AFL's three vice presidents and its directive should be thrown into the Pacific Ocean. At least that is what I read in the newspapers. If he did say that, then I return the compliment today. I want to compliment you. Congressman Kearns, as chairman of this subcommittee, and ^particularly Congressman Landis and Congress- man Owens, for the fine orderly manner in which you have conducted the Washington phase of these hearings. I think you are doing a magnificent job and you are entitled to the highest kind of praise. Now, Congressman Landis and I believe Congressman Owens also asked me specific questions on the occasion that I appeared before you the last time, relative to the carpenters not having representation be- fore our three-man committee when we met in Hollywood in the fall of 1945. At that time I did not have before me two highly important tele- grams. I did, however, answer the questions which were put to me, I think in a satisfactory way. I now have before me the wire which was sent to my distinguished colleague, the amiable president of the United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters, Mr. William L. Hutcheson. This telegram was sent under date of December 3, 1945, from Hollywood, and it reads, as follows : Mr. William Hutcheson, Indianapolis, Ind. : Committee requests j'ou have representative hearing 2 o'clock Thursday after- noon December 6 Roosevelt. Felix H. Knight, Chairman of Committee. This is a carbon copy of the original in Mr. Knight's handwriting and I submit that into evidence, if I may. Here is the reply which was received from Mr. Hutcheson. It is dated Indianapolis, Ind., December 4, 10 : 39 a. m., to Felix H. Knight, Roosevelt Hotel, Hollywood : Re your wire our general i-epresentative Gambia no will contact your committee and give you every help and assistance possible. Regards. Wm. L. Hutcheson. I would like to submit that reply into evidence because that seems to be one of the important points that will be deliberated before your committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, our good friend Mr. Hutcheson read into the record the complete digest of the minutes of the executive council meet- ing held in Miami, Fla., in January of 1946. He was correct in his 2136 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES statement when he said that the American Federation of Labor execu- tive council does not keep a verbatim report of the minutes of those meetings. It is merely a digest and mimeographed copies of that digest are sent to each member of the executive council. When we met in Los Angeles last August I did not have the digest of those minutes and as a result I could not place them into the record at that time. I have them now since my headquarters are here at Washing-ton. And since Mr. Hutcheson has already inserted the minutes of the January 1946 executive council meeting, and some excerpts from other meetings, and apparently through inadvertence he left out some refer- ences to this Hollywood dispute, I am sure that he would not want this record to stand incomplete. So in his interest and in the interest of the work being done by the committee I now request that pages 71 -to 75, inclusive, from the executive council digest of the minutes for the meeting held in Wash- ington, D. C, May 15 to 22, 1946, be submitted in evidence. I have other submissions to make. I will read them all, if you wish, or I will place them all in, anyway you want it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. We will place them in as j^ou go along, then. It is so ordered to have this placed in the record. Mr. DoHERTY. Do you want them read, sir ? Mr. Kearns. No ; unless you care to read it. Mr. Doherty. It isn't necessary but I will be glad to read them if the committee wants them read. Mr. Kearns. It is not necessary. (The minutes referred to are as follows :) The council considered the protest of the United Brotherhood of Cari^enters and Joiners of America against the acceptance of the decision of the executive council comnaittee on the Hollywood jurisdictional dispute. The following memorandum on the case was read : Under date of May 9, 1946, Secretary Frank Duffy of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, transmitted copy of a resolution which was unanimously adopted by the twenty-fifth general convention of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. He stated : "In conformity with the action of the twenty-fifth general convention, unani- mously concurring in the resolution presented by studio carpenters local union 946, the general executive board directed me, as general secretary, to send to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor a copy of the resolution (known as resolution No. 60) as presented to the twenty-fifth general convention, and demand immediate restoration to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America jurisdiction over work that rightfully belongs to members of our organization." The resolution referred to reads as follows : "Whereas the studio carpenters local union 946, Hollywood, Calif., having been on strike 35 weeks over jurisdiction of work rightfully belonging to the carpenters ; and "Whereas the executive council of the American Federation of Labor ordered the termination of the strike, and a committee of three, comprised of vice presi- dents of the American Federation of Labor were appointed to review the studio situation ; and "Whereas they handed down a directive which would give work that rightfully belongs to the carpenters to the lATSE : Now. therefore be it "Resolved, That this convention go on record protesting the action of the execu- tive council of the American Federation of Labor in accepting the report of the subcommittee and ignoring the fact that the general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America was not given an opportunity by the subcommittee of the American Federation of Labor to present claims of jurisdiction for the work in question ; therefore be it fui-ther MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES '2137 "Resolved, That this convention instruct the general executive board of the United Brotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America to protest to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor against the action of the executive council in accepting the report of the subcommittee in issuing the directive which they did, and ask immediate restoration to the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America jurisdiction over the work that rightfully belongs to them." Vice President Hutcheson stated that this is the unanimous action of the convention of the brothei-hood and the situation is worse now than it has ever been, and is getting worse. He stated the question arises whether the council wants to deal with it now or whether the council wants to wait until it gets worse and then do something about it. Vice President Hutcheson contended that the W'ay things are going now eventually the carpenters won't have any men in that work at all and then the brotherhood will demand that the federation do something. He stated they are asking it now. President Green stated that a strong feeling apparently exists out there among the local representatives of the brotherhood which was expressed by one of their delegates to the Lakeland convention. President Green stated that one of these delegates called on him while he was there at Lakeland and stated that it is a very serious situation, that the mem- bership were deeply moved and he did not think that they ever would acquiese in the decision, because they claimed the decision had taken work away from them that they had performed for a long period of time. " I'resident Green stated he asked him if there had not been an agreement in effect between the lATSE and the carpenters at one time, but he said the situa- tion is different now altogetlier and he was apparently very much disturbed about it. Vice President Hutcheson stated that he has received protests from hundreds of members of the brotherhood, protesting the situation as it is at the present time. The council discussed the matter at length. Vice President Hutcheson stated that the council has this problem before it and must either give this situation consideration now or have it worse later. He stated that the carpenters are being replaced steadily in the work the com- mittee said should be done by the lATSE but which is regularly the work of the carpenters. Vice President Hutcheson stated the carpenters cannot sit idly by and let some other organization get their work. Vice President Doherty of the executive committee stated that the committee did give the jurisdiction over the erection of sets on stages to the lATSE and nothing else. He stated the committee handed down a decision as honestly and conscientiously as they knew how. He stated the committee did not want to hurt anyone, that Chairman Knight asked each of the participants to the dispute if they could not come to some agreement or understanding, so that the committee would not have to hand down a decision. They failed to do so and the committee did hand down its decision. Vice President Doherty contended that the committee handed down a decision which was detinite, final, and binding on all parties. He contended it was not a matter of accepting or rejecting the committee's actions. A'ice I'resident Bugniazet suggested that President Green call up Eric Johnston and advise him that there is a protest from the carpenters that they are being moved off the work in violation of the settlement and ask him to have it corrected. Vice Presiden Knight reviewed the case from the time the committee was appointed" and went to Hollywood, held the hearings with representatives of each of the organizations named in the directive of the executive council and the final decision of the committee. Vice President Hutcheson protested that he was not given opportunity as general president of the United Brotherhood to appear before the committee. The members of the executive council committee contended tliat the carpenters did have a representative there who presented information in support of the position of the carpenters. The council discussed the matter. It was regularly moved that the chairman convey to Eric Johnston the charges made by the carpenters that the personnel and directors of the studios are dis- placing the carpenters and giving tlie carpenters' work to tlie members of the lATSE, contrary to the decision made by the committee that was appointed to 2138* MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIOXAL DISPUTES settle this dispute, and tliat he had agreed to see that the decision of the com- mittee was carried out by the studios, and request him to investigate the matter and carry out tlie decision and see that it is done. During the discussion that followed Vice President Hutcheson stated that he would like to call attention to the council members that he had not said anything about the decision being violated ; that the action of the convention of the brother- hood is that the carpenters have restored to them that jurisdiction that belongs to them and that it not be infringed upon. The council discussed the matter. It was regularly moved that this council recognize the jurisdiction of the car- penters as set forth in their constitution and recognized by the American Federa- tion of Labor and do everything we can to get them their jiirisdiction. During the discussion Vice President Birthright pointed out that the committee stated at the Miami meeting that the decision would not affect the jurisdiction of anyone outside of these studios. It was decided to let the matter rest until tomorrow morning, and then take it up for reconsideration. Mr, DoHERTY. Then, sir, I would also like to iiicliide the digest of the executive council minutes. May 15 to May 22, 1946, pages 76 to 78, inclusive. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The minutes referred to are as follows :) The council resumed consideration of the protest of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters against acceptance of the decision of the executive council committee on the Hollywood jurisdiction dispute. Vice President Hutcheson offered a motion that the council comply with the request of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America by declaring that they recognize the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America as set forth in the constitution of tlie brotherhood, and the proceedings of various conventions of the American Federation of Labor. Vice President Knight, of the Hollywood committee, stated this directive and the decision made by the committee applied only to Hollywood. He contended that if this action is taken here others will want the same treatment. Vice President Bugnlazet made a statement in which he pointed out that all parties agreed to abide by the decision. He stated he was asked why he agreed to such a procedure and that he had been criticized for agreeing to it. Vice President Hutcheson contended that this is just a case, of whether the council wants to recognize the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood or not. After some further discussion, an amendment was offered to the motion to provide, further, that this action does not interfere with the decision handed down by the Hollywood jurisdictional committee. Secretary-Treasurer Meany contended that if the lATSE is going beyond the decision and going into the carpenters' field, that would pre.sent an entirely new case, and if that is the case he would favor bringing in President Walsh before the council for a hearing. Vice President Hutcheson stated that the delegates to the convention of the United Brotherhood felt that the general president had been slighted by this committee by their failure to hear him. Vice President Doherty denied that there was intention on the -part of this committee to slight the general president. Vice President Knight repeated his assertion that it was his understanding that Representative Cambiano of the carpenters appeared in behalf of the brother- hood and stated that he presented a very fine case. He referred also to the fact that a decision had to be rendered within 30 days, and President Hutche.son had suggested that the meeting with him be held in Miami, in which case the com- mittee would not have been able to have rendered its decision in accordance with the time limit set in the directive. Vice President Hutcheson stated that the executive board of the carpenters reconvenes tomorrow in their recessed session and he expects to report back to the board whatever this council does for whatever further action the board sees fit to take. President Green suggested that the matter go over for the present until all members of the council can be in attendance at a meeting and then go into the matter, assemble more facts, and make a further survey of the situation at Hollywood and then let the council consider it again at the next meeting. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2139 It was sug-gesterl that Vice President Bates' first motion be amended to read as follows : "It was regularly moved that the chairman convey to Eric Johnston the charges made by the carpenters that the personnel directors of the studios are displacing the carpenters and giving the carpenters' work to the members of the lATSE contrary to the decision made by the committee that was appointed to settle this dispute, and that he had agreed to see that the decision of the committee was carried out by the studios and I'equest him to investigate the matter and carry out the decision and see that it is done; and (addition to the original motion) that we postpone further consideration until a future meeting of the coimcil, and in the meantime authorize the executive officers to go into the situation to correct the jurisdictional mistakes that are beiug made and make a survey of: the matter and then report back to the council'' Vice President Hutcheson contended that the brotherhood does not request that at all. The council discussed the matter further. It was regularly moA'ed and seconded that the request be laid over until the next meeting of the council, and in the meantime the president be instructed to investigate the entire situation and report on same to the next council meeting. The above motion was carried. Vice President Hutcheson voting "'No.'' Mr. DoHERTY. I would also like to insert the digest of the executive council minutes, pages 56 to G9, inclusive, a digest of the minutes of the executive council meeting held at Chicago, 111., starting August 15, 1946, You have in the record, Mr. Chairman, the clarification and some of the debate leading up to that clarification, but I think it is . necessary that the entire digest appear in this permanent record you. are making here. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The minutes referred to are as follows:) President Green stated that at the last meeting of the executive council a gen- eral discussion was engaged in upon a resolution which was brought to the atten- tion of the council by Vice President Hutcheson regarding the Hollywood situation, and the council decided to hold the matter in abeyance and in the meantime we would make inquiry as to how the award of the committee repre- senting the executive council was working out in Hollywood. He stated in con- formity with that decision of the council he delegated a regional director at San Francisco, Brother Daniel B. Flanagan, to make a survey of the situation and file a report for the council. President Green stated that Brother Flanagan complied with the request and has submitted the following report : Report of Status of "Work Jurisdiction in Hollywood Motion-Picture Industry Complied immediately with your order of July 11. 1946, that I conduct an investi- gation of above subject matter since the issuance by the American Federation of Labor Executive Council Committee of Three, of the directive signed on De- cember 26, 194.5, and covering work jurisdiction for the several unions mentioned therein. While cleaning up some important work in northern California. I assigned our Los Angeles organizer, Tom Randall, to take care of some preliminary details in connection with the case. Six days were spent by me in the Hollywood area making a personal investigation of thts important matter. During this period, all of the executive officers of the union, mentioned in the directive, were con- tacted by me. In addition, I conferred with the executive .secretary of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council. I felt that it would be appropriate and helpful to confer with the officials of management in this industry, and, accordingly, met with Mr. Fred Pelton. pro- ducers labor administrator for the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc. His work includes negotiating and interpreting labor contracts in the Hollywood film industry. Also, Mr. Edward Mannix, general manager of the Metro-Gold \\-yn- Mayer studios. This is the largest company in the film industry. Also, Mr. "William Walsh, in charge of labor relations for the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Co. 2140 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES As a result of the rather intensive investigation conducted by me, I wisli to submit the following information : BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA 1. Spoke to Herbert Sorrell, executive officer of the Hollywood local, and he advised me that he was fully satisfied with the contents and application of the directive, as it pertained to his union. (ff) Brother Sorrell did not feel that it was necessary to confirm by letter his position as mentioned above. (&) This local's membership is about 900, with no change caused by the directive. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA 1. Local 40, IBEW, had several complaints to register against the lATSE. It had no serious quarrels with other A. F. of L. unions. (a) The lATSE, and its various local unions m the motion-picture industry, are, and at all times since the issuance of the Knight, Doherty, Birthright direc- tive, have been openly violating the terms of the directive. ( b ) Where not openly violating the directive, the lATSE has made use of inten- tional misinterpretation and other forms of subterfuge to avoid compliance with the A. F. of L. directive. (c) Regardless of any precedent established through years of performance of certain work by the IBEW, the lATSE has seized upon any work not specifically covered by the directive. An oflScial brief, prepared by local 40 for me, is attached. Business Manager Roy Tindall, of local 40. feels that tlie following procedure would effectively work out his local's difficulties with the lATSE. 1. Where the directive or the previous agreements between the international does not cover the work in dispute, it is suggested by the IBEW that the issue be settled on the basis of the precedent established in each studio prior to the strike, which commenced on March 12, 1945. («) That the above paragraph include the agreement signed by President Dan Tracy, of the IBEW, and President George Brown, of the lA, and counter- signed by Pat Casey as chairman of the producers' connnittee on April 21, 1936, and effective on MaV 11, 1936. The compliance to this agreement by the lA par- ticularly with reference to subparagraph G would help greatly in removing our complaints against the lA on .iurisdiction. The agreement referred to is marked "Exhibit W" in the attached brief. 2. That the definition of "running repairs," made by Vice President Knight, be incorporated as part of the directive, over the signature of the full com- mittee, and that all interested parties be notified of this action. For your information, local 40. IBEW, instituted court action against the lATSE about 2 years ago, requesting the court to obtain compliance from the lATSE with the terms of the agreement of 1926, between the two internationals and the agreed-to amendments of 1936. This action was dropped by the court when the complainant, a member of local 40. passed away. About 3 months ago, local 40 started a court action against the lATSE asking that the lATSE be made to comply with the December 26, 1945, directive of the American Federation of Labor committee. At this writing, the superior court has not yet placed the case on its calendar for action. This information on court action by local 40, IBEW, was given to me by its Business Manager Roy Tindall. This local, at present, has about 500 members in the Hollywood film industry. If the present condition was corrected to its liking, it would mean an additional membership of about 450. The major items to be corrected in bringing about this additional membership would be on the definition of "running repairs." Local 40 is thoroughly agreeable to Vice President Knight's definition, which is listed as an exhibit in the brief submitted by local 40. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 1. Conferred with Business Manager AVickland and his committee for the UA Local 78, covering Hollywood. Their main contention is that the lATSE is encroaching on UA work through the former's interpretation of paragraph (aa) under section 2 on page 5, of the official directive. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2141 (a) UA feels that it would have an additional Hollywood membership of about 100 if the disputed point was settled to its liking. 2. The present Hollywood membership of the UA Local 78 is about 100. (a) Enclosed find self-explanatory copy of letter from Business IMauager Wickland of UA Local 78 to his general president, dated July 29, 1946. BUII.DIXG SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 1. Conferred with tlie executive officers of the Hollywood locals 278 and 193 of the BSEIU. They both expressed their satisfaction with the directive, and copies of their self-explanatory letters are enclosed. ( a ) Membership in the Hollywood film industry for local 278 is about 500. (ft) Could not obtain official figures on Hollywood film industry membership for local 193. Would guess it averages about 400. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 1. After a great deal of thought on the matter, it was my considered judgment that it would not be wise to include the Hollywood local of the lAM in my re- port. My reasons are first : That the IAI\I by its own action has disaffiliated from the parerit body ; and, second : That, several months ago, a Federal labor union charter was approved and issued to cover machinists in the Hollj^wood film industry. That Federal labor union is functioning at the present time. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AilERICA 1. Conferred wiih Br ;'.her James r'kelt< n, business representative for Car- pent^r.s' Local 94G, which includas the Holly v/ood film-industry jurisdiction. At my request, he has prepared a brief, copy of which I am enclosing. In addition, through questioning Brother Skelton, I am advised that the general president of the international union, during the January meeting of the A. F. of L. executive council, officially protested the findings contained in the directive, as they applied to this union. His protest was based mainly on the point that the A. F. of L. three-man committee had failed to allow him to appear before it, previous to its issuance of the directive, in spite of its having agreed to do so. Carpenters' Local 946 had officiall.v notified the producers early in January of this year that it was not recognizing the directive. However, after a large numl»er of its members had been discharged by management for this stand, local 946 then decided to go along with the directive, under protest. Since that tine, there have been a large number of work stoppages. It is the opinion of the Itusiness Representative Skelton that imhss tiie present jurisdictional disturbance is corrected, that there will be another limg- drav.-n-out strike over the matter of jurisdiction. The present Hollywood membership of the Carpenters' Local 946 totals about 1,500. If the work on set erection were granted to local 940, there would be additional employment for 500 members. If the definition of "props" were decided in favor of the cari)enters, there would be employment for 200 more. On favorable definition of the term "miniature," there would be 25 additional jobs created for local 946. 2. Conferred with International Representative Joe Cambiano, of the Car- penters, on this situation. His comments were similar to those mentioned in section 1 above. He went on to say that his international union recognized only the 1921 agreement, copy of which is in the brief submitted by Carpenters' Local 946 ; that the 1925-26 agreement had been executed by a rump group of officers of the tlien-existing carpenters' local, which included the Hollywood area, and, as such, had not been approved by the international ; that, therefore the A. F. of L. committee was in .complete error when it reccg.iized the 1925-26 agreement as a basis for its deliberations, and not the 1921 agreement. On the basis of the above condition, as explained by Brother Cambiano, tlie Carpenters' Local 946 are not recognizing the directive, and are working under protest. He envisages a series of serious work stoppages involving local 946, and, particularly, will effect the huge program of new construction being plaiuud by tlie movie industry. 67383 — 48— vol. 3 41 2142 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES International Representative Cambiano suggests tliat an official committee, made np of individuals who are familiar with the general building and wood-, milling industry, be assigned to look over the woodworking functions in the Hollywood film industry and report its findings to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. INTEKNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 1. Conferred wit'i International Representative Roy Brewer and Business Representative William Barrett, of Grips' Local 80. (a) Am attaching letter from Brother Brewer to me, dated August 8, 1946, and giving liis position regarding the agreement between the Carpenters' Local 946 and Grips' Local 80, as it pertains to the work of set erection. (J)) Am attaching letter from Brother Brewer to me, dated August 8, 1946, giving his official position with regard to the full content of the American Federa- tion of Labor directive. (c) Was advised by Brother Brewer that conferences were tentatively sched- uled between Carpenters' Local 946' and the lA Props' Local 44, at which was to be discussed among other things the matter of props and miniature. (d) On the complaint filed by UA Local 78, Brother Brewer stated that he would be willing to swap the UA and take the terms of the 19.S7 agreement, between the two internationals in preference to tlie December 26, 1945, A. F. of L. directive. (Was not able to obtain copy of the 1937 agreement.) (e) On the complaint filed by the IBEW Local 40, Brother Brewer stated that the main point at issue there is the term "running repairs." Insofar as what local 40 claims to be an official definition from Vice President Knight on the term "running repairs" is concerned, the lATSE have never been ofiicially advised of it by the A. F. of L.. and, therefore, do not recognize it. Brother Brewer gave his definition of "running repairs" to this efi;ect : "Any repair not requiring it being done at the shop, or not requiring the facilities of the shop to be taken to tlie place where repair is made." (f) The present membership of the lATSE locals that are involved in the A. F. of L. committee directives, are as follows : Local 44, the allied property craftsmen 1,600 Local 80, the grips .: 1,200 Local 728, studio electricians 1, 200 Local 695, sound technicians '. 850 Local 46S, studio mechanics « 1, 100 Local 165, projectionists 350 Total 6,300 International Representative Brewer stated that if the directive had been granted, as his international preferred, then the lATSE would have been granted the same work jurisdiction tliat it enjoys in tlie theater industry. That would mean allowing the lATSE additional work jurisdiction involving another six or seven thousand workers. MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL 1. Los Angeles Central Labor Council : (a) Conferred with Executive Secretary Bassett. He informed me that there has been no official action taken by his office since the issuance of the A. F. of L. connuittee directive. That tlie only informa- tion he has on the matter is what he picked up during the unotlicial conversations on the subject. It is his reaction that the friction over work jurisdiction is now more acute in Plollywood than was the case before the directive was issued. 2. Management representatives in the Hollywood film industry: (a) In the be- ginning of my report, I make reference to my conferences with several representa- tives of management. They appeared to be in agreement on the several points which follow : (1) That the directive, being a new agreement, naturally brought on a flood of complaints and objections over interpretation. (2) The directive created a new local — the studio mechanics' local, which handles the work of set erection, and which is the principal source of complaint from the carpenters. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2143 (3) Let unanswered Avas the definition of the terms "props," "miniature." (4) The Carpenters" Local 946 dispute is, by far, the real serious issue at present. (5) The IBEW complaint is based, for the most part, on the term "running repairs'' and its definition. Management feels tliat this grievance can be ad- justed locally, due to the fact that the work involved is a routine everyday affair as compared to "props" and "miniature," where there are changes being made constantly in the type of work. This grievance is not regarded as serious. (6) The UA complaint is very minor. (7) Propose that an arbitration procedure be established within the industry to resolve jurisdictional questions. Tlie machinery and personnel for this to be arranged by the American Federation of Labor movement in Hollywood. Man- agement offers to pay the entire expense of this program while allowing the unions to set it up completely. (rt) As a first step in the -arbitration program, I am enclosing the partiaL official minutes of tlie meeting of July 2, 1946, and which were signed by Pat Casey, representing the producers and Herb Sorrell, representing the Conference of Studio Unions. The full minutes at this meeting constituted the agreement which terminated a 2-day strike initiated by the painters ■ and carpenters. 3. Have enclosed copy of Memorandum re 194.5 Hollywood Strike, prepared by the executive staff of the Screen Actors' Guild. This deals with some of the pertinent history of background leading up to the 1945 Hollywood film industry strike. I did not enclose the full memoran(hini on the subject because I felt that you were well enough familiar with the highlights of the 1945 strike period itself. (a) This summary by the Screen Actors' Guild should be of interest in show- ing lio\A' the antagonism between the several unions had its origin. GENERAL OBSEEVATIONS OBTAINED BY ME IN THE COURSE OF MY INVESTIGATIONS WHICBT SEEM TO BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL SITUATION NOW EXISTING 1. Over the years, there have been several changes, back and forth, insofar as union control over particular work is concerned. The result of that has been that a large number of workers in the industry have been at one time or another members of both contesting unions in a particular dispute. For example : Car- penters' Local 9Jf6 V. The lA Group; IBEW Local /,0 v. The lA Group. Tlilis condition has made the workers familiar with the craft skill of each union, and, therefore, tends to bring about more numerous jurisdictional controversies by virtue of the worker doing the work that he is capable of doing, but which does not belong to him at that particular time because of his then existing union affiliation. 2. Foremen and assistant snpervisors in the film industry, who are required to become or remain members of that particular union. Naturally, the individual uses his infiuence in swinging the work over to the jurisdiction of his own organ- ization, even thougli, in some cases, it might not properly belong to that union. 3. Over the years, each studio has adopted its own individual policy regarding M'ork assignments. This has been based on the type of facilities that were most favorable at that time to production program of that studio, or in some cases, the management of the studio, being a product of the theater brought witliin the film industry tlie line up of work as followed in the theater industry. This combination results in each studio following a different policy on the same type of work. That, of course, eliminates the benefit of uniformity throughout the industry and causes a certain amount of continuous unrest among the members of the different unions. When, tor example, the individual member transfers to another studio and finds that the work he was allowed to do as a member of his particular union in his first studio, is not allowed in the new studio. 4. Industry-wide compliance with the official American Federation of Labor directive is spotty due to the condition outlined in paragraph 3 above. As a result, the industry policy in complying with the directive is as follows: In those sections where all of the units in the industry agree, then it becomes a uniform policy, and a general order is sent out covering the industry. Where this unanimous agreement cannot be obtained, then it is left up to each individual studio, which makes its decision based on the historical precedent that has been established in tliat particular studio, as is described in paragraph 3 above. 2144 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 5. For several months following the issuance of the directive order, the pro- cedure on jurisdictional questions was to resolve them on a studio-by-studio basis, with the decision being made by the management in that studio. Subse- quently, for a 30-day period, one sole arbitrator was selected by the management to resolve questions on an industry-wide basis. The union groups agreed to the 30-day period, but did not consent to its continuance after the expiration of the 30 days. The exception to this being the lATSE group, who were agreeable to continuing on the industry-wide basis. The policy then reverted back to the studio-by-studio basis, which is the condition now prevailing. 6. If the condition now in effect on the matter of work jurisdiction is allowed to continue, there will be another serious work stoppage developed in the not too distant future. Fraternally submitted. Daniel V. Flanagan, Western Director, Americmi Federation of Lahor. President Green stated that Brother Flanagan has supplemented that report with exhibits such as communications from the representatives of the electrical workers, the brotherhood of carpenters, and the plumbers and steam fitters. President Green stated that the two organizations that seem to be still objecting are the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the International Brotlierhood of Electrical Workers ; that the objection of the International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers was based upon the interpretation of "running repairs." Presi- dent Green stated the electrical workers are willing to accept the interpretation of Vice President Knight of the committee, but that the lATSE will not accept said interpretation. President Green stated that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters have made it clear that said organization has not accepted the directive, and for that reason the carpenters are working under protest. In discussing the suggestion made in the report of Representative Flanagan that an arbitration procedure be established President Green stated that as he xmderstands it from the report, the employers in the studios in Hollywood out- lined and proposed such a program. President Green stated he does not know wliether such a plan is practicable. Vice President Hutcheson read a telegram which he received from his repre- sentative in Hollywood, as follows : "At a meeting with the producers on July 2, terminating a 2-day strike, our people returned to work on July 3 under an interim agreement which was to be in effect until a contract could be signed. At this meeting it was agreed that each studio would operate as they had after the directive and according to their interpretation of the directive. This was to be in effect until the directive had been clarified or an arbitration committee set up to interpret the directive. The work varies at each studio, but in general most studios have interpreted the directive that the set erectors are to build and erect all sets on stages, which include the building of all platforms for sets, cutting of stage floors where it is necessary for stairways, sunken gax'dens, etc. The producers' interpretation is that the set erectors are to build and erect all walls for homes and buildings, they put on novelty siding and prepare exterior walls for plaster, imitation brick or stone. They also prepare the interior walls which are in most cases finished in Celotex, plasterboard, Masonite, or plywood. They cut roof rafters, shingle roofs, and do all other work that could not be classed other than as carpenter work. They also use portable band saws and cut-ofC saws on the stages. The only thing the carpenters are permitted to do on the stages at the present time is the hanging of doors, windows, and the usual trim that goes into an ordinary build- ing or home. "The producers have gone so far as to permit the set erectors to build some sets on stages which are later to be moved to other stages for shooting. Prop makers local 44 are insisting that all bars, back bars, counters, built-in seats and all types of furniture, practical fireplaces, and anything in a set but the four walls, roof, and floor are props. They are also including as action props such items as railroad cars, boxcars, boats, wagons, airplanes and any mode of transportation, or any article that moves in a pictiu-e as their work. Local 44 is also doing all miniature work regardless of scale and claiming anything built to a scale below its normal size is a minia-ture, even though in many cases these items are used for perspective purposes. In the prop shop they have identi- cal machinery as is used in the mill, such as wood-turning lathes, small shapers, drill presses, band saws, rip and cut-off saws, and in addition to this they often MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2145 use the mill machinery to get out material for their work. Under the directive carpenter work is confined to the maintenance of buildings not used for photo- graphic purposes. New buildings are usually let out on contract but are done by brotherhood men. We do exterior sets on lots and locations, but even in this work the prop makers are claiming many items such as windmills, water tanks, signs, and many other items. • Millwork consists mostly of sash and doors and moldings and trim for sets. At the present time there are no crafts that have a long-term agreement. All crafts are working under an interim agreement. The set erectors local 468 is made up of men who took our jobs during the strike and those men who broke the ranks of local 946. Grips local 80 is willing to go through with the agreement that they made with local 946 but are not permitted to do so since the A. F. of L. directive gave the erection of sets on stages to the lATSE." Vice President Hutcheson stated that while he told the carpenters' local that it was ui) to theiu to accept or not go along with this finding, the sentiment among their members is that they want the international to do what hey have been doing for a number of years, namely, to negotiate with the producers and get their agreements for them. The Council discussed the m-atter in detail. Vice President Bates called attention to the motion which was pending before the council at the last meeting and is now ui) for consideration, as follows : "TiiPsdaif afternoon. May 21, 19^6 •'It was regularly moved that the chairman convey to Eric Johnston the charges made by the carpenters that the personnel and directors of the studios are dis- placing the carpenters and giving the carpenters' work to the members of the lATSE, contrary to the decision made by the committee that was appointed to settle this dispute, and that he had agreed to .see that the decision of the committee was carried out by the studios, and request Mms to investigate the matter and carry out the decision and see that it is done * * *. '"It was decided to let the matter rest until tomorrow morning and then take it up for reconsideration. "Wednesday morning, May 22, 1946 "Vice President Hutcheson offered a motion that the council comply with the request of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America by declaring that they recognize the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America as set forth in the constitution of the brother- hood, and the proceedings of various conventions of the American Fede"ratiou of Labor * * *. "After some further discussion, an amendment was offered to the motion to provide, further, that this action does not interfere with the decision handed down by the Hollywood jurisdiction committee * * *. "It was regularly moved and seconded that the request be laid over until the next meeting of the coimcil, and in the nwantime the president be instructed to investigate the entire situation and report on same to the next council meeting. "The above motion was carried. "Vice President Hutcheson voting 'no'." The council discussed the matter until the hour of adjournment arrived. THURSDAY AFTERS' OON SESSION, AUGUST 15, 194C Meeting called to order at 2 : 35 p. m.. President Green in the chair. Present: Green, Hutcheson, Woll, Weber, Harrison, Tobin, Bates, Knight, Birthright, Doherty, Dnbinsky, Lewis, Meany. Absent : Bugniazet, Mahon. The council resumed discussion of the carpenters' protest against the decision of the Hollywood jt;ri.sdiction committee. Vice President Dolierty requested that the amendment which he offered to the motion (see p. 76 of the E. C. minutes. May 15-22, 1946) be considered" in order; i. e., "that this action does not interfere with the decision handed down by the Hollywood jurisdictional committee." Vice Pi-esident Hutclieson contended that this amendnjent is passe because the brotherhood of carpenters has not accepted the directive. He stated the inter- national has not accepted and does not intend to accept it for reasons that have previously been stated and are in the record. The council discussed this question at soni. lie pointed out further that the committee was handicapped by having only :>0 days in which to do the job. Vice President Knight stated the conmiittee is not against the carpenters having their jurisdiction. Vice President Hutcheson reiterated his contention made in previous discus- sions that he was not given an opportunity to appear before the committee. Vice President Birthright stated that in his opinion if this motion is passed without the amendment it voids the decision of the committee. He stated that the committee in rendering that decision out there did not interfere with the jurisdiction of any international union outside of these studios. After some further discussion Vice President Hutcheson stated if the com- mittee would give to the council a clarification of its intent as set forth in the discussion he would consider withdrawal of his motion. Secretary-Treasurer Meany called attention to the fact that on March 14 Chairman Knight of the committee wrote to the business agent of the electrical workers clarifying the decision on the question of "running repairs." Vice President Knight suggested that the matter be laid over and the committee will get together and see what they can do about it. It was agreed that the course be followed. Mr. DoiiERTY. I would also like to include, Mr. Chairman, the digest of the executive council minutes for the meeting held here in Wash- ington, D. C., April 21 to 25, 1947. That covers the interpretation I)hase of this Hollywood situation. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The minutes referred to are as follows :) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Indianapolis, April 8, 1947. Mr. William Green, President, American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. 0. Dear Sir and Brother: At a meeting of our general executive board, now in session, consideration was given by that body to the conditions as existing in Hollywood, Calif., wherein the International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees is furnishing to the major moving-picture studios nonunion men, or in other words what is usuall.v referred to in trade-union parlance as "scab car- penters," to do the work of members of our organization. The general executive board authorized the undersigned, as general secretary .of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, to coimnuni- cate with yrju requesting that the executive council of the American Federation of Labor recommend to the next general convention of the American Federation of Labor the revocation of the charter of the International Association of Theat- rical Stage Employees. Trusting to hear from you regarding this matter, I remain. Fraternally yours, Frank Duffy, General Secretary. President Green stated he is going to send out a call to those international xinions who were contacted in accordance with Resolution 187 to send repre- :sentatives to a conference within the next week or 10 days. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2147 Vice President Biigniazet suggested that the council might accept this com- 'miinication from Secretary Dutty, of the carpenters, and lay it over until the next meeting of the council and in the meantime this conference will be held and it might be possible that somethiug will develop there toward reaching some kind of an agreement. Vice President Hutcheson stated that if the council wants to be helpful in this situation there is a way. He stated if this council will authorize the president to send to whomever the council would decide the understanding that was appar- ently accepted last August of the interpretation made by the committee he thought perhaps that would be helpful. He stated in that cijse he would say it would be advisable to lay this communication over. Vice President Hutcheson stated that the other day Brother Doherty, of the committee, said that it was understood the interpretation meant that the car- penters were to do the construction of the stage sets. Vice President Doherty replied that that is what he said and that is what he said at the meeting when the committee gave the clarification. Vice President Hutcheson stated if that is the luiderstanding of the council he does not see why the council cannot send that out. Vice President Hutcheson stated he thought what confused the issue was the statement that the clarifica- tion was in a way changing the committee's original report. The council discussed the matter for some time. Vice President Uoherty stated lie is trying to be helpful in this jnatter but he is unwilling to upset any machinery that has already been set up by this covuicii : namely, the conference that President Green is calling on this serioi;s jurisdictional dispute. He stated that the members of the so-called Hollywood committee could be available to sit in with the unions involved. He stated that he, as one member of the committee, will be happy to sit in at that conference jf President Green invites him to do so. Vice President Dolierty stated that if a move is going to be made to ask for a reclariflcation or additional language in the decision it will upset the machinery that has already been iilaced in motion by way of the conference. Vice President Hutcheson stated he is only suggesting that this council, as per the understanding in the mind of every member, make a statement as to what their understanding was. He stated that might place the carpenters in a position where they could attend the conference. He stated they- could not consistently attend a conference when they have no members that it is going to affect. Vice Pres'^ident Doherty stated it is his personal opinion that any further clari- fication or statement that we may is.sue will only confuse matters and it would seem that the right iirocedure would be to bring the whole question V)efore the conference that President Green is going to call. Vice President Hutcheson stated he could not agree to that. Vice President Kniglit stated that as he recalls it the words originally used were "erect" and then in this so-called interpretation at Chicago we \ised the word "con,struct," and Brother Hutcheson is now saying the word "building" was used. Vice President Knight stated that to him they all mean the same. He stated the council took action the other day to call this conference and President Green expects to have these representatives in sometime around May 10. Vice Presi- dent Knight stated this request will be just as effective at the next convention if it is not acted upon until the meeting just before the convention as it will be if the council should act on it now. He contended that action now would handi- cap the committee and would be detrimental to the committee. Vice Pi'esident Knight stated that if he as one of the committee can be of any service by coming into the conference on INIay 10 he will be glad to come in and lend what helii he can in making it a success. Vice President Bates stated he did not favor sending out a decision now. President Green stated, as he understands it in the clarification it was inter- preted to mean that the construction of sets comes under the jurisdiction of tlie United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Vice I'resident IIutcli»'son stated all he is asking is to stop right there. President Green stated that in the clarification it provides, however, that the erection of sets on stages comes under the jurisdiction of the lATSE. President Green stated that on August 27 he sent the following letter to Eric Johnston, i-epresenting tlie motion-picture producers ; to Richard Walsh, presi- dent of the theatrical stage eiuployees ; to President Hutcheson, of the United ;^rothei'hnod of Carpenters and Joiners of America; to Ed Brown, president of the electrical workers; to Martin J. Durkin, president of the jolumbers ; to L. P. 2148 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Lindelof, preeident of the brotherhood of painters, to William McFetridge, presi- dent of the building service employees union ; and to Daniel V. Flanagan, our ' organizer in San Francisco : August 27, 1946. Dear Sir and Bkother : I enclose copy of a statement of clarification prepared by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright, and Doherty, of the American Federation of Labor, who rendered a decision in the .lurisdictional disputes in the motion- picture studios in Hollywood, Calif., dated December 26, 1945. Said statement is self-explanatory and is transmitted to you as a matter of information. It is sent to you by direction of the executive council of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor. Fraternally yours, Wm. Green. President, American Federation of Labor. Enclosure. Chicago, III., August 16, 1946. Pursuant to instructions handed down by tlie executive council at a session held on August 15, 1946, the Hollywood jurisdictional committee reviewed the work division applicable to the United Brotlierhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, as set forth in the committee's decision dated December 26, 1945, and reaffirmed its previous decision. The committee took cognizance of the allegations contained in a report sub- mitted to President Green by Organizer Daniel Y. Flanagan under date of Au- gust 9, 1946. According to a brief embodied therein, studio carpenters' local 946, U. B. of C. and J. of A., alleges that certain violations have taken place whereby the carpenter's jurisdiction set forth in the directive has been encroaclied upon. Jurisdiction over the erection of sets on stages was awarded to the Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada under the provisions set forth in section 8 of the decision wliich specifically excluded trim and mill work on said sets and stages. The word "erection" is construed to mean assemblage of such sets on stages or locations. It is to be clearly understood that the committee recognizes the juris- diction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America's jurisdiction. Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, recognized the rightful jurisdiction of the United Brotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America on all millworli and carpenter work in connection with studios, all work in carpenter shops, all permanent construction and all construction work on exterior sets. In view of the alleged violations, the committee hereby directs that all par- ticipants in the Hollywood motion-picture studio dispute strictly adhere to the provisions of the directive handed down on December 26, 1945. Felix Knight. W. C. Birthright. W. C. Doherty. Secretary-Treasurer Meany stated that President Green sent this out specifically as a matter of information and he sent it out as a clarification by the committee that made the original decision. Secretary Meany stated the committee must have had in mind that there was some difference between "erection" and "con- struction." He stated in normal usage there is very little difference between "erection" and "construction" but the committee must have had something in mind that there was a difference because the committee used the two words in th esame paragraph ; they say "construction" is the carpenters, "erection" is the motion-picture operators. He stated that in their minds there must have been a sharp difference. The council discussed the matter. President Green stated it seemed to him that if a further statement is to besent out as has been suggested that it should be based on the further clarifi- caion as has been stfited or a further interpretation by the committee. President Green stated it would be easy for the committee to say that in the tliird paragraph of is interpretation that "the erection of sets comes under the jurisdiction of the lATSE ; the construction of sets comes under the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Cnrpenters and Joiners of America." Vice President Hutcheson stated that would be agreeable to him. President Green stated that the committee could quote the third paragraph of the clarification and say it means that the "erection" of sets comes under the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2149 jurisdiction of the lATSE and the "construction" of sets comes under the jurisdiction ot the United Brotlierhood of ('arjjenters. \'ice President Tobin suggested that tiie committee appear before the conference which is to be lieid and nialve that statement. Vice President Doherty stated that the committee cannot hand down a further claritication here in tins council meeting for tlie reason that the third member of the committee (Vice President Birthright) is not present. Vice President Kuigiit stated he thought that when this conference of these organizations convenes early in May and this committee comes in tluit the car- penters sliould be present. Vice President Hutcheson replied that unless the council sees fit to do something today the carpenters will not have any reason to be present at that meeting. Vice President Hutcheson stated that he does not see any harm in sending out what tlie understanding was by the council members. He stated he does not think that reflects in any way on the committee. He stated a plain state- ment sliould be made that this was the understanding of the council and it would not need a decision of the council. After some further discussion it was regularly moved and seconded that such a letter, if it is agreeable to the committee and does not in any way alter their interpretation, be sent. Carried. It was agreed that a copy of the letter be sent to all parties who received the original communication relative to the clarification. President Green stated that in view of this action of the council the commu- nication received from Secretary Duffy of the United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America could be laid over until the next meeting. It was decided that be done. Mr. Doherty. Now those are all the insertions I wish to mai^e, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to review testimony given here by the repre- sentative of the International Association of Machinists. On Thursday, February 19, Mr. Harvey W. Brown, the very capable president of the International Association of Machinists, delivered to your committee a prepared statement. On page 2 thereof he uses the following language, and I quote : The I. A. of M., as I recall, was involved in only one jurisdictional dispute with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. This* dispute was in a machine shop operated by the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. As I recall there were about 22 machinists in that shop, 14 of whom were I. A. of M. members. And on page 3 Mr. Brown states, and I quote : The A. F. of L. arbitration committee turned its back on the one and only one dispute between the I. A. of M. and the lATSE, and then to further aggravate the relationship between the I. A. of M. and the lATSE they ruled that provisions of the al)ove-mentioned 1929 agreement shall be placed in full force and effect wherever members of the I. A. of M. are employed. Xow, Mr. Chairman, on Thursday morning, December 6, 1945, our committee of three vice presidents took 50 pages of testimony from the machinists' representatives at Hollywood, Calif. Those machinists' re]n'esentatives were Mr. Roy M. Brown, Mr. D. T. Wayne, Mr. E. R. White, Mr. J. F. Benson, Mr. Alonzo A. Moon, Mr. C. W. Evans, and Mr. John A. Durst. On page 22 of that digest it states, and I quote : Brother Moon. At Paramount, for instance, after we went back to work my job was as a maintenance man on projection. Now I am not allowed in the booth, and we have an agreement between the lA and the machinists where we will take care of that work which I have been on for years. That is the end of the quote. Mr. Moon mentions Paramount. 2150 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I am now quoting from pages 26 to 32, inclusive, and I think it perti- nent that I read from these pages into the transcript so as to refute what Mr. Brown has apparently tried to do before your committee to make it appear that the only thing we had before our committee w^as the jurisdictional dispute over 21 machinists at MGM. That is not the case. On page 26 it says : Committeeman Doherty. Who has the jurisdiction over the repair of projec- tion machines in tliose hooths? That is Roy M. Brown — Brother Brown. We do ; we have always done it. Committeman Birthright. Let me ask you gentlemen this : In 1936 the agree* ment was entered into by the Machinists International Union and the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, by Wharton and Canavan, then president of the lATSE, in which it says— And Brother Birthright is quoting that agreement : "1. It is understood by both parties that members of the lATSE are recog- nized to have jurisdiction, to have charge of, to adjust, and operate all projectors and all appliances connected therewith." Now, I would assume that they assume the word "adjust" means repairs ; is that it? Brother Wayne. No ; it is actually putting the picture on the screen and adjusting it. Committeeman Birthright. I know what it means, and the agreement further reads : • "It is understood by both parties that the members of the I. A. of M. are recog- nized as having jurisdiction over the processes in the ma'nufacturiug of motion- picture machines. "3. That is agreed that members of the lATSE shall have jurisdiction over the Setting up, taking down of motion-picture machines in such i)laces as they are used for exhibition purposes." Here is the meat of the question, I think : "It is agreed by both parties that when temporary emergency running repairs are necessary the operator will make such repairs that are necessary to keep the machine in operatix)n." Do you recognize that? Brother Wayne. Yes. Committeeman Birthright. You recognize that the operator can adjust some- thing to keep the machine in operation? Committeeman Doherty. And make running repairs? Brother Wayne. Right there in the booth when changing a belt. Cx^mmitteeman Birthright. In this case, why, they wouldn't allow him in the booth even though for the purpose of repairing the machine; is that right? Brother Wayne. That is the present practice ; yes : that's right. For further clarification, this man's duty is daily to go into each of the projection rooms and make a general inspection and oiling and adjusting and servicing of each of these machines preparatory to the day's work, and if a machine needs an over- haul he takes it out of the booth, carries it down to the shop, makes the necessary overhaul, and then puts it back up in the booth. It should be further pointed out that while that contract that you read from deals particularly and specifically with theater projection, it does not mean the operation of the projection machines in the studios because there it is not for exhibition pui-poses but more for inspection purposes. Not exhibition for hire or entertainment. It is like any other machine which you have to make an in- spection of. They have projection liooths right next to each other, a string of them, four or five of them, a regular theater. They will have a screen at the far end of a room, a projection booth up here and all •they do, the directors or any others who have to do with deciding on the quality of the picture, is sit in there and watch that for inspection purposes, and we have always done that work, at least to my knowledge as far back as 1928 when I first entered the industry. Committeeman Birthright. Well, with respect to this agreement from which I read, although I realize it is not an agreement on studios, yet it does recognize that the basic jurisdiction of the two orgapizations. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2151 Brother Wayne. It does ; that's right. If anything happens to a projection machine while they are showing a picture that would cause the film to break or anything of that kind, the operator naturally does the 5-minute repair which will allow that picture to go on. But if he is unable to make such a repair with the tools at hand it then goes down to the machine shop and a machinist is called on to fix it. Committeeman Birthright. It recognizes the basic jurisdiction of both par- ties and their rights in the premises wherever they are and the application would apply as well anywhere else, as far as the work is concerned of repairing or dismantling or whatever it would be? Brother Wayne. Will you read the next paragraph? Committeeman Birthright. WelJ, there really isn't any next paragraph. "It is understood by both parties that all operators who as a side line repair machines at their homes or in shops shall become members of the I. A. of M." That is, if you repair macliines at home. But both parties to this agreement shall endeavor to assist each other to draw up and enter into, with all shows and such other places that might be affected, an agreement or understanding that will recognize and employ members of both organizations on their respective work. That is the meat of it, of course. It is basic as far as the two organizations are concerned. Brother Brown. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that during the period of time that that agreement was entered into it was the desire of our organization to work for the mutual interest of other trades with whom we came in contact in our everyday work, and the intent — not the application — but the intent there was the same as was agreed to between our organization and the engineers and other international unions, to permit in the performance of the day's work tem- porary repairs that would keep that machine producing and in operation during that shift. And as Brother Wayne has stated, that agreement, although it lias never been canceled by either party, that particular agreement was designed especially for theater work, but basically it is sound and could apply to the question here. Committeeman Dohekty. Aside from M-G-M, the two organizations have worked together? Brother Brown. I think that that statement could be modified. Brother Doherty,, to say that the ma'/hinists have had control of their work in practically all othei' cases except at INI-G-M. But we felt for a number of years that efforts were being^ made by the lATSE to place themselves in a position where they could grab their other work in all other places. And I wouldn't want to go so far as to state that we have worked well togethei'. We have just had control of our respective jurisdictions, with the exception of this one particular place. Committeeman Doherty. Of course, the last paragraph in that agreement prompted my question where it stated that you will work together in mutual interest and so forth. Brother Beown. I believe this statement could be made : With the exception of the motion-picture industry where pictures are manufactured, we have had very little trouble on a national basis with the lA, as it relates to the other jurisdictions of the lA and our organization. And then on page 42, Brother Brown .states again : You foresee, I believe, exactly what we think is going to happen ; and we also feel that, regardless of their pronouncements as to their claimed jurisdi'^tion, they are going to claim all of the machinists' jurisdiction in the studios in the motion picture industry. I bring that quotation in, Mr, Chairman, becanse it proves conclu- sively that the machinists' representatives recognized out there that the tiling was industry-wide and not restricted to M-G-M, as Mr. Brown wonld have you tliink. And then on page 44, Brotlier Brown again says : They probably intend to try to take over all of the machinists' work in tlie studios. That is the end of that quote. 2152 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Page 47 : Brother Duest. I am from Columbia Studios. I just want to state in regards to this projection situation that our situation is very similar to what the boys have stated exists at M-G-M and also at Paramount. Our repairman takes the projection head to the booth and lets a projectionist install it. About a half-hour later they will call up and say it froze up. We then send them up another one. But we are not permitted to service any machines that are in the projection booths. However, we did all that work before the strike. That just about sums it up. So there, Mr. Chairnian, right in the evidence that your committee already has, you will note that the machinists' dispute was industry- wide and not restricted to MGM. I want to say here it was unfortunate, indeed, that Mr. Harvey Brown Avas li]:e other international presidents. He did not come to Hollywood in December of 1945 at our invitation. It has been said here that the only international president who was present was Mr. Walsh. I have checked the record and that is a true statement; that all of the other organizations were represented by different representatives or members of their unions. However, the committee of three vice presidents were also interna- tional presidents of certain unions : Mr. Knight, president of the car- men; Mr. Birthright, president of the barbers; and myself, president of the letter carriers. So we three presidents, at the instruction of the. executive council, saw fit to move out to Hollywood to go into this terrific jurisdictional turmoil. Now, there is one more point I would like to clear up, and then I will conclude. It was alleged here this morning that statements I made while in Los Angeles last August before your committee indicated that our committee was not an arbitration board. I vividly recall having made those statements. It is absolutely true that we were not a board of arbitration. But I have said over and over — I have repeated it so often that it perhaps becomes monotonous to listen to — that this directive handed down by the executive council in October of 1945 was undoubtedly the strongest document that they ever handed down to any committee of three members. We had a specific duty to perform. Right in the directive itself it states sj)ecifically in point No. 4 : That after the expiration of 30 days a committee of three members of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor shall investigate and deter- mine within 30 days all jurisdictional questions still involved. Then, of course, in point No. 5, it states that our findings will be final and binding upon the seven unions involved in the dispute. So this directive, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, was even more powerful than anything that could have been handled through a board of arbitration. We were told to go out there, to investigate, to examine, and to hand down a final and binding decision, and that we did. Whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, that is beside the point. We carried out our instructions. Mr. Landis. Will you go one step further now on the clarification ? Mr. DoHERTY. Just what would you want me to bring in. Congress- man Laiidis ? I would be very happy to cooperate. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2153 Mr. Landis. The point I want to make is this: This is a directive as to what the job is snpposed to be. The clarification came after- ward. Mr. DoHERTY. That is right. Mr. Laxdis. Is that important ? Is that the same as the directive ? Mr. DoHERTY. I think, Congressman Landis, it is highly important. jSlr. Laxdis. Do you see the point I am tr3dng to make ? Mr. DoHERTY. Yes; I do. It is highly important. The decision we handed down on December 26, 1945, was apparently accepted by all parties to the dispute with the exception of the carpenters. Immediately following that period when we handed down the deci- sion we started to hear rumbles from Hollywood and grumbles rela- tive to the dissatisfaction with at least that phase of the decision having to do with the erection of sets on stages and locations. It was discussed, as has been shown in the record here, at the Janu- ary meeting in Miami, Fla., 1946; it was discussed at the May njeeting of the executive council in 1946, and later in the Chicago meeting in August, and at the August meeting of the executive council it was discussed again, and because of the fact that President Green had sent one of his organizers to Hollywood to investigate the situation — the apparent strike or new situation that had developed following our decision — Mr. Flanagan's organizer sent in a report dated August 9^ That report was read at our August executive council meeting. That report, incidentally, is in the record here. Now, I personally feel that the report of Mr. Daniel V. Flanagan had a great bearing on the claritication itself. As a matter of fact, when the report was read, it was then that other members of the executive council felt that a clarification was necessary. So in that clarification of August 16, 1946, some 8 months after we handed down our decision, we very aptly stated, in the first paragraph : Pursuant to instructions lianded down by the executive council. In other words, the executive council sent its own three-man com- mittee out to clarify it. Then, of course, in the last paragraph of that clarification, we stated : In view of tlie alleged violation, the committee hereby directs that all partici- pating in the Hollywood motion-picture-studio dispute strictly adhere to the provisions of the directive handed down on December 26. 1945. Following the issuance of this clarificatiom Mr. Chairman and Con- gressman Landis, things began to happen and we had the trouble on our heads all over again. I understand that in the months that fol- lowed there was considerable difficulty in the motion-picture industry. Some of it still exists today or else you wouldn't be holding these hear- ing here. But the clarification was handed down. I think I have testified previously — not only here, but also in Los Angeles — that if I had it to do over, I wouldn't cross a "t" or dot an "i" in the decision lianded down. I think the committee had absolute authority to hand down its original decision, but there is a question in my mind as to whether we had the authority to hand down any clarification. Any other questions? Mr. Lax'dis. I want to go into another subject before we get through, but I think it is very important to know about this clarification. 2154 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearxs. I only have one question on this subject. Mr. Laxdis. You go ahead, then. Mr. Kearns. It was brought out here this morning or this afternoon that the executive council of the A. F, of L. hacl the authority to appoint the three-man committee to make a report, and said report was to be final and binding ; that all parties were to agree thereto. We were questioning the authority of the clarification. Did the executive council then have the same authority to authorize the clarification as thej' had to authorize tlie directive ? You answered that in part. Mr. DOHERTY. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, that the executive council had the authority to hand down the original directive because the presidents of the seven international unions involved gave them that authority. Now, as to whether they had the authority to instruct us to hand down a clarification, I am sure that it will take someone with a legal mind to answer that question. Mr. Kearns. In other words, the t,hree-man committee felt their job had been done when they handed in the directive? Mr. DoHERTY. Yes, Congressman Kearns, and we have so testified on many occasions before your committee, that we thought our work v/as done. The digest of the minutes that you have had inserted in the record ver}^ definitely states in many places that we so told the executive council. If you will look in there you will find I voted "no" on several occasions. Now, as to whether the executive council had the right to instruct us to go out and bring in a clarification, I suppose that is a legal ques- tion that will have to be answered legally. It is just like Congress, I suppose, or the Committee on Education and Labor ordering your subcommittee to do something. It calls for a legal interpretation. I am here without counsel. I am sure j^ou were shocked, along with myself, when you found out that Judge Joseph A. Padway died shortly following the Los Angeles hearings before your committee, some 2 months afterward', T believe it was. He died in October of 1947, at San Francisco. But if you want a legal answer to that I suppose the present council of the American Federation of Labor will be very happy to supply it for the record. Mr. Kearns. The only.question I bring up is whether the executive council of the A. F. of L. had the authority. Mr. Landis. It was the same group, was it not, that told 3^ou to make the clarification? Mr. DoHERTY. That's right. Well, there may have been one or two changes on the executive council, but not a serious change. Mr. Kearns. The same authority? Mr. DoHERTY. It was the same executive council, the same authority, put it that way. I say the same seven presidents involved, including Mr. Hutcheson of the carpenters, gave the executive council the right to hand down the Cincinnati directive in 1945. Now, whether they had the same authority to instruct this clarifica- tion, I am not able to say. I am very sorry I do not have a legal mind :and I am not a lawyer. Mr. Kearns. Well, I would not expect you to do that. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2155 Mi*. DoHERTY. But they did tell us to do it, and just like a Congress- man obeys orders from topside, we obeyed orders and did what we were told. Mr. Laxdis. After the clarification w^as made, do you think the producers and labor unions involved understood the clarification better, I mean, the jurisdictional part of it? Mr. DoiiERTY. Mr. Chairman, I say to you and Congressman Landis, in all candor, I think the clarification only added to the existing con- fusion. I think that goes, too, for the interpretation that follow^ed the clarification. That came along in May. President Green handed thatalown. They are still trying to pour oil on troubled waters out there. I don't think it helps one iota, the clarification or the interpretation. I do think that if all parties had sat down in good faith, the seven unions involved, and had accepted the original decision handed down on December 26, 1945, you wouldn't be dealing with this case days on end right now. Mr. Kearxs. Would you go further to say that if all the interna- tional presidents involved in the dispute had been out there to meet with the three-man committee, that it would have been different? Mr. DoHERTY. Well, there were some, Mr. Chairman, who undoubt- edly had legitimate excuses. J3ut I still say that if all the international presidents involved had given complete authority, by way of repre- sentation, to the people who came there to represent their unions, that the thing would have been final and binding and there wouldn't have been any dispute today. Mr. Kearxs. You are convinced that some did not have that author- ity? Mr. Doiierty. Well, there has been some question about that, but I think the telegram I have read into the record today very definitely states that insofar as the carpenters are concerned, Cambiano was going to cooperate with us. We asked for a representative to be sent to us on December 6, and we got that wire back from President Hut- cheson telling us that ]Mr. Cambiano would be there. I think it is generally admitted by everyone that Mr. Cambiano and Mr. Skelton submitted voluminous testimony. There is a great big sheaf out there in your files. It would take you weeks to read it. Remember, too, Mr. Chairman, while I am here, that we did have oO days. It has taken you almost a full week to listen to one witness here. I admire your patience. You have been extremely patient w^ith all the witnesses. It appears to me that you are going to do a good job on this particular Hollywood jurisdictional dispute. But we had but 30 claj^s. So after you have gone into all the vast ramifications of the case, after you have listened to all sides, then pray tell me, how in the name of common sense did we hand down any deci- sion in 30 days ? I still say that the committee did a bang-up job in the limited time that we had, I am still convinced in my own mind that it was a good decision in that all parties involved could have stood by it and could have worked by it and there wouldn't be any turmoil in Hollywood today. There would be peace and tranquillity. Unfortunately, I am convinced now tliat some persons did not act in good faith. 2156 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Lakdis. Well, it is unfortunate from the labor angle of it. Here is a question on jurisdiction that ought to be settled in tlie ranks of labor, of course. They ought to settle their own jurisdictional disputes. If it had worked it would have been all right. Of course, we have a section in the law that tries to handle that. The question I wanted to ask you, though, was this : You may an- swer it if you want to. For several years some of us have been trying to sit down with the labor leaders and some of their assistants — especially the people who make the bills out here and contact us all the time — to sit down and write out a few things to get rid of the labor abuses. The bigger labor leaders, I would say, have taken the angle of no labor legislation, which is their ]privilege to do so. They say, "No labor legislation, because if you get some legislation you get too much." I realize that side of the picture. But as long as these jurisdictional disputes are piling up, if I see jurisdictional disputes or breach of contract, or some wildcat strikes, or some secondai-y boycotts — these abuses are piling up, and along with it some racketeering. They would not sit down and do that. Now, we come right back to the same position, only it is reversed to where Congi'ess had to do something, and they passed the Taft- Hartley law. Now, we find ourselves in this position : Labor wants to repeal the law. In my opinion the law will not be repealed. But the best for the country, the best for labor and the best for management — we do not want a one-sided law, nobody does — is to sit down with labor and management, work out the bad features of the bill — I mean, if it takes away any fundamental rights of labor we should eliminate those features and try to make a decent bill out of it, instead of putting all this time, effort and energy into repealing the law. Now, you can answer that or make a comment on it if you wish. I don't want to put you on the spot. Mr. DoHEETY. Well, Congressman Landis, you have certainly handed me a good one. Mr. Landis. I don't want to put you on the spot. Mr. DoiiERTY. Let me say here, I am not one of those labor leaders who have refused to sit down with you, or any member of your com- mittee. I have never been invited to come over here and sit before you. If I had been invited, I would have been ver}^ happy and anxious to come over here and sit down and discuss the problem with >ou. Mr. Landis. I wish we had known it. Mr. DoHERTY. I don't kn'ow that Mr. Green or Mr. Meany or any of the other A. F. of L. leaders have refused to sit down w^ith you, but since you brought in Public Law 101 I think it encumbent upon in« to give you my views on it. 1 suppose I will startle you with this answer. I think that the Wagner Act was slanted toward labor. I am cer- tain that the Taft-Hartley Act, Public Law 101, is slanted toward management. Instead of curing the situation that existed under the Wagner Act, you have only added fuel to the fire. In my humble judgment it would have been far better to find a happy medium, one wherein both sides could work in ])eace and harmonv, I mean, labor and management in this instance. Thevf MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2157 certainly must be some place where Americans can work together, both management and labor alike. I am certain that revisions to the Taft-Hartley law are absolntely necessary. Of course, I do not want to commit myself on cases that are now heading for the Supreme Court of the United States, such as the Baltimore case, and such as the one up in Connecticut. I don't think you would want me to make a statement on those tw^o issues right now. Mr. Landis. No, that is right. Mr. DoHERTY. But I am certain those phases of the law must be changed. The law itself needs a general overhauling. I believe if reason- able people can sit down together at the conference table and attempt to settle these differences, that you can come up with some kind of an instrument that will permit labor unions and management to settle their ditFerences on a voluntary basis. I am unalterably opposed to compulsory arbitration. Mr. Laxuis. 1 am, also. Mr. DoHERTY. And I think you are, too. Once^you start anything by way of compulsion, then you are only inviting the police state here in the United States of America, and I am sure you •don't want that. So I say over and over again that the thing we need here in the United States of America is a constructive labor-management pro- gram, one wherein the rule of connnon sense will apply, rather than the rules and regulations established by the Congress of the United States. That is my honest conviction, sir. Mr. Laxdis. That is all. Mr. Kearxs. Are there any questions from counsel 'i Mr. Levy. I have one question of jNIr. Doherty. Mr. Kearx'S. This question is from Mr. Levy. A letter has been read into the record indicating that when the 1945 jurisdictional strike was before the A. F. of L. executive council for consideration the executive council dicussed the matter of Com- munist influence in studio labor. Would you care to give us your recollection of any such discussion? Mr. DoiiERTY. Well. Mr. Chairman, I would have to quote from memory on that discussion and because of the seriousness of the charges that have been leveled here I don't think it would be proper for me to rely on memor}-, except to say that there were discussions on the Communist issue in the motion-picture industry before the execu- tive council. Beyond that I don't care to make any comment. Xot that I am shielding anyone, but I don't want to quote from memory. If you want me to get the record, I will be glad to do so. ]\Ir. Kearxs. The Chair accepts j^our answer. Are there any other questions? Mr. Cobb. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZoRX". I have just one request, Mr. Chairman. I assume the documents Mr. Doherty has introduced will be incorporated in the record, just as the other minutes are, a continuation of those? Mr. Kearns. Ohj yes; certainly. That will be taken care of. 673S3 — 48— vol. 3 42 2158 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I want to thank yon again for the third, and I hope the last time, Mr. Doherty, for being so good as to come up here and give us the assistance that we have had. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time we will begin with counsel. I will take this order: Mr. Cobb first, Mr. Zorn, then Mr. Levy. I hope we can finish this hearing- at the latest by Friday afternoon at 5 o'clock. We will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 5 : 10 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 o'clock of the following day, Thursday, March 11, 1948.) JUKISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY THURSDAY, ifAIlCH 11, 1948 House of Representatives;, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D. C. The siibconiittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., before Hon. Carroll D, Kearns, chairman of the special sabcommittee. Mr. Kearns. The hearing will be in order, please. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I submit for the record, without reading it, an article from the Hollywood Sun, headed "How M-G-M Bought Up Entire Culver City Police Force," which Mr. Sorrell iorgot to put in the record yesterday ? Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The article referred to is as follow :) How M-G-M Bought Up Entire Culver City Police Force COP FIRED AFTER ARRESTING DRIVER WHO KAN DOWN PICKET As a public service to tlie people of Culver City and of Los Angeles, the Sun is printing the entire sworn statement of one of the Culver City policemen hired by M-G-^I for "special service" in the breaking up of union picket lines. How the studio sent its weekly "insult"' to the city police department in a lump cash sum to avoid employment records, how the police of 10 outlying towns were also handed extra dough by M-G-^I, and how one cop lost liis job for arresting a truck driver who barged through a picket line, comprise an important document. The Sun would call it to the attention of the new grand jury, except that this might embarrass the jury's new assistant forelady, Ida Koverman. (She's a perstjnal public relations counsel to M-G-M's L. B. Mayer.) State of California : County of Los Angeles, ss: I, Rex L. Zinunerman, being fir.-;t duly sworn, on oath, depose and say : That my name is Rex L. Zimmerman, and that I live at 3960 Vau/Buren Place, apartment F, Culver City, Calif., and that my telephone number is Ardmore 8-9097. That I was a member of the Culver City police force from November 10, 1945, to October 24, 1941!, and served in the capacity of a motorcycle officer. That in connection with the labor dispute which resulted in picket lines beginning on Thursday, September 26, 1946, the entire Culver City police force, including the police administration staff in the Culver City Hall, were placed on the Metro-Goldwyn-IMayer studio pay roll. Commencing on Saturday, September 21, 1946, 5 days before the picket lines appeared, I was placed on the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio pay roll as an emer- gency police officer, and I believe that the same circumstances applied to all others in the (Julver City police force. This arrangement was made between Whitey Hendry, chief of studio police at Metro-Goldwyu-Mayer studios, and Sam Muchmore, acting chief of police at Culver City. 2159 2160 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES RKO HEXPED PAY OFF COPS FOR PATHE LOT That in addition to the arrangements made for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios. Chief H-endry also arranged to liave three officers serve at the RKO-Pathe studios at Culver City, and these officers were paid by RKO-Pathe Pictures, Inc., for the extra 8 hours put in at that studio, and then in addition, as overtime for their regular shift, an additional $2 per hour was paid to them by Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer studios through Whitey Hendry. The names of these three officers were as follows: Vernon Kahrs, Arthur Rosaire, and Officer Kelley. That until the first demonstration at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, which took place, I lielieve, on September ;^0, 194tvl was paid by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, in cash, at the rate , of $1.50 per hour. I worked only 8 hours per day, and got $12 extra per day, but I could have worked more hours if I wished. .|.S2 PER DAY PUT COPS UNDER STUDIO CONTROT, Beginning witli the first demonstration, I received $2 per hour, but I got IG hours pay for 8 hours work; in other words, $32 per day or $224 per week, which amount I received for 3 weeks. I wish -to make it clear that all this money was paid to me by Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer studios, over and above my regular earnings from the city of Culver City for the same woi-king hours. I know of my own knowledge, that the same arrangement existed in respect to all the other members of the Culver CMty police force, including Acting Chief of Police Sam Muchmore, and Sergeant Olson, who acted as personnel dis- patcher. That this money was all paid in cash and there were no deductions, no voucliers, and no records kept and no receipts required from the individuals so paid. In addition a number of men were paid for mileage. That the money distributed to the Culver City police force included myself, and was distributed in cash at the Culver City police station by Sergeant Olson, Chief Muchmore and Virginia Nowak, clerk of tlie Culver City ])olice court and also a matron of the jail there. Records of the hours put in by the ujen were ke]it b.v Virginia Nowak, and the money was brought to her trom^ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios in a lump sum, so that she could apportion what was due to the various men. POLICE FROM 10 TOWNS ALSO HIRED BY M-G-M That I also know that money was distributed to police who came from El Segundo. Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates. Redondo Beach., Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Santa Monica, INIaywood, Southgate and Huntington Park, One Ocean Park pier guard was also included.. So far as I know, the money to these police from outlying sections was paid by check. Tliat in connection with the picketing on September 27, 1946, at 9 a. m., I was on duty at the Overland gate of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, and wit- nessed the running down of a picket by a truck owned by the Brittingham Cater- ing Co. The truck was driven by a man named Joseph Edward Romano, and the driver who l^ad run into the picket line without making any stop severely injured a picket named Lentz, who was unable to get out of the way. The driver was booked for violations of the following v^ehicle code r) In continuance of said conspiracy, on April 14, 1945, by the issuance of an illegal lATSE carpenters' charter, and the use thereof, to replace said legitimate carpenter employees with lATSE members, permittees, and designees of said illegal lATSE carpenters' union as hereinafter, stated on page 8 hereof. (c) In continuance of said conspiracy, during December 1945, by the fraud practiced upon the three-man committee of the executive council of the A. F. of L., in inducing said committee to use the language of a nonexistent, purported contract, instead of the actual exhibit A contract, to evidence its true decision to respect and follow the historic division of worlj between said Brotherhood of Carpenters, local 946, and said lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on pages 9 and 10 hereof. (d) In continuance of said conspiracy, by immediately thereafter launching the lATSE so-called set erectors union, ostensibly to do carpenters' work on sets and stages, but actually to encroach upon all carpenters' work; and in the use by said so-called set erectors local of emergency working cards issued to its permittees, as distinguished from members, to replace legitimate carpenters in their employment, as is hereinafter stated on page 11 hereof. (e) In continuance of said conspiracy, during August 1946, by their repudiation of the clarification issued by said three-man committee, to state the true mean- 1 All page numbprs in the following document submitted by Mr. Cobb refer to his statement. 2166 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ing of the committee's December 26, 1945, decision, as is hereinafter stated, and by the iise of said repudiation as a means to proceed with their conspiracy to replace all legitimate carpenters with members and permittees designated by the lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on pages 11, 12, and 18 hereof. if) In continuance of said conspiracy, during August and September 1946, by their agreement to lock out all carpenter employees, by creating an incident as the fraudulent means of eliminating them, and by putting said lock-out into effect on or about September 23, 1946^ as is hereinafter stated, beginning on page 13 hereof. iff) In continuance of said conspiracy, on September 12, 1946, by their conspiracy to cause the State unemployment authorities to deny each of said car- penters the unemployment compensation to which he became entitled upon and during said lock-out, upon the false represeutaiion that "the employee left his work on account of a trade dispute," as hereinafter ijtated on page 16 hereof. ( // ) In continuance of said conspiracy, on September 17, 1946. by their agree- ment to force each and all of said independent motion-picture companies to use said lATSE set erectors, nominally doing carpenters' work in erecting sets on stages, but actually to replace all carpenters in the employ of said companies, as is hereinafter stated on page 16 hereof. (0 In continuance of said conspiracy, from Septembei- 23, 194''>, continuously until the present time, by maintaining said lock-out of all carpenters, and use of said lATSE replacements in employment belonging to said carpenters, under said exhibits A, B, C, and D contracts, as is hereinafter stated, beginning at page 18 hereof. (j) In continuance of said conspiracy, on June 26, 1947, by having James L. Noblitt, recording secretary of the lATSE, Grips local No. 80, direct all of said union members to cease serving independent motion-pictures companies, without obtaining permission from his office, upon threats of punishment, if such service was rendered without permission, as is hereinafter stated on page 22 hereof. ik) In continuance of said conspiracy, on August 14. 1947, concurrently with said lock-out, and refusal by the major motion-picture companies to bargain with said Brotherhood of Carpenters, local 946, said lATSE filed an application with tlie NLRB, to be certified as bargaining agent of "carpenters, millwright, woodworking machine men" ; that is, of all carpenters' work tasks, as is herein- after stated on page 23 hereof. il) In continuance of said conspiracy, on August 15, 1947, while during said lock-out, and while said motion-picture companies were refusing to bargain with the carpenters, each of said major motion-picture companies, and lATSE, entered into a contract for a period of 1 year, allotting carpenter work tasks to said lATSE, that belonged to .'iaid carpenters luider their employment and exhil)its A, B, C and D contrac^ts, and caused the independent motion-picture companies, be- longing to the Independent Producers Association listed on page 3 hereof, to enter into a like contract with said lATSE, in violation of their exhibit E contract, and caused each and all other motion-picture companies listed on page 4 hereof to take carpenters' work tasks away from their carpenter employees and give it to such replacements furnished by said lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on page 23 hereof. i>n) In continuance of said conspiracy, on or about August 26, 1947, and subse- quent to the effective date of section 8 of the act, said major motion-picture com- panies and Producers Association, in conspiracy with each other, and with said lATSE, declared an open shop on Carpenters, and all other crafts covered by said Exhibits A, B, C, and D contracts, in defiance of said contracts, and of the right of employment of said carpenters, and for the fraudulent purpose of completely eliminating all members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, local 946, from their employment, and of replacing them with members, permittees and designees of lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on page 23 hereof. That each and all of the foregoing steps and acts were part of the one general and continuous conspiracy between said major motion-pictures companies, and each of them, and Producers Association, and lATSE, to deprive each and all of the carpenter members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, local 946. including complainant, of their work tasks and employment with each of said major motion- picture companies, in violation of said contracts, and to require each and all of .said independent motion-picture companies to likewise deprive said carpenters of their •work tasks, and employment with them, respectively, and to give and deliver all carpenters' work, in all the studios, and on all the lots and loi ations, of both the major and independent motion-picture companies, to the lATSE, for its members, permittees, and designees. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2167 Section 8 (a) (2) Thar complaiuant'.s said emiiloyer, aucl each and all of said major motion- picture companies, as employers of said carpenters, and said Producers Associa- tion, in conspiracy each with the others, and with said lATSE, have interfered with the administration of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, in each of the particulars set fortli in the foregoing specifications under section 8 (a) (1), which specihcatioui? are here adopted to avoid repetition. Section 8 (a) (3) That complainant's said employer, and each and all of said major motion- picture companies, as employers of said carpenters, and said Producers Associa- tion, in conspiracy each with the others, and with said lATSE, have discrimi- nated, and are discriminating, against comphiinant, as a member, and against each of its other carpenter employees who are members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 94(5, in his and their hire and tenure of employment, to discour- age membership in said I'rotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, and to encourage membership in said lATSE, in the particulars set forth in the foregoing specitica- tions under section JS (a) (1), in which specifications are here adopted to avoid repetition. Section 8 (a) (.5) That complainant's said employer, and each and all of said major motion-picture companies, as employers of said carpenters, and said Producers Association, In conspiracy each with the others, and with said lATSE, have refused, and still refuse, to bargain collectively with said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, or any other representative of its members, including complainant, in each of the particulars set forth in the foi'egoing specifications under section 8 (a) (1), which specifications are here adopted to avoid repetition. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF lATSE In the statement of the following specific charges, tuider the respective sections, the lATSE, Walsh, and Brewer, and any and all other agents of the lATSE, are collectively referred to as lATSE. The following specific charges apply to each of the major motion-picture com- panies, listed on page 2 hereof, and to the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., a corporation, called Prodiicers Association, organized by them and in some instances acting for tliem. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Mossing Picture Machine Operators of the LTnited States and Canada, hereinafter called lATSE, and the L'nited Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, hereinafter called Brotherhood of Carpenters, are both labor organizations and members of the American Federation of Labor. Sections (6) (1) That said lASTE, acting in conspiracy with the major motion-pictui-e companies, hereinafter listed, and Producers Association, has continuously restrained and coerced, and is now i-estraining and coercing, all members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, including affiant, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them, and each of them, under section 7 of the act, as employees of said major motion-picture companies, members of said Producers Association, under said exhibits A, B. C. and D contracts and collective-bargaining agreements; of said Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, under said exhibit E contract and collective-bargaining agreement; and of each and all of said other inde- pendent motion-pictui-e companies, under the terms of employment with them, respectively, in each of the following particulars : ((I ) In IVIarcli 194.">, by the original agreement made and entered into between said major motion-picture companies and said lATSE, represented by Nicholas Schenck and Richard F. Walsh, respectively, as is hereinafter set forth, begin- ning on page 7 hereof. ' (h) In continuance of said conspiracy, on April 14, 1945, by the issiiance of an illegal lATSE carpenters" charter, and the use thereof, to replace said legitimate carpenter employees with TATSE members, permittees, and designees of said illegal lATSE Carpenters' Union as hereinafter stated on page 8 hereof. (c) In continuance. of said conspirac.v, during December 1945, by the fraud practiced upon the three-man committee of the executive council of the A. F. of L., in inducing said committee to use the language of a nonexistent, purported con- 2168 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES tract, instead of the actual exhibit A contract, to evidence its true decision* to respect and follow t\)e historic division of work between said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, and said lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on pages 9 and 10 hereof. (d) In continuance of said conspiracy, by immediately thereafter launching the lATSE so-called set erectors' union, ostensibly to do carpenters' work on sets and stages but actually to encroach upon all carpenters' woi*k ; and in the use by said so-called set erectors' local of emergency working cards issued to its per- mittees, as distinguished from members, to replace legitimate carpenters in their employment, as is hereinafter stated on page 11 hereof. (e) In continuance of said conspiracy, during August 1946', by their repudia- tion of the clarification issued by said three-man committee, to state the true meaning of the committee's December 26, 1945, decision, as is hereinafter stated, and by the use of said repudiation as a means to proceed with their conspiracy to replace all legitimate carpenters with members and permittees designated by the lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on pages 11, 12, and 13 hereof. if) In continuance of said conspiracy, during August and September 1946. by their agreement to lock out all carpenter employees, by creating an incident as the fraudulent means of eliminating them, and by putting said lock-out into effect on or about September 23, 1946, as is hereinafter stated, beginning on page 13 hereof. (g) In continuance of said conspiracy, on September 12, 1946, by their con- spiracy to cause the State unemployment authorities to deny each of said car- penters and unemployment compensation to which he became entitled upon and during said lock-out, upon the false representation that "the employee left his work on account of a trade dispute," as is hereinafter stated on page 16 hereof. (70 In continuance of said conspiracy, on September 17, 1946, by their agree- ment to force each and all of said independent motion-picture companies to use said lATSE set erectors, nominally doing carpenters' work in erecting sets on stages, but actually to replace all carpenters in the employ uf said companies, as is hereinafter stated on page 16 hereof. (i) In continuance of said conspiracy, from September 23, 1946, continuously until the present time, by maintaining said lock-out of all carpenters, and use of said lATSE replacements in employment belonging to said carpenters, under said exhibits A, B, C, and D contracts, as is hereinafter stated, beginning at page 18 hereof. (j) In continuance of said conspiracy, on June 26, 1947, by having James L. Noblitt, recording secretary of the lATSE, Grips Local No. 80, direct all of said union members to cease serving independent motion picture companies, without obtaining permission from his office, upon threats of punishment, if such service was rendered without permission, as is hereinafter stated on page 22 hereof. (fc) In continuance of said conspiracy, on August 14, 1947, concurrently with said lock-out, and refusal by the major motion picture companies to bargain with said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, said lATSE filed an application with the NLRB, to be certified as bargaining agent of carpenters, millwrights, woodworking-machine men ; that is, of all carpenters' work tasks, as is liereinafter stated on page 23 hereof. (I) In continuance of said conspiracy, on August 15, 1947, while during said lock-out, and while said motion picture companies were refusing to bargain with the carpenters, each of said ma.ior motion picture companies, and lATSE, entered into a contract for a period of 1 year, allotting carpenter work tasks to said lATSE, that belonged to said carpenters under their employment and exhibits A, B, C, and D contracts, and caused the independent motion picture companies, belonging to the Independent Producers Association listed on page 3 hereof, to enter into a like contract with said lATSE, in violation of their exhibit E contract, and caused each and all other motion picture companies listed on page 4 hereof to take carpenters' work tasks away from their carpenter employees and give it to such replacements furnished by said lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on page 23 hereof. (m) In continuance of said conspiracy, on or about August 26, 1947. and subsequent to the effective date of section 8 of the act, said ma,ior motion picture companies and producers association, in conspiracy with each other, and with said lATSE, declared an open shop on carpenters, and all other crafts covered by said exhibits A, B, C, and D contracts, in defiance of said contracts, and of the right of employment of said carpenters, and for the fraudulent purpose of com- pletely eliminating all members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, from MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2169 their employment and of replacing them with members, permittees, and designees ■of lATSE, as is hereinafter stated on page 23 hereof. That each and all of the foregoing steps and acts were part of the one general and continuous conspiracy between said major motion picture companies, and each of tliem, and producers association, and lATSE, to deprive each and all of the carpenter members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, including com- plainant, of their work tasks and employment with each of said major motion picture companies, in violation of said contracts, and to require each and all of said independent motion picture companies to likewise deprive said carpenters of their work tasks, and employment with them, respectively, and to give and deliver all carpenters' work, in all the studios, and on all the lots and locations, of both the major and independent motion picture companies, to the lATSE, for its members, permittees, and designees. Section 8 (ft) {2) That said lATSE has continuously caused-, and attempted to cause, and is now causing, and attempting to cause, each and all of said motion-picture companies to discriminate against their respective employees, including affiant, who are members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, in violation of subsection (a) (3) of the act generally, in each of the particulars set forth in the foregoing specifications under section 8 (b) (1), which specifications are here adopted to avoid repetition. Sections (6) (4) That said lATSE has continuously engaged in, and is now engaging in, and has continuously induced and encouraged, and is now inducing and encouraging, employees of said major motion picture companies, and of each and all of said independent motion picture companies, as manufacturers of motion pictures, and of each and all motion picture exchanges handling, and of each and all motion picture theaters displaying, the pictures of each and all of said major motion picture companies and independent motion picture companies, to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in tlie course of their respective employment to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on, any motion pictures, or any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any sei'vices, where members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, including affiant, liave performed any ta.sk, as carpenters ; in their employment under said exhibits A, B, C, D. and E contracts, and collective bargaining agreements, or otherwise, in or incident to the making of said motion pictures, with the object of — (a) Forcing and requiring each of the major motion picture companies, and each of the independent motion picture companies, respectively, hereinafter listed, as manufacturers of motion pictures, and each exchange handling and distributing motion pictures, and each motion picture theater exhibiting motion pictures, all as employers, to join said lATSE, and said major motion picture ■companies, and Producers Association, to cease using, selling, handling, trans- portating, or otherwise dealing in motion pictures and products of any other of said producers, processors, or manufacturers, and to cease doing business with any of them, or any other persons, when and where members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 846, including affiant, have performed any tasks as carpen- ters, in their employment by any of said motion picture companies, under said exhibits A, B. C, D, and/or E contracts, or otherwise, in or incident to the making of said motion pictures or other products. ih) Forcing and requiring each other said motion picture company, as an employer, to recognize and bargain with said lATSE, and its so-called Set Erec- tors Union, Local 468, as the representative of its carpenter employees, when neither said lATSE, nor any of its locals, has been certified as the representative of carpenter employees under the provisions of section 9 of the act. (c) Forcing and requiring each other said motion picture company, as an employer, to recognize and bargain with said lATSE, and its so-called Set Erectors Union, Local 468, as the representative of its carpenter employees, when said Brotlierhood of Carpenters, Local 946, has been recognized as the representative of the carpenter employees of each and all of said motion picture companies, under said provisions of section 9 of the act, by said exhibits A, B, C, D, and E contracts, and collective bargaining agreement. (il) Forcing and requiring each of said motion picture companies to as.sigii its carpenters' work tasks, in its studios and on its lots and locations, to employees belonging to, or designated Ity, said lATSE, or its local 468, or other locals, in its unauthorized class of so-called set erectors posing as carpenters, rather than 2170 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES to said carpenter employees, inelncling affiant, who are members of said Brotlier- hood of Carpenters, Local 946, and who were and are employed \mder said exhibits A, B, C, D, and E contracts, and collective bargaining agreements, in the only anthorized trade, craft, and class of carpenters in the American Federation of Labor, when said respective employers are not under any order or certification of the Lal»or Board determining the bargaining representatives' for employees performing such carpenters' work tasks, except as said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, has been uniformly recognized by the Board. Section 8 (&) (.5) That said lATSE, so actin:? in conspiracy with said major motion picture companies, has required, and is requiring, or attempting to require, said car- penters who are member.s of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, and who are employed by said motion picture comjianies. respectively, under said exhibits A, B, C, D, and E contracts, and collective liargaining agreements, respectively, to join, or obtain perniits from, said TATSE, Local 46S, or other lATSE locals, before lieing permitted to continue in their carpenter-work tasks under said contracts — that is, to join or obtain permits from an lATSP] union in addition to their own — and that it has required, and is requiring, or attempting to require, the payment, as a condition precedent to becoming a member or permittee of said lATSE, of fees and dues in addition to their own union fees and dues, in amounts that are excessive and discriminatory under all of the circumstances. Section S (b) (6) That said lATSE, so acting in conspiracy with said major motion picture companies, and producers association, has continuously caused, and attempted to cause, and is now causing, and attempting to cause, each of said major motion picture companies, and each of said independent motion picture companies, to pay and deliver, and to agree to pay and deliver, money and other things of value, to said lATSE. its members and designees, in the nature of an exaction, for services which were not, and are not, performed or to be performed, in the following partlcul.-irs : ( a) Where no work is done by the lATSE members and designees, employed i)y said companies to replace said carpenters ; and (a) Where no work, if any, is, and has been, done by them so incompetently, inefficiently, and inadequately as to constitute feather-bedding. Introduction This supporting statement is drawn for use as a part of the charges, filed concurrently, against the said major motion picture companies, under section 8 (a), and against the said lATSE, under section 8 (b). Said lATSE and brotherhood of carpenters are both members of the American Federation of Labor. See exhibit A. Mr. W. C. Doherty, one of the three-man committee (infra 9), testifying before the Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, at the Los Angeles hearing, on August 18, 1947 (transcript p. 1658), said : "* * * I think it is a very tedious job that has been assigned to you by the House Committee on Education and Labor ; this is probably the cancer spot in the entire labor movement of America. * * *" A copy of the transcript of said congressional committee hearings is filed herewith for reference and in support of the representations made herein. LIST OF MAJOR MOTION-PICTURE PRODUCTION COMPANIES The major motion picture companies, hereinbefore referred to, with their respective addresses, are listed as follows : Loew's. Inc., a corporation, owning Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, 10202 Washing- ton Boulevard, Culver City, Calif. Paramount Pictures, Inc., a corporation, 5451 Marathon, Hollwood, Calif. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., a corporation, 4000 West Olive, Burbank, Calif. Columbia Pictures Corp., a corporation, 1438 North Gower Street, Hollywood, Calif. Samuel Goldwyn Productions, Inc., a corporation, 1584 Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2171 Repuhllc Productions, Inc., a corporation, 4024 Radford Avenue, North Hollywood, Calif. Hal E. Roach Studio, Inc., a corporation, 8822 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, Calif. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., a corporation, 10201 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif. R. K. O. Radio I'ictures, Inc., a corporation, 780 North Gower Street, Los Angeles, Calif. Universal Pictures Co., Inc., a corporation. Universal Studio, Universal City, Calif. LIST OF INDEPENDENT MOTION-PICTURE COMPANIES The independent motion picture companies that are members of the Inde- pendent Motion Picture Producers Association, hereinafter referred to as Independent Association, M'ith their respective adresses, are listed as follows : Aftiliated Productions, Inc., 7160 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood 46. Arpi Productions, Inc., 5746 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 28. Audio I'ictures, Inc., 812 North Robertson, Los Angeles 46. Bali Films, Inc., 7160 Melrose. Los Angeles 46. Beacon Pictures Corp., 1041 North Formosa, Hollywood 38. Boots & Saddles, Inc., 6525 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 46. Brentview, Inc., 346 South LaBrea, Hollywood 36. Burkett Productions, 4376 Sunset Drive, Hollywood 27. Cathedral Films, Inc., 6404 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 28. Chamption Productions, Inc., 4376 Sunset Drive. Los Angeles 27. Chester Productions, 4376 Sunset Drive. Los Angeles 27. Continental Pictures Corp.. 6362 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles 28. DFD Productions, Inc.. 846 Cahuenga Boulevard, Hollywood 38. Del Ruth, Roy, Productions, 9165 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 46. Ensign Pictures Corp., .5746 Sunset Boulevard. Hollywood 28. Esskay Pictures, Inc., 5823 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles 36. Flni^ey, Edw., Producers. 6526 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywod 28. Fortune Film Corp., 5746 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 28. Great Western Productions. 4.376 Sunset Drive, Hollywood 27. Grippo, Jan, Productions. 4376 Sunset Drive. Hollywood 27. Hackel, A. W., Productions. Taf t Building, Hollywood 28. Herald Pictures, Inc., 1650 Broadway, New York' 19, N. Y. Hopalong Cassidy. Inc.. 1040 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38. Katzman, Sam, Productions, Inc., .5823 Santa Monica Boulevard, Hollywood 36. Kay Pictures, Inc.. 5823 Santa Monica Boulevard. Hollywood 36. King Bros., Inc., 4376 Sunset Drive, Hollywood 27. King, Max, Productions, 84,39 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood -^6. Landres Pictures, Inc.; 1426 Beachwood Drive, Hollywood 28. Longridge Pictures, Inc.. 7160 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood 46. Marathon Pictures, Inc., 141214 North Van Ness, Hollywood 28. Mayro Pi'oductions, Inc.. 931 North La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles 46. Melrose Pictures, Inc., 346 South La Brea, Hollywood 36. Monogram Productions, Inc., 4376 Sunset Drive, Hollywood 27. Mutual Pictures, Inc., 608 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 28. Neufeld, Sig., Productions, Inc., 340 North Sweetzer Avenue. Hollywood 36. Parsons, Lindsley, Productions, 4376 Sunset Drive. Hollywood 27. Peni.broke Productions, Inc., 4376 Sunset Drive, Hollywood 27. P. R. C. Productions, Inc.. 6066 Sunset Boulevard. Hollywood 2S. Romay Pictures, Inc., 9.31 North La Cienega Boulevard, Hollywood 46. Schwartz. Jack, Productions, 810 North Cahuenga Boulevard. Hollywood 38. Screen Art Pictures Corp., 7160 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood 38. Screen Guild Pi-oductions, Inc., 346 South La Brea Avenue, Hollywood 36. Somerset Pictures Corp., 9113 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 40. Supreme Pictures Corp.. 203 South Citrus, Hollywood .36. Suthei'land, John J., 201 North Occidental Boulevard. Los Angeles 26. Wilder, William, Productions. 5746 Sunset Boulevard. Hollywood 28. Wrather. J. D., Productions, Inc., 9165 Sunset Boulevard. Hollywood 46. Zenith Pictures, Inc., 5746 Supset Boulevard. Hollywood 28. The independent motion picture companies that are member of the Society of independent Motion Pictures Producers, hereinafter referred to as Society of Independent Producers, with their respective addresses, are listed as follows: Constance Bennett Productions, 1040 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. Benedict Bogeaus Productions, 1040 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. 2172 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Sidney Buchman Productions, 9700 Wilshire Boulevard. Beverly Hills, Calif. Cagney Productions, Inc., 10-10 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. California Pictures, Inc., 1041 North Formosa, Hollywood 46, Calif. Charles Chaplin Studios, 1416 North La Brea, Hollywood 28, Calif. Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc., 9028 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 46, Calif. Walt Disney Productions, 240() West Alameda, Burl)ank, Calif. Federal Films, Inc., 8822 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, Calif. Golden Pictures, Inc., 1040 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. Samuel Goldwyu Productions, Inc., 1041 North Formosa, Hollywood 46, Calif. Sol Lesser Productions, Inc., 9336 Washington Boulevard, Culver City. Calif. Jules Levey, c/o I. A. Human, 215 West Fifth Street, Room 419, Los Angeles, Calif. Seymour Nebenzal, 1041 North Formosa, Hollywood 46, Calif. Mary Pickford, 1041 North Formosa, Hollywood 46. Calif. Chai-les R. Rogers Enterprises, 1040 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. Hal Roach Productions, 8822 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, Calif. Edward Small Productions, Inc., Motion Picture Center Studio, 846 North Cahu- enga Boulevard., Hollywood 28, Calif. Andrew Stone Enterprises, Inc.. 8822 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, Calif. Story Productions, Inc., 9441 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Calif. Hunt Stromberg Productions, Inc., 1C40 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. Vanguard Films, Inc.. 9336 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, Calif. United Artists Productions, 1040 North Las Palmas, Hollywood 38, Calif. Walter Wanger, 7324 Santa ^Monica Boulevard, Hollywood, Calif. Rainbow Productions, Inc., 451 North La C'ienega, Los Angeles 36, Calif. The other inedependent motion picture companies, who apparently are not members of either of said associations, inchule Eagle-Lion Studios, Inc., 7324 Santa Monica Boulevard, Hollywood, Calif. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARPENTERS AND lATSE 1. That on July 9, 1921, in compliance with the decision of the American Fed- eration of Labor, a conference was called and held in the executive council chamber of the American Federation of Labor in Washington, at Washington, D. C. at which an agreement was made by the said Brotherhood of Carpenters and the lATSE for division of work between them whereby carpenters' work in and around the motion picture studios was allocated to the carpenters as follows : "The entire subject of the differences of jurisdictional claims between the two first named organizations were thoroughly gone into with a view of reaching an agreement. "It is agreed by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees that all work done on lots or location and all work done in shops, either bench or machine work, comes under the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. "It is agreed that : "All carpenter work in and around moving picture studios belongs to the carpenters. This includes : "1. Any and all carpenter work in connection with the moving picture studios, the construction of stages or platforms on which buildings or parts of buildings are to be erected. "2. All carpenter work in connection with the erection of any building or part of building, from which a picture is to be taken. "3. The operation of all wood-working machinery in the making of all furni- ture, fixtures, trim, etc., for use in motion picture studios, belongs to the carpenter. "The carpenters lay no claim to what is usually termed or referred to as the property man, or those employed in placing furniture, laying carpets, hanging draperies, pictures, etc. "It is clearly understood that insofar as section 2 of this part of the agreement is concerned and particularly the right to the setting up and striking of the scenes on the stages after the construction work has been completed, it shall be liberally and cooperatively construed so as to do no injustice to either the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America or the Interantinal Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. "Any differences arising as to the interpretation of this agreement and par- ticularly of section 2 hereof, shall be adjusted by the international presidents of both organizations." That a copy of this agreement is hereto attached as exhibit A, and made a part hereof. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2173 BASIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNIONS AND MAJOR COMPANIES 2. That thereafter, on November 29, 1926, said Brotherhood of Carpenters and lATSE, entered into a contract, known as the basic agreement, with certain of major motion picture companies, which was later joined in by all the major companies, and their producers association, with notice of, and subject to, said exhibit A agreement between the Brotherhood of Carpenters and the lATSE. That said agreement has been kept in force and effect ever since its execution, by periodic interim extensions. That a copy of said basic contract, insofar as it relates to said Brotherhood of Carpenters, is hereto attached as exhibit B and made a part hereof. CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNIONS AND MAJOR COMPANIES 3. That thereafter, on December 8, 1935, an agreement was made, again by both said Brotheriiood of Carjjenters and lATSE, with said major motion picture companies, whereby a closed shop was established, for both the carjjenters knd the lATSE, in their respective jurisdictions. That a notice of this contract was posted in all studios, and that a copy of the notice, insofar as it relates to these two unions, is hereto attached as exhibit C and made a part hereof. PRESENT AGREEMENT OF CARPENTERS WITH MAJOR COMPANIES 4. That thereafter, on July 2, 1946, an interim agreement was made between said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, and other crafts, with said producers association, for each and all of said major motion-picture companies, extending the said exhibits B and C contracts, as modified by the said various interim agreements, for a period of 2 years, that is, from July 3, 1946, to .July 1, 1948. That this agreement was immediately ratified and put into effect by each aud all of said major motion-picture companies. That a copy of this agreement, insofar as it relates to the carpenters, is hereto attached as exhibit D, and made a part hereof. PRESENT AGREEMENT OF CARPENTERS WITH INDEPENDENT COMPANIES 5. That on June 29, 1946, concurrently with, or in anticipation of, said exhibit D, interim agreement between the major motion-picture companies and the car- penters, an interim agreement was likewise made between said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, and the Independent Motion Picture Producers Associa- tion, representing the independent motion-picture companies hereinbefore listed. That this agreement was immediately ratified and put into effect by each and all of said independent motion-picture companies. That a copy of this agreement is hereto attached as exhibit E, and made a part hereof. ORIGIN OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES • That on or about November 1, 1944, when said Carpenters Brotherhood, Local 946, undertook to open negotiations with said major motion-picture companies, and Producers Association, to extend their said exhibit B, basic contract, as extended and modified by interim agreements to that time, including said exhibit C, closed-.shop contract, said lATSE and its agents commenced a course of interference with the carpenters, and encroachment upon their tasks and right to work under said contract. That thereafter, during or about March 1945, pursuant to said interference and encroachment, said lATSE, acting by and through said Walsh, proposed to said Producers Association, as agent for each and all of said major motion-picture companies, acting by and through Nicholas Schenck, that the lATSE would take over all the carj^enters' work of said major motion-picture companies, and each and all of said independent motion-picture companies in California, on the condition that the major motion-picture companies violate each and all of its existing contracts with the Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, and cause each and all of the independent motion-picture companies to do likewise, so as to turn all carpenters' work in the studios, and on the lots and locations, of all of the motion-picture companies operating in California, over to the lATSE. That said Walsh made this proposal .substantially in the following language: "We will run the studios, but only on one condition that you have no contracts whatever with any of the people who are out on strike." That this language of said Walsh will be found in his address to the 1946 inter- national convention of the lATSE, held in Chicago, as is shown in the hearings 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 43 2174 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES of the House Committee on Education and Labor, on March 8, 1947, at page 2856, and in his testimony before the special subcommittee of tlie H6use Committee on Education and Labor, at its liearings at Los Angeles, on August 30, 1947, at page 3175. That said major motion-picture companies and producers association, acting by and through Nicholas Schenck, accepted said proposition and agreed to it. That said agreement was thereafter ratified by the lATSE and by each and all of said major motion-picture companies, and producers association. lATSE USED ILLEGAL CARPENTERS' CHARTER That on April 14, 1945, the lATSE granted an illegal charter to, and organized, its purported carpenters union, 787, to take over said carpenters' work, and on April 14, 1945, acting through said Walsh, directed a letter to all members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters Local 946, and other crafts, confirming said agree- ment, as follows : "First of all, I want you to know that the International Alliance has reached an agreement with the producers association by which the lATSE will supply all labor to the studios, not only in our crafts which were recognized before the strike, but also in those classifications which have been vacated by the striking unions. The lA assumed this re.sponsibility only after we were certain that it was impossible to reach an honorable settlement with those persons who are conducting this strike against the lATSE. "On Tuesday night of this week a carpenters' local was chartered and is now known as Local No. 787 of the lATSE. On Thursday night the Motion Picture Studio Painters Local No. 788, of the lATSB, was chartered. In addition to these locals, there will be a local charter for machinists and, if necessary, for other crafts. We are proceeding in accordance with our agreement with the producers to man the studios. "As the international president of the lATSE, I assure you that having assumed this jurisdiction, we will stake the entire strength of the international alliance on our efforts to retain it." That a copy of said letter is hereto attached, as exhibit F, and made a part hereof. That pursuant to said conspiracy said major motion-picture companies gave carpenters' work, belonging to the carpentei's of local 946, under their said con- tracts, to members of said lATSE, and its said illegal local 787. That on or about July 22, 1946, said Walsh admitted that said charter and local 787 were illegal. In his report to the convention of the said lATSE he stated : "We had to issue charters to take care of the work which nobody would take over out there. So in issuing the charters, we got in trouble with the American Federation of Labor. "The executive council of the American Federation of Labor met in the city of Chicago, and they ordered us there because of the fact that we had not complied with their mandate to cease and desist what we were doing in Hdlly- wood. * * * They again told us to withdraw the charter of the carpenter and the painter, and any other charters that we had illegally issued. "I called an executive board meeting of your executive board, and we decided to comply with that." The above quotations are from said March 8, 1947, Washington hearing of the House Committee on Education and Labor, at page 2857. CINCINNATI AGREEMENT That because of the aggressions of the lATSE against various crafts, and tlie strikes in Hollywood, arising out of tlie conspiracy between the major motion- picture companies and the lATSE against the carpenters and other crafts, and the confusion caused thereby in the industry, it became necessary for the said major motion-picture companies, and producers association, the lATSE, and the Brotherhood of Carpenters, to meet with the executive council of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, at Cincinnati, between October 15 and 25, 1945. In that meeting it was agreed, as follows : "1. The council directs that the Hollywood strike be terminated immediately. "2. That all employees return to work immediately. "3. That for a period of 30 days the international unions affected make every attempt to settle the jurisdictional questions involved in the dispute. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2175 "4. That after the expiration of 30 days a committee of three members of the executive council of tlie American Federation of Labor shall investigate and determine within 30 days all jurisdictional questions still involved. "5. That all parties concerned, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Association of Plumbers and Steam Fitters of the United States and Canada, the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, tiie International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America, and the Building Service Employees' Intei'- national Union, accept as final and binding such decisions and determinations as the executive council committee of three may finally render." That pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of said agreement, the strike then in existence in Hollywood was immediately terminated, and all carpenters im- mediatel.v returned to work in their pre-strike status of March 12, 1945. That imrsuant to paragraph 4 of said Cincinnati agreement, Messrs. Felix H. Knight, W. C. Birthright, and W. C. Doherty, all membei'S of the executive council of tiie American Federation of Labor, were appointed to the com- mittee specified therein. They are hereinafter referred to as the three-man committee. DECISION OF A. F. OF L. THREE-MAN COMMITTEE That said committee, after investigation, reached a decision that the historic division of work between the carpenters and lATSE be maintained without change, and thereby upheld the rights of the carpenters under their said eon- tracts. In writing this report, however, said committee innocently made the mistake of copying the terms of a nonexistent, but purported contract, between the carpenters and the lATSE, dated February 5, 1925, instead of stating the real historic division of work as stated in said exhibit A contract which the.v intended to follow. That said report states : ******* "6. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : The com- mittee rules that the division of work agreement entered into between the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving f icture IMachine Operators of the United States and Canada on February 5, 1925, and known as the '1926 Agreement' be placed in full force and effect immediately." and uses said mistaken language as follows : •'Division of work by the United States Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : "Section 1. All trim and mill work on sets and stages. "Section 2. All mill work and carpenter work in connection with studios. "Section 3. All work in carpenter shops. "Section 4. All permanent construction. "Section 5. All construction work on exterior sets. "Division of work by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture ^Machine Operators of the United States and Canada : ''Section 6. Miniature sets. "Section 7. Property building. "Section 8. Erection of sets on stages except as provided in section 1. "Section 9. Wrecking all sets, exterior and interior. "Section 10. Erecting platforms for lamp operators and camera men on stages." It is here alleged on information and belief that this mistake was induced by the fraud of the lATSE, and said n!a.ior motion-picture companies. In any event, the mistaken use of said nonexistent document and terms was beyond the scope of atithority of committee. A copy of said report of said three-man committee, embodying said mistake, is hereto attached, as exhibit H, and made a part hereof. CONTlNXfED CONSPIBACY OF lATSE AND MAJOR MOTION-PICTTXRE COMPANIES That immediately thereafter, and pursuant to said conspiracy, the major motion-picture companies discharged 500 carpenters, more or less, from their employment, and replaced them with men provided by the lATSE. That concur- rently therewith the lATSE took one of its floater charters, which had recently 2176 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES been used in North Carolina foi- motion-picture-machine operators, and designated it as its Set Erectors Local 468, and used it to take over the work of carpenters so discharged, all upon the pretense that the language of section 8 of said December 26, 1945, report had transferred set erection from carpenters to the lATSE. That said set erectors thereupon provided said major motion-picture companies, and the independent motion-picture companies, with illegal employees, posing as carpenters, under a fraudulent system of emergency working cards, each of which included the following provision, which constituted an illegal contract between the lATSE, the bearers of the cards, and the motion-picture companies accepting said purported carpenters upon the presentation of said cards, and employing them in work belonging to the carpenters. That the illegal agreement embodied in said cards was as follows : "The undersigned will surrender this emergency working card and the position held thereunder upon demand of local 468. It is recognized that the issuance and acceptance of this emergency working card does not entitle the undersigned to membership in local 468 or to any rights against or within said union." That a copy of the illegal emergency working card, issued by lATSE, Local 468, to Elzyn Snow, on November 8, 1946, is hereto attached as exhibit K, and made a part hereof. That many hundreds of said illegal emergency working cards, that is, permits to nonunion men to do the work belonging to carpenters, under said contracts, and under said three-man committee decision as intended by the committee, were issued by said lATSE Set Erectors Local 468 to such nonunion men, posing as carpenters, and presented to said major motion-picture companies, and accepted by them, and each of them. That said permittees were thereby given employment that belonged to members of the Brotherliood of Carpenters, Local 946, in violation of said contracts and decision as intended. That complainant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that said major motion-picture companies have paid out in excess of $7,00,000 in bonuses to such lATSE permittees, of various crafts, under said illegal employment and conspiracy. That said so-called Set Erectors Local 468 has never been recognized by the National Labor Relations Board as a bargaining agent, nor as having any legal status for carpenters' work. That said major motion-picture companies, and each of them, well knew that said "permit system" was illegal, and in violation of the laws and rules of said American Federation of Labor. That said Walsh had previously made a report to the 1944 international convention of said lATSE at St. Louis, at page 159, that such permit systems were illegai, as follows : "Pre.sident Walsh reported to the Board that the permit system practiced by this local had been abolished by the local accepting into membership all such men. Hereafter, all men performing work under the jurisdiction of this local union will be members of the Alliance. "The so-called 'permit system' is contrary to laws and principles of the Alliance and as such cannot be coiuitenanced in any guise and the Board unequivocally took the position that if there were any other localities where it was being practiced it must be eradicated." THE CLAEIFICATION That following increasing aggressions by the lATSE in conspiracy with said major motion picture companies, and producers association, and to bring an end to the strife and confusion brought by them, said tliree-man committee issued a clarification of its December 26, 1945, decision, as follows : "Jurisdiction over the erection of sets on stages was awarded to the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada under the provisions set forth in sec- tion 8 of the decision which specifically excluded trim and mill work on said sets and stages. The word "erection" is construed to mean assemblage of such sets on stages or locations. It is to be clearly understood that the committee recognizes the jurisdiction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners jurisdiction. "Sections 2 to 5 inclusive recognized the rightful jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America on all mill work and carpenter work in connection with studios, all work in carpenter shops, all permanent con- struction and all construction work on exterior sets." That a copy of said clarification is hereto attached as exhibit I, and made a part hereof. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2177 That said clarification was intended to, and did. express tlie true December 26, 1945. decision of said three-man committee. That under said decision, as originally intended, and as so clarified, historic carpenters' work claimed by the so-called'set erectors in violation of said contracts, was awarded to the carpenters, to whom it had always belonged, under and since said exhibit A basic contract between the unions, dated July 9, 1921. That thereafter, on April 21. 1947, said executive council of the American Federation of Labor further reiterated the distinction between the jurisdiction of the lATSE and the said carpenters union in work on stage sets, by the following resolution : "Jurisdiction over the assembling of sets on stages was awarded to the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. "Jurisdiction over the construction of sets was awarded to the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America." That said Walsh and lATSE were given due notice of this resolution by a letter from William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, dated April 28, 1947, a copy of which is hereto attached as exhibit J, and made a part hereof. lATSE REPUDIATION OF CLARIFICATION There thereafter, on August 27, 1946, the American Federation of Labor, acting by and through William Green, its president, gave said Walsh and lATSE official notice of said clarification by letter, a copy of which is hereto attached as exhibit L, and made a part hereof, and gave said motion picture companies, and Producers Association, like notice by an equivalent letter to Eric Johnston, president of said Producers Association. That thereafter, on August 31, 1946, following receipt of said official notifica- tion of said clarification, and in pursuit of said conspiracy, said Walsh, acting for himself and the lATSE, wrote a letter to the Producers Association, notifying it and said motion picture companies, of the repudiation of said clarification by him and by the lATSE. That a copy of said letter is hereto attached as exhibit M, and made a part hereof. CONSPIRACY FOR LOCK-OUT SHOWN BY COMPANY LABOR COMMITTEE MINUTES That following said written repudiation of the clarification the lATSE, acting through said Walsh and Brewer, and said major motion picture companies, and Producers Association, acting through their joint labor connnittee, proceeded with their conspiracy to deprive all carpenters of all work in the studies, and on the lots and locations, of the major motion picture companies, and of the independent motion pictin-e companies, and of each and all of them, by the means disclosed in the minutes of said major motion picture companies' labor committee, as those minutes are set forth in the transcript of the hearing held in Los Angeles by the special subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor. The following references are to the dates of the minutes and the pages of the congressional committee transcript : On August 22, 1946, at page 3309; the lATSE gave the following ultimatum to the companies : "Later : Walsh advises that any company that makes one single change in the administration of the AFL directive in compliance with the new interpretation will have all work stopped in the studies, exchanges, and theaters." On September 3, 1946, at page 3311, the companies' committee referred said threat to Eric Johnston, president of the Producers Association, in New York, as follows : "Also wire Eric Johnston still can't understand the directive or its interpreta- tion—is this a directive to compel us to abide or what shall we do. Both carpen- ters and Walsh have given us opposite instructions. As we are between AFL council must tell us what to do." Oil Septe^nl)er 11. 1946, at page 3313. the companies' committee considered said threat and demands, called for legal advice, and conferred and collaborated with said Brewer, representing the lATSE, as follows: "Kahane repeated that we had a choice of two ways to go — and that undoubtedly we still intended going the way we had discussed. No dissent was heard. "Kahane said we would continue to assign work tomorrow as we did today and let chips fall as they may. 2178 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "The lawyers were asked what our rights are as to firing men for refusing to perform worl? assigned and what sliould be done or said in the matter. The following was decided upon : If any men refuse to perform services, lay them off and pay for hours worked only. Put on card 'layed off for refusal to perform work assigned.' "Each studio not represented was notified of above by telephone. "Kahane answered a phone call and on returning stated 'Brewer says instruc- tions to man the companies mean.s — furnish painters, carpenters, etc' " On September 12, 1946, at page 3315, the companies' committee received its instrurtions from the New York executives and acted accordingly, in pursuance of said conspiracy, as follows : "(a) A report as of 10:30 a. m. indicated that M-G-M had dismissed 12 car- penters, Fox 2, and Columbia 2. At the meeting RKO reported 20 and Columbia and Fox each 2 additional. "(&) Mr. Kahane reported the recent conver.sations with the Presidents and Eric Johnston which contained the following recommendations : 'Lay off carpen- ters if they refuse to perform the services to which they are assigned.' * * * Work with the lA to get a sufficient number of carpenters, electricians, paint- ers, etc. "(e) 'Each studio to cooperate with another in helping to keep operating until such time as it is impossible to keep open. Close only after a fight has been made.' "(d) Kahane states there are two courses to pursue: 1. As the sets become hot and as men are laid off do not cross jurisdictional lines, doing nothing to cause a picket line to be established. Shoot until sets are exhau.sted and then close down ; or 2. attempt to keep open as we did on March 12, 104.5 — call on lA to do the struck work and do the best we can. This would bring on picket lines and the accompan.ying strife. "It is apparently the opinion of the New York executives and Johnston to try the 2d course. If we try this course and call upon lA and they should fail to be able to keep us open then the lA may attempt to get the federation to settle the mattei' or ad.iudicate the matter with the carpenters. "(e) It was agreed by those present to follow the 2d course but to take time to face the issue and not to put on any lA men in place of strikers until after Monday. No one will have to close down a picture on accoiuit of no sets before Monday. "(f) It was decided to call in Brewer to tell him of situation and find out from him if the lA is to furnish men to fill places vacated to keep the studios open. The small producers' labor committee and anyone else who cares to attend will meet with Brewer at 2 : 30 p. m. "(g) The producers' labor office will act as a central clearing house to receive daily reports from studies of the number of men laid off — number of companies shooting- — and length of time each company can keep going. ''(/() Goldberg asked if he should assign more carpenters to fill the places of the ones .lust laid off until all carpenters are gone and then a.sk lA to fill vacancies. He .was advised not to make any substitutions till after Monday next week. "(i) Al Wright submitted the following, copies of which were distributed to each studio representative with instructions to keep in hands of only one and two persons in the studio. "September 12, 1946. "instructions to department heads "(1) Any employee who refuses to perform the vi^ork properly assigned to him in accordance with his regular classification of work should be requested to leave the premises. "(2) In the event that such employee asks whether he is being discharged, he should be told 'no.' "(3) In the event that any such employee asks whether or not he is being laid off, he should be told that he is not being laid off; he should be told that he is not being laid off but that he is not wanted on the premises as long as he refused to perform his customary duties. "(4) In the event that any such employee further asks what is his status he should be told that he is requested to leave because of his refusal to perform services requested. " (5) He should be paid off to time of leaving. "If any such employee asks to return to his former job he is to be welcomed back. It was agreed each studio would assign work to. carpenters by Monday to create an incident. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2179 "(i) Brewer and Cooper joined the meeting. "Kahane explained the situation which the producers find themselves in, read- ing the letters recently received from the carijenters, and the producers' reply to the carpenters, signed by Casey. Kahane outlined the two courses the pro- ducers could follow and stated our decision depends on what your (Brewer's) position is as to furnishing us with men. , 'Brewer replied that they will do everything to keep the studios open — and will supply the necessary help. * * *" , On September 16, 1946, at page 3319, the said committee agreed, in pursuance of said conspiracy, to cause the State of California to deny said carpenters their right to unemployment insurance while locked out of the work by the said companies in conspiracy with the lATSE, as follows : , "Unemployment Compensation — Cragin of the Loeb office wanted instructions for the comptrollers as to what position the producers wanted to take on state- ment to be made to the State unemployment fund. It was agreed to say 'the employee left his work on account of a trade dispute,' and to ask the department to disqualify him for unemployment compensation." On September 17, 1946, at page 3321, said comjnittee agreed with the lATSE, acting by said Brewer, to force the independent motion picture companies to replace all carpenters with lATSE set erectors, as agreed upon by said major motion picture companies, as follows : , ''(a) Set erectors — Brewer wanted to correct an erroneous opinion that independents were not being forced to use erectors. They are * * *_ "(?)) lA is prepared to furnish men to cross jurisdictional lines — take the place of strikers and to keep studios going. '•(c) Brewer said to put lA men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit. provided : "1. lA is advised in advance when and where "2. Put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self protection '3. Keep procedure quiet so CSU can't gang up at one spot." That on said date, said committee further deliberated in said conspiracy, as follows : "(f?) Mannix thought some one group should meet with the sheriff, district attorney and the chief of police to explain the situation and arrange for necessary protection. "(e) Discussed the proper method of procedure — how and when to get carpen- ters and painters to refuse to work — when to replace with lA, etc. "(/) Wright thinks we should not act in concert. * * *'' On September 20, 1946, at page 3326, said committee agreed to avoid any meeting with the carpenters before the lock-out, set for the following Monday, and thereby avoid bargaining with the Carpenters, in accordance with the exhibit D agreement of July 3, 1946, as follows : "(o) K'hane read a proposed reply prepared by Byron Price to the telegram sent by CSU to Pat Casey, dated September 19. 1946. He thinks we should not meet with them before Sunday as they could then use the argument that the break came on account of wages and not jurisdiction and further we should not offer to negotiate while they refuse to work under their interim agreement." On September 23. 1946, at page 3329. the committee was advised by counsel that it could not refuse to bargain without being guilty of an unfair labor prac- tice, and that they could not morally or legally assign maintenance men, who had never worked as journeymen, to work on sets, but in said conspiracy with the lATSE, decided to gamble on the advice of another counsel, that the Labor Board "might not assess any back pay". "(a) Lawyers said we can't refuse to bargain and told of consequences. Carpenters situation may or may not have been an unfair labor practice, * * * "(h) ^laintenance ]Men — INIetro and some other studios have requested main- tenance men to work on sets, and upon refusal have dismissed them. Alfred Wright stated the studios cannot morally or legally assign maintenance men who never have worked as journeymen on sets to set work. "(c) Benjtmin expressed belief that even though NLRB might decide pro- ducers had engaged in unfair labor practices there was a good chance the Board might not assess any back pay." On September 24," 1946, at page 3331, the committee and lATSE agi-eed upon the details of replacing locked out cai-penters with lATSE members and de- signees, as follows : 2180 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES "(a) Brewer stated he thought it advisable to have clear understanding with the studio representatives as to how his people propose to handle the labor situation in the anticipated forthcoming trouble. "(b) If a property man does not want to work in the carpenter mill do not force him — the local will try to persuade him to perform. The lA would prefer to supply men from No. 468, l«nwever, if you need men for milhvork studios are free to call on men from any local. "All work on stag?s should be tlone by No. 468 men or have any other men clear through No. 4f8."' INbTKUCTIONS OF lATSE TO MEMBERS On September 13, 1946, the lATSE, acting through said Walsh, directed a letter to all lATSE Hollywood locals and members, in anticipation of the lock-out then agreed upon l)y the lATSE and the major motion-picture companies, and producers association, in which he instructed the lATSE members : 1. That they were not to recognize any rights of the carpenters. 2. That they were not to observe any .iurisdiction lines of said carpenters. 3. That they were not to permit the carpenters to infringe upon the asserted jurisdiction of the lATSE to do carpenters' work performed for the motion-picture companies. 4. That defendant Brewer was placed in charge, to direct the operations of the lATSE in taking over the work of the carpenters. That a copy of said letter is hereto attached as exhibit N, and made a part hereof. FRAITDULENT LOCK-OTIT OF ALL CARPENTERS FROM ALL CARPENTERS' WORK TASKS IN VIOLATION OF CONTRACTS That pursuant to, and in continuance of, said conspiracy of the lATSE, Walsh and Brewer and said major motion-picture companies, each with all of the others, to deprive said carpenters, embracing all members of said Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, of all carpenters' work in the studios, and on the lots and hn-ations, of each and all of said major motion-picture companies, and independent motion-picture companies, and to turn all such carpenters' work over to the lATSE, for its members and permittees, in violation of said contracts, said major motion-picture companies, and each of them, proceeded as follows: 1. That on or about September 23, 1946, said major motion-picture companies, and each of them, created incidents in each and all of tlieir California studios, pursuant to said preconceived plan and conspiracy, as directed by their said New York executives, and obeyed and concurred in by their said labor committee and ranking local ofhcers, whereby : (a) Said carpenter members of the Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 946, were assigned to work on "hot" sets, that is, on sets where said defendant companies had previously had carpenter work done by members and permittees of the lATSE to make them "hot"' sets for the fraudulent purpose of creating said incidents, knowing said assignments to be in violation of said contracts with the carpenters, and knowing that said carpenters could not work on said "hot" sets without waiver of their said contracts and loss of their right to work thereunder. (ft) Each and all of said carpenters who were assigned to said fraudulently created "hot sets," upon their refusal to work thereon, were immediately re- quired to leave, and locked out of, said studios, lots, and locations, and thereby deprived of all work and employment under said contracts, and collective-bar- gaining agreements, and that said carpenters are still locked out. (c) Each and all other carpenters in the employ of said major motion-picture companies in said studios, and on said lots and locations, even though they were not assigned to said "hot" sets, were also immediately required to leave, and locked out of, said studios, lots, and locations, and thereby deprived of all work and employment under said contracts, and collective-bargaining agree- ments, and that they are still locked out. 2. That said major motion-picture companies, lATSE, Walsh, and Brewer carried out said con.spiracy and established, and still maintain, said lock-out. (a) In willful disregard of the advice of one of the company attorneys, recited in said minutes of September 23, 1946, that "the studios cannot morally or legally assign maintenance men who never have worked as journeymen on sets to set work" (supra 17). MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2181 (&) In a willful gamble, after one of its other attorneys had expressed the belief, recited in said minutes of September 23, 1946, that "even though the NLRB might decide producers had engaged in unfair labor practice there was a good chance the Board might not assess any back pay" (supra 17). (c) In a false and fraudulent representation to the California State Depart- ment of Unemployment Insurance that "the employee," meaning each carpenter, "left his work on account of a trade dispute," wlien in fact he was locked out by them as aforesaid (supra IS). Said companies, each in conspiracy with the others, thereby induced the said State officials to deny carpenters the un- employment insurance to which they were and are entitled. 3. That concurrently with said conspiracy and lock-out. said major motion- picture companies, and producers association, in conspiracy with said lATSE, Walsh, and Brewer, have refused, and still refuse, to bargain with said Brother- hood of Carpenters, or its said local 946, or any of their representatives, as called for in said exhibit D, interim agreement of July 3, 1946, then and now in effect, although said carpenters have at all times been, and now are, ready, willing, and able to bargain. That said refusal to bargain has been, and is, in willful disregard of the advice given said major motion-picture companies, and producers association, by their attorneys, recited in said minutes of September 20, 1946, that they "can't refuse to bargain" and that the "carpenters situation," created by them, might be "an luifair labor practice" (supra 17). That said refusal to bargain has also been, and is. in willful contempt of law and order, the public interest, and the rights of said cariienters, upon the said gamble so recited in said minutes of September 23, 1946, "that even though NLRB might decide producers had engaged in an unfair labor practice there "was a good chance the Board might not assess any back pay" (supra 17). 4. That said lATSE, Walsh, and Brewer, as parties to said conspiracy between them and each and all of said major motion-picture companies, furnished, and now continue to furnish, lATSE members and permittees to said mfijor motion- picture companies, and each of them, and to each and all of said independent motion-jDicture companies, under the guise of set erectors, posing as carpenters, and said major motion-picture companies, and each of them, have accepted and employed them, and continue to accept and employ them, and to force and coerce each and all of said independent motion-picture companies to accept and employ them, to replace each and all members of said Brothei'hood of Carpenters, Local 946. in any and all carpenter' work to which they are entitled under said exhibits A, B, C, D, and E and other contracts and collective bargaining agreements. CONSPIRACY AND UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CONTINUE IN DEFIANCE OF LAW The conspiracy of the lATSE and major motion-picture companies, and producers association, to deprive all carpenters of all carpenter work, in all the studios, and on all the lots and locations, of all the major motion-picture com- panies, by means of the lock-out upon the fraudulent pretense of a strike, and to force all the independent motion-picture companies to do likewise, and the continuity of the conspiracy and unfair labor practices, to the present time, has been fully shown, and is now referred to, in part, as follows : 1. This conspiracy has its inception in March 1945. "when said Walsh and Nicholas Schenck agreed that the lATSE would run the studios on condition that the major motion-picture companies have no contracts whatever with the cai-penters (supra, 7), although the companies were then under contract with the carpenters (supra. 5-6). This conspiracy was announced on April 14, 1945. when said major motion- picture companies and the lATSE proceeded to put it into effect by the iiublication of the exhibit F letter from said Walsh to all studio employees, fraudulently addre.ssed as "All Former Studio Employees" (supra, 8). 2. This conspiracy was continued and renewed in connection with the three-man committee decision, in part, as follows: (cr) In imposing upon the three-man committee, the purported, but nonexistent, agreement between the carpenters and the lATSE, dated February 5, 1925, and in causing the three-man committee to quote this nonexistent agreement, instead of the true exhibit A agreement of July 9, 1921, to express their actual decision to mantain the historic division of work between the carpenters and the lATSE (supra, 9, 10). (?;) In proceeding immediately thereafter to set up the so-called lATSE Set Erectors Union, Local 468, and to use its members, and permittees, to replace 2182 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES carpenters then being dismissed from tlie studios, and lots and locations, of both the major and independent motion-picture companies (supra, 11). (c) In the use by said purported Set Erectors Union, Local 468, of illegal emer- gency working cards, issued to permittees, as distinguished from members, to replace carpenters in said carpenters' work (supra, 11, 12). 3. This conspiracy was continued, and renewed in repudiation of the three-man committee clarification of August 16, 1946 (supra, 12), and the A. F. of L. Executive Council interpretation of April 21, 1947 (supra, 13-14). PRETENSE OF CONTROVERSY OVER SO-CAI.LED SET ERECTORS XTSEB IN PLOT TO LOCK OUT ALL CARPENTERS 4. This conspiracy was continued, and renewed, in the plot shown by said motion-picture labor committee's minutes, to establish a lock-out of, and to replace all carpenters, a large majority of whom had not worked on sets, with members and designees of the lATSE, in part, as follows : (a) In calling upon Eric Johnston, president of said producers association, and the New York executives of said major luotion-picture companies, for in- structions (supra, 14), and in receiving and obeying instructions from them to "lay off carpenters if they refuse to perform the services to which they are assigned," and to "work with the lA to get a sufficient number of carpenters," etc., and for "each studio to cooperate with another," etc. (supra, 14-15). (ft) In calling upon the laywers for advice upon the companies' rights "as to firing men for refusing to perform work assigned" (supra, 14). (c) In agreeing with lATSE, represented by said Brewer, for it to replace all carpenters with members and designees of the lATSE (supra, 14). (d) In the agreement that "each studio would assign work to carpenters by Monday to create an incident" as aforesaid (supra, 15). (e) In falsely representing to the State unemployment authorities that "the employee (meaning the carpenter so locked out) left his work on account of a trade dispute," with the request that the department "disqualify him for un- employment compensation" (supra, 16). (,f) In the agreement that this plot be enforced upon independent motion picture companies (supra, 16). iff) In calling upon the sheriff and police authorities (supra, 16). (h) In the agreement to avoid meeting representatives of the carpenters, and thereb.v prevent any negotiations upon wages and working conditions, so as to fraudulentl.v create the impression that the carpenters had refused to work un- der their then, and now, existing exhibit D interim agreement (supra, 17). (/) In carrying out said conspiracy (supra, 18), in disregard of said contracts, and rights of the carpenters thereunder, in contempt for law and tlie authorities of Government, and in defiance of the advice of their own counsel (supra, 17). MAJOR MOTION PICTURE COMPANIES ASSEaiT OPEN-SHOP AGAINST CARPENTERS AND PLOT WITH lATSE FOR CONTROL OF CARPENTERS' WORK That said major motion picture companies, and Producers Association, and the lATSE have pursued, and are now pursuing, said conspiracy and unfair labor practices, as follows : 1. Said major motion picture companies, and Producers Assocaition, have con- tinuously refused, and are now refusing, to bargain with the carpenter and other craft employees, covered by said exhibit D interim agreement of July 3, 1946. 2. Said major motion picture companies, and Producers Association, and the lATSE, have pursued, and are now pursuing, their said conspiracy to replace all carpenters and other crafts covered by said exhibit D interim agreement of July 3, 1946, with members, or designees, of the lATSE, in part, as follows : (a) By maintaining said lock-out. (6) That on June 26, 1947, said lATSE, acting by and through James L. Noblitt, recording secretary of lATSE Local 80, of Hollywood, known as grips, gave orders to all members of said local that — "Immediately upon receipt of this letter, you will cease to serve any independent production, or independent studio starting a new picture, without first obtaining permission from this office. "Any violation of the above will result in serious charges, and you will please adhere to the above order, in compliance with the bylaws of our international, article 1, section 1." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2183 A copy of said letter is hereto attached as exhibit O and made a part hereof. Complainant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that an equivalent letter was written at the same time by the appropriate officer of each and every local union of the lATSE to its members and that said letters were a part of a concerted plan of said lATSE, said major motion picture companies, and said Producers Association, in their conspiracy aforesaid, to require said independent motion picture companies, and each of them, to deprive said carpenters of all employment by said independent motion picture companies under said exhibit E contract and to replace them by designees of said lATSE. That said lATSE has maintained said instructions to and since the effective date of the section on unfair labor practices in the Taft-Hartley Act. (c) Oh August 14, 1^7, said lATSE filed an application with the NLRB at Los Angeles, in case No. 21-R-40SS, to be certified as the bargaining agent of "carpenters, millwrights, woodworking-machine men," that is, of all carpenter- work tasks. That a copy of the notice issued on August 14, 1947, by the regional director of the NLRB, reciting said application, is hereto attached as exhibit P and made a part hereof. (d) Tliat on or about August 15, 1947, concurrently with the continuance of said lock-out, and their continued refusal to bargain with said Carpenters Local 94(j, and in disregard of said exhibit D interim agreement, and other contracts, each of said motion picture companies made and entered into 1-year contract with said lATSE, nominally covering general foremen, set gang bosses, and set erectors, but intended to cover all carpenters' work of said companies. That a copy of said contract is hereto attacdied as exhibit Q and made a part hereof. (e) That on or about said August 15, 1947, said major motion picture com- panies, and producers association, and the lATSE, in pursuit of said conspiracy, forced and required the independent motion picture companies belonging to said Independent Motion Picture Producers Association to enter into a like 1-year contract with the lATSE in substantially the same terms. (/) That said major motion picture companies, and producers association, and lATSE are likewise requiring each and all other independent motion picture companies to enter into contracts with said lATSE in substantially the same terms and for the same purpose. (fir) That thereafter, on or about August 26. 1947, said major motion picture companies, and producers association, acting through Charles Boren, addressed a letter to Edward M. Gilbei't. business representative of Local 1421, Set De- signers, etc., also covered by the exhibit D interim agreement of July 3, 1946, refusing to bargain with him, as "follows: "As I told you down at the hearing we would meet you as soon as this congres- sional investigation was over, but since informing you the lATSE has entered a petition before the National Labor Relations Board seeking representation over the set designers, illustrators, etc., and by their action we are precluded by law in negotiating with your organization luitil such petition has been disposed of or an appropriate bargaining agent has been determined." That a copy of said letter apjiears at page 2833, in the August 27, 1947. transcript of the hearing before said special subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor. (7( ) That at said hearing, immediately following the introduction of said letter, and applying to all crafts covered by said exhibit D interim agreement, including said carpenters, the major motion picture companies, and producers association, speaking through theeir counsel, announced to said congressional committee as appears on page 2834 : "We have an open shop on these men at this time." It is respectfully submitted that this is a twist of the law in pursuit of con- spiracy, that was never intended by Congress, nor authorized by the Labor- Management Relations Act. CONCLUSION Wherefore, complainant submits the urgency of these charges, and prays the earliest consistent action thereon., Respectfully submitted. Zach Lamar Cobb, Attorney for Complainant. 2184 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Exhibit A Agreement In compliance with tlie decision of the American Federation of Labor, a conference was called and held July 9, 1921, in the executive council chamber of the American Federation of Labor. The organizations participating in the conference were represented as follows : The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : Mr. Frank Duffy and Mr. John Cosgrove. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees : Mr. Harry L. Spencer, Mr. William F. Canavan. and Mr. Richard J. Green. The American Federation of Labor : Mr. Samuel Gompers, Mr. James O'Connell, and ^Ir. Hugh Frayne. The entire subject of the differences of jurisdictional claims between the two first-named organizations were thoroughly gone into with a view of reaching an agreement. It is agreed by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees that all work done on lots or location and all work done in siiops, either bench or machine work, comes under the jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. It is agreed that : All carpenter work in and around moving-picture studios belongs to the carpenter. This includes : 1. Any and all carpenter work in connection with the moving-picture studios, the construction of stages or platforms on which buildings or parts of buildings are to be erected. 2. All carpenter work in connection with the erection of any building or part of building from which a picture is to be taken. 3. The operation of all wood-working machinery in the making of all furniture, fixtures, trim, etc., for use in motion-picture studios, belongs to tlie carpenter. The carpenters lay no claim to what is usually termed or referred to as the "proiierty man," or those employed in placing furniture, laying carpets, hang- ing draperies, pictures, etc. It is clearly understood that insofar as section 2 of this part of the agreement is concerned and particularly the right to the setting up and striking of the scenes on the stages after the construction work has been completed, it shall be liberally and cooperatively construed so as to do no injustice to either the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America or the International Allian.e of Theatrical Stage Emplo.vees. Any differences arising as to the interpretation of this agreement and particu- larly of Section 2 hereof, shall be adjusted by the International Presidents of both organizations. For the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : John T. Cosgrove. First General Vice President. Frank Duffy, General Secretary. For Theatrical Stage Employees : Wm. F. Canavan, Richard Green, Harry L. Spencer. Exhibit B Original Basic Studio Agreement Agreement made this 29th day of November 1926 between such persons, firms, or corporations engaged in the production of motion pictures as may become parties hereto by signing this agreement or a c(.\\x hereof (hereinafter called the Pro- ducers) and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and the International Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, the United Brotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the American P^deration of Musicians (hereinafter called the Unions). MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2185 Witnesseth : ( 1 ) The Unions shall select a committee of five members who shall be presidents of International or National Unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (referred to hereinafter as the Internationals' Committee) which shall represent the Unions in qnestlons arising between the Unions and the Producers at the several studios of the latter. (2) The Producers shall appoint a committee of five members (hereinafter called the Producers" Committee) to meet with the Internationals' Committee at regular intervals and otherwise at the Joint call of the Chairmen. (3) The Internationals' Committee and the Producers' Committee shall jointly hear or consider all requests or grievances or other questions affecting wages, hours of labor or working conditions in the studios of the Producers which have failed of local adjustment, and any other matters as to which such joint con- siderations will tend to avoid misunderstandings, or will tend to improve the condition of the industry and of its employees. Any officer representing a Union, or any Producer, shall have the right to be present at a hearing in the subject matter of which the interests of his organization are specially concerned, or to bring before the Committees sitting jointly any question which in his judgment requires consideration or adjustment. (4) The Internationals' Conunittee and the Producers' Committee acting jointl.v may make rules for the local adjustment of requests or grievances, for arbitration of, or hearing of, requests or grievances, before or after they are acted on by the Internationals' Committee and the Producers' Committee, or similar matters of procedure. (5) Any Union or any Producer may withdraw from this agreement upon duplicate written notice mailed to the Chairman of the Internationals' Com- mittee and also to the Chairman of the Producers' Committee. As to parties hereto not so withdrawing this agreement shall terminate at the expiration of two years from its date unless sooner renewed. In Witness Whereof the. parties hereto have caused these presents to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year tirst above written. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Pic- ture Operators of the United States and Canada, by Wm. F. Canavan, President : International Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, by George F. Hedrick (per Chas. E. Lessing) ; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, by John Flynn, General Representative ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, by Jas. P. Noonan (per A. W. Mclntyre), Representative; American Federa- tion of Musicians, by Jos N. Weber, President, (AFM) ; Producers Distributing Corporation, by F. C. Munroe, President ; Universal Pictures Corp., by R. H. Cochrane, C. P. ; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, by N. M. Schenck, Vice President ; Fox Film Corporation, by W. R. Sheehan, Vice President ; First National Pictures, Inc., by S. Spring, Secretary-Treasurer ; Famous-Players Lasky Corp., by Elek John Ludvich, Secretary-Treasurer; F. B. O. Studios, Inc., by J. I. Schnitzer, Vice President ; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., by Albert Warner, Vice President ; Educational Film Exchanges, Inc., by E. W. Hammons, President. RULES OF PROCEDl-RE UXDEIt MOTION PICTURE AGREEMENT OF NOVEMBER 29, 1926 The following rules are adopted by the Internationals' Committee and the Producers' Conunittee representing all of the signatories to the above agreement as of the 14th day of December 1926, their purpose being to establish the principle of cooperation and adjustment, it being understood that they are subject to amendments or additions as occasion may arise. 1. The Internationals' Conunittee may appoint agents, delegates or officers who shall have authority in dealing with the separate management of the Studios of the Producei-s as may be expressly delegated to them by the Internationals' Committee. The relations of the Unions with the Producers and with the separate managements of their Studios in matters affecting wages, hours or labor or working conditions are to be carried on exclusively through the Inter- nationals' Committee. Except where the organic law of a union does not permit such procedure. 2. The Internationals' Committee and the Producers' Committee shall each select a chairman. Communications to either Committee may be addressed to its chairman. 2186 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 3. The Internationals' Committee and the Producers' Committee shall each appoint or select a secretary or some other agent designated for the purpose who have an office in Los Angeles. Grievances, requests or other matters arising out of the agreement which have failed of immediate adjustment at any studio shall be reported by each side to its own secretary or agent, who shall confer with the secretary or agent of the other side. Each secretary or agent shall make av independent inquiry into the facts and report them to the chairman of his committee with his suggestions or recommendations. 4. The chairman jointly may ox'der a hearing on any subject either before or after it has been brought to the attention of the full Committees, to be held at such place and time and by such person or persons representing their Committees as they may decide. Any person atfected by the decision of sucli person or persons shall have the right of appeal to the Committees for their further action. 5. Each Committee may make its own rules as to alternates and other matters affecting its own organization or functions. 6. Additions to or amendments of the rules may be made from time to time by the joint action of a majority of each Committee by vote or agreement in writing. Any of the foregoing rules or any rule hereafter adopted may be cancelled and thereby made of no further affect by vote or, written agreement of, a majority of eitlier Committee, notice of the same being given in writing to the Chairman of the other Committee. Exhibit C Notice — Union Agreements A meeting was held in New York December 8 between representatives of the Unions signatory and the Producers signatory to the Basic Agreement at which the following agreements were reached : He 4: !|< « * * * 8. At the meeting in New York December 8, 1935, between the representatives of the Unions signatory and the Producers signatory to the Basic agreement, it was decided that all employees working under the jurisdiction of the following Interna- tional Unions would work under closed shop conditions : American Federation of Musicians. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada. International Brotherhood of Electricians. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. United Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America. Therefore, effective January 2, 1936, every employee in a .Studio working under the jurisdiction of these above International Unions shall have to carry a card In his respective Union. Pat Casey, Chairman, Producers' Committee. Exhibit D Producers Committee Pat Casey, Chairman July 2, 1946. Mr. Herbert K. Sorrell, President, Conference of Studio Unions, ^151 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles 5, Calif. My Dear Herb : Pending the completion of contracts between the individual unions, members of the CSU, and the major studios, these minutes (copy attached herewith) shall constitute an Interim Agreement. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Pat Casey, Pat Casey, Chairman Prod^icers Committee. Enclosure. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2187 MINUTES OF MEETING OF PRODUCEKS LABOR COMMITTEE AND ATTORNEYS AND EEPRE- SENTATIVE.S OF THE CSU, CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, lATSE, BASIC GROUP, AND PLUMB- ERS HELD IN BEVERLY HILLS ON TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1946, AT 2 : 45 P. M., COVERING AGREEMENTS REACHED AND EI'FECTI\'E PENDING THE FORMAL SIGNING OF CONTRACTS CSU is representing: Painters, carpenters, macliinists, electricians, plumbers, sheetmetal workers, janitors, analyslsts, publicists, officers and guards, set designers (No. 1421), cartoonists. All of the above to get a 25 percent increase on base and negotiate some inequities in a few crafts. All retroactive payments from expiration of previous contracts, most of which are January 1, 1946, except for new conditions such as night premiums at (5 p. m., etc., will become effective on July 15, 1946. Retro payments to be made within 30 days if possible. An interim agreement will be entered into pending drawing up formal agreements. The 25 percent increases are on minimum wage scales and not on overscale. This deal is predicated on the recently concluded deal with the independents and not on any new or changed deals which might be made later with them. Arbitration CSU as a body consisting of several locals will pledge itself to an arbitration procedure. If any of its members who subscribe to this plan fails to accept and to be guided by any arbitration award, he will not receive the support of the CSU in its position. This applies to studio jurisdiction only and between locals. Local No. 946 agrees to bind itself to the CSU arbitration agreement and will find out if it can secure permission from its international to sign such an agree- ment as a local. All contracts will contain this arbitration clause — verbatim in each contract. Any dispute other than wages should be submitted to arbitration. Skelton and Brewer will get together and make an agreement covering arbitration. Basis of arbitration will be the AFL-three man directive. Any machinery set up for arbitration will not require the electricians to with- draw their court action already started. It was agreed to let each studio interpret the directive and award the work where in its judgment it belongs under the directive and no work stoppage will be ordered for next 30 days or until the arbitration machinery is set up. Plant protection Camp's dispute with Helm is a private matter. Not to be discussed here. Analysts Get an increase of 25 percent on the base rate during the interim period starting July 15, 1946. Understood there will be some adjustment of inequities, negotiations during the next 30 days. Machinists Both sides agree to let machinists enjoy the 25 percent increase pending the NLRB decision. We are free to engage machiniststs as individuals — not through either union, until the NLRB decision is made. Publicists Both sides agree to let the publicists enjoy the 25 percent increase pending the NLRB decision. Inequities to be presented in the 30-lay period. Officers and guards Independent contract provides for $1.25 per hour for 12 months, escalating to $1.50 after 12 months. Night rates to be as negotiated with producers. Janitors No rates were established for the independents on certain classifications now in the majors' contractors, such as window washers, floor waxers, etc. These will be adjusted relatively. Cartoonists We will negotiate with cartoonists with 25 percent floor and inequities will be negotiated. 2188 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Set designers Chadwick agreed not to hire anyone below the rates now being paid. Majors agree to an increase of 25 percent on current contract rates and to negotiate any inequities in the next 30 days. Workweek Thirty-six cumulative hour week, 1% after 6 hours, minimum call 6 hours, first week of employment. Applies only to off-production employees. If we nnd this is a hardship we can come back and see if we can solve the matter in some other way. Contract for 2 years. If living costs go up 5 percent or more between July 1 and December 81, 1946, unions may demand renegotiation of wages only. Bureau of Labor Statistics for local area to be the authority. All crafts going back to work Wednesday a. m. July 3, 1946, without discrim- ination. (Signed) Pat Casey. (Signed) Herb Sokeeix. WAGE SCALES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND WORKING CONDITIONS 1. Studio minimum-wage scale: A. United Brotherhood of ■Carpenters and Joiners of America, Studio Local 940 No. classification Studio rates Schedule Ai— Daily, 6 hours; IJ.^ after 6; minimum call 2 6 hours Schedule C— Weekly "on call" For those employees associated with organizations of or performing the duties of journeymen, carpenters, woodworking machine men, and wood turners: A-1 construction and/or maintenance forman,- A-2 construction and/or maintenance gang boss A-3 journeymen and/or maintenance carpenter A-4 apprentice carpenter — first year A-5 apprentice carpenter — second year ' A-6 apprentice carpenter — third year A-7 apprentice carpenter — fourth year A-8 stand-by or keyman Per hour $2. 681/2 2.56 2.25 L49 L57 1.75 2.01 2.25 Per week $165. 25 • Schedule A off -production employe?s are guaranteed a minimum employment of 36 hours within 6 con- secutive days (excluding Sundays and holidays) starting with the day of employment. After this mini- mum guarantee of hours has been fulfilled, employment may be continued on a daily basis until termina- tion. Subsequent employment is subject to another minimum guarantee of 36 hours as above. Overtime hours (including Sundays, holidays, and golden hours) may be included in fulfilling the minimum guarantee of employment. 2 Minimum call for A-1 and A-2 shall be &\i hours for overlapping shifts. 2. Night rates (except for "on call" employees) — (a) Employees called to work between 6 a. m. and 8 p. m. shall receive a 10 percent premium for all time worked between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. (&) Employees called to work between 8 p. m. and 4 a. m. shall receive a 50 percent premium for all time worked. (c) Employees called to woi'k between 4 a. m. and 6 a. m. shall receive a 50 percent premium for all time worked until 6 a. m., and straight time for the remainder of the minimum call. 3. Studio wage scales shall prevail on all locations. 4. Present working conditions unless modified herein, to remain in effect. (Distant location working conditions to be negotiated.) 5. New wage rates and guarantees of employment to be established effective July 15, 1946. 6. Retroactive pay based on new wage i-ates to be computed and paid from January 1, 1946. (New guarantees of employment, and new night rates are not retroactive. ) MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2189 Exhibit E Los Akgeles, Calif., June 29, 19Ji6. The following Interim Agreement between Studio Carpenters Local 940; Mov- ing Picture Painters Local 644; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 40; Building Service Employees Local 278; Building Service Employees Local 193; and Screen Set Designers. Illustrators, and Decorators Local 1421; and Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, has been entered into for a period beginning January 1, 194(>, and ending with the signing of an agree- ment with the major motion picture producing companies in Los Angeles County, at which time this agreement shall terminate and the terms of the agreement between the major motion picture producing companies and the above miions shall be immediately put in effect. 1. The present duly appointed shop stewards in each of the studios controlled by the Independent Motion Picture Producers Association shall be the last work- ing man laid off, and shall not he discriminated against because of union activity, and shall in no case lie laid oft" without consultation with the Business Repre- sentative of the union involved. If no satisfactory settlement is arrived at the matter shall be submitted to arbitration. 2. (ff) All employees who perform work after 6 p. m. shall receive a ten percent (10%) hourly premium. v (ft) All employees called to work at 8 p. m. or later shall be considered as performing work on the fourth graveyard shift and shall receive straight time, plus a half-time bonus. (c) All employees called to start work at 4 a. m. or later shall receive a half- time bonus until 6 a. m., and straight time for the remainder of their minimum call. 3. The studio wage scale shall prevail at all locations. 4. All the provisions of the contracts between the Independent Motion Pic- ture Producers Association and the above listed unions covering work from January 1st. 1944 to December 31st, 1945, which are not inconsistent with this interim agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 5. All retroactive pay shall be computed at the rate herein prescribed, except that any person who worked forty-eight (48) hours or more in any one week shall receive for the first forty-eight (48) hours retroactive pay for actual hours worked, and for all hours in excess of forty-eight (48) hours payment shall be at the rates herein prescribed. No further obligation shall be put on the Inde- pendent Motion Picture Producers Association for any retroactive pay whatsoever as a result of a higher increase received from the major studios. Retroactive shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the signing of the interim agreement. 6. It is agreed between the parties hereto that a thirty-six (36) hour minimum call shall prevail, but the same shall not be applied retroactively. 7. Minimum call for Carpenters, Painters and IBEW #40 men to be one week, except stand-bys, scenic artists and sign painters, and ca.suals for small companies while not working at P-R-C or Monogram. 8. It is agreed by the parties to this Interim Agreement that if the Independent Motion Picture Producers Association grants to any craft unaffiliated with the Conference of Studio Unions wage increases in excess of those provided by this Interim Agreement, the Conference unions shall be given an additional increase sufficient to equal the increase or increases given to such other craft unions. 9. The Independent Motion Picture Producers Association agrees to comply with the vacation provisions of the 1944 contract with the major producers. Where a member of the Independent Motion Picture Producers Association oper- ates no physical property but hires members of the above mentioned crafts on his own pay roll, such employees shall receive their vacation allowance concur- rently with his regular pay and at a rate equal to four (4%) percent of his regular pay. 10. The wage scale provided herein shall go in effect July 8, 1946. 11. The pay increases provided for by the agreement shall be retroactive to January 1, 1946. 67383— 48— vol. 3 44 2190 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Following are sheets showing the wage scale that shall prevail : ******* (A) Carpenters, per week for 36-hour week $81.00 (B) Carpenter gang boss (including a half -hour pick-up) 103.78 (C) Foremen 108. 54 (D) Stand-by on production shall be guaranteed $20.25 for an eight hour call. (E) Flat salaried foremen minimum 165.25 (F) Apprentices pay to be raised in proportion to journeymen. WAGE SCALE, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND WORKING CONDITIONS 1. Studio minimum wage scale : A. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Studio Local No. 946 Schedule A— Per day 6 hours 1 1.^ after 6 Studio rates > Schedule B— Weekly guar- antee 36 hours, foreman and gang boss one-half hour, pick-up each day Schedule C— Weekly "on call" A-1 Construction and/or maintenance foreman A-2 Construct'on and/or maintenance gang boss 2.68 2.56 2.25 1.49 1.57 1.75 2.01 2.25 108. 54 103. 78 81.00 53.64 56.70 63.00 72.36 81.00 165 25 A-3 Journeyman and 'or maintenance carpenter A-6 Apprentice carpenter, third year A-7 Apprentice carpenter, fourtli year (Signed:) Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, by I. E. Chadwick, president ; Studio Carpenters Local 946, by J. N. Skelton ; Moving Picture Painters Local 644, by E. C. Head ; International Brother- hood of Electric Workers, Local 40, by Roy Tindall ; Building Service Employees Local 278, by John J. Lyons ; Building Service Emplyoees Local 193, by Tod Camp, secretary-treasurer, business agent; Screen Set Designers, Illustrators and Decorators Local 1421, by E. M. Gilbert ; Conference of Studio Unions, by Herbert K. Sorrell. Exhibit F International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada international building, 030 fifth avenue, new YORK 20, n. y. Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor Hollywood-Roosevelt Hotel, Hollywood 28, California, April I4, 1945. To All Foimer Studio Employees: Because of the confusion which has existed with respect to the current con- troversy in the motion-picture studios, I am writing you this personal letter to give you the position and viewpoint of the International Alliance . I realize that you, as a member of one of the striking unions, have received a one-sided and biased story. Therefore, I want to give you this brief outline of the other side. First of all I want you to know that the International Alliance has reached an agreement with the producers association by which the lATSE will supply all labor to the studios, not only in our crafts which were recognized before the strike, but also in those classifications which have been vacated by the striking MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2191 unions. The lA assumed this responsibility only after we were certain that it was impossible to reach an honorable settlement with those persons who are conducting this strike against the lATSE. This strike was called, presumably, because of a controversy over set dressers, the total number of which is 77, but of which number only 52 worked for the major producers. A great deal has been said to convey the impression that the controversy arose because of an arbitrary position by the lATSE, but a complete review of the case will show beyond contradiction that had the painters union observed the proper governmental and trade-union procedure for handling such matters, the controversy would never have arisen. Brierty, let me say that in January of 1944, the lATSE had made a claim for the right to represent the set dressers because a substantial number of them had always belonged to the lA. In denying the request of the lA for recognition as the'bargaining agency for these men, the producers promised the lA that neither it nor any other union would be recognized as the bargaining agency until such union had been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. In October of 1944 the painters union presented its case to the National Labor Relations Board so that it might be certified, but withdrew when the lA was allowed an opportunity to present its position in the matter. As everyone knows, a strike was called in an effort to force the producers to recognize the painters as the bargaining agency, irrespective of the rights of the lATSE under the National Labor Relations Act. Since that time the painters union has made a series of threats which have apparently influenced some governmental agencies, but all of which have been for the purpose of keeping the dispute from the proper governmental tribunal, the National Labor Relations Board. Finally, these threats culminated in the actual strike which took place on March 12, more than a month ago. There was no more .iustification for the March 12 strike than there was for the October 5 strike, but now we all recognize that the set dressers' dispute was only the excuse for the March 12 strike and not the real reason for it. The real reason was the demand on the part of the carpenters and other crafts for the .iurisdiction which the lA unions have enjoyed, and they ap- parently feel that with the war shortage of manpower, this was their oppor- tunity "to take it by force. The lA has responded in the only way that it could respond, by preventing these unions from shutting down the studios. For 3 weeks every possible effort was made by the lATSE to bring about an honorable settlement of this dispute. At the end of that time it was very evident to everyone that there was no basis for an honorable settlement ; that the only adjustment that could be arrived at was a settlement which would desroy the jurisdiction which the lATSE has fought for an enjoyed for many years. The decision was therefore made that the lA would not surrender, but that it would defend itself with all the power at its command. On Tuesday night of this week a carpenter's local was charatered and is now known as local No. 787 of the lATSB. On Thursday night, the Motion Picture Studio Painters, Local No. 7S8 of the lATSE was chartered. In addition to these locals, there will be a local charter for machinists, and if necessary for other crafts. We are proceeding in accordance with our agreement with the producers to man the studios. If you as a former employee of tlie studios want to come back we are anxious to have you do so and we shall make it as easy as iwssible for you. To this end, I want to inform you that those men who came back at once will be taken into these newly established unions without the payment of any initiation fee. You will be given membership in an autonomous local union of the lATSE, which will elect its own oflScers, negotiate its own agreements, and otherwise conduct its own affairs as a local union, in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the lATSE. I hope that you will decide to come back to work in the studios, but if you do not we will have to bring in the men necessary to man tJiese studios. They must and will be kept rolling — for the protection of the thousands of our members and their families whose livelihood depends upon the moving-picture industry. I recognize the diflSculty which you as an individual workman must face in making this decision, but in making it we ask you — do not be deceived by the men who led you out on this strike and have since made promise after promise all of which have been successively broken. As the International President of the lATSE I assure you that having assumed this jurisdiction, we will stake the entire strength of the International Alliance on our efforts to retain it. We believe — we know — we will be successful. In 2192 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES the light of this we hope tliat you will decide to come back and, as a member of the lATSE, assume your former position in the studios before we find it necessary to bring outside men to fill the jobs. Yours very truly, (Signed) Riciiakd F. Walsh, International President. Exhibit G Agreement It is mutually agreed lietween Motion IMcture Studio Grips' Local 80, of the lATSE. and Motion Picture Studio Carpenters" Local 946, of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, as follows : That Motion Picture Studio Carpenters" Local 946. shall have jurisdiction over : 1. All temporary and permanent building construction work and the main- tenance of same. This shall not cover any building done for the purpose of photographing. 2. The installing and handling of all hardwood and glass. 3. The complete building, erection, reerction and remodeling of all sets, streets, parts of sets and retakes, including sufficient platforms for shooting same, but not including platforms used exclusively for the camera, lighting equipment, and dolly tracks. Sets used for process or trick photography shall be considered the same as any other .set. 4. The building and manufacturing of all grip equipment which is made of wood or wood substitutes. 5. All wod crating for shipping or storing. 6. The operation of all woodworking machinery. 7. The construction and i-emodeling of all cut-outs and the erection of same, with the exception of fold and hold cut-outs. 8. Heavy construction on all wooden diffusing frames.. 9. The building or erection and dismantling of all scaffolds for construction, with the exception of tubular steel scaffolding. 10. Remodeling of all sets while shooting on studios or on location. 11. The underpinning and construction of all platforms with the exception of those used exclusively for camera, light and dolly track platforms. That Motion Picture Studio Grips' Local 80 shall liave jurisdiction over: 1. The handling of all sets and units from the mill to the stage, from stage to stage, from stage to scene dock, from .scene dock to mill, and from scene dock to stage. 2. The handling and maintenance of all grip equipment. 3. The erection and handling of all fold and hold cut-outs. 4. The construction, luaintenance and handling of all diffusing frames, with the exception of heavy construction on wooden frames. 5. The building, erection and dismantling of all tubular steel scaffolding. This is not to include underpinning. 6. The construction of all platforms, including underpinning, for use exclusively by camera, lighting equipment and for supporting dolly tracks. The agreement reflected in the setting forth of the above jurisdictional points is not intended by eitJier party to reflect the full jurisdiction of these locals in the studios, but does reflect the agreement which has been reached between the representatives of Local 946 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and Motion Picture Studio Grips' Local SO, of the lATSE, on the jurisdictional points which were at issue between these two local unions. It is further recognized that some of the jurisdictional points to which Local 80 has agreed are at issue between the Carpenters' Local 946 and other local unions of the lATSE local with the exception of Grips' Local 80. Dated this 13th day of November, 1945. Motion Picture Studio Carpenters' Local 946, of the United Brother- hood or Carpenters and Joiners of America (signed) James N. Skelton, Eric E. Hokanson, Maurice R. Nelson, Roy V. Lockridge ; Motion Picture Studio Grips' Local 80 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of United States and Canada (signed) W. C. Barrett, Wm. Holbrook. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2193 Exhibit H Chicago, Illinois, December 20, 19'f5. In conformity with the Executive Council directive handed down during the Cincinnati meeting, October 15-24, 1945, the special committee arrived in Holly- wood, California, early in December. The directive carried specific instructions, reading : "International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Ma- chine Operators of the United States and Canada — Brotherhood of Painters. Decorators and I'aperhangers of America — United' Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et cetera. Hollywood studio union strike and jurisdic- tion controversy : "1. The council directs that the Hollywood strike be terminated immediately. "2. That all employees return to work immediately. "3. That for a period of thirty days the International Unions affected make every attempt to settle the jurisdictional questions involved in the dispute. "4. That after the expiration of thirty days a committee of three members of the Executive Council of the American I'ederation of Labor shall investigate and determine within thirty days all jurisdictional questions still involved. "5. That all parties concerned, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Inter- national Association of Machinists, the United Association of Plumbers and Steam P^'itters of the United States and Canada, the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work ers of America, and the Building Service Employees' International Union, accept as final and binding such decisions and determinations as the Executive Council committee of three may finally render." All parties agreed to accept the decision of the committee and to be bound thereb}'. Through committee arrangements made prior to arrival all organizations involved in the dispute participated in the initial meeting held Monday, December 3, 1945. A definite method of procedure was agreed upon and there was unanimity of opinion on the plan established. Exhaustive hearings were conducted by the committee and a complete tran- script, together with various exhil)its w^re included in the record. Representa- tives of the Unions involved adhered to the following schedule: Tuesday morning, December 4, 1945 — Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America. Tuesday afternoon, December 4, 1915 — International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America. ^^'ednesday morning, December 5, 194.5 — United Association of Pluml>ers and Steam Fitters of the United States and Canada. Wednesday afternoon, December 5, 1945 — Building Service Employees' Interna- tional Union. Thursday morning, December 6, 194.5 — International Association of ^Machinists. Thursday afternoon, December 6, 194.5 — United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Friday, December 7 and Saturday afternoon, December 8, 1945 — International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. On Saturday morning, December 8, the committee, along with one representa- tive of each International Union listed in the Executive Council directive, visited the Paramount Studios in Hollywood. The committee investigated and insiiected all phases of the work jurisdiction in dispute through questioning the participants and reviewing completed work and items in the process of development. The investigation revealed that a large poi-tion of the work has been in dispute over a long period of years. Records supplied from the files of the American Federation of Labor, including numerous agreements previously entered into, were made the subject of committee examination and study. A number of International Unions not included in the Executive Council's directive requested permission to set forth their jurisdictional claims in the Motion Picture Industry. All such requests were denied and only those Unions listed in the original directive were included in the committee explorations and findings. 2194 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES An analysis disclosed that three possible methods of solution could be uti- lized, i. e. — (a) Strict adherence to craft or vertical lines of demarcation in the motion picture studios. (&) Establishment of an industrial or horizontal union throughout the industry. (c) A division of work designations within the industry patterned after previous agreements, negotiated mutually by the various crafts. After careful and thorough study the committee unanimously agreed that the latter plan is unquestionably the best method of approach. It is the com- mittee's considered opinion that such nrocedure affords the only plausible solution to a most difficult and complex problem. Accordingly, this decision is ba.sed on that premise and the below listed con- clusions are final and binding on all parties concerned : FINDINGS if * » * * * * ^ 6. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : The committee rules that the division of work agreement entered into between the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Oper- ators of the United States and Canada on February 5, 1925, and known as the 1926 Agreement be placed in full force and effect immediately. Division of work by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America : Section 1. All trim and mill work on sets and stages. Section 2. All mill work and carpenter work in connection with studios. Section 3. All work in carpenter shops. Section 4. All permanent construction. Section 5. All construction work on exterior sets. Division of work by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada : Section 6. Miniature sets. Section 7. Property building. Section 8. Erection of sets on stages except as provided in Section 1. Section 9. Wrecking all sets, exterior and interior. Section 10. Erecting platforms for lamp operators and camera men on stages. This decision is applicable to the Motion Picture Industry and none other, and is not to be construed as interfering with or disrupting any jurisdiction otherwise granted the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America by the American Federation of Labor. (Signed) Felix H. Knight, Chairman. W. C. Birthright, W. C. DOHEKTY, Executive Council Committee of the American Federation of Lahor. Exhibit I Chicago, Illinois, August 16, 1946. Pursuant to instructions handed down by the Executive Council at its session held on August 15, 1946, the Hollywood Jurisdictional Committee reviewed the work division applicable to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America as set forth in the (Jonimittee's decision dated December 26, 1945, and reaffirmed its previous decision. The Committee took cognizance of the allegations contained in a report sub- mitted to President Green by Organizer Daniel V. Flanagan under date of August 9, 1946. According to a brief embodied therein Studio Carpenters Local 946, U. B. of C & J. of A., alleges that certain violations have taken place whereby the carpenters jurisdiction set forth in the directive has been encroached upon. Jui'isdiction over the erection of sets on stages was awarded to the Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada under the provisions set forth in Section 8 of the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2195 decision wliich specifically excluded trim and mill work on said sets and stages. The word "erection" is construed to mean assemblage of such sets on stages or locations. It is to be clearly understood that the Committee recognizes the juris- diction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners' jurisdiction. Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, recognized the rightful jurisdiction of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America on all mill woi-k and carpenter work in connection with studios, all work in carpenter shops, all permanent construction, and all construction work on exterior sets. In view of the alleged violations, the Committee hereby directs that all partici- pants in the Hollywood Motion Picture Studio dispute strictly adhere to the provi- sions of the directive handed down on December 26, 1945. (Signed) Felix Knight. W. C. Birthright. W. C. DOHERTY. Exhibit J April 28, 1947. Mr. Richard F. Walsh, President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York 20, New York. Dear Sir and Brother : The Executive Council at its meeting held here in Washington beginning April 21st, gave special consideration to reports that a large degree of confusion and uncertainty had arisen in the minds of many directly interested in the Hollywood jurisdictional dispute, as to the scope and meaning of the clarification made by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright, and Doherty of their previous decision in the dispute, which I sent you under date of August 27, 1946. I am therefore submitting to you the Executive Council's clear, definite, and simple interpretation of the clarification referred to. The interpretation is as follows : Jurisdiction over the assembling of sets on stages was awarded to the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. Jurisdiction over the construction of sets was awarded to the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. By direction of the Executive Council I am calling upon all organizations interested and affected to comply with this interpretation of the clarification of the decision rendered by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright, and Doherty. This communication is sent you by direction of the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor. Fraternally yours, (Signed by William Green) President, American Federation of Labor. Exhibit K Emergency Working Card Division of Set Erection IATSE Local 468 11-18-1946. Issued to E. Snow Under Conditions Set Forth On Back Of This Card Not Transferable Revocable for Cause [Union label] This card issued for work under the Jurisdiction of Local 468 of the IATSE and MPMO of U. S. and Canada. The undersigned in accepting this Emergency 2196 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Working Card authorizes, designates, and chooses the said Labor Organization to negotiate, bargain collectively, present, and discuss grievances with the above employer as his representative and sole, executive collective, bargaining agency in all respects. The undersigned agrees to abide by the Constitution and By- Laws, decisions, rules, regulations, and working conditions of Local 468 of the lATSE and MPMU of U. S. and Canada. The undersigned will surrender this Emergency Working Card and the position held thereunder upon demand of Local 468. It is recognized that the issuailce and acceptance of this Emergency Working Card does not entitle the undersigned to membership in Local 468 or to any rights against or within said Union. (Agreed to) Elzyn Snow. Exhibit L American Federation op Labor [Letterhead] Washington, D. C, August 27, 1946. Mr. Richard F. Walsh, President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees <& Moving Picture Machine Operators oj U. S. and Canada, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York 20, N. Y. Dear Sir and Brother : I enclose copy of a statement of clarification prepared by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthright, and Doherty of the American Federation of Labor, who rendered a decision in the jurisdictional disputes in the motion- picture studios at Hollywood, California, dated December 26, 1945. Said statement is self-explanatory and is transmitted to you as a matter of information. It is sent you by direction of the Executive Council of the American Federation of Lahor. Fraternally yours, (Signed) Wm. Grjeen. President, American Federation of Labor. Exhibit M August 31, 1946. Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., ■')504 Hollyirood Boulevard, Hollywood 2S, California. Gentlemen : I have received from President Green of the American Federation of Labor a communication inclosing a copy of a statement described as "clarifica- tion" of the decision in the Hollywood Jurisdictional dispute, made by Vice Presidents Knight, Birthi-ight and. Doherty dated Decemlter 26, 194.5. It is the contention of this International Union that this so called "clarification" was issued without authority and in violation of the Cincinnati Agreement to which this Inernational Alliance, yourselves, and the other International Unions involved were all parties. The Cincinnati Agreement in making provision for the creation of the three man committee, specifically provided that the parties thereto accept the Committee's decision as final and binding. If the Committee's decision as originally rendered is not fully complied with by you this International Alliance will take such action as may be necessary to protect its interests. Yours very truly, (Signed) Richard F. Walsh. International President. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2197 Exhibit N [lATSE seal] [lATSE seal] Inteknational Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada international building, C,:\0 fifth AVE., new YORK 20, N. Y. Affiliated with tlie American Federation of Labor Telephones: Circle 5- (4370) (4371) (4372) New York 20, N. Y., September 13, 1946. To all Hollywood Studio Local Unions of the lATSE and the members thereof: I have been informed that certain Unions not affiliated with the lATSE may establish stoppages, strikes, boycotts, or picket lines at the Hollywood Stndios, or some of them. By virtue of my authority as International President, and pursuant to authoriza- tion of the General Executive Board, and in accordance with the mandate of the last Convention of the lATSP], I hereby officially notify you : 1. That such stoppages, strikes, boycotts, and picket lines are in direct opposi- tion to the best interests of the lATSE, its Local LTnions, and its membership and are not in any way to be recognized, honored, or supported by you, and you are not in any way to refuse to render service because of tlieuL 2. That until the end of tiie Hollywood Studio emergency, as determined by the General Office, you are not to observe any trade jurisdictional lines in the Hollywood Studios; except that you ai'e not to deem this an authorization to work in the jurisdiction of any local union whose members are not engaged in any stoppage, strike, boycott, or picketing. 3. That the finished product of these Studios bears the label of the lATSE, and it is my duty to protect that label and that product for the best interests of the lATSE as a whole, its Local L'nions, and memliership. 4. That no other organization shall be permitted, directly or indirectly, to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the lATSE or its Local Unions in the Hollywood Studios; and that the employment of the members thereof shall not be interfered with or adversely affected. 5. That the source of supply for the amusement industry throughout the United States and Canada shall not be interfered with, and the employment of lATSE members throughout these countries shall not be adversely affected. 6. That International Representative Roy M. Brewer is hereby authoriz?d and directed to carry out the foregoing and to implement the same as in his judgment the circumstances warrant. (Signed) Richard F. Walsh, (utrrnational President. Interiiafioiial Alliance Theatrical Stage Em- ploi/es and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. Exhibit O June 26, 1947. Dear Brother Member ; Immediately upon receipt of this letter, you will cease to service any independent production, or independent studio starting a new picture, without first obtaining permission from this office. Any violation of the above will result in serious charges, and you will please adhere to the above order in compliance with the By-Laws of our International, Article One, Section One. Cooperatively yours, /s/ James L. Noblitt, Rrc. Sectij., lATSE d MPMO.. U. S. d Canada. Local #80, Hollywood, Calif. 2198 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Exhibit P National Labor Relations Board Twenty-First Region, 111 West Seventh St., Los Angeles, Calif. Case No. 21-R-4086, No. 21-R-4087, No. 21-R-4088 In the Matter of Columbia Pictures Corporation ; Paramount Pictures, Inc. ; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. ; Loew's, Incorporated ; Universal Pictures Com- pany, Inc. ; R. K. O. Radio Pictures, Inc. ; Samuel Goldwyn Productions, Inc. ; Republic Productions, Inc. ; Hal E. Roach Studio, Inc. ; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. ; Enterprise Studios and General Service Studios and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes & Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. NOTICE OF FILING OF PETITION A Petition for Investigation and Certification of Representatives in this mat- ter has been filed with this office. If your organization or any affiliated union claims an interest in this proceeding, it must submit to the Field Examiner by August 22, 1947, an alphabetical list of the employees in the unit set out below whom the organization asserting an interest claims to represent and must also submit evidence of interest among these employees which may consist of mem- bership records, authorization or designation cards. If no evidence of interest is received from intervening organizations by the prescribed date, we shall as- sume that any such organization does not desire to lie a party to this proceeon the technical questions on the law. So I asked the re- gional office at Los Angeles for the privilege of accompanying these carpenters to the hearing officer or to the preliminary examining officer, not to interfere in any way with the officer, but to see that inquiry was made of the witnesses to develop the material facts. That privilege was denied me. I then, in order to make a record of that request, did it by telegram to the regional office. Upon its denial I telegraphed a copy of it to the general counsel of the Labor Relations Board and received a denial from his office, signed by a subordinate. Copies of my telegram and of the denial are available in the files of the Labor Board. Since being here attending these hearings I have received two letters from the regional director of the Labor Board at Los Angeles, dated March 2, 1948, one letter as to one group of charges against the lATSE, and the other letter, in similar form, as to the other group of charges. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2201 I ^Yill now file these two letters for the record and would like to read them at this point. The letters are addressed to me. The first letter reads : Dear Sir : The above-caotioned cases charging a violation nntler section S of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, have been carefully investigated and considered. As a result of the investigation, it does not appear that there is suflieient evi- dence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time and I am, there- fore, refusing to issue complaint in this matter. It cannot be maintained that a .jurisdictional controversy, the outcome of which is more successful to one union, is grounds for an 8 (b) (1) charge, and there is no evidence of discrimination by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (lATSE) against individual employees. There is no evidence to sustain the 8 (b) (4) (A), (B), and (C) charges. The lATSE is not striking. Our investigation discloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitration award of a committee of the A; F. of L. Executive Council. Fur- ther, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. No evidence has been submitted to discriminatory initiation fees or dues being charged by the lATSE or of feather-bedding tactics being employed by the lATSE, and hence the 8 (b) (5) and 8 (b) (6) charges cannot be sustained. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board rules and regulations, you may obtain a review of this act by filing a request for such review with the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Washington 25, D. C, and a copy with me. This request must contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which they are based. The request should be filed within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter, except the general counsel may, upon good cause shown, grant special permission for a longer period within which to file. I wish to call the committee's attention to these features of the letter : * * * there is no evidence of discrimination by the lATSE against indi- vidual employees. At the time of the Los Angeles hearings of this committee I fur- nished the general counsel of the Labor Board with, an official copy of the transcript of hearings before this committee. Later, when those were mimeographed, I furnished a complete mimeographed copy with the regional office of the labor board at the time of filing the charges, and asked that each and all material facts set fortji therein be con- sidered as evidence in their preliminary consideration of the case. I wish also to call attention Mr. Landis. Would you read the whole letter? Mr. Cobb. I did, sir. I wish also to call attention to the statement that the lATSE is not striking. We had made no charge that they were striking. It is not material to the issues in this cancer spot of American labor relations that the lATSE was not striking. The significant thing is that they had threatened to close the motion-picture theaters of America, so as to deny the production companies exhibition of their films, if their terms Avere not met by the production companies. I call attention to the statement : Further, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. We have not charged that they caused the carpenters to strike be- cau.se the carpenters have no strike. The carpenters did not strike. The carpenters were locked out. It is an improper statement for the regional office to say it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike, when it 2202 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES has been shown that the lATSE by their threats to the companies, and in their conspiracy with the companies, did cause the carpenters to be locked out. I call attention also to the statement that — No evidence has been submitted to discriminatory initiation fees or dues being charged by the lATSE or of feather-bedding tactics being employed by the lATSE. * * * Those facts are contained in the transcript of the hearings of this committee, copies of which I furnished both the general counsel in Washington and the regional office in Los Angeles. Now, Mr. Chairman, under the same date a second letter was written pertaining to other cases against the lATSE. The above-captioned cases charging a violation under section 8 of tlie National Labor Relations Act, as amended, have been carefully investigated and considered. As a result of the investigation, it does not appear that there is suflicient evi- dence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time and I am, there- fore, refusing to issue complaint in this matter. There is no evidence to sustain the 8 (b) (4) (B) charges because the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (lATSE) is not striking. Our in- vestigation discloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitratit)n avpard of a committee of the A. F. of L. executive council. Further, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. I wish to state, Mr. Chairman, that they do not insist upon that award, any more than the locked-out carpenters of Holly wood, insist upon that award. The difference between us is that they insist upon a false construction of the award, while we insist upon the actual de- cision made by the three-man committee, as shown by the clarification, and as I shall show by book and page references from the record and by citation of court decisions in the written brief you have kindly authorized me to file. Then there is the same paragraph in conclusion as the other with regard to our right to ask for review. Referring back to the first letter : Our investigation discloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitration award * * * There is no statement as to how that insistence was made. There is no statement as to when and how any conference was had with the lATSE. There is no statement to show what opportunity was af- forded the locked-out carpenters to either cross-examine the lATSE or to be heard in answer to the insistence which the regional office apparently received from the lATSE. It is an unfortunate condition, Mr. Chairman, when the agency of government charged with the responsibility of removing cancer spots from labor relations proceeds ex parte. Ex parte proceedings died with the star chamber under British jurisprudence. Ex parte pro- ceedings in labor relations have no rightful place in our country or under our laws. In support of this statement I have quoted a paragraph from an opinion written by the late Justice Cardozo. While pretending no superior knowledge as a lawyer, I have been a student of the decisions of the Supreme Court for 45 years. Sometimes we do not appreciate the man of our own day and time. But after I have read to you, sir, the language of this decision by Justice Cardozo, I believe that thought- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2203 fill men, whether they be hiwyers or hiborers — thoughtful men of good will who don't want cancer spots in our country, thoughtful men who want solutions to conflicts, solutions that will be fair alike to all parties concerned — will agree with me in the statement that I make : From the beginning of the Supreme Court of our country, considering the most masterful opinions ever written by John Mar- shall, considering the high form of literature that is found in the opinions of our highest court, I do not believe that there is an opinion from the beginning of the Court to this day that is any clearer, that is any more concise, that is any more complete ou' a subject of vast importance to government and people, than this paragraph written by Justice Cardozo. I wish that it might have been my privilege to have paid him this tribute in his lifetime. I am happy to pay the tribute now and to bring to the attention of Congress and the country a statement of law by a master in learning and in the use of the English language. That quotation comes at the conclusion of the letter which I wrote to Hon. Robert Robert N. Denham, general counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C, in re the cases mentioned. I wrote two letters, one for each group of cases, the two letters being identical in form. I ask that this letter be inserted in the record at this point, following the letters from the regional director to me already read : Dear Sir : Receipt is acknowledged of notice from Mr. Howard F. LeBaron, regional director at Los Angeles, that the above cases were dismissed on the 2d instant upon the ground of insvifficient evidence. Mr. LeBaron's letter states that we "may obtain a review of this act by tiling a request for such review with the general counsel." That request is now resi)ectfully presented upon each of the issues made by the regional director, and upon the records and files of the Board in Wasliington and Los Angeles, and upon all evidence before the Board, in the above and each and all related cases, including : 1. The transcript of the Los Angeles hearings before the congressional special subcommittee of the House Connnittee on Education and Labor, showing the threats of the lATSE, and the conspiracy of the lATSE and the major motion- picture companies, to deprive all carpenter members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and .Joiners of America, Hollywood Studio Local, No. 946, of all their work tasks, and right to work, under their existing contracts. 2. The application of the lATSE to be certified as bargaining agent for car- penters, while the lATSE traspasses upon the work tasks belonging to the carpenters under long-standing contracts, and while the bona fide carpenters are locked out of the, studios, unless they waive their existing collectively bar- gained agreement and employment contract. 3. The so-called Komaroff charges, in case No. 21-CD-ll, including our answer and prayer thereto. Upon the review we respectfully request a fair and open hearing, before a fair and impartial hearing officer, with tlie right to subpena, examine, and cross- examine witnesses. This request is based upon the law governing administration agencies, as determined by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by that unsurpassed jurist, the late Justice Cardoza (Ohio Bell Teleph. Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 301 U. S. 202, 304 ; 81 L. ed. 1093, 1101) : "Regulatory commissions have been invested witli broad powers within the sphere of duty assigned to them by law. Even in quasi-judicial proceedings their informed and expert judgment exacts and receives a proper deference from courts when it has been reached with due submission to constitutional restrain- ings (citing cases). Indeed, much that they do within the realm of administra- tive discretion is exempt from .supervision if those restraints have been obeyed. All the more insistent is the need, when power has been bestowed so fx'eely, that the 'inexorable safeguard' (citing cases) of a fair and open hearing be main- tained in its integrity (citing cases). The right to such a hearing is one of the 2204 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 'rudiments of fair play' ("citing eases) assured to every litigant by the fourteenth amendment as a minimal requirement (citing cases). There can be no compro- mise on the footing of convenience or expediency, or because of the natural desire to be rid of harassing delay, when that minimal requirement has been neglected or ignored." Respectfully submitted. Zach Lamab Cobb, Attorney for the Complaining and Locked Out Carpenters of Hollywood, and their Carpenters Local Union No. 946. Now, Mr. Chairman, the question was very properly asked by Mr. Owens, of the committee, as to what had been done to bring a solution to this problem through the agency of the National Labor Relations Board. I have shown you what has been done by the carpenters. Mr. Landis. Could you give us a date on that 'i Mr. Cobb. The charges were dated October 22, 1947, some 6 weeks after the hearing in Los Angeles. In making the charges you will note from the record I have placed before you, tliat all charges against the lATSE were embraced in one document for each of the studios. A ruling has just come out from the Washington office that certain of the charges should be segregated from the others, so that those certain charges were refiled on October 25, 1947. Now I understand, of course, that under the law the Labor Board cannot go back of 6 months, except where unfair labor practices that occurred more than 6 months prior to the date of the charges, have been kept alive and continued from their first occurrence, to within the 6 months' period. And it is shown in the charges that the unfair labor practices were not only continued and kept alive up to the date of the charges, but the record before this committee, I submit and will submit by book and page reference and law in the written brief to be filed with you, are still being pursued as unfair labor practices. Now, Mr. Chairman, I stated my desire to speak to you in calmness and in the spirit of good will. I have no quarrel with any person, either of counsel or of management. I have no interests except the interest of my clients, to get a square deal, and of course the public interest that the law of the square deal may prevail in labor- management relations. In seeking this square deal what more can we do than apply to the Labor Board set up by law ? And I now invite counsel for the lATSE and counsel for the major motion-picture production companies, not to put these gentlemen on the spot ; I do not call for an immediate answer from them; they will have to consult their clients before they can answer the invitation I now extend. This is our country. This is our Government. This is all that is stable and sound and good in the government of the world. No man, no company, no human being is bigger than his country. No combination of companies is bigger than the law that protects them. No labor organization is bigger than the law that permits its existence. Speaking for these locked-out carpenters in all good will, I now in- vite the lATSE and the motion-picture companies, to join in asking the Labor Board for a fair and open hearing before a fair and im- partial hearing officer, with the right of subpena, examination, and cross-examination of witnesses, alike for all parties concerned, in order that the cancer spot of America's labor relations may be removed in the orderly way of compliance with law. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2205 I do not issue this as a challenge. I issue it as a good- will invitation. And with it I ask this good Congress, and this good committee, to take note that the locked-out carpenters of Hollywood, as clean and wdiole- some and patriotic a body of citizens as exists in this, our good country, are ready, willing, and anxious to have their rights determined by th© proper constituted authorities and to be governed thereby. Now, Mr. Owens, at another point in the record, made a number of inquiries as to why the parties hadn't gone to court. I am sorry I can- not point to those particular questions now so as to quote the language of the good Congressman, but I will do so in the written brief to be filed. Wliy haven't the parties gone to court? Why hasn't industry per- mitted itself to be in the position that prevails today? Wliy has the lATSE permitted itself to be in the position it is in today? They haven't sought a court interpretation of the contracts; they haven't sought a court interpretation of the October 1945 directive, nor of the December 26, 1945, decision of the three-man committee, nor of the clarification by this committee of August 16, 1946, nor of the interpretation by the executive council, as I recall, of April 21, 1947. I am happ3' to inform the committee, however, that the law-abiding, locked-out carpenters of Hollywood do not hold themselves above the l?.w of their country. It was my privilege and honor to represent these wholesome work- ingmen in the first labor case of ni}^ life, Mr. Chairman. I have never been a labor lawyer, but for 45 years in the law practice I have had a sense of justice, a sense of right, a sense of respect for the laws of my country, and a belief that there is no wrong that cannot be righted by proceeding properly in the courts of the United States. Mr. Landis. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman would yield at this point ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, indeed ; Mr. Landis. Mr. Laxdis. You have mentioned the locked-out carpenters several times. I understand there are some carpenters working on the job. I understand the carpenters gave an ultimatum they were not going to work on the "hot" sets and in order for the producers to keep in business the}^ went to another union to hire men and carpenters to do the work. I would like you to go into that lock-out business a little more, if you will, and tell me how it is a lock-out. I cannot see how it is a lock-out. Mr. Cobb. I thank you, Mr. Landis, and I will be happy to do so. May I ask that I come to that in an orderly way ? Mr. Landis. That will be all right. Mr. Cobb. I am not avoiding it; I appreciate the question by you, sir. Mr. Landis. That will be all right. Mr. Kearns. At tliat point, the thing to determine is whether the men working as carpenters were men of local 946. Mr. Cobb. I shall answer that, sir. Mr. Landis. I understand some of those carpenters can get a job if they go to the studio and make application for a job. Some of them have been taken off and some have not. Perhaps they have been thrown out of that carpenters' local after they have taken a job, but I would like to have that explained. I think it is very important. Mr. Cobb. I am very grateful to you for asking that question, because 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 45 2206 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I think it is very important, but I do want to come to it in an orderly way. Mr. Landis. All right. Mr. Cobb. Now, the question is asked, Why we didn't go to court. Volume 5 of the hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor during last March, commencing at page 2807, contains a copy of the complaint filed by Oscar Schatte and others, as plaintiffs, against the lATSE, each of the major motion picture companies, against their own union, their own brotherhood and their related officers, so as to have all parties in court. In that complaint they did not ask one dollar of damages. Their complaint, as shown by the prayer on page 2816 of the com- mittee record, sought declaratory relief and nothing but declaratory relief. Now, how could law-abiding citizens, having a controversy with the lATSE and with the major motion picture companies, over the con- struction to be given contracts, decisions, and clarifications ; how could those law-abiding citizens do any better in patriotic observance of law than to ask the court to construe the contracts, the decision, and the clarification ? The companies and the lATSE challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal court. We had a fair hearing before the court, before a good judge. The judge took the view that the Federal court had no juris- diction because there was no diversity of citizenship. We think the court erred because where cases arise under the Con- stitution and laws of the United States, diversity of citizenship is not an essential element. That case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco and was heard by three eminent judges on that court.' I argued the case before them and for the half -hour of my argument I was never treated with greater consideration or attention, in a long law practice, than by those good judges. So I have no criticism of the circuit court of appeals. They concurred with the district court and affirmed the district court judgment that the Federal court had no jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship. I think that the circuit court — as able as those good judges are, and as highly as I respect them — I think they erred also. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am now preparing a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, because in my conception of law no question affecting the rights and the privileges of people is ever settled until it is settled by the court of last resort. Again I repeat to counsel for the lATSE, to counsel for the com- panies, and their respective clients — and without any challenge to them, in the spirit of good will — I invite them to join in asking the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari in order that the contracts, the Cincinnati directive, the three-man committee decision of December 26, 1945, the clarification of August 16, 1946, and any and all other pertinent documents may be interpreted and determined by the courts of our country. I think that that is the attitude of law-abiding citizens. I think it is a tribute to these carpenters that they are willing to submit their rights to the courts and abide by the court decision. In connection with that, Mr. Chairman, as each of the committee knows, the decision of the Labor Board is not final. Under the wise MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2207 enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act, after the Labor Board has labored or failed to labor, we have our right of redress from the Labor Board to the courts. And speaking very calmly, if the good God gives me life, no decision of any administrative officer adverse to these locked-out carpenters shall stand until I have taken it to the court of last resort under the Constitution of our country. I do not sa}' that as a threat, but those whom I have the pleasure of knowing, those who know me in the law practice will take that statement at face value and that statement will be observed and lived up to hy me at face value. I expected to make this simple statement in less time. Mr. Landis. Would you yield for a question, sir ? Mr. Cobb. Mr. Landis, a c{uestion at any time is appreciated. Mr. Lakdis. Would the carpenters be satisfied if the producers would follow the clarification? ]\Ir. Cobb. The carpenters have always been willing to abide by the clarification, Mr. Landis. Mr, Kearns. Mr. Cobb, at that point, what about the interpretation of the clarification? Mr. Cobb. The clarification is not confusing. There isn't any problem in its interpretation ; if the parties will agree to the decision of December as clarified in August, 1 think that as reasonable men in good will we can sit across the table from one another and interpret it without any difficulty. Mr. Kearns. Who asked for the interpretation of the clarification ? Mr. Cobb. We asked for the interpretation of it in this suit in the court. Mr. Kearns. Didn't that originate from Mr. Hutcheson, the in- terpretation of the clarification? Mr. Cobb. Well, that originated in the executive council. On that I would not assume to speak where Mr. Hutcheson speaks himself. You understand, Mr. Chairman, that I can speak with all my heart and soul for my carpenters in Hollywood. I say, "my carpenters" because I have stood before them repeatedly. I have seen their suffer- ing ; I have seen their fine spirit. You stand before an audience in your district. The audience appre- ciates you, you appreciate the audience. An affection exists between a good Congressman and his constituents. There is an affection be- tween me and the locked-out carpenters of Hollywood. I am proud to be their lawyer. I know how fair and reasonable they are. I know there would be no problem in the meaning of the decision and the clarification if we sat across the table in good will. But, if any problem arose, my carpenters have already asked the court to interpret it and the court interpretation could be had in short order. We could go to the Federal court in Los Angeles and have it interpreted in short order. Xow, I thank Mr. Landis for asking his question, and I invite any other questions because in the written brief to be filed I would like particularly to address tliat brief to any questions and all questions which the committee may have in mind. Now, coming to the question of the lock-out. We have to go back to the agreement between Mr. Walsh and Mr. Nicholas Schenk, made in New York for the lA to take over all work in the studios. That 2208 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES agreement is embodied in the hearings of this committee, first, in the speech that Mr. Walsh made before his lATSE convention, and second, in the testimony of Mr. Walsh himself before the committee at Los A-ngeles. Mr. Landis. Do you know the date of the agreement? Mr. Cobb. It was in the spring, as I recall, in March of 1945. I don't want to quote it from memory, but I Avill provide the conmiittee with book and page quotations on it, both as appear in the speech of Mr. Walsh and as confirmed by Mr, Walsh in his testimony at Los Angeles. So that the understanding between the producers and the lATSE was of long standing. That was approximately 18 months before the occurrences of Sej^tember 1946. Then after the decision of December 1945 and the conflicts that con- tinued making the clarification necessary, the Beverly Hills agreement was made on July 2. That agreement constitutes the agreement still in force. It was in the form of the minutes of a meeting held between the carpenters and other crafts, and the producers, and it is very significant that the lATSE was present in the meeting. Now, here is a meeting with the producers, the carpenters, and the lATSE present asd participating, reduced to minutes, with the agree- ment following it, that those minutes should constitute the agreement. In this agreement the language is used, "contract for 2 years." So we have an agreement made on July 2, 1946, providing for a con- tract for 2 years. Our contention is that that means a contract until July 1, 1948, and that that contract is in force and effect now. Mr. ivEARNS. Who signed that agreement 'i Mr. Cobb. That was signed by Pat Casey for the producers and Sorrell for the Conference of Studio Unions embracing the various crafts. Mr. Kearns. Are they duly authorized to sign that agreement ? Mr. Cobb. The testimony in the record — which I shall bring out in my brief — is to the effect that they were authorized, and is also to the effect that they acted upon the agreement and worked under the agree- ment. First you have the agreement ; second, you have testimony in the record that they were authorized ; and, third, you have the ratifica- tion by actual use of the agreement; so that in my judgment there cannot be any question. I think you will recall in the testimony of Mr. Benjamin a state- ment to the effect that the agreement was followed until September 23, 1946. I do not wish to make a quotation from the record. I will make the literal references to the record in my written brief. Mr. Landis. Could you explain there where they broke their agree- ment, the details of it ? Mr. Cobb. I will, sir. Mr. Kearns. Will counsel establish whether the testimony of Mr. Benjamin referred to is correct? Mr. McCann. I will find that, sir. Mr. Cobb. This is 6 months after the hearing, but I think you will find adequate testimony, adequate statements in the testimony of Mr. Mannix. You will recall, in effect, Mr. Mannix said the carpenters "only wanted to give us a contract for 1 year, and we made them give us a contract for 2 years." That is not literal, but that is my recollec- tion of the substance. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2209 Now, what was the nature of this contract? It provides for wa^e scales, hours of employment, and working conditions. It provides specifically for them. [Reading:] For those employees associated with organizations of, or performing the duties of journeymen carpenters, woodworking-mAchine men, and wood turners. Now. the members of this committee are familiar, of course, with the rule of law ]\Ir. Landis. Are you through with that part? The part I want to know about is the "hot" sets. Mr. Cobb. I am coming to that. Mr. Landis. All right, sir; proceed. Mr. Cobb. This committee, of course, is familiar with the rule of law that a contract governing wage scales, hours of employment, and working conditions is a collectively bargained agreement under sec- tion 7 of the Labor Act. That rule is stated in the case of /. /. Case Company v. National Labor ReUtions Board (321 U. S. 332) . So here is a collectively bargained agreement, made July 2, 1946, for a period of 2 3^ears, which we contend in law and in fact means to the second day of July 1948. Now, in the case of /. /. Case Company v. National Labor Relatione Board, in drawing the distinction between collective-bargaining agree- ments and tlie employment contracts, the court held that except in rare cases one contract would not cover both — that the collective- bargaining agreement is between union and management, that the employment is between management and individual labor; that the collective-bargaining agreement is for the benefit of the individual labor, but that the employment itself is directly between management and labor. So this contract is one of those rare instances. It provides : All crafts going back to work Wednesday a. m., July 3, 1946, without discrim- ination. Now, the "all crafts'' referred to included the carpenters in local 946. The record will show that the carpenters did go back to work on Wednesda3% July 3, and did continue at work until September 23, except in those rare instances wliere some of them were locked out on varying dates on or about September 23, 1946. So tliat this, in addition to being a collective-bargaining agreement, is also an employment contract. For how long? For 2 years. I do not now represent to the committee that that meant every individual carpenter was to work every day of 2 years, but it does mean that as carpentry work was available all carpentry work was to be done by the members of local 946 during the period of the 2 years. Now, it is very important to take up the question asked by Mr. Landis. After this contract was made, and while the carpenters were work- ing, the clarification was issued on August 16, 1946; and all parties concerned, the record will show, were notified of the clarification. Mr. Eric Johnston was notified by Mr. Green ; Mr. Walsh was notified by Mr. Green ; the carpenters were notified. Mr. Landis. The clarification came after the 2-year contract was made ? 2210 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Cobb. That is right, Mr. Landis. All parties were notified of this clarification. I think it is very important to bear in mind regarding the clarifica- tion that it does not set aside the December 26, 1945 decision. Con- gress passes a law in 1945, and maybe in a month, maybe in a year, or at any time the courts clarify that law. When the courts clarify an act of Congress, that is not a repeal of the act. When the executive council clarified the decision of December 1945, it was not a repeal of the decision, it was a clarification of it, as a court decision would be a clarification of an enactment by Congi'ess. The record will show in the testimony before Mr. Pat Casey in the present hearing, speaking from memory, in effect that the producers went to Miami to ask the executive council for a clarification of the December decision. The record will show that other crafts asked for clarification of the December decision. When the carpenters at Hollywood asked Mr. Hutcheson to ask for clarification they were not doing any more than the producers had done than asking at Miami for clarification, and any more than any of the others had done, or any more than any litigant does who goes into court and asks for clarification of an act of Congress. I would call attention to the fact that the clarification does not pur- port to repeal ; it purports only to clarify. Mr. Landis. Let's get back to this contract. Mr. Cobb. I am coming right to it. So after this clarification — not changing, but telling what the December decision meant — who made the threat? They speak of an ultimatum being served by the carpenters on September 11. Wliat threat was made before September 11? We have the letter of Mr. Walsh to the Association of Motion Picture Producers, dated August 31, 1946, closing with this paragraph : If the committee's decision — Meaning the December decision — as originally rendered is not fully complied with by yon, this international alliance will take such action as may be necessary to protect its interests. Now, sir, what did they mean by "such action" ? There was a meeting in Hollywood of the Producers Labor Commit- tee on August 22. That was more than 2 weeks, practically 3 weeks, before what has been called the ultimatum of the carpenters. Mr. Walsh, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Brewer were present at that meeting representing the lATSE. I make that statement by reading those shown to be present. ' Mr. Landis. Could you tell me the difference between that statement or that letter and the carpenters' ultimatum ? Mr. Cobb. Yes ; I am doing that now. I have read you the paragraph in the letter. Then on August 22, 1 week after the clarification, they meet. The minutes are very short. Discussed new A. F. of L. directive as to its effects on the existing conditions and what it may lead to. MO'lIO-N -PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2211 Later Walsh advises that any company that makes one single change in the admin- istration of the A. F. of L. directive in compliance with the new interpretation will have all work stopped in the studios, exchanges, and theaters. That was nearly 3 weeks before Mr. Cambiano's appearance before the committee with what is termed the ultimatum. Here was an ultimatum that if they made one single change Mr. Landis. That was after the contract was signed ? Mr. Cobb. That was after the contract was signed. If they make one single change, all work will be stopped in the studios. That means a strike by the lA in the studios, in the ex- changes ; that means a strike in the distribution of the films, and in the theaters ; that means a strike in the exhibition of the films. Those four lines are of great significance. Mr. Landis. Didn't the carpenters come along later and make about the same proposition ? Mr. Cobb. I am taking it chronologically. Mr. Landis. All right, proceed. Mr. Cobb. Here is the threat by the lA to strike in the studios, ex- changes, and theaters. Now, to strike upon what ? Upon — any one single change in the administration of the A. F. of L. directive in com- pliance with the new interpretation. That is the same as if they said — an act of Congress was passed; a court has interpreted that act of Congress as to its meaning; but "we will close your studios, exchanges, and theaters if you accept that in- terpretation by the courts." Because, mind you, the executive council of the A. F. of L. is its court. Mr. McCann. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Cobb, Now, Mr. Landis, we asked that this threat Mr. Landis. They did not say strike ? Mr. Cobb. Well, we said threat or strike. Mr. McCann. Mr. Landis, there is ample testimony received from the industry representatives to the effect that the way they inter- preted that was that if they made the slightest change in the directive of December 26, 1945, the studios would be closed and the motion-pic- ture theaters would be closed. They had to choose between the threat of the lA and the threat of the carpenters. That is in the record in different places. Mr. Landis. There is no difference between their threat and the carpenters' threat. Here they put the employer in the middle. Mr. Cobb. No. What I want to make clear Mr. Landis. The point I want you to make clear to me is tliat there was certain work the carpenters were doing before the contract was made; there was certain work done after the contract was made, whether it was the same work they had been doing or not ; and then up to the ultimatum, if the same work was carried on up to the ulti- matum, the question I am asking is. How did the producers break the contract ? 2212 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now, if that work was carried on the same from the sio:nino: of the contract up until the uUimatum, that makes a different picture, but if the work was changed that is also a different picture. Mr. Cobb. I am ver}^ grateful for the question and I am happy to answer it. The record will show — and I will show by careful quotations from the record, with book and page references — that there was not an acquiescence in the lA interpretation of the December 26, 1945, deci- sion, but that there was a rumiing controversy up until the clarifica- tion. That is No. 1. No. 2 is that the clarification does not change the December agree- ment; it merely states what the December agreement meant. Mr. Landis. Does it change the July agreement? Mr. Cobb. It does not change the July agreement because the December decision, the July agreement, and the clarification must all be considered and interpreted together. Mr. McCanx. May I interrupt you there, Mr. Cobb ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir . Mr. McCanx. For the sake of the Chair I now have found the testimony which has been referred to and we will read it into the record. It is very brief. Mr. Landis. Let us finish this point first. Mr. McCaxn, It is on this July 2 matter and I thought you would want to put it in here. [Reading :] Ml". McCann. Did the various companies observe the July 2, 1946, agreement up until the clay the carpenters were ordered off the lots? Mr. Benjamin. I am informed they did. I have read from the testimony of Mr-. Benjamin on pages 1513 and 1514 of the Hollywood hearings. Mr. Cobb. I thought my memory was correct on that. Mr. Laxdis. The point I want to make is this : AVlierein did the pro- ducers change the work or break the contract that was signed in July ? Mr. Cobb. And I want to meet that directly in this way: First, what did the December decision mean ? Mr. Laxdis. Of course, they signed the contract in July. Mr. Cobb. I understand they signed the contract in July based upon the true meaning of the December decision. Mr. Laxdis. All right ; we will take that for granted. Mr. Cobb. I find as we go along, Mr. Landis, that there is going to be a happy community of thought between us. Mr. Kearns. We will adjourn now until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m.) AFTERXOOX SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. Kearxs. The hearing will come to order, please. Mr. Cobb, you may proceed. TESTIMONY OF ZACH LAMAR COBB— Continued Mr. Cobb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kearns. We left off where j^ou were establishing the point for Mr. Landis. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2213 Mr. Cobb. Yes. I would like to make a concise analysis of the con- trolling features of tlie several contracts, and then answer the question kindly asked by Mr. Landis and any other questions that may be asked, to the best of my ability. The December 26, 1945, decision of the three-man committee com- mences with the quotation of the directive of October 1945. Point 2 in that directive provides that all employees return to work immedi- ately. The evidence in the record, which I will point out by book and page in my written brief, will show that under this provision the carpenters, members of local 946, returned to the carpenters' work, and that the replacements, so-called, the lA designees who had tempo- rarily occupied the work of the carpenters, were kept by the companies. jNIr. Kearns. I think this is the point where we should get it straight. Before the directive was handed down who was doing the carpenters' work ? You have the directive of December 26, 1945. Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. Prior to that directive who was doing the carpenters' work ? Mr. Cobb. The carpenters' work, according to the record — and mind you in my statements, Mr. Landis, I want to confine myself to what the record of evidence is, I am not offering any hearsay testimony. INIr. Laxdis. I understand. Mr. Cobb. I will point out in a written brief that prior to the Cin- cinnati agreement, the carpenters' work had been done by the car- penters, except during the period of the 1945 strike, from March until October, when under this agreement between Mr. Nicholas Schenck and Mr. Walsh, designees of the lATSE were used as replacements in the work of carpenters. So that when the companies, the lATSE and the crafts Mr. Laxdis. This was before the 1945 strike ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir. Mr. Laxdis. What happened after they settled the 1945 strike ? Mr. Cobb. I have read this provision in paragraph 2 to show that when the companies, the carpenters, the lA and others met in Cincin- nati, point 2 of the agreement was all employees return to work im- mediately. The evidence in the record shows that that meant that the carpenters returned to carpenters' work, as well as referring to other employees. And the evidence in the record will show that the carpenters did return to the carpenters' work upon the execution of the Cincinnati agreement and that all of the work in question was done by the car- penters, up to the December decision. During that period the lA designees, who had been temporarily working in carpenters' work Mr. Laxdis. That was in 1945 ? Mr. Cobb. During the 1945 strike. Mr. Laxdis. They had some lA carpenters working there? Mr. Cobb. Under this agreement between Mr. Nicholas Schenck and Mr. Walsh, that the lA's were to take over all work in the studios. I will point that out in the written brief, book and page quotations. So that the lA's never did this carpenter's work, except during the 1945 strike, and that the basis of the agreement at Cincinnati, to which the companies and the lA were both parties, was that the carpenters 2214 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES were to go back to the carpenters' work as in this sentence that "All em- ployees shall return to work immediately"; that the carpenters did go back to their work and did occupy that work up to the December decision. ' Mr. Landis. But when they went back to work there were already some lA men in there that they had hired while the carpenters were out on strike ? Mr. Cobb. And they were taken out. Mr. Landis. Oh, they took them out? Mr. Cobb. They took them out. That is the point I am seeking to make clear. Mr. Kearns. The studios, though, did not fire them ; they gave them other assignments? Mr. Cobb. That is right, they took them out of the carpenters' work Mr. Kearns. That is as I understand it. Mr. Cobb. I think the record shows this clearly : They took them out of carpenters' work and kept them on salary pending the December decision, but not in carpenters' work. They did no carpenters' work during that period. Mr. Landis. What happened in 1946 after the directive ? Mr. Cobb. I want to come to the directive of '45. Mr. Landis. We have had that, haven't we? Mr. Cobb. Yes, but you haven't had this part of it, Mr. Landis. In the descision of December 26, 1945, the basis of the decision, the decision itself, the intent of the decision was to follow the historic division of work. Mr. Landis. What is the proof of that ? Mr. Cobb. The language of the decision itself. Mr. Landis. What part of the language ? Mr. Cobb. I will read it to you. Mr. Landis. Just that part. Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir. It reads in this way : An analysis disclosed that three possible methods of solution could be utilized that is: (a) strict adherence to a craft or vertical line of demarcation in the motion picture studies ; (&) establishment of an industrial or horizontal union throught the industry; (c) a division of work designations within the industry patterned after pre- vious agi-eements negotiated mutually by the various crafts. After careful and thorovigh study the committee unanimously agreed that the latter plan is unquestionably the best method of approach. It is the committee's considered opinion that such procedure affords the only plausible solution to a most dlflBcult and complex problem. Accordingly this decision is based upon that premise. Mr. Landis. That is one of the three plans they had, and they recommend that one as being the best one of the three ? Mr. Cobb. Not only recommended it but unanimously adopted it. Mr. Landis. Weren't all three of them in there ? Mr. Cobb. No. They gave the alternatives of (a), (h) and (c),then they adopted (c). After careful and thorough study the committee unanimously agreed that the latter plan is unquestionably the best method of approach. It is the committee's considered opinion that such procedure affortls the only plausible solution to a most diflficult and complex problem. Mr, Landis. But they don't say they have to follow that? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2215 Mr, Cobb. Yes, sir. Accordingly this decision is based upon that premise. That is the language of the decision. I will be very happy to show you that [showing a document to Mr. Landis]. So I submit to you that on the face of the decision, the true decision was to follow the historic division of work. Later in the decision they use this language : The committee rules — jNlr. Landis. I though it was Hutcheson that wouldn't agree with the decision. That is the way I understood it. Wasn't that the decision there ? ]Mr. Cobb. I am reading from the decision. I think if you will bear with me until I put this whole decision before you, you will see where it is the lA, and not the carpenters. Mr. Landis. Hutcheson testified here, I believe, that he did not agree with that decision. Mr. Cobb. As I stated this morning. I am not going to assume to testify for Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Landis. Well, everybody knows it has been testified here that he did not agree with the decision. I think everybody knows that. iSIr. Cobb. I don't think you will find any disagreement with the intent of the decision to follow the historical division. Mr. Landis. You don't think the carpenters disagreed with the decision ? Mr. Cobb. Not with the intent of the decision because the intent of the decision was to follow the historical division. I am going to give you that evidence right now. Mr. Landis. All right. Mr. Cobb. Quoting from the decision : The committee rules that the division of work agreement entered into between the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the Inter- national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, on February 5, 1925, and known as the 1936 agreement be placed on full force and effect immediately. Now why? Why was that supposed agreement of February 1925, to be placed into effect immediately? Because the committee ha(l already decided to follow the historic division and because they were led to believe that this supposed agreement of February 5, 1925, repre- sented that historical division. Now I want to call your attention to the peculiar language in the agi-eement of February 5, 1925, and known as the 1926 agreement. So far as this record discloses and so far as I have been able to ascer- tain the 1925 supposed agi-eement was never known by anybody as the 1926 agreement. Why should it be known as the 1926 agreement? Why should a contract or supposed contract bearing the date of February 5, 1925, be known as the 1926 agreement? Mr. Landis. Wliat directive would that be, the 1946 directive ? Mr. Cobb. I am reading from the December 26, 1945, decision. Mr. Landis. But I am asking you another question. Would you call it the 1945 directive or the 1946 directive? 2216 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Cobb. I don't understand, Mr. Landis. Mr. Landis. The directive that was given was adopted in December 1945, but really was not adopted until 1946, is that correct? Mr. Cobb. Oh, no, you are mistaken, sir. No one has ever referred to the December 26, 1945, decision by any other name. It is always referred to as the December 1945, decision. Mr. Landis. Then that would be the 1925 agreement there. Mr. Cobb. Now when you come back to this supposed agreement of February 5, 1925, the decision says, "Known as the 1926 agreement." And I state again that insofar as this record discloses and so far as I have been able to ascertain, the 1925 supposed agreement was never known by anybody as the 1926 agreement. Now where did they get it ? I am not attacking the three-man com- mittee. I am giving the three-man committee credit for having de- cided to follow the historic division of work and having endeavored to follow the historic division of work. Now where did they get this phraseology that the 1925 supposed agreement was known as the 1926 agreement? And with all the dili- gence that I try to have that was the mystery to me, until coming to this hearing. At this hearing for the first time I have seen the testi- mony taken by the three-man committee in Hollywood. I call your attention to the following quoted testimony from Mr. Walsh before the three-man committee in Hollywood on December 8, 1945, reading from page 7 : Committeeman Birthright. This is dated 1925. Brother Walsh. Well, it's 1926. They call it the 1926 agreement. Mr. Landis. Well, of course, I can't see where that makes very much difference. Mr. Cobb. But you will if you will be patient with me until I carry it through. Committeeman Birthright. They entered into this thing in 1925. Brother Walsh. That's right, that's what they call it, the 1926 agreement. Now reading at the bottom of the page : That is signed by the local unions out here and signed by our local out here also. This is the agreement that we worked under from 1926 until we went on strike in 1933. Now I am not going to attack Mr. Walsh. I do not want to be in the position of attacking anyone, but within propriety I am privileged to analyze their testimony. Nobody, so far as this record discloses and so far as I can ascertain, ever heard the 1925 supposed agreement referred to as the 1926 agree- ment, then just where did that confusion come in with Mr. Walsh? It came in in a confusion with the bona fide, basic agreement between the companies and both the lA and the carpenters that was executed in 1926. Now there was a 1926 basic agreement between the companies and botli of these unions. Of course the bona fide 1926 agreement was referred to constantly; of course they worked under the bona fide agreement of 1926 from its date on ; of course that is true. Mr. Landis. It mentions in the directive the 1926 agreement? Mr. Cobb. It uses the very language, Mr. Landis Mr. Landis. Is the 1926 agreement in there or 1925 agreement ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2217 Mr. Cobb. The language of the December 26, 1945, decision is : The committee rules that the division of work agreement entered into between the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joniers of America and the lA, et cetera, on February 5, 1925, and known as tlie "1926 agreement" be placed in full force and effect. Now there was a confusion in confusing a 1925 supposed agreement that coukl not by any stretch of the imagination be called the 1926 agreement — in confusing it with the bona fide basic contract between management and labor that was executed in 1926. Now it is true that they worked under the bona fide agreement of 1926 from its execution down to the time that the lA went on strike in 1933. I have endeavored to point out that this statement of Mr. Walsh, tying the 1925 agreement in as the 1926 agreement, and confusing it with the bona fide agreement of 1926, was innocently adopted by the three-man committee and embodied in the decision for what? In the belief that it represented the historical division of work and to place into effect the decision previously stated that they would follow the historic division of work. Now I want to call your attention to Mr. Walsh's testimony, "That's what they call it, the 1926 agreement." The three-man decision executed February 5, 1925, and known as the 1926 agreement. I want that clarified. Now I want to give you from the record proof sustaining the analysis that I have just given you. Having decided to follow the historic division of work there would be no reason for any work to be taken from the Carpenters and given to the lA, because if they followed the historic division as they believed they were, the division would remain as it was and there would be no shifting of work. Instead the testimony of various witnesses is that when the question was asked at Miami as to how many men were affected by this mistaken use of the 1925 supposed agreement, as I recall it was estimated at 350 jobs. I call your atteiition to the testimony of Mr. Walsh at this hearing that the effect of the interpretation that he and the companies placed upon the December 1945 decision was to take the set erectors' work away from the carpenters and give it to the lA. And what was the effect of the clarification? To restore the set erectors' work to the carj)enters as it had existed before the December 1945 decision. Now I have given you an analysis, sir. I do not like to impugn or criticize. I have given you an analysis in a fair spirit to show you the innocence of the three-man committee in using the language of the Februarj' 5, 1925, supposed contract, to carry out their purpose of maintaining the division of work, and I prefer to give you that in crediting the three-man committee. Mr. Landis. Let's start with 1946 now. Mr. Cobb. I am coming right into 1946. Now, what happened^ By this mistake these set erectors were deprived of their work. Mr. Landis. Beginning in 1946 they were deprived of their work ? 2218 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Cobb. Beginning immediately after December 26, 1945, going into January and the controversy went down to the contract on July 2,1946. So when we come to July 2, 1946, in legal effect we had a decision to maintain the historic division of work. We had an interpretation of that decision to violate the historic division by taking work away from the carpenters. Mr. LA>a>is. That was before the contract in July ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir ; that is correct. Now, the contract of July we analyzed this morning, and I shall not repeat it. Mr. Landis. Did the work change between the carpenters and the lA after the contract was signed in July ? Was it any different than before the contract came out 'i Mr. Cobb. That is a very proper question, Mr. Landis. To the best of my information the carpenters continued to insist Mr. Landis. Now, we had the contract, what was in the contract ? Mr. Cobb. I am getting to the contract. The carpenters continued to insist on the misinterpretation that had been given to the December decision, but with this dispute going on as to the meaning of the De- cember decision they went to work and within 6 weeks from that time the clarification was announced to do what? To repeal the December decision? Not at all. Mr. Landis. Now, wait a minute, don't get too far ahead. They made the July contract. I think you are a little bit ahead of me. Was the work any different the day after the July contract was signed in 1946, than the day before they went out on strike? Mr. Cobb. Well, they were out on strike for 1 day. Mr. Landis. Two days. Mr. Cobb. Two days, yes. So far as I know there was no differ- ence between the division of work 2 days before the contract and the division of work following the contract, both being under the running controversy as to the meaning of the December decision. Mr. Landis. They worked on that work until September 11, 1946, approximately ? Mr. Cobb. They worked under that continuing controversy as to the meaning of the contract until the clarification. Mr. Landis. The clarification came 6 weeks afterward ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir; bear in mind this point, that the clarification did not repeal, the clarification did not substitute, the clarification stated what the intent had been in the December decision. Immediately following the clarification the lA made its protest and its threat. Now, what was that protest and threat ? Mr. Landis. After the clarification was made they wrote the letter and made the threat, or whatever you call it. Mr. Cobb. Well, they wrote the letter Mr. Landis. That they did not want the clarification ? Mr. Kearns. The clarification was on the 16th of August ; was it not ? Mr. Cobb. On the 16th of August and on the 31st, 2 weeks later, Mr. Walsh wrote his letter to the association using this significant language : If the committee's decision as originally rendered — MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2219 Now, our construction of that decision is that it preserved the historic division, meaning the division as it was just before the decision, as it was at the time the decision was rendered. Their construction is that it took away from the carpenters and gave to the lA work that the carpenters had been doing before the decision. Now, Mr. Walsh writes : If the committee's decision, as originally rendered, is not fully complied with by you, this International Alliance will take such action as may be necessary to protect its interest. He does not specify in there what action, but "such action," definitely will take action, definitely action adequate to protect what? To protect the decision ? No. To protect the contract ? No. But to protect the lA interests. Now, what were the lA interests ? It has been testified very frankly by Mr. Walsh before this commit- tee that the lA was out to get all work in the studio. That is what they call their "interests," to get all work. It was testified by Mr. Hutcheson that the carpenters don't want any carpenters' work in the studios except the carpenters' work. Mr. Landis. Then on August 16, the lA does not like the clarification ? Mr. McCann. That is August 22, sir, when they came before the Labor Committee; August 31 was the date of the letter. Mr. Landis. All right, they don't like the clarification. Then the carpenters come along on September 11 and say, "We want the clari- fication," and if they don't get the clarification they are given the ultimatum on September 11? Mr. Cobb. There are matters intervening that are too important to omit in coming to September 11. On August 22, 1 week after the clarification and approximately 3 weeks before September 11, Mr. Walsh met with the producers and the minutes say that — Walsh advises that any company that makes one single change Mr. Landis. Well, that would be a change of the work. Mr. Cobb. Let's translate it into just what it means. "One single change," meaning that if the companies restored the companies' work to the carpenters as it historically existed at the time of the three-man committee decision Mr. Landis. I agree with that. Mr. Cobb. Of course. That if they do that "we will have all work stopped in the studios, exchanges, and theaters." Now, I want to call the committee's attention to the fact that the companies did not create ahy incident against the lA. That was 3 weeks before any demand from the carpenters. There was no drastic action taken against the lA. There was no drastic action taken to create an incident to put the lA off the lots. Instead, they continued to meet with the lA. It is most significant, sir, that in these meetings the lA representa- tives were present in communion with the carpenters. That did not exist with the carpenters. This was an ex parte procedure between the companies and the lA, a brotherhood between the companies and the lA. There was not that open fairness of dealing with the car- 2220 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES penters ; there was not any drastic action taken against the lA upon their threats to stop all work in the studios, exchanges, and theaters. Mr. Landis. But weren't the carpenters working^ Mr. Cobb. The carpenters were working, but — and bear in mind that from the December decision of 1945, right down on through the carpenters were not working in acceptance of the erroneous construc- tion on the December decision, but were working pending the clarifi- cation of it, striving all the while for the clarification, and working in the goodness of their hearts not to injure the production companies. I want to call your attention to something of the most striking significance in this meeting of August 22 : Discussed new A. F. of L. directive as to its effect ou existing conditions and what it may lead to. Who discussed it? The I A and the companies discussed it; a meeting of minds between the I A and the companies in the absence of the carpenters. Now, let us turn to another meeting. Mr. Landis. Well, wouldn't that be possible? What is wrong, with talking to a union that is working for j^ou ? Mr. Cobb. I do not think there is anything in the world wrong for an employer to talk to any employee, as long as there is no wrong done in the talk. But where two men foregather and talk innocently, that is all right, but the minute they agree among themselves to do an injury to a third person, that becomes a conspiracy. Now, let us turn to the meeting of September 3. That was a full week before the Cambiano letter. At that meeting the various mem- bers of the companies were present. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Brewer, and Mr. Walsh are shown as having been present. Mr. KJEARNS. That is not Mr. Richard Walsh, is it ? I think that is Mr. Walsh of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Mr. Cobb. Let us let it stand that it was Mr. William Walsh. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Brewer of the lA were present. The Walsh mentioned appears in the minutes immediately below their names. However, here the lA was represented in communion with them and here is the most significant language : Also wire Eric Johnston "Still can't understand the directive or its interpre- tation." Now, here were the companies in solemn meeting agreeing to wire Eric Johnston that "We can't understand that December decision or the August 16th clarification." Is this a directive to compel us to abide, or what shall we do? Both carpenters and Walsh have given us opposite instructions. Mr. Landis. That puts them in the middle ? Mr. Cobb. Ah, that is the least part, Mr. Landis, that is the least part, "as we are between " Mr. Landis. Not to the employer, it isn't. Mr. Cobb. "As we are between" — except for the fact that they had been foregathering with the lA if they were in the middle they were certainly tilted by their association with the lA. But the significant thing in their own minutes of the meeting of September 3 is, "as we are between, AFL counsel must tell us what to do." 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 clarifica- tion 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 clarifi- cation, 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 indi- vidual. 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 com- panies had gone ahead and followed out the directive, that it was not 67383— 48— vol. 3 46 2222 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES satisfactory, and they are willing to have an interpretation of it. That is why they went to Miami, wasn't it ? Mr. Cobb. Yes. Mr. Landis. That is why they were in the middle ? Mr. Cobb. No ; they were not in the middle ; they were in bed with the lA, Mr. Landis. I don't mean to speak lightly when making that statement. Mr. Landis. The point I am trying to make is that the companies tried to abide by the directive ; the carpenters did not think they were, and they then asked in the meeting for the clarification, isn't that right? Mr. Cobb. You are mistaken in one sense, Mr. Landis. The com- panies did not tr}^ to abide by the directive. The companies tried to give the lA the set erectors' work to the carpenters and the companies were working in conspiracy with the I A to take the work away from the carpenters. Mr. Landis. But the carpenters, under contract, under the contract of July, went ahead and gave the lA the set erectors' work, isn't that right 'i Mr. Cobb. Oh, no, indeed. Mr. Landis. Who did that work before the July contract? Mr. Cobb. The work was being done in July under the continuing protest Mr. Landis. Let us say in June. Mr. Cobb. Let's say that the work was done from January to July and from July to September under the continuing protest of the car- penters, but in the goodness of their hearts, pending a decision on the meaning of the directive, the carpenters were not striking against the companies and were not closing down. Mr. Kearns. They were still working under the Beverly Hills agree- ment, were they not? Mr. Landis. That is right. Mr. Cobb. And the Beverly Hills agreement Mr. Landis. In July. Mr. Cobb. That is right. Mr. Kearns. That cannot be overlooked. If Pat Casey had the authority to sign that agreement for the producers and Sorrell for the Conference of Studio Unions, it was an agreement, evidently. Mr. Cobb. Oh, certainly. Mr. Kearns. The producers wanted the work done at that time, that is why there was the Beverly Hills agreement. Mr. Landis. I can't see where they broke the contract ; that is what I can't see. Mr. Kearns. What I have never been able to see is where anybody, particularly, broke the Beverely Hills contract. Mr. Landis. That is what I am trying to bring out. Mr. Cobb. I am coming to that. Mr. McCann. Mr. Cobb, may I interrupt you to develop two things which I think Mr. Landis ought to understand before you come to the next subject? First we had repeated statements by the three-man committee in Los Angeles that it was their intent to give the work to the unions on historic lines. Mr. Doherty, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Birthright, testifying before the committee, said that in the issuance of the directive of December 26, 1945, they thought that they were carrying out an agreement MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2223 which had been in operation between the lATSE and the carpenters, and that it was not until a long time afterward that they found out the 1925 agreement had never been in effect; and that it was their in- tention in making the original decision of December 26, 1945, to give the work to the unions on a historic basis. Mr. Cobb. That is correct. Mr. Kearxs. Unfortunately there, Mr. Landis, what Mr. Knight especially said through his mouth in Los Angeles is not the language of the directive. Mr. Cobb. It is in the first part of the directive, Mr. Kearns. In the first part there is a definite statement that they agreed unanimously to follow the historic policy. Mr. Laxdis. Now, let me get this clear once more. I understand there is argument over the directive, and there is argument over the clarification. I want to go back to the contract. Here they go along under the directive, then they have a 2-day strike. They get together and sign a contract and work up until September 11 under this contract. Mr. Cobb. That is right. Mr. Landis. Now, show me where they break the contract. Mr. Cobb. All right, sir ; that is a fair question. Mr. Keaknts. Before you give that, I have a telegram that is neces- sary to be read into the record at this time, then you may go on. This is addressed to me : California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities believes evidence over- whelming concerning Herbert K. Sorrell's Communist affiliation. Clark Sellers and John Harris, outstanding experts on questioned documents, independently and unequivocally identified Sorrell's handwriting on Communist Party docu- ments. Witnesses available who can testify having seen Sorrell's Communist book in Sorrell's possession and who attended Communist Party Los Angeles convention with Sorrell. Sorrell affiliated with scores of Communist-front or- ganizations and has openly supported Communist candidate for public office. His testimony before your committee should be cited to Federal grand jury for action and California committee respectfully urges you and your committee to thoroughly probe every allegation and denial made by Sorrell. California Legislature now in budgetary session for several weeks. Will welcome opportunity to appear before your committee as soon as California Legislature adjourns. Suggest you subpena Frank Spector, admitted Communist functionary now facing deporta- tion to his native Soviet Russia, and believed to be a Soviet secret agent, member of Sorrell's union, and strike strategist in Hollywood. Sorrell case of great importance to California. Please wire me immediately if arrangements can be made for my appearance before your committee following adjournment of Cali- fornia Legislature, Senator Jack B. Tenney. Mr. Landis. There is nothing said in the contract pending the clari- fication, was there ? Mr. Cobb. No, sir. Mr. Landis. There is nothing in the contract that says anything about set erectors, is there ? Mr. Cobb. No, nothing in the contract one way or the other about set erectors. Mr. Landis. It is funny they didn't straighten that out. That is the place where it should have been straightened out, in the July contract. Mr. Cobb. Well, Mr. Landis, if you give the December 1945 decision the correct interpretation, based upon the statement on the face of it that they were carrying out the historic division 2224 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. What is the historic division of the Beverly Hills contract, have you read that ? Mr. Landis. No ; I have not. I am just saying they do not agree with the directive up to the date of the contract; they go out on a 2-day strike. Then was the time to settle it. If they settled it and went back to work I could not understand what disturbed it except the clarifi- cation. If there had not been a clarification I am just wondering if there would have been any trouble after that. Mr, Cobb. Mr. Landis, just let me get this one thing clear. Mr. Landis. All right. Mr. Cobb. Don't say the December decision. Please think in the terms of the company and I A interpretation of the December decision. Mr. Landis. I agree that is what the carpenters did not like and that is what caused the 2-day strike in July. They went out, then I thought they came back and settled that part of it. Mr. Cobb. The carpenters have never yielded that the December decision gave anything to the lA that belonged to the carpenters. The July agreement did not waive anything. Mr. Landis. Didn't they sign the July agreement ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, but that does not waive their proper construction of the December decision. That is what I am perfectly willing to let the court determine. I am perfectly willing to let a court put the proper interpretation on the December decision. It was not the December decision that caused them to take carpenters' work and give it to the lA, it was a misinterpretation of the December decision. Mr. Landis. Do you have the Beverly Hills contract there? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir ; I have it before me right here. Mr. Landis. Read something from that which says where the set erectors go. Mr. Cobb. I do not find anything in the July 1946 contract referring to set erectors. Mr. Landis. That was over the machinists ? Mr. Cobb. There isn't anything in the Beverly Hills agreement that affects the proper construction of the December decision. Mr. Landis. The carpenters signed it, did they not ? Mr. Cobb. But they signed it under the true interpretation of the December decision, as shown by the clarification. They never signed their rights to carpenters' work away. ]\Ir. Landis. Did they know there was going to be a clarification at that time ? Mr. Cobb. They had been striving for it for all these months and they anticipated that there would be, of course. Now let us come to the breach of contract. Reading from the minutes of September 11 : Cambiano stated he bad copies of tbe directive's interpretation and letter from Green stating copies bad been sent to Jobnston for the industry's information and that he was here to ask that it be put into effect on the first shift Thursday morning. Skelton stated he understands construction to include laying out of sets, laying flooring, cutting flooring, plumbing sets, et cetera. Assembly he thinks is same as prior to March 5, 1945, done by laborers and lA setting up a line. Now I ask the committee to draw a contrast between the August 22 threat of Mr. Walsh that all work would be stopped in the studios, MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2225 exchanges, and theaters, and the hmguage quoted from Cambiano on September 11, that he was "here to ask that it be put into effect on the first shift Thursday morning." Mr. Landis. What else did he say ? Mr. Cobb. That is the end of the quotation as to Cambiano. Mr. Landis. That was not all the testimony given before the com- mittee. He was going to walk out. Mr. McCAaf X. I call you attention to the fourth paragraph there : Mr. Kahane inquired what will carpenters do if we do not follow tlie inter- pretation. Cambiano answered, "If you do not follow it, sets will be declared hot, and we won't work on them." Mr. Cobb. "And we wdll not work on the sets." Mr. Landis. That is right. That is the same as shutting them down. Mr. Cobb. No, indeed. Mr. Landis. How can you run a studio without the sets ? Mr. Cobb. Well, the testimony in the record, I think is clear that there would not have been any imminent closing down of the studios because of the sets. The testimony is clear that at either Columbia or Universal they had the lA build a set for the special purpose of creating an incident. Mr. Landis. You mean you could finish a picture without a set? Mr. Cobb. No; but you could finish pictures on the sets they had. There was not any overnight danger of closing the studios. I wish to go on now : The lawyers were asked what our rights are as to firing men. Mr. Kearns. That is the producers' lawyers? Mr. Cobb. That is right — for refusing to perform work assigned and what would be done or said in the matter. The following was decided upon. If any men refused to perform services, lay them off and pay them for their hours worked ; put on card, "Laid off for refusal to perforin work assigned." Each studio not represented was notified of above by telephone. So that on September 11 the agreement was made between all the major studios. If any men refused to perform the service, then lay them off for refusal to perform work assigned. * * * Kahane of one of the majors answered a phone call and on return stated, "Brewer says instructions to man the companies means furnish painters, car- penters, etc." Now, Mr. Landis, does that say to furnish set erectors ? Mr. Landis. No ; but I understand that is anticipating the carpenters would leave the job. Mr. Cobb. But the carpenters never left the job. There was the definite agreement between the companies and the lA, that the lA would furnish carpenters. That brings up this very important point. What carpenters ? The carpenters to build sets ? Or all carpenters ? There was never any issue in there except over carpenters' work on the sets. There was never any statement by Mr. Cambiano that he would declare the studios hot. There was never any statement by Mr. Cambiano that he would declare the mills hot or the maintenance work hot. Yet here was the agreement between the companies and the lA for the lA to furnish carpenters, without qualification, without limita- 2226 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES tion, which can only be construed to mean all carpenters, when you consider it in the light of the previous agreement between Mr. Walsh and Mr. Schenck w^ay back a year and a half before that, that the lA was to take over all carpenters' work. Then on the 12th when they met, the report of 10 :50 a. m. indicates : M-G-M has dismissed 12 carpenters, Fox 2, Columbia 2. At tlie meeting RKO reported 20 and Columbia and Fox each 2 additional. Now that does not mean merely that M-G-M dismissed 12 carpen- ters, it means that by concerted agreement of all the companies, each of the companies were dismissing or were to dismiss the carpenters. Mr. Kahane reported recent conversations with the presidents and Eric John- ston which contained the following recommendations : "Lay off carpenters if they refuse to perform the services to which they are assigned." It does not say lay off with regard to set erection, "Lay off car- penters who refuse.'' Now the question arises as to these maintenance men and as to these mill workers. That question is answered later in here. Mr. Landis. Do you know on what date the picket line was set up? Mr. Cobb. Subsequent to September 23. Mr. Landis. But no carpenter worked on a hot set from September 11 to September 23 when all of them were given their pay ? Mr. Cobb. After September 12. Mr. Landis. Well, September 12. Mr. Cobb. Well, the 1 day is significant because of the agreement made between the companies and the lA 1 day in advance. Mr. Landis. But no carpenter worked on a hot set^between Septem- ber 12 and September 23 when the mass lay-off occurred on Septem- ber 23 ? Mr. Cobb. That is correct. Mr. Landis. Of course there was the anticipation of a lot of trouble between the 12th and the 23d? Mr. Cobb. Well, all the anticipation and all the trouble was made by the conspiracy of the companies and the lA. I say "by the con- spiracy" because it was by agreement between them to injure the car-» penters and that is what makes a conspiracy. Mr. Landis. That is where I say the employers went to the lA to get fellows to keep the place open if the carpenters wouldn't work. Mr. Cobb. If that were a correct statement, Mr. Landis, that would be one picture, but they went to the lA, or rather they were already with the lA and they agreed not to get lA if the carpenters did not work, but as I will show later they agreed to create an incident to force the condition by which they could substitute lA's for car- penters. In this meeting of the 12th it was decided to call in Brewer "and tell him of situation and find out from him if the lA is to furnish men to fill places vacated to keep the studios open." They then pro- vided : The producers' labor office will act as a central clearing house to receive daily reports from the studios as to the number of men laid off, number of companies shooting, and length of time each company can keep going — showing the concerted action by them. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2227 Mr. Al Wright is one of the able lawyers of Los Angeles and attorney for Twentieth-Century-Fox. Al Wright submitted the following, copies of which were to be distributed to each studio representative with instructions to keep in hands of only one, and two in each studio. There is your concerted action. There is your agreement between them: 1. Any employee who x-efuses to perform the work properly assigned — I want you to bear in mind the language of this able lawyer — properly assigned to him in accordance with his regular classification. Now, Al Wright is one of our great lawyers of Los Angeles. I want you to read and consider the language of his advice to them, as distinguished from their actions. Any employee who refuses to i)erform the work properly assigned to him in accordance with his regular classification of work should be requested to leave the premises. Now reading from the minutes of September 23, the day of the lock-out : Alfred Wright stated the studios cannot morally or legally assign maintenance men who never have worked as journeymen on sets, to set work. Mr. Landis. But they claim they could. Mr. Cobb. I understand that. Mr. Landis. The producers so testified. Mr. Cobb. Yes; they claimed they could but they did it over the advice of one of our great lawyers of Los Angeles as the counsel for one of the great companies. Mr. Landis. That may be, but they testified there was nothing in the contract which said they had to do a certain specific job. Mr. Cobb. I understand their contention. Mr. Landis. You heard that testimony ? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir ; but that is one of the questions that we are will- ing to submit to the Labor Board and to the courts, and that we invite them to join in submitting. Then it goes on — and mind you these instructions originally were limited to "those properly assigned in his regular classification." Now what happened? They assigned some to the sets who refused to work and they dismissed them. They assigned some mill men to the sets. Mr. Landis. And they wouldn't work ? Mr. Cobb. That is right, and when they wouldn't work they dis- missed them. They assigned some maintenance men and when they would not work on the hot sets they dismissed them. But, that was not the full story because they dismissed every car- penter belonging to Local 946, some by assigning them to the hot sets and some without any pretense of assigning. Mr. Landis. They claimed that was a lay-off? Mr. Cobb. They claimed it as a lay-off but they made another claim, and without wishing to be harsh 2228 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Landis. Then they also claimed that they anticipated trouble and if they were going to have any trouble they wanted the trouble on the outside ? Mr. Cobb. That of course being a pretense. Mr. Landis. But that was the testimony? Mr. Cobb. I grant they claimed that, but that was all a pretense. Now I want to read you from the minutes of September 16, an agree- ment that was absolutely clairvoyant. Unemployment compensation. Mind you, every one of these carpenters had insurance premiums deducted from his pay to pay for his unemployment insurance : Cregan of the Loab office wanted instructions for tlie controllers — I assume the controllers of the companies — as to what position the producers wanted to take on statement to be made to the State unemployment fund. It was agreed to say, "The employee left his work on account of a trade dispute," and to ask the department to disqualify him for unemployment insurance. Mr. Landis. The State law of California does not allow compen- sation for people on strike, is that correct ? Mr. Cobb. The language he has used here is taken from the statute. If an employee leaves his work on account of a trade dispute Mr. Landis. But the carpenter I talked to was not fired, he was laid off. Mr. Cobb. That was a pretense, Mr. Landis. I am very happy for you to bring that up. That was a pretense that they were laid off. But they have been laid off now for 18 months. Mr. Landis. But this carpenter never went to ask for his job back. Mr. Cobb. Why not ? I am so happj^ that you give me the oppor- tunity to make that clear. Ml'. Landis. All right, then make it clear. Mr. Cobb. Because they were employed under a contract. That is definite and positive. They were employed under a contract. Mr. Kearns. Do you consider the carpenters have a contract with the producers today? Mr. Cobb. Oh, yes. The Beverly Hills agreement is a contract until the first day of next July. Mr. Kearns. That is the way I get that Beverly Hills agreement. Mr. Cobb. Of course. Mr. Landis. It was a contract but then the carpenters said they would not work on the hot sets. Mr. Cobb. Ah, now, Mr. Landis, let's classify the carpenters now. For the moment let me speak of the mill man who never worked on a set; let's speak of the maintenance man who never worked on a set. Now they agreed among themselves, 1 week before September 23, to represent to the State that "The employee left his work." Now there isn't one scintilla of evidence in this record and there cannot be on scintilla of honest evidence put into the record that any one of those carpenters left his work. Those carpenters were removed, some by being told to leave the studio and some by being physically re- moved from the studio. There was not one carpenter that left his work. Yet here a week in advance there was an agreement between them to represent to the State that a man had left his work when, according MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2229 to their own agreement that they were making, it was their intention and pnrpose to pnt him out of the studio. Now you have asked very properly ''Where is the conspiracy?" They agreed, according to their own minutes, to ask the department to disqualify him for unemployment insurance. Now why should a man who has worked and paid his unemployment insurance premiums for years, be deprived of his unemployment in- surance? What has he paid for? What is the value of his contract, if conspiring employers can make representations to the State without basis of fact and by conspiracy between themselves can cause the State to deny him that unemployment insurance? I would like to state at this point that this matter is up now on appeal before the unemployment a])pea]s board. I have filed a brief on that appeal which I do not think should be used to encumber the record, but I ask the privilege of filing it for reference purposes. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The document is filed with the committee.) Mr. Landis. The point I do not have clear in my mind is : If there is nothing in a contract that says a carpenter on a maintenance job cannot be transferred to a set job or any other kind of a carpenter cannot be transferred, if there is nothing there to prevent him from doing that certain type of work, why then when they were transferred over to the sets didn't they work on the sets ? The question in my mind is, did those carpenters who refused to work on the sets break the contract? Mr. Cobb. No, sir. Mr. Landis. Well, tell me why, Mr. Cobb. Because they worked on the sets that belonged to the carpenters up to the date of the December decision. The work on the sets belonged to the carpenters under the decision to preserve the his- toric division of work. The work on the sets belonged to the car- penters under the clarification. That was the historic work belonging to the carpenters. So much for the carpenters who worked on the sets. Now for the carpenters who never worked on the set. Mr. Wright, their attorney, said they had no moral or legal right to assign them to it. At another point Mr. Benjamin, page o03-A of the record, states : "Mr. Benjamin expressed belief that even though the NLRB might decide producers had engaged in unfair labor practice, there was a good chance the Board might not assess any back pay." The question in their mind was not whether they had a right, the question in their mind was "Will we get caught for back pay?" Now, sir. coming to those carpenters who were not involved in any way with the sets, and I think from the statement that there were 350 jobs involved in connection wnth the sets, and I think the record will show some 2,000 carpenters employed as a whole, that a substantial majority of them were not set workers. There is not a thing in this record, in the contract or in actions taken, to justify the breach of contract. There is no issue with regard to the set work to justify the breach of contract with those carpenter employees who did not do set work. Mr. Landis. If these carpenters had been doing set work for those other fellows under tlie contract, then they all at once decided not to do it, wouldn't that be a breach of contract ? 2230 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTED Mr. Cobb. I don't understand the question exactly, Mr. Landis. All right. Here we are working together from July 3 to September 11. Some of those carpenters worked on the sets and some of those other fellows worked on the sets. Then on September 12 they decided to call them hot sets and they refused to work on the sets. Mr. Cobb. Who refused to work on the sets ? Mr. Landis. The carpenters. Mr. Cobb. What carpenters ? Mr. Landis. Local 946. Mr. Cobb. No, that isn't the record, Mr. Landis. The record is that certain carpenters were assigned to the hot sets and certain other carpenters were not assigned to the hot sets. I am trying to treat the two classifications. Mr. Landis. All right, let's say the ones assigned to the hot sets refused to work on the hot sets and they belonged to 946. Mr. Cobb. All right. Mr. Landis. The question in my mind is this : The ones who worked on the hot sets and who belonged to 946, they are the ones who raise the question in my mind as to whether they broke the contract or not. Mr. Cobb. All right. On that question we have asked the court, we have asked the Labor Board and the court to determine the issue you stated. We are ready and willing to have that determined by either the court or the Labor Board. The law on that in my judgment is so clear that the carpenters were entitled to all that they asked under the terms of the Decem- ber decision — let's go back, under the terms of the Cincinnati direc- tive, the December decision, the July contract and the August clarifica- tion. We are so clear and confident that as a matter of law we are entitled to that work, that I Mr. Landis. Well, I say it should have been spelled out at some time as to what each one was to do. That is what caused the big dis- pute. It should have been spelled out long before this. It should have at least happened in July. Mr. Cobb. You cannot get things spelled out, as you stated they should be, when there is an agreement between the companies and the lA to take the work away from carpenters, when there has been that conspiracy from the spring of 1945 to deprive the carpenters of all work. Mr. Landis. All work? Mr. Cobb. Yes, all carpenter's work. There was that conspiracy back in 1945 to deprive them of all carpenters' work. The issue here is not over the mere set erectors or over the carpenters who build sets, the issue is much wider, of the conspiracy to deprive carpenters of all carpenters' work. It is for that reason that I have felt such great confidence in the de- cision to be made by the courts, and such great willingness to submit it to the Federal court for decision in the interpretation of the contract. Mr. Landis. You never did finish the lock-out. Mr, Kearns. Just a moment. We will take a recess at this point to give the reporter a little rest. (A short recess was taken.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order, please. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2231 Mr. Cobb. Now, Mr. Landis, I suggest that we distinguish between a strike and a lock-out in this way Mr. Landis. And a lay-off, don't forget that. It is testified here that this carpenter was laid off. Mr. Cobb. Let us distinguish first between a strike and a lay-off. If the carpenter voluntarily strikes, that is a strike. If he quits of his own accord that is a strike. Mr. Landis. That is not a strike if he quits. Mr. Kearns. If the man walks off the job that is a strike. Mr. Cobb. That is right, if a man walks off the job that is a strike, but if the men are put off the job tlie}^ are locked out. Mr. Landis. But we have the testimony where this fellow was laid off. He said they told him, ''You are laid off temporarily," or some- thing to that effect. He said, "Am I fired?" And they said, "No, you are not fired, you are laid off." Mr. Cobb. Now, let's take the distinction step by step. We have agreed on what is a strike. Mr. Landis. Yes, we have agreed on that. Mr. Cobb. We will agree that if the studio decided to close down temporarily and said, "Boys, we don't need you, you can go home until we call you back," that is a lay-off. Mr. Landis. But you could have another reason for that besides a lay-off. Mr. Cobb. Wliat other reason, Mr. Landis ? Mr. Landis. If I anticipate trouble I would lay off until this trouble is over with, then I could start them back to work again. Mr. Cobb. All right, now let me take that as our basis. Let us take the theory — and this is purely hypothetical because I have shown it is not sustained by the evidence — let us take the hypo- thetical theory that the companies laid off the men temporarily and until conditions would permit the companies to call them back. Is that a fair statement ? Mr. Landis. That is all right. Mr. Cobb. Now in answer to that in the minutes of September 12, 1946, this sentence appears : It was agreed each studio would assign work to carpenters by Monday to create an incident. Mr. Landis. Was that testimony sworn to? Mr. Cobb. This is the language of the minutes of the companies' committee. Mr. Landis. That is not our testimony before the committee, sworn testimony before the committee? Mr. Cobb. There has not been a denial that I can recall. These minutes have been authenticated by companj^ witnesses. Mr. Landis. I don't know about that. Mr. Cobb. The minutes have been authenticated by Mr. Freeman. Mr. Landis. It has been testified here under oath that these men were laid off temporarily to prevent the trouble, tearing up and de- struction of property on the inside. Now that is the testimony. Isn't that correct ? Haven't we heard that testimony ? Mr. Cobb. I do not recall the testimony in that way. However, let us concede your recollection to be correct. That testimony is not sus- 2232 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES tained b_y the facts, as shown by the minutes of the companies them- selves. The minutes show the agreement that "Each studio would assign work to carpenters by Monday to create an iuQident." Mr. Landis. By Monday of what date ? Mr. Cobb. The 23d. Mr. Landis. Read tlie whole thing again. Mr. Cobb (reading) : It was agreed each studio would assign work to carpenters by Monday to create an incident. That agreement was made on the 12th. Mr. Landis. Could you interpi-et that ? That was during the trou- ble. What date was that ? Mr. CoBB. This was on the 12th. Mr. Landis. Couldn't it be interpreted that they were going to try those fellows out and see if they meant what they said they were going to do ? Mr. Cobb. No, Mr. Landis, that could not be it. Mr. Landis. If I had been the employer I would have tried them out on that proposition. Mr. Cobb. No, sir, to the contrary, the evidence shows Mr. Landis. Wliat do you think that means ? Mr. Cobb. That means exactly what it states, that they agreed among themselves to create an incident as the means of putting the carpenters out, not the carpenters on sets, but all the carpenters, put- ting them out. You will find in the testimony of the Los Angeles hearings, testi- mony of one executive of one studio, after another executive of an- other studio, showing that that pattern was carried out. That testi- mony was so uniform as to what they did that it was not deemed necessary to call every studio. The pattern was adopted and fol- lowed as shown by the testimony of the executives from each of the companies interrogated. Mr. Landis. Now, we got a different interpretation right there on that one line. Mr. Cobb. If you have a different interpretation who is in any better position to determine that interpretation than the court? I have invited the gentlemen to leave that inerpretation to the court. Mr. Landis. They can interpret it in one way or they can interpret it in more than one way. Mr. Cobb. They would interpret that in connection with all the evidence. They would not interpret one isolated thing, they would interpret the whole together. There is no variance in the testimony as to the agreement that they were to put all the carpenters out by creating this incident. There is no conroversy over the fact that they did put all the car- penters out by this agreement. Mr. Landis. No, because some of them are still working. Mr. Cobb. No. I am very glad indeed to hear you state that. Mr. Landis. None working at all ? Mr. Cobb. Oh, there are some Mr. Landis. I thought somebody said there were 150 or so. Mr. Cobb. Oh, not carpenters ; no, no. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2233 Mr. Landis. No carpenters at all ? Mr. Cobb. They are some pretended lA carpenters. Mr. Landis. No members of 946 at all ? Mr. Cobb. Not one that we have ever heard of. Mr. Landis. Just the outside carpenters? Mr. Cobb. I would not dignify them by calling them carpenters. Mr, Landis. I don't know what kind of carpenters the lA has or whether they have any carpenters. I thought some of these carpenters went back through the picket line. I know some of them would not go back through the picket line. ■• Mr. Cobb. So far as we know there has never been one single 946 carpenter go back into the studios. Now why ? Mr. Landis. Because they have to respect the picket line. Mr. Cobb. Oh, no, sir. You have heard the statement that the carpenters can come back to work any time they want. Mr. Landis. I have heard that, yes. I mean some of them, if they need them. Mr. Cobb. I pointed out where the carpenters had a contract both as to wages, hours, and working conditions, and a contract of employ- ment. They said the carpenters can go back to work. They haven't said once that the carpenters can go back to work under that contract. They have said the carpenters can come back to work under an open shop. ]\Ir. Landis. I believe one of them said they had an open shop. Mr. Cobb. The record is perfectly clear that they are operating un- der open shop — under closed shop for lA's and under open shop for carpenters. A sort of dual system of operation. Mr. Landis. In other words, you could work there under 946 if they got it open shop, could you not ? Mr. Cobb. No, sir. Call me a 946 carpenter. If I wanted to go back to work I would have to go back in an open shop. Mr. Landis. But that would not prevent you from belonging to the union. You would have to work with lA members, and probably some nonunion members if you went back to work; isn't that right? In an open shop you could have lA, you could have carpenters, and you could have nonunion men. Mr. Cobb. I want to get this principle stated clearly, because it is so important. The Supreme Court has held that a man's right to work under a contract is property, and I shall give you the quotation from the Su- preme Court in my written brief. The carpenters of 946 have a property right in their contract called the Beverly Hills agreement. Wlien the companies tell them that they can come back to work in an open shop, but not under that contract, that is depriving them of a property right in violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitu- tion. I will brief that very thoroughly for the committee. Now, let's take the "hot" sets. Under the contract — and the record here shows not only the original basic contract of 1926 and the various extensions of it, but the closed shop contract of 1935, which is still in eifect as a part of the general contract carried forward, and which is binding under the Taft-Hartley law until the date of its expiration — that the carpenters have a closed-shop contract until the 1st of July to do all carpenters' work in the studios. 2234 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now, the companies conspire among themselves and make an agree- ment in conspiracy with the lA, as appears in the minutes, the minutes being of September 17 [reading] : Brewer said to put lA men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit. In here I read you the minutes to create an incident. Brewer from the lA comes in and says to them, as the basis of the agi'eement be- tween the I A and the companies : Put LA men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit, provided lA is ad- vise4, in advance when and where; (2) put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self -protection ; (3) keep procedure quiet so CSU cannot gang up on us at a spot. Now, there is a secret agreement between the companies and the lA to put the lA on work belonging to carpenters under a valid existing closed-shop contract. That is conspiracy. And in connection with that, to create an incident as a means for putting them off the lot. Mr. Landis. I think the question is where you have a contract where they would not work on the sets. Mr. Cobb. Our contract gave the carpenters the right to do that carpentr}'^ work on the sets. If the carpenters had yielded that right they would have forfeited their contract and would have forfeited their property right in the contract, which is protected to them by the fifth amendment. Mr. Landis. Wliy did they work under that condition? Mr. Cobb. They never worked under that condition except under the protest, pending the clarification of the December agreement. They contended at all times that they were entitled to it. Mr. Landis. But they worked from January to July, then made a new contract in July and continued to work? Mr. Cobb. But they did not make a new contract giving any part of that set work to the lA, Mr. Landis. Mr. Landis. No; but thev should have made a contract clarifying that. Mr. Cobb. Who should have made the contract ? Mr. Landis. Well, the carpenters should have demanded it, I sup- pose. Mr. Cobb. The carpenters were demanding it at all times. It takes two to make a contract. Mr. Landis. Before I would have signed the contract in July I would have tried to get that in the contract. I would have tried to get the job done, if I had been the carpenters. I would have made that clear because they had all that trouble from January up to July, and I would have tried to get it in the agreement. Mr. Cobb. Now, Mr. Landis, let's get clear on this. Under the historic work that belonged to the carpenters, under the decision in December to respect the historic division, it belonged to the carpenters. Under the conspiracy between the lA and the companies it was taken away from the carpenters temporarily, over the carpenters' protest that lasted on until this clarification; that then when the clarification was made, not setting up anything new, but merely stating what was intended by the December decision, it was the lA who became the aggressor, not the carpenters ; it was the I A who made threats, not the carpenters ; it was the lA who entered into conspiracy with the com- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2235 pany not the carpenters ; it was the lA who breached the contracts and not the carpenters. So when you come to the actual occurrences of September 23 the carpenters did not leave. Mr. Landis. Did the lA men leave there ? Mr. Cobb. The lA moved in on the carpenters' work. Mr. Landis. Did they leave their work after the July 2 contract? Mr. Cobb. The lA's were in conspiracy with the companies, getting all that the companies would give them, so why should they leave? They threatened to leave if the companies Mr. Landis. Some of the carpenters left ? Mr. Cobb. Oh, no. Mr. Landis. Between September 12 and 23 ? Mr. Cobb. I don't know of one word of testimony in here to show that. Mr. Landis. Well, I mean refused to work on the sets. Mr. Cobb. That is a vast distinction. I don't know of one word of testimony that any carpenier left, except this fraudulent representa- tion of the company. Mr. Landis. I mean because they would not work on the sets they were let out. Mr. Cobb. Because they would not abandon their contract to permit the lA to do work that belonged to the carpenters mider the contract. The breach of contract was on the part of the companies and the LA., not on the part of the carpenters. Now, it is very important to bring this to your attention : In that old basic contract between the companies and the unions of 1926, the lA and carpenters both signed that agreement. Under the closed shop of December 1935 the carpenters and the lA both signed that contract. Mr. Lantdis. What kind of a contract did they have in '26 ; do you know? Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir, I have a copy of it. Will you excuse me for just a moment ? Mr. Landis. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Landis. I am talking about the Beverly Hills agreement — Any dispute other than wages should be submitted to arbitration. Skelton and Brewer wiU get together and make an agreement covering arbitration. Basis of arbitration will be the A. F. of L. three-man directive. Now, get this : It was agreed to let each studio interpret the directive and award the work where in its judgment it belongs under the directive and no work stoppage will be ordered for the next 30 days, or until the arbitration machinery is set up. Mr. Cobb. Well, now, sir, there was never any arbitration machinery set up, so far as I am informed. Mr. Landis. There was no strike ? Mr. Cobb. There has been no strike by the carpenters, sir, there has been a lock-out of the carpenters. The carpenters were put out ; thej did not go out. Mr. Landis The point was they should have gone ahead with the work until they set up some arbitration machinery. 2236 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Cobb. It is a basic principle of law, which I am sure no lawyer would dispute, that when fraud and conspiracy enter those in the fraud and conspiracy are guilty of the breach of contract. There was nothing in the Beverly Hills agreement upon which, by any stretch of the imagination, the carpenters were bound by any con- spiracy between the lA and the companies. All agi'eements in law are made upon the basis and assumption of good faith. Mr. Landis. What would you have done if you had been an employer and the carpenters had walked off your set? Would you have just sat down, or would you have hired more men to take their place ? Mr. Cobb. There is a statement in these minutes regarding Mr, Cambiano that I want to call your attention to. Mr. Landis. But I want you to answer my question. Mr. Cobb. I am going to answer that, too, sir. Let me answer this, if I may. You asked a question some while back as to whether the sets were closed down the following day. The minutes of September 11, at page 3313 contain this : It was further stated by Cambiano that the sets were "hot" only after tomorrow. What had been done up today was not "hot" — only after tomorrow ; that sets currently built would be finished by carpenters. That any sets that were partially built, the carpenters would go in and finish the sets. Mr. Landis. Now, you are the employer. Mr. Cobb. You asked me the question if I was the employer ? Mr. Landis, I am not going to say you are the boss, but you are running that end of it, the studio steward, or whatever it is, to keep the studio open. The boss directs you to keep the studio open and these carpenters will not work on the sets. Mr, Cobb. Let me know where you are casting me. Am I an em- ployer, or am I a carpenter ? Mr, Landis, You are not a, carpenter. Mr. Cobb. Now, if I put myself in the position of the employer, what would I do ? Mr. Landis. Well, your boss is over you, the owner or the fellow who furnishes the money is over you. He tells you, "I want you to keep the studios open." Mr. Cobb. All right. If Mr. Nicholas Schenck called me from New York and told me as vice president of his company in Los Angeles, "I want you to keep the studios open," what would I do? Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. Cobb. Well, I do not think there can be but one answer to that, Mr. Landis. I would consult my lawyer and I would ask him what was the lawful thing for me to do. If I consulted as good a lawyer as Al Wright and he told me that I would have no legal or moral right to carry out the wishes of Mr. Nicholas Schenck, I would tell Mr. Nicholas Schenck that I regretted that I could not carry out his un- lawful purposes and if he .said, "Well, you can't work for me any more," I would say, "Goodbye, Mr, Schenck," I think that is what any man who is a law-abiding citizen would have done, Mr, Landis. You mean in the United States in a free country Mr. Cobb. No ; it is not a free country when employers and others conspire against the workers under a contract. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2237 Mr. Landis. Well, I have a business here and I want to keep this business going. If one union decides not to work on this certain work over here and in order to keep it going I have to work this part here open and running, and 1 cannot go out to another union, or if I cannot get union men, I have to get other men to come in here and finish the work — do you say I cannot do that ? Mr. Cobb. I would say the employer has a legal right to protect himself within the law to the full extent of his interests and benefit, but that no employer is bigger than the law and no employer can justify his action in conspiring with other employers to deprive workers of contractual rights. Mr. Laxdis. 1 don't mean that. I say, I would have the right as an employer to hire other men to do that job. Mr. Cobb. But you would be in violation of a contract when you did. Mr. Landis. I don't think so. Mr. Cobb. That question 1 am willing to submit to a court. Mr. Landis. Because they left the work. , Mr. Cobb. I am willing to submit that question to a court. Mr. Landis. Well, I am willing to, also. Mr. Cobb. I am not expressing any offense at the question, Mr. Landis, I welcome the question. Mr. Landis. That is right. I believe there is a difference there be- tween those fellows leaving the work or if I just go in there and try to take them out. Mr. Cobb. Mr. Landis, no carpenter ever left his work. Mr. Landis. But he refused to work on the "hot" sets. Mr. Cobb. That was not leaving his work, that was maintaining his contract. Mr. Landis. But he had been doing that work before. Mr. Cobb. The full time, practically a month, was allowed for them to accept the clarification. Now, I want to call your attention to another thing, a thing of very great importance. In these minutes of September 17, this statement appears : Set erectors : Brewer wanted to correct an erroneous opinion that independents were not being forced to use erectors ; they are. That presents a very ugly violation of the Sherman Act ; for these companies to enter into this agreement with the lA that they should force independents to use the lA in carpenters' work under the Allen- Bradley case in the Supreme Court. It was an act where the lA went out of character as a labor union and came into character as a co-conspirator with those not labor unions, in violation of the Sherman Act. Then on September 17, page 3324, it was further shown by the minutes : There is to be no hurry Mr. Landis. Off the record. ( Discussion oft' the record. ) Mr. CoBB. I want to call your attention to one of the most significant passages in all the minutes. This appears in the minutes of Septembej" 17, at page 3324 : There is to be no hurry to clean out all carpenters and painters immediately, running into Friday or even Saturday, if necessary. 67383— 48— vol. 3 17 2238 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I call attention to the words "to clean out." That doesn't mean they are going to leave ; that doesn't mean that they are going to — what was the word? Mr, Landis. Lay-off. Mr. Cobb. Lay-off. "To clean out" doesn't mean to lay-off men. "To clean out" means to put them out and to put them out means to. lock them out. It can't mean anything else. And the phrase, "not to clean out those who do set-erection work, but to clean out all carpenters." Now, gentlemen, bearing in mind that the carpenters' contract was a property right guaranteed by the fifth amendment, and that to deprive them of that right was in violation of the fifth amendment ; and that any agreement between the companies and the lA to deprive them and clean them out, even in the generous fashion of "running into Friday or even Saturday, if necessary," to carry out the lock-out — I think, sir, completes the proof of the lock-out from the language of the minutes themselves. Thei-e is other rich language in the minutes. I will pick that out in the written brief to be prepared. I want to thank each of the committee for your kindness to me. I want to assure you of my confidence in your committee. Mr. Landis. You understand my question? Mr. Cobb. Mr. Landis, if I did not know, like, and respect you, you would be the first one that I would tell. I want the record to show my appreciation of the very generous courtesy to me ; my full and complete confidence in this committee. I want again to congratulate the com- mittee upon rendering a great public service. I do not know that the hidden facts of this case would ever have come to public knowledge if it had not been for the courage and the wholesome public service rendered by the committee. Now, I am going to ask just one thing. I have been coming to Washington for about 40 years. I hate to come to Washington and go away from Washington without asking some favor. Nearly every- body comes to ask a favor. Mr. Kearns. You don't want to be different. Mr. Cobb. I don't want to be segregated. So I am going to ask a favor. I am going to ask each and every member of this good committee to draft any and every question that they think I should answer in the written brief to be prepared, and I assure you that I will answer it to the best of my ability. Mr. Landis. That is fair enough. Mr. Cobb. If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. Mr. Kearns. I thought so far as the attorneys are concerned we would not have cross questions, because you are more or less presenting your sides of the case and you do not particularly care to question each other. Mr. ZoRN. I have no questions. Mr. Cobb. May I add one thing about the attorneys ? Instead of abusing these attorneys I wish that for once these motion- picture companies woulcl get some weak attorneys. I am getting tired fighting all the able attorneys in America. And that goes for the lA and my friend Mr. Levy. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2239 Mr. Kearns. Mr. Cobb, on behalf of tlie committee, I want to thank you for your patience, too, your contribution that has been made for your side of the problem. I kno\\' when we put this all together we may get a total sometime Avhich might mean something to many disputes that might come up in the future. We do not know what this might bring. I know that all the evidence you are giving here, each and every one of you, is something going into the record that may be good for the future. Mr. Cobb. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I just say one other word : Come what may, I want this good committee to know at all times of my full respect and desire to cooperate. Mr. Kearxs. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. We stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to re- convene at 10 a. m. of the following day, Friday, March 12, 1948.) JUEISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY FBIDAY, MARCH 12, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D. C . The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m,, before Hon. Carroll D. Kearns, chairman of the special committee. Mr. Ivearns. I have an announcement to read into the record this morning. At the conclusion of the present hearings, which I hope will re- cess this morning until Tuesday, the chairman will notify all pei*sons whose names have been mentioned as Communists, or as members of Communist-front organizations, or who have been in any way associ- ated with Communist activity in the testimony before this committee, so that they may have an opportunity of appearing before the com- mittee to clear all reference made in the record. This committee will reconvene on Monday, May 17, 1948, to hear any and all such persons named in the testimony and appearing in the record. Also on this date. Senator Jack B. Tenney of the Un-American Activities Committee of the State of California, will testify. I will also set the date of Tuesday, May 25, 1948, as the day when the testimony of Westbrook Pegler will be heard. Mr. McCann. Have you any announcement to make, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the plans of the committee to get the testimony of Mr. Nicholas Schenck? Mr. Kearns. I have taken care of that personally. Mr. Zorn has been sworn. You may proceed. Mr. Zorn. TESTIMONY OF BURTON A. ZORN, COUNSEL FOR THE MOTION PIC- TURE PRODUCERS— Recalled Mr. Zorn. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Landis, I would like to say that as I have sat through these hearings in Washington, I have had complete admiration for your infinite patience, and I hope when this report finally comes through, I will have equal admiration for your wisdom. We have been here for many, many days. This case has gone into many side alleys and detours. I hope today to try to bring the case back to what I consider the main track, the track on which these frequently voiced, but never proved charges of conspiracy have been made against the producers. 2241 2242 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Before I get into that, however, there are two things I would like to clear up. I have sat here for many days listening to evidence of communism. I express no opinion on the question as to whether Mr. Sorrell is a Communist or not, but I do know one thing, that if he isn't he has certainly learned well the filthy art of smearing and character assassi- nation which is a well-known Communist trick. In his testimony the other day — and so there is no misunderstanding about this and because of the seriousness of it, I want to repeat it — at page 2583 of this record he testified, starting at page 2582 : Then they brought in a man by the name of Denham to act as trial examiner. I got reports that it was all in the bag now, that Denham would handle everything for the producers and everything would be all right. Then in answer to Mr. Landis' question about Mr. Denham's first name, Sorrell said : I don't know, but it is the Mr. Denham who is now head of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Kearns corrected him to say, "chief counsel." Sorrell continues on page 2583 : We knew what was happening with Mr. Denham. We knew what kind of a deal we were getting, but after all there are three members on the Board, at least three, maybe more, because I was not there. Among them were Mr. Huston, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Milletts. He is obviously in error on Mr. Milletts, because he means Mr. Herzog and he corrected it the next day. We have friends that work around that Board. They kept in touch with us and told us what was happening. Mr. Benjamin was sent to the Board by the producers, although they are in the middle they are very much interested in this, so they sent Mr. Benjamin there and he makes a lot of contacts. We have that and we know considerably about it. Then he goes on to state : I immediately called our attorneys. I told them a few things I knew. He knew some of these things, too, and they called the Board together. They "called the Board together," says he. Now, I am stating this from memory and I don't know which was wliich, but Mr. Huston and Mr. Riley, I believe it was, one admitted he had large stockholdings in a theatrical chain ; the other was a trustee for a chain of theaters, or something of that kind. They were asked why they didn't disqualify themselves. There was a quick meeting held. I also contacted Ellis Patterson, Helen Gahagan Douglas and I can't think of all the Congressmen and Congresswomen. It seemed there was a calling together of the attorneys, there was a sit-down and a confab. Then he says the attorney who attended had gone up to New York and he couldn't get him. Then he goes on : But there was some kind of a deal cooked up whereby everybody would get a chance to vote. That is all we wanted because we knew that 100 percent of our people would vote for 1421. We knew the lATSE had none. Then the following day he amplified that testimony at page 2673 of this record. He stated : There are some things I said yesterday that should probably be made more clear. I stated I was told that Mr. Denham was in the producers' pockets. I didn't say who stated that. I will tell you now that the notes I have made show that Mr. Benjamin stated at the producers' meeting — and this was in October Mr. Kearns. What year? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2243 Mr. SoRKBLL. Octol)eL* 1945, after he had retnrned from Washington — that Reilly was responsible for tlie appointment of Denham as trial examiner and that he had seen to it that the fix was in. This was said in the producers' meeting. I don't want to tell you who told me, but if you desire And I think you, Mr. Kearns, indicated that you did not think much of his statement unless he told you. Later on — I do not have the page — he said he got that information from a man named Bart Guild. Now, Mr. Sorrell also said certain other things in the course of his testimony. If you will recall, when Mr. Landis asked him about certain state- ments in a letter which Mr. Landis had received from some of the expelled members of his union, concerning a Camel package with some thousand-dollar bills, Mr. SorrelFs comment was : It's funny what queer people will say. I think his own comment applies vividly to his own testimony. Let me tell you how serious this thing is and how completely base- less it is. I will develop that because I can personally testify to these facts from personal knowledge. < Mr. Sorrell has taken men with the reputation of Mr. Riley, who is a man of well-known outstanding integrity, and I think well known to this Congress; he has taken the name of Mr. Denham, who is a man of national reputation; he has taken the name of Mr. Huston — apart from Mr. Benjamin, who he claims to have put a "fix in." Now, on a completely smear basis, and on some alleged report that he picked up from somebody else, he has tried to drag the names of these oustanding people, whose integrity, honor, and decency have never been questioned, into the mud in this hearing. If that is the kind of testimony that he has given here, I think you can evaluate the rest of his testimony on that basis. Let me tell you what happened. I was counsel for the producers in the famous Columbia Pictures case. I have before me the official volume of the National Labor Relations Board reports, volume 64. The decision in that case which involved the question as to whether the strikers and whether the replacements in this set dressers' contro- versy could vote, w as decided- in that particular case. According to the report of the case, at page 493, in a statement of the procedural aspects, is the following : Pursuant to the foregoing order a hearing was held upon due notice at Los Angeles, Calif., on various dates between July 9 and August 2, 1945, inclu- sive, before R. N. Denham, trial examiner. Note those dates, July and August. Then it goes on to say leave was granted to file briefs. On September 28, 194.5, the producers, the painters, and the lATSE argued orally before the Board at Washington, D. C. The date of the oral argument in this case in which I participated was on September 28, 1945. Now, let me tell you wdiat happened that day. Judge Levy appeared representing the lATSE. The painters were represented by Mr. Abe Isserman, a lawyer from New York, whose name has been mentioned in these proceedings. To refresh your recollection of Mr. Isserman, he has recently appeared as counsel for Eisler in his Communist proceed- ings. I do not believe in slinging mud, but if you want any references 2244 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES as to Mr. Isserman and his connections, you might look into the files of the Un-American Activities Committee. Mr. Pestano was with Mr. Isserman. Isserman had been retained especially for this case in a previous argument on the election which had occurred back in April of that year in which I participated. Mr. Pestano argued at that time the issue of strikers and replacements was not involved in the earlier case. The only issue involved in the earlier case was what kind of a unit the set dressers should be permitted to vote in and pursuant to that the Board ordered the election. So at the September 28 oral argument was Mr. Isserman and Mr. Pestano for the Painters ; as I said. Judge Levy, and I am not certain for the moment whether Mr. Luddy, of California, was with him or not, I don't recall that. Mr. Herbert Thatcher, who was an associate of Joseph Padway, represented the American Federation of Labor — rather, he was then representing the International Brotherhood of Painters. Isserman was representing local 1421, Sorrell's particular union. On behalf of the producers were Homer Mitchell — you will remem- ber him. Congressman Kearns, as counsel for the Producers Associa- tion on the coast — Mr. Al Wright and myself. We appeared in the room at 10 o'clock in the morning for the argu- ment on this case, in the regular Board room where arguments are heard. We were then advised, all of us, that the Board wanted to see us upstairs. We were taken up to Chairman Herzog's own office and with Chairman Herzog at the time was Mr. Huston and Mr. Reilly. Now, I believe, though I am not certain, that the National Labor Relations Board kept a stenographic transcript of the discussion that took place at that meeting. If you have any questions about it, I would suggest that you might inquire for it. My recollection is that they did take a stenographic^transcript. This is what occurred Mr. McCann. Mav I have that date, and I will inquire ? Mr. ZoRx. September 28, 1945. Mr. McCann. On the Columbia Pictures case ? Mr. ZoRN. Columbia Pictures Corp., et al. Mr. McCann. Would you like for us to inquire to see if they took stenographic notes of that hearing? Mr. ZoRN. I think in the interest of accuracy, if they have them they would be helpful to the committee. Mr. Kearns. Well, when Mr. Denham is notified of the charges made against him, which I will do by letter, he probably can submit something to that effect, or his statement will probably clear that up. Mr. ZoRN. The only reason I suggest it, and I don't know whether they have them, is that my recollection is pretty clear about it, and I got pretty mad at that time as to what had happened. But if there is any quesion about the accuracy or the detail of the testimony that did occur in 1945. I would like to have you have the complete transcript, if there is such, but that is entirely a matter for the committee. Mr. Herzog opened the discussion by saying he was Chairman of the Board. He said : This is a very unusual procedure, gentlemen, and we have called you in because' this is an important case. It has received wide publicity and there are certain delicate matters here that we want to put right on the table and be completely frank with all of you. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2245 He said : For one reason or another — I am giving you this in substance — For one reason or another it may very weU be that each member of this Board if we follow the canons of judicial ethics strictly, might be disqualifled from sitting in this case. Now, we didn't do that, or take action on our own, because the case is an important case, and if we disqualified ourselves there would be no decision in a controversy that is a serious controversy, and that is why I have taken the libei'ty of calling you in so that we can frankly discuss the situation with all of you. He said : I am going to start with a statement of my own position, then we will go to the other members of the Board alphabetically, and they will state their own situations. He said : So far as I am concerned, I am a trustee of an estate. Among the holdings of that estate are stock in certain independent motion picture theaters in the east. And he said : If I were sitting as a judge, even though these theaters have no interest what- ever in the producers, or are not associated with the producers in a sense except that they buy the products of the producers in Hollywood, I would feel so sensi- tive even about that connection that I would disqualify myself. But I want to put the facts frankly on the table and let you gentlemen decide whether you want me to disqualify myself or not. Then he turned to Mr. Huston. Mr. Huston said : Well, my situation is a little bit similar, and again a little bit different from Mr. Herzog's. A number of years ago I owned a fair amount of stock in some Mid- west theater chains. I think he said in Kansas : The holdhigs of that chain expanded until I think it grew to 39 theaters. Then about 6 months ago I sold most of my holdings. I still have a very small interest. They are also independent exhibition companies, not related or associated with the producers. That is what I recall he said. In addition to that he said : However, some years ago the lA local in Washington gave me an honorary gold card. He said : I have never attended any of their meetings, and I have never attended any of their conventions, but I have that card. Incidentally, Chairman Herzog had indicated the procedure he wanted to follow was to let each member of the Board speak and then have counsel go out separately and come back separately and make their own decisions or recommendations as to what should be done. Then he turned to Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reilly said this, in substance : This Board has received representations from Its regional ofhce in Los Angeles to the following effect ; that a Mr. Pestano and a Mr. Margolis — Mr. Margolis, I believe, has been identified as the same Margolis, of Katz, Gallagher & Margolis in the course of the testimony in this Record. Mr. Reilly went on to say : That Mr. Pestano and Mr. Margolis had gone in to see someone in the regional board in Los Angeles, as had been reported to the National Board and to him, and they had told this person in the regional board that they had picked iip some 2246 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES information to the effect that at a producers meeting in Hollywood Mr. Benjamin had made some statement, that he had talked to myself — Said Mr. Eeilly— and that a "fix was in in this case." Mr. Herzog, as I recall, then stopped discussion and sent us out. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wright, and I conferred. We have known Mr. Benjamin for many years. He is a man of the highest professional integrity. We knew the people on the other side we were dealing with. We knew the story was completely false. We did not have an opportimity at that moment to get a telephone call through to Los Angeles because they gave us a very limited time, but we knew, knowing the situation, that the thing was just a dastardly lie. So we went back in the hearing. Mitchell was acting as our spokes- man that day. We discussed it. We agreed that the thing was so brazen and so baseless, that we would take this position : that we would not discuss any question of the qualification or disqualification of Mr. Herzog and Mr. Huston, until we had gotten this thing cleared up. When we went back in the room, apparently Mr. Isserman had gotten in a little ahead of us. I think Judge Levy had gotten in a little ahead of us, so Chairman Herzog said : I will take your statements in the order in which you have come into the room. Isserman said : So far as Mr. -Herzog and Mr. Huston are concerned, ohviously in my judgment their small interest in independent theaters can't possibly affect their bearing on this case. So far as Mr. Reilly is concerned- He said this — we are making no charges, and on the facts as we know them — And this is clear in my mind ; I remember them very clearly — on the facts as we know them we intend to make no charges and we are not making any motion here to have Mr. Reilly disqualify himself. Isserman then went on to say that in his judgment the matter of disqualification of Mr. Reilly was entirely a matter for Mr. Reilly's conscience. But he did make it very clear that he was making no charges on the facts as they then knew them, and intended to make no charges. Then they got to Judge Levy and, as I recall Judge Levy's statement, he said in effect that he was in a very embarrassing situation, that ob- viously he thought all members of the Board would act fairly in this case, and act properly, but in view of the fact that these interests were there, he was a little fearful that in an effort to lean backward, his situ- ation might be prejudiced. But he made it very clear that he had no objection to any of the Board members. Then speaking for us, Mr. Homer ISIitchell used some very strong language about the charges that were made. He said, he knew they were falsehoods and he knew they were lies. He wanted to know from Mr. Isserman right then and there whether Mr. Isserman was making any representation to the Board at that time that those statements were true. ' Isserman immediately said, "No." He said : As I stated before, I am making no charges, and on the facts as we know them I don't intend to make any charges. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2247 Then Mr. Mitchell said : Because of the seriousness and gravity of tlie charge, tliere is one man in this room who knows whether they are true or false. He attacked the charges as being loose rumors and a lot of other things, as I recall it. He said : That is Mr. Reilly. Before we, representing the producers, indicate our feeling about the qualificatiou of the other two members of the Board, we want this thing cleared up, and since Mr. Reilly knows the facts and knows what the truth of the situation is, we insist on a ruling by hini arst as to whether he feels he should sit in this case or not. Mr. Herzog then interrupted to say, "Well, couldn't we clear up the other thing?'' And Mitchell with my prodding him alongside, held his ground. So the three members of the board went out. Mr. Reilly came back. They were out a very short time. As I recall it, he said this : There isn't any truth whatever in any of these statements. He said : There have been times where in situations I have disqualified myself for differ- ent reasons, but here there is absolutely no truth in these statements. They are absolute falsehoods. I liave never discussed the issues in this case, I have never discussed the votes of the members in this case with anyone except the men^bers of the board, and those being the facts, I refuse to disqualify myself on a flimsy — 1 think he said — and false charge of this kind. That was the end of it. Then we proceeded to go down and argue the case. Now the significant thing about that whole situation is not so much this malicious attack, because knowing Mr. Reilly I think you men know he is completely unapproachable. He has a reputation for com- plete integrity. One of the difficulties in Mr. Reilly's career has been simply that the Communists don't like him and the left-wingers don't like him. You gentlemen who have been close to the National Labor Relations Board know a great deal more about that picture than I would like to put on this record. But the significant thing is the fact that Sorrell by his own state- ment, rushed to Ellis Patterson. Ellis Patterson has been described in this record very fully. He rushed to Helen Gahagan Douglas, and he rushed to a lot of other people who began to put pressure on the Board. Now Sorrell made that statement here himself. I don't want to tes- tify to hearsay but since he made that statement let me tell you that from information I received from people at the Board they put on a relentless, ceaseless pressure campaign on the members of that Board to get them to make a decision their way, which is one of the most shameful, shocking things, I think, in the history of this country. Mind you, I am not making the silghest suggestion here with respect to the integrity of any member of that Board. I was general counsel for Mr. Herzog when he was a member of the New York State Labor Relations Board and I have the highest respect for his integrity. I am making no charge. 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 gentle- men 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 hear- say 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 informa- tion. 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 replace- ments 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 con- tinued 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 unfair- labor-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 re- placements 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. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2249 As a matter of fact, even the majority said this — and then came to the conchision I indicated- Mr. Landls. How was that divided ? Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Herzog; and Mr. Houston voted for the strikers' ballots to be counted; Mr. Reilly held the other way, held that the strikers had lost their status as employees and therefore should not be permitted to vote. But even the majority had this to say. This appears at page 513 of the decision, which is in volume 64 of the Board reports : It is 'true that the strike was called during the Board's hearing and investiga- tion to resolve the questions at issue in this strike. Were we called upon to determine whether the action of the employees in striking was well-considered, we should say unhesitatingly that it was not. It showed a disregard for the orderly processes of the Board and an unwillingness to rely upon the machinery which Congress had made available as an alternative to the strike. It contrib- uted materially to the prolongation of a dispute which the Board could otherwise have decided many months ago. I won't bother to read in any of Mr. Reilly's decision except to point out — as I think I have done on a previous occasion, but probably while you were not here, Mr. Landis — that this Columbia Pictures' decision is referred to in the reports of the House committee and the reports of the Senate committee on Public Law 101. Those reports indicate Congress thoroughly disagreed with that proposition ; that a striker who had gone out in a situation where the employer had not committed an unfair labor practice and had been replaced, should not have a right to vote. I think Congress was pretty mad about it, as a result of which Congress put this provision in Public Law 101. It is in section 9 (c) (3) : Employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall not be eligible to vote. In the Columbia Pictures case' the majority had held the other way. I do want to say one further thing about Mr. McCann. Just at that point, if I may. As a matter of fact in the conference report on this bill, isn't it a fact, Mr. Zorn, that refer- ence is specifically made to the Columbia Pictures' case? Mr. ZoRN. That is quite correct. They point out that they want to reverse that rule. Mr. McCann. I think that pinpoints what he has just said. Mr. Landis. Wliere was the pressure there on the Board? Was the pressure on the Board to let them vote or just what in- fluenced the decision ? Mr. ZoRX. Sorrell. I think, made it very clear that he wanted his strikers to vote and if they didn't vote obviously he was out of luck. He admitted on the witness stand that he put the heat on Patterson, Mrs. Douglas, and the others to put the heat on the Board to get a decision to that effect. Now the majority of the Board did decide that the strikers should vote, with Reilly dissenting. The strikers did vote and Sorrell's union won. But I want to make this very clear. I am saying that as a fact pressure was put on, but I am saying that I have regard for the integ- rity of those gentlemen and I think they did what they considered to be an honest job. 2250 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The other interesting thing about it is that in this miiddled-np testi- mony of Sorrell's about what happened, he talks about Denham having been appointed by Reilly as a trial examiner. As a matter of fact — and I am very familiar with the procedure of the Board — the Board members have nothing to do with the appointment of a trial examiner. The trial examiner is appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. At that time he was a gentleman named Frank Bloom, about whom 1 Avould rather tell you some things privately than publicly. Frank Bloom appointed him in that case and you can check that with the members of the Board. As a matter of fact, Mr. Denham had been appointed way back to sit in this case in March and April. According to Mr. Sorrell's testi- mony all these statements occurred in a producers' meeting in Octobef 1945'. I think on its face it is transparently sham and I think it is just a dirty smear attack that cannot possibly stand the light of day. Mr. McCann. Mr. Zorn, when did Mr. Denham first become identi- fied with the Board, if you know ? Mr. ZoRN. I wouldn't know, Mr. McCann. I think he had been with the Board for some time. At least several years is my recollec- tion. Mr. McCann. Do you know at what time the Board adopted the policy that the Chief Trial Examiner should appoint trial examiners. Mr. Zorn. I know it was definitely sometime prior to April of 1945. It had been in existence. I had many matters before the Board and that is why I can state this with some authority. Mr. McCann. The reason I asked was that in the earlier days the Board did appoint trial examiners. Mr. ZoRN. In the very early days that is correct. Mr. McCann. I wondered if you had any information you could give us as to the time when that authority was transferred to the Chief Trial Examiner ? Mr. ZoRN. I am sorry, I do not know the precise date. I know it had been in effect for some time prior to July of 1945, when Mr. Denham M^as appointed on this case. Mr. McCann. I think this is rather important, Mr. Chairman. Could you do this for us, if it is available to you, find out when Mr. Denham was appointed, by whom he was appointed Mr. ZoRN. In this particular case ? Mr. McCann. So that we would have that question answered definitely as to any appointments by Mr. Reilly. I am inclined to think there is a good deal of merit in what you have said here but I would like for you to document it if you will, so that we will have that definitely established in the record. Mr. ZoRN. I will try to get it for you, Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann. All right. Mr. Landis. When you get the information on Mr. Reilly's side of the picture, I mean his minority report — did he write a minority report ? Mr. ZoRN. Oh, yes ; he wrote an opinion. I did not want to read it into the record, but if you want it I would be glad to. He wrote a very full minority opinion in which he said he con- sidered the action of the majority in permitting strikers to vote to be 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 It was a contest of unions. The lA was claiming, and they claimed subsequently throughout the Board proceedings, that you could not have a separate unit of set dressers alone, that the appropriate unit 2260 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES must also include property men, so you could not have a consent election. If the unions had agreed on what was an appropriate unit we would have gone along immediately for a very speedy election, but the lA was making that claim and the painters on the other hand were arguing — and they argued before the Board — that the set dressers should be included with all the other members or a substantial number of the other members of local 1421. Mr. McCann. On that point the Board unanimously found against it, did it ? Mr. ZoRN. That is right. They did not find against us, they found against both the painters, who wanted this broad unit; and against the lA, who wanted another broad unit, and they said that historically we had bargained with the society for set dressers, and they constituted an appropriate unit. But there was an issue on wdiich you could not get consent. Mr. McCann. On that point that the set dressers did constitute an appropriate unit, the Board found with the painters? Mr. ZoRN. No, they did not, because the painters were not making that argument, Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann. They were not ? Mr. ZoRN. I do not have the prior decision but my recollection is that in this case, because I was in the case. Mr. Landis. I think under the old law they could have petitioned for an election. Mr. ZoRN. When we were faced with claims of rival unions after some period the Board issued a rule that where two conflicting unions claimed representation — and only in that case Mr. Landis. We had so much trouble on that we put in the new law that definitely the employers could petition for an election. Mr. ZoRN. You put in the new law that the employer could petition for an election which is something the old law never had ? Mr. Landis. That is right. Mr. ZoRN. LTnder the Board at that time if you had conflicting unions the employer might claim a petition, but it was not until 101 that it otherwise became effective. Just to answer Mr. McCann there, the painters were also insisting when they got to the National Labor Relations Board that the unit should not consist of set dressers alone, but should consist of the scenic artists and about a dozen other groups, all of whom were part of 1941, so the Board in effect did not sustain either one of the parties.' The Board in effect said, "You are both wrong and the appropriate unit is the historical unit based on the society of decorators case." Mr. McCann. That is fine. I wanted to get that clear. Mr. Landis. Who organized the office workers ? Mr. ZoRN. That came later and the testimony on that has been pretty full. I had not intended to go into that. The painters organized the office workers. Mr, Landis. I think it shows there is a fight on by both sides to get control of more unions and more crafts. Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Landis, there has been a fight for power among these unions going on for years there, and I think that the picture has un- folded itself so completely in these hearings before you, by everything that has been said. It has been said by Mr. Hutcheson and clearly MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2261 admitted time after time here, clearly stated, that no matter how long this thinor lasted he AYOiild not stand for any encroachment on what he considers the rightful jurisdiction of the carpenters. Mr. Walsh made the statement he believed the lA was entitled to all the w.ork in the studios. I mean that has been going on for years. There has been this contest for power. The only conspiracy, when we get right down to it and analyze this testimony — I think it is clear in your minds right now even without analysis — the only conspiracy we can see is the conspiracy of being caught between these contending forces and trying to run our business. That is what it gets down to in the ultimate result. Mr. Landis. Just a minute, we will take a 5-minute recess. (A short recess was taken.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will be in order, please. Mr. ZoRN. You know, Mr. Chairman, these recesses are a little dangerous, because you always remember something that you meant to say. In connection with these Sorrell charges against Mr. Benjamin, I wanted to add this : that if there were any basis for them or any truth in them whatever, any conduct of that kind by Mr. Benjamin would have clearly been a disbarrable offense and if there were the slightest truth in these charges I am wondering why Mr. Sorrell did not follow them up. I know, and I think the record shows, that they are completely baseless and untrue. I want to say further I would stake my life on the personal integrity of Mr. Benjamin. But I am wondering, in view of Mr. Sorrell raising this whole chestnut that was laid to rest as far back as 1945, he is such an aggressive fellow, why he did not do something about it at that time instead of raising it now 3 years after it had been laid to rest. I want to turn to another subject now, which I think is a matter of major significance in this entire hearing. Mr. Cobb yesterday spent a great deal of time on the question of the National Labor Relations Board, and on the Board's recent dismissal of certain of his charges. Mr. Cobb did not like what the Board did. Mr. Cobb also told us yesterday he did not like what the courts did in another suit he brought. Mr. Cobb also admitted, though he is a very effective orator, that he had had very little experience with the labor law. I think on his own statement — and I mean no offense whatever to Mr. Cobb, because I respect him — on his own statement I think you ought to consider many of the statements he made to you on what the labor law is or should be, witli an understanding that he has not had very much experience in that field. Now, the significance of the National Labor Relations Board charges is this: You gentlemen in Congress have set up an administrative agency known as the National Labor Relations Board under Public Law 101. You have changed certain rules of the game in the operation of that law. You have also taken from the Board the old role which it had as prosecutor, judge, and jury, by giving to the general counsel of the Board the final authority to investigate and prosecute cases of unfair labor practices. 2262 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now, Mr. Cobb very frankly said yesterday that he had taken these very voluminous charges of his, which were filed 6 weeks after the con- clusion of this committee's hearings in Los Angeles, and which charges have been made a part of this record, and which charges contain a complete resume of all testimony in the Los Angeles hearings. Those he said he submitted to the regional director of the Board in Los Angeles and submitted them to the general counsel, Mr. Denham, in Washington. Now, in view of that fact, and in view of the procedure of the Board that the regional attorney normally will not dismiss the case, though the dismissal is under his signature, without consultation or direction or advice from the general counsel, I doiyt know, but I assume that Mr. LeBaron's action in dismissing these cases, which were read into the record yesterday, and which I will come to in a moment, was done, of course, \yith the advice of the general counsel, who had all of the record of the Los Angeles hearings. The significant thing is this: that under tlie procedures of the Board, if there is a claim of violation and any facts to justify a vio- lation, the Board is required to issue a complaint and conduct hearings. After hearings are had and a record is taken, a trial examiner makes his report. The report goes to the Board for final action. But if in the judgment of the regional director and in the judg- ment of the general counsel, there are not sufficient facts presented to warrant or justify any further proceedings, then the case is dismissed without the issuance of a complaint. That is what happened to the charges that Mr. Cobb said were dismissed by the Board. In the judgment of the regional director and in the judgment of the general counsel of the Board, with all of the evidence taken in the Los Angeles hearings, those gentlemen who are experts and trained in the law, came to the conclusion that there were not enough facts to even warrant the issuance of a complaint. Those are the men who are charged with the administration by Congress of the National Labor Relations Act. I do not have to defend Mr. Denham here. If Mr. Sorrell had in- troduced these, he probably would have said that Mr. Denham had been fixed. Mr. Cobb made no such statement. Mr. Cobb is a gentle- man and would not make any such statement, because Mr, Denham, we know, is completely unapproachable. So that I say an agency of experts, set up by this Congress to de- termine whether or not there has been an illegal lock-out or a conspiracy to create a lock-out — these gentlemen had everything be- fore them, all the testimony you have, the testimony of Mr. Cobb's own carpenters which he testified to here yesterday, and yet the board threw the cases out and said they were not even fit to issue a complaint on; that it would be a waste of the Government's money to go any further. Mr. Cobb has properly said he filed an appeal to the general counsel. I cannot predict what the general counsel is going to do about it, but if the general counsel has, as I believe under the procedures of the Board, he may, and without any direct information, but if the general counsel has already come to the conclusion that the case should be dis- missed, I would just like to make a little bet with Mr. Cobb that his appeal will be denied. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2263 Mr. Landis. You disagree with Mr. Cobb that there is a lock-out? ]Mr. ZoRX. I will come to that, Mr. Lanclis. I am glad you asked that question, because in the two dismissals which Mr. Cobb read into the record j^esterday concerning certain of his charges, one involving Mr. Cobb's charges in cases 21-CD-l through 21-CD-lO, this is what the regional director says. Incidentally, these are dismissal letters. They are not intended under the practice of the Board to be a complete re- view of all the evidence. These are the conclusions of the regional director, and I believe the general counsel. This is Mr. LeBaron's letter. He says : Our investigation fliscloses that the lATSE insists upon the arbitration award of a committee of tlie A. F. of L. executive council. Further, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. Now, there is your National Labor Relations Board completely re- pudiating Mr. Cobb's consistent charge, made not only here, made not only before the National Board, but made in his $-l:8,000,0()0 con- spiracy civil suit on the coast started prior to this investigation on precisely the same theory. Here is the National Labor Relations Board saying that the carpenters did strike, and the inference, of course, is clear that they were not locked out, because if they were locked out obviously they could not strike. In the second letter involving another set of his charges, the regional director goes on to say Mr. Landis. What proof is there on the strike? Mr. ZoRX. He says : Further, it has not been shown that the lATSE caused the carpenters to strike. There is one other dismissal that Mr. Cobb did not read into the record, which I think ought to be in the record to make it complete. A gentleman named Michael Komaroff, a former employee of the National Labor Relations Board at the regional office in Los Angeles, filed a set of charges on behalf of a group of individuals asking the National Labor Relations Board to invoke the provisions of the act with respect to settling jurisdictional strikes. That is a matter with which you gentlemen are so familiar I do not have to go into it. In other words, to call a hearing and determine the issue of jurisdiction, and so on. Now, Mr. Komaroff who filed these charges — and I will ask that these be made a part of the appendix to the record after I call your attention to certain facts in them. These amended charges were filed in December of 1947, considerably after the hearings of this committee iji Los Angeles had been completed. They were preceded by an orig- inal charge in which he had about 15 or 20 men, and then I think he added about 100 men to the charges. They asked the Board to take jurisdiction of this thing. Mr. Komaroff is the gentleman, by the way, who was referred to in the articles read into the record here by Father Dunne as one of the sources of Father Dunne's information with respect to the Hollywood strike. Mr. Komaroff, is no longer employed by the Board. I point this out because Mr. Boctle placed a great deal of reliance on certain statements of Father Dunne. 2264 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Komaroff, to my information, was brought up on charges of subversive activity before the National Labor Relations Board. He is no longer employed by the Board. I cannot tell you whether he resigned, or what happened, but I know he was under investigation on those charges. You can get that information from the Board. In any event, I mention that as the source of the kind of information that has crept into this record. On the same day, March 2, 1948, the day on which Mr. LeBaron dismissed Mr. Cobb's charges, he also dismissed Mr. Komaroff's charges. I will ask that this letter be put into the record at this point. It is the letter dated March 2, 1948, in re Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., and the Studio Carpenters, Local 946, et al,, case No. 21-CD-ll. I will not read it all. I just want to read one or two paragraphs which I think are pertinent : The charge against the Intei'national Alliance — I withdraw that. I might say that I do not want to read these charges in detail. I would like them to be made an appendix to the record. When you come to look at these charges, gentlemen, you will find they are a resume. They are a little bit short, but they contain every claim Mr. Cobb has made in his charges of conspiracy, lock-out, and every other thing. They review all the facts. They have reference to the Los Angeles testimony of this committee also. This is what Mr. LeBaron's letter says : The charge against the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada and its locals is dismissed, as their acts cannot be urged as encouraging or coercing the carpenters to violate the act by striking. There is no equivocation about that. The National Board has found that at this stage of the procedure the carpenters are on strike. There is no lock-out. Further : While there is no provision in the act itself limiting the ability of any person to file a charge, it is my opinion that, in order for an 8 (b) (4) (D) charge to be properly filed, the individual so filing must have a real interest or direct per- sonal stake in the dispute involved, without at the time time having been a party in and supporter of tlie precipitation of the strike. Any other conclusion would subject the processes of the Board to endless misuse in resolving jurisdictional disputes under section 10 (d) . An individual may not charge himself with violating section 8 (b) (4) (D). as he would be requesting the Board to restrain him from committing an unfair labor practice. Clearly, the charging party could effectuate such restraint him- self. In the instant case we have strikers as the charging parties. « Incidentally, the individuals involved in this are striking carpenters, striking painters, and others. But in everyone of these letters of dis- missal, the Board has come to the conclusion, with all of the volumi- nous information that Mr. Cobb and Mr. Komaroff have submitted to them, that the painters and the carpenters are strikers, and not locked- out employees. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter from which he has read be reproduced in full in the record. Mr. Kearns. No objection. (The letter referred to is as follows :) MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2265 National Labor Relations Boakd, March 2, 1948. In re Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, and its Studio Carpenters, Local No. 946, et al., case No. 21-CD-ll Dear Sir: The above-captioned case charging a violation under section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, has been carefully investigated and considered. As a result of the investigation, it does not apjjear that there is Sufficient evi- dence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time and I am, there- fore, refusing to issue complaint in this matter. The charge against the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada and its locals is dismissed, as their acts cannot be urged as encouraging or coercing the carpenters to violate the act by striking. The charge against the International Association of Macliinists is dismissed because the International Association of Machinists has not been connected with any of the alleged activities. The charge against the remaiiiinji unions is dismissed on the ground that the charging parties are in no position to invoke the Board's procedures, for they can hardly be heard to comphxiu to the Board of a jurisdictional strike situation which they themselves have called or are supporting or in which they have no interest whatsoever. While there is no provision in the act itself limiting the ability of any person to file a charge, it is my opinion that, in order for an 8 (b) (4) (D) charge to be properly filed, tlie individual so filing must have a real interest or direct personal stake in the dispute involved, without at the same time having been a party in and supporter of the precipitation of the strike. Any other conclusion would subject the processes of the Board to endless misuse in resolving jurisdictional disputes under section 10 ( d ) . An individual may not charge himself with violating section 8 (b) (4) (D), as he would be requesting the Board to restrain him from committing an unfair lalxir practice. Clearly, the charging party could effectuate such restraint him- self. In the instant case we have strikers as the charging parties. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board rules and regulations, you may obtain a review of this action by filing a request for such review with the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Washington 2~>, D. C, and a copy with me. This request must contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which they are based. The request should be filed within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter, except the general counsel may. upon good cause shown, grant special permission for a longer period within which to file. Very truly yours, Howard F. LeBaron, Regional Director. Just to complete the record on the National Labor Relations Board's activities, there was a charge filed back in October 1946 against the major motion-picture producers. The charge was filed on behalf of all the unions, which were then members of the Conference of Studio Unions, including the carpenters, the painters, the electrical workers, the screen set designers, the .screen story analysts, the screen cartoonists guild, and the International Association of Machinists. I would like to enter this into the record at this point without reading it all, except to call your attention to this : that in that charge filed by the Conference of Studio Unions, they alleged that for the past 2 years, the employers have been engaged in an illegal conspiracy with the lATSE and in a shorter way make the same charges that have been hashed over time and time again here. Those charges were dismissed by the regional director. On January 6, 1948, Mr. Denham, as general counsel, sustained the regional director's dismissal of those charges in a letter to the charging parties, copy of which was sent to the producers, in which Mr. Denham 2266 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES' says — and the letter is addressed to Pestana and Esterman. dated January 6, 1948. Mr. Denham refers to Matter of Columbia Pictures Corp., case No. 21-C-2901 : Your appeal from the regional director's refusal to issue a complaint in the above-captioned case, charging a violation of sections 8 (1) and 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly considered. Like the regional director, I find that there is not sufficient evidence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time. Very truly yours, Egbert N. Denham, Oeneral Counsel. I would like that to be entered in the record at this point, and 1 would like to point oiit also that those charges were charges under the old act before it was amended b^^ Public Law 101, Here you have a charge that for the past 2 years the producers have been engaged in a conspiracy, and the charges kicked out by the Board on the ground that there has not been sufficient evidence even to justify the issuance of a complaint and to have the hearing on the matter. I think the record of the National Labor Relations Board itself is probably the most important thing that you gentlemen can rely on in determining whether or not there has been any violation of law. I would like to say this, contrary to some of the things Mr. Cobb said yesterday : If there is anything illegal in the conduct of the j^roducers, the only illegality that can stem out of it — that is, in any relations they have with the unions or the employees — the only illegality can stem out of the provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act, because in the absence of that act, employers were free to do anything they pleased with respect to employees. They could fire them, they could discriminate, they could do anything. So that if we did anything illegally, we would have to violate some particular provision of the act, or we would have to be engaged in a conspiracy to violate some provision of the Labor Relations Act. That is the only basis on which a charge of conspiracy could possibly be sustained. Now, the Labor Board is your own expert agency trained to investi- gate cases of violation of law, and repeatedly on the very same charges that have been hashed over here time and time again, your Labor Board, with its expert knowledge, has refused to even go to the point of having a hearing. I say that is the most conclusive evidence in the world that if there were any conspiracy here you would not have had these results from the Board. Mr. McCann. Mr. Zorn, at this time I would like to interrupt you to ask if it would be agreeable to you to reproduce the two letters re- ferred to, and omit the addresses of the representatives of the various industries and unions attached here, which it seems to me do not contribute any to the record ? Mr. ZoRN, That is entirely satisfactory. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I move these two letters be reproduced in the record at this point, omitting these two pages of names and addresses. Mr. Kearns. No objection. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2267 (The letters referred to above are as follows :) National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., January 6, 1948. Re : Matter of Columbia Pictures Corp., et al., Case No. 21-C-2901. Pestaxa & I^lsTEKMAx, Esqs. Hollywood 27, California. Attention (William B. Esterman, Esq.) Gentlemen : Your appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint in the above-captioned case, charging a violation of sections 8(1) and 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly considered. Like the Regional Director, I find that there is not sufficient evidence of violations to warrant further proceedings at this time. Very truly yours. Robert N. Denham, Oeneral Counsel. cc : See attached copy. Registered mail — Return receipt requested. National Labor Relations Board, Twenty-First Region, Los Angeles 14, Calif., Octoher 3, 1945. Re : Columbia Pictures Corp., et al. Case No. 21-C-2901 LoEW's, Inc., Culver City, Calif. Gentlemen : The charge in the above-noted case which has been filed with us involves the following motion-picture producers : Columbia Pictures Corp. ; Loew's Inc. ; Paramount Pictures, Inc. ; RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. ; Republic Produc- tions, Inc. ; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. ; Universal Pictures Co., Inc. ; Warner Bros. Pictures. Inc. : Samuel Goldwyn doing business under the name of Samuel Goldwyn Studios ; Hal Roach Studios. It is filed by the following labor organizations: Studio Carpenters Local 946 of International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L. ; Moving Picture Painters Local 644 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Paperhangers and Decorators of America, A. F. of L. ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 40 ; Screen Set Designers, Illustrators and Decorators, Local 1421 ; Screen Story Analysts, Local 1489 ; Screen Cartoonists Guild, Local 852 ; Inter- national Association of Machinists, Cinema Lodge 1185. It alleges that the producers named have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8, subsections (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act in that they have, since on or about October 24, 1945, refused to bargain collectively with the labor organizations named and in that said employers for 2 years and more last past hav eengaged and are engaging in a conspiracy and a course of conduct for the purpose and with the effect of denying to the members of said undersigned labor organizations the rights and benefits guaran- teed to them by sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act : that said employers have engaged in said conspiracy and course of conduct by and through certain authorized representatives, including particularly Eric Johnston. Edward J. Mannix, B. B. Kahane, Nicholas Schenck. Cliff Work, Pat Casey, Fred Felton, and Y. Frank Freeman, who have conspired with certain representatives of the organization known as the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Em- ployees, including particularly Richard Walsh, Roy Brewer, Carl Cooper, Cappy Duval, and William Schiffman. This charge is now under investigation and consideration. If you have any information which you wish to submit in connection with the investigation, we would be glad to receive it. Sincerely yours, Stewart Meacham, Regional Director. Mr. ZoRX. Now, I think I would like to get down to the brass tacks as to what this case is all about. We have had many weeks of hearings on the west coast. This is tlie fourth week of our hearings here. 2268 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES We have heard witnesses from all sides. You have heard practically all the producer witnesses. I think there are many things that have been gone into here that I would have preferred not to go into, but I think that committee in doing its duty felt they should go into them. We have listened for weeks and weeks to a very sordid story of dispute, unrest, trouble, and alleged dirty dealing in Hollywood. Now, all of the detours we have taken in the various directions during the course of this investigation, cannot blind us to one simple set of facts. They are so utterly simple I think we ought to get back on that main track again and stay with that because so far as the producers are concerned that is the only issue; The constant cry of conspiracy, the constant cry of lock-out ; the constant cry of criminality and other things. I would challenge any fair and unbiased person to read this record of producers' activity and come to any conclusion other than the con- clusion that we have done one thing: that in the face of powerful union rivalry, in the face of threat after threat we have done the best we could to run our businesses and to keep our businesses open. If that is a conspiracy, gentlemen, we are guilty; and if that is a con- spiracy then I think we ought to amend the labor laws, change them in some way, because I believe, and believe sincerely, that any employer has a right to stay in business; any employer who is beset with threats, strikes, and trouble constantly has simply got to try to operate his business as he sees fit, without any violation of law. Now, when we come down to the basic, simple facts of this whole controversy, I think we have covered — and I do not want to repeat it in any detail here — the genesis and the history of the 1945 strike. The producers did not start that strike. The producers did not ask Mr. Sorrell to take his painters out of the National Labor Rela- tions Board hearing and set up picket lines. The producers did not ask Mr. Hutcheson to assert, as he did in conferences at New York and prior to the conferences at New York by his letter of February 17, 1945, which is in the record — they did not ask Mr. Hutcheson to insist that he wanted all carpenter work in their studios, despite the fact that the lA had been doing grip and prop work over a period of many years concededly ; they did not ask Mr. Hutcheson when an effort was made to settle that strike at the meetings in the Commodore, which has been testified to here, and after Mr. Walsh had gone over these so-called hundreds of pictures of whose work was what — they did not task Mr. Hutcheson to rear back in his chair and say, "That's enough, I want all woodwork, all wood substitutes, and all woodwork- ing machinery." That has been Mr. Hutcheson's consistent position. He did not do that at the stimulation of the producers or at the re- quest of the producers. If you will remember that testimony, it was Mr. Schenk who begged and pleaded with him in time of war not to do a thing like this. Certainly we did not ask Mr. Sorrell to take his painters out on strike, because the National Labor Relations Board proceeding would have ended it. Nevertheless, the strike occurred and all the Conference of Studio Unions joined that strike. Mr. McCann referred yesterday — and let us get this very clear — Mr. McCann referred yesterday to certain testimony; that in the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2269 3945 strike — and the testimony is the testimony of Mr. Walsh — Mr. Casey was also present at those conferences in New York in March of 1945 when Mr. Hutcheson sat with Mr. Walsh, a couple of their own representatives, and in the original conferences — this testimony is so far back, IVIr. Kearns, I do not think jNIr. Landis has ever heard it, so I will summarize it very briefly, but it is all in the record. When Mv. Schenck had persuaded Hutcheson to meejt with Walsh they sat with him the first day and it looked as if the carpenters and the lA dispute would be worked out, then the two union heads said, ^'We don't want you producing- fellows around any more." Mr, Casey Avas at that meeting and he has testified to it. The meeting broke up the second day when the producers' repre- sentatives were not there when Mr. Hutcheson insisted he wanted all this woodwork,, wood substitutes, and all woodworking machinery. As Mr. Walsh pointed out, that would have practically destroyed the lA. We were not taking sides. We were trying as best we could to get those men together. In the course of yesterday's testimony there was some claim made^ not a claim, but Mr. McCann properl}^^ referred to certain testimony here in which, after that New York meeting broke up, Mr, Walsh left the Commodore and was walking down with Mr, Schenck. Mr. Kearxs. Who was it testified to the discussion between Mr. Walsh and Mr. Schenck^ Mr. ZoRX. That was testified to in Los Angeles. Mr. Landis, I do not think, has had any part of this, and I want to clear that up. Mr. McCann. Isn't it true, Mr. Zorn, that that was put in the record out there from the proceedings of the lA convention of that year and the speech of Mr. Walsh before that convention? Mr. ZoRX. Two things were done. That was put in and Mr, Walsh affirmatively testified in these proceedings. That testimony appears at pages 3095 through 3104 of the Los Angeles hearings, and again at pages 3172 through 3179 of the Los Angeles hearings. Let me just read a very short part of that, particularly for the benefit of Mr. Landis. They talked about this meeting at the Hotel Commodore. Mr. Schenck, when the strike came on, asked Mr, Hutcheson whether he wouldn't meet with Mr. Walsh and try to settle this thing. I am not going into all the details, but finally they had this meeting at the Hotel Commodore in New York sometime in the latter part of March 1945. This is a quotation from Mr. AValsh's testimony, Mr. Casey also testified in substance to the same thing, but I do not have that page reference handy. Walsh quotes Hutcheson as stating in that meeting: "I want all woodwork and all work on wood and wood substitutes, and all woodworking machinery." I, Walsh, stated, "And do you mean to tell me after we liavi^ sat here and tried to agree on what the jurisdiction might be, you are telling me you want it all?" He said, referring to Hutcheson, "I have to protect my jurisdiction. I want all wookwork, all woodworking machinery and all work on wood and wood sub- stitutes," and I said that is when he made his mistake, because there is a little bit of Irish left in me and I said, ' Hutch, you get nothing. Now, let's agree to what we 1 ave done here and let's carry it out, or else you get nothing." 67383 — 48— vol. 3 49 2270 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Then after that occurred, Mr. Schenck and Mr. Casey were called back into the meeting the third day in an effort to try to pull it together again. Mr. Hutcheson, according to the testimony, repeated the same state- ment of what his jurisdictional claim was. ]\Ir. Schenck turned to him, according to Walsh's testimony, and said : "Hutch, do you mean to tell me that you sit there like a man of iron and you won't bend in any way, shape, manner or form? I understand yesterday that Dick Walsh here gave away jurisdiction which he has had for a long time, and you tell me that you won't give away any jurisdiction and that you won't settle this ; that you know the studios are closed down and you won't help to get them open?" Hutch said, "I want all woodwork, all woodworking machinery, and all work on wood and wood substitutes. That is my jurisdiction and that is what I think I should have." He said, "Hutch, we have done business for many years and I have never asked you for anything. I have never had to ask you for anything. You have always been asking me and every time that you ask I try to deliver to you, and I did." Then there is some testimony of Schenck asking Mr. Hutcheson if he did not realize that a war was on and that some of these pictures were of vital importance to the boys overseas. Apparently, according to the testimony of both Mr. Walsh and Mr. Casey thus far, they could get nowhere with Mr. Hutcheson at that time. Then Mr. Walsh testified that as they walked out, Mr. Schenck said to him — We are going to make the decision now that we are going to run the motion- picture studios in Hollywood. He asked Walsh, "Do you think you can run the studios?" Mr. Walsh said, "I don't know, it's quite a job. There are some several thousands of people out of the studios; there is quite a strike on out there. In the first place, I don't want to fill the jobs of these people out there, so long as they want to go back to work." "I said," this is Walsh "I think we should go back to Hollywood and see if we can get the people back to work in Hollywood, and then if you can't get the people back to work in Hollywood, I think we will try to run the studios." Then there is some further testimony that at that time Mr. Walsh also stated : We will try to get the people back, but if they don't go back and you producers cancel your contracts with these other unions, we will then come in and help you out. In fact, that is what we did. We gave the unions notice early in April of 1944, that the strike was in complete violation of the contracts and gave them I believe, 48 hours to put the men back to work. They did not put the men back to work and we canceled the contracts. Mr. McCais^n. Mr. Zorn, what was the date of the New York con- ference ? Could you give us that ? Mr. ZoRN. I believe it was March 26. That is my recollection. It was very close to that time. It was either March 25 or 26 — I am sorry, March 26 and March 27, 1945. There we were in that 1945 strike which nobody in the world can claim we precipitated, with the same choice we had in 1946. We had MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2271 a strike called on iis. We were anxious and eager to run our businesses. The other men were out on the picket line. They refused to come to work. What choice did we have in that situation? We had no choice, we had to operate and we turned to the lA and asked the lA to help us. They heli)ed u? to oj^erate during that strike. That brings us down to the next major bit of warfare, the 1946 strike. JNIr. McCaxx. Mr. Zorn, at that point do you have the minutes for that period of the producers between February 15 and the end of March, so that Ave might receive those in the record? Mr. ZoRx. I meant to tell you I have a lot of things you have wanted, and I will ]n\t them in, but there were no minutes taken of this meeting .with Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. McCaxx. I know that, but I am talking about the Labor Com- mittee in Los Angeles between the 15th of February and the end of January. Mr. ZoRx. I think you requested those, did you not ? Mr. McCaxx. Yes, I did. INIr. ZoEX. I have everything here that is in existence, and I will put that in the record. Mr. Laxdis. Mr. Chairman, before we recess for noon, I would like to make a request. There seems to be an important letter that ap- peared in Seller's handwriting, and I think it is in the hands of one of t^.e producers. I think we should have a copy of that letter. ]Mr. ZoRX. You mean in connection with this Communist card, sir ? Mv. Laxdis. That is right. Mr. ZoRx. After the recess. I will ask you specifically. If it is available and can be gotten, I will be glad to call today, as a matter of fact, and try to get it. When we recess I will ask you more specifi- cally what letter you have in mind, so that I will have some idea what we are to look for. ]\Ir. Hutcheson was on the stand here for several days. He never made a denial of the statements that were testified to with respect to his demands for jurisdiction back in 1945 because at page 1012 of this record, the Washington record, I submitted a question through Mr. McCann, reading as follows : In March 1945, at your New York meetings with Mr. Walsh, did yoii not insist that the carpenters be given jurisdiction over all woi'k on wood, wood substitutes, and woodworking machinery in the studios? Mr. Hutcheson. I requested and insisted that we have jurisdiction over all carpenter work. I think it is a fair assumption there is no denial that that is what he intended. I might point out that in various other places in the record, so far as ]\lr. Hutcheson is concerned — and I am not going to clutter up the record with a great deal of repetition — I want to point out that throughout his testimony here and in response to questions of this com- mittee as to what he would do to settle this strike, his constant answer was: I will settle it on the basis of the rightful jurisdiction of the carpenters. Now, I don't know today what the rightful jurisdiction of the car- penters means. All the carpenter work in the studio which would 2272 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES involve throwing all the lA prop and grip men out, I don't know whether it means that or whether it means giving him back the set erectors that the December 26. 1945, decision of the three-man com- mittee gave to the lA. I will give you a couple of references to that testimony I am frankly puzzled about what Mr. Hutcheson meant. He said : He will — continue to object to encroachments on his jurisdiction just as long as they last. That is on page 1373. When he was asked whether he would settle this strike or what he could do about settling it, his answer in effect was, at page 1384 : When the carpenters gH what rightfully belongs to them. Again, when Mr, Owens questioned him about his obligations to the American public continuing this kind of warfare, he answed, in effect, that the carpenters were also members of the American public and — 1 will try to do everything within my power to be helpful to the people I represent. That is at page 1087 of the record. There is one further statement, Mr. Landis, which Mr. Kearns has heard, but which I do not believe you have ever heard before, made in the Los Angeles hearings. There Mr. Casey testified to a meeting he had had with Mr. Hutcheson in Washington in July of 1947, just shortly before, about 3 weeks before we had our Los Angeles hearings. The 1946 strike, as you recall, started in September 1946. Now, this conversation of IMr. Hutcheson here in Washington between Casey and Hutcheson, took place in July of 1947. This is Mr. Casey's account of that testimony. Mr. Casey had met him there, not for any formal purpose of settling the strike, but he had run into him in Washington, and they got talking about the strike. Mr. Casey said : Hutcheson said, "Pat, we are not going to get anywhere. I am going to stand on my jurisdiction." and Casey said : I said, "Let us not jump too fast, here; let's see if we can get together and straighten this thing out. For 2.5 years we have gotten together and we have straightened out difficulties." I am skipping. I am not trying to cover it all. Casey went on to say : This thing is causing a lot of trouble and it is going to continue to cause a lot of trouble. Mr. Hutcheson's reply* was, "That is O. K. with me." He said, "Some day these producers will want to build a theater or remodel a theater or build something in the studios, and when they do they will come down my alley." Just to give you a synopsis of it, and I think my memory is very clear, because I read it only recently, Casey began to talk about these poor devils who had been out of work for so long, fellows who had been working in the studios for 25 and 30 years ; they were all out. He asked Mr. Hutcheson whether he didn't have any consideration for them, and whether he didn't think he ought to do something to get them back. Mr. Hutche-son's answer was. "That's their trouble." MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2273 I givB you that as an indication of the attitudes that we producers are up against in this whole situation, attitudes of adamancy by these unions over which we have no control and cannot do anything about. I think if it is all right, Mr. Chairman, I can stop at this point. Mr. Kearxs. I wanted to ask Mr. Landis what would be the posi- tion now under the act supposing the producers wanted to put an addition on a studio or build a new studio, could Hutcheson still refuse to build that? Mr. Laxdis. Well, he would have the right not to work under that. Mr. Kearxs. Thej' could build it themselves within the studio, could they not, with their own men ? Mr. Lax^dis. They could build it with any nonunion labor or any other union carpenter labor. Mr. ZoRX. There is a possibility, I think, that we might be able to go after that on a secondary-boycott charge. We have not been con- fronted with that problem, so we have not done anything. Mr. Kearxs. I just wondered if that case should come up what would happen. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) ATTERNGON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. I^ARXs. The hearing will be in order, please. TESTIMONY OP BURTON A. ZORN— Continued Mr. ZoRX'^. I am trying very hard, sir, to streamline this because there has been such a volume of testimony, I thought the only way I could be helpful to the committee would be to try to get down to the basic issues and show what is involved here by reference to the testi- mony. Xow the 1946 strike, I believe, can be explained on the basis of the following broad lines. First, the Cincinnati agreement or directive of the executive council of the A. F. of L. in October 1945 ; Second, the decision of the three-man arbitration committee on De- cember 26, 1945 ; The illumination that is given to that decision by the Miami meeting of the executive council of the A, F. of L. in 1946 ; The so-called clarification that came down from the executive council on August 16, 1946 ; and Finally, the ultimatum of the carpenters made by Cambiano on Sep- tember 11, 1946. Mr. Laxdis. Could I ask a question? Mr. ZoRN. Surely. INIr. Laxdis. The first point I want to clear up is this : How much did the producers have to do with knowing what was exactly right in the directive? Mr. ZoRx. Absolutely nothing, Mr. Landis. I will answer that question directly. I had intended to cover it, but I prefer to answer your questions right on the spot. 2274 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The testimony is clear and it is undenied that there was absokitelj no participation of any kind whatever by any representative of the producers in connection with the meetings or hearings before this three-man committee when they came to Hollywood in December of 1945. I think Mr. McCann only the other day made the same statement. They sought none of the producers, none of the producers participated in any of the hearings, and the only thing they did with the producers was to ask to go through one studio, and the producers had absolutely nothing whatever to do with that decision. Mr. Landis. In other words, whatever decision they made was not going to suit both sides ? Mr. ZoRN. Precisely. The producers wanted the thing settled. That leads me into a sum- mary statement of the background of this dispute. The testimony is uncontradicted that when Mr. Eric Jol^nston be- came president of the Motion Picture Producers Association in Sep- tember of 1945 he became very much concerned about this situation in Hollywood. There was a great deal of violence there and he was afraid somebody would be killed and it would be very bad for the industry. He testified to the efforts he made. He went out there himself, talked to the principals, talked to Mr. Walsh, to Sorrell and the others. Finally he did a completely unprecedented thing in his anxiety to settle the strike. You will recall also he testified and the others testi- fied that when he came into the picture the producers gave him full authority, on their behalf, to work out a settlement. He requested permission from William Green to go to the Cincin- nati executive council meeting which was being held in Cincinnati in October of 1945, The minutes of that liearing are in the record. They show that Mr. Johnston made a very stiong and very urgent plea to have this thing settled within the house of labor. The testimony is that Mr. Walsh of course was there. Mr. Walsh was not a member of the executive council but the records of those meetings show very clearly — and I do not intend to reread them into the record — that every person there, every president of the seven in- ternational unions involved, including Mr. Hutcheson, agreed that this committee — and it is described by Mr. Bates, one of the vice presidents of the A. F. of L. in those minutes as an arbitration board — they all agreed they would accept and abide by the final decision of that committee. Mr. Johnston on behalf of the producers and Mr. Donald Nelson on behalf of the independent producers similarly agreed they would accept any decision which was made within the 30-day period which was prescribed. So there is no issue here and even Mr. Hutcheson does not deny that he agreed to be bound by that directive. Mr. Hutcheson's only complaint is, as I understood his testimony and as appears from the minutes of these various meetings, that he should have been given the opportunity personally to appear in Holly- wood. I will come in a moment to some of the telegrams introduced here by Mr. Doherty the other day, and the facts which are in the record, which indicate that his representatives Cambiano and Skelton had a complete opportunity to present every argument they had. They presented 75 pages of written material and they presented the case very fully. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2275 Now when the Cincinnati directive was issued and the strike was settled — without rehashing it again — they provided for an immediate termination of the strike; the immediate return of all the striking employees to Avork. It gave the interested international unions, seven of them involved in the dispute, 30 days within which to try to work out a voluntary settlement of the jurisdictional disputes, remembering that this strike had been going on since March of 1945. The strike had been going on already for a period, I think, of about 7 or 8 months, something around there. The directive on the consent of all the parties provided that after the expiration of 30 days a committee of three members of the execu- tive council of the American Federation of Labor shall investigate and determine within 30 days all jurisdictional questions still involved. It provided in paragraph 5 that all the parties concerned, naming all the international unions, including the carpenters, accept as final and binding such decisions and determinations as the executive council committee of three may finally render. There just cannot be any doubt and there is no argument about the fact that this committee was given full authority by the parties to make its decision and the parties all agreed that that decision would be binding. It was not given 6 months to do it, it was given a limited period of 30 days. Mr. Landis. Then in January of 1946 they started to work? Mr. ZoRisr. You mean the men in the studios ? Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. ZoRN. Yes; I will come to this in sequence as I expect to cover all of this. The men went back to work in October. This directive provided for the men to go back to work. It also provided for a 60-day period • INIr. Laxdis. You mean they went back to work before the directive ? Mr. ZoRX. We have been confused here, IVIr. Landis, because we have called both things a directive. Actually the so-called directive I am talking about was the October executive council appointment, the actual appointment of the three men and the directive to terminate the strike and for the men to go back to work. Mr. Landis. What date was that now when the 30 days was up? Mr. ZoRN. I cannot put my fingers on it but I think it was October 31, 1945, that the executive council issued this directive terminating the strike and providing for the appointment of this committee. That was October 31, 1945. It provided for the immediate return to work of all the striking employees. It provided that there be 30 days after that, which would have been the end of November, roughly, for the unions to work out their own agreement, and then an additional 30 days which would roughly have been the 28th or 29th of December. I have not calcu- lated the date. So the decision made by the committee was made within a day or two of the expiration of their 30-day period. ]\Ir. Landis. They worked November and December and on up into 1946 then? Mr. ZoRN. Yes. Mr. Landis. Then when did they pull out in. 1946, in July? ]Mi\ ZoRN. There was this 2-day strike in July; that is right. 2276 MOTION-PICTUIiE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Landis. But they worked up until July? Mr. ZoRisr. They worked right through. There were some minor stoppages but no strike. After they went back to work as of October 31 they worked right through until June 30 or July 1. They had a short 2-day strike at that time and then some time late in September — I do not recall the precise date — after this "hot set" situation had devel- oped they put up the picket lines and started their second strike, that is the 1946 strike. Mr. Landis. The directive was made and the carpenters went to work also in that period ? Mr. ZoRN. That is correct. ]Mr. Landis. Then in the Beverly Hills it gives that one clause that 1 read to Mr. Cobb yesterday ? Mr. ZoRN. Yes, sir. I would like to review that in sequence because I think I can get all the salient parts of this picture in sequence so that when you come to read the record you will have it in orderly f ashion^ in chronological fashion without repetition and without my reading a lot of stuff back into the record. Mr. Landis. All right. Mr. ZoRN. Now the decision was made on December 26. It clearly and definitely awarded the erection of sets on stages to the carpenters. There was no ambiguity in the language. There was no mystery about it whatsoever. Mr. McCann. Now just a moment, I think you made a mistake. It gave it to the lATSE. Mr. ZoRN. I beg your pardon, to the lATSE. That is quite a mis- take. Then immediately the carpenters began to protest. The testimony I want to review briefly now will demonstrate beyond any possible doubt that there was not even the slightest question as to what this committee met to do and what it did. There was no confusion in the minds of the producers, there was no confusion in the mind of Mr. Hutcheson, there was no confusion in the minds of the committee itself. They definitely knew what they were doing and intended to award the erection of sets on stages. We were not concerned with that. It would have made no difference whatever if they had awarded it to the carpenters or if they had cut up the jurisdiction" in any other way. The producers had agreed that any- thing these fellows did wholly without our participation we would abide by and agreed to. We had made that definite commitment which was both a moral and a legal commitment. There was a lot said yesterday by Mr. Cobb, and I think in previous days of the hearing, that this was a very confusing directive ; that no- body understood what it meant. ]\ir. Landis. On that one section, did the producers feel like they un- derstood who was to get that work ? Mr. ZoRN. That is exactly what I am coming to now. The producers went to Miami in January of 1946. There has bee^ some testimony here that they went there because they were completely confused as to what this thing meant. Let me correct that by the record evidence here. . . Mr. Johnston testified as to why they went to Miami. He partici- pated in that meeting. This is not long, so I will read it so that it will be fresh in our minds. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2277 He said — and this is on page 12 of the Washington hearings : On December 26, 1945, the arbitration committee rendered its decision. Among other things, the erection of sets on stages, exclusive of mill and trim work, was awarded to the lATSE. The directive was put into effect. That is even before the January 26 meeting. In a moment I will read to you Mr, Hutcheson's own statement in the Miami meeting that he had received word that set erection had been given to the lA and that 150 of his men had already been laid oif. So that as of that time, and before they went to Miami, there was no confusion about what the decision meant. Mr. Johnston goes on : Almost immediately, Mr. Hutcheson informed us he would not accept this decision, notwithstanding his prior agreement. Work stoppages followed. In view of this situation we turned again to the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, which was in session in Miami, Fla. We met with the council, including Mr. Hutclieson and two members of the arbitration committee. Mr. Walsh was also present. We informed the council that Mr. Hutcheson had repudiated the arbitration committee's award, and asked the council whether it would stand back of the decision. In other w- ords, Mr. Johnston did not go to Miami for the purpose of getting a clarification or an interpretation of that award. Everybody understood what it meant. He went there because Hutcheson had sent word out that he would not abide by that decision and that there was going to be trouble. The producers' representatives went to Miami to find out whether the council would stand back of the decision which had been agreed to by all the parties. Now let me give you Mr. Hutcheson's own statement on that. In the record of the Miami's meetings his statement appears at page 206 of the record. It is a very short quote, sir : Vice President Hutcheson stated that as he understands it the report of this committee is given to the council as information but he contended that the report has already created chaos out there. He reported that last Monday some of the producers informed him that they were putting into effect the provisions of this report. He calls it a report. And on Monday a week ago they laid off and discharged 125 members of the carpenters' union. Although it does not say so here it was during that that he made his threat that he would not be bound. It is perfectly clear from his testimony, from Mr. Johnston's testi- mony, and further clear from the testimony of Mr. Kahane, which is at page 206 and page 235 of the Washington hearings — that about a week before they went to Miami they had needed a certain amount of time — and the testimony is clear on that — to change the method of their operation so that the lA men would do the work which prior to De- cember 26 had been done by the carpenters. Actually on about January 21 they actually put lA men on those ■jobs. That is when the trouble started and that is when they went to Miami. Now so far as the Miami meeting is concerned I see no necessity for reading into this record again the arguments and discussion which took place there, except to point this out. There is no controversy about it because those are the original records of the meeting and nobody has denied it or challenged anything. 2278 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Hiitcheson took this position, and there was quite an argument. He wanted to set aside this decision. He did not like it or like any part of it. The committee members, Messrs. Doherty, Knight and Birthright^ insisted throughout those meetings that that was a final decision ; that the parties had agreed to be bound by it and that the executive council of the A. F. of L. had absolutely no authority to change it. They said they had had a tough job to do and they had done it to the best of their ability. Then the producers were questioned as to what was involved in the transfer of this work of set erection on stages, from the carj^enters to the lA, because that was the effect of the decision. Questions were asked of Mr. Mannix. It is very clear in the record. There is no denial of this anywhere. It was explained to the executive council by the producers' repre- sentatives that the change or the transfer of the work from the car- penters union to the lA would involve the loss of from 300 to 400 jobs to the carpenters. That makes it completely clear that there was no confusion about it. They were not talking about assembly of sets on stages. Everybody in that executive council meeting — which will be clear from a reading of the minutes — everybody knew the effect of that decision was to take work which the carpenters had done, transfer it to the lA and that it would have meant a loss of from 300 to 400 men to the carpenters. Despite that Mr. Green made the statement then that the executive council had no authority to change the decision and he instructed the producers to go back, and that the executive council would stand back of that decision. As a matter of fact the producers had no choice. They had agreed to that decision and it was a final and binding decision. If there is any further doubt about whether it was final or binding all you have to do is to look at the decision itself, the decision of Decem- ber 26, 1945, in whicli this committee recites the fact that all parties agreed to accept the decision of the committee and to be bound thereby. They wind up with the statement : Accordingly this statement is based on that premise and the below listed conclusions are final and binding on all the parties concerned. So that there was not any confusion in the minds of the producers as to what that decision meant and there has never been any confusion in anybody's mind as to what that decision meant, because if you will read the minutes of the Miami executive council meeting and if you will read the minutes of the Washington executive council meeting which took place in May of 1946, and the minutes of the Chicago meeting, all you see there is Mr. Hutcheson's protesting constantly that the committee had taken work away from him that belonged in his jurisdiction and that he would not go along with the decision despite the fact that he had agreed to do so, because he had not had an opportunitj^ to be heard. At this point I want to refer to the statements of Mr. Doherty who^ in the Washington hearings, has been a completely frank and honest witness. In Los Angeles the minutes of these various A. F. of L. meetings were not available and his testimony was not as clear as it has been in this particular hearing. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2279 Mr. Doherty has made it clear that from the first time Mr. Hutche- son attacked that decision, he and his conferees insisted throughout that the executive council was without authority to change the deci- sion ; they insisted they had done the best job they could ; that they had not been misled by anybody and if they had to do the job all over again, Mr. Doherty has stated over and over here repeatedly, they would do it the same way. Curiously enough, one of the things that surprised me here was that Mr. Sorrell testified he thought it was a pretty good decision and a* sound decision. I have a reference to that but I do not think it is neces- sary to state it here. Let me refer briefly to the testimony of Mr. Doherty. I believe in this whole picture, ]Mr. Landis, the testimony of Mr. Doherty makes one thing so completely clear you can never have any doubt about it again, and that is that they heard the parties; they gave them all a full opportunity to present their case ; they knew exactly what they were doing when they made this decision that if they had to do it again they M^ould do the same thing and it is a story of constant and unceasing pressure by Mr. Hutcheson in the executive council meetings of the A. F. of L. to try by hook or crook to get this decision which he did not like removed. Now the exchange of telegrams between Mr. Hutcheson and Mr. Knight of the committee on September 3 and 4, 1945, to which I have referred, you will find at pages 2780 and 2781 of the record. Those are the telegrams in which the committee asked Mr. Hutcheson to send a representative to these hearings and he wired back and said "Mr. Cambiano will represent us and give you every aid and assistance." Mr. SorrelFs testimony, which I just mentioned, that the award of set erection to the lA was a good decision, you will find at page 2592 of the Washington record. Mr. B^dle, in the course of his presentation, made some rather curious remarks about the effect of this December 1945 decision. He said that the authority of that decision stemmed from the executive council of the A. F. of L. and therefore the executive council had a right to reverse it. I do not have to rel}' upon myself or rely upon the record to the fact that all of the parties had agreed to accept a final and binding directive. More than that, the executive council would have been wholly without any authority to appoint a committee to decide these things without the consent of the parties, and the record is replete with everybody's agreement on one thing, that everybody agreed be- fore the executive council issued this directive that they would agree to the appointment of this committee and that they would agree to accept as final and binding any decision that that committee made within the 30-day period. Mr. Doherty, who lived all through this thing, made a very strong statement on it. He said this on page 2840 of these minutes : So this directive, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, was even more powerful than anythini:' that conld have been handled through a board of arbi- tration. We were told to go out there to investigate, to examine, and to hand down a final and binding decision, and that we did. Whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, that is beside the point; we carried out our instructions. So that any claim here that the executive council of the American Federation of Labor had any authority to upset a final and binding 2280 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES arbitration award is utterly without any basis at all. They never had any such power, despite the fact that Mr. Hutcheson finally persuaded them to issue such instructions. Now I think we are clear at this point that first all the parties had agreed to be bound and were bound by their agreement in Cincinnati in October of 1945. I think we are clear on the point that whe^n the three-man committee handed down its decision in December of 1945 awarding the set erec- tion work to the lA, there was no doubt, misunderstanding, or fraud or anything of that kind in connection with that decision, and that they knew exactly what they were doing and everybody else knew what they were doing. From that point on the maneuvering started. Mr. Kearns. May I interrupt at that point, Mr. Zorn ? Mr. ZoRN. Surely, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ejearns. Members of the committee, I have a very important report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States De- partment of Justice, Washington, D. C, under the date of March 12, 1948. Memoeandum in the Case of Herbert K. Sorrell There follows a report from the FBI laboratory on the examination of evi- dence submitted to this Bureau by Congressman Carroll D. Kearns in connection with the above-entitled matter. This evidence was delivered to this Bureau by Mr. Manley Shepherd. Specimens : Q-1. Receipt for a membership book No. 60622 bearing the signature of "Herb Stewart." As' I show it to the committee, that is this one right here [indicat- ing] , the blue card passed to Mr. Sorrell when he was on the witness stand. Q-2. Control card for first half of 1937; Book No. 74282, bearing the name "Herbert Stewart." That I demonstrate to the committee was the one passed to him by Mr. Owens, as I recall. Mr. Fisher and members of the committee, that was the card that was passed to Mr. Sorrell. K-l. The known signature of Herbert K. Sorrell written in pencil on the letterhead of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. You will recall this is the piece of paper we passed him and asked him to write his signature on in the opening hearing here, which he returned to me. EEStTLT OF EXAMINATION It was concluded that the Herb Stewart signature on Q-1 and all the hand- writing on the face of Q-2, were written by Herbert K. Sorrell whose known hand- writing for comparison consists of K-l and other known handwriting obtained by the FBI. No conclusion could be reached with reference to the remainder of the writing on Q-1. The folder containing questioned specimens is here attached. I would like to make this report, with the consent of the committee, that the findings of the Federal Bureait of Investigation will be pre- sented to the chairman of the full committee, the Honorable Fred A. Hartley, Jr., and members of the full committee for their consideration of action. You may proceed, sir. Mr. ZoRN". I guess I am anticlimax now. Mr. McCann. May I ask you a question before you go on ? Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir. _ MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2281 Mr. McCann. There is just one thing that does not exactly jibe in the testimony which you offered, and in the minutes of the Miami meeting, to which you may refer. The inference as I gathered it from what you were just testifying was to this effect : That Johnston's appearance in Miami was not for the purpose of finding out wliat the directive was nor what tlie de- cision of the council was, but he was going down to Miami because of the fact, as I recall it, yon stated the council wanted him to come down there ? Mr. ZoRN. No. Mr. McCanx. Let us get that clear, Mr, ZoRisr, I said there was some misunderstanding in the testimony. The testimony of Mr. Freeman, Mr, Johnston, and Mr, Kahane — I do not recall any others — is very clear and Mr, Hutcheson's own statement is very clear that there was no misunderstanding by any- body as to what the directive actually meant or the decision actually meant with respect to the award of set erection on stages to the lATSE. The reason they went down to Miami — I do not say that that is their testimony — the reason they went down was that Hutcheson had re- pudiated the decision and threatened trouble. They went dow^n to find out whether the executive council was going to back up the de- cision and avoid trouble. That is the reason I say they went down there as testified to by them. Mr. McCakx. They did not go down then for the purpose of secur- ing further action from the executive council on the directive? Mr. ZoRx. They went down, as I read their testimony, in a situa- tion Avhere a decision had been made and in a situation where a de- cision under which Mr. Hutcheson had agreed to be bound, he had in- formed the producers that he was not going to be bound, that he would not take the decision and naturally they expected a lot of trouble. There is testimony that there were some work stoppages during this period. Therefore they went down to the executive council to get the back- ing of the executive council to stop Bill Hutcheson from making trouble and making him accept this award — ^putting it in a different way. Mr. McCanx. As a matter of fact then they went down for either a decision or a directive from the executive council '^ Mr, ZoRX, No, they did not, Mr, McCann, They went down there to get the support of the executive council of the American Federa- tion of Labor to prevent Hutcheson from repudiating his decision under his agreement, Mr. McCaxx, All right. I read into the record Mr. ZoRX. May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman, I notice when Mr, Bodle is on the stand and Mr, Cobb is on the stand they are given full opportunity to present their case. When I am here I am being cross-questioned. I have a limited time and I would like per- mission to continue. If Mr. McCann wants to give me another day he can cross-examine me to his heart's content. Mr. McCax'^x. Mr. Chairman, I beg your pardon, there has not been an interruption except to supplement this information. He was re- ferring to a statement made down there and I want to read this one little paragraph and give him an opportunity to answer it. If he doesn't want to hear it, I have no desire to ask him the question. 2282 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Chairman, I have a limited time here. I have a tre- mendous amount of ground to cover. If you are willing to sit for 3 or 4 days I will be delighted to go on for r3 or 4 days and answer any question that anybody has. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Zorn, at my request I should say, more or less eliminated 3 tons of testimony he was going to give. He had 5 tons. I would say this, ihat we hold any question of material evidence down to the minimum, as long as we can go over the ground and cover it sufficiently, Mr. Counsel. Mr. McCann. I wanted to call his attention because he was dealing with this issue, to something Mr. Johnston said so that he could meet it. I have tried to supplement his statement two or three times this morning because I thought it needed to be supplemented. If he doesn't want to have it, I am perfectly willing not to ask him. Mr. Kearns. You do not wish to answer? Mr. Zorn. I will answer any question, Mr. Chairman. All I am saying is I have such a limited time here Mr. Kearns. Well, I missed the first part of it, so maybe we can start you here. Mr. Zorn. I do not object to answering questions but I do say if 5^ou are going to give me enough time then I will answer any questions at all. But I have a great deal of ground to cover here. Mr. McCann. This is not a question. It is an opportunity for him to meet this paragraph and see if there is anything in this which he thinks is contrary to what he just said. Quoting from page 124 of the record at the Miami meeting: Mr. Johnston stated that it seems to me that this is the problem of the execu- tive council and if the council can reach a decision now it will avoid difficulty which will settle the management-labor strife in Hollywood, so that they can continue to produce, and by doing tliis will deserve the continued admiration of the American people. Mr. Kearns. I remember Mr. Johnston challenged the council on that. Mr. Zorn. That is right. You can read that statement, and if you want to give it one interpi-etation you can, but it seems to me a very simple thing. Here was a situation v,here a decision had been made and a threat had been made by Mr. Hutcheson. They had had trouble. He was going to repudiate it and he was not going to be bound. Now even though it was a binding legal agreement we wei-e there to stay in business, we were there to operate the studios and the only body we could turn to to get this issue cleared up — we did iiot want a clarification of the decision — we wanted to find out what the executive council was going to do about Mr. Hutcheson's threat of repudiation. The thing that has been confusing here is — and I think it may still be confusing to Mr. McCann in view of that question, is this : There has been testimony or there have been statements made by some people here that they were completely befudclled as to the meaning of this decision; that we did not understand it, despite the fact that the words "set erection"' are so clear there is no doubt about it. While you were out, Mr. Chairman, I was showing that they had already put the decision into effect before they went to INIiami; that Mr. Hutcheson himself stated at the Miami meeting that he had had word 150 of his carpenters had already been laid off and that the set MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2283 erection had been awarded under the decision to the lA, and he was repudiating that. So the producers went to Miami not to get a clarification or an inter- pretation, but to find out Mr. Kearxs. Pardon me just a minute. (Discussion off the record. Mr, ZoRx. That is not a verbatim transcript incidentally, it is a digest. When Mr. Johnston used the word "decision" he was asking the A. F. of L., as I see it from the testimony, what they were going to do about it. He was not asking him to clarify the decision, he wanted their support to get Hutcheson to go along with it. That is what they were there for, and I think the testimony is very clear on that. Now I will not review here — because as I say I have a limited time — the history of all these various executive council meetings of the A. F. of L. in which time after time Mr. Hutcheson tried one maneuver, then another maneuver, then a third maneuver for the purpose of getting this award set aside. I will not review the testimony and what appears in these minutes, showing that the three-man committee stood their ground; they said they had made this final decision and they would be damned if they were going to change it. But he kept per- sisting. Finally in August, as the testimony stands, he finally persuaded the A. F. of L. executive council not to get the committee to change its de- cision, but to instruct the committee to issue a clarification. The testimony through this entire record — and neither you, Mr. Landis, nor you, INIr. Fisher, were in Los Angeles, so I will not attempt to review it — but there was a three-way conversation. The actors' committee had gone to Chicago. The three-man committee had told the actors in Chicago that they were pressured into this thing, tliat they had no intention whatever to change their original decision. Mr. Doherty in these proceedings here in AVashington very honestly and very frankly testified that pursuant to the instructions of the council they issued the so-called clarification. But they wrote it in such a way that they made it clear that they did not intend — that is, the committee did not — that they were doing this pursuant to the direction of the council itself. That is the docu- ment wliich I will not bother to read. ]Mr. Doherty also testified that they fought violentl against it, and finally had to take orders and issue that clarification. Xow, it is that clarification which created all the trouble. Now, I want to go back for a moment to before the clarification in response to a question that Mr. Landis asked. You have asked about this "treaty of Beverly Hills,"' the interim agreement of July 2. 1946. Mr. Laxdis. Could I just break in there? Mr. ZoRx. Certainly. Mr. Lax^dis. "Was there an interpretation before the Beverly Hills agreement ? Mr. ZoRx. No, sir. That is just what I am going to come to. I think this sequence makes this thing crystal clear. The strike started on March 12, 1945. I am talking now about the 1945 strike. 2284 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Prior to that time and for a number of years, there was no ques- tion that the carpenter's union did the work of set erection on stages. There is testimony and some conflicting testimony as to whether at a certain earlier period the lA people had done it. There has been testimony both ways on that, but certainly for a number of years be- fore the March 12, 1945, strike, the carpenters always did this work. Then during the strike, of course, lA men came in and did that work. When the strike was settled in October, the lA men were taken otf all carpenter work, including set erection on stages, that is, within a short period, and the carpenters continued to do set erection on stages until after the December 1945 decision. Then in January of 1946 — and the testimony is that the producers needed certain time to realine their operations so that they could switch their work from the carpenters to the lA — but beginning on or about January 21, 1946, lA men and lA men alone, did set erection on stages, the carpenters doing the mill and trim work, but the actual erection being done, pursuant to the decision, by the lA men. That started in January of 1946, and continued right through. As a matter of fact, it has never been changed. It certainly continued through July and through August, when the clarification came down, and it has never been changed, as a matter of fact. When they had this 2-day strike in July, that did not involve any issue whatever of set erection or interpretation of the decision. The carpenters were working in accordance with that decision, and they were not doing set erection. The strike was over some entirely different thing. There was some trouble about the machinist situation. Sorrell had issued an ulti- matum with respect to wage demands. There were a combination of factors which produced that 2-day strike. When they got to this interim agreement, the "treaty of Beverly Hills," the carpenters were a party to it. As you asked Mr. Cobb yesterday, there isn't anything in that agree- ment whatever, which indicates there is any question as to who is to do set-erection work on stages. At that point, everybody had accepted and was working under the decision and the award of December 1945. Interestingly enough, none of the contracts the producers have had with either the carpenters, the painters, or the I A have spelled out in any detail just what jurisdiction there is to be. That has always been a matter to be handled by the labor unions where we have been in the middle and have taken a terrific amount of grief over a period of years. There have always been jurisdictional difficulties, but the contracts do not spell it out. Now, let me give you some background on the interim agreement, and on some very bad law which Mr. Cobb tried to give you yesterday. In a moment I will read into the record some testimony that the pro- ducers had signed contracts and were always stalling. The history of the situation is very clear. Most of the contracts made with all these crafts, except the lA, had expiration dates of January 1, 1944, or December 31, 1943. There were no written agreements extending those contracts. They were extended by handshakes. There is testimony here by Mr. Casey and Mr. Boren, and everybody agreed and accepted that those old contracts would continue. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2285' Then when the March 1945 strike came along the producers in order to be removed of the obligation of the closed-shop agreements — those "were closed-shoj) agreements and if the painters and the carpenters would not work and those contracts were in existence at that time we probably might have been or would have been in possible violation of the closed-shop agreements of those contracts if we had hired lA men or other men. So the producers then proceeded on April 2, 1945, to cancel those contracts. That was the reason it was done and that was the reason on the statements I made this morning that Mr. Walsh said if we can- celed those contracts he would then attempt to supply us with workers. Everybody has been ^^elling "conspiracy," but that was a very simple situation. These fellows had gone out on strike. We were trying to operate our studios. We had contracts with them under which we probably had some closed-shop obligations. In order to be free from any possible legal question, we then pro- ceeded to cancel those contracts in order to operate the studios' and in order to work. If that is a conspiracy we were guilty of a conspiracy. What we were guilty of was trying to run our business. There were no contracts in existence during the period of the strike. When the men went back to work in October 1945 there were no formal agreements signed, but it Avas understood that the old contracts were reinstated. Then subsequent to that there were some discussions with respect to wage increases, but no formal agreements of any kind, a complete understanding by all parties, that those old contracts were reeifective until this strike of July 1946. As a matter of fact, if you will look at the "treaty of Beverly Hills." the letter which accompanies it is a letter to Sorrell from Casej^ It is dated July 2, 1946 : Mt Deae Hekb : Pending the completion of contracts between the individual unions, members of the CSU and the major studios, these miui;tes shall con- stitute an interim agreement. Now, there is no question that we made a contract, and that was a contract on July 2, 1946, the Beverly Hills agreement. It contem- plated more complete contracts later on. But nobody will claim on our side that we had not entered into an agreement at that time. I would like to point this out to you, paricularly in view of many of Mr. Sorrell 's statements here : All retroactive payments from expiration of previous contracts, most of which expired January 1, 1946 — et cetera. So that here is clear evidence all of the parties, regardless of prior contracts in effect understood they were to have expired on Januar}'^ 1, 1946, and that this new contract was to replace those old contracts, because it made the payments retroactive to Januar3^ We say this about the "treaty of Beverly Hills" : We made that con- tract. Certainly, we made a contract that we expected to live up to. Mr. Laxdis. The carpenters signed that, didn't they? Mr. ZoRx. Yes. Mr. McCaxx. Sorrell signed it for the Conference of Studio Unions. Mr. ZoRN. That is correct. It was a Conference of Studio Unions negotiation. They were all there, and Sorrell signed on their behalf. It included the CSU as representing painters, carpenters, machinists, 67383 — 48— vol. 3 50 2286 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES electricians, plumbers, and so on and so on, so the carpenters are clearly a part of this agreement. And their representatives, the testimony- shows, were pi'esent and participated in these discussions. So we made this contract with them. Under the continuation of the old contracts, gentlemen, there was always an obligation on the part of the union to furnish men to do the work. There is another provision that was called to your attention yester- day, the provision which says, in discussing possible arbitration : Any dispute other than wages should be submitted to arbitration. Skelton and Brewer^ — Skelton being of the carpenters — will get together and make an agreement covering arbitration. Basis of arbitra- tion will be the A. P. of L. three-man directive. Now, yesterday when you questioned Mr. Cobb about that, Mr. Landis, he did a little fancy footwork on those questions because he said: Yes, the men had worked under that decision and the carpenters liad accepted the fact that the lA men were doing set erection, but he said tliey had a con- tinuing protest. Well, they may have had a continuing protest through Mr. Hutche- son\s efforts to set aside the decision, but here is a contract which they signed in which they say the basis of arbitration will be the A. F. of L. three-man directive. In other words, here is a clear contractual agreement on their part recognizing that directive as being binding on them. There cannot be any question about that. Mr. Landis. Then every carpenter that walked off the set broke the contract ? Mr. ZoRN". That is correct, that is what I am coming to. Then it goes on : It was agreed to let each studio interpret the directive and award the work where in its judgment it belonged under the dii'ective. They are talking only about one directive. There was only one directive in existence at this time. And no work stoppage will be ordered for the next 30 days or until the arbitra- tion machinery is set up. Now, if that were limited to 30 days, it would not have said, "or until arbitration machinery is set up.'" I think you can interpret this pos- sibly several ways, but certaintly it lends itself to the interpretation that until all efforts to set up arbitration machinery had been com- jDletely exhausted, they had bound themselves definitely not to strike. An additional point being that under their prior contracts they had always had the obligation of supplying workers to the studio in the crafts in which they were recognized under contract. Mr. Landis. And no ai'bitration machinery was ever set up '^ Mr. ZoRN. No. There has been a great deal of testimony about that, and I do not want to review it. Various efforts were made. Mr. Lavy went into that very thoroughly as to why it broke down. One of the reasons was that in order to have effective arbitration the international presidents had to go along with it. Apparently there was no agreement ever on the part of Mr. Hutcheson to go along with MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2287 the arbitration machinery. There is some considerable testimonjr on that. Mr. Laxdis. I have another question. I do not know just where it comes in, but I want to know just how" mucli change in the work the clarification caused, and if the producers understood the clarification. I don't know whether you are up to that point or not, but when you get to the point on the clarification I would like to have a little in- formation on it. Mr. ZoRx. All right. I will try to get into that right away. In connection with the Beverly Hills agreement, I do want to say this : Mr. Cobb made an argument yesterday which, during 10 or 15 years when I have been doing work almost exclusively under the labor law, I just could not follow. As I understand him, he said this Beverly Hills treaty constituted :a 2-year contract of employment for each of the carpenters, that it was .an employment agreement with each of the carpenters, or something ito that effect. It was something close to it. Mr. Landis. He meant it was not employing all the carpenters, but it was a carpenters' contract. Mr. Kearxs. He said it was not steady employment. Mr. ZoRX. Not steady employment, but an agreement to employ men. Obviously, a collective-bargaining agreement is not an employ- ment agreement. This Beverly Hills ti'eaty was. A collective-bargaining agreement prescribes the conditions under ■which men shall work. It does not give any particular individual any rights, but the important factor — and that is unimportant — the important factor is that when the ultimatum on the "hot'" sets came clown and these men absolutely refused to work on "hot" sets, they "were breaking the contract by refusing to do that work. There isn't any doubt as a matter of law, that if a man refuses to work you have .a perfect right to fire him. Actually, they were not fired. Thev were laid off. They were given the opportunity if they wanted to work on "hot" sets or do the work to which they were assigned, to come back at any time. So that any claim here that there has been a violation of the con- tract on our part, I think is utterly without foundation at all. Finally, the clarification came down. You will recall without my reading it into the record again, that I believe under the date of Au- gust 18, Mr. Hutcheson wrote a letter to Mr. Eric Johnston, enclosing a copy of the clarification. In that letter he asked that the producers abide by the clarification and all future interpretations which may be issued. A short time after that Mr. Green sent a similar letter. So far as the clarification is concerned, Mr. Landis, you have to be a pretty fancy lawyer to be able to understand it. Mr. Laxdis. Who wrote that clarification ? Did the three fellows Avrite it. or did some lawyer write it for them ? Mr. ZoRx. The testimony isn't clear about that. The testimony is not too clear as to who wrote this. Mr. McCaxx. May I interrupt there? Mr. ZoRx. Surelv. 2288 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. These men said they wrote it. They went out first and wrote one clarification; the council did not like it so they went out in the anteroom and wrote another clarification, which was ac- cepted, so the record shows they wrote it. Mr. Kearns. We even had testimony there were three of them writ- ten before there Avas acceptance. Mr. McCann. I only remember two, sir, but I remember thej' said they wrote it. Mr. ZoBN. Well, this is the point of it Mr. Landis. I was interested in the set-erection part of it. Mr. ZoRN. I will come to that. Mr. Landis. All right, proceed. Mr. ZoRN. They start out in the clarification of August 16, 1945, with this statement, that : Pursuant to instructions handed down by the executive council at its session August 15, 1946, the Hollywood jurisdictional committee reviewed the work divi- sion applicable to the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America as set forth in the committee's decision dated December 26, 1945, and reaffirmed its previous decision. Note that language. Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. ZoRN. Then there is a statement that they took cognizance of statements made in Mr. Flanagan's report, Mr. Flanagan having been the man sent out by Mr. Green. This is the language they used : Jurisdiction over the erection of sets on stages was awarded to the Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Operators of the United States and Canada, under the provisions set forth in section 8 of the decision, which specifically excluded trim and mill work on said sets and stages. The word "erection'' is construed to mean "assemblage" of such sets on stages or locations. It is to be clearly understood that the committee recognizes the jurisdiction over construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners' jurisdiction. Then it goes on to say : The committee directs that all participants in the Hollywood motion-picture studios strictly adhere to the provisions of the directive handed down on Decem- ber 26, 1945. I pointed out to you before that there wasn't any doubt in anybody's mind that that decision of December 1945 gave the erection of setsi to the I A, jobs or jurisdiction which they had not had for years. They had always, as I understood the testimony, had the right to assemble the sets. There was never any question about that. I mean, there is a completely clear line of distinction. I am not technically competent to give it, but there is a completely clear line of distinction between the erection or construction of sets and the assembly of sets after they have been erected or constructed. You will recall also, Mr. Landis, that throughout this testimony there are references by various witnesses to Hutcheson's statement. I think Mr. Doherty has testified to that. I do not have the reference handy but my recollection is very clear. ]\Ir. Hutcheson wanted a barrel of words in order to create con- fusion. That is not the accurate testimony, but that is the effect of it. So they have a barrage of words in here to create confusion, but the net effect of what they say is that when they say "set erection" they MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2289 mean "assemblage" and they do not mean "construction." That is a clear reversal. Despite the other language that is a completely clear reversal of what they did. I think Mr. Doherty made that clear, al- though I think he did some hedging on that. That is the way we understand it- Mr. Kearns. You made an expression there that interested me, that the writing must have been done by a fancy lawyer. I just wondered what you meant by a "fancy lawyer." I have contacted so many lawyers Mr. ZoRN. I guess you are thoroughly fed up with them now? Mr. Kearns. No, not at all. Mr. ZoRN. I meant, it was very cute in this respect : They purport in one breath to say, "We are not touching our old decision; that still stands," and in the next breath they reverse it. It is obvious. jNIr. Laxdis. They really reversed the set erection in the clarifica- tion ? Mr. ZoRN. Precisely. Mr. Landis. Here is the final point on the clarification: If the producers are to abide by the directive, then are the producers to abide by tlie clarification ? Mr. ZoRN. No; there is testimony in the record that is very clear on that, Mr. Landis. When the issue came up in the course of dis- cussions of the problem that was created by this clarification, the producers were advised by their counsel that they had made a bind- ing agreement to abide by a decision, and a decision which could be made at the end of this 30-day period; but the committee that had made that decision was completely without any authority to change it. They had 30 days to finally determine this jurisdictional dispute. They did it within 30 days. There was no confusion about what they intended to do, as I pointed out before. Tlie producers were advised by counsel that having made a definite agreement, which was the agreement that Mr. Jolmston made in Cincinnati in October, the producers had to follow^ the original de- cision and this committee had no authority to make any further changes. Mr. Landis. Also, couldn't you go back to the Beverly Hills 2-year agreement and go over that one paragraph that the producers were to go by the directive ? Mr. ZoRN. You are perfectly right. I am glad you pointed that out to me, because that was a further contractual affirmation by the producers, because Pat Casey signed this agreement on behalf of the producers, and the unions, that the A. F. of L. directive — and there was only one in existence — was the basis for any arbitration, under this contract. You are perfectly right about that. Now, what happened when this clarification came down? There has been considerable discussion here in the last couple of days about how percipitously we acted in taking action when these men refused to work on "hot" sets. Actually we were not precipitous at all. In the first place, we got this ultimatum at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of September 11, and it ■was to be effective at 6 o'clock the next morning. Now. there were several things we did in order to avoid trouble. 2290 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The record of the Los Angeles hearings at page 1300 contains either a letter or a telegram dated September 11. I believe it is a telegram ; from Pat Casey to the producers for Cambiano, Sprowl, .and Vance of the carpenter's local 916. Cambiano is international representative, I think I ought to read that, because it is not very long : Gentlemen: Today, we as representatives of the major motion-picture pro- ducing studios In Hollywood met with you and other representatives of the above unions, pursuant to your telegraphic request. At that meeting you advised us that unless commencing with 6 o'clock a. m. on Septeml)er 12, 1046, all construction and erection of sets in our studios be performed ,by members of local 946, all such sets would be declared "hot" and would not be further handled or processed. The basis of your request was stated to be a clarification order issued by a three-man committee appointed by the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, the contents of which are hereafter re- ferred to. Our reply which we promised to make promptly to your demand is as follows : "At a meeting of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor held in Cincinnati in October 194.5 in settlement of the then existing strike, it was agreed that if the unions involved could not settle existing jurisdictional questions between themselves, a committee of three members of the xecutive council should investigate and determine all such questions, that all parties concerned, including the producers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees of the United States and Canada, would accept as final and binding the determination of the committee. In carrying out the above, the executive council committee of the American Federation of Labor appointed a three-man committee composed of three international vice presidents. According to the language of the com- mittee after exhaustive hearings and investigation in Hollywood they, on De- cember 26, issned a directive to be final and binding on all parties. Such directive set forth that the lATSE should have jurisdiction over the erection of sets on stages except trim and mill work, which latter work should be performed by members of your luiion. The directive specifically required that erection of sets on stages be under the jurisdiction of tlie lATSE and only trim and mill work be given to carpenters. It was based upon this directive that the division of work was put into effect and has since been strictly adhered to." Remember, this is a telegram dated September 11, 1916. Quoting again : "Thereafter, iinder date of August 16, 1946, the same committee issued an interpretation of its previous decision without notice to the parties to the former- dispute, in which is stated that 'the word "erection" is construed to mean as- semblage of such sets on stages or locations'. It is to be clearly understood that the committee recognizes the jurisdiction of construction work on such sets as coming within the purview of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners'" jurisdiction." We have been advised by Mr. Richard A. Walsh, president of the lATSE, that it is the contention of the lATSE that the so-called clarification was issued without authority in violation of the Cincinnati agreement, to which this Inter- national Alliance, yourselves and the other international unions involved, were- all parties. If the committee's der-ision, as originally rendered, is not fully complied with by you. this International Alliance will take such action as may be necessary to protect its interests. That is a quotation from ]\Ir. Walsh's letter to the producers of" August 31. 1940, which is already in the record. Mr. Landis. Isn't it a fact tliat you have to have these sets in order to carry on the moving-picture industry ? Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kahane testified very fully to the practical necessity in operation of that. I will not review that, but the simple fact is, as he pointed out Mr. Landis. I mean, it was a temporary shut-down on the sets, of course, but in order to carry on later they should wait 2 weeks. I MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2291 don't know, but in order to carry on the business they had to have the sets. It had to be settled some way. Mr. ZoRN. That is correct, I think the testimony of the producer witnesses is clear on that. They were not put out of business completely on September 11. They had a lot of sets. Mr. Landis. I think I missed Mr. Kahane and his testimony. Mr. ZoRN. I will come to that in a moment. I think that is important, because I think he gives here every sound reason that it was essential we take the action we did. Mr. Kearns. We will take a 5-minute recess. ( A short recess. ) Mr. Landis. The hearing ^Yill come to order. We will proceed until the chairman comes back. Mr. ZoRN. I wanted to complete the reading of this telegram. My point, Mr. Landis, was that in connection with this ''hot sets" dispute, we did not act reciprocally. I had stopped with the quotation from the telegram of the producers to the carpenters of September 11, 1947. with the statement of the notice I had received from Mr. Walsh of thelA. The telegram continues : As a result of these conflicting demands made by you and by the representatives of the lATSE, we as employers are placed in the position of having to determine a jurisdictional question that ean only be settled by the unions involved. In view of the fact that the directive of December 26, 1945, was stated to be final and binding upon all the parties concerned, and that this position was reiterated to us by representatives of the American Federation of Labor at subsequent con- ferences, we believe that we have no choice but to follow its provisions as we agreed to do. The enforcement of your demands may result in throwing approximately 30,000' employees in Hollywood out of woi-k. We deplore this situation and its gravity and we trust that you and the other unions involved may find a means of settling your differences which we are powerless to determine. A similar telegram was .sent on September 17, 1946. It appears at page 1298 of the Los Angeles minutes. It was from all of the com- panies, all the major studios, to the painters. It is addressed to "Local Union 644 of the Brotherhood of Painters.'' It is rather short : Gentlemen : During the afternoon of September 11, 1946, we were notified by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 946, that unless all construction and erection of sets on the studios of the undersigned producers of motion pictures should be performed by said local union, it would declare such sets "hot" and refuse to perform work upon them. On the same day we replied to this demand by forwarding a letter to the representative of said union, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. AVe have today sent the same union a telegram of which copies also are enclosed. In the meantime your mem- bers have refused to perform work upon sets declared "hot" by the carpenters. Unless your members resume the performance of such work for the undersigned, we will use every legal and reasonable means to have such work performed by other employees. The record shows that a similar telegram under date of September 17, was also sent to the carpenters, with the statement, the same state- ment made to the carpent-ers, that — On their refusal to work on these sets the producers would use every legal and reasonable means to have such work performed by other employees. Now, in addition to that earnest request contained in the telegram of September 11 to have these fellows settle the problem themselves 2292 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES and not throw everybody out of work, the evidence is also uncontra- dicted in the statements of Mr. Eric Johnston. The producers called upon him early in September. Mr. McCann, I think, has referred to the statement in the so-called note to the producers meetings under date of September 3, about wiring to Mr. Johnston to the effect that the— Producers can't understand the so-called clarification, that both the carpenters rand Walsh have given us opposite instructions. Mr. Johnston testified that when he was called into the situation early in September of 1946, he took the matter up with Mr. Green and tried to get Mr. Green to intercede with Mr. Hutcheson. He tried to get Mr. Green to get Mr. Hutcheson to a meeting with Mr. Walsh. He apparently got nowhere in that direction, he said. He also testified that he then turned to John L. Lewis and tried to get Mr. Lewis to get Mr. Hutcheson to sit down with Mr. Walsh b)ecause they were all afraid this new explosion would blow up into a major strike and "we have just been through an 8 months' strike, and the producers had had about enough of it." Mr. Lewis was unsuccessful in his efforts to get Hutcheson to meet with Walsh. Mr. Johnston then testified that he discussed the matter directly Avith Mr. Hutcheson and tried to persuade him to sit down with Mr. Wnlsh. Mr. Hutcheson absolutely refused. Now, what other steps we could have taken in that situation, I don't know. There have been some statements here made by Mr. Cobb and per- haps Mr. Bodle that we should have rushed into court. The fact is that if there were a dispute about whether the decision was binding or not, the carpenters were the people who properly should have brought the matter to court. They should not have declared the sets "hot." They were the fellows who precipitated direct and violent action. So that what kind of a remedy any court review would have been to us under the circumstances is of extremely doubtful validity. Obviously, we had a job of running the studios. If Mr. Cobb were serious about the situation then, as he is now, then it was Mr. Hutche- son's duty to have this issue clarified by the court, if any court clarifica- tion were necessary. But I think it is crystal clear that no court could have done any more than to have said that, "You made an agreement to abide by this decision. The decision was made and this committee had no further authority to make any changes in it." I want to clear up something which has been rather confusing in this record. The minutes show that on August 22, 1946, Mr. Walsh at a pro- ducers' meeting made a statement that if we made any change what- ever in the directive, he would shut down the studios, the theaters, and the exchanges. Whether that is an accurate statement of what he said, I don't know. Mr. Landis. Wliat did he say about the shut-down ? Mr. ZoRN. The so-called note to the producers' meeting Mr. McCann. Let us call them the so-called minutes, because that is the way they are entitled. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2293 Mr. ZoRN. All right. It contained this statement : Walsh advises that any company that makes one single change in the adminis- tration of the A. F. of L. directive in compliance v^^ith the new interpretation will have ail work stopped in the studios, exchanges, and theaters. The A. F. of L. committee was discharged 30 days after it made its report, and therefore it has no standing or vaUdity. Mr. Walsh made it pretty clear to irs in one form or another that he would not stand for any change in this decision, because his letter of August 31 makes it clear they would take such action as they thought necessary to compel us to abide by the directive. But the testimony of our people is clear all the way through that we had and were advised b}' counsel not only a moral but a legal obligation to comply with it, and we would be in serious trouble if we saw fit to avoid that obligation. Now, this is the point I am trying to clear up before I get back to the ultimatum. When it came to the question of the producers deciding whether they would remain open, whether they would try to remain open, or whether they would shut down their studios, Mr. Johnston has testi- fied— and there is no contradiction of his testimony — that as of that time Mr. AValsh made no threats of any kind. I had better give you that because I think it is important. Mr. Landis. If the}^ had shut down, would that have been consid- ered a lock-out ? Mr. ZoRN. We would have been accused of a lock-out, too, if we had shut down at that time. These charges are very easy to sling about. Certainly we would have been charged with a lock-out at that time. This is Mr. Johnston's testimony Mr. Landis. Let me bring this in first. Mr. ZoRN. Certainly. Mr. Landis. The Beverly Hills contract was with the studio unions? Mr. ZoRN. That is right. Mr. Landis. Did they have anything in the contract with the lA? Mr. ZoRN. Xo ; because with the lA, Mr. Landis, the last contract with the lA generally, that is, with the lA international- — and there were separate wage arrangements with the locals — was made in 1944. It was a 5-year contract. It does not expire until August of 1949. Mr. Landis. So you really had a contract with them ? Mr. ZoRN. Oh, we had a complete contract with the lA, there is no question about that. Mr. Landis. That is the point I wanted to bring out. Mr. ZoRN. Oh, yes ; I think you are entirely right about that. Mr. Johnston testified. He was asked this question through Mr. McCann by Mr. Bodle : If producers played a neutral role, how do you explain the fact that producers' labor committee in concert with lATSE officials planned every step leading up to the mass discharge of September 23, 1946? Mr. Johnston. Well, I do not agree that they did plan every step. As a matter of fact, in the conversation which I had with Mr. Walsh prior to Septem- ber 12, 1946, Mr. Walsh told me as far as he was concerned, "close down the studios." He would prefer to see them closed rather than to attempt to provide any men. That was at the time I was trying to get Mr. Hutcheson and Mr. Walsh to sit down together. -2294 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The point I want to make clear, which has not been made clear thus far, is this : Mr. Walsh's original position was that the December 1945 decision was binding, that the executive council had no authority to change it, and if the producers tried to change that decision they would be in trouble. We agreed to that position. But, when it came to the question as to whether or not we would ti'y to keep the studios open or closed — - of course, if we closed the studios we were not violating the decision, but if we tried to keep them open then obviously we would then have to abide by the decision of the three-man committee of December 1945. So that there were no threats. In this conspiracy claim that has been made, it has been claimed all along that we were part and parcel of a conspiracy with the lATSE for the purpose of throwing these other fellows out of the studio. This testimony of Mr. Johnston's I think, makes it very clear that Mr. Walsh — and Mr. Walsh will be back on the stand and you can ask him about this — makes it very clear that so far as Mr. Walsh and the lA were concerned, they probably had a bellyful of this, too, and they would have been perfectly satisfied to put no pressure on us to keep the studios open, and if w^e closed, their men would have been out of jobs, too. I do not know what was in Mr. Walsh's mind when he made that statement to Mr. Johnston, but certainly this demonstrates completely that we did not stay open and we did not operate with the lA's help through any threat by the lA that we must remain open. After these various efforts, the efforts of Mr. Johnston, our telegrams and discussions with local unions on the coast to try to get it settled, the ultimatum was not withdrawn. Mr. Kahane's testimony, in essence, so far as the ultimatum is con- cerned, is about this. I will not take the time to read it in the record. For convenience, it appears at page 250 and the following pages of these Washington hearings. He said they were given from 4 o'clock one afternoon until 6 o'clock the next morning, and that at 6 o'clock the next morning the carpenters said they would no longer work on "hot" sets. The painters issued a similar statement some time later, which is made clear by the telegram 1 read into the record a moment ago. Mr. Kahane indicated — and I will not try to review all his testi- mony— that of course they could continue to operate for a while, even though these men were not working on the "hot" sets. ' But there would come a point, it might be 1 or 2 weeks, where they would have to have new sets put up and where they would have to plan for production in the future. He pointed out you cannot make a picture without having a set ready, because a set is just as important as a star, it is just as important as a camera, or any other element. If you do not have a set and have it completed, you cannot shoot a scene in the picture, so they had to plan to get these sets completed. Now, in addition to that, under the Beverly Hills agreement of July 2, and its continuation of the prior ai'rangement with the carpenters and the painters, we were working under closed-shop conditions with those men. They furnished us with carpenters, and we employed car- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2295 penters to do the carpenter work which had been established as the car- penters' jurisdiction. If we had g>one out and had had somebody else work on hot sets — under the decision we had to continue to let the I A men work on these sets on stages. If we tried to get the lA men to do the mill and trim work on the sets or doing the painting on those sets, we obviously would have been in violation of our contractual obligations with the carpenters because of the closed-shop arrangement. So that while the carpenters were in the studios and while we were under these contractual relations with them, we would either have to stop producing and shut down or get somebody else to do the work. That is why it was necessary, and that is why the lawyers on the coast, when this problem came up — among other reasons — that is why it was necessary to find out whether or not any of the car- penters who were assigned to this work, whether they had done this mill and trim worli before or whether they had not, were willing to do this work, and if they were not the lawyer's advice — which I think was completely sound and is as sound today as it was then — was that if a man refused to work, then obviously you have no choice but to lay him off. We had to find out. The additional reason that Mr. Kahane gave and Mr. Freeman gave was this : They knew that if they brought people in to do this work who were not members of the carpenters' union, they would have violence, bloodshed, and property destruction in the studios. They preferred that if there was to be a strike here that that strike should he outside the studios, rather than to have the studios torn up and •destroyed. Mr. Freeman also pointed out very clearly that on the historical relationship — and his testimony is at page 350 and the following pages of the Washington record — that there was never any doubt "whetlier a man was a maintenance carpenter or a mill carpenter, under the contractual arrangements for years past the studios had a complete right to assign men to any work they saw fit, providing it was carjDenter work. I think I have made it clear why it was necessary then for the studios to ascertain that. First they took the men who were assigned to a job and asked them to do that, the regular men. They refused to do it and they "were laid off. To clear up another point of misunderstanding here, there were men laid off between September 12 and September 23. I do not have the accurate figures, but the testimony shows clearly that a substan- tial number of men were actually laid off and sent home for refusal to work on these hot sets, beginning as early as about September 12 or September 13. While I am there, I might clear up another point that Mr. Cobb spent a great deal of time on yesterday. He pointed to some reference in the so-called minutes of September 17 or September 16, to some discussion with Mr. Craigin of Mr. Benjamin's office with respect to unemployment compensation. He pointed to that as being a sinister element in a conspiracy. Well, let's look at it. If you do not look at it with a jaundiced or prejudiced eye it is perfectly clear. Men had already been laid off. They knew that claims would be made. By September 16 the record shows — I do not have the pages, 2296 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES but I will supply it — that a number of men had already been laid off and the problem of unemployment compensation had come up. I assume that is the reason Craigin was at this meeting of the producers. They knew also that they were going to be in a lot of trouble as a result of this ultimatum. There was almost a month after the clari- fication had been issued where they were just waiting for the blow to strike, and it was struck on the afternoon of September 11. So you had a situation there where men had already been laid off. Under the California arrangements for unemployment compensation,, if the unemployment compensation makes payment to their employees,, the producers have to make that good out of their own pockets as. contributors to the State unemployment insurance fund. So they liadl a vital stake in this thing. Under the California law, if a man is engaged in a trade dispute he is not entitled to unemployment insurance. So that any claim here that this was a sinister elem'ent of conspiracy^ I think, is completely knocked out of the window by reason of the fact that we had the problem on our doorstep by reason of the lay-off of those men at that time; and, second, we had a perfect right to contem- plate what the future would be after this ultimatum had been issued. Moreover — and this, I think, is the conclusive factor of the things — the Unemployment Insurance Commission of California, after the most extended hearings, with witness after witness, lawyers for the carpenters and lawyers for the painters, has ruled generally that these men were engaged in a trade dispute ; that they were not locked out, and that they were not entitled to compensation. Mr. Cobb said yesterday he was going to appeal. He just disagrees with every agency that he has been before which has not accepted his point of view. The fact is tliat that has been determined by the laws in California and certainly this committee, I think, will accept a determinatioh of the duly accredited agencies of the State of California which have taken all of the evidence, have studied these things, and have passed on them. That is true of all these other grab-bag claims of conspiracy that have been made here. We come down now to the ultimatum and what we were to da about it. I believe you have heard, Mr. Landis, the testimony of the various presidents, some of the vice presidents, and Eric Johnston. These notes are seized on here as an element of conspiracy. There is reference made to the discussion on September 12, in which Mr. Kahane reports that in conversations with Mr. Eric Johnston and with the presidents, the presidents had made certain recommendations. Now, while we are on the subject of these so-called minutes of the notes, let me say this: Mr. Johnston emphatically denied that he had ever made a recommendation to keep the studios open. On the con- trary, Mr. Johnston stated very emphatically that he was for closing^ and closing very strongly. The record here is full of instances where statements in the notes are either contradicted or amplified by the witnesses. I want you particularly, Mr. Landis, to understand, because so much has been placed upon these notes as proving conspiracy. I want you to understand that basically it is my judgment that these notes are MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2297 in a large measure substantially an account of what Mr. Clark heard happen. But they have this defect — I am not attacking them at all, I am simply sa^dng they are notes made by a man which are not read to the people who attend the meeting. At all these various meetings there are usually 10 or 15 men present, sometimes several of them talking at the same time, telephone calls going on at tlie same time, so that no matter how honestly Mr. Clark tried to report the things he thought were happening, it is perfectly obvious tliat you could not have a complete report. That is why you have bits here and bits there. I am not atta,cking the notes at all, but I think that in order to understand them and understand the testimony of the witnesses with respect to these notes, you have to understand .that, first, they cer tainly do not purport to be a verbatim account of everything thai happened, and, secondly, they are taken by a man who gets certain iir pressions in the course of a great deal of conversation and discussion, which were never read back, which were never ratified or approved by anybody. ^s^ow,*^ so far as the producers' position in September is concerned, you have heard that testimony and very briefly it is this : The presidents were notified of this new ultimatum. In October 1945, the 8-month strike of 1945, was over. That had cost the pro- ducers millions of dollars. The settlement of it cost them millions of dollars. There were some people among the presidents' group, and particularly Mr. Johnston, who felt very strongly that they had had a bellyful of this jurisdictional conflict, and that there should be a I^lague on all the houses involved and all the unions involved, and that the producers' only position would be to close down and as a resuh of the close down of the studios, the thing would obtain so much notoriety the A. F. of L. would have to step in and settle it quickly, witliout putting us through an expensive and difficult strike. There were some other people at the meeting in New York on Sep- tember 12. who had the same point of view as Mr. Johnston. You heard Mr. Michel testify here. He said he fought vigorously against that because his company had no product, and if they didn't operate they would be out of business. They had commitments of a]] kinds. You heard Mr. O'Connor of Universal. Mr. Michel was with 20th Century-Fox. Mr. O'Connor testified that they were over-extended on their commitments; that they had to have their product ; tliat there were other commitments in the form of contracts. I do not recall at the moment whether it was Mr. O'Connor's testimony or one of the other witnesses, but they had expensive contracts with actors, directors, and stars, and that they probably could not stand the financial burden of a shut-down. Nobody knew and nobody could assure them how long such a shut- down would be in effect because on the past performances of the American Federation of Labor the people who were experienced in it did not have too much confidence in them regarding the closing down of the studios. Now, ^Ir. Rathvon, president of RKO, made it very clear that cer- tain charges had been made that tlie producers acted in a cowardly fashion. I think he made it very clear that it took a great deal more courage to come to a decision to run their business and to keep it open. 2298 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES than it did to simply shut down and sit on their hands, because thej had been through a vicious, tough, and violent strike. According to Mr. Rathvon, it took a great deal more courage and boldness in the face of those facts to keep open. Mr. Landis. How long was that strike ? Mr. ZoRX. That ran from March 12, 1945, to October 31, 1945, about 8 months. Mr. Landis. Practically all the moving-picture business that year was abolished ? Mr. McCann. May I intrude a second ? Mr. ZoRN. Surely. Mr. McCakn. I think you are asking about the long strike, are you not? Mr. Landis. I am thinking about the long strike. Mr. ZoRN. There were two major strikes, Mr. Landis. There wa& what we call the 1945 strike, which was started by the painters on March 12, 1945. That ran through until the Cincinnati meeting of the A. F. of L, executive council. That was settled as of about the end of October 1945. Mr. Landis. That is where the producers lost the money? Mr. ZoRN. They lost a tremendous amount of money. Mr. Landis. By not producing the pictures that year? Mr. ZoRN. No. Mr. Landis. Where did they lose the money ? Mr. ZoRN. They lost a tremendous amount of money in various ways. In the first place their operations were pretty sharply curtailed and they were hamstrung by the fact a lot of their people, the people in the various arts, such as scenic artists and things of that sort were on strike. They were held up in production. They actuall}^ continued to produce, but production took longer. They had to hire new people, inexperienced people to do the work and then, of course, all the other expenses that go with a strike. But they did produce pictures. They were held down. They did not produce as many as they would have produced if this strike had not occurred, but they were simply hampered by it. Now I think we get down to this situation. The presidents on the west coast discussed the matter with the people in Hollywood. The people in Hollywood, according to the testimony, felt very strongly that they should continue to operate. The presidents after a lot of discussion went along with that decision. We decided to keep operat- ing. I think you have asked that question a number of times and I do not think I "would have to explain it very fully to you, except for the record. If they decided to remain in business and to continue or at- tempt to continue to operate their business, what could they do? Where could they get their employees ? These other fellows had issued an ultimatum. They said they would not work. If they would not work you could not operate. So naturally they went to the union people first. They not only went to the lA because the record is very clear on this. They wanted to know whether the actors, if they remained open, would work. They wanted to know whether the teamsters would work. They talked to a number of other groups and the testimony is clear on that. Because if the teamsters, for example, had decided to support this ultimatum or if the actors had decided not to go through picket lines MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2299' which everybody knew would be set up, then obviously we would be hamstrung. In order to operate we had to find those things out. Now the charge is made, and has been made here, that because we talked to the I A about getting men to do this work or helping us to get men, by talking to tliese otlier unions we were guihy of a conspiracy. I think from your question. Mr. Landis, those statements need no- comment from me. I think that is transparently clear. If you did not have a bias about the situation, if you were not inter- ested in calculatingly and deliberately distorting the situation, the only conclusion you could ever come to is the conclusion that we did the- thing we had to do to remain' in business because of a situation pre- cipitated not by us but precipitated by the declaration and the ulti- matum of the carpenters that the sets were hot. Now, Mr. Cobb and Mr. Bodle talked a great deal about what our plans were and hoAv we agreed on this mass discharge. That has been testified to fully by Mr. Kahane and by the other- witnesses. There is no denial of the fact that when that ultimatum came down, and after our efforts to try to get it straightened out between the unions,, after ^Ir. Johnston's efforts and the pleas of the producers on the coast,, the carpenters and the painters said, ''We are not going to work on hot sets, and you have to abide by this clarification,-' and possibly some later interpretation, we knew then that we were in trouble and that we^ could not operate our businesses unless we laid off the men who refused to do the work. Now, we did not fire them, and this is important. In the so-called minutes in which these allegedly sinister, conspiratorial plans were developed, there is this statement. Mr. Cobb, reading from these al- leged minutes, did not read this j^art of it : After it was decided by the lawyers as to the method in which this problem should be handled — - in other words, they prepared these various instructions which appear in the notes of September 12 — is this statement : If any such employee asks to return to his former job he is to be welcomed back- When you read the testimony of all the witnesses it is perfectly clear these men were told that whenever they were ready to do the work they would have their jobs back. But what happened was this: The car- penters union issued the ultimatum, and the painters went along with them. The men were instructed not to work on hot sets. Then when we began to lay them off and they were finally all laid, off for the reasons I have already explained, then a picket line was put up. The carpenter who testified here made it very clear that he had never applied back for his job ; that if he had applied back for his job in those early days he probably would have gotten it, and if there was a job open today he would get it. I think the testimony is clear- on that in 3'Our mind, Mr. Landis. So far as the painters' jurisdiction which has been occupied by 1421 and 641, and the cari)enters' jurisdiction outside of set erection,. we do not have any contractual arrangements with the lA; we do not have any closed-shop conditions with the lA and we operated on open shop and have a completely nondiscriminatory employment policy. The reason these men are out of work is not because we have ever refused to hire them, they are out of work because of the fact that they 2300 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES refused to go through their picket line. That is why they are out of work. In addition to that, of course, they have been replaced, most of them have been replaced. As vacancies occur, of course, they can be hired back without discrimination but the situation today under Public Law 101 is such that the men who have those jobs and who have been working on those jobs since last September have certain very definite rights which cannot be taken from them. That situation which was precipitated by the ultimatum is still con- tinuing. We accept that. As the witnesses pointed out, the studios are in full production. There are only token picket lines. The strike, as I testified earlier, is dead. But so far as any settlement efforts are concerned and what to do about it, the strike in theory is still continuing. In fact, it is a dead duck. You have heard here the testimony Mr. Kearns. Did I understand you correctly when you opened your testimony to say you are not making any Communist charges aefainst anyone ? Is that correct ? Mr. ZoRN. Yes. I said I had no interest in behalf of my clients in making any charges against anyone. Mr. Kearns. Communistic or otherwise? Mr. Zorn. That is right. Mr. Kearns. I do not know at what point you were when Mr. Landis had to step out but will you please proceed? Mr. ZoRN. As you will recall. Judge Levy and some of the others were a little bit harsh on us because we did not join. In this investigation, JVIr. Chairman, we have been charged with this conspiracy and lock-out. It is my view that you take an issue that lias been raised and you meet that issue. That is what I am trying to do. Now, anybody else involved in the proceeding, if there are other issues involved, can go into those. Of course, the events of today, if they had been known, might have made a difference in my attitude. Mr. Chairman, I had briefiy run through the ultimatum, the situa- tion created by the carpenters, the fact that we had decided we would remain open ; that in order to remain open we had to get men to work, The situation was not created by us, it was created by the other side. The situation today is from all the information I have and has been testified to here before, is a dead strike. However, questions have been asked about settlement; about how this thing can be settled and what can be done about it. Well, you have heard Mr. Walsh say he wants all the jurisdiction. You have heard Mr. Hutcheson testify here that the only part of the American public he is interested in is the carpenters. Tliis thing can go on forever, but until the carpenters get their right- ful jurisdiction he isn't going to settle. Now, that is a situation completely beyond the control of the pro- ducers. I think it has been made completely clear that we have been in the middle of this thing right from the beginning and no matter what we try to do there was nothing we could do so long as these powerful MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2301 leaders of labor were fighting among tliemselves for jurisdiction and for power. Now we are just helpless. I think I explained in my previous testi- mony why invoking Public Law 101 at this time would make no dif- ference in the settlement of these issues. Mr. Landis. I notice in the agreement they signed yesterday : It is recognized that striljes and lock-outs arising under jurisdictional disputes within the industries are detrimental alike to the interests of the employers, the union and the public. I understand all the building trades signed that. Mr. Kearns. Did Mr. Hutcheson sign that ? Mr. Landis. I think all of them signed it. Mr. ZoRx. I think that is a great forward step. I heard about it last night, as a matter of fact. Mr. Laxdis. I think so, too. • Mr. ZoRx. It is limited to the building trades of the American Federation of Labor. You will recall, gentlemen, that all through this and in Mr. Boren's testimony on the coast we have always taken the position that we wel- comed arbitration. We offered to pay the expenses of it, but we also said that you could not have arbitration on a local level because you had to get the international presidents involved, and if you could get that done on a voluntary basis I think that is an even more effective solution than any kind of legislation. 3.1r. Kearxs. Regardless of local autonomy it all went back to the rule and decree of the international, did it not ? Mr. ZoRx. Precisely. I think that is so clear from all the testimony we have heard. Mr. Kj:arns. Furthermore, wouldn't you say that probably the American Federation of Labor in its move to take care of jurisdictional disputes, will probably move more quickly because of the disaster of the Hollywood dispute, more than anything else that has ever hap- pened? I think it has made it more vivid to them as to what juris- dictional disputes can do to industry and to the people, how it can affect homes and the entire futures and lives of people. Don't you think that is true ? ]\Ir. ZoRx. I agree with you completely. I think that all of this dirty linen, internal feuding and fighting, is the greatest black eye the A. F. of L. has ever received in any situation and I think it is time they came to their senses and did something about it. Mr. Laxdis. Of course, the Taft-Hartley Act has some effect on that, but Mr. Kearxs. It has been testified here by Mr. Sorrell and others that if the Taft-Hartley Act had been in effect this thing never would, have happened. I am a firm believer of that, Mr. Landis. Mr. ZoRX. I think it would have operated as a very serious re- straint. I do not know whether it would have been a hundred percent successful or not. Mr. Kearx'S. I doubt whether there would have been stoppage. I think production would have gone on and they would have settled the thing. Mr. ZoRX. While we are on that subject I would like to make one suggestion along legislative lines. 67383 — 48 — vol. 3 51 2302 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I think one of the defects of the jurisdictional provisions of the Public Law 101 is this : In connection with your secondary boycott provision, provisions of 8 (d) (4) (b) and (c), you make provision for summary action and you make it mandatory upon the general counsel for the Board to apply for injunctive relief. But when you get down into the jurisdictional strike you leave that as a discretionary matter. Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. ZoRN. Jurisdictional strikes in my book are a lot worse than secondary boycotts. Mr. Landis. Yes, but if this agreement works then that will not be necessary. Mr. ZoRN. I agree with you. I was making a legislative recom- mendation there. Mr. Landis. I would rather have this work. Mr. ZoRN. I would very much prefer to have it done on a voluntary basis. That is the best way to settle those things. Mr. Kearns. In Komaroff's report to the National Labor Relations Board citing 8 (4) (d) as the reason why they should act, Mr. Denham claimed that 8 (4) (d) gave no provision thereunder for the National Labor Relations Board to act in the Hollywood situation. INIr. ZoRN. No; let me explain that to you, Mr. Chairman. That Comeroff charge was filed as agent for a group of employees. Mr. Kearns. Yes ; about a hundred of them. ]\Ir. ZoRN. That is right. Some of them were workers and some were strikers ; they come from all the crafts. After the Board had made its investigation, the letter I have read in this morning, a jurisdictional strike is an unfair labor practice on the part of a union. Normally it was put in and the expectation was that employers would be the ones to petition or to make a charge against an unfair labor practice in the form of a jurisdictional strike. Heretofore I have explained to you why it was that in this situation the producers have not filed any charges, because as I said the strike is a dead strike and there are many complicated legal issue, particu- larly those concerning the replacements; that even if the Board made a decision it still could not solve the problem of who represented these people without an election. There are representation cases pending on the coast which have been filed by the lA along back to determine the issues of representa- tion which have been held up and blocked by these various unfair labor charges which have been filed. But the basis for the Board dismissing these Komaroff charges was, as I read from the letter of the regional director this morning, Mr. Chairman, that the act never contemplated that a fellow who himself engaged in a jurisdictional strike should take advantage of the law to try to do something about it. Tliat is the essence of it. Mr. Kearns. Yes; but Komaroff 's contention was brought under 8 (4) (d). Mr. ZoRN. That is right, sir. We have been subjected to an awful lot of smearing, loose-lipped charges, and character assassination here. This whole Bioff-Browne thing has been revived. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2303 I think I made the suggestion early in the case that we could have saved ourselves days and days of testimony. I was perfectly willing to concede that Bioff and Browne were two of the most notorious crooks, extortionists, and racketeers we have ever seen around. Now, Mr. Owens, you wil recall, asked the question, "How could the producers be guilty of conspiracy when Biotf and Browne were con- victed of extortion?" Well, that was a very intelligent question. I just want to call your attention to two things in the record. In the various copies of the newspapers that were introduced by Mr. Bodle, Bioff and Browne were convicted in 1941. They were not convicted on the testimony of Mr. Sorrell, gentlemen ; they were con- victed on the testimony of the producers, from whom they extorted these large sums of money. In the newspaper clipjDings which were introduced at page 2461 of the record, the newspaper report says that the United States attorney, Mr. Carea, stated that Bioff and Browne threatened the producers and that unless they paid them "they would wreck our business." He further stated that "the motion-picture producers had no alternative but to yield to those demands." Now we were dealing with some pretty tough customers there. I am not proud of that episode in the history of the motion-picture industry. Mv. Kearns. Was that before your time? ]Mr. ZoKX. Yes. I knew something about it at the time of the con- viction. But that leads to one other thing. I am not proud of it, but after all the gun was at these men's heads, and as the district attorney who prosecuted these men said, the industry had no alternative. Mr. Kearns. They gave or else ? Mr. ZoRN^. They gave or else. We are not proud of that. But the fact is, and this is what I want to say to you : I have been •active in the labor affairs of the motion-picture industry since around 1941 or 1942. I have had plenty of opportunity. I knew considerable about the Browne-Bioff thing. My law office was involved in some of the litigation arising out of it. My law office was very instrumental in finally cooperating with the district attorney in the prosecution of Bioff and Browne. Naturally when I got into this picture I wanted to know something about this man Dick Walsh. I made inquiries and I have made in- quiries since. I can tell you that I have talked to m?iny of the key people in the in- dustry about Mr. Walsh and I have known him personally for a long time. For whatever my word may be worth to this committee I can tell you he has a reputation in this industry of being a clean, decent, honest person wdio had never accepted a nickel and nobody has offered him a nickel in any capacity whatsoever. I say that on the basis of very close and intimate knowledge of all of the labor relations in the motion-picture industry. There are many things that in order to make this record complete I could do, but I will try to be selective because I want to get through as soon as I can. Mv. Bodle introduced several things. He would read certain things into the record. I do not say it was done deliberately. They were 2304 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES things which suited his purpose but he would omit certain other things from the document. He introduced into the record a cop}^ of the Tidings, which is the official nev. spaper of the archdiocese in Los Angeles, dated Friday, March 21, 1947. Let me read to .you what he did not read from that. He omitted completel.y to read the recommendations given by the two priests, the Reverends Delvin and Coogan, who liad been assigned to make the investigation and give the recommendations. This is March 21, 1947. In their conclusions and recoimnendations they say : 1. That the December 26 award of the A. F. of L. be accepted by all parties concerned as the basis for settling all future jurisdictional disputes. 2. The clarification of August 15, whose authenticity has always been in doubt, be rejected. Then they go on to recommend that Mr. Hutcheson give full auton- omy— I will read that : 3. That Mr. William Hutcheson give to the local carpenters union or his selected representatives full autonomy to sign contracts with the producers for local 946. Tliese contracts will be final and binding. Mr, Hutcheson has never agreed to that and Mr. Hutcheson has never agreed that the clarification of August 15 is of doubtful authen- ticity and that it should be rejected. These men, I think, had an honest interest in trying to settle this dispute or trying to work out a basis for settling and these are their conclusions which were never read to you before. There was a legal discussion yesterday between you, Mr. Landis, and Mr. Cobb, in which you were trying to get a distinction between a lock-out, a strike, and a lay-off. Mr. Landis. That is right. Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Cobb was arguing very vociferously as Mr. Bodle had before him, that these men were locked out. He appears in this record as the attorney for the locked-out carpenters. I imagine if he keeps saying that often enough he hopes he will be able to prove it. Just like a lot of these charges of conspiracy, if you keep repeatmg them often enough, maybe somebody will believe you eventually. Public Law 101 contains a definition of a strike. This is what I want to call to your attention. In section 501 it says : The term "striike" includes any strike or other concerted stoppage of work by employees, including a stoppage by reason of the expiration of the collective- bargaining agreement and any concerted slow-down or other concerted inter- ruption of operations by employees. Now when the carpenters issued their ultimatum and instructed their men not to work on hot sets, and when the painters' organization instructed their men not to work on hot sets, you had an interruption of the work of the studios. Within this definition you clearly had a concerted interruption of operations by employees. So by your own definition under Public Law 101 you have a strike there and you haven't got a lock-out. The National Labor Relations Board in these letters which I read into the record this morning, these letters of dismissal, makes it very clear that in their opinion they are strikes. I think this lock-out charge has been blasted very thoroughly. I think it is out the window. MOTION-PICTUEE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2305 . Mr. Landis. Well, tliey revived it. They mentioned it so many times I thought we had better find out. Mr. ZoRx. I thought the questions were very sound questions. I did not agree with his answers and that is why I quoted Public Law 101. There is one thing here that is not important, but I think it ought to be brought out. There were a great many quotations read from articles by Father Dunne, who testified on the coast. Mr. Kearns heard Father Dunne testif3\ I would like you, Mr. Landis, to read Father Dunne's testimony and draw your own conclusions from it. You will find it around pages 2070 and so on of the Los Angeles record. I will not read it to yoTi here but Father Dunne came out unequivocally and said that he be- lieved in mass picketing ; he was thoroughly in accord with mass picketing; he believed that the actors, even though they had a. contract, which contained a no-strike clause, were wrong because they refused to violate their contract. He made other statements of a similar efi^ect. I think all you have to do is to read that testimony and then you can come to your own. conclusions as to whether he was a competent and impartial or an un- biased witness. Now I have this problem, gentlemen, and I do not know quite what to do about it. Mr. Sorrell has testified here at considerable length about his theories of picketing. He was a little bit inconsistent as a witness. In the early part of his testimony he was talking about the 1937 strike. He bragged with his chest thrown out about what a tough guy he was. He bragged about the incident where they jailed up car after car in the streets and blocked off the Paramount Studio completely so that the fire station was blocked up and nobody could get in or out of the Paramount Studio. He thought that was pretty clever. You will find that at page 2037 of the Washington record. He bragged about leading a gang of his fellows into the lA offices when the lA offices were employing men in the 1937 strike. He thought it was a great thing to tell this committee that they went in there and busted up that place and the ambulance had to make 19 trips to take them out of there. That is at page 2041 of the Washington record. Throughout his testimony he has indicated he is a person who be- lieves in violence and violent methods. Then he tried to pull a very cute one on this committee. He was questioned about the mass picketing at Warner's. He said at page 2358 of the record : I don't think — and I think he was being questioned by you, Mr. Landis. Mr. Keakns, I think I was questioning him. Mr. ZoRN. I am not certain of that, I just made these extracts. He was asked about this theory of free speech and peaceful picketing. He said : I don't think that the men should have the right to interfere with people going through. I think it should be a line to advertise and a line to humiliate people who go through, but I don't think they should be roughed up or touched in any way. 2306 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES He was telling this committee that was his philosophy. Then in answer to this question by Mr. Landis, he said : It is a right of free speech and free assemblage, but it was not a picket line of force to prevent people going to and from work. Mr. Sorrell said this at page 2367 : Let me tell you, Congressman, I don't believe in violence and I don't believe it is necessary and I have demonstrated it in the Disney strike. He went on to testify that in the Warner picket line, though he had mass picketing, no cars were ever prevented from going through ; no people were kept out of the plant and he never heard of anybody, particularly company officials, being molested. Well, on the record — and there it is — those are just straight and complete falsehoods. They are utterly untrue. Mr. Laxdis. Well, he admitted once that maybe occasi(5nally some 3^oung fellow would get out of line. Mr. ZoRN. For example, I have a tremendous number of documents. The Los Angeles Times of Friday, September 2Y, 1946 : Strike Leader Herbert K. Sorrell told newf-men that "there may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over, but we are in no mood to be pushed around any more." Now I have here a series of newspaper accounts of the violence, the mass picket line, the attacks on people and the attacks on workers. I have a series of affidavits here, photographs of violence, photo- graphs of mass picketing barring access to plants, which completely destroy any possible basis for the testimony of Mr. Sorrell which I read. These injunction affidavits, these newspaper accounts, the photo- stats which are attached and the court orders of the injunctions demonstrate thoroughly and completely that both the 1935 strike under the leadership of Sorrell and the 1946 strike under his leader- ship, were filled with violence of the worst character; that innocent people were hurt, that innocent people were beaten up; that these strikers under his leadership massed people around these studios in numbers up to a thousand and that nobody could go through those lines to get to and from work. I think the pictures shown by these newspaper accounts, by these affidavits and by the court orders, and by the records of arrest — I do not have them available at the moment but I would like to submit later a complete record of arrests and convictions for violence and disorder in violation of court decrees. There were hundreds of people arrested, put in jail, and fined. Mr. Sorrell also was arrested. He bragged about his criminal record. He admitted he was in jail many times. I think this committee ought to have as a part of its records here a pretty complete story of the violence which Sorrell led, the kind of mass picketing, and the kind of intimidation that was carried on by him, because one of the fundamental purposes of Public Law 101, de- spite the fact that State laws are intended to take care of things of that sort, you put a specific provision in Public Law 101 prohibiting unions from engaging in coercion or intimidation. The record of your debates and the record of your reports indicate clearly that one of the objectives of this was to stop the practice of unions — and you referred to it yourself, Mr. Chairman, when you talked about the MOTION-PICTURE JUEISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2307 Westing-house situation — stop luiions from preventing people who want to work. Mr. Sorrell can call them skid-row bums and he can call them all the names he wants, but the men who are working in the studios and the men who have tried to work are decent Americans who have families to support also, even though they may be on the opposite side of the fence from Mr. Sorrell. So I have this problem: I would need a considerable amount of time, it seems to me, to read into the record the things which I be- lieve should be a part of this record. Now I don't know just how you want to handle that, Mr. Chairman. I do not think this hearing should be concluded without these records being put in and being made a part of the record. I would like to be selective about it. I know you expect to go on next week, and I simply cannot put that stuff in today. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may we ask that the matters he thinks should be a part of the record, and which are too voluminous to be reproduced in the record, be received for study, as was done with the records of the three-man committee ? You know we have studied those records. We would be glad to receive as a reference exhibit anything you have to offer, Mr. Zorn. Mr. Zorn. Here is the problem, Mr. McCann: For literally days on end I have sat here and had read at me and read into this record newspaper accounts and all sorts of accounts of everything. Now, as a reference exhibit it is going to be pretty tough for any- body trying to read' this record to figure it. What I would like to suggest is that I be given the same opportunity. I do not want to take your time to do it, but I should like to submit to you after I have had a chance to collate the material and then have had a chance to determine the material things, to be read in as a part of the record. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest this: If Mr. Zorn is willing to do so, just as you offered Mr. Cobb a chance to file a brief, so Mr. Zorn could make excerpts from those records which are material and submit a brief to us which we will reproduce in the appendix. Mr. Zorn. I don't think that is being entirely fair to me, Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann. I want to be fair. Mr. Zorn. It does not serve the purpose. I think I would like an opportunity to submit a brief, but I would like my brief to be devoted to the issues. I think all the other parties here have had in this record — and this is going to be a terrible record for anybody to have to read and collate — I think since all of these statements liave been made that we ought to have in here things which are far more cogent than a lot of stuff that has been read here in the form of affidavits and court decrees. I do not know what your plans are for next week, but I would like you to see some of these photographs, of course, and I would like to submit them. However, I would like to go through these things, cut them down to the bone as much as possible, and then make those things a part of the actual record. Mr. Kearns. Well, I think you have that privilege. Whatever you decide to do we will be glad to accept. I think Mr. McCami was trying to simplify it. 2308 MOTION-PICTURE JITRISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. ZoEN Yes; I know he was, but I think the record should be complete. ]\Ir. Kearns. In other words, you would like more time ? Mr. ZoRN. I really think I would need some time. I will cut through these thino;s as much as I can. You will notice today I did not go back and read very much stuff from the record. Mr. Kearns. Yes. Mv. JNIcCann. Mr. Chairman, may I make one other suggestion? As Mr. Zorn knows, we received at one time a hundred or a hundred and fifty pages from Mr. Boren. We did not require Mr. Boren to read it, yet that has been read very carefully by me on more than one occasion. I think if you would be willing to do it — I am only thinking of sav- ing your time and the committee's time, and the committee certainly has given everybody a full o]iportunity Mr. ZoRN. They have gone beyond that, they have been too gen- erous. Mr. McCann. I have in mind if you would take everything you think material for this committee and put it in a document and offer it, that we could reproduce it in the record. But it would save us a great deal of expense if you would consent for us to put that in the printed record and not in our daily transcript. Mr. ZoRN. You know, Mr. McCann, you should have thought of that when they were shoveling that other stuff in. Mr. McCann. My dear man, I did my best to prevent it. Mr ZoRN. Let me make this practical suggestion. I cannot ob- viously do it before the day is over. Let me take this material and see how much I can cut it down. When you resume on Tuesday, give me the opportunity to put it in as rapidly as I can. Mr. Kearns. All right, I think that is perfectly fair. Mr. ZoRN. There is one other telegram I wanted to read into the record to clear up one point, if you will give me that opportunity, then I will just about be finished. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. ZoEN. You will recall that Mr. Sorrell in the course of his testimony made many statements about the fact that the producers had ganged up on him and refused to make contacts with him and they were playing that game for the purpose of conspiring with the lA. I asked Mr. Boren to give me the sequence of the contractual history with the painters and he sent me this telegram which I would like to read into the record. It is addressed to me at the Hotel Mayflower. It is dated Hollywood, Calif., March 11 : Brotherhood of Painters, Local 644, executed a contract on September 1, 1942, effective date August 1, 1941, and witli termination date on January 1, 1944. Set designers executed — that is 1421— contract May 3, 1942, eifective date May 3, 1942, anniversary date January 1, 1944. Neither of these contracts provided for extension but on handshakes with Pat Casey such contracts were extended as to working conditions and wages into 1944 until agreement was reached, with understanding that with respect to local 644 any new wages agreed upon would be retroactive to January 1, 1944, and with respect to set designers, local 1421, of Brotherhood of Painters, the retro- active date would be April 1, 1944. In confirmation that the contract was ex- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2309 tended by handshake between Casey and Sorrell, I quote the following telegrams from Fred Peltou to Pat Casey, and Casey's reply : "Decembek 1, 1944. "Mr. Pat Casey, "Care the Sherry-Netherlmid Hotel: "We are preparing data for Homer Mitchell on the painters' situation. Can we definitely state that you and Sorrell had an understanding that we would carry over the terms of the old contract pending negotiations of the new contract and that the new contract would be retroactive to January 1, 1944? If not this under- standing, was there any or another understandings? Please advise by wire to reach me Monday. "Regards. "Fred." "December 3, 1944. "Fred Pelton, "Holli/ifood, Calif.: . "Regarding your telegram, you can definitely state my understanding with Sorrell, as well as with any of the other crafts we are dealing with, was that the present contracts would remain in full force until such time as the new contracts were entered into and approved by the War Labor Board, and that a certain retro- active date would be set in the application to the War Labor Board. That insofar as the painters' situation was concerned, said retroactive date would be as of January 1, 1944. "Pat Casey." During the year 1944 the painters and set designers were offered an allowance of 5 percent under the Little Steel formula. We had offered 5 percent to painters and other improvements in conditions but tlie membership of the painters had refused to accept the offers. Also during this time we were having jurisdictional arguments between 1421 of painters and lATSE as to. the representation of interior decorators. However, wages paid for years 1942 and 1943 were continued during this time as well as the union-security clauses of local 644 and 1421 and other conditions of employment. During the negotiations painters entered into work stoppages, and I quote the entire contents of a telegram from Fred Pelton to Pat Casey : "November 20, 1944. "Mr. Pat Casey, "SJicrry-Xctlicrlands Hotel, Ncio Yorlc: "Yesterday painters' local reviewed our final proposal and passed resolutions effective today prohibiting members from accepting calls between 9 a. m. and 9 p. m. and restricting members from working more than 8 hours on any shift. Studios are temporarily incre^ising their first shifts to cause for their require- ments or having afternoon shift report on graveyard. Herb acknowledges the old contract is in force — " That is the significant thing. "Herb acknowledges the old contract is in force but maintains that their new house rules are also in force. He may relax S-hour limitation of work shift in case all of the former afternoon shift people are employed on either the first or gi-aveyard shift. Mannix sick at home and unable to work. He will let matter ride for a couple of days. "Regards, "Fred." The producers as of April 5, 1945, canceled the contracts with the painters and set designers for their refusal to render services for the producers. Under the Cincinnati agreement and as of October 31, 1945, painters and set designers were restored to their jobs. Fred Pelton, producers labor administrator, on November 23, 1945, issued a bulletin giving retroactive pay of 5 percent for all services rendered by members of local G44 for the period between January 1, 1944, and March 11, 1945, inclusive, in accordance witli previous understanding readied on wages in 1944. Shortly thereafter in January of 1946 negotiations began looking 2310 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES forward to a new contract with the painters and set designers, and on July 2, 1946, the so-called treaty of Beverly Hills was entered into which provided for a 25 percent increase in wages with a retroactive date of January 1, 1946. The other terms of Beverly Hills contract you are familiar with and have been read into the recoi'd before the subcommittee on education and labor. Retroactive moneys of 25 percent were computed and paid to painters and set designers as of January 1, 1946. Charles Boren. I think that statement makes it very clear that throughont this entire period, except for the strike situation, even though they did not have formal written agreements there was a complete understanding that these contracts were always in effect. -One of the reasons that led to difficulties in signing formal contracts was the controversy over the set dressers, in 1944, because the jminters — this is in the record already and it is in the Naj;ional Labor Relations Board decision I read this morning — the painters kept including the set dressers in their contract. There was a controversy as to those set dressers and they refused to sign a formal agreement until the producers recognized them for the set dressers. My point is that Mr. Sorrel I's testimony that the producers deliber- ately refrained from signing contracts with them for the purpose of conspiring with the lA, I think is just as credible, in view of the actual facts, as a great deal of the rest of his testimony because that is not the fact. They had the^e contractual relations, they had these wage increases, working conditions, and everything else continued. The only reason for the failure of the formal agreements was the set dresser contract. I say there is another aspect of the so-called conspiracy which when put on the table, falls right flat on the floor. In conclusion I want to say this: I think this committee has been extremely patient, more patient than any committee or any judge I have ever been before. I think you have been interested in getting the facts and getting all of the facts. I regret exceedingly that the statement which was made at the open- ing of the hearing was made in the form it was. I think if there were any doubt whatever in the chairman's mind as to the position of the producers and their relations with the lA and the other unions, if it needed to be cleared up it has been cleared up completely, substantially, and beyond any doubt whatever in the course of these proceedings here. I think on this record it is impossible for this committee to make any finding other than the finding that the producers and the studios in Hollywood have been kicked around and pushed around by com- peting unions and that the only crime of which they have been guilty is the crime of trying to operate their business. I think in all fairness, Mr. Chairman, before these hearings con- clude, since you made this statement you did, I won't urge it upon you, but I think in fairness you might make a statement based upon the evidence which has developed in the course of the Washington hearings. I thank you again for your patience and your courtesy. Mr. McCann. Mr. Zorn. before you close this afternoon would you put the minutes of 1945 in the record ? Mr. ZoRN. Oh, I am glad you mentioned that. I have more than that. You asked for a lot more. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2311 Mr. McCann". Well, whatever we asked for we would like to have in the record. Mr. ZoRN. Yes ; I would like the record to show this. You asked Mr. Bryson for a series of things. Here is a memorandum which Mr, Bryson has asked me to read into the record. It is addressed to you, Mr. McCann : When Mr. Johnston was on the stand, you requested of him certain documents, which I am pleased to subrndt herewith : 1. Minutes of meeting in Hollywood October 15, 1945. Have requested these nnnutes of Hollywood, if there are any, but same have not been received by me. So far as we can ascertain there were no particular minutes of that meeting. That meeting, as I recall it, was the meeting in which Mr. Johnston was given the authority to do anything he could to work out a settlement of the strike. Mr. McCann. What was the date? Mr. ZoRisr. October 15, 1945. So far as we can ascertain there were no formal minutes of that discussion. All the presidents were there as the testimon}' shows, but nobody kept any minutes of that. You asked for letters of Mr. Green and Mr. Hutcheson on August 16, 194(5, relating to the. clarification. We have the original letters. As a matter of fact, they have been reproduced in the record so often Mr, INIcCann. They have been reproduced? Mr. ZoRN. Yes, I am certain these letters have been. You can check it, Mr. McCann. Mr. jNIcCann. Mr. Chairman, it is my impression that the letters referred to have been reproduced in the record, so I will ask, if there is no objection, that we receive this for reference purposes in the event that we do not find them. Mr. Kearns, No objection. (The documents are filed with the committee.) Mr. ZoRx. You asked for the minutes or a list of the September 12, 194(), meeting in New York. There are not any minutes. I have before me minutes of the third quarterly meeting of the board of directors of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., dated September 11, 1946. These are the formal minutes of the regu- lar quarterly meeting of the association. The meeting of September 12 for which you asked was the meeting, as you will recall, which was called on the emergency call from the coast. It was held at the offices of the Motion Picture Association on the day following this regular meeting of September 11, but it was not a meeting of the Motion Picture Association. There are no minutes and there are no notes. I have checked with New York, with respect to the meeting of the presidents or their rep- resentatives on September 12. ^ Mr. McCann. Does this relate in any way to the Hollywood dispute ? jSIr. ZoRN. No, it does not. At the conclusion of those notes you will note, jNIr. McCann, there is a statement that Mr. Byron Price and Mr. Maurice Benjamin were there to discuss the Hollywood situation. Mr. Kearns, Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ZoRN. It is my recollection and if it has not been testified to I have been informed that — I think there has been testimony that Mr. Price gave a very brief account of things' in Hollywood. Mr. Ben- 2312 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES jamin was there specifically for the purpose of discussing the creation of this new Authors League. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, to save time and not reproduce the minutes of the third quarterly meeting of the board of directors of the Motion Picture Association, Inc., held in New York on September 11, 194G, may I read into the record just one paragraph? Mr. Byron Price and Mr. Maurice Benjamin were introduced and presented various Hollywood problems for consideration by the members present. I think that is adequate. Mr. Kearns. Does that meet with the approval of the attorney? Mr. ZoRN. Yes. I think I made an explanation on that. Now, Mr. McCann, you also asked whether there were any minutes of the meeting held on April 5, 1946. That was not, as you know, a meeting of the association. There was no secretary present and no minutes and no notes were kept of that. Mr. McCann. What was the subject matter discussed at that time? Mr. ZoRN. That, you will recall, was the Easter Sunday meet- ing Mr. Levy. 1947. Mr. ZoRN. You are quite correct, 1947. That was the meeting at which Mr. Boren made certain recommendations with regard to the resumption of negotiations with the striking carpenters and the painters. That has been testified to very thoroughly. Mr. McCann. There were no minutes of that meeting? Mr. ZoRN. No minutes were kept. Now in response to your request for minutes — or notes, depending upon what you call them — of meetings of the labor committee, or the producers labor committee in Hollywood between the period Febru- ary 15 and March 31, 1945, 1 hand you a set of such minutes or notes with a letter addressed to Mr. Charles Boren, care of Motion Picture Association, 1600 1 Street NW., Washington, D. C. : Dear Charlie: Enclosed are copies of notes covering meetings pertaining to labor during the period between February 15 and March 31, 1945, inclusive. Sincerely yours. It is signed "Ben," and the heading is "Ben T. Batchelder." I want to point out that fhe.'^e notes start with February 15, 1945, and thouirh the letter dated "for the period between February 15 and March 3f," the last set of urates is March 6, 1945. I checked that and found after the strike started on March 12, 1945, and because of the situations which prevailed and the general confusion, the meetings of the producers committee were not held at the producers association in Hollywood, but were held at either the Paramount or the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer house in Beverly Hills, and that no one took any notes of those meetings. That is the period between INIarch 6 and March 31. Mr. McCann. Then, Mr. Zorn, this constitutes a complete set of notes made of the producers' meetings by anyone between the dates specified? Mr. ZoRN. I am advised, Mr. McCann, that there are no notes of those meetings for that entire period, other than the ones I have just handed you. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 1313 Mr. McCakn. JMr, Chairman, I ask that these minutes be received in evidence, as given by Mr. Zorn. I am leaving out the attached letter which has been read. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The minutes referred to are as follows:) Minutes of IMeeting of Producers' Labor Committee, Held in Mr. Frank Fre^eman's Office on Thursday, February 15, 1945, at 4 P. M. Present : Messrs. Freeman, Hopper, Work, Kahane, Boren, Casey, Pelton. Reviewed the latest proposals from the editors and the producers, and ar- rived at a new final offer. See draft of February 16, 1945, film editors' file. Minutes of Meeting of Labor Relations Managers, Held in Board Room, on Wednesday, February 21, 1945, at 2 : 30 p. m.. With Unit Managers Com- mittee Present: Columbia, Mr. Guild; Goldwyn, Mr. Blair; M-G-M, Mr. Walsh; Para- mount, Mr. Boren ; R-K-0, Mr. Stone ; Republic, Mr. McDonell ; Universal, Mr. McCauslaud ; Warners, Mr. Sax. Messrs. Pelton, Casey, Clarke, Batchelder. Unit managers committee: Messrs. Nadel, Weeks, Ralph. Distributed first and second assistant directors' deal. Unit managers' pro- posal of February 6, 1945. Unit Diana ffcrs It was agreed to offer thq uuit managers (1) thc> identical first assiotant direc- tor deal where applicable; (21 with ])roportiouate k-ate increases. Availahility certificate Hair dressers are now talking time off (givinj)- various excuses) from their regular studios to accept work in other studic-s, and as they carry their own extended availability certificaes it is difficult to stip the practice. It was agreed that studios hereafter would pick up extended a-ailability certificates, surren- dering them to the employee oily when terminating employment. Outside buyers and renters An attempt was made to decide which employe's in these categories claimed by DuVal would fit into his bargaining unit, tt was agreed the best way to decide each individual case if to discuss the matier directly with Gappy. We will meet with him Tuesday, February 27, atUv the lA intrajurisdictional meeting. Cancellation of calls Under paragraph 15 which provides "calls may be changed or canceled if made before 8: 30 p. m. of the day preceding the call" it was agreed to interpret this as if it read " * « * before 8 : 30 p. m. of the weekday preceding the call." This is to prevent the cancellation of a Monday call on Sunday or the cancellation on a holiday for the day after. No. 724 roofers, etc. The recent form No. 1 application by No. 724 for a ruling to establish down- town rates at studio conditions was returned with instructions to file same on form No. 10. Film editors No one was opposed to the elimination of the words "in the producers' opinion" In the shop clause referring to furnishing competent help. In the escalator clause all agreed that the first year of service in the industry should qualify an editor for advancement to second-year bracket, but thei*e- after his advancement was dependent on service in the individual studio. It was agreed the maximum number of head sound editors in one studio should not exceed lour witiiout bringing the matter to the attention of all the other labor-relations managers for explanation and discussion. 2314 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The unit managers' committee joined tlie meeting at 3 : 45 p. m. Mr. Pelton stated the managers needed some further explanation of the unit managers' proposal of February 16, 1945, and that after a discussion he would ask the committee to recess so the managers could consider further and then be able to advise the committee what they would or would not recommend to the producer. The committee advised that («) the present initiation fee was $300 and that dues are $4S per year ; ( & ) it is the guild's intention to extend the use of unit managers and to insist that unit managers be used on all shooting units where cast is employed, including second units, too; (c) that the average wage for their men last June (including independents) was $207.79 per week; (d) that Warneris and Paramount have increased the pay for their unit managers since bur survey was made; (c) that INI-fJ-M are quite low compared to the other stu- dios; if) that the reciprocal arrangement with the assistant directors remains in effect; {{/) that the insurance requested for dangerous work was to cover the items in other contracts which require bonus payments. At 4 : 10 p. m. the committee recessed. The managers agreed to offer 100 percent guild shop so long as the initiation fees and dues remained as at present, and to offer $205 per week (same percent- age increase as for first assistant directors) and to advise the committee that the managers could make certain offers but other modifications must be referred to the producers' labor committee. 4 : 30 p. m., committee returned. Mr. Pelton advised the committee the managers' position on the eight items in the unit managers' proposal of February 16, 1945, as follows : 1. $205 per week. 2. Retroactive: O. K. 3. Per day, one-sixth week : O. K. 4. Assignment : No commitment. 5. Distant location : $4 per day additional. 6. Hazardous location insurance : Refer back to comptrollers to see what can be done. 7. Armed forces : Can't recognize any seniority. 8. Between pictures : Producers will consider further. A. One hundred percent guild shop as long as dues and initiation fees remain as is. B. Vacation : Our standard vacation schedule. 5 : 15 p. m., committee adjourned. Unit manager data : As our latest survey was last summer, each manager was requested to bring to the meeting next Tuesday p. m. new data for those currently employed showing present rate of unit managers together with a record of their employment rates and changes from March 13, 1942. Truck driver : Clare's letter complaining that the 4S-hour week agreement is not being lived up to was again read, and all managers stated they were living up to that understanding as best they could. Clare is to be contacted to see what or who he is driving at. Carpenter sit-down : Mr. Casey told of the letter from William Hutcheson, in which he indicated he would not interfere if Local No. 644 attempts to defend its jurisdiction. Repul)lic, R-K-0, and Paramount reported they had deducted for sit-downs. All the managers agreed to deduct on the basis of one-tenth of an hour. For anything under 6 minutes the full 6 minutes would be deducted. Arbiters' award in 1421 dispute: This was discussed briefly and Mr. Casey explained before anything could be done the lawyers would have to decide what the decision meant. Publicists' impartial chairman : The managers were asked to send in additional names — not employers. No. 44 claims scaffold huilding DuVal is claiming that all scaffolding used by his men must be built by local No. 44 men. Outside 'bmjers and renters A discussion started on this matter but it soon became apparent no headway could be made unless each man claimed by DuVal could be discussed directly ivith DuVal. We will meet with him Tuesday. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2315 IMiNUTES OF Meeting of Labor Relations Managers, Held in Board Room of Producers' Association on Tuesday, February 27, 1945, at 2 P. M., With THE Business Agents of Locals Nos. 44, SO, and 728, and Carl Cooper To Discuss Intra-IATSE Jurisdiction Present : Columbia, Messrs. Guild, Hopkins, Harmon ; Goldwyn, Mr. Blair ; M-G-M, Messrs. Coffee, Stones; Paramount, Messrs. Boren, Leonard; R-K-0, JMr. Stone ; Republic, Mr. McDonald ; Fox, Mr. Meyer ; Universal, Mr. McCausland ; Warner, Mr. Sax. Messrs. Cooper; Barrett, Holbrook, Moore, grip; DuVal, props; Dennison, lamp. Messrs. Pelton, Casey, Clarke, Batchelder. The basis of discussion was the report of investigation and decisions rendered by an lATSE committee, dated December 14, 1944. LOCAL NO. 44 Electric winch : Any electric winch used in the operation of an action part of a set shall be maintained and operated by members of local No. 44. An electrician (7) runs cables, installs switches, connects up equipment from source of supply. As between locals No. 728 and No. 44, No. 728 does this work. Local No. 44 operates the winch. (Note. — Bulk of studios use local No. 40 men instead of No. 728.) "Maintained" means get from storage, set up and operate (no shop repairs). Local No. 44 lays claim to operation of winches used only for "an action part of a set." No claim to winches used for power to lift or move equipment. Large winch at Fox : Gappy and Barrett will make some arrangement so local No. 80 may operate it. If winch goes dead and must be overhauled on set, local No. 40 will fix the motor. If "beef" is needed in transporting heavy winches back and forth, local No. 727 may help. Powder men : Local No. 44 has full jurisdiction over all powder men. No questions. Fixture department : Local No. 44's jurisdiction shall be all chandeliers, wall brackets, table and stand lamps, exterior and interior lighting fixtures and all other ornamental and sundry electrical fixtures for decorating and lighting, whether portable or stationary, including the hanging and striking. Local No. 44 shall hang all fixtures described, after which local No. 728 shall connect up (make hot). Thereafter, any adjustments, changes or movings re- quired shall be done by No. 728 until ready for stinking, which shall be done by No. 44. Manufacturing el-ectrical fixtures is done by local No. 40. Local No. 44 does not claim the repairing or maintenance of fixtures — only transporting from storage to set and back, and hanging. Rented props are tested by local No. 40. No. 728 only interested when they arrive on set. It was stipulated that Warner Bros, and Fox-Western Avenue conditions re- main status quo. The above word "sundry" does not apply to electrical fixtures such as auto lights, etc., handled by local No. 1185. Props operated by dry-cell batteries : The handling of such props at all times, other than hooking up, shall come under the jurisdiction of local No. 44. This refers to work on sets only. Example : Lamps carried by actors would not give enough light unless a number of batteries were used — therefore, a belt wifh places provided for battery cells, to be worii by the actor, is made up by the drapery department (No. 44). Local No. 728 installs the cells and runs the wires to the lamp. No. 44 places the belt on the actor. If lamp fails to light No. 44 takes off the belt and puts on new belt ; hands old belt to No. 728 to locate trouble, and No. 728 tests and replaces dead battery cells with live ones. Electrical fixtures : All fixtures electrically operated when disconnected shall be in the jurisdiction of local No. 44. Covered in "fixture department." Treadmills and wave-making machines: Local No. 44 shall install and maintain all treadmills and wave-making machines. This refers only to electrically driven machines. "IMaintenance" as used above shall mean mechanical maintenance (not electrical) such as fixing slats (also claimed by No. 946) gears, etc., and the moving to and from storage and sets. Local No. 728 operates these machines. 2316 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Miniature work : Local No. 44 shall have all work from the control board on for all purposes except illumination. No. 728 runs wires from source of supply to panel board : from there on No. 44 takes over for all work in connection with miniatures, excepting for illumination. (For instance, illumination in a miniature raihvay car, or illumination in a miniature street light, No. 728 will hook up from "pigtails" on the car or lamp.) At Paramount No. 44 does all the work on miniatures. Warners is operating under a deal made between No. 44 and No. 728 which will not be upset. Conclusion by Carl Cooper : No. 728 runs to panel board. No. 44 from there on except ilhmiination by No. 728. No. 44 builds the miniature fixture and puts in the pigtails. No. 728 wires to pigtail. Gappy says a change at Paramount will clean up the industry. Canopies: The constructing, setting up, operating, maintaining, striking, and storing of all canopies, shall be the jurisdiction of local No. 44. (Definition: A canopy to be considered as such when supported from the ground by poles, pipes, etc.) Entire construction— pipes, posts, etc.. including canvas top. (Cappy says wood or Masonite top conflicts with No. 946.) No awnings are included under this clause. M-G-M is excluded from this. Managers decided this was unacceptable. Later : Cappy asked to review this decision and managers agreed, after re- reading our present contracts, that they believed they could rescind their former action. Cloth walls : All wall coverings of finished fabrics shall be in the jurisdiction of local No. 44, with the exception of monks' cloth, muslin, and burlap. Metro now uses materials for plain walls other than monks' cloth, muslin, and burlap and therefore objects to the wording which might be construed to require No. 44 to apply this material for plain walls. Also sometimes monks' cloth is draped on walls and should come luider local No. 44. Local No. SO claims "stretched" materials only. Local No. 644 might claim materials used in place of wallpaper. Metro to be excluded from this ruling. Managers reached "no decision." IModes of transportation : On all sets depicting modes of transportation such as railway cars, coaches, locomotives, airplanes, submarines, ships, boats, stages, automobiles, wagons, and any other vehicle or mode of transportation. The handling from the place of storage, back to the place of storage, including the setting up, rigging, operation, and striking, shall he done by, and come under the jurisdiction of, local No. 44, except for railway cars and coaches that must be folded for storage, also ships in sections ; then it shall be the duty of local No. 80 to take from the bin to the stage, and after struck, they shall return them to the bin. At the time of shooting, local No. 80 shall remove and replace whatever section of wall necessary for the taking of the picture on railway cars, coaclies, and .ships. In the handling of wild walls for only curtain vehicles "railway cars, coaches, and ships" were specifically mentioned as belonging to local No. 80. Cappy says wild walls for airplanes belong to No. 44. Cappy agreed a large replica of a room on a ship is a "set." Managers agreed to the division of work as above set forth between No. 44 and No. 80. (Warners would like to go along as at present.) Action props : Local No. 44 is to build, rig, and operate all action props. No conflict. Tents : Under the jurisdiction of local No. 44 shall come all types of tents other than military, circus, or carnival. They shall build, set up, maintain, store, erect, and handle same. Under the jurisdiction of local No. 80 shall be all tents of a military, circus, and carnival type. They shall build, set up, maintain, store, erect, and handle same. Where a dispute arises as to the type of tent and it cannot be decided by the representatives of locals No. 44 and No. 80, the picture in which it is used shall determine the type. No conflict. Fans: All fans 18 inches or under shall be handled, stored, operated, and maintained by local No. 44. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2317 This clause refers to only fans used in production. Any fans over IS inches are under No. 728. No conflict. LOCAL NO. 80 Stage-theater work : It is definitely understood that sloats, curtains, flats, drops, parallels, and platforms of stage rigging to be in the jurisdiction of local No. 80, and they are to handle same unless turned over by them to local No. 44 for rigging and oix^rating. No conflict. The head-grip foreman determines whether or not local No. 80 members are unable to perform the work as set forth above, in which case both rigging an operating of the particular job are to be done by local No. 44 men. Cloth walls : All walls covered with monks' cloth, muslin, or burlap shall be in the jurisdiction of local No. 80. No conflict. Already covered in notes on local No. 44 jurisdiction. Shadows : Local No. SO shall have the handling and supervision of all equip- ment necessary to cast shadows. When rain effects create shadows local No. 44 handles, or such other shadows created by live fire, live steam, etc. AVhen shadows are created by branches or other green stuff, nurserymen (No. 44) will provide the material but local No. 80 men will fasten it on and/or move it. All equipment to make shadows is under control of local No. 80. Clouds or water effects on glass in process work shall remain status quo until the lATSE can settle the dispute. In the meantime any studio which is using this .glass cloud or water effect for the first time shall determine which local to use. Tents : Under the jurisdiction of local No. SO shall be all tents of a military, circus, and carnival type. They shall build, set up, maintain, store, erect, and handle same. Under the jurisdiction of local No. 44 shall come all other type of tents other than military, circus, or carnival. They shall build, set up, maintain, store, erect, and handle same. Where a dispute arises as to the type of tent and it cannot be decided by the representatives of local No. 80 and local No. 44, the picture in which it is used shall determine the type. No ctnflict. Already covered in notes on local No. 44 jurisdiction. LOCAL NO. 72 8 Electricity in connection with all power work : Local No. 728 shall furnish the power supply to the control board (switch left open for safety) with the exception of when batteries are used. No conflict. Wet batteries : When wet batteries are used for lighting the lamps such as are used on buggies, cabs, etc., for illumination, it shall be in the jurisdiction of local No. 728. Electric signals in elevator cages. No settlements. Dry-cell batteries : All props operated by dry cells shall be hooked up and maintained by local No. 728. When it becomes necessary that such properties are to be electrified from a hot line, it shall he the jurisdiction of local No. 728 to.furnish a connection from the source of supply to the props. No conflict. "Maintained" refers only to electrical end of props. Electric fixtures : After fixtures are set or hung, local No. 728 is to do all the wiring necessary to connect fixtures electrically, and once the fixtures are so connected they are to be in the jurisdiction of local No. 728 until they are disconnected. No conflict. Already covered in notes on local No. 44 jurisdiction. Miniature work : Local No. 728 is to do all wiring for illumination on miniature work. They shall also bring, supervise, and maintain all electric energy from the source of supply to the control board of such miniature work. No conflict. Already covered in notes on local No. 44 jurisdiction. Action props: When it becomes necessary that such props lie operated by electricity, local No. 728 shall furnish the connection from the soui-ce of such supply to the props and shall maintain all electrical equipment attached thereto. No conflict. Already covered in notes on local No. 44 jurisdiction. 67383— 48— vol. 3 52 2318 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Fans: All fans over 18 inches shall be handled, stored, operated, and main- tained by local No. 728. No conflict. Already covered in notes on local No. 44 jurisdiction. Electrified booms: Members of local No. 728 shall handle and maintain all povs'er cables and electrical equipment attached thereto. No conflict. Local No. 80 continues to operate. Mr. Meyer recommended that the producers' labor committee be advised of these jurisdictional decisions and if and where these decisions are at variance with the existing lA contracts that they be pointed out to the committee. Also that Mr. Richard Walsh also be advised. As to all other items not in conflict, that they be put in :o effect as soon as is practicable. It was pointed out tht t certain jurisdiction conilicts with other than lA unions exist in these decisions which could not be put into effect. All the labor-relations managers agreed to Mr. Meyer's proposal. This leaves the cloud and elevator indicator to be settled by international. Mr. Hopkins objects to the wording in the "Stage Theater Work" under local No. SO in which it seems to provide that local No. 80 has the sole right to turn certain work over to local No. 44. Lie claims that it is the right of manage- ment. It was explained that the head grip foreman was to make the decision. Mr. Boren suggests the three business agents should be present at each studio when these new rulings are put into effect. It was decided each studio manager could request the business agents to be present if he wished them there. Hold and fold sets: Mr. Barrett wanted it understood that a "hold and fold set" when moved to other stages than the one on which the set was originally built, and even though used for another picture, is nevertheless the work of grips. And also, if and when a stage is used for storage, the sets shall be handled by grips. However, in either of the above cases, any remodeling or repairing that may be required by other crafts having jurisdiction may be performed by these other crafts. , Gappy DuVal to come in Wednesday at 4 p. m. to discuss outside buyers and renters. Minutes of Meeting of Labor-Relations Managees, LIeld in Boaed Room, on Wednesday, Februaey 28, 1945, at 4 P. M. With Gappy DuVal to Discuss Outside Buyers and Renters Present: Golumbia, Mr. Guild; Goldwyn, Mr. Blair; Paramount, Mr. Boren; Republic, Mr. McDonnell ; RKO, Mr. Stone ; Fox, Mr. Meyer ; Warners, Mr. Sax ; Universal, Mr. McGausland ; M-G-M, Mr. Coffee. Messrs. Pelton, Casey, Clarke, Batchelder, Mr. DuVal. Veterans' program Mr. Pelton announced that the meeting to discuss veterans' program which had been called for today is postponed until Tuesday, March 6, at 2 : 30 p. m. Vnit Managers The managers were reminded to forward to this ofiice their revised unit managers' employment records. Property department outside buyers and renters The following data was placed on the blackboard : studio Name Classifica- tion 1 Rate W&H Univ Gladden -. Jr. X Sr.X Sr Jr Jr. X Sr Sr Jr. X Jr. X Sr Sr.X Jr Jr. X 1.24-10 hrs. 60 hr. guar. 89.00 110.00 0. 0 M-G-M _.. Migcins Heinz 0. K. M-G-M 110.00 0. c 0. K.. M-O-M Brady Spurgin . 90.00 0. c 0. K. RKO 85.00 0. c 100.00 0. C 0 K Lynch Sheldon Richardson Starke .- 0. K. 100.00 0. e O K. Warner Fox l.'iri-40 hrs. 75 guar 1.43-40 hrs. 60 hr. guar 100.00 guar 1.75-40 hrs. 54 hr. guar. 106.75 100.00 0. c 1.52-40 hrs. 48 hr. guar. 79.04 Para Rush Carroll 0. K. Para Dixon Begelman Col 75.00 0. c --- 1 X = studio accepts these men as outside pick-up men. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2319 Metro protests Miggins and Heinz being included in tlie unit. RKO protests the senior rating for Spurgin. Universal protests the senior rating for Gladden. Carrol (Paramount) is not claimed by Cappy as a member of his union. Cappy DuVal was asked if he had some definition to offer to describe the duties of seniors and juniors. He suggested if a buyer did 25 percent or over of "initiative buying" he would be considered a senior. Under that percentage he would be a junior. Warners, Goldwyn, Columbia, Republic pay less than $130 to their purchasing agents. The average pay as shown on above chart is $104 per week to seniors and$84 to juniors. Cappy requests a rate of $130 flat for the seniors and $114.80 (60 hours at $1.64) for juniors. At this point Cappy recessed. The managers agreed to offer the prop masters' rate ($114.80 — 60 hours at $1.64) for the seniors and $1.51 per hour, 4S-hour guaranty, $78.52 for the juniors. Also to demand a union shop, with no seniority. Cappy returned to tha meeting and the above offer was made. Cappy said the offer was unsatisfactory and that he could not agree to an "open shop." Adjourned. VHC/s 3/2/45. MiNXTTEs OF Meeting of Labor Relations Managers, Held in Board Room on Monday, IMakch 5. 1945, at 10 : 30 A. M. Present: Columbia, Messrs. Guild, Hopkins; Goldwyn, Mr. Blair; M.-G.-M., Mr. Coffee ; Paramount, Mr. Boren ; RKO, Mr. Stone ; Republic, Mr. McDonnell ; Mr. Fox, Mr. Meyer ; Universal, Sir. McCausland ; Warners, Mr. Sax. Messrs. Milton Schwartz, Stephenson, Pelton, Casey, Clarke, Batchelder. Mr. Pelton advised the managers of the NLRB hearing on Wednesday at 10 a. m. to consider the dispute between No. 1421 and No. 44 over set decorators and the case of No. 1421 trying to include set estimators and set controllers in their union for bargaining. These two cases have been merged for hearing. We take the position that No. 1421 is not the appropriate unit for set controllers and estimators, and that practically all of the members of these two classifications have been, and do, belong in the SOEG — Paramount Office Workers or Warner Bros. OflSce Guild. At a preliminary hearing this position was taken by the producers' representa- tive. Ml'. Mitchell, who has been handling the case, is out of the city and the matter has l)een turned over to Mr. Milton Schwartz, of the Loeb & Loeb office. The duties and qualifications of certain job classifications appearing in the Wage and Hour Manual covering so-called estimators and controllers were placed on the blackboard and each manager was asked to state which classification corresponds to estimators and/or contx-ollers in his studio. It was agreed each studio would have a qualified representative to testify at the hearing. Mr. Schwartz was shown a copy of exhibits A, B, C, which are appendages to the SOEG contract. It will be attempted to get a stipulation from the lATSE that they are not interested in set controllers and set estimators. A meeting for Mr. Schwartz to get additional data and information is called for 10 : .30 a. m. Tuesday, March 6, and either the labor relations managers or other qualified representatives are to be present to advise what estimators' and con- trollers' duties are. Mr. Schwartz was handed this office's file on estimators and controllers, which contained letters from each studio describing the duties of estimators and con- trollers in the respective studios. Deferment Mr. Pelton read a letter from Claude Collins to which was attached a digest of the procedure for occupational deferments for ages 18 through 29. A copy of the digest will be forwarded to each manager. Mr. Hopkins stated that if the studios have occasion to contact the WPB in regard to deferments for men under 30 Mr. McGowan is the man to see. It was 2320 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES restated, however, that the producers have agreed uot to attempt to defer anyone between IS and 29 (except, of course, actors registered in a production, etc.). Plasterers' contract Mr. Pelton explained the recent award by the WLB to the plasterers' Form No. 10 request, and the necessity of asking reconsideration of the Sunday and vacation portion of the award. Assistant directors A letter to Columbia from the Directors' Guild advises that they are now issuing "provisional memberships" for the duration. Columbia inquired if our contract permits this. Technically, we can still hold them to full membership, but from a practical viewpoint we should be willing to cooperate to keep from loading up their rolls. If a man has been working as an assistant or second assistant director in the past without a card the guild is obligated without question to take him in before March 11. As for any new man without past experience, there may be some question. SOEG Pratt asks studios for reclassification of timekeepers, messengers, keypunch operators, etc. As a group we have already stated we would not reclassify, but each studio may consider individual cases for reclassification. If job changes and/or new duties develop, it is proper to consider reclassification. Minutes of Meeting of Laboe Relations Managees, Held in Board Room on Tuesday, M.u{Ch 6, 1945, at 10: 30 a. m. Present : Columbia, Mr. Guild ; Goldwyn, Mr. Blair ; M-G-M, Mr. Walsh ; Para- mount, Mr. Boren; RKO, Messrs. Stone, Barry; Republic, Messrs. O'Berg, Mc- Donnell ; Warners, Messrs. Parker, Sax; Fox, Mr. Meyer; Universal, Mr. McCaus- land. Messrs. Schwartz, Stephenson ; Messrs. Pelton, Casey, Clarke, Batchelder. The duties of set controllers and estimators were discussed and the general operations of the departments in which these classifications work were explained for the benefit of IMessrs. Schwartz and Stephenson, who are to appear for the producers at the National Labor Relations Board hearings tomorrow. The studios are to have present at the hearing such representatives who best can testify to the duties of and the type of employees required for the above classifications. Minutes of Meeting of Labor Relations Managees, Held in Board Room, on March 6, 1945 (Tuesday), at 2: 30 P. M. Present : Columbia, Messrs. Hopkins, Gould ; Goldwyn, Mr. Blair ; M-G-M, Mr. Coffee ; Paramount, Messrs. Boren, Leonard ; RKO, Mr. Stone ; Republic, Mr. McDonnell ; Fox, Mr. Meyer ; Universal, Mr. McClausland ; Warner's Mr. Shaeffer ; Technicolor, Mr. Shattuck. Messrs. Silberberg, Benjamin, Pelton, Clarke, Batchelder. Intra lATSE Copies of minutes of the meeting of February 27, 1945, containing discussion of the lA jurisdictions were distributed. Claude Collins and deferment Copies of Mr. Collins' letter with procedure for occupational deferment were distributed to the managers. Veteraiis' program Copies of ]Mr. Boren's report of March 5, 1945, including exhibits A, B, C, and D, were distributed. After much discussion it was agreed that the following principle be adopted : For all returning servicemen not having had permanent or station jobs in the studios they sball have the same work-call preference in same or an equivalent job classification. It was agreed we may have greater obligation to permanent employees. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2321 IMr. Silberberg asked, "Shall we meet with the uuioiis, and, if so, what shall we discuss with them?" Mr. Hopkins stated he thought : 1. It is no time to call in the unions now. 2. A small committee sl\ould talk to the unions (at the proper time). 3. Representatives from General Hershey's office should go over our plans as soon as formulated. 4. Labor leaders (Carothers, Sorrell, Cooper) should be contacted prior to general discussion with the union business agents. There are certain questions that should be asked of unions before we can finally complete our program. As, for instance, union status of returning servicemen who were working on permits at time of joining the forces. It was agreed that the managers would prepare and forward to this office a list of questions to be asked the unions. ]\Iemo of :\Ieeting of Studio Executives and Laboe Relations IManageks Held IN BoAKD Room on Monday, March 12, 1945, at 2 P. M. to Discuss Cukkent Strike Situation Present : Columbia, Messrs. Kahane, Hopkins ; Goldwyn, Messrs. Ezell, Blair ; M-G-M, Messrs. Manuix, Hopper, Walsh, Benjamin; Paramount, Messrs. Free- man, Boren; RKO, Messrs. Koerner, Goldberg, Stone, Silberb,erg; Republic, Messrs. Wilson, McDonell ; Fox, Messrs. Schenck, Meyer, Schriber ; Universal, Messrs. Work, IMcCau stand ; Warners, Mr. Sax. Messrs. Pelton, Casey, Clarke, Howie, Batchelder. A general discussion regarding the strike took place and each studio repre- sentative reported the extent of production activities. At 3 p. m. all present excepting the producers' executives were excused. Mr. ZoRN. Sir, unless you have some questions I think I am finished for the day. Mr, Ke ARisrs. IMr. Zorn , I want to say if this is really the conclusion of your testimony — I know 3^ou have a lot of detailed work. Mr. ZoRN. That is quite true, sir. Mr. Kearxs. I want to say in 5^our behalf that you have been most helpfiil to the committee. I want to say it in this respect: When we started our investigation, when we wanted to get the persons we needed in Hollywood to be witnesses, you made every effort possible, you met everj^ requirement that I asked of you. I know it meant a lot of work for you, but you did the job. I want to say that while we were on the west coast you stayed on the job and as the testimony proceeded, when I wanted certain persons you produced them for me. I think the Producers' Association should be very proud of the job you have done also in behalf of the hearing, in order to find out the factual truth of this w^hole situation. When we came to Washington you accepted subpena for the presi- dents, and I appreciate the effects you made there. So in behalf of the f idl committee, as well as the one-man committee that formerly was in power, I want to say we do appreciate what you haA^e done. You have been most helpful in ironing out your phase of the situation for which you were responsible, and I do appreciate your cooperation. JNIr. ZoRx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very grate- ful to 3'ou for that statement. Mr. Kearxs. We will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning. (Whereupon, at 4: 50 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. Tuesday, March 16, 1948.) JUKISDICTIONAL DISPUTES IN THE MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1948 House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 'Washmgto7i, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., with the Honorable Gerald W. Landis presiding. Mr. Landis. Mr. Zorn, you may proceed. TESTIMONY OF BURTON A. ZORN— Continued Mr. Zorn. When we recessed on Friday, Mr. Landis, I said that I had a great deal of material in the form of photographs, news- paper items, affidavits, and injunction orders which I wanted to put into the record. There is a tremendous mass of this material all establishing so completely and thoroughly that it cannot be contended otherwise, that Mr. SorrelFs testimony given in this hearing that his mass picket lines were set up not for the purpose of keeping people out of the studios, but solely as an exercise of free speech and his constitu- tional right to advertise the strike — those statements are as un- worthy of belief on the face of this testimony as many other state- ments on which he has since been discredited in this hearing. I think the records I am about to show you, summarizing them briefly, will show that both the 1945 and the 1946 strike in which Mr. Sorrell admitted that he was the generalissimo of the picket forces and directed the picket activities, is a record of violence and lawlessness which I don't think has been equaled in any other strikes in this country. I will not attempt to read all of this to you. I will select just enough of these items to give you a running picture of it, but I will ask as I have these various items marked, that they be incorporated in the record. For example, I have before me a copy of the Los Angeles Times of Thursday, October 11, 1945. The big headline at the top reads : "10.000 May Picket Film Studio Today." The sub-headline reads: "Massed Unionist Lines at Warner Bros. Broken With Nearly 400 Arrests." [Reading:] Balked by a determined army of sheriff's deputies which swiftly and effi- ciently yesterday interrupted a 6-day reign of disorder by smashing their massed picket line at Warner Bros. ; Burbank studio, striking AFL motion- picture unionists last night announced they will be joined on the picket line this morning by from 10,000 to 20,000 Lockheed machinists' union members. 2323 2324 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Nearly 400 pickets who refused to break ranks when read the riot act by police chief Elmer Adams of Burbank were arrested on charges of rioting and failui-e to disperse. They were booked at Burbank city jail — a daylong proc- ess— and ordered to appear for preliminary trial at 10 a. m. October 22 before police judge Raymond L. Reid. • All but 13, who had posted $500 bail each before the decision to relieve the jail congestion was reached, were released on their own recognizance. NO BLOODSHED THIS TIME For the first time since the massed picketing started last Friday, there was no bloodshed yesterday. This was due in large part to an early morning announcement by Herbert K. Sorrell, president of the Conference of Studio Unions, AFL, that the law was going to move in, and not to resist. In skirmishes and head-on massed battles at the gates since last Friday, approximately 100 ipersons were injured, 1 seriously. The Los Ano-eles Times of October 25, 1045, carries this headline: "Fihn Studio Strike Settled : 400 Arrested on Final Day." End of the 33-week strike against film studios was announced yesterday by union labor and management shortly after 100 Los Angeles policemen arrested more than 400 pickets and sympathizers at Paramount and RKO studios. Climaxing a bitter struggle, which saw violence spread from one motion- picture studio to another, word of the strike's end came from William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, and Eric Johnston, newly ap- pointed head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. Los Angeles Times, October 14, 1945. The headline reading: "Strikers Form Picket Lines at Three More Film Studios." [Eeading:] NEW TIE-UPS THREATENED BY LEADERS Efforts to settle Hollywood's 7-month-old film strike were intensified yester- day as three more studios were picketed, a picket was taken into custody after a clash with a police inspector, and strike leaders warned that still other studios will be involved. The three newly picketed studios were Columbia and Technicolor, Inc., in Hollywood-and RKO-Pathe in Culver City. All but a handful of nonstrikers were deterred from reporting at work at RKO-Pathe and Columbia, where the picket line melted away at 1 p. m., many of the pickets appearing 45 minutes later at Technicolor, where less than 50 employees and one studio truck entered the studio for the "swing shift" begin- ning at 3 p. m. From the Los Angeles Times of October 22, 1945, the headline: "Film Peace Meeting Fails : Mass Picketing to Expand." [Reading :] The first mass picketing of Paramount and RKO studios will begin today, Herbert K. Sorrell, strike leader, promised at a meeting of strikers last night. Sorrell said there will be 800 pickets at Paramount, 6C0 or 700 at RKO, and 1,000 at Warner Bros. October 7, 1945, from the Los Angeles Times: Unionists Defy Court on Film Picket Limit deputy booed as goo mass at warner bros. gateway; both sides seek injunctions Blatantly disregarding a superior court order to limit their pickets to 18 at all entrances, hundreds of unionists at Warner Bros, studio in Bubank yesteday jeeed the reading of an order by a deputy sheriff and continued to jam solidly the Olive Avenue gateway. The temporary restraining order was issued by Superior Judge Joseph W, Vickers after both the studio and the nine striking unions requested injunctions against one another. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2325 At 1 :30 p. m. Deputy Sheriff Frank Reap read Judge Vickers order over a loud- speaker. It called for the unions to restrict their pickets to four at the main gate, two at the administation publicity office, casting office, and music depart- ment entrances, and three at the north gate and laboratory entrance. BOOS GREET ORDER As soon as Reap began' reading, the pickets began booing. It was impossible to hear what the deputy was saying, despite the amplification of his words. A few minutes later a copy of the temporary restraining order was served on Herbert Sorrell, president of the Conference of Studio Unions, who headed the picket line. Sorrell said his attorney had advised him the order was effective only in case of violence. Th sardine-packed picket line of some 600 demonstrators, presenting a solid fouman barricade across the gateway, remained unchanged. An article from the Los Angeles Times of October 9, 1945, the head- line reading : "Fists Fly, Many Injured in Film Fight." [Keading :] HUNDREDS BATTLE; 70 TREATED IN NEW STRIKE VIOLENCE For the third time in 4 days, fists, clubs, blackjacks, and bottles fiew yester- day in the 7-month-long interunion strhggle between striking and nonstriking AFL motion-picture studio workers, as hundreds battled it out in front of Warner Bros. Burbank studio. Nearly 70 persons were treated fo rinjuries, some of them serious, and five strikers were arrested on charges varying fro mdistubing the peace to carrying concealed weapons. Three nonstrikers, arrested earlier, were arraigned on charges of assault with a deadly weapon. With more violence expected in the strike flare-up as another mass picket barricade has been called for 5 a. m. today, Warner Bros, studio like a feudal castle of old, last night was preparing for a siege. WORKERS STAY AT STUDIO After the army of pickets outside the studio dispersed at 4 p. m. the several hundred nonstrikers who had crashed through picket lines into the studio yester- day morning were transported by limousines through studio gates to nearby parking lots. There, the nonstrikers raced to their individual cars and drove them back into the studio. This shuttle service continued for more than an hour. Inside studio walls, food for the nonstrikers was prepared and served at the studio commissary. Beds — from cots to items from the property department which included replicas of beds slept in by such notables as Washington. Disraeli, Mr. Skeffington ,and even Jezebel — were being set up in makeshift "dormitories." Families of nonstrikers were being notified that they were "besieged." The Los Angeles Times, October 6, 1945, the headline reads : "Film Strike Eiot Ended by Police." [Eeading :] DOZEN INJLTRED IN MELEE AT WARNERS' ENTRANCE ; UNION LEADER ARRESTED Interunion enmities, kindled 7 months ago b ya strike over control of 77 set decorators, yesterday flared into a full-fledged riot at the gates of Warner Bros, studio in which participants were knifed, clubbed, and gassed before police reserves from three cities and the county could restore order. Tlie riot which raged sporadically at the employees' main entrance of the Burbank studio, was precipitated by mass picketing by the striking Conference of Studio Unions lead by Herbert Sorrell. president of the union. Later in the day Sorrell and eiglit aides were arrested by Burbank police on suspicion of violating section 40.5 of the State code, outlawing rioting. They were released late yesterday aftermxm on $l,r)00 bail each. An article from the Los Angeles Times, October 24, 1945. The headline reads : "Scores Hurt in New Studio Riots." [Reading :] 2326 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES COURT ORDER LIMITS TWO PICKET LINES Featuring flailing nightsticks and fists and flying feet, Hollywood's grimmest mob scene yesterday was staged — without benefit of film cameras — at the gates of Paramount Studio as nonstriking workers braved the gantlet of massed "peaceful" picketing which has hampered production for several days. Scores were injured, some seriously, including a policeman slugged and trampled as he attempted to give safe-conduct to workers battling their way to their jobs. Seven persons, all pickets but one, were arrested. Superior Judge Henry M. Willis later yesterday issued a restraining order limiting picket lines at Paramount and RKO studios to 22 persons each, with other pickets ordered to remain at least 200 yards from studio property. STUDIOS FILE COMPLAINTS The judge acted after the two studios had filed complaints to prevent "unlaw- ful picketing" of their property, naming, among a number of unions and in- dividuals, the Screen Set Designers, Illustrators and Dtcorators Local 1421, an affiliate of the Conference of Studio Unions headed by Herbert K. Sorrell, strike leader. The limit on pickets was set in the temporary restraining order pending a later hearing. Paramount and RKO complained that with so-called mass picketing in progress near their studios yesterday, their top artists were informed after consultation with the Screen Actors Guild that they need not pass any picket lines where there is danger of physical violence. Also, yesterday, massed picketing was begun at Republic studio, where a pitched battle was averted by President Herber J. Yates; who shut down production rather than precipitate violence between would-be workers and 200 pickets. PICKETING AT WARNER'S Picketing en masse was continued at Warner Bros., scene of the original massed picketing and subsequent interunion warfare, but there was no trouble beyond a few incipient fist fights. Director of the mob scene was President Herbert K. Sorrell, of the striking conference of studio unions which has been locked for 8 months in a jurisdictional contest with the nonstriking International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. Sorrell's pickets massed at Paramount's several gates at 5 a. m. At 6 :30 a. m., about 60 employees who had gathered across the street rushed the circular massed picket line at the Lemon Grove-Van Ness Avenue entrance. Twenty-four police- men moved in to assist them. The vanguard of the workers hit and shattered the outer line of pickets, but were stopped by the inner line, while the quickly reorganized outer line moved in behind them. Twenty-four policemen moved into the surging melee of flying fists and feet. From the studio gates Paramount police joined the fray. For 3 minutes pandemonium reigned, with bellows of rage or screams of pain as fists and clubs connected, while overhead flew a barrage of bottles, stones, lunch boxes and other missiles." M-G-M DISPLAY VOTED A mass-picketing demonstration at Metro-Goldwin-Mayer studios in Culver City Saturday morning was voted support at a meeting at 360 South Westlake Avenue last night by delegates representing labor groups, including railroad workers, Local 727, International Association of Machinists ; shipj-ard workers, longshore- men and the CIO United Auto Workers. Peaceful picketing with 20,000 to 30,000 in the line; was predicted by speakers, including Sorrell, Philip M. Connelly, secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles CIO council ; Frank Pellett of the Railroad Brotherhood ; and Cyril O'Halloran, regional director of the UAW. Sorrell showed up at Paramount shortly before 9 a. m. and was informed that a deputy sheriff was waiting at Hollywood station to serve him with a citation to court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Sorrell visited the station, was served, and ordered to appear before Judge Willis at 9 : 30 a. m. next Monday, MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2327 I haven't shown you all these photographs, but as an indication of the peaceful picketing to which Mr. Sorrell testified, you might just take a look at that photograph showing the Paramount studio. In connection with the Warner Bros, picketing, I have had sent out to me just a few sample photographs which were taken during the course of the 19J:5 strike. I would like to have them made a part of the record. I think you might look at them to give you an indication as to whether these pictures demonstrate so-called peaceful picketing, for the purpose of advertising or whether they demonstrate, on the other hand, the worst kind of lawlessness. Mr. McCann. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Zorn. I would like the record to show, gentlemen, that I have submitted a series of photographs of mass picketing and violence at Warner Bros., and Columbia, both in the '15 and '46 strikes. I want to say there are literally hundreds of similar pictures, but I think that is sufficient to give you a picture, plus these newspaper items and plus some of the injunction papers which I shall read briefly later, to give you an idea that this was not a peaceful strike, and that the mass picket line was not a free speech picket line. I have read into the record before some extracts from the newspapers in connection with the 1945 strike. I would like to come now to a few brief quotations from the newspapers in connection with the 1946 strike. Again I say I could read items of this sort into the record for days, but I do not think it is necessary. I think the important thing is to give you some idea of what happened there, which will completely contradict some of the testimony that has been put in. Now, in the Los Angeles Times of September 27, 1946 — that was the beginning, by the way, of the '46 strike — the main headline reads : "Violence Opens Studio Strike." [Beading:] POLICE JAIL 12 pickets; NONSTKIK'EES PASS LINES; WORK ON PICTURES GOES ON Warring AFL union leaders in tlie motion-picture industry put on a big-scale premiere yesterday as their new strike got under way. There was early violence to mark the latest outburst in the 11-month-old labor trouble which has beset the major film studios. Strike Leader Herbert K. Sorrell told newsmen that there may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over, but we're in no mood to be pushed around any more. He forecast that the strike will go on for at least 3 weeks. Early in the morning several thousand pickets threw up human barriers at studio entrances, some barriers temporarily so dense that none could go through them. However, tens of thousands of nonstriking AFL workers went through the picket lines although some of them were badly jostled — none badly enough to require hospitalization. Picture production and business went on, the em- ployers declared, at the seven major studios where picketing took place. OARS TURNED AWAY Lawlessness walked hand-in-hand with pickets at some places, police reported, and 12 pickets were jailed. Some autoists and truckers were stopped and, in instances, turned away. The hood of one passenger car was yanked open and the car's electric wiring ripped out, immobilizing the vehicle. Police charged one picket with trying to start a riot. Mostly the pickets were arrested for disturl)ing the peace, one being chased some distance and finally captui'ed by a flying tackle that downed him on the concrete sidewalk. Some of the pickets at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio in Culver City proclaimed that "We're going easy on you today — but wait until tomorrow." 2328 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The Los Angeles Times of September 29, 1946 : STUDIO STRIKERS GIVEN INJUNCTION WARNINGS The drone of official voices beat into the ears of marching pickets yesterday as the tliird day of the current Hollywood tilm strike got under way amid scenes of relatively diminished violence. One voice was that of Sheriff's Deputy Joseph M. Gaalken reading an injunc- tion notice against illegal picketing to massed strikers at the gates of Warner Bros, studio. A second was William Snyder, of the sheriffs civil department, who announced a similar warning statement at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and other major lots. A third talker was Herbert Sorrell, conference of studio unions chief and strike leader. Sorrell shouted exhortations over a loud-speaker to pickets as he cruised overhead at MGM in his private airplane. AUTOS OVERTURNED Four arrests and two overturnings of automobiles marked the opening hours of the day's strife between AFL strikers of the CSU and nonstrikers of the lATSE. Figlits similar to the series of savage melees that highlighted tlie strike last Friday did not materialize. In the main, picket captains issued prompt orders for patrolling unionists to fall back following the readings of the injunctions. Mr. Owens. This is just for reference purposes, Mr. McCann, I presume ? Mr. McCann. I thought he was putting all these in the record, sir. Mr. ZoRN. We discussed this on Friday, Mr. Owens. I have marked out certain extracts from these articles, not the entire article. You will recall when the other witnesses were on they read for days. I am trying to short cut, but I want it in the record to meet some of the statements they made, which are in the record. Mr. Owens. Yes ; I understand, Mr. ZoRN. Los Angeles Times, October 1, 1946. The headline reads : "Fights Flare Along Studio Picket Line." [Keading:] COURT ORDER DEFIED; AUTOS STONED AND MEN KNOCKED DOWN Men were knocked down and automobiles damaged yesterday again at Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer studio in Culver City as fighting and flagrant defiance of law and order were again reported by peace officers coping with the motion-picture strike. The officers put 10 strikers in jail at Culver City on a charge of defying a superior court order which last week laid something of a restraint on violent picket activities. One of the men faced an additional charge of assaulting with a deadly weapon. Anticipating violence, a large limousine with two nurses appeared early on the scene near the studio and was made prominent with the sign, "Conference of studio vmions first aid ear." SHOUT AT WORKERS The conference strikers were particularly active yesterday in shouting, "Get that man's name," "Get his car number," "We'll see you at your home," and "We'll take care of you later," as nonstrikers went through the picket lines. Some strikers adopted a sit-down technique to block studio ingress and egress but police dragged them out of the way, some of them into the waiting Black Maria that later took them to jail. Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1946, the headlines reading: "Hundreds of AFL Unionists Battle Furiously at M'-G-M." [Eead- ing :] MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2329 16 JAILED, 3 TAKEN TO HOSPITAL AFTER WLLD WINDOW-SMASHING MELEE Furious fightiug broke out between AFL strikers and AFL nonstrikers at Cuher City's Metro-Golchvyn-jNIayer studios yesterday and pickets in tbe film- land dispute congregated at otlier motion picture plants in the second day of demonstrations. Nearly 200 persons engaged in the melee in a narrow street near the MGM plant. Police restored order only after the strikers had smashed windows of non- strikers' automobiles going into the gates for the late shift, yanked hoods open and ripped out engine wires and radio antennae and attempted to overturn 6 of the 1.") cars headed through the picket line. One picket was luirled to the top of an auto and was still struggling on it when it disappeared inside the studio gate. There were bruised faces and torn clothing from the exchange of blows. The fighting was described as the fiercest of the 2-day-old strike. LAWLESS ACTS INCREASE Police generally reported that the seriousness and number of individual law- less acts rose sharply yesterday, the second day of the new AFL union jurisdic- tional strike, engulfing 7 of the 10 major motion-picture studies. Massed picket violence receded somewhat from tliat of the previous opening day. Pickets arrested were charged with, in the various instances, rioting, criminal contempt of court, assault with deadly weapon, carrying concealed loaded sap, tampering with an automobile, throwing chunks of concrete and bricks at cars carrying nonstrikers, throwing coffee into the face of a nonstriker, disorderly con- duct, malicious mischief, disturbing the peace, the smashing of automobile windows and the scattering of tacks on studio driveways. In all 16 persons were jailed ; all but 1 were pickets. Three persons, two pickets and the other a nonstriker, were hospitalized. Most of the trouble was at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio in Culver City and at Warner Bros., in Burbank. Two pickets arrested Thursday got into new trouble yesterday and were again put in jail. SLUGGING AT COLUMBIA "We have a regular traveling mob for the rough stuff," one who appeared to be a picket leader, told newsmen at Paramount studio. "If the strike keeps up we'll hit all the studios. ■ These boys here are just for show to keep out the timid scabs." There was some slugging at Columbia studio as nonstrikers, all AFL members, went through the picket lines of the AFL strikers. None of the hit workers would file a complaint against their picket assailants as none appeared to have been badly hurt. , I just have a few more of these. Los Angeles Times, October 2, 1946 : Rioting Marks Film Stkike : 16 Injured and 13 Arrested MOB of 400 IN BATTLE WITH 200 OFFICSERS A yelling, cursing mob of 400 motion-picture strikers and sympathizers battled nearly 200 deputy sheriffs and police for 15 hectic minutes yesterday at the Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer studio in Culver City. Hundreds of bystanders witnessed the scene. Scores of men were knocked down with sticks, bottles, bricks, and fists. One deputy, knocked down, was kicked into unconsciousness before fellow ofiicers with drawn, cocked guns rescued him. Blood streaked from battlers' faces as the fighting spread over a long Culver Boulevard block in front of the studio's south and main gate. The street was slippery with mud and in some spots with blood. NINE DEPUTIES TREATED Nine deputies, one in a grave condition and another with broken ribs, were treated in hospitals. Seven strikers, all with reportedly lesser injuries, also were treated in hospitals. Tliirteen strikers were hauled off to the Culver City jail. All were charged with defying a superior court order that restricted picket- ing operations. 2330 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES While the fighting was at its height, Deputy Dean W. Stafford of the Vermont Avenue substation was separated from fellow ofiicers by a gang of 12 or more of the strikers. A blow with a bottle against the side of Stafford's face knocked him to the ground and fellow officers said at least a dozen strikers jumped on him and kicked him into unconsciousness. AID CAIXKD FOE The sheriff's loud-speaker called for officers to go to his aid. Two broke through, drew their revolvers, cocked them and calling out warnings to the threat- ening mob, held it off until other deputies ran up. They dragged the prostrate Stafford from under the running board of an auto and carried him to an ambulance. Deputy Gilbert O. Leslie, first officer to reach Stafford, told newsmen : "I saw he was cut off from the rest of us and a crowd was bearing down on him. They were yelling, 'Kill him ! Kill him !' and 'Get that !' He went down and they were beating him with bottles and clubs. He was unconscious but they kept it up." CONDITION SEEIOUS "I was in plain clothes and the only way I could help him and hold them off until others arrived was to draw my gun. I have no prejudices in the strike but I saw the danger to one of us and it was the only thing I could do to save a life. Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1946. The main lead reads : "Studio Strike Rioting Shifts to Republic." [Reading :] PICKETS OVEETUKN AUTO, FIGHT POLICE — THREE ARRESTS MADE The overturning of a nonstriking union man's automobile and a rock, twice the size of a baseball whizzing by a policeman's head enlivened the motion-picture strike yesterday as the scene of disorders shifted to Republic studio. Three strikers were arrested. No injuries of consequence were reported. SEVEEAL KNOCKED DOWN Several men were knocked down in brief melees as about 35 city policemen moved in to open dense picket lines so nonstriking union men could go to work. ' Mr. McCann. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ZoRN. The Los Angeles Times, October 12, 1946, contains a photograph of four policemen carrying a man, with the caption at the bottom : Four policemen assist man seized during outbreak of violence yesterday at Technicolor Motion Picture Corp- Thirty-eight persons were arrested in battle between 2,000 strikers and sympathizers and 150 police. I will show you this in just a minute. The head of the article reads : Thirty-eight Abrested in Renewed Studio Strike Violence CLUBS AND fists SWING IN THREE OUTBREAKS AND WOMEN SEIZED IN MOB AT technicolor Violence flared in the studio strike again yesterday when police officers arrested 35 men and 3 women in a jeering mob of 2,000 strikers and sympathizers at the Technicolor Motion Picture Corp. to quench an incipient riot that threatened to be the worst of the current union squabble. Clubs and fists swung in three waves of fighting during the tense moments of a 2-hour period shortly after dawn, but no one was seriously hurt, although many of the rioters vi^ent down in the sporadic action. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2331 NO TEi\.K GAS USED Backstopping some 150 oflicers— battling at odds of more than 13 to 1 — were 8 policemen with steady tear gas guns, but it was not found necessary to use them. The spearheading police quickly herded the mob's ringleaders into patrol wagons before the angry crowd could agree on concerted action. The arrests were for disturbing the peace and illegal parading. At 4 : 30 a. m., about 20 pickets appeared at the corporation's Cahuenga Boule- vard plant. Fifteen minutes later, live motorcycle otticers arrived. It was only a few minutes thereafter that crowds of strikers began pouring into the streets around the plant. Peace officers then began arriving in numbers. The strikers began blocking the main employee entrance with densely packed pickets. Police Capt. Clyde H. Tucker told Picket Leader Andy Lawless : '•This is illegal, you're jostling and threatening those people who want to go to work." Tucker asked Lawless to break it up but Lawless said he had no power to do so. Four abreast, two lines of pickets blocked the entrance and police had diffi- culty in keeping a lane open for workers to go into the plant. Defiant, the pickets marched in close formation and a small line of women pickets suddenly was formed. Officers began pushing them out of the area where tension was rising. FIGHTING BEEAKS OUT Strikers rushed the officers and 2 or 3 minutes of quick fighting raged while a large crowd yelled, cheered, jeered, and booed according to the way the battle went at the moment. One woman threw a cup of coffee into the face of an officer, another smacked an officer on the head with her handbag, and a third did yeoman service with a heavy newspaper twisted into a club. You might just look at that photograph. Los Angeles Times, October 15, 1946, the headline reads : "219 Ar- rested in Columbia Studio Strike." [Reading :] In the first mass arrests of this year's film strike, 219 persons were taken into custody yesterday at Columbia Studio. Most of them were charged with dis- obedience of a superior court order against massed picketing, a few with dis- turbing the peace. Then it goes on to describe some of the details. Los Angeles Times, October 27, 1946. The head of the article reads : "Police Jail 126 in Studio Strike Demonstration." Then briefly from the article : Some 2,000 film strikers and sympathizei-s carrying American flags, union banners, and scathing placards early yesterday paraded through Hollywood, disbanding only when 126 of their number had been arrested. Now as I said, I could go on with hundreds of those newspaper items but I thought I would simply give this committee a sampling of the incidents. In the same way there were a great many injunctions obtained by the various companies against mass picketing and violence both in the 1945 and the 1946 strike. 1 have — not with me — but I have at least 20 such injunctions, the full set of the papers, the complaints, the affidavits, the orders and so on. I think it will be sufficient simply to put into the record here some extracts from the sworn affidavits on which these injunctions were obtained and then have the balance of these treated as a reference exhibit because some of them specifically refer to some of the state- ments made by Mr. Sorrell. 2332 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES In addition to that I am having compiled a complete record of all the arrests and convictions in the strikes which I have not been able to get yet, but which I ask leave to put in before these hearings are closed. Mr. Ow^ENs. You mean all of the arrests and convictions or all the convictions ? Mr. ZoRN. A record of them. Mr. Owens. Not of all the arrests ? Mr. ZoRN. I think you are probably right; a record of all the convictions. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, may I at this time suggest that, when that record is received, it be reproduced in the appendix, rather than in the body of the record ? Mr. Landis. So ordered. Mr. McCann. That will save us from having to hold the record open. Mr. ZoKN. I have no objection to that, except that I think the actual record of the number ,of convictions of strikers and particularly the convictions of JNIr. Sorrell — I am having a complete record made of that — I think properly ought to go into the record or go into our brief. We will find some way of putting them in. If the hearings are still open by the time w^e get them in I suppose we can put them right into the record. (The record of arrests referred to will be reproduced in the appendix when received.) Mr. ZoRN. I want to read very briefly from the case of KKO Radio Pictures, Inc., against Screen Set Designers, Illustrators and Decora- tors Local No. 1421, et cetera, in the Superior Court, State of Cali- fornia, in and for the county of Los Angeles. The case number is 506788. This record shows there were complaints accompanying affidavits, and an injunction issued upon them restraining various forms of picketing, violence, conduct of pickets and so on. I just want t,o quote briefly from the affidavit of Arthur Rosen. It is sworn to on October 24, 1045. Mr. Rosen describes himself as a driver for the Tanner Motor Co. : At about 10: 40 a. m. this morniBg I was driving Tanner Bus No. 41, which has a capacity for approximately 41 passengers, from EKO studios to California studios. My only passengers were 4 KKO drivers. There were approximately 50 pickets at the main gate at California, which is located about 300 feet south of Melrose on Bronson Avenue. As I started to back my bus through the gate, the length of my bus made it necessary for me to cut back three times to clear the gate on entering the studio. On the third cut I was in reverse gear and about one-third of my bus was in the gate when a sharp rock about the size of a good-sized potato and weighing about 2 pounds was thrown through the open window next to my driver's seat and struck me in the back of the head, leaving a cut about 1^/^ inches long and causing my head to bleed profusely. There are other affidavits with respect to this particular incident. The affidavit of Mr. William J. Henshaw, who was employed in the scenic department at RKO, says — ^his affidavit is dated October 24, 1945: While walking on Windsor Boulevard on the west side of the street, approxi- mately 50 to 75 feet from Marathon Street and only 1 or 2 feet from the studio parking lot, along the wire fence, I was tripped by a medium sized, burly man who was not wearing an arm band ; I believe the men called him "Tony." As he tripped me and rolled me against the fence two men that were near him came up MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2333 to lue and forcibly hit me in uiy chest and abdomen, and in addition I suffered several knocks from other men in the vicinity. The affidavit of Mr. George W. Pinkham, dated October 24, 1945, who was employed by RKO in the miniature department: On October 24, on entering my place of employment, I witnessed the following : There were approximately 500 pickets in the immediate vicinity of Marathon Street entrance. While we were entering the studio under the protection of the police. 1 heard a scuffle immediately behind me and turned to .see William J. Hen- shaw trying to keep his balance. A heavy-set man of medium height, who was not wearing an arm band, had planted himself in front of Mr. Henshaw. I did not see any actual blows but this man (who was called Tony by the pickets) was trying to trip William J. Henshaw and prevent him from entering the studio. A tall, burly man was in the innnediate vicinity of Mr. Henshaw, within 4 feet of him, and he was shouting, "You're not going into the studio. We are not going to let you in. Come on, stay out or you will get hurt." And then this second man attempted to hit Larry Hampton, assistant to Martj' Martin. And so on. Now I am reading some extracts from affidavits in the case of Para- mount Pictures, Inc., against Screen Set Designers, Illustrators, and Decorators, Local No. 1421, et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, county of Los Angeles, case No. 506787. In that connection you will recall Mr. Sorrell was asked questions as to whether or not any studio executives were kept out and he said emphaticall}' not. I read from the affidavit of Jacob H. Karp, sworn to October 22, 1945. Mr. Karp says : T have been employed by Paramount Pictures since 1929 and I am at present resident attorney and executive assistant to Mr. Henry Ginsberg, vice president in charge of production and studio operations. That at approximately 9 : 05 a. m. on the morning of October 22, 1945, I arrived at the Paramount Studios, at Hollywood, Calif., and observed a group of approxi- mately 50 pickets walking two abreast in a hollow circle, completely blocking the so-called DeMille entrance at the intersection of Marathon and Irving Boulevard, which is the entrance by which I customarily enter the studio. The pickets were walking in close-order formation with barel.v a foot or two between them. I presented my credentials to the pickets at this entrance, advised them that I was an executive of this studio, and that it was necessary for me to enter. I was told by one of the pickets, who acted as spokesman, that regardless of my position I would not be permitted to enter the studio. I attempted to walls through the line of pickets and I was repulsed and pushed away from the gate. I then proceeded to the entrance to the administi-ation building. at 5451 Mara- thon Street, where I observed a similar line of pickets, approximately 25 in number, also walking in close order formation with less than a foot separating the pickets. I again presented my credentials to the pickets at this entrance and I was again told by a picket who presumed to speak for the other pickets that I would not be permitted to enter the studio despite my position. That I then made arrangements for an automobile to meet me in the vicinity of the studio and that in this automobile I was driven to the DeMille entrance, at which the picket line I have previously described still existed, and that the automobile was driven slowly toward the gate. That one of the women picketers threw herself in the path of the moving automobile and that it was necessary to stop the automobile immediately and for the officers to remove her body from under the wheels of the automobile, whereupon the automobile was driven into the studio. I am skipping many of these affidavits. This is the affidavit of Robert IJitchie, who was employed by Paramount for 14 years as a grip. He says : On Monday morning, October 22, 1945, I came to work as usual at 5:45 a. m. I parked on Lemon Grove near Ridgewood, and as I came to the studio, I saw many people there at the Lemon Grove gate, marching as in a parade. At that 67383— 48— vol. 3 53 2334 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES time there were two circles of pickets marching four abreast completely covering the Lemon Grove entrance. There was not 2 feet between them and I actually had four picket lines to go through to get in. There were over 2(X1 people march- ing in the line. Some wore metal helmets. There were alxiut a dozen city police there at that time. We asked them if there was a possibility of getting through; one said to wait 10 minutes for reenforcements. We waited and then this policeman came through the line to tell the machinists who were with us tliat whenever we were ready he would open up the line. We told him we were ready and 20 or 30 of us started to walk through the line slowly. We went through the first two lines, and when our boys got in the center, the pickets started to crowd around and swing their fists at the employees, at the same time swearing and cursing, calling us "dirty rats" — and there is some additional language here which the record will show. I saw pickets strike the men with me and then throw hot coffee on them. Some of the men got through. They forced the rest of us back and I was not able to get through the line. Parenthetically I might say this is jitst a sample of many of the efforts to get through. According to Mr. Sorrell's testimony anybody who wanted to get through, of course, could go through. I am skipping many ,of these affidavits. This is the affidavit of the injunction application in the case of Republic Productions, Inc., against Local O-iG of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters et al. That is, the defendants include all of the striking unions in all of these cases. It is in the Superior Court of the State of California, county of Los Angeles, case No. 520134. This is the affidavit of August A. Maehl, sworn to October 5, 194<). This is in connection with the 1946 strike. Mr. Maehl was the chief of police at Republic Studio. He says : On October 3, 1946, at about r> : 30 a. m., I saw approximately 250 men wearing picket armbands marching around in a large circle at the Carpenter Avenue auto gate of the studio. In addition to these 2ri0 pickets there were approxi- mately 500 additional men milling around Carpenter Avenue in the vicinity of said auto gate. The above luimber of pickets and those milling around in the vicinity of said auto gate entrance remained constant u]) until approximately 12 o'clock noon of said day. Then he describes a similar number of pickets at the other gates of the Republic Studio. I will not bother to read all this into the record. After describing the massing of pickets at the various gates on the dates of October 3 and October 4, he goes on to say : Throughout the entire day of October 4, 194G, the pickets and the milling crowds were noisy and were particularly boisterous when anyone attempted to cross the picket line for the purpose of entering the studio, under police protec- tion. When anyone attempted to enter the studio and cross the picket line, under police protection, multitudes of cries of "Close in on them," "Hold the line tight, don't let those dirty rats through," "Hold those skunks," "dirty scabs," "finks," and words of similar import were used. Then he goes on to describe in more detail the incidents of trying to get people through. There is an affidavit here of Mr. Raymond E. Jones, sworn to Octo- ber 7, 1946. Mr. Jones describes himself as the head of the com- missary. It is an executive post at Columbia. He says: On October 3, 1946, at approximately 5: 30 a. m., I parked my car on the east side of Radford Avenue, north of the entrance to the studio. As I got out of the car a man came running from across the street, wearing a white armband, and asked: "Hey, fellow, where the h — are .vou going?" I answered: "I am going up there," pointing in the direction of the studio entrance. The man then MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2335 iviilied : "If you are figuring on going to work, you better stop right here or you'll get your G — d — head knocked off." The words are spelled out in the affidavit. I then walked over to the west side of Radford Avenue, directly across the street from the entrance to the Radford Avenue foot tratiic gate where I saw apitroximatel.v 150 men wearing picket armbands marching in a circle at the Radford Avenue foot-traffic gate entrance. In addition to these 150 pickets, there were approximately 150 additional men milling around Radford Avenue in the vicinity of said foot-traffic gate. I I'cmained in the vicinity of the said Radford Aveiuie foot-traffic gate entrance until approximately 10 a. m. As the result of the intimidation and the difficulties encountered by those who attempted to cross the- picket line, I did not attempt to cross the picket line with the result that I did not report to work. Then summarizing the rest of these briefly, Mr. Landis, there is the affidavit of Luis Vance, who was assistant to the construction super- intendent at Rej:)ublic. His affidavit is dated October 4, 1946. In sunnnary he tried to go through the picket line and was blocked. Then he goes on to say : At this time, one of the pickets whom I had known since 1941, ilr. James Skelton, the business agent for the United Brotherhood of Cai-penters and Joiners of America, Local 040, approached me and took me to one side and engaged me in conversation. He told me not to go through the picket line because the pickets would do something to me, and if they didn't now, they would later. Mr. Skelton, you will recall, was the business agent for the carpen- ters' union. Skipjung some of these other affidavits, there is a very interesting affidavit of Corrine M. Kraushaar, sworn to October 5, 1946, who deposes that she is the wife of liaoul Kraushaar, orchestra manager for Republic Productions and a member of the musicians' union : That on or about 11 a. m., on October 3, 1946. I received a telephone call from an unknown male ; that this luiknown male stated that if my husband told the musicians under contract to Republic studios to report to work that he would see to it that our children would be harmed; that he immediately hung up after stating the above. There are two children, the issue of our marriage, namely, Suzanne, 2^/2 years of age, and Arlynne, 5 months of age. The said telephone call has caused me great fear and has produced a high degree of nervousness ; that I am worried over same and have been unable to attend to my houseliold and maternal duties. I have been unable to sleep because of the fear of injury and harm to my children. Then there are a series of affidavits here of a Mr. Dick Hills, Helen Warner, and a number of others who work in the stenographic depart- ment. They were clerical workers at Republic. They describe how these people sought to go through the picket lines. They were called filthy names; that pickets threw cups of hot coffee in their faces and tried to prevent them from going through. As Miss Warner in her affidavit points out : The pickets grouped us, showing and jostling and shouting "Scab," "Fink," and "Rat." I was kicked in the shins and my feet were trampled upon by said pickets. I saw one picket holding a cup of coffee in his hand pois'ed fbove Jiis head, ready to throw it at me. Said picket then threw said cup at me, but said cup missed me and hit Dick Hills— who was the other deponent here — on the side of his face. I saw a brown liquid spill down the side of Dick Hills" face. 2336 MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES These were the clerical workers. Finally in the Eepublic situation I want to quote briefly from the affidavit of Georjean Richards, sworn to October 5, 1946, who was also a stenographer at Republic. She says : On October 5, 1946, at approximately 9 a. m., I approached the Radford Avenue gate of said studio. I saw approximately 200 men wearing picket armbanis marching in a circle directly in front of said entrance. I also saw approximately 200 additional men wearing picket armbands on the east side of Radford Avenue, in the general area of the entrance to the studio. I might say, Mr. Landis, Republic is one of the small studios. When they talk about 200 and 300 men here, these other affidavits indicate a considerably larger number at some of the larger studios. She goes on to say : As I approached said line of pickets, approximately 10 policemen escorted me through the line of pickets. While I was being escorted through the line of pickets, statements were yelled at me called me a "fake," "phony," "scab," and words of similar import. After I crossed the gate into the studio, dirt, pebbles, and rocks were showered upon me, the dirt and pebbles striking my feet and legs. This is one of the stenographers at Republic. When I reached a point aliout 15 feet east of said gate, a sharp-edged rock whizzed past my right ear and struck the building toward which I was walking. Upon examination, said rock was appi-oximately 2 inches in diameter and con- tained very pointed edges. Tliis rock was traveling at a very swift rate of speed and was thrown with considerable force. I won't bother to read the other affidavits. I am simply giving you a sample of them. In every case, of course, these injunctions were granted and there were subsequent beatings, the record of which I will supply before the hearing is completed. Mr. Landis. Do you have anything on Disney ? Mr. ZoRN. No, Mr. Landis ; you will recall that went back to 1941. That is my recollection. Isn't that right, Mr. ]\IcCann ? Mr. McCann. I think so. I think that question is very important. Mr. Landis. He emphasized more peaceful picketing, as I under- stand it. Mr. McCann. As I understand, Disney asked for 50 police. The chief called Sorrell, who said two would be adequate, and they had no rioting whatsoever. There is only, one question I feel that would be appropriate for Mr. Zorn to answer here, and that is the averment by Mr. Sorrell to the effect that all the police who were employed in these major strikes were paid by the studios, or some 200 of them were. There is an affi- davit on that. When you get an opportunity, I wish you would indi- cate whether there is any truth in that or not. Mr. Zorn. I am having some affidavits prepared on that. I might say right now that like many of the other things to which jNlr. Sorrell testified in this hearing, I think if we had the time here step by step we could disprove pretty thoroughly a lot of the statements that have been made ; in fact, most of the statements he made. But I have felt that with the limitation of time here I wanted to take a short cut here. I am in the process of supplying additional material and I will be very happy to supply affidavits if that suits the committee, in connection with the allegations of alleged corruption- and bribery of the police, if that is the way you want to put it. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2337 I would be very happy to supply that. jNIr. McCann. It seems to me that is a rather important issue. Mr. ZoKN. I agree with you. Mr. McCann. Secondly, if you have the time I think it would be important, in view of the testimony that Mr. Sorrell gave, that while there were a number of pickets present on one occasion, there was no disorder until the police turned fire hoses on them and incited the violence that followed. In other words, I only want to indicate to him the things which I feel are averments made b}^ Mr. Sorrell which Mr. Zorn may desire to answer. Mr. ZoRN. If we attempted to answer in detail every wild statement Mr. Sorrell had made I think we would be here for a year. What I have done here I think is just a sampling of the kind of ])icketing and the kind of violence and the kind of things that were done. If you gentlemen feel I ought to go further I will be very happy to do it. If you will look at those Warner pictures themselves — and I will come to some of the Warner affidavits — you will find this theory of peaceful picketing just isn't so. My difficulty is this : If I went down the line in every detail of Mr. Sorrell's testimony and tried to answer every one of his wild charges I think we would be here for a couple of months. From my point of view I think it is sufficient to indicate that on various important matters his testimony can be discredited so thor- oughly that it therefore becomes unnecessary thereafter to contradict every single statement he made. Mr. Owf:NS, I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the general legal theory of evidence. ]Mr. ZoRN. Now in connection with Mr. Sorrell's statement that no executive was ever kept out of any studio, and in fact he went further and said that nobody was ever kept out of the studio, I would like to read a few extracts from the file in the case of Loew's, Inc., against local 946 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters et al., in the Su- perior Court of the State of California, Countv of Los Angeles, case No. 519742. The first affidavit is that of Ralph F. Wheelwright, who de- scribes himself in the affidavit as a producer in the Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer studios. I assume I do not have to explain the functions of a producer. The producer is one of the key executives in any studio. His affidavit is sworn to September 27, 1946. He goes on to say : That at 9 : 10 a. in. on September 27, 1946, affiant droA^e his automobile into the parking lot on the north side of Grant Avenue, opposite the Thfilberg Building and parked his car. He left his automobile and proceeded to a point in the parking lot opiiosite the Thalberg Building and walked aci'oss the street. The picket line at that time extended along Grant Avenue, completely blocking entrance to the Thalberg Building, and was approximately 75 feet long. It appeared to the .-iffiant that the ends of the line were blocking the entrance so he then approached th" i)lcket line and attempting to go through it. As he pi'oceeded about one-half way thningh the line, he was .seized by one of the pickets and pushed off the sidewalk into the street. The picket then addressed the affiant as follows: "You dirty s. o. b., don't you know you can't go through a picket line?" 2338 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES The words are spelled out here, Mr. Owens. By that time two or three other pickets had come out of the line and one grabbed me by the left arm and spun me around, using obscene language, and told affiant he would have to go around the end of the line. The affiant pro- ceeded around the westerly end of the picket line and attempted to reach the steps leading to the Thalberg Building. An officer attempted to clear the picket line away from the entrance sufficiently for the affiant to enter, and the picket line refused to give way. The affiant was then slioved through a bed of roses by one of tlie pickets. Mr. Owens. He at least gave him a bed of roses. Mr. ZoRN. I don't know how many thorns were in that bed, though. The affidavit of Mr. Fadiman, William J. Fadiman, who is the head of the scenario department at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer : That at or about 9 a. m. on Septeml)er 27, 1946, he attempted to cross the picket line to enter the Thalberg Building at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. That he was seized by the back of the coat by one of the pickets ; that he was forcibl.v spun around and detained until he was liberated by a police officer. Then he proceeded into the Thalberg Building. This is the affidavit of Paul W. Bien, a police officer at M-G-M. Cutting through a good part of his affidavit, he states, talking about September 2G, 1946, and describing a group of pickets near the Culver gate: That affiant joined this group and he heard the spokesman for the group address the following remarks to the assembled group: "How many of you fellows have private cars?" Approximately 20 or 25 hands were raised. He turned to a man who presumably was one of his lieutenants and said, "See to it that 14 or 15 of these men who own cars pick up a couple of more boys in each one of their cars and tail these b " Spelled out here — " — home when the shift breaks this afternoon." One of the men asked him, "How are we to tell for sure whether they are carpenters or painters?" Tho spokesman told them if tliey weren't sure to use their own judgment, adding further, "You know what to do." The affidavit of John L. Coffey, sworn to September 26, 1046. Mr. Coffey describes himself as the assistant industrial relations manager of M-G-M. On September 26 he reported to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios at 5 : 30 a. m. That at the time he arrived at the Culver gate, there were approximately 209 pickets marching in a circular fashion in froiit of the entrance to the Culver gate. The pickets were marching so closely together that it was physically impos- sible for a person attempting to cross the picket line to cross said line, or any segment of the line, without coming in physical contact with the pickets. The entrance was completely blocked off to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Skipping some part of this : At 5 : 50 a. m. employee whom the affiant is unable to identify attempt to cross the picket line and was assaulted by the pickets. The pickets used their picket signs as clubs, clubbing officers seeking to rescue employees. At about 7 : 30 a. m. Mr. Herbert Sorrell, president of the Conference of Studio Unions, and Mr. Averill Berman, radio comentator, appeared with a device for the amplication of the human voice and addressed tlie pickets. In sul)stance, they stated they did not desire any violence but they did not want anyone to cross the picket lines. Then he describes a whole series of incidents of people trying to get through the line, being assaulted and being attacked. For example T will read this part whicli I think is very pertinent : At 8 : 43 a. m. there were approximately 220 pickets marching across the entrance to the Culver gate. A caravan of automobiles containing employees MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2339 of the M-G-M Studios approached the Culver gate and attempted to come into the studios. The first two who attempted t(' cross the picket lines were suc- cessful in crossinsr the picket line. The third automobile was stopped by the pickets. The police had opened the lines for the automobiles to proceed into the studio and the strikers, by force and violence, broke the police lines, swarmed over the third antomobiue, and someone raised the hood and pulled out the ignition wires. Several of the strikers seized the car frt)m both sides and attempted to overturn it. General confusion surrounded this entire incident but there were remarks from the strikers such as "If you try to get any more scabs through this gate, there will be bloodshed," "Turn that car over." During this incident there were several blows struck by the strikers on the ( fficers. Several officers were shoved almost under the wheels of the automobile. Mr. 0^^^:NS. Do you feel those affidavits add anything to Mr. Sor- relTs testimony as to the number of people that were taken to the hospital in ambulances? ]\Ir. ZoRX. Of course he bragged about the 19 ambulance loads that took the people out of the lA hall, but that was back in 1937, Mr. Owens. As I pointed out when you were not here last week, we got a very interesting series of statements by Mr. Sorrell first. He bragged about what a great man of violence he was, how he busted up the hiring lA hall and how he got a flock of ambulances there. He bragged about his physical proAvess and the other fellows he had beaten up. Then at one point in his testimony he testified in answer to various questions that so far as the picketing was concerned and the conduct of these more recent strikes, he just believed that a picket line for the pur- pose of advertising, the right of free speech. I am simply going to bring up to date in connection with those statements the facts which actually occurred. There is no question, Mr. Owens. The photographs, the court his- tory, the record of convictions and everything else shoAV that both the 1945 and the 1946 strike, which Mr. Sorrell admitted he was the leader of, and particularly the leader of the picketing and the strike activities, were strikes conducted with some of the worst violence that I tliink we have had in any labor situations in the country. There have been some bad and probably some worse, but these were pretty serious; and with complete contempt for the law, complete disregard for orders of the courts, complete contempt for the public officers, Thei'e have been other statements put in evidence here, the findings of the California legislative committee, and so on. What I have tried to do liere is to give you enough of a sample to indicate that his statements in that connection are completely dis- creditable and we discredited them just with the few samples of this kind. Tliere are many more statements of violence, throwing of rocks, overtiu-ning of automobiles and tilings of that sort, which are con- tained in these affidavits but I will not attempt to read them all. I think I can complete witli just a few quotations from some of the affidavits in the Warner Bros, case, which was case No. 519689. This relates to the 1946 strike. I have not yet been able to obtain the 1945 strike pictures where there was even greater violence. This is the affidavit of Walter Glover. SAvorn to September 26, 1946. You will note that most of these affidavits and injunction orders are dated from the very early part, October 26, 27, and 28 of the 1946 2340 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES strike, which had just started at that time. As the strike continued, from the newspaper accounts which I read into the record earlier, the violence increased and mounted beyond even that violence which is described in these affidavits. Mr. Glover describes the acts, conduct, and mass formation of the pickets, the yelling and shouting and the use of filthy names toward anyone trying to get in. He goes on to say : At about 6 : 30 a. m. affiant observed an automobile attempt to enter said main entrance — referring to the Warner main entrance. and observed several members of the Bnrbank Police Department line up in an effort to assist said automobile througb the line of pickets and affiant observed a large mass of pickets assembled around the officer shove, push, and crush said officers against the side and fenders of said moving automol)ile, and observed one officer knocked to the pavement ; that affiant observed that on several occa- sions as automobiles w^ould attempt to pass through said picket line various pickets would strike at the drivers with their fists and sticks and when members of the Burbank Police Department attempted to apprehend the pickets they would disappear into a large mass of 50 or 100 other pickets and said pickets would prevent the officers from pursuing the pickets who had assaulted the drivers of the automobiles ; that on one ocasion during said time affiant ob- served a green Plymouth coupe attempt to enter said studio property and pickets massed around the automobile, striking at the driver and at the automobile about the fenders and the body, and the affiant observed the pickets wrench a wind- wing from said automobile and hurl it to the pavement. Then he goes on with a complete description of further attempts on the part of the pickets to attack cars trying to get in with sticks, rip- ping out ignition wires, attempts to turn the cars over, use of boisterous, belligerent language, and so on. These will be part of the record. I do not think it is necessary to read any more of them into the record, except this final affidavit. This is an affidavit of Peery Price, sworn to September 26, 1946, in connection with one of the contempt proceedings that was brought after these injunction orders were issued. He is referring to certain statements made by Mr. Sorrell. In an interview quoted in the Los Angeles morning newspapers of September 26, 1946, he quotes Mr. Sorrell to this effect : Let them get out all the injunctions they want. The more of us they put in jail, the more they'll have to follow. .Tail isn't so bad. I had some of it. You get a nice rest. Well, that is very consistent with Mr. Sorrell's testimony in this proceeding. Mr. Landis. We will have a 5-minute recess. (A short recess was taken.) Mr. Landis. The hearing will be in order. Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Landis, there is just one point I want to clear up and then I will be out of here verj^ quickly. In my discussion on Friday in connection with questions with respect to the Beverly Hills treaty of July 2, 1946, you will recall that on Thursday of last week Mr. Cobb testified and claimed that the interim agreement of July 2 was a 2-year contract and still remained in full force and effect. Of course we have never agreed with that. So as to clarify my testimony in that respect the interim agreement of July 2, 1946, the Beverly Hills treaty, was designed in the agreement 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 negoti- ated 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 Con- ference of Studio Unions, including the carpenters organization, in M'hich he takes the jDosition that they were without contracts in Sep- tember. 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 fur- ther obligations under it and obviously w-e do not have a 2-year agree- ment 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 con- tracts 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- 2342 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES dent," listiiifT all the unions, including the carpenters, Mr. Sorrell says this to Mr. Casey : That we were to begin negotiations witli you for long delayed contracts. In that telegram he insists on further meetings for the purpose of concluding contracts. Finally in a telegram dated November 10, 1946, from Mr. Sorrell as president of the Conference of Studio Unions to Mr. Casey, he says : Your delaying tactics will not weaken our figlit but on the other hand wilV only cause vis to intensify our activities and negotiations to achieve contracts and decent wages and hours for all workers in the industry. In a similar telegram addressed to the Association of Motion Picture Producers, dated November 5, 1946, Mr. Sorrell on behalf of the Con- ference of Studio Unions' says this. The Conference of Studio Unions therefore demands an immediate nweting to negotiate contract on wages, hours, and working conditions. So that as a matter of law whether we had a l)iiiding legal agree- ment in the contract of July 2, the Beverly Hills treaty, is a matter on which there can be some difference of opinion. The point I want to emphasize is that we entered into that agreement in good faith and if it was a binding legal agreement then unques- tionably it was breached and it was no longer binding upon the pro- ducers after the Conference of Studio Unions had taken its position with respect to hot sets, gone out on strikes', set up the picket lines and had refused to permit their people to go to work. On the other hand, if it is not a binding legal agreement then, of course, there is no obligation. I have read these extracts from Sorrell's telegrams to indicate to you that even though Mr. Cobb argued here they had a binding legal agreement Mr. Sorrell, the chief negotiator for the Conference of Studio Unions and for the carpenters, took tlij& flat position in this correspondence that they never had a contract with us. I say it is a rather muddied up legal situation but I wanted to bring that out so that there would not be any misinterpretation about my testimony. So far as the situation which existed after the hot set ultimatum, with respect to the employees, I think the record is clear on that. The men were laid off for refusal to do the work assigned to them, for refusal to do the jobs that they were obligated to do. In my testimony the other day somebody told me there might be some misnnderstanding as to the contracts in existence and I wanted to clear that up. I said that so far as the work in the striking crafts of carpenters and painters, not the set-erection work — set-erection work under the December 1945, decision had been given the lA and we did enter into a contract with the lA, a union or a closed-shop contract with the lA to do the set-erection work — but so far as all the other carpenter work and all the other painters work is concerned, we have never entered into any contracts with the lA. The testimony here I think has been very clear that the strikers were replaced but that as vacancies have occurred men are being hired back without regard to whether they are lA members, painters mem- bers, or members of any other union, and that as to those particular situations, namely, the painting work which has been under contract MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2343 witli the Paintino; Union G4i and 1421. and the carpenter work except for set erection which has been done by members of Carpenters Local 946, we have no contracts with anybody. We have a nondiscrimina- tory policy of hiring. The reason it has been bronoht ont here as to why there are not many carpenters who have gone back to work, is that they simply have not reapplied for their jobs becanse they refused to go through a picket line. I think I ought to make this clear in that connection: As they have reapplied for tlieir jobs they have been rehired as new employees be- cause we have taken the position they lost all rights as employees by reason of their conduct and as they have come back they have been replaced and replaced by permanent replacements, and as vacancies have occurred tliey have come back as new employees without dis- crimination. I thought I would clear that up so that there was no doubt about some of the legal aspects of the situation. Again I want to thank j^ou for your patience and consideration, and iDarticularly your patience in listening for as many weeks and days as you have here. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ZoKN. Before I leave I would like to invite 3^ou gentlemen and as many members of the committee as you would like to have to .see these motion pictures of the strike violence. I think it is an essen- tial part of this record. You can do that at your convenience. As I have indicated, I would like to make it a part of this record. Mr. Owens. There should be some thei'e of those people who might wish to contradict any portions of it. There is always the possibility it could be claimed that something was set up. ]Mr. ZorjST. I agree with you we ought to give everybody an oppor- tunity to be present. The problem is that everybody has gone home and left us all alone here. Mr. McCann. May I make a suggestion, Mr. Zorn, for your con- sideration? Mr. ZoRX. Certainly. Mr. McCann. As I understand it, Mr. Kearns has indicated he is going to have certain experts from Hollywood here in the month of May. I should think that at that time Mr. Sorrell would want to be back here. I assume that he will. I wonder if it would be agreeable, when the experts are testifying with respect to this matter, if we set that as the date for you to show the movies so that he would be present to see them. Would that be agreeable? Mr. OwExs. He will probably be present. Mr. ZoRx. The only point I want to make there is that Mr. Sorrell and the others knew we were going to continue and at their own option they left. T thinh whil ^ this is fresh in your mind vou might look at them. I certainly would not want to deprive anybody of the opportunity after that to attack them if they can be attacked. That is entirely a matter of your feeling about it. Tliey are here and available if you want to see them. 2344 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. You were never there personally, were you, Mr. Zorn ? Mr. ZoRN". In Hollywood ? Mr. Owens. I mean at any of those activities at the strike ? Mr. ZoRN. I was there during parts of the strike, but I could not testify from personal knowledge as to some of the scenes which are depicted in these pictures. Mr. Owens. Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer undoubtedly will be able to tell us something about that, will they not ? Mr. Zorn. All right. I just thought you might like to see some of these things. Mr. Owens. Well, I really would like to, but I mean with respect to testifying they will be able to testify as to some of the actual inci- dents, no doubt, will they ? Mr. ZoRN. I am pretty sure they will. They already have put in some evidence on that. I very carefully have refrained from testifying to facts of which I do not have personal knowledge. It is entirely up to you. The pictures are available and they will be available to any- body on all sides. Mr. Landis. We will probably take that up this afternoon. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Zorn, we thank jou for your testimony. Mr. Zorn. Thank you again, sir. Mr. Landis. Mr. Levy and Mr. Brewer. TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY AND EOY M. BREWER— Kecalled Mr. Landis. You may proceed, sir. Mr. Levy. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, on be- half of the lATSE I want to point out on this question of violence, some very brief and interesting statements made by the Conference of Studio Unions in their own, an official publication. That, it seems to me, will give you a quick idea of tlie formal and official attitude of the Conference of Studio Unions under the leader- ship of Herbert K. Sorrell. A paragraph from the Picket Line, their publication of March 27, 1 945, and I quote : Number of IBEW men applied for unemployment insurance — not payable as the law now stands. Will appeal as not on strike, but refusing to pass picket line — possible endangerment of life and limb cannot be required by law except in armed service and public calamity. On April 7, 1945, the Picket Line says as follows : Looks like we'll have to forget we are gentlemen and give the Picket Line the '37 spirit — if producers try importing scabs to do our work, if they get them. Also in the same publication — and these Picket Lines were dis- tributed to all of the pickets on the lines during the 1945 strike : Strikes are won on picket lines. This is a good fight, fight on the line. On April 13, 1945 : Scabby pictures stink up theaters when exhibited — wait and see. April 17, 1945 : Strong picket line at Universal Studio this a. m. — stopped over 25 cars with 60 or more passengers from going through. That is the strength we are de- veloping all along the line for the win. Keep a good picket line going, boys, that's where we will win our strike. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2345 April 19, 1945 : The sailors of the Pacific have gracioiisl5' offered to us sfny assistance that we may desire from them. The Picket Line of May 3, 1945 : Any more volunteers for the Technicolor picket line, fellows? That's where the excitement is these days, if that's what you're after. Many fellows on the picket line want some action ; would even welcome some rough stuff. It's part of producers' war on nerves. Everything kept legal so far, but — and the "but" is in caps — men, if anybody steps out of line like Joe Tuohy's goons, grab yourself a fist-full of action. The Picket Line of May 8, 1945 : A motion was passed at strategy meeting Monday to allow two telephone men. to pass into each studio, only with written permission. The Picket Line of April 9, 1945 : Not very many scabs are working in the studios, but casualty rate is getting high. These stumble-bums always falling down or bumping into things ; must be discouraging. I don't think any comment from me is necessary, in view of the language of the official publication of the Conference of Studio Unions. I have here certified photostatic copies which I shall not read into the record of the judgment of conviction for contempt of Herbert K. Sorrell, sentencing him to serve 16 days" imprisonment in the county jail of the county of Los Angeles on February 13, 1946, in Docket iSlo. 506234, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the county of Los Angeles, with reference to the violation of the in- junction obtained against Painters' Local 644, and others by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. Mr. McCann. I move that they be received as a reference exhibit. Mr. Landis. Did he serve the 16 days ? ]Mr. LE\nr. My information, sir, is that he did and that there was in addition to that a fine, I think amounting to around $1,700, which was paid. Mr. OwExs. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sorrell testified to that. That was the testimony he gave at the time he said one of the reasons he did not appear at the California hearing regarding his purported commu- nistic membership. Mr. Keakxs. So ordered. • (The document referred to was filed with the committee.) Mr. LE^^^. Since Congressman Owens has indicated he is not inter- ested in matters of indictment that have not yet come into the stage of conviction, I shall not refer to the indictment for conspiracy to viohite the penal code of California in the Superior Court of the State of California, Xo. 110200, against Herbert K. Sorrell and others, which is still pending by virtue of certain appeals that have been taken,, and so on, with respect to that indictment. I want that record in. ISIr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I think it is perfectly all right where it involves one of the named parties who has testified and who might; be asked to testify again on something which is still pending. I see^ notliing wrong about having that information. 2346 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Levy. That indictment was found by the grand jury of the county of Los Angeles, according to the certified copy which I have, on the 22d of November 1946. I think the defendants pleaded not guilty. They are out on bail. The matter is still pending and not yet disposed of. Mr. McCann. The same request, Mr. Chairman, that they be re- ceived as reference exhibits. Mr. Landis. iSo ordered. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. During the period of time I was out in California during the 1945 strike, I found that an individual by the name of Anthony Schiazone-, or Anthony V. Schiazone, bobbed up every now and then 'as an aggressor on the picketing line. I made up my mind I wanted to look into that man Schiazone. I bring this up now, because the Congressman indicated that some of the members on the picket line looked verj^ nice. I don't know whether he has seen a picture of Schiazone. All I can say is that he spent some time in San Quentin for burglary ; that he was a very active participant in a number of the mass picket lines there on be- half of the strikers. Mr. Landis. Was he a member of the union? Mr. Levy. I would not say from personal knowledge, and I could not say. I have been informed that he was or became a member of a union. His criminal record is a sight to behold and I think when this committee gets into it, in ascertaining the relationship between the Conference of Studio Unions and Anthony Vincent Schiazone, his criminal record might well be presented to you. Mr. Owens. I did not say they were acting nice in that discussion off the record. Mr. Levy. I understood that. Mr. Brewer wants to comment on that. Mr. Brewer. If I may. Anthony Schiazone was the head of the picket lines in the last strike, the 1946 strike. He was hailed by several of the mass meetings of the Conference of Studio Unions as their great leader on the picket lines, and they wanted more of Tony. I think you will find he is the Tony referred to in the affidavit which Mr. Zom read regarding the attack on an individual member of Paramount studios. He is a member of local 946 of the carpenters' union. Mr. Levy. So much that I have to cover on violence at this moment, and Mr. Brewer will carry on from there. There is an interesting phase of this matter which has not yet been touched upon which I think ought to be gone into for your informa- tion now. The stars in the moving pictures are obviously very sensitive people. They strike me as persons whose regard for public opinion, so far as their own livelihood is concerned, is a matter of extreme importance to them. Back in May 1945, as the result of the solicitation of the Conference of Studio Unions, the following letter was sent to most of the actors who, in compliance with their contracts and not taking sides in the jurisdictional disputes, ignored the picket lines set up by the CSU and went in to work. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2347 One of them says : AVe cannot call you i^istPl• in this letter, as we rto not believe union sisters pass picket lines. By unaiiini()Uis iiotion of the I'omona Valley Central Labor Council, the delefiates at their regular meeting on April 20, 1945, have instructed me to notify you that the finger of scorn should be pointed at each of you who have so little interest in yoiu' fellow workers that you are willing to pass their picket lines. Your name has been placed on our unfair list, and we shall instruct our people to avoid patronizing pictures where your name appears. I do not "svant to mention the name of the star I have here, because it was sent, you understand, to quite a number of the feminine stars in Hollywood, and I do not want to point up this particular person's name for the committee. Tliat was strenuously objected to by the Screen Actors' Guild in a communication to President Green. Tlien President Green sent this teleo:ram to the Pomona Valley Cen- tral Labor Council. It is important for the committee to know the ramifications of what has been done here under the leadership of the Conference of Studio Unions : Pomona Central Labor Council made a grave mistake when it instructed you to send letter such as you sent to members of Screen Actors' Guild recently. I officially and pen-tonally repudiate your letter and action of your central body in sponsoring it. No authority is conferred upon a central body to take sides in a jurisdiction:!! dispute. Your action is un.ii,stitiable and indefensible. I respect- fully demand your central body make public retraction of your action and with- draw letter you sent to members of Screen Actors' Guild iminediately. That is signed, "William Green, President, American Federation of Labor.'" They did pass some sort of a tongue-in-cheek resolution, that is, the Pomona Central Labor Council, The purpose of pointing the finger of scorn is indicated ; the purpose of the violence is indicated, and since Mr. Sorrell indicated here during his 5 days of testimony that this was a strike in 1945 merely because of the set decorators, I want to quote a paragraph from Variety of March 1-2, 1945, the day of the beginning of that strike. Mr. OwExs. That was just at the time President Green had sent a me.s.sage to them to end that strike during the war ? Mr. Levy. That is correct, sir, and they ignored that too. I quote : Sorrell told the group — Thi.s is the day the strike started: Sorrell told the group that the strikers had no intention of returning to work unless the Government moved in and they would then be glad to go back and work for T'ncle Sam. He declared, however, that all .iurisdictional disputes between affiliated I'roperty Craftsmen Local 44, with the machinists, IBEW. and carpen- ters, nn^.st be settled before the workers returned to their jobs. Dispute over decorators started when claim for them was filed by local 44 with the support of Dick Walsh and the lA international. My point in reading that, sirs, is to point up the proposition that the set decorators' issue was in fact a fake issue for the purpose of bringing these people out on strike, for refusing to cross an alleged picket line for the purpose of enforcing their jurisdictional demands on behalf of a mnnber of other organizations. Mr. Laxdis. I think we will stop at this point until 2 o'clock. ( Wliereupon. at 12 noon, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) 2348 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will be in order, please, TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY AND ROY M. BREWER— Continued Mr. Kearns. You may proceed. Mr. Levy. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I want to read into the record this excerpt from Variety of March 16, 1945, quoting Mr. Sorrell at a meeting before local No.^ 40 of the I. B. of E. W., in which Mr. Sorrell is reported to have said : When the current fight is over we will sit clown with the producers and say, "This jurisdiction belongs to that union and this to another." And Mr. Roy Tindall, who was the assistant business representative of local No. 40, is f-eported to have stated on March 12, 1945, in Variety, 4 days after the so-called set decorators strike started : Tliis is a show-down and the time to settle jurisdiction which has been in everybody's hair so long. Now, when Mr. Sorrell was on the stand he attempted to justify — and I may say there can be no justification — for going out on strike on March 12, 1945, during the war, and in violation of contracts, pledges, and directions of the American Federation of Labor and during the very period when tiie National Labor Relations Board was conducting its hearings in this matter, by stating that there was no agreement on the i)art of Mr. Walsh or on the part of the producers to abide by the decision of the National Labor Relations Board. That attempted justification, like many other things which Mr. Sorrell undertook to defend or to explain, is completely without merit. In Variety of March 26, 1945, the following appears, and I quote : Following this huddle — The huddle referred to is a conference among I. B. Chadwick, the head of the Independent Motion Picture Producers Association. Mr. Mannix; of the major producers labor committee, and M-G-M, and Mr. Sorrell. Following this huddle at which Mannix is said to have repeated the previous declaration of producers that they stood ready to abide by a decision of the NLRB, Mannix proceeded to arrange a conference between Sorrell and Walsh at the Beverly-Wilshire Hotel. At the latter pow-wow, all three agreed to abide by the NLRB decision and for a few minutes it looked as though the studio pickets might be withdrawn. Then skipping a bit and continuing to quote : Sorrell qualified this acceptance, however, by stating before he made an agree- ment with Walsh the latter would have to settle his jurisdictional beefs with the carpenters, machinists, and so forth * * *. Now, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Walsh gave personal and specific instructions to Mr. Brewer and Mr. Brewer carried them out, and the record will show it. To clarify it — so that he who runs can read — the lATSE said they would abide by, nay, even insisted upon a determination of the National Labor Relations Board in the set-decorators' issue, and rather Mr. Sorrell stating that he would abide by it, not alone did he walk out 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 Rela- tions 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 jurisdic- tional 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 escutch- eon and I have no apologies to make for it. I did not generally repre- sent 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, per- sonal representative of President George E. Browne, of International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, again intervened in negotiations and insisted pro- ducers 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 toro\vne-Bioft' arm was still swinging in the lA. The tight of Walsh, his handling of the matter, its conclusion by the exec- utive council committee, will probably put an end to all such conjectures. Browne and Bioff have no part in the lA and certainly the lA wants no part of those gentlemen, which is another important burden lifted from the shoulders of the picture business. Walsh, through his conduct of the negotiations and his eventual show-down is now recognized as our most important labor leader, both by the organi* zations his unions serve within the industry, and by the men he leads. Now, what happened when Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Bodle were on the stand? Mr. Sorrell's comisel i-ead an article from the Los Angeles Daily News of November 14, 1947, in which it was gossiped that^ William Bioff was in Hollywood. I don't know whether he was there or not. I never saw tlie gentleman. I wouldn't recognize him if I saw him. ^But the significant part about it, which shows the malice behind the entire presentaticm, is that in reading this article of the Los Angeles Daily News of November 14, 1947, Mr. Bodle and Mr. Sorrell left out this paragraph, and I quote it to you : Obviously, Bioff was in town for a reason. Certainly he wasn't welcome in the councils of the union he once used to blackjack millions out of the movie industry. When yoii mention the name of Bioff in an lATSE meeting today, it is best to smile when you do it, and duck, too. Willie is as popular among his old pals as a boil on the neck. I point that out to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, because of the fact that Mr. Sorrell, when he took the stand, if he did not say so in so many words intimated and inferred — 1 thought he said so in so many words, but when T examined the record, I found out that those words were not there — that he accused Mr. Walsh and ]\Ir. Brewer of taking money from the producers. That is a serious charge. When I opened up this question of communism and I indicated that I wanted to bring in })roof on the question of connnunism. I was told by the learned counsel of this committee that I was present- ing a serious charge and that I would have to back it up — which 1 think I did. But Mr. Sorrell did not know,, no one pointed oitt to him the seriousness of the charge he was making about racketeering in the lATSE from the 9th of November 1941, until now. Then when he took the stand and the seriousness of the cliarges which he was making enveloped him to such an extent, as I would put it, and he could not meet the issue as we sought to present it, and M'hen he closed his testimony I urged — as the chairman did, too — now. you were on the stand for so many days in Los Angeles ; you have been on the stand for so many days in Washington. Do you have anything more to say? We want you to tell everything you have to say. He had nothing more to say. But he did bring out an old chestnut, as if it were new. Mr. Wal.sh had denied — and he is present here to be examined, as is Mr. Brewer, on that question, with respect to any money from the producers — so he brought in an old chestnut without mentioning that it was old. about certain moneys which Mr. Walsh received from the L\TSE 2-percent fund in years prior to 1941. 2352 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Sorrell did not tell you that on the 9th of April 1945, nearly 3 years ago, he had presented that matter and it was published in full in Variety. Sorrell lists checks he says Walsh got. He sprang it on the committee as if it were something new that he had discovered,, in order to indicate the peculiar conduct of the present head of the lATSE. Nor did he mention that on the next day, April 10, 1945, the fol- lowing appeared in Variety : Walsh Answers Sorreli, In answer to charges made by Sorrell Sunday night in which he declared^ Walsh had received thousands of dollars from the 2-pereent lATSE racket fund, the lA prexy last night issued the following statement : "The charge which Sorrell makes just goes to show how far he will go in trying to justify his action in tying up the studios. What possible bearing this matter covild have on his actions, even if it were true, he does not explain. So far as my personal record is concerned I can assure Mr. Sorrell if it is any of his business that every cent I have received from the International Alliance, with the exception of my own salaiy, has been spent in the interest of the Alliance. I defy anyone to present any proof to the contrary. "The Federal authorities who have investigated the entire Browne-Bioff matter have gone over my record with a fine-tooth comb. It has satisfied them. It has satisfied members of the lATSE who have twice elected me president." Parenthetically, there has been a subsequent election again. "Therefore, I am afraid it will have to satisfy Mr. Sorrell." Of course, that was brought out b}^ Mr. Sr)rrel] during the period of the strike for the purpose of trying to justify his unlawful conduct at that time. Now, I want to close this Browne-Bioff incident with a formal state- ment of the convention of the lATSE, which I think this committee should have before Ave again place Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer on the stand, so that any questions can be presented to them with respect to it. This statement Avas dated March 16, 1945. and was subsequently unanimously approved as presented to the convention by the conven- tion of the lATSE, and was signed by the entire general executive board, with Richard F. Walsh, international president, and all of the nine Adce presidents, and by the general secretary -treasurer. I think it is very important and A^ery serious. To the members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. Greet- ings: Because of the recent release from the Federal penitentiary of former Inter- national President George E. Browne, and his representative, William Bioff, the general executive board, at its recent meeting at Minneapolis, decided that' it should make plain, positive, and unmistakable, its position toAvard these two individuals who have betrayed and brought discredit to oiu' great alliance. William Bioff is not now and has never been a member of this alliance. George E. Browne, a former member of Cliicago Local No. 2, resigned his membership in the alliance at the request of a union investigating committee. Under inter- national law, before either Browne or Bioff can be admitted to membership into any local union of this alliance, the application for membership must be ap- proved by the general office. This is official notice to all local unions that such approval will not be given by the general office nor will either of these men be permitted to associate themselves with this international or any local union of the alliance in any manner or capacity whatsoever. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2353 This action, we hope, closes the door on a very unfortnnate, unsavory, and un- pleasant episode in the history of our alliance. There is evidence, however, that certain memhers of the alliance, in an effort to further their own personal ends, have recently sought to keep this unfortunate affair before the public. Such action on the part of any member or group of members of the alliance is a great disservice to our organization. This record which is now available to us proves without question that former President Browne most reprehensibly betrayed the trust wliich the officers and members of the alliance had placed in him. The executive board can understand the misgivings of our membership as to how such a situation as was revealed by tlie testimony given by Browne and Bioft" could have existed. The board can understand tlie feelings of the membership because the board is in ijrecisely the same position. In considering tliis situation our members must give full recognition to the fact that from the inception of the alliance the international president was. and is the administrative head of the alliance. The history of otir organization has proved the necessity and tlie desirability of placing major responsibility in this othcer and likewise givng him the power properly to dscharge that responsibility. Now that we can look back on the situation with the benefit of the information which we have been able to obtain, we can readify see that one of the most clever Ijarts of this conspiracy was to so conduct the affairs of the alliance as to make certain that the membership would be solidly behind Browne in the conduct of its affairs. The record which Browne presented to the board was most impressive. This was the same record which was presented to the various conventions of the alliance and which induced the delegates at Kansas City in 1936. at Cleveland in 19S8. and in Lottisville in 1940»to support Browne in the firm belief that he was handling the affairs of the alliance in the best interests of its membership. The Government, in its answer to the appeal of the underworld associates of Browne and Bioff, pointed this out. The brief says, in part : "Before the advent of Bioff and Browne it (the lA) had a long and honorable history. From the labor point of view, the lATSE had created an envialile labor record in the past 25 years with regard to hours, wages, and working conditions. As indicated below, this was maintained and even improved during Browne's reisiii as intf>rnational nresident " * * * "Factually, the record shows that repeatedly these confederates did things to further the legitimate aims of their union in a manner utterly inconsistent with any theory that they were acting to the detriment of union members." A review of the achievements of that period will indicate tliat the record was everything that the Government said it was. At tlie time, in 1934, that Browne was first elected president the fortunes of the alliance were at low ebb. We had lost control of the studios almost completely. The severe depression that con- fronted the motion-picture industry was threatening the future of many of our most .substantial operators' local unions. Tlie almost complete lack of stage shows had created a serious unemployment problem for our stage employees' local rinion. But by the time the 1940 convention had arrived great progress had been made. The studios were organized for the first time under closed-shop conditions better than we had ever had tliem liefore — not only for the lA but for mo.st of the crafts of the American Federation of Labor involved. The pictures coming out of the studios of all the nia.1or producers for the first time carried the lA union label. The laboratory worlcers ancl the hlm-exchange workers were organized and work- ing under closed-shop agreements. Generally speaking, the conditions in the ma.lority of our local unions were at an all-time high. At our conventions we beard Browne highly commended by the president of the Anierican Federation of Labor and by the presidents of other great labor organizations, and as a result ■of the fact that he had i-ebuilt the prestige of the lA Browne had been twice elected a vice president of the American Federation of Labor. Even representa- tives of our employers, whose testimony later helped to convict Browne, praised him before our conventions. Certainly, it seemed to everyone that the lA had again come into its own. In view of such a record, it is not surprising that the delegates to the conven- tion in Louisville in 1040 voted unanimously to support Browne. It is true that at that time rumors were being circulated alleging certain illegal conduct on the part of Bioff and intimating that perliaps Browne was involved. However, as tlie sources of these rumors were known to lie hostile to the lalior movement as ti whole, no recognition was given to tliem either bv the delegates or the officers of the lA. 2354 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I want to parenthesize by saying that I think a mistake was made. The executive board, like the delegates to that convention, did not take such attacks seriously, for before them was this record of achievement that far sur passed our fondest hopes in the dark days of 1034. Employers who pay off labor leaders, we concluded, pay them off for tearing down union conditions, not for buildin,i? them up as had l)een done during the past (> years. The same Government brief mentioned before described some of these achieve- ments as follows : "Among the benefits obtained by P.ioff and Browne for the union was a 10- percent raise in 1936 for the membership of the lATSE covered by the basic agree- ment and further raises of 10 percent in each of the following years: 1937, 1938, and 1939. Eighteen hundred laborers taken over l)y tlie lATSE on tlie west coast who had been getting 45 cents an hour were raised to $1 an hour. Make-up artists who had been previously getting as little as $45 a week were raised to a minimum of $115 a week. Raises and union recognition were even obtained by Bioff for unions not a part of the lATSE." Including Mr. Sorrell's own union, the painters' organization. "In ohtaJning an agreement with the producers that the lATSE emblem would be displa.ved on films, Bioff gave permanent assurance to his union that as long as the lATSE will control operators in theaters, films on the west coast will always be made by his nnioii. Sujjplementary to his control over the industry and to demonstrate his power, Bioff became the leader of all the unions dealing with the motion-picture industry in California, obtained raises for them, forced the industry to buy union-made supplies, barred Jhe distiibution of a trade pub- lication from studio lots until such time as it employed union labor, and appar- ently without knowledge on the part of labor leaders in California of his illegal activities secured tlieir adulation. Even a defense witness called to contradict portions of Bioff's testimonv had to observe that Bioff did a good job for the lATSE." That is quoting from the Government brief in the prosecutions of the gangsters connected with Browne and Bioff. Future developments proved that we were all deceived by the front which Browne had built. However, until the disclosures came out at the various trials there was no information availal)le which would justify our deserting the man under whose administration so much had been achieved for the lA and who. we felt, was under attack for those achievements. When evidenc;' to sustain these charges was available, the general executive board acted as i-apidly and as constructively as jiossible. The relatively minor effect which this shameful betrayal has had on tlie efft'ctiveness of our organi- zation is proof of the able and efficient manner in which the affairs of the alliance have since been conducted. When President Walsh assumed the presidency of the alliance he faced one of the most difficult tasks that any man in the labor movement ever faced. Because of the actions of his predecessor and the attendant publicity surround- ing those actions, many an accusing finger w:is pointed at the new president. But he did not hesitate. He took the job with all of its implications and has since devoted his every effort toward restoring the lA to its rightful place in the respect of honest men. In accomplishing this he has been as forthright and honest with the membership as any miin could possibly be. At the Columbus convention in 1942 he recommended that the 4-year term be changed back. to 2 years and insisted that all of the ofiicers resign to that convention and stand for reelection notwithstanding the fact that under the constitution they still had 2 years of their terms to serve. He recommended and worked for the passage of other amendments to the constitution which might prevent for all time the recurrence of such a situation as existed under Browne's presidency. Mr. Owens. Is all thir; in the Government's brief? Mr. Le\^". No, sir; I told you where the Government's brief ended. This is now in the statement of the convention of the lATSE. He spent long hours in traveling and conferring and in handling personally difficult problems throughout the alliance which were a source of difficulty. Also at the Columbus convention in 1942 be called an executive session of the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2355 delegates, which was in effect an open fornni of the lA for discussion of all matters affecting- the alliance, including tlie question of the 2-ijercent assessment. After several hours of discussion on these matters the delegates voted to adjourn the session and ever.vone agreed that the matter was closed. It is the considered opinion of the general executive hoard that no good can come to the alliance by trying to reopen it now. President Walsh is giving the alliance strong leadership and at the same time is maintaining a greater degree of democracy than we have ever had before. He is succeeding in his endeavors to undo the harm that has been done to our alliance but liis task is being made innneasurably harder by those who would seek to capitalize on our past misfortune. Our members should recall his closing words to the 11)42 convention in Columbus when he said : "I came to this convention not knowing just what was going to happen, but I came in with the thought in mind that we would go out of here with a clean slate and start off anew. Anything that happens from now on we, tlie ollicers of the alliance, are responsible for; we, the officers of the alliance, will have to answer for." For what has happened in the past we must all take our own measure of responsiltility, l)ut for what has happened since November !). 1!)41, when Presi- dent Walsh was elected, we, tlie officers, are making no apologies. In an organi- zation such as the I A the confidence of the meml)ership in its officers is a prereq- uisite to its success. Those who seek to undermine the contidence of the mem- bership in their officers are working for the destruction of the alliance. In this connection may we again quote President Walsh and ask you to give serious considei'ation to the closing words of his report to our recent St. Louis conven- tion. He said : "Lt»ok with suspicion on thctse who seek to plant the seeds of discord within our ranks !)y attempting to divide us liy ranging group against group. That way lies the road to disaster and disintegration. Now is the time to close ranks and solidify our position, to rededicate ourselves to the principle on which the alliance was founded and adherence to which has made it great — the simple, old adage of "one for all and all for one.' If we do this, nothing will be able to destroy the alliance, which means so nuich to us and our loved ones." The Browne-Kiolf incident in the life of the lA is closed. It is imjierative to the interests of the future of the alliance that the public be permitted to forget it. It is expected that this official declaration by the executive board will end this matter for good. General Executive Board: Richard F. Walsh, International President; Harland Holniden. First Vice President; William P. Covert, Sec- ond Vice President: Floyd M. Billingsley, Third Vice President; James J. Brennan, Fourth Vice Pi-esittent : R. M. Kennedy, Fifth Vice President; Felix D. Snow. Sixth Vice President: Carl G. (^ooper. Seventh Vice President : W. C Barrett. Eighth Vice Presi- dent; Louise Wriglit, Ninth Vice President; Louis Knmse, Gen- eral Secretary Treasurer. Now, I brin^ this to your attention, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, because the lA makes the very definite charge that the purpose of Mr. Sorrell in continnino; his attacks upon the lATSE with respect to the history of Browne and BiofF, is not done because he knows or has any proof or believes that there is racketeerinjj in the lATSP^ since November 1941, but because of malice in a desire to continue the turmoil in studio labor. While the convention felt in that declaration which I read to you that the Browne-Bioff incident ought to be closed and it ouo;ht not again to be rehashed in public view, I urged upon Mr. Walsh and he gladly consented that no congressional committee can properly investi- gate this situation unless we were willing to open the whole thing up; if there is anything wrong in the I ATSE under the present administra- tion we want to know it so tliat we can clean it up. One thing more about that incident, and I say this because I am a lawyer. 2356 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES One of the charoes that Mr. Sorrell made was that counsel for the lATSE on the west coast — Messrs. Bodkin, Breslin, and Lnddy — were also counsel for the lATSE during the time or a portion of the time that Messrs. Browne and Bioff were involved with the lATSE. From that he gathered that therefore the regime continued. That is on a par with Mr. Sorrell's charges against IMr. Denham ; on a par with Mr. Sorrell's charges against the National Labor Rela- tions Board ; on a par with Mr. Sorrell's charge against one of the most honorable judges in the United States, the senior district judge of the Southern District of Georgia, Hon. John C. Knox, when Mr. Bodle seemed to indicate in a mos^t Sorrellian smear tactic that there was some strange deal whereby Judge Knox participated involving Browne and Bioff getting a reduced sentence. I happen to know Judge Knox. We are not on the same side of the political fence, but there is no more honorable, no more able judge in all the courts of our country than John C. Knox. That type of swear ought to be rejected by any com- mittee investigating Mr. Sorrell, because now we have gotten to the l^oint where we ought to continue the investigation of Sorrell, and not worry too much about the jurisdictional labor dispute. What did he say about Mr. Luddy, Mr. Breslin, and Mr. Bodkin ? Anyone in California knows they are among the most outstanding lawyers in California. Mr. Breslin was president of the Los Angeles (Calif.) Bar Associa- tion. But it doesn't make any difference to this man Sorrell. He brought up something about the fact that the lATSE was con- tinuing to pay some bills for Browne and Bioff. I want- to tell you something about that. A California law\ver or tax expert by the name of Russell presented a claim against the lATSE shortly after Mr. Walsh became president. That claim resulted from the fact that he had represented the lATSE or represented Browne during the period that Mr. Browne was presi- dent. I think the claim was for something like $10,000. Far from paying it, Mr. Walsh asked me to instruct our counsel in California to contest it. He refused to pay it. The courts decided that the lATSE had to pay it, and we paid it only after judgment had been taken against us. My point is that Mr. Sorrell knows these things and when he quotes a portion of a newspaper or has his lawyer do it and ignores the fact that that same newspaper says Bioff is not welcome in the lA; when he ignores other facts which he knows, that to me is a clear indication of the policy and tactics of Mr. Sorrell, who has been flinging charges against the lATSE and thinking that he can live by those charges without proof, since 1941. Now, an interesting thing happened. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, which I want to bring to your attention, on the basis of Mr. Sorrell's testimony, because he made a great play about it. You will remember that when I first testified before you, I presented a dozen or a score of recognized Communist fronts in which Mr. Sorrell participated. He glibly had an explanation for each of them. One of them was, he was a friend of the fellow who brought him in. The other one was, that he was not a friend of the other fellow. In other words, he was brought in to one because he was a friend of Isserman ; he was brought in to support the Communist, McCormick, because he did not like Jack Tenney. There was always some excuse; MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2357 either lie liked somebody or did not like somebody, but there was always that excuse, on the basis of which he thought he would be able to put something over on this committee. Here is some documentary evidence on which I think he fell down a little bit. You will remember I had stated that the People's Daily World,, the Communist newspaper, had published an article on April 19, 1940, to the efl'ect — get the date, April 19, 1940 — to the effect that as a part of a Connnunist front — I claimed Mr. Sorrell had participated in a* ])eace strike in the colleges of southern California. That was during the Stalin-Hitler pact, as you will remember, and the Communists were all for peace. I stated that the article indicated, and I quoted from it, that UCLA — as we know now, that is the University of California at Los Angeles — "President Herb Sorrell, of Labor's Non-Partisan League, will be the speaker." I was sitting here when he answered that. He said, "Oh, I know that I wasn't there, because April the 18th is my birthday and I knew that 1 wasn't there on April 18." In compliance with the rules of the committee, I did not arise im- mediately to confront him with the facts, but I remembered it and made a note of it. This type of misleading conduct is what we have to confront with in order to get this information clarified. The article did not say that he spoke at UCLA on the night of April 18, his birthday ; the article stated that on April 19 there would be these rallies of these 12,000 Los Angeles students in the seventh annual national peace strike. He thought he fooled the committee,, but I do not think he did. Therefore, I got another article from People's World of April 18,. the day before, in which it is pointed out — and I want to add this to the exhibits before this committee — that the peace strike at which Mr. Sorrell was listed to s])eak was to be held on Friday, April 19, at 11a. m„ on the UCLA quad. It was obvious from any reading of the exhibit that no one claimed he spoke on the night of April 18. I point that out to you as one indi- cation, or, rather, an additional indication that we have to beware before we are taken in by a man like Mr. Sorrell. You have the exhibit before you of the People's Daily World of April 19, 1940, and I ask that there be marked as an exhibit, this People's Daily World of April 18, 1940. Mr. McCanx. iNIay that be received? Mr. Kearns. If there is no objection it will be received. (The paper was filed with the committee.) Mr. 0"\VENS. Mr. Chairman, there was a question raised as to every one of these things was to be answered. I did not state the law fully, but we understand the law to be if a man has made a false statement regarding a material issue that even a jury would be entitled to disregard all his other testimony unless it is corroborated by other good and competent evidence. Counsel having that in mind might be able to save us a great deal of time. Mr. Levy. I shall, sir. 2358 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I want to add one further thought, and then I shall present some exhibits to you. In his testimony Mr Sorrell denied that he was a sergeant-at-arms at the Communist Party couA^ention. He said some peculiar woman by the name of Vale had accused him of it, but that Rena Vale had gone to the insane asylum. The chairman and gentlemen of the committee will remember that. That was news to us. I do not think that even Mr. Walsh, Mr. Brewer, or I had ever been in touch with Rena Vale, but we came to the conclusion that we ought to get in touch with her. We did the best we could to ascertain her whereabouts. I want you to know that I can say on her authority that whatever efforts the Conmuuiists made because of her disclosures to the Tenney committee, to harass, annoy, and disturb her, they did not succeed in sending her to the insane asylum and in my judgment she will be appropriately available for any proceedings that your honorable com- mittee may undertake, in view of the existing situation in this investigation. Now, I want with some rapidity to present to you some additional material which has more lately come in with respect to Mr. Sorrell. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at that point may we have a definite statement that the lady is now at some specific [)lace, some })articular address, or that she may be communicated with ? In other words, you have left us still in the air as to where she is, or anything about it. Mr. Levy. I have made my statement, Mr. McCann, and that will be the statement I will make. Mr. Owens. The committee knows where she is, Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann. I am sorry, I did not know. Mr. Kearns. I am sure I don't know where she is. If you know, it is all right. Mr. McCann. The only point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that some of these things happen, and I know nothing about them. I am trying to make a record so that the committee may be able to contact her. Mr. Kearns. Well, I would like to be in on it, too. Mr. ( )wENS. Well, now, I have reference to the statements made that this woman was previously in danger. There is no reason to place her in danger by informing us as to her whereabouts. I am informed of her whereabouts, and I will place that at the disclosure of the committee. Mr. Kearns. All right. Mr. Levy. Now, as late as March 9, 1948, a meeting has been called by the Civil Rights Congress, so-called, Division of Mobilization for Democracy, called to emergency action conference. That meeting is called because five men have been arrested for deportation and are on a hunger strike. Those five men are Ferdinand C. Smith, John Williamson, Irving Potash, Charles Doyle, and Gerhart Eisler. This so-called emergency action conference by the Civil Rights Congress of the Division of Mobilization for Democracy is supported by our perennial friend, Herbert K. Sorrell. I ask that this be received as an exliibit. The winter, 1948, catalog of the People's Educational Center has already been published. Among the board of trustees of the People's MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2359 Educcational Center is listed Herbert Sorrell. I ask that that, together with the 194G catalog on which he was merely on the advisory board, be received in evidence, because he has appar.ently received a promo- tion from the advisory board to becoming a member of the board of trustees. Mv. Kearxs. No objection. (The documents were filed with the committee.) Mr. LE^T. This was extremely interesting to me. You have heard, Mr. Chairmah and members of the committee, the name of Dalton Triimbo. Mr. Dalton Trumbo, I think early in 1942, wrote an open letter to the American people. That open letter, crying for a second front, which was the Connnunist policy at that time, is supported by, among others, Herb Sorrell, president. Conference of Studio Unions. I ask that tliat be received in evidence. Mr. Kearxs. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. President William Green, I understand, in 1944, urged tlie Los Angeles Central Labor Council to amend its constitution so as to bar Communists. Among those who were listed in the People's World of June 6, 1944, as opponents of the Green move, is Herb Sor- rell, president of the Conference of Studio Unions. I think that ought to be received. Mr. Kearxs. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Lew. Without comment, I ask that the following be received, ill all of which Herbert K. Sorrell is listed as a sponsor, a participant, or the Conference of Studio Unions is so listed. The National Conference for Protection of the Foreign Born, call- ing a meeting in October of 1947. Mr. Kearxs, No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. Levy. xV. F. of L. committee for affiliation with World Trade Union Congress indicating one of the sponsoring of unions was the Conference of Studio ITnions, an undated cormnunication. Mr.'KEARxs. No objection. (The document was filed wnth the committee.) Mr. Levy. Civil Rights Congress, dated December 8, 1947. This is new material, sii-, not previously had. Mr. Kearxs. No objection. (The document was filed with the committee.) Mr. OwExs. I thought this was in the nature of rebuttal. Mr. Levy. All I say is that Mr. Sorrell said, " 'taint so", or he had exjslanation. We asked for new material from California and we got it in. I am very regretful that he found it necessary to suit his own con- venience and to leave Washington. Meeting for the Congress on Civil Rights, April 27 and 28, 1946. Mr. Kearxs. No objection. f The document was filed Avith the committee.) Excerpt from Variety, March 11, 1943, showing that the Confer- ence of Studio Unions protested the deportation of Harry Bridges. Mr. Kearx^s. No objection. 2360 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIO XAL DISPUTES (The document was filed with tlie committee.) Mr. Levy. Sorrell apparently' considers himself a proponent of civil liberties because some of the explanations which he made were on that basis. In my judt^ment when we examine the civil-rights cases in which he is involved they always turn out to be in behalf of persons who are- Communists or who are approved by the Communist Party. I respectfully submit that we know from the recent tragic experi- ences throughout the world that when the Communists seize or achieve powers the civil liberties of all but the pro-Stalinist bureaucracy are dead, and the Communists prate about civil rights in our democ- racy, in my judgment only the better to destroy our very democratic- way of life. Mr. Landis is not here at the moment, sir. but I asked^-I think at a time when Mr. Landis was presiding — that he ask for — and I think perhaps, Congressman Kearns, you did — obtain from the files of the Committee on L^n-American Activities its dossier on the Communist affiliations of Herbert K. Sorrell. I suppose that ought to be pre- sented in full to the committee so that that entire record will be avail- able to every member of the committee when that is to be studied. If you wish for me to go into that now. sir, I can. Mr. Kearxs. You may, or you may submit it for evidence. Mr. Levt. I think, sir, it ought to be presented not merely as a ref- erence exhibit, but ought to be presented and I will undertake to doi that. ]\Tr. Kearns. No objection. Mr. McCann. You mean you have the dossier of the Un-American Activities ? Mr. Levt. I have a copy of it. I do not have the original. Mr. McCann. That is odd; we have never gotten anj', and I did not know anything about it. Mr. Le\t (reading) : Information From the Files of the Committf.e on Un-Amebtcan Activities. United States Hot^se of Represes^tatives. on the CoMMt'Tfisr AFFrLi^TiONS of Herbert K. Sorreel Herbert K. Sorrell is business representative for the Motion Piotiire Painters Local 644, Brotberhoorl of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhanjjers of American Federation of Labor, and he is also president of the Conference of Studio Unions. He is reported to have joined the Brotherhood of Painters in 1915 and begran the organization of the Conference of Studio Unions, which he heads, in 1941.. He led two recent strikes in the motion-pictnre industry. The files, records, and publications of the Committee on Un-American Activities contain the following information concerning the Communist-front affiliations of Herbert K. Sorrell. 1. Her))ert K. Sorrell never to our knovpledge publicly admitted membership in the Communist Party. However, the California Committee on LTn-American Activities lias a photostatic copy of Herbert K. Sorrell's application to join the Communist Party under the name of Herbert Stewart. Handwriting experts have identified the writing on the application as that of HerV)ert K. Sorrell. May I interrupt to say, sir. that this dossier wa";; iirenared prior to- the report of the FBI, which has been presented b}' the honorable chairman of this committee some day last week. Sorrell admitted to the California Committee on Un-American Activities that his mother's maiden name was Daisy Frances Stewai't (194.S rei)ort, p. 9.5). Rena M. Vale, former member of the Communist Party, testified to the California MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2361 Committee on Un-American Activities that "Herb Sorrell. business agent for the Studio Painters Union, was resarded as the only Communist Party comrade iu an American Federation of Labor union in Los Angeles who could put over the entire party line iu his union." Rena M. Vale further testified that in connec- tion with a session of the Los Angeles County convention of the Communist Party at 121 West Eighteenth Street, Los Angeles, "I recall that Herb Sorrell was 7: President Walsh charged that Mr. Sorrell is a Communist and at one time tried to knock out the A. F. of L. law where you cannot have Communists in the council there. He contended that Mr. Sorrell supports everything that Harry Bridges sets out to do. Page 1)9 : Vice President Weber stated that lie lives in Beverly Hills and knows the situation out there in Hollywood and stated plainly what is involved. He contended that the organization formed by Mr. Sorrell out there was for the purpose of breaking down the international organizations in the studios which is what Sorrell is out for. He stated the Communists are trying to use the Com- munists in the organization to break the power of our international unions in the studios. Tlie council considered the matter for some time. Extracts From Digest of Minutes of Executive Council of American Federation OF LABOR, Altgust 0 TO 14, 1945, Chicago, III. Pages 8, 9, and 10: President Green reported that the following letter was received from President Walsh : New York 20, N. Y., June 6, 19',5. Mr. George Meany, Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Lnhor, Washinf/ton J, D. C. (Attention of the executive council.) Dear Sirs and Bkothers : Because of the very serious nature of the situation existing in Hollywodd, I felt it de.;-iral)le to call the general executive boai'd of our international tcgether before replying to your recent letter. We held a meeting last week and the matter was completely canvassed in all of its various ramifications. The board members were of the unanimous opinion that everything honor- ably feasible to solve this matter, in cooperation with the officials of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, should be done in order to retain the close relation- ship which has existed between the International Alliance and the American Federation of Labor over the past 50 years. I want to assure you that every- thing we can possibly do to accomplish this end will be done. There are, however, a great many problems connected with the situation in Hollywood which the board feels must be considered and to attempt any uni- lateral action on our part such as you propose in your letter would in their opinion not only not solve the existing problems but would undoubtedly create additional problems for the American Federation of Labor as well as the Inter- national Alliance. The general executive board members asked me many ques- tions pertaining to the Hollywood motion-picture studio situation, some of which I could not answer. I have accordingly been requested to write you in order to get the desired information. Among the questions which must be an.swered before any real solution to the problem can be found are the following: MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2363 2. What will the iiiternatioiml unions involved do toward assuming the respon- sibility of disciplining their locals with respect, first to jurisdiction ; secondly, in violating their no-strike pledge; aud, thirdly, in seeing to it that tlie policies of the American Federation of Labor are carried outV Tlie Conference of Studio Unions, which called this strike has been a front organization for the enemies of the American Federation of Labor since its inception. It has consistently fol- lowed the Conununist I'arty line and has shown great sympathy and interest in the cause of the Communist-dominated CIO movement in southern California. When we called this matter to the attention of the otiicers of these international unions we were told by some of them that they could not C(»ntrol their local unions. As a nuitter of fact, the Painters International Union did order its local here not to strike, but the international order was defied. It iseemed to us that these international unions who are making complaints against the International Alliance must assume responibility in this situation if they are to make demands upon us through the American Federation of Labor. As we have previously mentioned, it is obvious to anyone who will permit himself to look, that the Conference of Stxidio Unions which called this strike has been used as a Connnunist-front organization to bore from within, destroy, and discredit the American Federation of Labor. The line which they have followed has been a program of agitation against the policies of the American Federation of Labor and the international unions affiliated with it. They have preached autonomy to the members and have tried to teach them to resent any action of the international unions in the same way that the Communists preach about democracy^only as a pied piper slogan in order the more easily to capture or destroy . This in our judgment has been done for the sole purpose of preparing the memliership of these unions to swing into the Connnunist-dominated CIO when these leaders felt the time was ftpportune. It is our opinion that the lATSE is one of the very few unions here which support the American Federation of Labor, and we are without question the bulwark of the American Federation of Labor strength in the motion-picture industry. If any action is taken blindly by the American Federation of Labor that would destroy the power of the lATSE or even materially weaken it, the only union which would ultimately benefit would be the Communist-dominated CIO movement in southern Cali- fornia. Fraternally yours, [seal] Richard F. Walsh, International President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. President Green stated that the question the council should consider is that be- cause of the seriousness of this whole situation and the wide publicity given to the case in Hollywood, it is of sufficient reason to ask President A\'alsh and his associates to come to Chicago to go over the m-atter with the council. Pages 99-100: I'resident Walsh contended that the communistic element out there is an issue in this case. He stated he received a telegram from Hollywood in regard to a meeting Herbert Sorrell had last night at which there were two CIO speakers. Representative Roy Brewer made a detailed statement charging that there is danger from the Communist element out in California. He stated he has been on the coast since the day after this strike started and the threat of the Ct)m- nmnist movement in Hollywood is very real. He charged that this threat is more than just a rumor, and contended that every one of the charters which the painters have issued in Hollywood are dominated by Communists ; that they have control out there : that they have conti-ol out there is absolutely unbelievable and amnzing. Mr. Brewer expressed the opinion that the lATSE is the only bulwark that is keeping the A. F. of L. in the studios and if the lATSE is destroyed and if Herl)prt Sorrell is permitted to destroy the movement, as he is trying to do, then the Communists will have complete control over the studios. Mr. Brewer pointed out that the nrotion-picture industry is the greatest propa- ganda agency in this country and the Connnunists have recognized that. Mr. Brewer presented excerpts from a publication from the People's Educational School in Hollywood which he stated is a Comm-unist-front school. He named prominent motion-picture personalities who have made appearances at this 2364 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES school. * * * He contended that all of these people have public appeal and carry Influence. He stated that the lATSE has tried to the fullest extent to uphold the traditions of the A. F. of L. in the studios, l)ut they will not follow the party line and that is the reason for this trouble. I'ages 101-102 : President McFetridge of the building service employees union made a statement urging that action be taken by the council today if the A. F. of L. is going to remain the organization in soutliern California, and particularly in the motion-picture studies, and he stated that some authority should be given someone, whoever it may be, a couMuittee or individual, to investigate this situation. President McFetridge stated the trouble is of long str-iding and it is not only the set designers' controversy, but it goes back further than that. ******* Representative Beck of the teamsters made a statement in which he said there is truth in the statement that there is a concerted and positive trend to com- munism in the entire area of southern California. He stated that it is im- portant for the future to settle this thing by some method of give and take. He stated that the CIO in the western part of the United States had made practically no progress whatsoever, and he si-oke in detail of the work the teamsters have done in this regard. Mr. Beck urged that the A. F. of L. send some man in whom we have confidence to Hollywood to make an investigation. President Brown of the electrical workers made a statement urging that an honest effort be made to settle this situation. Vice President Bates stated that he is convinced that what adjustment is made will have to be made by somebody in authority from these international unions to act in a supervisory capacity and to remove tlie Com'munist influence, which nobody can deny is there. Tliere was further discussion of the conditions existing in southern California by the representatives present. Page 128 : Tuesday afternoon, August 14, 104.5. Meeting called to order at 2 : 40 p. m.. President Green in the chair. Present : •Green, Hutcheson, Woll, Weber, Bugniazet, Bates, Mahon, Knight, Birthright, Meany. Absent : Harrison, Tobin, Flore, Brown, Doherty. Vice President Woll called attention to the fact that at the hearings held on the lATSE case, the Communist situation in Los Angeles was brought out and emphasized. He suggested that someone be appointed to look into the Com- munist situation in Los Angeles. President Green stated that he is rather of the opinion from the expressions of the council that we favor the appointment of a committee to make an in- vestigation and report to the council. Vice President Birthright offered a motion that a committee be designated to investigate the matter and bring back a report to the council. Vice President Hutcheson asked if it would not be more ethical to notify each international who is involved out there of the statements that have been made and ask them for a statement as to whether the accusations are so or not. President Green stated it would be expected that the committee would consult with representatives of the natioiml and international unions and get all the information they could from them because they are close to the picture and would be able to give information that cannot be secured from any other source. Vice President Hutcheson stated that in the carpenters' organization any man who is a Communist and it can be proved, out he goes, and he cannot con- tinue membership in the carpenters' union and be a Communist. After further discussion a vote was taken on Vice President Birthright's mo- tion. The motion was carried. Vice President Hutcheson voted in the negative. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2365 Extracts From Digest of Minutes of Executive Council of American Federa- tion OF Labor, October 15-24, 1945, Cincinnati, Ohio Pages 9-11 : * * * President Green reported that he has received the following letter from President Walsh : Int»:rnational At.ttance of Theatrical Stage Ejiployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, tfcio York, N. Y., October 12, 1945. Mr. William Green, "■• President, American Federation of Labor, M^'ashington 1, D. C. Dear President Green : 3. After I attended the meeting of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor in Chicago in August, I was informed that the executive council had decided that a committee of responsible representatives of the American Federation of Labor would be appointed by you for the purpose of making a thorough investigation and inquiry of the labor situation in Hollywood studios in view of the communistic and CIO infiltration among certain American Federation of Labor local unions there, the refusal of such local unions to abide by the rules of tneir international organizations, the defiance of such local unions of the decisions of the American Federation of Labor, and the failure of such local unions to carry out the policies of the American Federation of Labor on domestic and intei'national matters, and in some instances organizing and supporting viewpoints directly opposed to that of the American Federation of I>abor. I know from what you told me that you contemplated appointing such a ctmunittee soon, but I was (-(jinpellel to report to our general executive board at our last meeting, that no committee to that effect and for such purpose had yet been appointed. I desire to point out that the failure to appoint such an investigating committee for a thorough inquiry is, in my opinion, indicative of the unwillingness of the American Federation of Labor to face the serious situation confronting the bona fide labor movement of the west coast and will not aid in the settlement of the jurisdictional differences in dispute. I want to reiterate that I am prepared at all times on behalf of our organi- zation to do all that is feasible within the honor of a responsible labor organi- zation to resolve whatever disputes there may be between ourselves and any other legitimate labor organization. I think you will recognize that only by negotiation in good faith can be arrive at an appropriate conclusion. Ignoring the facts, fostering enemies within the family of labor, using force or political pressure — none of these things will have any effect upon our organization. We aim to do what is fair and just. We hope that the other organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor will do the same. On behalf of our organization I want to express to you our appreciation for your interest and many courtesies. Fraternally yours, Richard F. Walsh, International President. The council discussed the matter. Mr. Levy. I am o;oing to ask, with your permission, that Mr. Brewer continue readino; this for a few moments, Mr. Kearxs. Very Avell, Mr. Brewer (reading) : In his book. Red Fascism (p. 287), the chairman of the California committee pointed out that Herbert K. Sorrell had been identified by Rena M. Vale as active in the Unemployed Conference of Studio Unions, which Miss Vale said the Los Angeles Communist Party Trade Union Commission counted on to put over the Communist Party prograuL Life magazine for March 24, 1947, page 34, described Herbert K. Sorrell as a Conmiunist Party member. 2. Herbert K. Sorrell has come to the support of the Communist Party on at least one occasion. When J. W. Buzzell, secretary of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council, introduced a resolution and report at the forty-third annual con- vention of the AFL State Federation of Labor in Long Beach, Calif., in Septem- 67383— 48— vol. 3 55 2366 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES ber 1942, calling for national legislation against the Communist Party, Mr. Sorrell protested, saying "If this didn't come from a union man I would say it was subversive." This was reported in the People's World, official west coast Communist organ for September 28, 1942. 3. Herbert K. Sorrell has supported or defended a number of prominent individual Communists. He was an endorser of Mrs. LaRue McCormick, when she was a candidate for State senator in California, on the Communist Party ticket in 1942, according to the People's World for October 31, 1942, page 3 and October 24, 1942, page 5. He signed a petition demanding the release from prison of Earl Browder, then general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, according to the People's World for September 24, 1941. Harry Bridges, who led the disastrous San Francisco general strike of 1934, has been identified as a Communist Party member by the Daily Worker, official organ of the Communist Party. The People's World for January IS, 1945, reported that Herbert K. Sorrell did work with a Bridges victory committee, then being organized by Bartley Crum in Los Angeles to fight the threatened deportation of Harry Bridges. Mr. Sorrell was a member of a California sponsoring com- mittee of the Harry Bridges Defense Committee, according to an otficial letter- head of the organization dated August 24, 1939. He also was a signer of letter sponsored by the Harry Bridges Defense Committee, according to an official list of the signers, and according to an article in the Worker of July 19, 1942, page 4. Herbert K. Sorrell was a sponsor of the Schneiderman-Darcy Defense Commit- tee, according to an undated letterhead of the organization. William Schneider- man was a Communist Party organizer and Sam Darey was a Communist Party secretary for Pennsylvania. Mr. Sorrell also was an endorser of the Committee for Citizenship Ri'-!:hts, which was avowedly organized to oppose the threatened revocation of citizenship of William Schneiderman, according to letterheads of the organization dated January 10, 1942, and January 27, 1942. The Los Angeles Times for May 25, 1941. reported that Herbert K. Sorrell would be a sponsor of a testimonial banquet at the Wilshire Bowl in Los Angeles on June 2, 1941, in honor of Leo Gallagher, a Los Angeles attorney, who is regis- tered member of the Communist Party, and candidate on the I'arty's ticket for California Secretary of State in 193S. 4. Herbert K. Sorrell has also been affiliated with organizations which special- ized in the defense of Communists. Official literature discloses that Mr. Sorrell was a sponsor of the Southern California branch of the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties. The National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, noted for its defense of Communists, was cited as a Communist front by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in reports of June 25, 1942 and March 29, 1944, and by the Committee on Un-American Activities in reports of June 12, 1947, and September 2, 1947. Attorney General Francis Biddle said, in speaking of the organization : "The defenses of Communist leaders such as Sam Darcy and Robert Wood, party secretaries for Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, have been major efforts of the federation" (Congressional Record, September 24, 1942). Mr. Soi-- rell was also a sponsor of the Sleepy Lagoon Defense Committee according to committee stationery put out in June, 1944. The Sleepy Lagoon Defense Com- mittee was an auxiliary of the International Labor Defense, properly termed by Attorney General Biddle as the "legal arm of the Communist Party." 5. Herbert K. Sorrell has supported the official west coast Communist organ, People's World, on numerous occasions. According to the issue of the publica- tion for July 9. 1943, Mr. Sorrell was one of the endorsers of a prowar conference held on August 4, 1943, in order to raise funds for the paper's operation. The publication for June 29, 1943, page 1, reported this message from Mr. Sorrell : "Even the labor leaders who don't agree with .vou, read the People's World to know what is going on." The People's World for July 24, 1944, page 4, listed Mr. Sorrell as a supporter of the "current $75,000 victory Spanish drive of the People's World." G. Among tlie recent strike activities of Herbert K. Sorrell was a strike called in the motion-picture studios by the Screen Set Designers, Local 1421, on Mai'ch 12, 1945. The Peoiile's World, official west coast Communist organ, criticized Mr. Sorrell editorially on March 15, 1945 for conducting a strike during wartime. The publication said that the responsibility of the union leadership involving the strike was particularly heavy since the Conference of Studio Unions and its leader, Herbert K. Sorrell, had established a record of progressive and patriotic unionism. The editorial continued, "therefore when this group sanctions strike action it seriously compromises its own prestige, and delivers a heavy blow at the nonstrike policy." Hollywood Closeup, a publication of the International MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2367 Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, AFL, pointefl out in its issue of December 15, 1945, page 3, that the People's World began supporting Sorrell and his strike after July 1945 when the party line changed. The Hollywood Close- up cited a recent advertisement in the People's World which stated on behalt of the People's World : "Congratulations — Hollywood Strikers : On your victory which is a victory for the workers and the people everywhere in their struggle for democracy, liiglier living standards, and job security." Hollywood Closeup stated that the same People's World advertisement quoted Sorrell as saying : "By its honest and sympathetic support of our struggle to preserve domestic trade unionism in Hollywood, the Daily People's World has earned the support of our union members." The Sorrell strike was settled on Octobei" 12, 1915, with a National Labor Relations Board ruling that Local 1421 of the Painters Union was to be certified as bargaining agent for the striking employees." Mr. Levy. Now, Mr. Chairman, instead of continuing to read the 18 separate items and paragraphs of this dossier, I ask that it be deemed read and included in the record at this point. Mr. Landis. No objection. (The matter referred to is as follows :) Considerable violence characterized the above strike and an investigation to see whether a break-down in law and order had occurred in tlie strilve was ordered by the California State Legislature, according to the Los Angeles Herald Express of November 8, 1945. According to the Los Angeles Examiner of November 8, 1945, Vern llasmussen, Glendale police chief, was one of the wit- nesses before the California State Assembly committee investigating the break- down of law and order. Rasmussen, according to this newspaper account, testi- fied that one of the picket lieutenants at the Warner Bros, studio strike was Tony Schiavone, a former San Quentin convict, and that another of the pickets was K;nil Freed, wi'iter and publisher of the Fifty-ninth Assembly District Coiii- munists Club pamphlets which list Freed as head of the club. The Los Angeles Examiner for February 26, 1946, reported that the State supx'eme court in San Francisco had denied a writ of habeas corpus to Herbert K. Sorrell and had ordered him to serve a 16-day jail sentence for violation of a court restraining order. This jail sentence, plus a $1,700 fine, had been imposed on Sorrell by Superior Coiut Judge Allan W. Ashburn, for violating a resti'aining order and engaging in rioting in connection with the above strike. The Los Angeles Times of May 15, 1946, reflects that Herbert K. Sorrell had also been prosecuted for rioting in connection with the film strike and picketing at the Warner Bros, studio- in October 1945, and that he had been sentenced to serve 5 days in jail and pay a $50 fine by Judge Raymond L. Reid of the probate California police court. The se<:-ond recent strike led by Herbert K. Sorrell began on September 2T, 1946, and is still in progress. A jurisdictional dispute, like the one previously referred to, the strike has been directed mostly at the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, AFL, and the battlefield has been located chiefly at the entrance of the Warner Bros, studios, according to the California Conmiittee on Un-American Activities (1947 report, p. 172). The Communist Party in Los Angeles has pledged its support to the striking unions with the declaration that the Marxist theory of scientific socialism provides the answer to "the fight of the labor movement for its just demands." according to an editorial from the Hollywood Citizens-News for .January 21, 1947. Support has also come from the Daily Worker, oflicial Communist Party organ, which in its issue of June 19, 1946, stated that "Sorrell has carried on an experieuf'ed battle for his union against raiding tactics of reactionary leaders of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees." The California Committee on Un-American Activities meanwhile further stated that "The Conference of Studio Unions, headed by Sorrell, on strike for over a year, is Communist-dominated, inspired, and directed for the purpose of captur- ing the American Federation of Labor unions in the motion-picture industry"' (1947report. p. 370). In connection with this current strike, Herbert K. Sorrell was indicted in November 1946. on three counts of conspiracy to violate an injunction, conspiracy to commit imlawful assembly and con.spiraey to attempt to commit assault, accord- ing to the People's World for August 14, 1947, page 3. He is scheduled to come to trial on November 3, 1947, the new.spaper said. Roy M. Brewer, international representative of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators, AFL, 2368 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES testified before the Committee on Un-Americau Activities on October 28, 1947, that Herb3i't K. Sorrell had conducted four jurisdictional strikes in the motion picture industry ; a brief strike in 1944 ; an S-month strike called on March 12, 1945; a 2-day strike called on July 2, 1946; and the current strike called on September 26, 1946. Mr. Brewer stated that he believed the strikes were part of Communist plots to control the motion-picture industry as a whole. Mr. Brewer said part of the plan "as we see it, was for Communist forces, led by Mr. Jeff Kibre, Communist agent sent to Hollywood in 1935, and his successor, Herbert K. Sorrell, to infiltrate and control Hollywood technical labor * * *." Walter E. Disney, part owner of the Walt Disney Studio, told the Committee on Un-American Activities on October 24, 1947, that Herbert K. Sorrell, in trying to "take over" Disney artists, threatened to strike against Disney, to smear him and to "make a dust bowl" out of the Disney plant. Mr. Disney testified that at one time Herbert K. Sorrell said to him : "You think I am a Communist, don't yruce Minton. A booklet announcing the curriculum for the winter of 1947, listed Herbert K. Sorrell as a member of the advisory board of the People's Educatioiial Center. A catalog for the 1947 fall term listed Herbert Sorrell as a member of the Center's board of trustees. 13. At the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, held in Moscow in 1935, George Dimitroff, general secretary, called upon all affiliated Communist Parties to make the greatest efforts in behalf of the compaign of the Spanish Communists. A number of projects wei-e organized by the Communists in resi)onse to this request, and among them was the United Spanish Aid Com- mittee. An official letterhead of the (»rganization carried the naine of Herbert K. Sorrell as a sponsor of the west coast branch of the United Spanish Aid Committee. 14. The Motion Picture Democratic Committee was cited as a Communist front by the Committee on Un-American Activities in the report of September 2. 1947, and also by the California Committee on Un-American Activities. Melvyn Douglas and Philip Dunne resigned from its executive board because of its Communist control. Official stationery of the organization lists Herbert K. Sorrell as a member of the executive board of the Motion Picture Democratic Committee. If). The Holloywood Democratic Committee was the successor to the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League which was organized by Isaac Romaine, alias V. J. Jerome, member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Hollywood Anti-Nazi League dissolved during the time of the Stalin- Hitler pact. Official literature of this organization listed Herbert K. Sorrell as a member of the executive board of the Hollywood Democratic Committee. 16. The Labor's Non-Partisan League was the Communist-controlled predeces- sor of the CIO Political Action Committee. Earl Browder. then secretary of the Communist Pai-ty, said in May 1937, that the league must become "the main stream heading to class political action, just as the CIO is now the main stream for organized labor," and instructed the Conmuinists to work closel.v for the organi- zati'ii. Tl'o leag^'p was descrilied as affilia*^ed with the CommuTiist Party bv the Los Angeles County Council (J. H. o'ConiKir). Herbert K. Sorrell was State president of Labor's Non-Partisan League in California in 1940, according to People's World for May 2, 1940. 17. The Los Angeles Times for March 8. 1947, reported that a mass meeting welcoming Herbert K. Sorrell would be held in the Olympic Auditorium on March 9, 1947, and would feature Philip M. Connelly, who was lending his 2370 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES support to Soi-rell. Philip M. Counelly, head of the California State Industrial Union Council CIO, has been identified by Rena M. Vale, former Communist Party member and others, as a member of the Communist Party. Mr. Sorrell also served as sponsor of a committee which was set up to promote the election of Mary Dorothy Connelly, wife of Philip M. Connelly, to the board of education, according to an undated leaflet. 18. The American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born, which specializes in defending such foreign-born Communists as Gerhart Eisler and Harry Bridges, was cited as a Communist front by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities on June 2.5, 1942, and March 29, 1944, and by Prof. John Dewey's Committee for Cultural Freedom in April 1940. Herbert K. Sorrell was a sponsor of a national conference held by the American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born, on O-Jtober 25 and 26, 1947, in Cleveland, Ohio, according to an official program of the conference. Mr. Levy. In order to proceed in some order I want to take up the question that was presented with respect to the War Labor Board Tongue decision, in the early part of 1945. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, tliat in the early part of 1945, and as a result of the strikes called by local 1421, the National War Labor Board, which was then in existence, appointed an arbitrator by the name of Tongue to attempt to resolve the controversy respect- ing the set dressers. The lATSE maintained — and I think properly — that the War Labor Board was not the legal or proper tribunal to go into this matter and that it was without jurisdiction to determine the question of repre- sentation involved, particularly in view of the fact that it was the position of the lATfeiE that set dressers appropriately belonged in a different unit than that claimed by local 1421. Now the Tongue award has been offered in evidence in full by Mr. Bodle on behalf of Mr. Sorrell, and I think also on behalf of Mr. Cobb. Therefore I want to pay some attention to it. I want to emphasize that the lATSE did not participate in the arbitration proceeding before Mr. Tongue, except to the extent of voicing its objection to the matter of jurisdiction. I think investigation will show there was a barrage of repeated threats by local 1421 to strike even before the 12tli of March 1945, pending the Tongue decision, and notwithstanding the wartime emer- gency, unless a favorable decision Avas rendered by the arbitrator. An award was finally made sustaining local 1421's contention in part, but the award expressly provided for leave to appeal and stated that the award should continue only until such time as the National Labor Relations Board assumed and determined jurisdiction over the representation question. Now the interesting thing about this is that on behalf of the lATSE I, or my representative in California, promptly filed an appeal to the National War Labor Board. That was before March 12, 1045. Why do you think, sirs, that the National War Labor Board did not decide that appeal? This is the first time this has been disclosed in these weeks of hearings and it is important. The rule of the National War Labor Board was that if a strike took place all of its machinery would stop; it would not process the ap- peal. The result was that when Sorrell and his cohorts went out on strike on the 12th of March 1945, the appeal which we took to upset the illegal award, because of lack of jurisdiction of Mr. Tongtie, could not be heard by the National War Labor Board. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2371 In other words, because Mr. Sorrell went out on strike after he liad received a favorable decision from Mr. Tongue, we were not per- mitted to prosecute our appeal, not because of anything that the lATSE did, but because of something which Mr. Sorrell himself did. In a telegram dated March 21, 194:5, to Herbert Sorrell and the Con- ference of Studio Unions and local 1421, the then chairman of the National War Labor Board, the Honorable George W. Taylor, stated in just so many words that it would not take any action with respect to the petitions while tlie strike was in progress, and directed the strike to end; but because of the fact that the continuance of the strike, ac- cording to SorrelFs lights, continued to preserve the legal benefits of the Tongue decision, we were powerless to prosecute the appeal before the National War Labor Board and to show that the National War Labor Board had no jurisdiction in the premises. If we may, I should like to break into my testimony so that we can hear in part from Mr. Brewer, then I will continue after Mr. Brewer ceases. J\lr. Brewer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by saying that I have been accused here of a lot of things by Mr. Sorrell. While I recognize the significance and the remarks of Mr. Owens about the discrediting of a witness on one portion of his testimony tending to discredit his testimony on all matters, I still think there are some charges made here which I think it is important the committee hear, so that they might not carry away with them some wrong impressions in regard to these wild and unsubstantiated charges which Mr. Sorrell made. I will reduce my testimony to those points which I think are impor- tant to give you a clear understanding of what the situation is and will not attempt to just deny charges because there are denials. However, I would like to say at the outset that if there are any points Mr. Sorrell made which any member of the committee is par- ticularly interested in, that we stand ready, willing, and we believe fully able to answer any of the charges which he made with regard to the conduct of our organization in this strike. I first of all want to say that Mr. Sorrell in his charges certainly attempted to convey the idea to this committee that I, as a representa- tive of the international alliance, had carried on in the same fashion as Willie Bioff carried on. I want to deny that categorically and without any qualification whatsoever. I want to say in the first instance that I never saw Willie Bioff to talk to him. The only time I ever saw him was from the floor of a convention when he was on the platform at one of the conventions which I attended as a delegate from my own local union. I never conversed with him. I knew nothing about his activities of my OAvn first-hand knowledge and I know nothing about his activi- ties at this moment. I have not seen him or heard from him either directly or indirectly since I went to Hollywood and I have stated, as President Walsh has stated, that if there is any influence on the part of Willie Bioff or any of the element which he represented in the Hollywood studio situation, I will either eliminate it or promptly resign. 2372 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I want to say also that Sorrell pictured me as an individual, in his own Avords, as being the most unpopular man in Hollywood; that I had never been elected to any office; that no member of the alliance had ever voted for me. That is the impression which he gave. I want to say in response to that charge that I earned a reputation in the labor movement in America before I ever held an official posi- tion with the international alliance. With the exception of one special assignment which was given me in 1944, I held no official position with the international alliance until 1945. The major portion of my history as a labor representative was earned in the State of Nebraska, where I lived from the time I was born until 1943, when I moved to Washington to take a position with the Federal Government. I was a president of the State branch of the American Federation of Labor for 8 years. I was elected to that office every year that I served. With the exception of the first time I ran I had never had an opponent and was elected by the unanimous action of the convention of the State federation of labor, which embraced all branches of unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. I came into this industry as a projectionist. I started as a pro- jectionist when I was' 16 vears old. I joined the lATSE when I was 17. The following year I was elected an officer of the State federation of labor. I have constantly held an official position in some American Federa- tion of Labor union since that time, with the exec])tion of the period when I served in the War Production Board in Washington during the years of 1943 to 1945. At the time I was appointed I was the secretary of the ninth district, which is a suborganization of the lATSE. The lATSE is divided into districts. Each of the districts elects its officers. I was the elected officer of the ninth district of the lATSE, elected in 1940, elected in 1942, elected again in 1944. I was elected by a substantial majority the first time in 1940, and without opposition in 194'i and 1944. That is one of the largest dis- tricts in the alliance. It embraces nine of the Midwestern States, in- cluding the States of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois, all of them to- gether comprising one of the largest areas in the alliance. So that the impression which Mr. Sorrell gave that because I at this moment happen to occupy a position which traditionally has been an appointive position, that I was an interloper is a completely false one. My whole life since I was 17 years old has been spent as a member of the alliance and has been spent in some official capacity with the la- bor movement of this country, with the exceptions that I have noted. I might also say in view of these charges that so far as I know I was the youngest man ever to be elected to the presidency of a State federa- tion of labor, when I was elected at 23, in 1923, to the office of president of the Nebraska State Federation of Labor. So as I say, my reputation so far as the American labor movement is concerned, was earned and I think it was a good reputation that I will challenge anybody to deny, and before I ever went to Hollywood in 1945. I knew when I went to Hollywood that these charges would be made, but I had lived in my organization long enough and I had a high MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2373 enough regard for it that I Vias willing to endnre the smear campaign that 1 knew would come and the associations which would try to be made with me, in the interest of restoring our organization in Holly- wood. I want to say also that I am not sorry that I went there ; that I am sure the history of the next few years will vindicate my position and that I Avill be able to make a real contribution to a constructive labor set-up in the Hollywood motion-picture studies. Now there are a great many points Mr. Sorrell made which ought to be answered. Some of them deal with individuals with whom I have contacts so I want to clear up a couple of points with regard to at least two individuals, against whom Sorrell made serious allega- tions which were not true. I particularly want to take up the case of Cappy DuVal. Cappy DuVal has been pillorized by Sorrell not only in these hear- ings, but in every method that Sorrell and the Communist underground m Hollywood could pillory him. The ])rincipal reason why he has been the subject of their attack is because of the stability with which he stood out against the efforts of the Communist underground and the forces with which Sorrell was associated to destroy sound labor unions in Hollywood. He made the statement that DuVal had been brought to Hollywood from Chicago; that he was appointed to his office and that he could not be elected to his office, and made many serious charges like that. I want to give you the facts with regard to DuVal's history, so far as Hollywood is concerned. DuVal was ap]:)ointed by the secretary-treasurer of the alliance in 1936 to go to Chicago along with three other international members or members of the international alliance to help administer the new contract which had been put into effect. The reason they found it necessary to take someone in Hollywood was because the producers objected to them setting up a system of stewards. The local union which embraced most of the back lot em- ployees was a local union of 9,000 members. Most of them had come in recently as a result of this reorganization and there was a serious administration problem confronting the officers of the local. So DuVal was appointed and went there to help administer that local. In 1938 the local was turned back to the local officials. After the contract had been put into sha]:)e and it had become a functioning institution, an election was held and the local officers were placed in charge. At that time Mr. DuVal went back to work in Chicago as a stage- hand, where he had 2:)reviously been employed before going to Hollywood. His family did not like it in Chicago and in order to please them he went back to Hollywood and went to work at his trade in the studios. He worked along and shortly after he went back this second time these locals Avere reorganized and local No. 44 of the lATSE — which is the local embracing the alHed-property craftsmen in the studio — was organized. DuVal became a member of that local and continued to work at his trade as a property man in the studios. 2374 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES In 1940 a vacancy occurred in the office of business agent of local 44, and the elected officials of local 44 asked Mr. DuVal to serve out that term. He accepted that post and did serve out the term, then he stood for reelection. The first time he stood for election in local 44 was in 1941. Here is the actual number of votes which he received. He received 439 votes ; an opponent b}^ the name of Smith received 148 votes, and an opponent by the name of Bradfield received 131 votes. Mr. Kearns. Who held this representative post for the union before DuVal came there? Mr. Brewer. Ted Hansard. Mr. Kearns. Did he run against him here ? Mr. Brewer. No; he did not. He was removed from office in the local union as a result of a fight. He got into a fight Avith someone — I do not know the exact details of it- — but he was removed by action of the executive board of the local union and Mr. DuVal was chosen by the same officers to fill out that term. Mr. Kearns. And the post was really vacated when DuVal ran? Mr. Brewer. He was appointed to fill out the unexpired term, then he filed for election. Those were the votes. He got 439 Azotes as against 148 and 131. or he got more than both of his opponents combined. Mr. Kearns. What kind of an election was that, a secret ballot? Mr. Breaver. It is a mail ballot — no; I am sorry. At that time it was not a mail ballot. It is the Australian system. Each member comes to the A^oting place, gets his ballot, goes in and marks his ballot in secret, almost exactly in the same manner as you vote in an ordinary municipal election. The second election was held in 1943. He again had Iavo opponents. This time he received 462 votees. A fellow by the name of Magginetti received 2GG and a third man by the name of Crawford received 24. So there again he got a substantially larger number than both of his opponents put together. I might say in this election he was actively opposed by Mr. Sor- rell and the group which represented him through their tactics on the lots. NoAv at the time of this revolt which I described earlier, when Irving Henschel and the group he represented attempted to inter- fere with the activities of the international in prosecuting the strike, DuVal was the business agent of the local. When the international took superAdsion over the local as the result of the actions of Henschel and his group, DuVal and all the other officers of local 44 were ap- pointed to continue running the affairs of that local union. I will say that the international has exercised a minimum of con- trol. The situation there is very peaceful and is going along satis- factorily to the vast majority of the members. I want to say further — and I say this personally — I never knew DuVal until I went to Hollywood, but he is one of the most honorable men I have ever knoAvn. He is completely honest. He is about as basically honest in the little things as any man I haA'e ever known. I say the charge Mr. Sorrell made against him is as completely a false charge as anyone who really knows Cappy DuVal can testify. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2375 Mr. Kearns. Mr. Brewer, at this time I would like to have you and Judge Levy relinquish the witness stand to take the testimony of another witness. Mr. Brewer. All right ; thank you. Mr. Levy. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. Thank you. Mr. John R. Robinson, are you in the hearing room? Mr. RoBiNSOX. Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. ROBINSON, OOMPTON, CALIP., FORMER PRESIDENT, DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 4, MARITIME FEDERATION OF THE PACIFIC (The witness was duly sworn.) Mr. Kearns. As chairman of this subcommittee I am in receipt of a telegram from the Honorable Thomas L. Owens, of Chicago, 111., which reads as follows : Can identify Sorrell's Communist membership card as shown to me by him during 1937 studio stril^e in attempt to convert me. Can furnish detailed in- formation covering this testimony as published, as I was very active in conduct of strike. Signed by you, John R. Robinson, 1200 South Dudley Street, Comp- ton, Calif. Is that a correct statement of the telegram ? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. Is that a correct statement of the telegram as you received it ? Mr. Owens. Correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. I^ARNS. Mr. Robinson, at this time you may proceed in your own way to give any testimony or any evidence which you wotdd like to present to the members of the committee. Mr. Owens. Possibly it would be a good idea to get his background first. iSIr. Kearns. All right. Mr. McCann, will you establish the iden- tity of the witness ? Mr. McCann. Mr. Robinson, you have given your address where you now live? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. What is your business or occupation ? Mr. Robinson. I am with the Bechtel Corp. Mr. McCann. How long have you been employed by them? Mr. Robinson. I went to work for them about the 5th of January, Mr. McCann. 1948? _ Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Where were you employed prior to that time? Mr. Robinson. Prior to that I was with the Stone & Webster Engi- neering Corp. Mr. McCann. For how long were you employed by them? Mr. RoB^NSO^-. I went with them the 1st of February and left them on the 21st of Dv^^cember. Mr. McCann. Of 1947? Mr. Robinson. Of '47. Mr. McCann. Prior to that by whom were you employed? 2376 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. EoBiNSON. United States Navy. Mr. McCann. How long were you in the United States Navy? Mr. Robinson. Three and one-half years. Mr. McCann. Did jou serve overseas for them ? Mr. Robinson. I was at the Terminal Island Navy Shipyard. Mr. McCann. You worked in the shipyards at Terminal Island? Mr. Robinson. Yes. 1 was a turbine expert for them. INIr. McCann. Were you a member of the union there ? Mr. Robinson. No ; I was not. Mr. McCann. And you Avere employed by them in a civilian capacity ? Mr. Robinson. Yes; civil service. Mr. McCann. What time did you go to work for them? Mr. Robinson. -I haven't the exact date but I was with them for 3% years. Mr. McCann. Prior to that time where were you employed ? Mr. Robinson. I was with the United States Maritime Commission and was at sea for some time prior to that. Mr. McCann. In what capacity ? Mr. Robinson. With the Slaritime Commission I was a senior ma- chinery inspector ; a shipyard inspector. Mr. McCann. Where were you located there ? Mr. Robinson. At the shipyard at Terminal Island and then I was out as a marine engineer for a short period of time at sea. Mr. McCann. What ship were you with? Mr. Robinson. The last one I had was the Topela for the Richfield Oil Co. Mr. McCann. Were you employed by the Richfield Oil Co. ? Mr. Robinson. Yes. Mr. McCann. How long were you with them? Mr. Robinson. I was with them only about 3 or 4 months; then I was with the Pennsylvania Shipping Co., on whatever ship they would assign me to. Mr. McCann. You were with the Richfield Oil Co. during the 3 or 4 months then ? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. You gave the names of two ships that you were on ; is that correct? Mr. Robinson. Well, I was on three or four ships altogether. Mr. McCann. With the Richfield Oil Co.? Mr. Robinson. No; with the Pennsylvania Shipping Co. I was on several of their ships. Mr. McCann. That is a different company than the Richfield Oil Co.? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. How long were you with the Pennsylvania Ship- ping Co. ? Mr. Robinson. Possibly 6 or 8 months was all. Mr. McCann. In what capacity? Mr. Robinson. Marine engineer. I just took relief jobs. I might explain my short period of time there. I would only go out in a relief capacity. When they were short of an engineer I would jump in and take a ship for them, get the cargo delivered and get back again. It was only in relief work. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2377 Mr. McCann". During all of this time did you live in the same place? Mr. RoBiNSOx. No ; I was living at Gardena then. Mr. McCann. Gardena, Calif. ? Mr. Robinson. Yes. Mr. McCaxn. Wliere is that located ? Mr. Robinson. That is about 5 miles, 4 or 5 miles from where I live now. I owned a home over there. I sold that and bought the one at Compton. Mr. McCann. How long have you lived in California, sir? Mr. Robinson. Since 1931. Mr. McCann. TVliere were you educated ? Mr. Robinson. Duluth, Minn., and Milwaukee. Mr. McCann. Are you a college man ? Mr. Robinson. No, sir. I have attended engineering school, but I have no college degree. Mr. McCann. Prior to the employment with the Pennsylvania Ship- ping Co., where were you employed? Mr. Robinson. Prior to the time I went with Pennsylvania Ship- ping I was with the Maritime Commission. Before that I was 71/2 ye^n's with the city of Los Angeles. Mr. McCann. In what capacity ? Mr. Robinson. Senior engineer for the bureau of construction. IVIr. McCann. In the city of Los Angeles ? Mr. Robinson. For the city of Los Angeles ; yes, sir. ]N!r. McCann. If you know, give us what years you worked with them. Mr. Robinson. Well, I started with them in '37 ; '37, '38, '39, '40, and '41, and I left them to go in the Government service after the war started. ISIr. McCann. If you don't mind, give us the beginning and the end, if you can. You said you were with them 7I/2 years, didn't you ? Mr. Robinson. It started in 1937. The exact date I do not remem- ber. It was in the latter part of the year sometime. Mr. McCann. The latter part of '37? Mr. Robinson. Yes. Mr. ]\IcCann. And you were with them then until '4G ? Mr. Robinson. No ; '42, when the war came on. Mr. McCann. I just wanted to get that accurate. Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. I thought you said you were there 7i/^ years. Mr. Robinson. I thought it was 7 years — oh, prior to that I was with the bureau of power and light. I was with the bureau of power and light of the city of Los Angeles for about 8 months on a frequency change job. Mr. McCann. 'VYliat year was that ? Mr. Robinson. That started in '36. I was out of the city's employ for about 6 months. Mr. McCann. You started to work for the city of Los Angeles in 1936? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. You worked for them for 8 months ? ]Mr. Robinson. Then I was out for about 6 months. Mr. McCann. Then you were out for about 6 months and went back to the city of Los Angeles and worked for 7i/2 years ? 2378 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. EoBiNSON. Well, until 1942, when I went into the Government service. Mr. McCann. I am not trying to confuse you, sir. I just want to get an accurate, chronological story here. Mr. Robinson. I understand. Mr. McCann. Prior to 1936 where did you work ? Mr. Robinson. From 1934, at the time of the maritime strike after the strike was settled I was with the Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso- ciation as organizer. Patrolman was the title they put on it. Upon the formation of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific, in addition to my duties as patrolman for the marine engineers, I was president of District Council No. 4 of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific. Mr. McCann. Is that an AFL organization ? Mr. Robinson. No; it was not AFL. The marine engineers, dur- ing my time with them, were strictly an independent organization with aiRliations only with the Big Four Brotherhoods. But all of the other organizations in the Maritime Federation were AFL organ- izations. There wasn't any CIO at that time. Mr. McCann. Did you have any business experience prior to that time? Mr. Robinson. I was a marine engineer prior to that since — I re- ceived my first engineer's license in 1919 and alternately went to sea and worked ashore as a stationary engineer, power plant engineer. Mr. McCann. When did you move to California ? Mr. Robinson. 1931. Mr. McCann. Could you start with your experience in California then and just give me the experience that you had in California from '31? Mr. Robinson. Yes. I went out to California in 1931. I was about 3 months recuperating. I had been quite sick. When I got back on my feet I went to work for the Union Oil Co. I was with the Union Oil Co. for about a year. It was a very slack time, as you will remember. I was laid off but the engineer with the Union Oil Co. obtained another position for me with the Chile Steam- ship Co. I stayed with the Chile Steamship Co. until they sold their ships. Mr. McCann. When was that ? Mr. Robinson. That was in '33, the latter part of '32 and the first part of '33. Mr. McCann. Did you know Charlie Sherman with the Union Oil Co.? Mr. Robinson. No ; I don't. Mr. McCann. He was vice president there. I wondered if you knew him. Mr. Robinson. No ; I did not. That was a little above my head. Mr. McCann. What did you do after the Chile Steamship Co. sold out? Mr. Robinson. I went with the Gulf Refining Co. Mr. McCann. How long were you with them ? Mr. Robinson. I was with them up until the 1934 strike. That was the forepart of 1934. Mr. McCann. Where was that strike? Mr. Robinson. It was all over the Pacific coast. Mr. McCann. How long did it last ? MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2379 Mr. RoBiNSox. Well, I was involved in it for about 4 months. Mr. McCanx. On behalf of the strikers? Mr. RoBiNSox. Yes. I came off on strike and stayed with the strike. After that strike then we had another strike along about '35, what they called the tanker strike. Of course, I was a patrolman. INIr. JNIcCaxn. Were you involved in that? Mr. Robinson. Yes ; I was involved in that. Mr. McCaxn. Did you ever belong to the CIO or the AFL? Mr. Robinson. There was not any such thing as CIO at that time. Mr. McCann. You did not belong to the AFL at all? Mr. Robinson. No; not at that time. I belonged to the marine engineers. As I say, they were unaffiliated. However, they are at the present time a CIO organization. Mr. McCann. Tell us how active you were in that strike? Mr. Robinson. Well, I was a total stranger there with the boys when I came ashore. I was just another engineer. Through my as- sistance in the strike and so forth, I was quite active and fairly well able to speak. At the strike termination they decided to set up a federation of some kind for all the maritime unions, including the longshoremen and everybody. I was elected as a delegate for the marine engineers to go to San Francisco for the formation of this federation as a delegate. ]\Tr. McCann. What year was that ? Mr. Robinson. That was in '35. We were quite some time de- ciding what we were going to do and so forth. We did not know how we were going to go about it but we finally came out with a con- stitution and set it up. We submiitted it to all the different organiza- tions on the whole Pacific coast. It was finally endorsed by the mem- bership. Then we held an election of officers, Harry Lundberg of the Sailors Union of the Pacific was elected as the first coast president. Harry Bridges was elected as president of the San Francisco Bay area district and I was elected for the southern California district. Mr. McCann. Then you are personally acquainted with Lundberg, of course ? JNli". Robinson. Oh, yes ; he is a personal friend of mine. Mr. ]\IcCann. And Harry Bridges? Mr. Robinson. Yes — I would not say the same thing about Harry Bridges, but Harry Lundberg and I are very, very close friends. Mr. McCann. Go on and give us your experience from then on. Mr. Robinson. From then on I had quite a time. All my life I have been very much opposed to communism as a theory. I opposed it in the labor movement very seriously and fought it. We had a pretty good organization on the coast that was able, for the coast as a wliole, to keep the Communist element pretty well subdued. Harry Lundberg, Fisher from Seattle, myself down in San Pedro, we were quite active in keeping the Communist element subdued, every place except iri San Francisco. Mr. ]\[cCann. You were living at San Pedro then? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. As a representative of the union there? Mr. Robinson. That is right. 2380 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. Proceed. Mr. Robinson. Then it got pretty strong, of course. We were pretty much on the spot in those days. In fact, I was on the spot— — Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to clarify this. Mr. Kearns. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Yon were at San Pedro ? Mr. EoBiNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Ow^ENs. Mr. Fisher was up at Seattle ? Mv. Robinson. That's right. Mr, Owens. Lundberg was between San Pedro and Seattle? Mr. Robinson. He was all oA^er the coast, he was the coast president. Mr. Owens. Then you are intimating the difficulty was at Frisco, where the fourth man was, Harry Bridges ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. Owens. That is where yon were having the Communist diffi- culty ? Mr. Robinson. We had Commmiist trouble all over the coast. They would receive their instructions from San Francisco and then try- to carry them out down in San Pedro and disrupt our set-up there. At that time we had the longshoremen. Of course, the sailors' union has always been, since Harry Lmidberg has been the head of it, an anti- Communist group. My organization up to that time had been too, but in San Francisco our national committeeman — I wouldn't say he was a Communist but he was certainly under the control of the Bridges element. Well, I fought them as long as I could. As long as I was in the organization I was twice elected president there. Mr. McCann. What years were you president ? Mr. Robinson. '35 and '36. Mr. McCann. Go ahead. ]Mr. Robinson. Of course, we used to have our spies in the Com- munist Party just the same as they had in our organizations. We used to try to find out what they were doing and they used to catch us some- times, too. At any rate, they had to get me out of the movement. Like a lot more of the boys, they finally got us all. except Harry Lundberg. He is the only one of our old group that has been able to hold out against them. Mr. McCann. You mean the Communists managed to get you thrown out? INIr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Were you defeated in '37 as president ? Mr. Robinson. No ; I was not defeated. I have been dropping down so fast my ears are blocked up and I cannot hear very good. I am sorry. No; it was in '36. I was never defeated in an election at any time in the San Pedro area. I will say that I had the good will of all the members of all the unions in San Pedro. But through Mr. IMerriweather, who is the head of the engineers for the coast, he figured a way to get rid of me. He made a trip around and called on the executive board of the marine engineers around the whole country and told them that I was MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2381 a disrupter, because I had opposed his policies in tlie marine engineers. Mr. McCaxn. Was Mr. Merri^Yeatller a Communist ? Mr. EoBixsox. Xo. I would not say Mr. Mel'ri^yeatller was a Com- munist. That I don't know, but he did take his instructions from the Bridges o-roup. Mr. McCann. Didn't you just tell us you were elected as president? Mr. RomNsoN. President of the federation, that is right. Mr. McCann. In San Pedro for 2 years ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. '35 and '36 ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. How did they get you out of an elective job in '36? Mr. Robinson. Just the same as they got me out of my membership in the marine engineers. They went through the simple process of having the executive board cancel my membership in the marine engi- neers without any trial and without any hearing. In fact, it was done right here in Washington, while Mr. Brown was president of the marine engineers at that time. They just cancelled it. They found a slight discrepancy that the president of the local in San Pedro had made in my application and they used that as the basis to cancel my membership. Mr. McCann. Who is the president of the national organization today ? Mr. Robinson. Today I do not know who the president of the na- tional organization is but Randolph Merriweather in San Francisco runs it. I don't know what his position is today because I have been out of it so many years. I have stayed away from the waterfront, with the exception of twice filing application to see if I could get back and had them reject me again. Mr. McCann. The national organization has its headquarters in Washington, is that right ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. They used to be and I presume they still are. Mr. McCann. What is the name of the national? Mr. Robinson. Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, better known as the MEBA. I have my own membership card in my pocket. Here is my honor certificate from the mairne engineers. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I will read this into the record. It says: HONOR CERTIFICATE ^lariiie Engineers Beneficial Association, Inc., No. 79, 605 South Beacon Street, San Pedro, California, hereby extends its expression of appreciation and vote of thanks to our lo.val brother, .Tohn R. Robinson, a member of Marine Engiiieer.s Beneficial Association No. 79' for his valuable services and sacrifice for the order during the 1935 tank-ship trouble. Edward H. Shea, President. Harry Norman, Secretary. Dated this 18th day of .June 1935. Now, will you proceed and tell us what you did after you were thrown out of that organization in 1936? Mr. Robinson. Well, having my membership cancelled in the marine engineers automatically removed me from the Maritime Fed- eration. Several other unions offered me membership in their or- ganizations: the shipyard workers and several of the other organi- 67383 — 18 — vol. 3 56 2382 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES zations wanted me to stay in and offered me membership in their organizations, but the principle of it was wrong because I am a marine engineer and a ship's officer and I did not feel that that would be right ; it would be more or less of a subterfuge and sooner or later it would cause trouble. Mr. McCann. Proceed now. Mr. Robinson. So I resigned as president of the District Council No. 4. At that time I was considered Harry Bridges' biggest op- ponent on the Pacific coast, that is, I led the opposition. Harry Lundberg was a very able sidekick of mine, and Bill Fisher, of Seattle. I represented the engineers, Harry Lundberg the sailors, and Fisher the longshoremen. Mr. McCann. What time did you resign ? Mr. Robinson. I haven't got the exact date but it was in '36. Mr. McCann. Was it in the fall, the spring, the summer, or when? Mr. Robinson. I think it was along in the latter part of the year. Mr. McCann. Then what did you do ? Mr. Robinson. Well, I was without a job, of course, so I went up to the Board of Mechanical Engineers of the City of Los Angeles and took the examination as a stationary engineer; I passed it, and in due time received my license as a stationary engineer and obtained a position with Mission Dry Corp. as stationary engineer. I was also with the Pepsi-Cola Co. Mr. McCann. How long were you with the Mission Dry Corp. ? Mr. Robinson. I was with them on two different occasions. They process orange juice and during the processing seasons I put in two seasons with them. Mr. McCann. Was that the winter of '36 and '37 or when was that? Mr. Robinson. That was the winter of '36. Mr. INIcCann. Were you with them the winter of '37 ? Mr. Robinson. No ; when I finished that first period with them then I went on the frequency change job for the city of Los Angeles bureau of power ancl light. Mr. McCann. How long were you there ? Mr. Robinson. That was about an 8 months' job. Mr. McCann. When did you start and when did you get through ? Mr. Robinson. I am not exactly sure of that, because I would have to check back. That was about an 8 months' job to convert from 50 to 60 cycle the whole city of Los Angeles. Mr. McCann. Then what did you do ? Mr. Robinson. I worked at the Mission Dry Corp. for a short time. I had joined the International Union of Operating Engineers during the time that I was a stationary engineer. I had only been in there a short time and Charlie Knowlton, the business agent of the operating engineers, of course had heard of my reputation on the water front, my activity and strife and so forth. We had — when I say "we" I mean the engineers local — had quite a number of members in the studios, employed at the studios as engineers. At that time they were forming an organization. They wanted to form an organization patterned after our American Federation. He asked me if I would not go out with them to one of the meetings of all the representatives of the various studio unions and lend them some MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2383 advice as to how they could go about the formation of the federation. I did. I gave him an outline of what we had gone through in the maritime industry. Mr. McCann. When did you do that ? Mr. Robinson. That was in, I would say, the latter part of 1936. It was while I was employed with Mission Dry and was working at the time as a stationary engineer. Shortly after that — I don't remember just how long it was, but it don't seem to me that it was over 6 weeks or so after I had been out — that there was a strike called in the studios of all these organizations that had been in there. I believe the only ones that were not involved were the lATSE and the electrical workers, the IBEW. They did not participate. However, the carpenters, the machinists, painters, and all the other crafts, including my own, went out on strike. That was the first I knew about it when I read about it in the paper. Mr. McCann. You are talking about your own as the stationary engineers ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. They went out on strike ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. McCann. All right ; proceed. Mr. Robinson. I think we had some 42 men involved in that strike. Mr. McCann. Proceed. Mr. Robinson. Then 3 days after the strike was called — no ; 2 days after the strike was called — I attended a meeting at my local. Mr. McCann. What was the name of your local ? Mr. Robinson. International Union of Operating Engineers. I think it was local No. 63. Mr. McCann. Are you still a member of that ? Mr. Robinson. No ; I am not. I have been away from the stationary game for some time. Mr. McCann. Go ahead. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Knowlton, as the business agent, was not a very good speaker. They were going to have a meeting of all the strikers at the Hollywood Legion Stadium the next evening. He told me the membership at the local that while I was not an officer of their organ- ization or anything of that kind, I had been very helpful to them at the previous meeting out in Hollywood and that he would like to have the organization authorize me as a delegate to go to that meeting at the Hollywood Legion Stadium, for the operating engineers. He asked me if I would do it and I assured him that I would be glad to. Any- thing that I could do to help them I would be glad to do. I appeared at that meeting that night. My organization being the smallest organization numerically involved in the strike, we were tiie last ones to be heard, so it gave me a pretty good idea of what was go- ing on in the strike. I could see that there wasn't much coordination because I heard the representatives of all the other organizations talking. It appeared to me that if they continued the way they were going the strike was going to fall apart, and undoubtedly it would have. In fact, I think quite a few of tlie boys had gone back to work already. Finally they got around to my organization and Mr. Knowlton, as our business representative, got up and said he would like very much 2384 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES to have nie speak for the engineers. He gave an introduction and told about my past experience with the maritime industry. From what I had sized up of the other speakers, the other repre- sentatives' talks, they only seemed to have a grasp of their own indi- vidual union's troubles; they did not seem to grasp the entire picture. One seemed to be going in one dii'ection and the other in another. Well, I got up intending to talk for about 10 or 15 minutes. I never realized the time, but I guess I talked for about 2 hours. I gave them a pretty good picture of how if they wanted to win that strike they would have to go about it. Well, out of a clear sky after the meeting was adjourned they liter- ally dumped the strike in my lap and asked me if I would not cooperate with the strike committee in an advisory capacity and point out the pitfalls to them and help them get the strike working on a business basis. That was about 3 o'clock in the morning that this occurred, this meeting at the stadium. I went home and got a few hours' sleep and got back down first thing next morning. Incidentally I lost out on my job because of not being there for it — I passed up work. I had quite a chat with the boys there. I said I would like to take a trip around the studios and see just what was going on, how they were conducting the strike. Mr. McCann. At that time you were working for whom ? Mr. EoBiNSON. I was working for tlie INIission Dry Corp. JNIr. INIcCann. And you passed up your job there? Mr. KoBiNsoN. Yes. Itwas just about the tail end of it. Mr. McCann. So you did not go back there but you went out on this strike line at the studios? Mr. Robinson. Well, I went up to strike headquarters. They took me in a car and made a round of all the studios. It was— excuse my sailor term — but it was the damnedest mess I ever saw in my life. This organization had no system to the picketing. Nobody seemed to know there would be a big mob — that's all you could call it — at the studio gates. INIr. Owens. In other words, it was massed picketing? Mr. Robinson. It was not pic keting at all, it was just a mob. That, of course, I knew would never do. That was customary at every studio, excepting one, and that was Warner Bros. When I got to Warner Bros, studio they had a picket line there that v/as functioning perfectly, with military precision, at each one of the gates. They had them all fully covered. They were really doing a fine job of picketing. I was quite surprised after seeing the rest of them, particularly at Paramount. That was really a mess do^yn there. Of course, I did not know any of the people involved in this strike. They were all strangers to me. Mr. Kearns. Pardon me there. Were you paid ? Mr. Robinson. No, sir; I never received 5 cents. I just went up there to help the boys out and never received a dime at any time for my assistance in that strike. In fact the boys didn't have anything to give me. I was just a union man and wanted to help them out. I asked who was responsible for the fine picketing going on out at that studio. Thev said, "Oh, there's a painter by the name of Herb MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2385 Sorrell.'' So we stopped and I was introduced to him. I complimented ]iim on Avliat a nice job of picketing they were doing there and how well they had handled it, then went back up to strike headquarters. They asked me what I thought of it, and I said, "You are going to have to straighten those picket lines out or your strike is going to dissolve. For one thing you are going to have a lot of people in jail." I said, ''You are not doing anj^ picketing, you just have a group of mobs out there. My suggestion would be that you get hold of that fellow that is the picket captain out at Warner Bros., get him in here and let him appoint his lieutenants and teach thein all how to picket and get the picketing going on like that at all of the studios." Mr. Owt:xs. How long did you talk with Sorrell at that time? Mr. IloBixsox. Oh, that was just merely an introduction out there. Mr. OwEXS. That was 11 years ago. What did he look like? Mr. RoBixsox. Well, he had a busted nose, cauliflowered ears. I have seen pictui'es of him recently. He has probably put on 60 or 70 pounds since I saw him at that time. Mr. OwEx^s How tall a man was he then ? Mr. EoBixsox. How tall ? Mr. OwExs. Yes. Mr. RoBixsox. Oh, I imagine Herb must be about 5-10, 5-10 or 11, something like that, I think he told me he used to be a middleweight boxer at one time. That would put him in the category of around 160 or 65 pounds, although he weighed a little more than that then. He probably weighed 185. They sent right out and got Herb and bi'ought him in. I had quite a chat with him then. I told him that I had recommended to the strike committee that he be appointed as picket captain for the whole group of studios. They immediately appointed him to that job and authorized him to go ahead. Understand, I had no authority in it at all. All I did was give advice. Mr. Kearxs. Sort of like a coordinator? Mr. RoBix^sox". That is right, because I had held no official position with any union. I was just a member of the engineers. They had requested that I come in and act in an advisory capacity and that I did. They followed my advice and appointed Herb as the picket captain. Prior to that I "don't believe Herb had any official status in the painters' union at all. He was not on the strike committee. I believe that was his introduction to leadership in the union, so far as I know. Of course, I was not in the painters' union, but he was just a picket captain and a painter at Warner Bros., so far as I understand. Well, he appointed his own lieutenants for each studio and in- structed them on how to conduct the picket lines, and so forth. It didn't take him long to get things well organized. In fact, about 4 or 5 clays later he and I made a round of all the studios to see hoAv the picket was progressing and it was very orderly. The boys hadn't gotten into trouble. They had a couple dozen of the boys pinched but it was for minor offenses that we were able to clear up. Mr. McCaxx. Could you give us some date on when this was? Mr. RoBixsox. Well, if you know the date of the time of the strike — understand, at that time there was so much confusion there — if you can trace the date of the strike, I can give you the time wdien the strike was called. 1 came into the picture 3 days after it started. 2386 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCanx. Three days after the strike was called you came into the picture? Mr. Robinson. I came into the picture at the Hollywood Legion stadium. The fourth day was the day I made the rounds of the picket lines and met Herb Sorrell and he was appointed picket captain for the entire strike. Mr. McCann. You made him what he was then, didn't you? Mr. Robinson. Well, more or less when I took him out of the picket line, Mr. McCann. Proceed, then. Mr. Robinson. Well, he was quite proud of the result. Of course, as I say, I did not know anything about any of the boys up there then. They were all strangers to me. I met all the boys out there but I met so many of them I could not remember half their names. I think I knew most of the boys who were business agents. They came too fast for me. But the strike was progressing very nicely. So this day Herb and I made a trip around the picket lines. Mr. McCann. How long after you met Herb was that? Mr. Robinson. That was about 4 days. Mr. McCann. Four days after you met Herb ? Mr. Robinson. It had only been 4 or 5 days he had been conducting the picketing and had it organized. We made the rounds of Para- mount, RKO, and all the rest of the studios, out to Culver City, and then over into the Valley, Universal, Warner Bros. After making the round I went up to Herb's home at Burbank and we started back to the strike headquarters. Mr. Owens. You went to his home, you say ? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Did he have a family at that time ? Mr. RoDiiNstvc. Yes, sir. He was married and I think he had one youngster, if I am not mistaken. I think he told me he had one youngster. Mr. Owens. Did you meet his wife or his youngster? Mr. Robinson. I believe I did. I was in his home, but he just stopped to pick up something. It was just a moment's stop there. Mr. Owens. Just a casual visit ? Mr. Robinson. A casual visit. It didn't amount to anything. He said he wanted to drop up to the house before going back to the strike. Of course. Herb didn't know anything more about me than I knew about him, excepting the fact that I had been on the water front. So on the way back he asked me how I happened to get out of the water-front picture. "Oh," I said, "I had a little disagreement with the Communist group, didn't see eye to eye with them, and they boosted me." So we got into a discussion about the Communist Party and the labor movement. I said, "Well. I never trusted them very much; it is my opinion that the ConimuK'st Pai-ty is the worst enemy of organ- ized labor that I know of and all the chambers of commerce, merchants, and manufacturers, and like organizations that there are." Well, we had quite a discussion on it. Then he finally said, "Well," he said, "I don't believe it. In fact, I am a member of it, I am a member MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2387 of the Communist Part3^'" And he pulled out his membership card in the Communist Party and showed it to me. Mr. OwExs. What did it look like ? Mr. Robinson. It was in a little folder — he had his billfold and it was in a little folder. Mr. Owens. Was it wliite or blue? Mr. Robinson. Yes; I believe it was white. The thing I noticed in particular on it was his name and we kidded about it. Mr. Owens. What was that ? Mr. Robinson. That was Herb Stewart. I said, "Well, hell, this isn't your name- Mr. Kearns. Mr. Robinson, will j'ou Mr. Owens. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, if you please. I think he had better exhaust his independent recollection without seeing it. jNIr. Keakns. Well, he identified it as being white. I think that is enough information. Mr. Robinson. It has been 11 years and some of these things are not exactly clear in my mind, but the general trend of it — there was a positive statement that Herb was a member of the Communist Party. Mr. Owens. You said you saw the name Stewart on the card ^ Mr. Robinson. Yes. He explained they never used their own names for the reason that the records might be caught and they would get in a jam. Of course, that was old stuff to me. I knew that years before. Mr. McCann. How long did he say he had been a member ? Mr. Robinson, Just a short time at that time. He stated he had joined it sometime before. He had not been a member very long. I think I made tlie remark to him at the time, "When you find out what the picture is, I don't think you will want to be in there." I think I had a very high regard for Herb, his honesty, his unionism, and I thought he was just off on the wrong foot. So we discussed it all the way back into strike headquarters and discussed it many times after that. Mr, Kearns. Can 3^011 recognize this card, sir? [Handing witness a document.] Mr. Owens. jNIr. Chairman; is it a card or a receipt? Mr. Robinson. That looks like it. yes, but if I remember correctly it had another part to it, it was folded and he had that in his billfold. It seemed to me it was a folder of some kind. Mr. Owens. You are now looking at what is marked "Exhibit 1 for Identification of March 4," I believe. You say it was not like that, that it was a folded card i Mr. Robinson. It was a folded card ; yes. Mr. jMcCann. ^Ir. Chairman, he is now looking at control card, first half of 1937, Book No. 74282. Mr, Owens, I think vou will find the identification mark on the back of it, Mr, McCann. Mr. Robinson. I am awfully sorry Herb isn't here to probably re- fresh my memoiw on some of the things we probably discussed at that time. Mr. McCann. This card is marked for identification "Exhibit 1." Mr. Owens. What date ? Mr. McCann. March 4, 1948. 2388 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Now, you say that you have seen that card ? Mr. Robinson. It seemed to me that the card was actually a folded card. Mr. Owens. He didn't say he saw that, he said he saw a folded card. Mr. Robinson. Yes; as 1 recollect it. Mr. Keakns. Did you ever see another Communist card? Mr. Robinson. I don't believe so. He had his billfold out there and was showing me the card. Well, hell, 1 just took it, I glanced at it and said ,"Well, hell, this isn't your name." He laughed about it and said, "Oh, hell, I don't use my own name: we don't use our own names in case the records are stolen or something."' Mr. Kearns. Have you seen the cards other so-called Communists have carried? Mr. Robinson. Oh, yes. Mr. Kearns. Do you identify that, then, as a control card? Mr. Robinson. I would say that that is a Communist control card ; yes. Mr. McCann. Have you ever seen any other card like that in your lifetime ? Mr. Robinson. Well, we had a lot of cards. They have had more different types of cards. When I was on the water front we raided their headquarters one time down in San Pedro and Ave got a lot of stuff out of there. They had quite a number of different types of identification cards, and so forth. Mr. Owens. What further conversation did you have with him at that time? Mr. Robinson. Well, that was the general run of it. We argued back and forth. Of course, I didn't state just how much opposed I was. Once I found out he was a member of the Communist Party that immediately put me on my guard. I knew what I was goiug to have to contend with then, because I had already put him in a jiosition or got him in a position where he was really in the saddle and not knowing that he was a member of the Communist Party at the time, then find- ing out that he was, I thought, well, I better find out whether he has the Commies all lined up in this deal. Mr. Kearns. In what way did he try to convert you, then? Mr. Robinson. Well, he tried to sell me on the idea of what a won- derful thing communism was, and I let him proceed with it. I offered very serious arguments against it. Inasmuch as he didn't know what my background was, I thought, well, let him go ahead and sell me. ]Mr. Kearns. How was his salesmanship? Mr. Robinson. Very poor. That is, his salesmanship to me as an officer, he didn't put it very well. I went along with him because I figured it was the better policy to do it, as I wanted to find out as niuch as I could about how strong he was. The Communists were pretty strong in Hollywood, but I didn't know how strong. I later found out. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I would like to show him a card marked No. 00022, and on the back of it for identification it is marked "Exhibit 2, March 4, 1948." I will ask you if you ever saw that card. Mr. Robinson. By God, I believe he had that in his — well, I won't swear to having seen that card ; no. Mr. McCann. You won't swear to having seen that card ? Mr. Robinson. No ; that card. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2389 Mr. McCank. Now. that card on tlie face of it is a card which states, '•I liave received meml)ershi)) book."' You don't recall having seen that? Mr. RoBiNSOx. I wouldn't swear to it. I saw his identification there, but 1 wouldn't swear — 1 undoubtedly did see it, but I wouldn't swear to it. Mr. McCann. Now, is this the card you referred to as the card which was his Communist card? Mr. Robinson. That is the one I had reference to. The name was what struck me. He very clearly stated that he never used the name. Mr. Owens. Did you say you saw a card that was folded ? Mr. Robinson. Yes ; it seems to me it was in a folder. Mr. Owens. You said that it was folded up ? Mr. Robinson. If I remember correctly it had another half on it. What was on the other side of it now I don't remember. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that this card does not seem to have a perforated edge. The card which he said he could not identify did have a perforated edge. Mr. Owens. In other words, it was a different card than that. Mr. McCann. What conversation did jou have after that, Mr. Rob- inson? Mr, Robinson. Well, we arrived down at strike headquarters. There wasn't anything out of the ordinary; apparently it was just a couple of strike leaders discussing things. We had many other things come up there to occupy our time. But then I started watching things a little closer to see what was happening. During the progress of the strike there were many things came u]) that to me bore the stamp of pure Communist actions, that is, sabo- tage and stuff like that that they wanted to pull, that I immediately vetoed. It was brought up before the strike committee Mr. Ow'ENS. You what? Mr. Robinson. It was brought up before the strike committee that they wanted to do a lot of sabotage, and so forth. I always explained to them that if a strike was to be w^on at any time, any strike any- where, it had to be with the good will of the public. We had to keep the good will of the public, keep the public behind us. If we pulled any sabotage and got the public against us, we were sure to lose. I was able to keep down most of the violence, and so forth. Mr. McCann. How long were you identified as one of the leaders in the strike, sir? Mr. Robinson. Until the agreements were signed by all organiza- tions, except for my own. Mr. McCann. When w^as that? Mr. Robinson. I don't remember the exact date. If I remember correctly, the strike lasted about 7 weeks. Mr. ]\IcCann. And you were identified with them for the entire 7 weeks ? Mr. Robinson. Yes. ]\Ir. McCann. Did you see Sorrell at any other time after this tri]:)? Mr. Robinson. Oh, sure, I would see him every day at strike head- quarters. Mr. McCann. For 7 weeks? 2390 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Robinson. If I remember correctly, that is what it lasted, about 7 weeks. Mr. McCann. And you were liaison men for this committee, going around and seeing that things were operating? Mr. Robinson. That is right, giving them the benefit of my expe- rience, and so forth. Mr. MgCann. Did you get any compensation for that during the 7 weeks ? Mr. Robinson. No, sir; I never received any compensation. Mr. JNIcCann. What did you do when the 7 weeks were up ? Mr. Robinson. I went to work for the city of Los Angeles. That is the time that I — I was on five different civil-service lists for the city. I had taken five different examinations and ranked one, two, and three on all of them. Just as soon as the strike was over, all organizations involved in this strike, with the exception of my own, received agreements. We were left out in the cold because of my activity in the strike and they would not sign up with the engineers. All our membership ought to go and join either the electrical workers, the I A, or some other organi- zation in order to continue their work in the studio, and to this day I don't believe the engineers ever had an agreement. Mr. Landis. Did Herb belong to any Communist-front organiza- tions that you knew of? Mr. Robinson. Well, at that time I don't know what his other con- nections were, because I had my hands full at that time being busy with the strike. Mr. Owens. How long a period of time were you with him during those 7 weeks ? Mr. Robinson. Well, it was a matter of every day ; we were at strike headquarters, you see. Mr. Owens. I mean, for how long a time during the day ? Mr. Robinson. Oh, that would vary. We would be there pretty early in the morning and generally in and out until probably 10 or 11 o'clock every night. Mr. Owens. Did you ever get out to his home again after that? Mr. Robinson. No; I never went to his home again. Something occurred — of course. Herb was not directly responsible for that. I met quite a number of people in the Screen Actors' Guild through the strike there. In fact, they wanted me to come and speak at their meeting at the stadium at one time, but I didn't do it. I got pretty well acquainted with quite a number of them that were supporting the strike in indirect ways. I stood in pretty good with them until one day I was up in Laurel Canyon. They were entertaining me there and having quite a time. They were having the guests come in, and lo and behold, among the guests was Harry Bridges. Mr. Owens. Harry Bridges at the meeting of the Mr. Robinson. This was a bunch of screen actors out there. Mr. Owens. Was Sorrell there then? Mr. Robinson. No, sir; Sorrell was not there then. I was with some of the actors. Mr. Owens. Sorrell is a man with a pretty good memory, didn't you find that out ? Mr. Robinson. Oh, yes ; that is right. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2391 Mr. Owens. If he were with you for every one of those days for 7 weeks, he wouldn't be likely to forget your name would he ? Mr. KoBiNSON. Oh, certainly not. Mr. Owens. I do not want to notice your affliction, but I see you have a curvature of the spine. Mr. Robinson. I have a broken back and a broken neck. I had a broken back at that time, but I have broken my neck since then. Mr. Owens. When did you break your back ? Mr. Robinson. Seventeen years ago. Mr. Owens. Did you have that curvature at that time in '37 ? Mr. Robinson. That is right. Mr. Owens. How did you break your neck ? Mr. Robinson, I broke my neck in an automobile accident on July 15, 1941. Mr. 0\\'ENS. But you have been able to go along pretty well and work despite those afflictions ? Mr. Robinson. Oh, yes ; I still make my living and am still able to function. JNIr. 0^^'ENS. So that INIr. Sorrell shouldn't have any difficulty in remembering you from 5^our description and your name? Mr. Robinson. Oh, no ; everybody out there knows me as "Robby." I am well known all over the coast out there in maritime and all labor circles as just plain "Robby." Mr. Owens. Would you be surprised if you were told that he couldn't remember your name ? Mr. Robinson. Don't worry; Herb knows me. I would be quite surprised. Mr. Owens. After the strike ended, what did you do ? Mr. Robinson. I just stepped out of the picture; there was no fur- ther use for me. I understand that Herb was later elected business agent, or something for the painters. There was another man that came into the picture now, and I want to get this straightened out, too. There was another man by the name of Robertson, who wears a Thomas collar, I believe, and has some affliction. I believe he was connected with the bonus march, or some- thing like that. I think he got into quite a lot of trouble. I think he is a very active member of the Communist Party. I got this from the head of the Red squad. Red Hynes in charge of the police department at the head of Red activities; when my appointment came up to the bureau of construction for the city of L. A., the board hesitated about appoint- ing me because I was supposed to have been a Communist. Mr. Owens. Who said you were a Communist? Mr. Robinson. Well, a fellow by the name of Hawk. He was a memljer of the board for the board of public works; he was a member of the board of public commissioners. Charlie Britten was the super- intendent of construction for the city of Los Angeles and he told me what the charges were. I said, "My God, hei'e all my life I have fought the labor movement and I have fought the Communist Party, and then they have me being accused of it." I said, "There is one person right here in the city hall who ought to be able to clear this up for me." 2392 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I went right down to Captain Hynes. He has a reputation of being pretty tou0 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day. ) 2420 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will be in order, please. TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. LEVY AND ROY M. BREWER— Recalled Mr. Kearns. I have one communication to read into the record. It is addressed to me under this date, March 17 : Will you be good enough to read into the record the following request by me, since I cannot be at the hearing this afternoon? With respect to brietls, I would request that in accordance with the iisual practice, Mr. Cobb l)e directed to serve a copy of any brief flled by him with the committee on me. I would like then to have the opportunity of filing a reply brief if I think it necessary on behalf of the producers. (S) Burton A. Zorn. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, may I say that from just the way it has been read into the record, we are encouraging the writing of briefs. Mr. Kearns. We permitted Mr. Cobb to present a brief. Mr. Cobb, out of the whole hearing, merely took 1 day. Instead of putting a lot of the evidence in, I think he said he would rather present it in the form of a brief, which we permitted him to do. Mr. Owens. Then the other side will have to have the same oppor- tunity. Mr. Kearns. I have no objection, even if you want to write a brief, that you do that. Mr. Levy. I was going to suggest that I accept that privilege, and that Mr. Cobb and Mr. Zorn should be notified to serve briefs on all the counsel, and we can respond accordingly, if we consider it nec- essary. I do not think it will be necessary, but I want to have the same privilege accorded to me as is accorded to counsel for the other parties. Mr. Kearns. That is right. Mr. Levy. Thank you very much. Mr. Kearns. Yoti may proceed. ]\Ir. Kearns. You may proceed. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Sorrell gave some testimony concerning Domi- nic Bruno. His testimony was to the effect that Brtmo had made the statement presumably to him that "he sees Bioff and thinks he's a nice guy." At the time he gave that testimony I could not conceive that that was factual, but before I had a chance to contact Mr. Bruno I got a commimication which I understand was addressed to you, and I received a copy which I would like to read into the record. Mr. Owens. Is this a sworn statement? Mr. Kearns. This is a sworn statement. I have a sworn statement ,of it. Mr. Brewer. It is March 12, 1048, addressed to — Hon. Carroll D. Kearns, Chainiian, Congressional f^uhcommittee on Laior, House of Representatives, Wasliington, D. C. Dear Congressman Kearns : According to press releases, Herbert K. S'orrell, while testifying before your committee, made the following statement : "Dominic Bruno was put into Eagle Lion by the lA to run things and bragged to me that he sees Bioff and thinks he's a nice guy." This testimony by Herbert Sorrell is completely and unqualifiedly false, and I respectfully request that this letter be read into the records of your commit- MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2421 tee — that I have never met Bioff and do not know him at all, and I have never held a conversation at any time witli Herbert Sorrell. I am the assistant technieal director at Eagle-Lion Studio, and my immediate superior is a former member of the Conference of Studio Unions — and not a member of the lATSE. Respectfully submitted. Dominic L. Bruno, 5758 Cedros Avenue, Van Nuys, Calif. This was sworn to before a notary, State of California, county of Los Angeles, subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the county of Los Angeles, State of California, on this, the 12th day of March 1918. Raymond E. Schultz, notary public, with the seal. I would like to say in connection with that, Mr. Chairman, that the immediate supervisor of Mr. Bruno was a man by the name of Henry Firman. Henry Firman was an active participant in the 1915 strike on behalf of the carpenters and served on the committee which nego- tiated with the carpenters' union, he serving in behalf of the carpen- ters' union when that strike was settled. In the interim period. Eagle Lion was organized. He was put in as the superintendent of construction. Because of his bias in behalf of the CSU we felt that there was discrimination against our mem- bers and in order to balance the situation Dominic Bruno was put in as assistant to him, so that the situation would be balanced. His statement speaks for itself. Now, speaking briefly about the situation in the independents, there is one point whicli has not been brought out and which we feel is im- portant. That is. that the reason which we attributed to Sorreli's attitude toward these independents was that he assessed every man. who worked in the independent field during this strike a daily assess- ment which he used for a slush fund to use against us. Some of those men paid as high as .$8-a-day assessments, so that you can figure if he had 100 or 500 men in the CSU working in the independent field paying up to $8-a-day assessment, he had a pretty substantial fimd to use against us. That was why we felt, in self -protection, we had to take the same attitude with the independents toward him that he took toward us with the maiors. "We did our very best to protect ourselves and still not injure the independents. We worked with them. I think you will find every independent in the field recognized that we did our very best to protect ourselves against the attacks being made against us, without injuring the independents. I am sure they will testify that is a fact. ]\rr. Owens. You mean you created a slush fund, too? Mr. Brewer. No. sir; we did not, but we did do everything we could to reduce the size of Mr. Sorrell's slush- fund. There were no independents complained, although I do know they were solicited. Efforts were made to get them to come before tlW committee and complain, and they would not do it, because I think they all realized that in view of the circumstances we had bent over backwards to prevent them from being injured in the situation. Now, Sorrell spoke quite at length about this alleged kidnaping and beating which took ])lace just about a year ago. He also dis- cussed the shooting which took place, I think, in the last strike. 2422 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Of course, he attempted to leave the impression that the lATSE was in some measure responsible for that. I don't know who was responsible for that. But I want to say to this committee that T do know that nobody, with whom I had any association in the lATSE, had anything to do with it. I want to say further that I discussed the matter informally with represent- atives of the police department and that there were a lot of ques- tions, particularly about the kidnaping;, which were never answered. So far as I know, not one member of the lATSE was ever ques- tioned by the police as being suspected of any connection with that. I want to state further that so far as the persons whom I talked to about the situation are concerned, they felt it was phony, be- cause it came at a time when the strike was at a low ebb; that it was losing its phice in the newspapers, and that the public sentiment they tried to whip up was beginning to die down. This, of course, was a great dramatic incident. Then to further confirm my suspicions that that was the purpose of it, when he was brought back from the hospital at Inyokern, a great mass meeting was held in typical Communist-front style, wel- coming Sorrell back, welcoming the "great martyr" back to Los Angeles. I have here a photostatic copy of the call for this rally. I will submit it as a reference exhibit for the committee. I would like to say in connection with this meeting that the speak- ers at this meeting were, among other people, Phil Connelly, of the CIO; Ellis Patterson, former Congressman; Mr. Dalton Trumbo — whose name I am sure is familiar to you — and Mr. Averill Berman, •commentator, whose name has not been mentioned here, but who was a very important factor in whipping up the hysteria that went with this strike. Mr. Berman has a long record of pro-Russian activity, so far as his commentating on the radio is concerned. His speeches are a matter of record. At one time he was called before the Un-American Activities Committee. Those were the principal speakers at this big rally which wel- comed Sorrell back fro"m Inyokern. Now, Sorrell mentioned the question of arbitration and there are two points that are important with respect to arbitration. I testified previously about our efforts to arbitrate through Mr. Keenan. Sorrell in his testimony said that this actually broke up as a result of a conference between Mr. Morris Hutcheson and Mr. Walsh. Technically that is true, but I pointed out that we had arrived at a basic agreement. Then when the lawyers redrafted that agreement they completely eliminated several of the basic pro- visions, namely, that it be signed by the presidents and that the December 26, 1945, decision be the fundamental basis for jurisclic- tioi^al divisions. The lavryers repudiated those two points. Then before we knew they had repudiated those two points Mr. Keenan had already been asked to come to Los Angeles and was on his way. So when he came on he held some conferences. There was a very significant point came out in those conferences which was that Morris Hutcheson wanted to know why we were insisting on William Hutcheson signing the agreement. We pointed out that we did not MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DIvSPUTES 2423 ^Yi\ut someone to come back at a future date and say, "I fired the fellow Avho signed that agreement, therefore, it isn't binding on me.'" So thej' kept pressing the point, ''Wouldn't it be all right if an official of the carpenters' union would sign it, an authorized official?" In the effort to compose that difference, ]Mr. Keenan called a conference be- tween Mr. Morris Hutcheson and INIr. Walsh. President Walsh said, ''Well, all right, if you will give me a letter saying that you accept the decision of the three-man committee over the signature of a responsible official of the carpenters' brotherhood, I will accept that and then I in turn will give you one." Morris Hutcheson said. ""Why, no, we wouldn't do that." Then he was asked, ''Well, how do you reconcile that with your apparent agreement to sign this arbitration agreement, with your position now that you.won't accept the directive?" And he said, "Oh, well, we figured the agreement would only be for 1 year; we would be willing to accept it for 1 year, but not for longer than that." That was a complete repudiation of the whole program of arbitration and the actors were very much put out when they found that after they had been struggling to solve this thing once and for all what they were actually talking about was merely a 1-year agreement when they would be relieved to open the whole thing up again. Now. the whole approach to arbitration on the part of the CSU was dishonest. Sorrell submitted here a copy of an agreement which he proposed. This is Avhat he would do : The CSU would propose that they enter into an arbitration agreement and give it to the newspapers. Then when we would ask them about the internationals, v/ill the internationals agree to this arbitration, they couldn't answer that. So the only advantage was that they were trying to hold us up to the public as not being willing to accept their proposal for arbitration, while as a matter of fact, when you went into it, none of those pro- posals were honest proposals, because when you pinned them down they admitted that they could not speak for their internationals and their internationals wouldn't be bound. Now, Sorrell makes the charge which is not important, in my opinion, but I want to call it to your attention, briefly. He makes the charge that the lATSE is a company union. I have here a complete file of agreements, which I will submit to the com- mittee for reference, all the lATSE agreements in the Hollywood studios. I want to point out that these agreements are as fine union agree- ments as exist anywhere in America, if not in the whole world. They are agreements v^'hich contain wage scales ranging from $1.50 an hour for apprentices to $1,675 an hour for what is termed "common la- borers." up to a minimum of $425 a week for top cameramen. In addition to that, they have all the standard provisions for time and a half for all overtime over 8 hours, and 40 hours; double time for Sundays; minimum calls, special minimums for distant locations- all of these detailed provisions. I do not think there is a more detailed set of agreements in America. All these detailed provisions were negotiated as a result of hard and arduous bargaining on the part of the lATSE and its constituent unions. 2424 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I submit these agreements, and there they are, the agreements for consideration of the committee in passing upon this charge which has been made many times, that the lATSE is a company union. Mr. Kearns. They will be entered as reference exhibits. (The documents were filed with the committee.) Mr. Brewer. Now, Mr. Sorrell mentioned briefly Duel in the Sun. What happened very briefly in Duel in the Sun was that the Selznick Co. had a clause in their contracts with the actors which permitted them 6 weeks, in the event of a strike, to shut down. They could suspend an actor for a period of 6 weeks in the event of a strike. Now, at the end of 6 weeks they either had to start up again and put their actors back on pay roll, or they had to cancel the contract and release them. Now, the Selznick Co. did close down because they thought they would have trouble. But at the end of the 6 weeks they had to face the facts of their contract. They either had to release their actors, or they had to go ahead and produce their pictures. They came to us and asked us if we would help them get the people. We did. They finished the picture. The cutting which Sorrell re- ferred to had nothing to do with the technical phases, because the most difficult sets in that picture were made by our members during the strike and they were never cut out of the finished product. That is a story in itself and it has nothing to do with the strike. Now, there is one other point tliat I think is very im])ortant for the connnittee to understand, of what was going on in Hollywood. That was the situation in which the lATSE found itself with rela- tion to jurisdiction. I know Mr. McCann makes a charge that the briefs said we were always involved in jurisdictional troubles. The fact is that the CSU was set up, in our opinion, for the specific purpose of creating juris- dictional prol)lems. Our union has been a part of the A. F. of L. for many, many years. We have tried to live within the A. F. of L. consistent with our re- sponsibilities to that organization. The question of jurisdiction among A. F. of L. unions was supposed to l^e settled between A. F. of L. unions, without resort to governmental boards. As was pointed out in the early days of the National Labor Relations Board they refused to take a case where there were two competing A. F. of L. unions. But in the studios, the lATSE found itself in the position that the machinists, the electricians, the carpenters, all these Ii\.TSE crafts were demanding that the lATSE give ii]:» jurisdiction because of their claim that the craft jurisdiction of their particular craft was being infringed upon. They never made any claim that the people who were doing this work wanted to be represented by the carpenters, they were making their claim for jurisdiction under the traditional relationships between two A. F. of L. unions to each other. Then along comes the CSU and sets itself up to supersede the rela- tionship of international unions to local unions and started a drive. In the set decorators' case, as well as in the case of the office workers, the screen publicists, they completely violated the basic relationships of A. F. of L. unions to each other. MOTIOX-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2425 So on the one hand we had the A. F. of L. craft unions like the machinists, carpenters, plumbers, and others saying to the lATSE, ■"Give us jurisdiction because our charter grants us certain basic craft work." Here was the CSU saying to us, on the other hand, "Give us the set decorators, because we have gone out and organized them into our union." They couldn't make any claim from the lATSE that they should give them set decorators, because they were painters, because the set decorators are essentially stage employees. So if there were jurisdictional disputes, it was because basically the relationship of A. F. of L. unions to each other was being com- pletel}' violated by the whole structure and the whole existence of the A. F. of L. Now, there was one point I wanted to make with regard to the machinists' situation. That is, that the basic difference of opinion between the lATSE and the Conference of Studio Unions in the situa- tion with the machinists in April of 1946, was because the CSU had refused to let the men go back to work in the studios who had joined the lATSE during the 1945 strike. There were some 40 members of 1185 who had abandoned 1185 and had gone back to work in the studios. The Cincinnati agreement said that all strikers should go back to their jobs, but Sorrell refused to let those 40 men go back. Some of those men were the finest camera mechanics in America. One of them in particular, a man by the name of Herman Lentz, is recognized as the outstanding camera technican in the firm industry. Because of the fact that he had joined the lATSE, he was for- bidden to go to work. It was that issue and that issue only which we were forcing ; that men who stuck by us ought not to be deprived of their employment just because Mr. Sorrell didn't like them. There was a great deal of discussion by Mr. Sorrell about the atti- tude of the People's AVorld to this strike. I don't know that that is so important now. but there are a couple of important factors I would like to briefly point out. One of them is that the official position of the Communist Party toward the Hollywood strike in 1945, as far as we can determine, was not known by anyone when that strike was called. It was obvious to us, and obvious to everyone, that the Communist Party line called for the support of the Sorrell forces in the studios. It was also their established position that there should be no strikes. But Sorrell announced the strike in Hollywood on March the 9th. He announced on March the 9th that a meeting would be held on Sunday, Marcli 11th. at which the strike would be called and would be arranged for. Now, if the People's "World had been so violently opposed to the strike, it is logical to assume that the minute that announcement was made there would be a protest against it. There was not a word in the People's World on Saturday, March 10; there was not a word in the People's World on Monday, March 12, although all the papers in America, practically, were headlining the fact that on March 12 a major strike had occurred in the Holly- wood motion-picture studios. There wasn't one word of recognition 2426 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES that such a strike existed, in the People's Daily World, until Thursday, March 15. The reason we see why there was no announcement was that even the People's World, up until March 15, did not know what the atti- tude of the Communist Party was going to be toward that strike. So that on March 15, as was testified to by Mr. Boclle, but not until March 15, did the official party line come down, "end the strike." Now, on Saturday, March IT, they laid down the basis for settle- ment of the strike. The People's World laid down the basis for the strike. The basis for ending the strike was that all parties should agree to accept the decision of the National Labor Relations Board and go back to work. Mr. Sorrell immediately accepted that settlement. He announced that he would be willing, if all the parties would agree to accept the final decision of the National Labor Relations Board — and we did agree to it, and the producers did agree to it — that he would see about ending the strike. So actually, as we see it, what happened was, Mr. Sorrell had made a deal with Mr. Hutcheson; that while Mr. Sorrell was submissive to the Communist Party desires. Mr. Hutcheson was not. so that he was caught in the situation and while he wanted to, he was unable to put his ]:»eople back to work. A study of the P?ople's Worhl will show rather conclusively that they did not attack Mr. Sorrell because of that. There were some mild editorials about the fact that they ought to get in line Avith the progressive unionism program, but there was no attack on Mr. Sorrell. which we think bears out our content^'on that there were these two forces which were seemingly incompatible, but which worked together in this strike for a common end ; they were the Hutcheson influence and the Sorrell influence as the spearhead of the Communist movement to get control of the Hollywood unions. There is one other point I want to make, and then I will finish. That is the question of Mr. Leo Gallagher. Mr. Leo Gallagher, we believe, is a verv important m.an in the Communist set-up in Hollywood. Mr. Sorrell testified quite at length about his relationship with ]Mr. Gallagher. He made tne posi- tive statement that Mr. Gallagher could not be a member of the Communist Party because he went to the Catholic Church. It so happens that in November 1947, last November, Mr. Howard Rogers, a screen writer, and myself, participated in a debate with Mr. Leo Gallagher on the question of, "Should Russian visas in this country be canceled?"' That testimony is so revealing as to the Communist Party philosophy as expounded by Mr. Gallagher, and his predictions as to what will happen in the world with respect to the Connnunist influence and i:)Ower, that we had a recording of that made. At the close of the session, INIr. Chairman, I have those recordings here, and I would like to play them. I believe it is important not only to this case, but to the wdiole problem of Communist infiltration in Hollywood and in the Nation. When a man with Mr. Gallagher's conception of Communist philos- ophy can operate under the protection of persons in American labor, MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2427 I think it is very significant. If I may be permitted to do so at the close, I would like to play that. With that I will close my testimony. Thank you very much for the o^jportunity. Air. Kearns. All right. Mr. Brewer, thank you very much. Do you have any questions, Mr. Owens ? Mr. Owens. No, I think not. ]\lr. Kearns. All right, Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I have a few brief comments to make in closing the matter. Some of them I want to mention now in response to some of the points made by Mr. Cobb. He urged the lATSE to agree to submit the controversy to the National Labor Relations Board and to the courts, for the purposes of solution. My answer to that was and is that we have agreed to submit the matter to any court or any tribunal having legal jurisdiction to dispose of the matter. The National Labor Relations Board, as he himself testified, has dismissed his cases and has dismissed the cases presented by Mr. Kamarotf on behalf of the members of the CSU. The United States district court of California has dismissed his case. That was unanimously affirmed by the LTnited States circuit of apDeals in that circuit. We don't know what else to say than to say that if Mr. Cobb were so anxious to go to court, I should suppose he should have endeavored to go to court l^efore his clients issued the ultimatum and declared the sets hot, and he should not, now that he has been defeated in his juris- dictional aggressions, on the economic front of labor, now cry that there ought to be an injudicious judicial determination of the question. The time for him, it seems to me, to have invoked the aid of the appropriate tribunals, was before he made the issue so hot by declaring the sets hot. Mr. Cobb stated that the three-man committee of the American Federation of Labor indicated in its decision and in their testimony that they intended to decide in accordance with the division along the historic lines of work. Both in the hearings in California and here a lot of talk has been going around as to the historic lines of d'ivsion of work. Now, a lot depends on what you mean by history, and a lot depends on when you want history to begin. If I were to talk about historic division of work, representing, as I do, the lATSE, and the studios being an amusement industry and stemming from the theatrical field, there is no doubt about the fact that a historic division of work would, without question, justify the position which the lATSE has taken in the studios. If I were to say that history begins with a certain year, then of coulee I can freely talk — if I represented the carpenters — talk about the historical division of work. I think what the commitee did can best be indicated by what the committee said in its written decision. It did not say a word about historical division of work and Mr. Cobb's constant repetition of that statement is not supported by the record of the committee's written de- cision of December 26, 1945, 2428 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES What tlie committee said was ''We will want to put into force and effect the specific agreements made between the parties" and no ref- erence whatsoever was made with respect to any attempted determina- tion of what is or what is not historical. Because, as I say, history might begin in 1893, when the lATSE was organized, or history might begin a few years later when the carpenters' union — not merely 1946 and '47, but way back in 1920 or '21, or 1919— wanted to oust the lATSE from the American Federation of Labor because, as the car- penters claim, there was an interference with the carpenters' rightful jurisdiction. I do not mind going into history, but I do not want an artificial line of demarcation to determine the date that history begins. Mr. Cobb several times stated in response to Congressman Landis' question that there was no objection to the December 26, 1945,' decision by the carpenters ; that what their objection was to the incorrect in- terpretation placed upon that decision by the producers and by the lATSE. Now, that is not so. I do not think Mr. Cobb intended to say something that isn't so. But if it was only the so-called incorrect interpretation of the de- cision that the carpenters did not like, why was it immediately that the carpenters objected to the decision itself? The very fact that they objected on and after December 26, 1945, to that decision by the three-man committee, was not because of any incorrect interpretation with respect to where set erection would go, they ]:)roperly interpreted it; the producevrs properly interpreted it; the lATSE properly in- terpreted it, and promptly. And that gave rise to the Miami meeting in January 1946, within less than a month after the decision came down, and as a result partly of pressure from the CSU and carpen- ters in Hollywood, the executive council undertook to say that that decision was wdiat it read and there would be no change, modification, clarification, interpretation, reversal, or whatever you have. A whole lot was said by Mr. Cobb about the fact — and Mr. McCann, in some of his questions seemed to indicate credence in that position — that the lATSE forced the carpenters to go out on strike on Septem- ber 23, 1946. I have this peculiar notion about strikes. If I don't want to go out on a strike no outside organization can force me to go out on a strike. If you will remember, that is precisely what the position of the Japanese was after Pearl Harbor. They took the position that they didn't bombard Pearl Harbor as an offensive act ; oh, no, the United States forced the Japs to bombard Pearl Harbor, and by the same token, the lATSE forced the carpenters to declare the sets hot, to refuse to work on them, to go out on strike, and that the lATSE caused it all. Well, I think that is silly. I think the carpenters declared the sets hot because of the fact that they felt they again would undertake — with the cooperation of Mr. Sorrell and the Conference of Studio Unions, and the Communists — to create economic turmoil in a situa- tion where, after 7 months of strife, with all sorts of bitterness, they could now accomplish their aims with respect to disturbance and juris- diction. I recalled the Japanese incident to you. I want to say this : A lot of criticism has been leveled upon the proposition by some of the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2429 questions put by the counsel of the comniittee, and mdicated by Mr. Cobb, that tile producers should not have undertaken to create the in- cidents for the purpose of relieving their internal situation in the studios of the possibility of turmoil and strife. I say to you in all seriousness, the testimony shoves without question that tiie pi-oducers felt they had to clear the situation up, either to find out whether the carpenters' ulimatum was genuine, and if it be genuine and intended to be followed through, that there be no internal strife within the confines of the studios. If I were the producer, I would isolate those who declared the sets liot, for my own protection, just as America isolated the Japanese when the war started, and just as I hope the FBI will isolate the Communists if we ever get into trouble again. The producers should not be criticized for isolating those who have declared the sets hot. Now, I am glad Mr. McCann is here, because he has asked through- out the hearings, both in California and here, "What about these minutes of the producers^" From which he has undertaken— and I gather that from the nature of the questions he has asked time and time again — to say that there was a collusion or conspiracy between the lATSE and the producers. Mr. Brewer is here, Mr. Walsh is here, and I as special counsel of the lATSE am here. We entered into no conspiracy. We engaged in no collusion and every act, on the basis of the advice which I gave — and now I speak for rnyself as counsel ; Mr. Brewer has spoken for himself as the international representative in charge in Hollywood; Mr. Walsh has spoken and will speak for himself as the international president of the lATSE — every act that was undertaken by the lATSE was undertaken in the protection of the membership of the lATSE, without conspiracy, without collusion, openly and above- board, for the purpose of not being deprived by this combination of forces of the work tasks and the jurisdiction which the lATSE had. There has been no breach of contract charged against the lATSE. There has been no breach of the peace charged against the lATSE. There has been no violence charged against the lATSE. There has been no unlawful conduct of any kind charged against: the lATSE, except the general charge was made, without proof, of alleged conspiracy and collusion. I want to examine, in Mr. McCann's presence, the notes of Mr. Clark, obtained from the producers, for the purpose of presenting to the connnittee my answer with respect to this oft-repeated and completely unproved charge of conspiracy. Mr. McCann. Would you object to one question? Mr. Levy. I will object to nothing that you ask me, sir. I will answer you, if I can. Mr. McCann. I would like to know why so many witnesses denied there were any minutes or records of the producers kept at these meetings prior to the time that we finally secured possession of them. Mr. Levy. Mr. McCann. that question, it seems to me, if you wanted to ask it for the purpose of getting an answer, and not merely to be rhetorical to interrupt what I was about to say — you would ask that of the people who had the minutes. We didn't have them. We kept C73S3— 48— vol. 3 59 2430 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES no minutes. They were not our minutes. They were notes kept by somebody else. We are of the lATSE. Those questions, sir, you should ask when the producers' repre- sentatives are present, not of me. By the way, I want to say since I read the record in California, and I participated in the hearings for a couple of weeks there, when Mr. Walsh and Mr. Brewer came in with me from Boston, that my recollec- tion is the testimony was that these are not official minutes of the meet- ings ; that they are not read back to the assembly as minutes usually are for approval ; that they are Mr. Clark's personal notes ; that in a number of very important respects, and particularly the one that I re- member, Mr. Eric Johnston testified to, they stated that Mr. Eric Johnston urged that the studios be kept open, when he has stated sev- eral times under oath before the committee here that of all things he was the one person who insisted upon closing the studios. Now, if you can rely on those minutes the benefit of them is yours. In many vital respects I say that the notes are inaccurate. I have indicated one glaring one. I can mention more if necessary, but I do not think it is necessary to do so now. I want to point out one set of notes. What I have to say will go with respect to them. Considerable emphasis was placed upon the notes of September 17, ] 946. It is stated that the notes read as follows : Brewer said to put lA men on sets so carpenters and painters will quit, pro- vided, 1, lA is advised in advance tlien and where ; 2. put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self-protection, and 3, keep procedure quiet so CSU cannot gang up at one spot. Now, Mr. Brewer testified that he never made any such statement. I am bringing it out now again because I want this committee and counsel to examine Mr. Brewer while he is here. He never stated that you should put lATSE men on sets so car- penters and painters will quit. There is no logical reason why Mr. Brewer should make any such statement on the l7th of September 1946, because it is wholly irreconcilable with the undisputed facts. Now let me tell you what those undisputed facts are. Since the end of Janaury 1946, lATSE members were performing set erection pursuant to the December 26, 194.5, award. The lATSE had not the slightest intention of abandoning that work under the threat of strike made by the carpenters union. Prior to the September 17, 1946, meeting the companies had in- formed us of their determination to keep the studios open and to con- tinue as theretofore to assign set erection to lATSE in accordance with the award. Certainly, therefore, Mr. Brewer had no cause to seek to impose any added conditions or to seek to put lATSE men on sets because they had always been put on sets since the December 1945 directive was put into effect in January of 1946. So the statement in the minutes upon which our adversaries rely so strongly, are inconsistent and illogical from the intrinsic evidence in the matter, and all that we have to do is to read it in order to be able to see it. The policy of the companies — and that appears throughout all the notes of Mr. Clark — was not to deviate from the award, but to comply with it as they had been doing in the past. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2431 The companies determined to call upon the lA to perform set erec- tion in January of 1946 pursuant to the decision, ancl to call upon the carpenters' union to do trim and mill work thereon, and the painters' union to do the necessary painting for completion of the sets; and to use the language of one of the company witnesses, "To let the chips fall where they may." Consequently, I can show that this was the policy of the companies, because it is substantiated from the notes themselves. Take the note of September 17, 1946 : It was understood that the studios would begin on the first shift Thursday to ask carpenters and painters to pei'forni work on sets they have considered hot and if and wlien they refuse to, then ask the lA to do the work after arranging with Brewer. In other words, the lA people were not to do any work on the sets other than set erection, which they were doing then since the award, and there didn't have to be any arrangement between Brewer and the companies to put the lA on the sets to make them hot. Get that clear. The only time that the lA would begin to work on the eets after they were declared hot, was to do the work which the carpenters and the painters abandoned because of their hot declaration. That is the uncontradicted, conceded fact through weeks of hearings in this record. Let's take the minutes of September 20, 1946. Mill work : If carpenters stop work in mill put set erectors on to take their jobs. But the carpenters could continue to do the work in the mill if they wanted to do it. Deadline : By 9 a. m. Monday, clear out all carpenters first and then clear out all painters, following which proceed to put on lA men to do the work. Don't put the lA men on as the notes seem to indicate and as Mr. McCann's questions seemed to indicate; don't put the lA men on to make them hot and then get the carpenters and the painters to walk out, but after the carpenters and the i^ainters have refused to do the work — not set erection which they did not refuse to do because that is what they wanted all the time — but the mill and trim work, then the lA would step in in order to see that the studios didn't close, that the work was done and that set erection was not taken from us notwith- standing the decision ; then the lA would do the mill and trim work. Mr. Brewer indicated — and he is here for cross-examination for that purpose — that in response to a question put to him by one of the com- pany representatives as to whether lATSE would supply replace- ments to finish sets — finish sets — when and if carpenters and painters refused to do so in accordance with the December 26, 1945, decision, that the lA would furnish such replacements only if three conditions enumerated by him were followed. Now what were those three conditions? One of them was that the lA should be advised in advance when and where the lA peopia should go. Another was put on enough set erectors and painters in a group for self-pi'otection. The third was keep the procedure quiet so the CSU couldn't gang up on one spot. Now after the testimony of violence in these hearings. and after the photographs have been received in evidence, I think Mr. Brewer should be complimented for the fact that he told the companies: We won't put our men on the sets to take care of the work which the carpenters and the painters abandoned, unless we get protection from physical violence. 6738.3 — 18— vol. 3 60 2432 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES And how do we get that protection? One, keep it quiet so that Sorrell and the CSU won't know about it; two, put on enough set erectors and painters so that they can take care of themselves. Now if that is collusion, if that is conspiracy, then you will have to make the most of it. Now I want to say this, and then I am through. It seems to me everybody has been talking about being in the middle. 1 want to be in the middle a little bit. I say on behalf of the lATSE that imder the administration of Presi- dent Walsh I think the lATSE is in the middle. I think he expressed that in a telegram to the chairman of this committee. I do not recol- lect that Congressman Owens was present at the time, therefore I take the liberty of just reading a passage from it: There are two types of trade-union leadership I loathe — said President Walsh to the chairman of this committee — the gangster-racketeer and the Communist-racketeer. Eaeh breeds the other. They are both a menace and should be stamped out. I say the lATSE is in the middle because it has stamped out the gangster-racketeers and is trying to stamp out the Communist- racketeers. Before I close I want to express my sincere and deep appreciation to this full subcommittee of the Connnittee on Education and Labor, for opening up this entire matter, for going into it and for hearing the testimony, because I think you really would not have gotten a picture of this situation if you did not recognize that every facet involved in this dispute is something which Congress ought to have considered. Mr. Oavens. Mr. Chairman, might I say at that point that those remarks of Mr. AValsh, at least in my miiid, were thoughts that the Committee on Education and Labor had in the passage of its labor bill, to stamp out the very same kind of leadership. We naturally expected opposition from that type of leadership, but from none other. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Levy. I want to express my thanks to the committee, sir. Mr. Kearns. Thank you, judge. I know on behalf of the commit- tee we are very appreciative of the contribution you have made in this whole testimony, both on the west coast and here in Washington. We also invite you to return in the event that we have communica- tions from those accused of being connected with Communist fronts or being Communists, as indicated in the record. Those hearings will begin on May 17, with California State Senator Tenney as the first witness. Mr. Levy. I shall be pleased to be present, sir. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Kearns, I 'missed one important point. Might I take just a minute more ? Mr. Kearns. Proceed, sir. Mr. Brewer. There have been a great many references made to the allegation that the lATSE organized the set erectors local as a result of the decision of the three-man committee on December 26, 1945. That is not true. I find some persons who have followed this hearing closely understand that that was not true. I want to take just a minute to explain the situation with respect to the existence of the so-called set erectors local. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2433 Tliat local was organized in Angust 1945. I have in my possession here — which you may see — cards with the initiation dates. I do not have coj)ies of them. If yon want copies I will ,get photostats, but I have to have the original cards back. Those cards were issued in September and November of 1945, before the decision came down. I have here a clipping from Variety of November 17, 1945, which says as follows — ^this is very short: lA To Keep Local 468 Mechanics local No. 468 will be maintained by the lATSB as a permanent studio local, members were advised over the week-end. Statement by Roy M. Brewer, lATSE international representative, said, "This is to advise all members of local 468 that the lATSE has no intention of disbanding this local now or in the future. We expect it to be a permanent addition to the family of lA locals in Hollywood." Now the way that the words "set erectors" came about was as the result of the three-man decision. It came about as a wage classifi- cation. These men who had been working in the studios during the 1945 strike were taken off the strike in October when the CSU men went back. A part of the Cincinnati agreement was that whatever juris- diction the lATSE might be awarded, that the men who were standing • by would be permitted to go back onto that work. Now previous to the December :26 award the men who had done the work which at one time was done by carpenters, had a carpenter's designation. The grips had a separate designation and a different wage scale. The grips' wage scale was slightly lower than the carpenters' scale. So that when the December 26 decision came down this small por- tion of the work which had previously been designated carpenters' work went to the lATSE. Now the wage rate for that work had always been a little higher than the gri])s and the established recog- nized rate for that work was higher than the grips. So the producers had to set up a nev/ wage classification. They arbitrarily accepted the term set erector for that new classifi- cation, so this local which had been in existence since August, and to which these men now designated as set erectors belonged, became popularly known as the set erectors' local. But it was not a new local. It had been in evistence since August and we did not organize a local, as has been charged, for the purpose of taking advantage of that decision. Mr. McCanx. Mr. Chairman. I think that his testimony is adequate without reproducing these cards. Mr. Brewer. Now I gave some testimony about the arsenal in the headquarters of local 68^5 and the condition in which we found it. I have here five ])hotogra])hs which show the trapdoor which was constructed, ])lus some of the ball bats and whatnots that were found up there at the time this headquarters was taken over. I just want to make one more comment : ]\Ir. Owens made a statement when he was viewing some of these other pictures of violence. He asked the question, ''How do they get people in the frame of mind to do these things?" I would like to submit, Congressman Owens, that this man Berman, if you could study 2434 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES some of his broadcasts I think you might find a part of the answer. Then I think if you will look at this Flashes magazine, published by the former officers of local 683, and see the manner in wliich they liave attempted to incite the minds of their people against the police who are trying to protect citizens, I think you will find a little more of the aiisw'er to that. I just wanted to make those two comments. If you haven't seen this I think you ought to see the manner in which they have attempted to show that the police department, the producers, the lATSE, every- one else was using violence against these people, which was not the case but which is pretty cleverly portrayed to be the fact in this particular document. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these photographs and this copj of Flashes be received as an exhibit. Mr. Kearns. That has already been received. Mr. McCann. Have the photographs already been received? Mr. Brewer. No ; they have not been received. Six hundred and eighty-three was the local which I testified in my opinion was Com- nuniist-dominated and as a result of that Communist influence at a critical time joined tlie strike and became a part of the strike against IhelATSEbytheCSU. Mr. Kearns. That is known as 683-A now ? Mr. Brew^er. No; Mr. Chairman. I suspect tliat is a development which has taken place since I left California. There was no 683-A. There was a time when a few of these officers attempted to dub the legitimate local which we set up as 683i/>, but I don't believe that I ever heard it dubbed 683-A until the telegram wliicli you received was read, and I suspect — although I have no evidence — that that is a develop- ment which I will find it has been set up for the purpose of trying to further undermine our treatment of that local. Mr. ICearns. I would appreciate anything you find with respect to that. Mr. Brewer. T would be very glad to submit it to you. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, at this time for the purpose of afford- ing an opportunity to counsel to examine the trial examiner's reports and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board, pertaining to the issues M'hich have arisen involving the 19-15 and 1946 strike, I ask that the records referred to may be received in evidence as reference exhibits. Mr. Kearns. So ordered. (The documents are filed with the committee.) Mr. Kearns. Thank you, Mr. Brewer, and thank you again. Judge Levy. At this time I would like to call Mr. Walsh to the stand. You have been duly sworn ? Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearns. You may take the stand. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. TESTIMONY OF EICHARD F. WALSH— Recalled Mr. Kearns. I understand from your telegram as I read it into the record, Mr. Walsh, that you sent me from Pittsburgh, that you de- sired to come to the stand again to repudiate some charges that had MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2435 been made by Mr. Sorrell, and the opportunity is now afforded you. Mr. AValsii. I Avant to thank yon very much, Mr. Chairman, for that opportunity, because of the" fact that all the time I have been testifyino; before this committee I have tried to keep away from con- demning: labor leaders, or so-called labor leaders. To say I was surprised at Sorrell's testimony would be putting it mildly. It .seems that Sorrell dug up a villian way back in 1937, 1936, or somewhere around there. He is existing because of that villian, and every time he gets caught and has to make an expl^ination he brings out the lATSE and dresses them up as a villian and claims that this is his own villian, and nobody else shall touch him. I testified before you in Tx)s Angeles and I gave you the record of the lATSE since I became the president of the lATSE. I am going to have to review a little bit of that now, because of the fact that Sorrell has put such vicious testimony in here. Before I do that I want to say I was informed that Sorrell testified that the lATSE is being run identically the same as when President Browne was there and when Representative Bioff was there; that the only difference now is that the names have been changed to President Walsh and Representative BreAver. I said in my telegram that his statements were a vicious lie, and I want to say under oath that his statements were a vicious lie. I want to say that since I became the President of the lATSE I liave not accepted any bribes, graft, or anything else from the pro- ducers, whether they be in Hollywood or any place else in the United States; that I have tried to operate as the president of the lATSE as a respectable labor leader, representing the people who pay me to represent them. I listened here very attentively to see if Mr. Sorrell would offer anything to back up the statements he made about moneys, favors, or anything else. All he did was to talk around the bush. He never came out and said, "Walsh did this or Walsh did that, or Walsh ac- cepted this, or he accepted that." After listening to the way Sorrell has been accused of being a Communist, and also the fact that he denied he signed the card of the Communist Party or had anything to do with them, I don't know Avhether I should go on and say that Sorrell is really a liar or not. Maybe he will prove that himself later on, if the committees takes the proper action against him. I would just like to review a little bit of the history of the lATSE. When I was elected president, November 9, 1941, I was the most surprised man in the lATSE. The lATSE at that time was really a labor organization that nobody wanted anything to do with, because the president of the lATSE had been sent to jail, for taking money from the producers. It was a terrific handicap to become the leader of an organization the size of the lATSE, under those conditions. However, since then I have made one rule. Tlie rule is that I would carry on the business of the lATSE just the same as if I was living in a fish bowl, and the Lord knows that fish have no privacy. I don't think that the life of the president of th'e lATSE has had any pri- vacy, since he has been the president. 2436 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES At the time I became president there were certain things that had to be done in order to try to establish the oood name of tlie lATSE. One of the first things I did was to go to the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Biddle, and lay the cards on the table with hini — explain what my ideas of the lATSE were and how w^e were going to carry out the affairs of the lATSE from then on. Of course, the lATSE was still under investigation at that time. Mr. Kostelantez, who was doing the investigating for the Government, was in New York City. I appeared before him and also explained how we were going to operate the lATSE. We also drew" up laws, rules, and regulations that we would like to have changed. We submitted those laws, rules, and regulations to the membership of the alliance to be voted on at the next convention. We submitted them first to Mr. Kostelanetz to look over to see what he thought about them. He thought they were very good and if we could pass them at the convention he would have been happy, and so would w^e. We went into the convention in 1942, which was only a few months after being elected, or at least after being appointed by the executive board, still having 2 years to run on that term, because the term of election at that time was 4 years. All of the officers of the lATSE at that convention resigned, so that the delegates at the convention could elect new officers if they saw fit. There was also an executive session held at that convention at which time the sins of the alliance — if I might call them that^ — -were explained to the delegates. Each delegate was asked to talk on it, and express his opinion. The session ran from 81/2 to 4 hours. Every man was given the right to talk on the floor, to criticize, or to do anything he wanted there. There was no parliamentary procedure. He was granted the floor and if anybody tried to shout him down or interfere with him, the man was told if he didn't stop it he would have to leave the hall, because there were some people who just wanted to "be on our side"' let us say. I was the chairman of the meeting and I told them that although they might be my friends everybodv had the right to talk on the floor in any w^ay they wanted. If they had anything they wanted to accuse me of, they had the right to do it and any friend of mine who tried to stop them would be put out of the hall. The delegates were completely satisfied with this session. A motion was made to adjourn after .^i/o or 4 hours, when the delegates left that hall, and I think left it happily. There was nomination for officers, I believe, 2 days later. Two candidates were nominated against me, making three candidates for the office of president. There was an entire slat? nominated against the entire slate of officers that had been in there. This election was held with a secret ballot, each man being given a paper ballot. He went into the booth, marked his ballot, came out and put in into a box. The votes were counted and we were elected officers of the lATSE again at that convention. That carried out in the next convention. We stood for election again. One of the two candidates was nominated against me again. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2437 Tliere was a secret election held at that convention and we were re- elected. Last year in Chicago we stood for election a third time. The same candidate who was nominated at the other two conventions w^as nominated against me at this one. I tell you that one of the finest campaigns ever put on in a labor or^ranization was put on afrainst ine at the Chicago convention. I found out later that some representative of the Conference of Studio Unions returned to Hollywood and said they had spent some $10,000 tryino- to defeat me as the president of thelATSE, but it looked like tliey lost, because we were elected again. I explained to you at Los Angeles how we carried out the election at Chicago and how we carried out the convention. We invited the press in for the first time at one of our conventions and put a table up front for them so that they could stay there during the whole convention. They were very much pleased about that. Also, when the press asked if they could have a watcher at the polls when the ballots were being counted, that request was granted, and they were given the right to watch when the votes were being counted! They came out and expressed their opinion that it was a fair and honest election. So as far as the lATSE is concerned, since I became president, I think it has been carried on as a labor organization that does not have to hang its head; as a labor organization that can stand inspec- tion. We are pretty proud of it. We were proud of it before and we are doubly proud of it now. Now, as to the studio situation. Before I became president the basic agreement was in effect. There has been much testimony here about the basic agreement. The local unions in Holl3'wood affiliated with the lATSE were not pleased with the basic agreement. Of course, you understand that the method of negotiations under the basic agreement w.ere finally carried out by the international presidents. No representatives of the local unions were there, at least in the meetings. They were sittisg out in the hall. When I became i)resident, I went to Hollywood and explained to the local unions that we could negotiate these wage scales either in Hollywood or in New York, but I thought the negotiations could be carried on better in New York, because the tops of the industry w^ere there and we had a better chance of getting a decision. These committees had been in New York for several months prior to my election and they had gone home without making any deal. They had spent a lot of money. I promised them if they came to New York we would pay their expenses to New York. It cost the lATSE several thousands of dollars to do that. Each local union appointed a committee, and that committee came to New York. They did not sit out in the waiting room. They came in and carried out the negotiations with the employer and myself representing them. Those local committees went back to Hollywood. They were satis- fied with the contract negotiations in 1942. The same type of ne- gotiations has been carried out ever since, with the exception that they are now doing the negotiating in Hollywood and the local unions seem to be pleased with it. 2438 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I explain that, because much has been said here by many people as to why don't we go back ujider the basic agreement. I don't think the local unions in Hollywood represented by the lATSE would want to go back under the basic agreement in Holly- wood. They want to carry on the negotiations themselves and they want the assistance of the general oifige in case they need the assistance of the general office and that is the way we do it. Naturally, I have had to make a couple of notes here because of the fact that I was not at the meetings. I think it should be brought out in these hearings, because there has been much talk about the breaking of the no-strike pledge, that the lATSE lived up to its no-strike pledge, not alone in Hollywood, but in every local union in the United States. Mr. Kearns. Since yon have been president ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. WeW, the no-strike pledge was made after I be- came president. That was during wartime. We have nine hundred- some-odd local unions and when you say the lATSE lived up to that pledge, practically 100 percent — I think we had one local union who went on an unauthorized strike. We took the proper action against that local union. They went back to work and we carried out our pledge all during the war. That was one of the reasons why in Hollywood we were not going to let anybody else break the pledge if it was possible to do it. There'has been much said here about the studios; that I claimed all of the jurisdiction in the studios and that I thought everybody should belong to the lATSE. I don't want that misunderstood. Some people have gone around •saying that the lATSE are hogs ; they think they are going to grab everything that is within sight. A¥hen 1 said I thought the studios belonged to the lATSE, or at least the jobs there, I do not want it to be misinterpreted because I think an industrial set-up in a studio would be a proper set-up and that the studio could work better under an industrial set-up than they could by having some 58 guilds or unions in there. I believe there are many of those small groups who, if they had the protection of a large group, could go ahead a whole lot faster than they do if they try to operate as a small group with no protection whatever. It is not the intent of the lATSE to walk into the studios or any place else and just ride roughshod over any other organization that might be in there carrying out its job and taking care of its people in the proper way. I want to bring that to the attention of the committee so that the people who go around looking for something to fight with the lA about won't be able to say, "They want everything and they won't live up to any laws, rules, or regulations, so far as the labor movement is concerned." I believe all through these hearings we have tried to show we are living up to the laws, rules, and regulations as best we can. I believe the judge has read the statement about how the lATSE felt about Browne and Bioff. I did not have to elaborate on that. That statement was sent to each labor union. It is signed by all the officers of the lATSE. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2439 We asked that the statement be read at a local union meeting and we asked that a card be filled out and returned to the general office, as to the number of people who were at that local union meeting, so that we would have a record of how many people heard this statement. After the statement was read to the local unions, it was taken to the convention of the lATSE in Chicago and was read to the con- vention in Chicago. As chairman, I stood there for fully 3 or 4 minutes, waiting for any delegate in that convention — and there were close to 1,100 delegates thei-e — to get up and discuss it in any way he wanted to do it. The convention voted on it and accepted that as the statement of the lATSE. So I do not think we have to go out and keep telling the public and •everybody else every 5 minutes that we are through with Browne and Bioff, that we have nothing to do with. them. I am amazed sometimes about the way people talk about Browne iind Biotf. Browne and Bioff are two criminals. They are out on parole. If somebody saw Bioff in Hollywood and then homes were blown lip and things were done that would be criminal, I don't know why somebody didn't go to the parole officer of Biotf and say, "He is out in Hollywood blowing up homes." It w^ouldn't take them long to put him back in jail again. I am sure the parole officer must know where Browne and Bioff are and must know what Browne and Bioff are doing, because their terms are not up yet. So when people testify here under oath that they heard or saw somebody, or know somebody's uncle who saw Bioff in Hollywood, I think they are just as crazy as some of the other statements that they make. If that is the type of witness this committee wants to pay attention to then I miss my guess. If these Committees on Education and Labor are going to sit and listen to every labor dispute and give it the amount of time that has been given to the Hollywood labor dispute, I lK)pe that the Lord have mercy on the committee. Mr. Ow^ENS. Mr. Chairman, we have been laboring for an education, haven't we ? Mr. Walsh. You are getting that. Tliere was a statement made here about the exchanges, the front offices, and what a sweetheart deal was made with the lATSE — how Ave formed a company union. I want to say that as far as the lASTE is concerned, if we are a company union we are proud of it, and we hope that all the other unions who are not company unions can get agreements that will match ours, being a company union. I would like to discuss the exchange set-up for just a moment. In the first place we did not get the city of Los Angeles, the exchange workers in Los Angeles, because they went to Sorrell's outfit out there. At the present time in San Francisco there are one or two front rooms in the exchanges that are not organized under the lATSE right now. In New York Citv there are four of the exchanges that belong to the CIO. 2440 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES NoAY, if we made a "sweetheart" deal or a company union deal with the distributors, we made a bum one. We sliould have made them give them all to us and not just part of them. So again the testimony that we made these "sweetheart" deals, I don't think is worth mucli, on tliat proof that we haven't a real "sweet- heart" deal. Slie is a bum sweetheart. We promised we would be out of here this afternoon. We came prepared to talk for three or four more days, but I don't think we should do it. I believe your patience is at an end. You have been very nice, as far as the hearings are concerned. I think the committee has tried to carry out its investigation. Sometimes I got a little suspicious of some of the questions asked me, but I think all in all you have tried to do a job. I want to say that we are pleased with the results of the Washington hearing, especially because everything has come out in this Wash- ington hearing. There was much contention that nobody wanted to talk about comnumism, and nobody wanted to talk about Browne and Bioff. I am glad you talked about Browne and Bioff. I come before the committee now and I ask the committee if they want to know anything from me about Browne and Bioff. If you want to know if Browne and Bioff are connected in any manner, shape or form with the lATSE now, because I stand ready to deny that they are. There was a statement made here about moneys I had received. The moneys were explained by the judge here; that is yesterday's news. Every time there is a fight, Sorrell or somebody else comes up and talks about moneys that were received and handled in the lATSE. We claim we have handled the money the best way we knew how, so far as our own money was concerned. If there were any taxes to be paid on the money, we paid the taxes. I want to say to you that no producer, nobody in the lATSE or Browne and Bioff gave me any money and that I did not take any money from them. The only connection with money I have had has been in connection with the lATSE. The money I have handled was not personal moneys it was money of the lATSE and spent for the members of the lATSE,. for their i)rotection and their advancement. I deny anything, either what Sorrell has said, or that anybody else has said, that I received any money in any way that would reflect upon me. If there are any questions about it, I stand here ready to answer under oath. Mr. Owens. Mr, Chairman, we can make it simple. Did you re- ceive any money at any time from any of the producers? Mr. Walsh. No, sir. I can qualify that by saying, no, sir; no money. Mr. Owens. Did you receive anything of material benefit to you from them ? Mr. Walsh. No, sir. Mr. Owens. That's all. Mr. Kearns. Is that all the questions you have? Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. ■ MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2441 ^Iv. Kearxs. Do you have any other deveh:)pnient, Mr. Walsh, that YOU want to present ^ Mr. Walsh. I think I have covered it as well as we want to cover it. I still stand ready and willing to come back, if the committee wants to call me back. I have been here and have attended these sessions so that I could protect our oi'ganization. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Walsh, as I said before, I want to thank you for the contribution you have made. I say now, for the record, that I only wish every international vice president or president — whichever the title is now, of the unions in dispute were on the job as much as you have been during these hearings. I mean on the coast and here, also. You have always complied with our wish and have always been present when asked for testimony. I also extend the invitation to you to come back when we reconvene in May when we have these other people here who may have informa- tion regarding the Browne and Bioff situation which you spoke about a few minutes ago. I refer to Mr. Pegler in that case. Before I recess the hearing, I want to take this opportunity of thanking the entire committee for their patience and cooperation. I also want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the press for a very unbiased coverage of this hearing. In a hearing such as this where all kinds of claims are made and where there are various compliments and uncomplimentary statements made, I think the press did an exceptional job in being very fair with all witnesses. I also want to thank all the witnesses who have appeared here, whose names appear in the record, and who have made the contribution they did make toward the general and complete record. Do you have a statement, Mr. McCann? Mr. McCann. I wanted to report, Mr. Chairman, that subject to your direction, I called Mr. Bodle. I took with me to the office the representative of the painters international, Mr. Gallagher. I got Mr. George Bodle at his office in California. I told him of the presence of ]\rr. Robinson and that you were willing to retain Mr. Robinson here if Mr. Bodle and Mr. Sorrell desired to or would come back and face him. I also took the liberty of saying — when he asked me — whether Mrs. Rena Vale would be available, I said I am sure the chairman will have her available in the event that you want both of these people to be present when you met them. Now. I have not heard from Mr. Bodle. Mr. Gallagher told Mr. Bodle to call Mr. Lindelof and talk with him and that he was to call me back afterwards. I have not heard from him as yet, so I do not know what the Chair will feel disposed to do until we get an answer. ]Mr. OwExs. Did you describe Mr. Robinson to him? Mr. McCanx. I did ; yes, sir, Mr. OwExs. I think the Chair stated before with respect to Rena Vale that we do not feel we have any need for it, but if the}^ care to bring her here arrangements can be made. Mr. McCaxn. I was having to act without any directions from the Chair at the moment. I thought if we were going to confront Mr. Sorrell with one witness, the Chair would desire that we confront him with both of them. 2442 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Owens. But she did not testify, did she, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. McCann. Her testimony has been read into the record two or three times. Mr. Owens. That was in California ? Mr. Kearns. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, there is another point I think is rather important which the Chair might dispose of. I will ask Mr. Levy to correct me if I am misquoting him. We were discussing the advisability of bringing back Senator Tenney in May. We have had Senator Tenney's testimony given in this record three times, once by Mr. Levy, once by Mr. Brewer, and again from the records of the Tenney investigation which have been read here, their conclusions and all, and third, in the findings of the Un-American Activities Committee. Mr. Levy, I think, agreed with me that it would be a worthless thing to have the Senator come back and repeat it for the fourth time. Mr. Levy. Let me say this : I said that in the event there are to be no hearings on the I7th of May, it would be unnecessary in my judg- ment to have a hearing only for Senator Tenney. That was the import of what I said. But in the event you are going to have hearings, whether or not Sena- tor Tenney is to come is solely a matter between this committee and him. I have no control whatsoever over Senator Tenney. Mr. Kearns. I appreciate all the advice, but Senator Tenney asked permission to come before the committee, and I will hear Senator Tenney. That will settle that question. Mr. McCann. On the other matter I have reported fully to the Chair, and I ask his ruling. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I think in view of the fact that we have had a continuous hearing here and that Mr. Robinson appeared here 24 hours ago and has been here since that time, that there has been ample opportunity for anyone to have visited him. We construe that fact to be that there is no desire on the part of anyone to rebut his testimony. Mr. Kearns. The Chair has taken the ])osition right along if Mr. Sorrell or his counsel, or delegated counsel from Washington, D. C, wanted to come over to disagree with any of his testimony, I think they would have made their appearance. I know, had I been in his place I would have made an appearance by this time. In view of that, I want to invite everybody to hear the recording that Mr. Brewer is going to play. IVIr. Levy. It ought to be on the record. Mr. Kearns. I don't think we will take it on the record, I think it will merely be a recording for those who want to stay to listen to it. I would not put that in the record. Mr. Levy. Let me ask another question, sir. Mr. Zorn invited committee counsel and the press to view the moving pictures of the violence. I understand that will take about an hour. In the event this hearing is adjourned tonight, so that we will not have to stay here until tomorrow, I would appreciate it \ery much if you would let us know when the view is to be taken, because one of the MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2443 members indicated they wanted Mr. Brewer present. It can be shown i>gain if, as, and when Mr. Sorrell gets back. Bnt ]Mr. Brewer, who A'isited the picket lines, conld make certain identifications which might be important. We were phmning on ISIr. Brewer leaving for California tomorrow at 3 o'clock. I understand Mr. Zorn has arranged for these films to be shown any time that the committee wants to see them. If necessary, I will ask Mr. Walsh to. remain over, and I will remain over. I feel sure the press Avould be interested in it. I feel counsel for the committee and the committee will be interested in it. Mr. Kearns. Can it be shown in this room ? Mr. Brewer. No, they will have to be shown in a projection room. It is not portable film, it is nitrate film. Mr. Kearns. This will be off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will reconvene, please. I might say. the reason we called the meeting to order now is that we received a phone call from Mr. Sorrell. a communique that he would like to come here and face you, as I understand it. [Addressing Mr. Robinson.] He has submitted these questions which I would like counsel to ask you before we adjourn. Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the record, I >vould like to say Mr. Sorrell asked if Mr. Robinson was a man with an injured back. I told him he was and he said, "I remember him, but I only knew him as Robby." He said, 'T would like for you to ask him some questions." The first question is : Describe the house that you visited, that you told us about yesterday. TESTIMONY OF FRANK R. ROBINSON— Recalled ^Ir. Robinson. It was a little white house. I don't remember what kind of trimming it had, located back up — oh, I think it was in the city of Burbank. It was up back there in the valley. It was a small house, I would judge possibly five rooms, cottage type, typical California cottage type, and as I remember, it was practically a new house. I didn't notice anything in particular about it that I recall at the present time. Mr. McCaxn. Did you go in the house ? ]Mr. Robinson. I believe I did go in the house, and it seems to me I met his wife. Xow, I will not say for sure. It was just merely that he wanted to go there and get something. Mr. McCann. Do you recall whether there was a garage ? Mr. Robinson. I don't believe so ; I don't remember now. It seems to me it was, in a new location. I don't remember whether there was a garage or not. Those things at the time did not have any bearing. As a matter of fact, I did not know he was a Communist. Mr. McCann. The next question he requested I should ask you w^as : Were the people that you brought up from the San Pedro region longshoremen \ Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. 2444 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. McCann. How many did you bring up ? Mr. Robinson. Six. I didn't bring them up. I telephoned down there and told them I needed their help, and for God's sake to get up there and back me up. Mr. McCann. Were those men paid anything for their services ? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir ; they received $200 for over a week's time up there, to pay their expenses back and forth. Mr. McCann. They were paid $200 for over a week's time ? Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. That was given to me and I gave it to the boys to cover their expenses back and forth. Mr. McCann. They were not paid $140 per day ? Mr. Robinson, My God, no. They received a total of $200, merely for their expenses. Mr. McCann. That was only for a week ? Mr. Robinson. That was only for a week while they were up there. Mr. McCann. Is it or is it not a fact that Sorrel 1 objected to tliose men being paid the money ^ Mr. Robinson. That I wouldn't know. The only money that was given to those men was given to me to deliver to them by the strike committee, and the man that was chairman of the strike committee. Sorrell had no room for objecting to it. He objected to the men's presence there, definitely so, because he knew what they were there for. Mr. McCann. You say that the only money given was on one occasion ? Mr. Robinson. On one occasion, it was given to me and I turned it over to those men. Mr. McCann. And that was $200? Mr. Robinson. $200. I can give you the name of the man who I turned it over to, the man who I called and who got them together, Benton is his last name, better known as "Red" Benton. He was the longshore foreman down there. He is the man I called and contacted and asked him to get tlie men together and come up there, an ex-Marine. Mr. Owens. Did Mr. Sorrell describe his own home to you so that you would be in a position to know ? Mr. McCann. No, he did not ; so I Avould not know what it was. He said, "I have no recollection of Robby going to my home, so I wish that you would have him describe it." Mr. Owens. But he did not describe his home so that you would be in a position to know ? Mr. McCann. No ; I am not in a position to give you any information about that, because I was never out to his home and I don't know any- thing about it. Mr. Kearns. Does that complete the questioning ? INIr. McCann. That is all, sir. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask when is Mr. Sorrell coming ? Mr. McCann. He will not come until later on. He said he would send you a wire and he would expect to return here when you held your next hearings. Mr. Robinson. Before you adjourn, I would like to ask a favor of you. MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2445 When Mr. SoiTell can make arrangements and notifies you that he is <^oming, I only hope that you will extend me the privilege of coming here and facing him. Mr. Kearns. All right, sir. Mr. Robinson. If it is going to be adjourned and I am going to go back to my job, I want to thank you for the privilege of letting me come here. Mr. Kearns. We appreciate your coming here. Mr. RoHiNSON. I have one son serving his second enlistment in the Army. He is over in Japan now and anything that I can contribute I want to do. Mr. Kearns. Thank you very much, sir. We want to extend our appreciation to you for making the trip out here. Mr. Owens. He is a very good American citizen. Mr. Keaens. After receipt of information in the telegram sent to the Honorable Tliomi4« L. Owens from Mr. John R. Robiiison in Cali- fornia, stating that he had testimony to give to prove that he knew Sorrell at the time of the 19o7 strike, and would like to give this testi- mony to the committee here in Washington, I informed Counsel McCann to notify Judge Levy of the lA and Mr. Herbert Sorrell of the Conference of Studio Unions that if either one wished to have Mr. Robinson in Washington they were free to do so, as I was not particu- larly interested at the time to receive his testimony and would not sanction expense on the part of the Government. We stand in recess until May 17. (Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the subcommitee adjourned until May 17, 1948.) X lK»i?,m,^V,f.'-'C'-,BRARY III 3 9999 06352 015 7 i i r n I !