quote:

---

There's been a fair bit of coverage in Toronto newspapers recently about the re-opening of the Royal Cinema (formerly of the rep chain, Festival), by Theatre D. It's all been positive, about how Theatre D's restored the Royal and going to emphasis Canadian independent film.

But walking past it last night -- their opening night,in which they were showing the semi-political _Monkey Warfare_ (about aging wannabe radicals who were formerly with an irresponsible anti-worker urban guerilla group a la the Squamish Five) -- I encountered picketers from the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 173. Apparently, Theatre D is using a scab projectionist! The new owners of the Royal refuse to employ union members despite the fact that the union has a legal collective agreement at this theatre, and have forced the union projectionist out of his job. The owners also refuse to meet with the union to discuss the matter.

Here's an example of pseudo-progressives (people out to make a buck in part by using progressive veneer) screwing over working people and unions.

(Perhaps telling about the film opening there last night, Reg Harkema's Monkey Warfare, is today's review in the Globe and Mail that described it as "hip" -- beware "hip".)

The union is asking us to boycott the theatre and contact the owners to tell them what we think:

John Hazen and Dan Peel

[email protected]
416-919-6246

[email protected]
416-919-8933

---

Anyway, here's the text of the flyer IATSE was handing out:

Ontario motion picture projectionists and video technicians
BOYCOTT THE ROYAL
Owned and operated by THEATRE D DIGITAL

THE FACTS...A new company, THEATRE D DIGITAL, has purchased the Royal Cinema

-> The new owners have FORCED OUR PROJECTIONIST OUT OF HIS JOB despite the fact that we have a legal contract at this theatre. However, they have re-hired other non-union staff.

-> We have supplied projectionists and technicians to the Royal Cinema since it opened in 1939. WE ARE PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY.

-> We have been forced to picket because THEATRE D DIGITAL HAS REFUSED to meet with us and discuss the situation after many attempts on our part.

PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE THIS UNFAIR EMPLOYER UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED.

(Back of flyer)
YOU CAN HELP BY

- NOT GOING IN until this dispute is settled
- Buying nothing at the snack bar and RETURN ONLY AFTER THE BOYCOTT IS OVER
- CONTACTING THE OWNERS and tell them how you feel about their illegal action.

John Hazen
[email protected]
416-919-6246

Dan Peel
[email protected]
416-919-8933

Yeesh.

I wish you hadn't posted an anonymous email, Michelle, because the polemic from this writer is therefore hard to contextualize.

For instance, claiming the film is about an "irresponsible anti-worker urban guerilla group a la the Squamish Five" is really overreaching, even if the person HAS seen the film which seems unlikely considering their attitude towards the picket line around the Royal. Never mind the fact that reductively linking a fictional representation of some of the characters within a film to some direct literal representation of the film's overall thematic socio-political values seems a little dishonest and hasty.

Just because some characters may or may not have some affinity with some anti- or not-anti labour group which may or may not be irresponsible (who knows? the writer hasn't seen the film) seems a very thin basis indeed with which to accuse a filmmaker of siding with management and screwing the worker for a buck.

Shame on y'all!

It's unpleasantly opportunist to slam an indie Canadian political (NOT semi-political) film as a way of scoring points against the cinema chain that is showing it. Keep in mind that if a few pennies make it back to the filmmaker it will be a very unusual windfall.

But to say that Reg, the filmmaker, is "out to make a buck in part by using progressive veneer," well, I say, a rooty toot toot and up your nose with a rubber hose. You're playing that game which George Orwell used to deride among leftists, since it wasted all their time and energy: "Spot the Closet Fascist!"

-Flick Harrison
-worked on Monkey Warfare.

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: Flick Harrison ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flick Harrison:
Just because some characters may or may not have some affinity with some anti- or not-anti labour group which may or may not be irresponsible (who knows? the writer hasn't seen the film) seems a very thin basis indeed with which to accuse a filmmaker of siding with management and screwing the worker for a buck.

Shame on y'all!

-Flick Harrison
-worked on Monkey Warfare.

---

I don't care about your stupid movie, if it wasn't being shown by a scab (who's not even a projectionist, but a guy who repairs the equipment from what I hear) I probably would have gone and seen the movie instead of picketing the theatre (and no, I didn't write the email that Michelle posted).

As for the filmmaker siding with management, and screwing the worker, the fact that it's being shown on the wrong side of a picket line is enough for that. The content doesn't matter, it could be the Spice Girl movie for all the difference it would make. If the filmmaker was really left-wing or progressive in any meaningful sense of the words they would pull the movie from the scab theatre.

Shame yourself. Being "political" is knowing which side of the picket line you're on.

BOYCOTT THE ROYAL!

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Mick ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flick Harrison:
But to say that Reg, the filmmaker, is "out to make a buck in part by using progressive veneer," well, I say, a rooty toot toot and up your nose with a rubber hose.

---

Who said that? I think it's obvious from the e-mail that they were talking about the cinema chain, not the filmmaker. The point being that the cinema chain is banking on people being happy about them showing indie and progressive films while they hire scab labour to do so.

And he's right about anonymous emails. They should not be the foundation of something as serious as a boycott.

ETA: Except, the email isn't anonymous. Well that is weird. Why don't you address the union concern, Flick?

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

I'm not taking offense at the protest. I supported the proj strike in Vancouver a few years back and didn't go see any films while that strike was on. (It's a sad portent for the Royal action - that strike failed).

But, especially with a labour dispute cutting into ticket sales, the likelihood of a Canadian indie staying in the theatre long enough to be withdrawn by the filmmaker in any sort of protest is laughable. How would anyone know the difference?

Surely there's a higher level for this dispute to go - there is a writer's union, a director's guild, ACTRA, etc... can't these big players get involved, instead of asking a self-financed independent filmmaker (deeply in debt) to screw himself over by breaking contracts with his distributor? Would Theatre D unthread the celluloid just 'cos the filmmaker told them to?

Yes, the filmmaker has a unique personal position that could draw attention to the issue and put pressure on the cinema. But what support would exist for the producers of the film in that case? A pat on the back on the rabble discussion boards? Is there a DGC strike fund to support the withdrawal of all the upcoming films in the Royal's calendar?

In my correspondence with Reg and close attention to this film's release, I never heard about this dispute til yesterday. Maybe the cultural workers ought to be brought into the conversation at the planning stage instead of just having mud slung at them...? Anonymously? .. when it's too late to do anything other than a self-destructive, isolated, showy gesture like trying to impulsively pull their film on opening night, which would be satisfying show-biz but would most likely assure that Reg's political voice is removed from the film industry permanently, not to mention his personal liability?

I'm not a labour expert, BTW - when there's a strike at a grocery store, do the farmers have to stop selling their produce to it, in breach of contract? I know the law usually sides with capital, but what's the right approach from labour's perspective?

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Flick Harrison ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flick Harrison:
That's the identity I was questioning - the author of the snide film blurb which, after all this, I'm guessing is Mick.

---

quote:

---

can't these big players get involved, instead of asking a self-financed independent filmmaker (deeply in debt) to screw himself over by breaking contracts with his distributor?

---

Didn't notice Mick said he didn't write the email, so oops. But Michelle re-posted it, so I guess that makes it hers in a way.

I'm not disputing whether there was a picket. I am taking issue with the email's smear on the film itself...

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Flick Harrison ]

I would have responded much differently had Reg's ethics not been questioned by the email you re-posted. So the original poster doesn't have to take responsibility because their name is left out. And you don't have to take responsibility because you're just "reposting."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flick Harrison:
Clearly the picket line comes from the mighty I.A., but I can't imagine IATSE officially trashing an indie film in their correspondence (a film made in cooperation with all the applicable unions, including IA, I believe). That's the identity I was questioning - the author of the snide film blurb.

---

Well, you're right, the author of the email that's the first post isn't from IATSE. It's from an unaffiliated union activist who happened to walk by the theatre and see the picket line, gather what was going on, and pass it along.

quote:

---

Surely there's a higher level for this dispute to go - there is a writer's union, a director's guild, ACTRA, etc... can't these big players get involved, instead of asking a self-financed independent filmmaker (deeply in debt) to screw himself over by breaking contracts with his distributor? Would Theatre D unthread the celluloid just 'cos the filmmaker told them to?

---

According the the IATSE members on the line they already filed a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which has yet to rule on it (but when they do it will likely become a "lockout" officially).

I don't know what legal ramifications pulling the film would entail for the filmmaker. Those are legitimate questions. As far as I know the union hasn't asked him to do that. However, he did cross the picket line on opening night didn't he? Was that also in any legal contract with Theatre D? Also, like spatrioter said, the only thing we've seen from him is some snarky anti-union comments on the Torontoist blog. Seems like he, like you, doesn't really give a shit about this outside of what people are saying about the movie itself. Again, the movie is not the issue. Get over yourselves you egomaniacs!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Sooner or later, after seeing so many indie culture ventures close, hiring non-union employees for cheaper is going to look pretty appealing.

---

Except from what I understand the scab is actually being paid more than the union projectionist would have been under the existing contract. The new owners are from good ole' anti-union Alberta and either don't know or don't care about Ontario Labour laws. This is straight up union busting.

To answer your question, morally, the answer is obviously yes. Practically, because of the shoddy labour practices of the food & beverage industry, the answer is usually no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
I have a hard time believing that the new projectionist is being paid more. This whole situation would greatly benefit from more facts and testimony from the actors rather than conjecture and hearsay.

---

quote:

---

There having been no prior word or news coverage of the union's grievances or intention to picket...potential patrons were thus compelled to base any decision on whether or not to enter the theatre on the dueling leaflets, which of course only provided parts of the story.

More substantive information can now, however, be garnered from that CNW release, which illuminates that "Under the Labour Relations Act of Ontario a Union retains its jurisdiction whenever a business is sold. The Royal was sold to Theatre D by the McQuillan family that formerly ran the Festival Chain." The Theatre D release disputes the latter claim, but their retort that the movie house was sold to a "historical property enthusiast and leased to Theatre D" is certainly news to us. Virtually every article published about the Royal's salvation (including several archived on Theatre D's own site), makes specific mention of the ownership of the property itself having been transferred to Theatre D.

---

To which Catchfire answered, "To answer your question, morally, the answer is obviously yes."

I disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
In an earlier post I asked, "Suppose that I open a new restaurant in the same location as some previous restaurant...

---

i could be wrong here Martha, but you are not talking about the purchase of an existing business, but the start of an entirely new one. In your example you say Chez Michelle closed for 2 months before you opened your Chez Martha. This would in my opinion (and it is just that, but i have also been a steward for 12 years) not be subject to any obligation to the previous tennants or employees.

However, should you have purchased Chez Michelle from Michelle, lock, stock, and barrell, and the employees at Michelle's had a collective agreement, you would be required by law to honour that agreement.

From what i can tell from the previous posts, Theatre D purchased the Royal from the previous owners who had a collective agreement with the projectionists union (and therefore the projectionist himself), are still calling it the Royal, there is no break in operation, so they would be required to honour that collective agreement under the labour laws.

This is not some sort of scam. this is contract and labour law, and is pretty simple and would be known prior to purchasing the business. If it was not, i would suggest the Theatre D owners did not practice due dilligence, and will most likely lose at the Labour Board. The unfortunate part is the unncessary conflict and bad blood generated in the process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
As I said before, that's true in the restaurant business but not in the movie theatre business. The difference is the labour contract the previous owners signed. If Chez Michelle signed a contract with her workers saying they would have work at any restaurant opened on the same premises you (actually the owners of the premises, which would be Chez Michelle, since the owners would be the only ones who could sign such a contract) would be required to honour it.

The contract is part of what is sold when you sell a movie theatre. Or conversely, what you buy.

---

[ 19 December 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]

SHROOMS!

I remember the 1998-99 lock-out by Odeon and Famous Players chains bosses, and how they basically did bust the union.

It's at the point now where the small chains and independents, which use mostly union projectionists, actually pay better than the two mammoth chains, which, if memory serves, are now actually under one mega-conglomerate.

And they still have the smug-ass audacity to charge $11.50 to see a movie ($4 higher than the union theaters).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
There is a murkier situation that I am curious about. Suppose that Michelle owns not only the business (i.e. Chez Michelle) but also the actual building (in my example, 514 College Street (a randomly chosen address: I have no idea what's there)). Suppose that I buy the building but not the business, and then I open a new restaurant in that location: Chez Michelle's was a pizza joint my my new restaurant will be a hamburger join. Does labour law bind me to the employees of Chez Michelle?

---

Wow, that is a good question. I have no idea what the answer is to that. Now I'm curious too.

But in this case, it's not a different type of business. It was a movie theatre before, and it's a movie theatre now.

I am curious about continuity, though. farnival, were you saying that if the place was shut down for a few months and then finally the premises were sold to a new owner, who decided to open the same type of business, then the new owner wouldn't be obligated to rehire the old staff?

Because if that's the case, then that sounds to me like what happened here. The festival chain has been closed for months, has it not? Someone new bought the premises and started up business there after renovating the place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
But in this case, it's not a different type of business. It was a movie theatre before, and it's a movie theatre now.

---

That might be part of the issue: how much similarity has to exist between the old and new businesses for it to count as the same "type" of business? If the old business was a porn movie theatre and my new business is a children's movie theatre, do I have to hire the same ushers? Do I have to hire the same manager? Are they the same type of business (both are movie theatres) or different? Perhaps there is some history of precedents dealing with this.

On a side point, I am not only interested in the legal issue but also the moral issue: I might be morally bound to the porn theatre employees without being legally bound to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

...I am curious about continuity, though. farnival, were you saying that if the place was shut down for a few months and then finally the premises were sold to a new owner, who decided to open the same type of business, then the new owner wouldn't be obligated to rehire the old staff?...

---

collective agreements are typically between an employer (the business) and the bargaining unit (the employees represented by the union) and not physical locations or buildings, though Ontario law may have some odd provision i don't know about, but i doubt it.

so, michelle, to answer you question (and this is just my opinion mind you) if a business shut down, and a few months later a new one opened in the same spot, unless the new operators bought the business (licence, name, "goodwill" and client lists) i don't see how there is any continuity, so no you wouldn't likely be bound to anything previous.

all this is somewhat academic though. we are not privy here to the terms of sale that Theatre D agreed to, and if there were any existing labour agreements they had to respect, that would have been made quite clear during the negotiations to buy the place. To then abrogate those agreements is in fact breaking the law. The new owners would have known quite well what they were getting into or they have no business running a business. The bank lending them money would also know about any labour agreements that exist, as that would have to be included as a cost of operation.

Without knowing the details of the sale and the collective agreement in place, this appears to be a case of good, old fashioned, anti-union prejudice and ideology.

someone asked earlier why they would pay the new guy operating the camera more than the old one. well, perhaps they are by the hour, but does it include the same negotiated benefits package? the same negotiated overtime provisions? night differentials for shift work? I keep stressing the "negotiated" because contrary to rhetoric that does fly about, everything in a collective agreement is negotiated with the employer. they sign off on it. that means they agreed to it. if they didn't like something they should say so during bargaining. I have no sympathy for crybabies on either side of the table after the fact. from the labour side, if I don't get something in a negotiated contract the first try, i'll build a good case for it over the term of the contract and try again next round. there is no mystery or conspiracy to ruin the company here. remember, if the company folds, how do the employees (members) even get paid what they negotiated? well, they don't.

and if you purchase a business and it is bound by a collective agreement with the employees, you have to abide by it. that is just simple contract and labour law. to say you don't is just silly and playing childish games. do you think your bank would just say, ah well, you violated this or that part of your loan or mortgage terms, but hey, you're cool, don't worry about it. no. they would crack down pretty hard very quickly.

the paying more bit is interesting. in my experience, union hating management knows no finacial bounds to see their point through. it is pathalogical. years ago, i bargained a first contract for 2 years before applying for binding arbitration. all we asked for was the status quo before the owner started being a jerk. no pay increases, just pay and benefits we had before he arbitrarily cut them. The judge agreed with us without exception. He repremanded my boss quite sternly and said he had basically wasted the courts time with being stubborn and cheap. And for two years he only spoke through his lawyer, even when we were sitting two feet from each other! I said one day that with the amount he had paid his lawyer so far after two years, he could have paid for the entire contract twice over! The lawyer looked embarassed and my boss went mental and walked out. Well, the judge at the arbitration basically said the same thing to him and he looked quite foolish. In the end, he harboured a grudge for 10 years about it. all that money and stress for nothing.