Equity and American Artists
hope you will allow me space to correct certain statements made by Janus in your issue okSeptember 7th.
1. He states that Equity claims the right to make a separate ruling for foreign artists in respect of interchangeability of Equity and Variety Artists' Federation cards. The truth is that Equity and the V.A.F. have agreed that the cards of foreign artists shall not be iftlerchange- able, but that the foreign artist must join the union appropriate to the type of show in which .ir or she is performing. It is the V.A.F. which has repudiated this agreement.
2. Discussions were proceeding between Equity and the V.A.F. to establish a clear line of demarcation for foreign artists at the time when this incident arose. On the proposals submitted by each union Miss Perry would have had to join Equity.
3. Lord Terrington, as chairman of the London Theatre Council, neither "ruled" nor "recommended." He has since made this clear in a Press statement.
4. Equity has offered to all American artists' unions that we will recognise their cards wipout fees or restrictions if they will recognise ours. We are not restrictionist and we hate these onerous fees. Our offer was refused, so that ,we have no alternative but to stand on the just principle that Americans over here should be treated precisely as our members are in America. There is no doubt that in America an artist in Miss Perry's position would have been obliged to join American Equity. This has been confirmed by cable from American Equity.
5. The fact that the V.A.F. numbers amongst its members a great many employers and can be used as a front for their organisation has not prevented us from making very great efforts to co-operate with the V.A.F. I have myself Itaken the chair at several joint meetings which have glade great advances in this direction.—Yours faithfully, BRUCE BELFRAGE, Vice 'President, British Actors' Equity Association. Imperial Buildings, 56 Kingsway, W.C.2.
[Janus writes: The main question is what view was taken by Lord Terrington, the ii.dependent Chairman. I made it perfectly clear that Lord Terrington, for reasons which Equity well understood, could not give a binding decision. There is no doubt, however, that he expressed himself definitely against Equity's claim. I am quite content with the term "expressed himself" if that is preferred.]
Previous page
