Jurisdiction Fight Heats Up
Producers are battling actors in a jurisdiction fight.

Producers who make films in Canada are in a kerfuffle over recent moves by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to extend its jurisdiction beyond the US border.

Known as Global Rule One (some have suggested “Global Rule” may be more apt), SAG is requiring that after May 1, 2002, its members must work under a SAG contract no matter where a production is made. SAG insists that it is merely enforcing one of its founding principles, Rule One, that SAG members only work under contracts negotiated by SAG. However, it is clear that this move is largely motivated by the wish to keep productions at home and to make it less attractive for US producers to run away to places like Canada.

Both the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers and the Canadian Film & Television Producers Association (CFTPA) have publicly denounced this move, with good reason. The imposition of a SAG agreement on US actors working on a production in Canada can mean a significant increase in pension & welfare payments (especially on a series) and in the residuals that are paid to actors. Further, the producer employing the American actor may be required to become a signatory to the SAG agreement and to offer other performers similar arrangements.

SAG members are often an important component of productions that are made here. Up until May 1, SAG members generally worked under the independent production agreement negotiated by the Union of BC Performers with a permit from UBCP, although some productions have had the ability to use an American company to provide actors under SAG agreements.

Agents for SAG members who are asked to work on productions that will be shot here are now requiring that their clients be signed under SAG agreements or that they be indemnified for any costs or penalties that might be imposed by SAG if the agreement is done through another guild. Producers have to make a difficult choice between agreeing to these terms or standing firm on using the local guild agreement (which may mean looking for another actor). Many producers are trying to buy some time as it’s still not clear who is complying –and, just as importantly, who isn’t — and whether a successful legal challenge can be mounted to Global Rule One.

Actors are faced with the same dilemma. If they insist on a SAG agreement, they may be passed over. If they agree to a non-SAG contract, they have been told that they can be required to appear before a Trial Board that has the authority to fine, suspend or expel them.

Can SAG extend its arms over the border? The CFTPA has threatened to go to the Canadian Labour Board to argue that Global Rule One is an unfair labour practice and that it represents an interference with the contract negotiated with ACTRA. This would be charting new waters because the entertainment industry has created a unique situation by having unions whose members work world-wide and, until now, those unions have not tried to impose their contracts in other countries. So it is difficult to predict which way a challenge would go. SAG might also back down if ACTRA, its counterpart in Canada, took a hard line and told SAG to stay out of this country. However, ACTRA has been walking the line between asserting its sovereignty and supporting SAG’s right to exercise jurisdiction over its members.