eens FROM PAGE ONE “B.C. TEL” After letting the problem fester for too long, the Board decided to do something. In 1979 they issued a new certificate which excluded all ‘‘supervisorial jobs” thus allowing the company to continue to erode the integrity of the bargaining unit. By this time, the ratio of management to bargain- ing unit employees had grown from one management employee for every 19 bar- gaining unit employees in 1949, to one for every 3.5 in 1978. It is interesting to note that the federal mediator in this most recent dispute, Ed Peck, who was a management nominee to the B.C. Labour Board, said in his report that B.C. Tel’s perspective on management rights “borders on paranoia”. Every union in the labour movement can appreciate the problems that flow from dispute over “man- agement’s right to manage”. Considering Mr. Peck’s background with the B.C. Labour Code, which is considered by many labour mediators to be the most progressive in Canada, it is significant that he regards B.C. Tel’s attitude as being so distorted. In order to reach some sort of compromise over the supervisory issue, Mr. Peck’s report recommended that the union set out its plant and technical jurisdiction by writing detailed job descriptions. This reeommenda- tion was consistent with the last decision of the Labour Board which recommended that the union and company attempt to reach a negotiated solution to their problem. By recommending this tye of solution, the Labour Board acknowledged its mistake in 1973 which deprived the union of its ability to effectively protect the work jurisdiction of all bargaining unit employees. B.C. Tel’s rejection of Mr. Peck’s report comes as no surprise to either TWU members or those involved in the trade union movement. In the last three negotia- tions, federal mediators have been appointed to reach a settlement. Some of the mediators appointed have included Dr. Noel Hall and Justice Henry Hutcheon. In all three cases, the union’s bargaining commit- tee has recommended acceptance of the mediator’s report, while in all three cases B.C. Tel has rejected the reports..B.C. Tel claims that it will only accept face-to-face negotiations “because a mediator cannot grasp the complexities of the telephone industry”. It seems that B.C. Tel’s 3 and 0 OO ony " SSP Nes wets: x Vi It goes something like this . . . we're too essential to strike for better wages and they can’t give us higher wages because It causes Inflation... record with mediation is more the result of company pigheadedness rather than the mediator’s incompetence. The irrational and stubborn attitude that B.C. Tel has adopted in this and other disputes with its employees is characteristic of an aggressively anti-union employer. TWU’s grievance file is packed with exam- ples of this attitude. Few, if any, grievances’ are allowed to be resolved at the first or second level. Those familar with the com- pany’s behavior characterize manage- ment’s strategy as “exhaustion by litiga- tion”, the employer delays and frustrates the resolving of every possible grievance in order to discourage the employees from defending the terms and conditions of their collective agreement. This strategy is also designed to stick the union with the costs of unnecessary arbitrations. The response of the union members to this kind of harassment has been anything but complacent. Just recently telephone opera- tors in New Westminster were told by their supervisors that if, during a working shift, an operator wanted to use the washroom she must put up her hand and get the supervi- sor’s permission. The operators’ response was simple: if you treat us like that we will shut down the operation. Once the supervi- sors appreciated the collective resolve of the operators, management decided that their position on the issue could do with some changing. The fact that the TWU, with assistance from the IWA and the B.C. Fed, is in the process of challenging B.C. Tel’s applica- tion for a rate increase is consistent with the union’s opposition to foreign control of what should be a provincially owned telephone company. The TWU is arguing that the only one benefitting from increased telephone rates is GTE because B.C. Tel purchases more than three-quarters of its telephone equipment from GTE. In addition, the TWU argues that B.C. Tel’s rate increase will finance the purchase and construction of new telephone equipment that will elimi- nate the jobs of telephone workers and will not increase the level of service to B.C. Tel subscribers. The company makes a very limp response to this argument. B.C. Tel contends that it must increase rates to satisfy its share- holders. If it did not do this it would not be able to raise enough money to pay for the purchase and construction of telephone equipment. As far as the equipment pur- chases themselves are concerned, the com- pany says it has always placed a high priority on the needs of its customers, thus any equipment purchased would always be “the most appropriate” in terms of meeting the needs of its customers. What B.C. Tel ignores when it makes this argumentis that previous rate increases, that were justified with the same argument, have not resulted in any change in the company’s quality of service indices which were developed to monitor the quality of telephone service that subscribers receive. The struggle that the TWU is involved in at the negotiating table, at the grievance process, and at the rate increase hearings provide important examples of others in the trade union movement. At the negotiating table and in the grievance process the TWU is faced with the threat of a right-to-work type of work environment where the employer is free to deplete union ranks by either reshuffling job titles or frustrating attempts to resolve grievances. The most irksome part of this is the indirect support the employer is receiving from the federal government. At the rate increase hearings the TWU is challenging B.C. Tel’s corpor- ate behavior. The union is drawing atten- tion to the company’s hideous relationship with GTE and how this relationship imposes a burden on both customers and employees. Labour disputes such as this one show how essential it is for the labour movement to close ranks in support of working people who are faced with such arrogant and irresponsible employers like B.C. Tel. The TWU’s president, Bill Clark, sug- gested that members of the labour move- ment as well as other B.C. Tel subscribers could support the union’s struggle by mail- ing in only partial telephone payments in ordinary envelopes rather than the business envelopes supplied by the company. This action would show B.C. Tel management that subscribers are serious about their support for the TWU. FROM PAGE ONE “AGREEMENT” e Life insurance of $20,000 immediately and $23,000 effective April 1, 1981. e Weekly indemnity of $200 per week for fifty-two weeks and increasing to $210 per week, April 1, 1981. The agreement also provides for a dental plan; plywood evaluation; an apprentice- ship programme and severance pay; all similar to B.C. forest industry contracts. Other provisions agreed to include: e Complete union security. e Hours of work. e Seniority recognition. © Technological change. © Leave of absence. © Safety and Health. Negotiations were headed up by Regional 2nd vice-president Neil Menard and Local financial secretary Bob Deleeuw who were aided by plant members Jack Moore, Neil Gray, and Mike Barrey. Prior to signing of the agreement, the Local was forced to strike the operation for one day when the company reneged on its promise to give tradesmen the increases negotiated by the union in other forest operations. The company capitulated when faced with the job action and requested a meeting to sign an agreement. The operation which manufactures flake board employees approximately thirty employees. It is expected that this number will increase to one hundred in the near future. FOREST MINISTRY FINED BY COMPENSATION BOARD The Ministry of Forests has been fined $6,300 by the B.C. Workers’ Compensation Board for non-compliance of the province's safety regulations. The fines came follow- ing complaints by the B.C. Government Employees’ Union that the government’s poor safety record could be attributed to a lack of accountability in individual ministries. “We're talking about millions of dollars each year due to time lost from accidents and diseas2,” said BCGEU president Norm Richards. ‘‘Because the government is exempt from premium assessments per worker, unlike private companies in the province, there is much less accountability when it comes to safety.” He added that by incorporating direct premium assessments to government min- istries, the number of accidents causing death and injury would be cut drastically and there would bea sizeable saving to B.C. taxpayers. “The BCGEU wants to cut out this ‘blank cheque philosophy where WCB claims are paid at the end of the year out of general revenues by the Ministry of Finance,” Richards said. “Our union would like to commend the WCB Inspection Department for reinforcing the 1974 government deci- sion that ministries are n ee ot exempt from 2/Lumber Worker/Nov.-Dec.; 1980 a “4 z ey RRS EINE EL Ie 5+