Ont. strike opens debate in CUPE _ The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) with 257,000 members is Canada’s largest trade union. It is a purely Canadian union in the sense that the entire member- ship and all of its offices are in Can- ada. According to some people who advance simplistic solutions to the problems of the labor move- ment, this should be a perfect trade union. After all, they argue, inter- national unions with headquarters in the U.S. are inherently undemo- cratic while the Canadian unions are democratic to the ultimate de- gree because they are Canadian. While I am 100 percent in favor of complete Canadian autonomy for branches of international un- ions in Canada, leading to an inde- trade union movement, I cannot buy the idea that a Cana- dian trade union is more demo- cratic simply because it is Cana- dian. It ignores the fact that bu- reaucracy and undemocratic prac- tices can take root in any organiza- tion and must be opposed. Those thoughts came to mind when I was given a copy of the pres- ident’s report to last week’s con- vention of the British Columbia Division of CUPE. That document contains the following: “With or without sanction, there now exists a ‘Save CUPE Committee,’ its aims and purposes yet unpublicized. The question is, though, is the committee a builder ora demolisher? Will there, arising from that self-appointed commit- tee, be constructive programs? The point to be made is that each idea or series of ideas, must be examined carefully. Will they bring improve- ments?”’ When I inquired about the sig- nificance of that statement, I was told that the situation arising from the recent hospital workers’ strike in Ontario is symptomatic of cer- tain problems in CUPE across the country. : In that connection, a document entitled Report to the 1981 Health _ Care Workers’ Conference (On- tario) from CUPE’s Hospital Cen- tral Bargaining Committee is most revealing. Basically, it is an analysis of the recent hospital strike. CUPE has some 17,000 members in On- tario hospitals. The statement opens with these words: “In January of 1981, CUPE’s Ontario Hospital workers took an unprecedented and signifi- cant step towards throwing off the shackles of Ontario’s Hospital La- bor Dispute Arbitration Act and the oppressive bargaining atmos- phere that results from compulsory and binding arbitration. By the thousands, hospital workers walk- ed off the job, taking part in a massive illegal strike that, at its peak, affected 51 health care insti- tutions, defying not only the Arbi- tration Act, but a cease-and-desist order from the Ontario Labor Re- lations Board, and an ex parte in- junction from the Ontario Su- preme Court as well. The stage was set for the con- frontation when the membership rejected a proposed settlement by a 91 percent majority. This was fol- lowed by a 75 percent vote in favor of strike, after the employers refus- ed to resume negotiations. The bargaining committee, fully aware of the fact that hospital em- ployees are legally forbidden to strike in Ontario, knew there would be a strong reaction from the On- tario Hospital Association through the Labor Relations Board. Trueto form, the OHA obtained a cease- and-desist order from the board. That order directed the employers to reopen negotiations, contingent onthe union’s compliance with the order to end strike preparations. The national union was named in the order and the national office advised the central bargaining committee and the servicing repre- sentatives attached to the hospital units to act accordingly. ‘That announcement left the bar- gaining committee in a very diffi- cult position. After due considera- tion, it decided to adopt a ‘‘wait and see’’ attitude towards the board’s direction to resume nego- tiations and proceeded to work out a revised position for the employ- ers. ‘Although we were convinced the employers would not negotiate with us,’’ says the statement, ‘‘we cooled our heels and hoped for ne- gotiations to resume.’’ However, the workers in Hamilton’s St. Peter’s Hospital reacted to a local situation and walked away from their jobs. The bargaining commit- tee urged them to return to work “pending a call for province-wide action.” After three days of waiting, and with no indication that negotia- tions would begin again, the bar- gaining committee felt compelled to act. The following ultimatum was delivered: If we obtain no as- surance that the employers will meet with us to negotiate a settle- ment by-five o’clock p.m. on Fri- day, Jan. 23, we will publicly an- nounce a firm commitment to strike. That announcement, while it put ‘the local unions firmly back on the fighting trail,’’ prompted the hospitals to refuse to bargain. Ac- cording to the document, ‘‘the hos- pitals continued to leave the im- pression that if we wanted a strike, they would take us on.”’ The bargaining committee made it abundantly clear through the weekend of Jan. 24 that it was ready to bargain, at a moment’s notice, even to the point of giving the government appointed media- rg ; Read the paper that fights for labor Y Name ; y) # can, Segoe A See ws > =: C Secateaate Se ) ; an Sk ERE Pee J 1 am enclosing: y 1 year $12.0 2 years $220 6 months $7 1 OidO New( Foreign 1 year $15 0 Bill me later 1) Donation$.......... RSS ES GNSS PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 19, 1981—Page 12 Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186 oe eee ee ee ee tor a revised position on all out- standing items. On Jan. 25, the mediator gave the bargaining committee the posi- tion of the hospitals: They would _not bargain. Then, according to the report, there was a confrontation with CUPE’s Ontario regional director, Pat O’Keefe. Let the document speak for itself: “Brother O’Keefe went to great lengths to point out every negative aspect of our situation, stating that we had a false impression of the level of militancy in the locals; that the number of locals that could be counted on to strike was probably less than 30; that those that did Labor Comment Jack Phillips strike would be cold and afraid and lose their resolve when they saw how alone they were; that heavy fines and imprisonment would be imposed. His conclusion was that we should not call the strike.”’ According to the document, tempers flared, angry words were exchanged and finally the discus- sion was broken off to consider the respective positions of the bargain- ing committee and O’Keefe. The result was six in favor of strike and one opposed. (The committee was composed of seven regional repre- sentatives.) According to the state- ment, when O’Keefe was informed of the decision, he said: ‘‘That’s it. I wash my hands of the whole thing. I’m not going to jail for any- one.” To quote the statement further: ‘*While brother O’ Keefe was wash- ing his hands, a statement was drafted by the public relations de- partment. Sister Hartman (nation- al president) then announced to the media that the situation was un- changed, and that the employers still refused to negotiate. Themem- bers of the bargaining committee returned to their respective regions to partake in setting up picket lines.”” Within a week, the number of locals on strike escalated from 39to 51. On the first day of the strike, the minister of labor summoned both parties and ordered that bargaining begin immediately. The OHA sent only a minority of their negotiating committee who were not prepared to negotiate. The minister then-set up an ad hoc Disputes Advisory Committee, composed of Vic Pathay, the medi- ator, Robert Joyce, a manage- ment-oriented employee relations specialist and Terry Meagher, sec- retary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labor. According to the document: ‘‘Rather than taking immediate action to rally physical support for our strike, the OFL allowed itself to be co-opted into a position of ‘objective mediation,’ trying to pour oil on troubled waters.”’ The offers that resulted from the efforts of the mediation committee were contemptuously labelled ‘nickel and dime offers’’ and were rejected. In the meantime, provin- cial police officers were photo- graphing picketers, threatening phone calls were being made to members, union officers were ap- pearing before judges on contempt of court charges and the provincial attorney-general was seeking an in- junction against the strike. The in- junction was obtained on Jan. 30, . but the strike continued. At that time, the bargaining committee asked Pat O’Keefe, asa vice-president of the OFL, to mo- bilize support from the Federation, “perhaps along the lines of public statements from the OFL leader- ship that the province’s unions would band together to support the hospital workers against ahy op- position.” According to the report, O’Keefe replied as follows: ‘‘You can’t expect that. It doesn’t work that way. You have to prove it on your own.”’ Despite the exhausting efforts of CUPE staff representatives work- ing inhuman hours, the strike be- gan to crumble. By Monday, Feb. 2, the strike had ceased to be a pro- vincial strike. Reports indicated that by Feb. 3, less than one-third of the locals would be manning _ picket lines. A telephone confer- ence call was held and it was decid- ed to call for a return to work. However, locals in Sudbury, Ham- ilton and Ottawa decided to stay out in hopes of negotiating no-re- prisal clauses on a local basis. “As we all know,” says the document, ‘‘reprisals have been many and vicious, probably the ‘worst large-scale example of union- busting.”’ In its summary, the document makes these projections, among others: “ @ All policies and resolutions aside, the only real way to defeat an anti-union law is to defy it. If this had not been understood by the rank and file, the strike would never have happened. @ The strike occurred not be- cause of the top leadership of CUPE, but in spite of it. ; @ There was disorganizatio and mistrust because the appointed strike co-ordinator did not have the confidence of the membership and O’Keefe refused to replace him bya representative the bargaining com- mittee requested. @ That the Ontario regional di- rector of CUPE, Pat O’Keefe, should be reassigned. ‘‘We would obviously like to see this position filled by a staff person who would respect the policies of the union and ‘the decisions of the rank-and-file membership, while supporting and encouraging the Ontario staff todo likewise.”’ The conclusion of the document is positive: ‘Having been through these experiences it is obvious to us, both committee members and local union leaders alike, that we must take upon ourselves the task of making a strong, united case for re- forms both within and without our own union. Our own national pol- icy, the CUPE program of action, probably provides the best blue- print for what must be done. It commits us to continue to fight for full labor rights, to work tocreatea: coalition of public sector unions, and most importantly, to go on the offensive, no longer striking back only when our backs are to the wall and we are out of options. Where necessary, we must take steps to en- sure that these policies are upheld, and not left in indefinite storage like an old convention kit. “Now, more than ever before, we have reason to stay united, be- cause we have a shared experience and a shared history of struggle, something we never really had be- fore. Now let’s learn from that his- tory and build this new unity that we have created.” How does all of this relate to CUPE in British Columbia with its 27,000 members? I will deal with that in my next article. protested) tinue their strike in the face of | ‘| were fined. “with contempt of court. ‘held at the Vanier Detentio? 3 Sentences) on CUPE | Unionists in this province last} week condemned the Ontario} — government of William Davis} — for the sentences imposed on} — leaders of the Canadian Union} — of Public Employees, including national president Grace Hart- man, for their role in the ill-fat- ed Ontario hospital workers strike in January. A telegram to Davis from the} — B.C. Federation of Labor June} — 12 protested the ‘‘persecution of | — trade union leaders in your pro-} vince” and suggested that the} jailing of Hartman ‘‘is what we} — could expect from a third world | ~ dictatorship not a provincial] government in Canada.” 3 In Ontario Supreme Court} _ June 11, Hartman was sentenc- j ed to 45 days imprisonment for } urging hospital workers to con-} injunctions ordering them back} to work. CUPE Ontario divi-}_ sion president Lucy Nicholson} and staff representative Ray-}- mond Arsenault were each sent- | enced to 15 days in jail. a Several other leaders, some of |” whom had already been fired in |” the wave of reprisals following | the end of the strike, were giver | either suspended sentences of | The strike, which began first | in Hamilton, swept to 51 institu- | tions across the province Jan. 26 | - as some 16,000 hospital workers | walked off the job despite pro- | vincial legislation prohibiting | them from striking. It continued } for several days after the On-} tario Hospital Association ob- “| tained injunctions and a cease- and-desist order ordering the hospital employees back tO work. ag The OHA subsequently went before the Supreme Court charging Hartman and others ‘Hartman was standing uP for those who elected her to rep- resent them against discrimina-}_ tion and unfair treatment from | — an employer which you have de liberately starved of funds in thé hope of causing the collapse of socialized medicine in your pro- vince,” the B.C. Federation of | Labor declared inits telegram tO} Davis. j “You have brought dowD) upon your province the con- tempt of every trade unionist 12 Canada.” ! The provincial committee of the Communist Party in a spe cial resolution June 13 protested the ‘harsh sentences meted out to Grace Hartman and 2] men bers and officers of CUPE. | “This meeting calls on your| government to enact legislatio? | guaranteeing hospital workers the right to strike,”’ the telegra™ stated. ‘‘Jail terms and fines wi4 not deter the hospital workers 0 Ontario from asserting theif basic right to strike.” ; CUPE has urged unionists 10 send letters of support to the} three imprisoned leaders. Hatt man and Nicholson are being os Centre, Box 1150, Brampton, Ont. L6V 2MS. Arsenault is be ing held at the Ottawa-Carleto Detention Centre, Ottawa, On" ‘taro.