ee

 Bridgewood case is

challenge to UAW brass

By GEORGE MORRIS

Last May the United Auto Workers concluded its con-
vention in Atlantic City with adoption of a program it called
“An Agenda for Action in a Troubled Nation.” Among the
many good parts of that program was one on civil liberties.
This called for “repeal of the anti-democratic Smith Act”
under which people were imprisoned for Communist thoughts;
for “abolition of all loyalty oaths”; abolition of the House
un-Americans, the Senate Eastland Committee and the Mc-
Carran Law board; for the right of “individuals and groups to
dissent,” and for the general “strengthening of the democratic
process.”

How much is this resolution worth in practice within the
UAW?

Two weeks after the convention, some people in Local 707
in the Ford plant in Oakville, Ontario, Canada, too cowardly
. to face issues in open debate, invoked Article 10 of section 8
of the UAW constitution barring Communists from holding
office. Adopted a generation ago in the midst of U.S. coldwar
hysteria, the provision was invoked in 1968 to remove Jim
Bridgewood as chairman of the Civil Rights Committee of
Local 707 and as delegate to the Oakville and District Labor
Council.

The ground for invoking the UAW ban was Bridgewood’s
candidacy of the Communist Party in Canada’s Federal elec-
tions. The Communist Party of Canada, in a letter to. Walter
Reuther, pointed out that the action of Local 707 was counter
to Canadian parliamentary custom and political practices gov-
' erning political parties, It was in violation of the Canadian
Bill of Rights; and its action was used against the union by
sources basically hostile to unionism, the letter pointed out.

In his reply, Reuther suggested Bridgewood, could appeal
his case to the UAW Executive Board.

On June 21, 1968, Bridewood appealed. He gave all the
reasons listed by the Communist Party and also noted that
discrimination against Communists in unions was also con-
trary to the Ethical Practices code of the Canadian Congress
of Labor that says persons could “stand for and hold office,
subject only to fair qualifications uniformally imposed.”

The UAW was further reminded that even when it adopt-
ed the anti-Communist ban, Canadians were assured that this
provision would be “non-operative in the Canadian region.”
Bridgewood demanded this rule be observed.

After sitting on that appeal for eight months, the UAW
board came up with a decision recently rejecting the appea!.
The UAW acknowledged that the Canadian Communist Party
does have legal rights, and does participate in public affairs,
with members even in office in local government bodies, but
added that it “finds nothing in Canadian law which forbids the
UAW, a voluntary association, from determining that certain
persons should be ineligible for office.

The UAW’s leaders keep this case a secret for under-
standable reasons. It clearly illustrates the schizophrenia these
days at the upper level of the UAW. Fine resolutions, fine
statements, excellent public relations work, but performance
sometimes in a directly opposite direction. No amount of gym-
nastics in the UAW’s legal department can explain away the
Bridgewood case.

The UAW leaders have apparently found the case uncom-
fortable. That’s why they sat on it and hoped that somehow
it would fade away with time. They want to retain a club
they could use for factional purposes against militant pro-
gressives, and at the same time they wanted to keep it from
the public eye. They know well that the redbaiting weapon
doesn’t have near the potency it had in the hysterical coldwar
days when McCarthyism was riding high. But they must feel
uncomfortable for other reasons.

To tell the public of the decision in the Bridgewood case
is to sow doubt in the minds of many people as to whether
the UAW is really serious in its challenge to the ‘custodians
of the status quo,” led by George Meany, and whether UAW
resolutions mean something.

Ironic as it may seem, there is no record of a case where
any union except the UAW has invoked the anti-Communist
clause, for several years. There is the case of Louis Weinstock,
as well-known Communist, whose membership rights were
restored fully by the Painters District Council of New York—
hardly a “red” union. And the UAW’s action came in face of
the June, 1965, ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of the
longshoreman, Archie Brown, of San Francisco, that in effect
knocked out the Landrum-Griffin Law clause making it a
crime for Communists to hold union office.

Why is the UAW to the right of the whole labor movement
and the Supreme Court on the rights of members to elect a
Communist to union office?

I hope the Canadians press on with everything they have
for Bridgewood’s right to hold office in his union. More than
his civil liberties, and the civil liberties of all Canadian pro-
gressives, is involved here.

The rights of trade unionists in Canada as Canadian na-
tionals is involved. Why should Canadians be subject to the
relics of U.S. McCarthyism? And to raise an issue I have often
harped on for years: why shouldn’t Canadian unionists be in-
dependent?

I don’t know of another country whose unionists are sub-
ject to the laws and discipline of another country. There are
some Americans who believe that Canada, once a dominion
‘inthe British empire, is now a colony of the United States. But
Canadians don’t think so,

New York.

Ear ae Daily World,

Tada ee PAR YO AAR, rh IO

Eear

—Fred Wright from Steel Labor

Construction countdown

By WILLIAM STEWART

The countdown is on for the
Ontario construction industry
with 150,000 construction work-
ers face to face with a solid
front of employers and a May
lst termination date for their
present agreements.

In Toronto, where some 35,000
unionists are grouped, the Tor-
onto Construction Association is
pressing for a showdown. The
TCA, which is in conciliation
procedure with most of the
unions, is calling for a “No
Board” report by the Concilia-
tion Officer. This provision, un-
der the Ontario Labor Relations
Act, allows for the Conciliation
Office to bring down his report
and recommend that no concil-
iation board be set up to deal
with the dispute.

The companys intention on call-
ing for a “No Board” report is
obviously designed to push the
agreements through the concil-
iation procedure and put them
in a position to carry through
their repeated threat to lock out
the entire industry unless it
comes to terms.

The Contractors announced
publicly at the outset of nego-
tiations this year that they would
not sign with a single union un-
less all unions signed together,
removing the threat that any
single union or group of unions
could shut down the industry.

They have further promised
that if any union strikes they
will lock out the remainder. Thus
bargaining by ultimatum has
dominated construction negotia-
tions in 1969. ’

In most negotiations ‘in the
Toronto area the employers have
made no serious offer whatso-

ever and no wage offer at all.

The word is that the Sheet-
metal Workers were offered 60
cents over two years. Oblique
references have been made to
Ironworkers that the same set-
tlement that was signed in Wind-
sor ($1.04 for two years) was in
the pot for Toronto, but con-
tractors deny publicly that this
is the case,

Electricians, who were tied to
a three years agreement in 1965,
have fallen behind the Iron-
workers and are talking in terms
of at least $1.50 an hour pack-
age over two years and a fur-
ther reduction of their work
week from the present 3714
hours to 35 hours. Their coun-
terparts in New York City have

- a 25 hour work week.

Carpenters, who were bound
by the same three year agree-
ment as the electricians, have
applied for conciliation.

Around the province the pic-
ture is much the same. The com-
panies bargaining strategy is
tightly co-ordinated and repre-
sents a serious attempt to put
the brake on construction wages.
This despite the evidence pro-
duced by the Goldenberg-Crispo
Report that wages in the indus-
try are not the villain in the high
cost factor.

At the bottom of the com-
pany’s strategy is an effort to
seek out the weak spots in the
unions front and force through
settlements which would give
them a pattern to ram down the
throats of the stronger unions.
Aiding them in this attempt is
the absence of over-all co-ordi-
nation by the unions and a
meaningfull wage policy.

Part of the inbred strategy of
union bargaining in this indus-
try has centred around a go it

i

i
;

alone policy whereby the strong- |

er unions, where the unemploy-
ment factor was low, have used
their strength, even after a pat-
tern has been established, to —
push through good settlements.
This has been possible because
of the integrated nature of the
industry. If the carpenters down
;

:

tools, for example, no construc:
tion project can go on very /ong,
even if the other trades cross
the carpenters’ picket lines. This
is true of most of the primé
trades.

The contractors are hoping
that by presenting a solid front |
and refusing to sign with one
trade until all trades sign, they
can offset this tactic. The unions
do not appear to have countered
with a similar degree of unity.

Most construction union lead-
ers however appear quite con:
fident that they will win sub-
stantial gains for their members
this year. They point to the big
increases in living costs, the
boom underway in the industry,
public reports which have des
troyed the myth that they are
responsible for high housing an
construction costs, and not least
of all the marked militancy of
the membership, as the deter
minants in their favour.

Asked about the collision
course they appear to be on with -
the contractors they reply the |
course has been set by the em |
ployers. The unions are prepat'
to bargain around the clock t
reach equitable settlements, !"
line with the realities of the I0
dustry and the times. This, they
say, accords both with their ow?
and the public interest. If thé »
companies: \‘¢ontinue on thelt”
reckless course, however, it 4)
they alone who must accept res"
ponsibility for the consequen