EMPLOYERS’ COUNCIL, 1966..

. the name and the office have

changed but the anti-unionism remains.

Make

public demands le

The B.C. Federation of Labor
said in a statement released
Tuesday that “the submission to
the minister of labor of secret
briefs by at least five employer
organizations is an obvious and
sinister plot to further disrupt

industrial relations in the
province.”
Len Guy, BCFL secretary-

treasurer, said the public should
demand that the Health Labor
Relations Association and the
Mining Association of B.C. release
the contents of their secret briefs to
labor minister Williams.

“What have they got to hide?”’ he
asked. “‘One can only assume that
the content of these submissions
would embarrass these two em-
ployers and that they are therefore
keeping the briefs secret. If this is
the case, British Columbians could
rightly be alarmed, since the
proposals, if similar to the ones
contained in the now public Em-
ployers’ Council brief, may be of a

very serious and threatening
nature.

“Industrial relations in British
Columbia are already strained due
to the federal government’s wage
control program. This gang-up of
employers’ groups in a secret
attempt to influence the govern-
ment must be viewed as a scan-
dalous act of bad faith. It can only
serve to make a _ difficult
bargaining year even more dif-
ficult.”’ -

There is as yet no indication

what the Socred government in- —

tends to bring down in the form of
new labor legislation, outside of
what was contained in the throne
speech which noted only that
present legislation would be
consolidated.

However, haman resources
minister Bill Vander Zalm said last
Friday at a White Rock and Delta
Socred rally, that the current
legislative session would bring
changes in labor laws requiring
more union voting by ballot.

Dismissals appealed

Cont'd from pg. 1

receive similar treatment when he
returns. ‘“‘Where is it all going to
stop,’’ Randall asked, “‘there are 26
captains: are they next?” :

Although the dispute is over
procedures rather than _per-
sonalities it will now be difficult for
Nairn to lead the department if the
union’s grievances are not
satisfied. The grievances are deep
rooted and extend to the very
existence of Nairn as department
head. :

It is the union’s contention that
the tradition of promoting from
within the department was _ pur-
posely broken. They point out that
the job was posted in a number of
Canadian cities simultaneously
with being posted in the depart-
ment. Moreover the job posting
listed qualifications such as

university education that were
previously not required. The new
qualifications effectively excluded
existing department personnel who
had neither university educations
nor enough time to gain a diploma
before the job would be filled. The
assistant chiefs, however, did have
30 years or more experience in the
Burnaby fire department.

The issue is a sensitive one for
the Burnaby Citizens Association
which won Constable’s election as
mayor. The BCA has a_long-
standing association with the labor
movement that is jeopardized by
Constable’s- openly anti-labor
stand. The mayor’s argument in
posing the question, ‘‘Who runs the
municipality: the council or the
unions?” is an echo of arguments
advanced by the right wing op-
position in the Burnaby Voters
Association.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEBRUARY 4, 1977—Page 12

_ Employer brief analyzed

The Employers’ Council of
British Columbia recently sub-
mitted proposals for regressive
changes to the provincial labor
code. The extent to which big
business has formed a united front
is indicated in the following ex-
cerpt from the Council’s covering
letter to the minister of labor:

“Although it is not realistic to
expect all employers in all in-
dustries to have the same priorities
for change in the Code, this sub-
mission deals with those concerns
widely held by employers. In
addition, proposals submitted to
your department by organizations
such as the Canadian Manufac-
turers’ Association, Construction
Labor Relations Association,
Retail Council of Canada, Mining
Association of B.C., Health Labor
Relations Association of B.C. and
the B.C. Independent Logging
Association have been discussed
with us so that in total, employers
are aware of one another’s views
and have achieved the maximum
possible degree of agreement.”

These words emphasize the need
of a united trade union movement.

The sad truthis that the monopoly °

interests are more united than the
labor movement. In this setting,
the Socred government in Victoria
has adopted a formula to expand
the economy that includes massive
giveaways of our priceless natural
resources, the attraction of more
foreign investment into B.C., and
the imposition of restraints on the
labor movement beyond those
imposed .by the federal wage
controls.

How far the provincial govern-
ment will go in bringing down more
restrictions on the labor movement
will depend on their estimation of
what they can get away with.

The Employers’ Council is
urging the government to go a long
way in enacting sweeping anti-
labor changes to the code. Their
argument plays heavily on the
theme of assuring stability in order
to attract more investment capital
and to improve the competitive

position of B.C. products in world

markets. ,

The council proposes that the
definition of strike in the code
should be revised to read as
follows:

“Strike includes a cessation of
work, a refusal to work or to
continue to work, by employees in
combination or in concert or in
accordance with a common un-
derstanding, or a slowdown or
other concerted activity on the part

of employees designed to restrict

or limit output.”

This proposal is aimed at making
it an offense against the code to
engage in protest work stoppages
like those which took place last
October 14. Under the current
definition, a strike is a cessation of
work for the purpose of compelling
an employer to agree to terms or
conditions of employment. The
work stoppages on October 14 were
directed against government and
wage controls. This resulted in a
Labor Relations Board ruling
upholding the legality of the work
stoppages.

The right to secondary picketing
of an employer who is assisting
another employer in a lockout or
resisting a strike would be sharply
restricted as well by the proposal
of the Employer’s Council.

The council is sharply critical of
the Labor Relations Board for its
handling of so-called wildcat
strikes. ‘“‘A major area of con-

cern,’ its presentation says, “‘is-

the method used by the Labor
Relations Board in handling work
stoppages. In numerous cases the
Board has elected to conduct in-
vestigations to find the root cause

:

of a dispute while allowing the
work stoppage itself to continue.”

The council proposes that where
a work stoppage is in progress,
“the Board should deal initially
with terminating the work stop-
page and then attempt to find the
root cause of the dispute.”

In order to give the LRB more
“teeth’’ to end work stoppages, the
council makes two proposals.
First, the filing of an order of the
Labor Relations Board in Supreme
Court would automatically make it
an order of the court and ‘“en-
forceable as such.”’ Second, trade
unions would be fined $50 a day per
employee for non-compliance.
Another part of the proposal would
allow the Board to specify that the
employer could collect such fines
from the deduction of union dues.
“In the event of non-compliance,”
the council brief continues, “‘the
board should have the power to
decertify the trade union.”

This concept, if adopted by the
government, would further the
process of transforming the Labor
Relations Board into a labor court.
To quote the council brief: “‘It
should also be made clear that the
onus: to pursue proceedings lies
with the Labor Relations Board. It

is vital that such onus lie neither

with an elected official (for
example, the attorney-general)
nor with one or another of the
parties, in which case the action

itself could lead to further con-\

frontation.”’

The Employers’ Council wants to
restore the right of employers to
appeal to the courts against a
decision of the Labor Relations
Board on “any point of law or
jurisdiction.” It would once again
permit an employer to go to court
for damages against a union and
individual members for actions in
contravention of the code without
first receiving the permission of
the board. -

The other proposals can be
summarized as follows: :

e Employers shall have the
explicit right to express their views
in opposition to the union during an
organizational drive. This would
contradict the current provision
specifying that ‘‘no employers and
no person acting on behalf of the
employer shall participate or in-

‘terfere with the formation or ad-

ministration of a-trade union.”

e All applications for cer-
tification of a proposed bargaining
unit to be determined by a mail
ballot. At present this can be done
by a show-signed application cards
or by a secret ballot at designated
polling stations.

e Prestrike votes to be taken by
mail ballot. This if adopted would
be yet another government in-
terference in the internal
procedures of the trade union
movement. In many cases, it
would allow the most passive, ill-
informed members to have a
decisive weight in the voting, even
though they have not attended a
union meeting to hear the issues
explained and debated. There are a
few unions who already use the
mail ballot because of their wide
dispersal of members. To impose
this system on all unions would be

JACK PHILLIPS . . . analyzes brief

gross and unacceptable ing)
terference in the internal affairs of
the labor movement. |
e The code to be amended to
provide for a procedure of putting
the employer’s last offer to a vote
by a simple yes or no mail ballot.
Such a ballot would be timed after _
the strike vote ‘but before the
employees could legally strike:
The employer would be limited 1 —
one such: application, but the
minister of labor could institute the
proceedings at any time — before
or after the strike — and would not
be limited in the number of times
he could order a vote. |
e No union would be allowed 10 —
strike unless it gave at least 72
hours notice immediately prior t0
taking strike action. At present,
there is a provision for a 72-hour
notice, but once the 72 hours have —
elapsed the union is free to strike at
any time during the next three. —
months. Acceptance of this
proposal would greatly limit the
effectiveness of the strike vote as
bargaining leverage. Ironically;
this proposal would also brin a
about strikes that otherwise might
be avoided if the parties had thé -
best part of three months

reconsider their respectivé :
positions. 3
In general, the brief of thé

Employers’ Council demonstrates”
that big business hopes to furthe!
weaken the trade union movemet!

and new penalties,
Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

The labor movement must unit
and resist any attempt to enact
such legislation. There is divisio®
within the Socred ranks as to how
far the government should go if
respect to new labor legislation. A
united response from organized
labor would defeat those reac~
tionary interests whose viewpoint”
is expressed by the Employers’
Council. 4

Organized labor should demand _
a charter of rights that will
guarantee the right to organize and
bargain collectively and to strike.
The whole concept of a strike being”
unlawful during the life of 4
collective agreement must be re
examined. The very acceptance of
this concept by organized labor has”
led to an ever increasing number of
restrictions and state regulations
of trade unions. As demonstrated
in other countries, no matter what |
the law or the regulations provide
to the contrary, workers will strike
during the life of an agreement if
the issues in dispute are such that
they feel there is no othe!
satisfactory recourse.

- Back the paper that fights for labor —
PACIFIC TRIBUNE

SUBSCRIBE NOW
Clip and mail to: |
MEZ. 3, 193 E. HASTINGS, VANCOUVER 4, B.C. :

Be ee ee hn he ek ee eee we Re Be ee ee eee ee ey

$4.50~—6mos. |

ee ee