ike se a “non- offer’’ from the vitamin manu- facturer which, if endorsed, would have forced one striker out and virtually stripped the union of any security at the plant. “Adams is obviously - not ready to settle,’’ said George Beadle, business agent for the Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union, adding that picketing of London Drugs stores, the main outlet for Adams, would be stepped up. Also this week, the Labor Re- ~ lations Board was hearing a crit- ical decertification application by strikebreakers working at Adams. Theruling had not been brought down at press time al- though Beadle noted that for the with a strike in progress ‘‘would be unheard of.”’ ~ Adams ‘deal’ rejected board to grant the application. ~ “ADAMS. UBoRaToeee LABORATORIES Ip l ed PROPHARM ARORA ce ALDO VALENTE deal would have forced him out. = Herring closure urged Continued from page 1 Brotherhood calls for closure of the entire fishery and despite the fisheries’ own admission that its original catch forecasts were far ae and have had to be cut by The danger prompted the union last week to wire fisheries minister Romeo LeBlanc calling for total closure and charging that openings were being ‘‘scheduled Seetucly to stampede strikers rather than ra- tionally manage the resource.”’ Nichol added this week that scabs and co-op boats “‘are fishing stocks that are necessary for the survival of the resource The UFAWU lobby, scheduled 7 be joined by a B.C. Federation sf Labor delegation, comes at a time when multinational control of the industry has threatened fishermen’s and shoreworkers’ jobs and wages and has put in danger the future of fishing as a Canadian industry. In an attempt to seize control of most of last year’s herring roe pro- duction two main companies, Marubeni and Mitsubishi Cor- porations, drove prices up to un- precedented levels. But their conse- quent demand for fabulous retail prices for roe prompted a con- sumer boycott, resulting in a carry- over from last year and massive pressure on B.C. suppliers to pass price cuts on to fishermen. . The carry-over, together with the small amount of product that Marubeni, particularly, has been able to get from the Central Native Co-op have kept prices depressed, enabling the companies to main- tain their profit levels at fishermen’s expense. “We have said that the way to rebuild the market was to dry up all the product going to Japan,”’ UFAWU president Jack Nichol ee ey City or town Postal Code eae ise a TRIBUNE Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Driv Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186 Read the paper that fights for labor é | am enclosing: told the press conference Tuesday. “That’s why we havetold the co- os that our fight is their fight,’’ he said. Anew dimension on the growing problem of monopoly control in the industry was added this week with the announcement that a quota of 50,000 tons of roe herring had been allocated to Alaskan fish- ermen. In additional to supplying the Japanese market at depressed prices — American fishermen are forbidden by law to bargain for minimum prices — the Alaska quota will enable the same multina- tionals which dominate the in- dustry in B.C. to reap the profit from another fishery. Two major companies operating in Alaska are New England Fishing Company (Nefco), the parent com- pany of Canadian Fishing Com- pany, and Nelbro Packing, a sub- sidiary of B.C. Packers. Both, in turn, have strong links with Japanese capital and, in fact, Alaska is an example of the distor- tion of an industry that results when it is almost completely depen- dent on one market — in this case, Japan — for its products, and when it allows extensive foreign capital penetration.” “It’s the same pattern — the multinationals have cleaned up the resource here and now they’re moving into Alaska, just as they’ve done in Australia and New Zealand,’’ UFAWU secretary George Hewison told a union meeting Wednesday. ‘“They’re like vultures picking off a carcass,”’ he said. The UFAWU was to meet in Victoria with the New Democratic Party caucus and the labor minister Jack Heinrich to demand im- mediate action on the crisis of pce control in the in- 1 year $10 [) 2years$18 (J 6 months $6 [' - Old New) #Foreign 1 year $12 ©) - Donation $ SUAS AEGEAN ORR PACIFIC TRIBUNE— MARCH 14, 1980— Page 12 Voluntary joint councils ‘the way of the future’ There was an interesting item in the Oct. 2, 1979 issue of the Indust- rial Relations Bulletin (published weekly by the Employers’ Council of British Columbia): ‘‘One of the ' distinguishing characteristics of British Columbia labor-manage- ment relations is the extent to which multi-employer bargaining groups negotiate on behalf of an em- ployer.”’ Everyone familiar with the labor scene in B.C. is aware of the fact that the overall coordinator for the employer bargaining groups is the Employers’ Council — the voice of big business. The 1979 Labor Directory pub- lished by the B.C. Ministry of La- bor lists 34 employer bargaining agencies in the province. The following, although only a partial list, should give the reader an idea of the industries and services in which the employers are organized in this form: Automobile dealer- ships, breweries, food industry, hotels, maritime industry, road builders, education, construction, fisheries, forest industry, hospitals, metal industries, pipeline contract- ing, pulp and paper, and road transport. In. addition, there is the B.C. Government Employees Relations Bureau, an agency set up to bargain with provincial government em- ployees, plus a number of regional associations set up by municipal councils to represent them in col- lective bargaining. These specializ- ed agencies employ professional and supporting staff. In some cases, the negotiators are ex-union officers. In September 1979, the Employ- ers’ Council appeared before a four-person committee appointed by the B.C. minister of labor to en- quire into multi-employer bargain- ing and the accreditation process. (More about accreditation later.) The position of the council can be summed up as follows: 1) It supports multi-employer bargaining provided that the em- ployers within an industry initiate such a move. 2) Accreditation, with the exception of the construction in- dustry should be on a voluntary, rather than a compulsory basis. It is obvious that the trend to- wards multi-employer and in- dustry-wide bargaining is irrevers- ible, although it must be said that it is not without its problems for the workers. However, the main ad- vantage to the workers in extending the scope of collective bargaining in this direction is that it increases the unity and fighting capacity of the unions. It raises their sights from the local level to the level of the re- gion or industry as a whole. The fact that there is one, powerful un- ion with a dominant position in the forest industry (IWA), and that it - deals with three multi-employer groups based on geographical re- gions, is the result of many years of struggle by the workers. It has led to the standardization of wages and working conditions and has helped to create a stronger union. The employers have their own reasons for joining together in multi-bargaining units. It helps to establish uniform wage scales and working conditions and decreases the possibility of a split among the employers in relation to the union. However, if we look at the situa- tion in the fishing industry, for ex- ample, where you have a trade un- ion (the United Fishermen and Al- lied Workers), the Native Indian Brotherhood, the “Prince Rupert Fishermen’s Co-operative Associa- tion and a number of independent associations, it is obvious that the fishermen and shoreworkers would be better off if they had only one trade union representing them. If any proof of that is needed, all we have to do is look at the situation in respect to the herring season, where the union and the Native Brother- hood are on strike over prices while theco-op fishermen are out fishing. While there is always a lot of grumbling — in some instances for good cause — by this or that group in the International Woodworkers of America after contract negotia- “no union should become part of LABOR COMMENT BY JACK PHILLIPS tions are completed, because of local or group issues, no one could make a good case for the replace- ment of the IWA by a number of unions and associations that would inevitably end up in conflict with each other. No matter what form union or- ganization takes, the employers, particularly the big monopoly em-. ployers, will continue to centralize their bargaining through multi-em- ployer bargaining agencies. There- fore, even if only in self-defence, unions in a given industry must- move towards closer coordination and, eventually, one union. The accreditation process refer- red to earlier is a procedure where- by an employers’ organization may apply to the Labor Relations Board to become the exclusive bargaining ° agent on behalf of all the employers named in the application. The board can accept or reject the ap- plication. It can also add additional employers to the group or delete from those named in the applica- tion.-Once the employers’ organi- zation is accredited under this sec- tion, it has the exclusive authority to bind the employers it represents by concluding a collective agree- ment. In the municipal field, the Cana- dian Union of Public Employees. -has vigorously opposed accredita- tion of municipal councils and school boards. Their experience has convinced them that in many cases municipal councils and ‘school boards have been prevented from settling with the union be- cause the proposed settlement had been vetoed by thé accredited bar- gaining agency. In some areas, they.charge, am- bitious negotiators employed by the accredited agencies have delib- erately provoked strikes. CUPE ar- gues that accreditation takes away the authority of local councils and school boards to make decisions they should make by virtue of their responsibility to the people who elected them. It is interesting to note at this point that the Employers’ Council. ’ proposed to the four-person com- mittee that the Labor Code be amended to provide that the con- sent of all employers named in an application for accreditation be re- quired before such accreditation is granted. An employer who is bound by accreditation may, during the ‘ doesn’t see it that way. ' They also try to involve the top — fourth or fifth month after the 4 signing of a collective agrecmet aa apply to have his name del from the bargaining group, but the x Labor Relations Board has discte- tionary power to grant or refuse — consent. On the union side, the LRB has the power, on application of one or more unions, to establish a coun of trade unions as a bargaining unit, along with power to add or delete unions. A union named as@ member of a council of unions call withdraw only with the permission of the Labor Relations Board. Itis the position of organized labor that such a council except by its OWN agreement, or be compelled to re main a member against its will. It is significant that the Employ- ers’ Council in its submission to thé four-person committee made statement that most union leaders would endorse: “Few of the prob- lems surrounding multi-employet bargaining can or should be resolv; ed through the legislative process.” The experience of the trade un- ion movement proves that the best way for unions to combine for col- lective bargaining purposes is ona voluntary basis and by setting their own rules and regulations. As self- governing, voluntary organiza- tions, they should be subject to 4 minimum of regulation by govern- ment and their appointed boards. However, the Employers’ Council For example, the council pro- poses thatthe B.C. construction in- dustry betreated as unique and be — governed by special legislation rather than the labor code. Obvi- ~ ously, what it has in mind isa weak- — ening of the collective bargaining ~ strength of the building trades unions. % The unions in that industry have-— some special problems, but they — can best be dealt with by govern= ~ ment enacting the changes to the © labor code as proposed by the pro- ~ vincial building trades council. = Although the Employers’ Coun- — cil argued for special legislation for — construction workers in its submis- ‘sion, it was silent on the question of bargaining rights for fishermen — and farm workers. Obviously, the — big employers of this province have come to accept trade unionism only totheextent that theyhavenoother choice. % Having recognized it, they seek to shape the laws and rules govern- __ ing labor relations in their favor. leadership of organized labor in collaborating with them against the interest of the membership. In that setting, the trade union _ movement must constantlyreassert its independence and preference _ for the principle of voluntarism. It should at the same time press for — more basic legislation to strengthen its position with respect to big busi- ness, on such issues as layoffs, — moving of plants, investment pol- — icies and working conditions. For example, what about a law making it compulsory for employ- ers to produce all of their financial records to union representatives _ during contract negotiations? I have yet to see a submission by the Employers’ Council which advo- cated such legislation. Neither have we ever had a government in Can- ada, federal or provincial, which enacted’ such legislation. We have come a long way, but there’ sstila long way to go.