eS SS

Labour:

UFGW head office initiated Local 777

Continued from page 1
first agreement and that the rates negotiated
“are the best of any Superstore in Canada.”

He did note that the national office was
concerned with the low starting rates at
Superstore — $7.50 per hour compared to
$11.34 at Safeway — which, he said, could
be an inducement for high staff turnover.

But he said that the deal should be com-
pared, not with Safeway and Overwaitea,
but with other stores such as Costco and_
K-Mart, which, like Superstore, sell a large
percentage of non-food items. He also
argued that the danger existed that the store
might have gone non-union if Local 777
had not signed the agreement.

During the press conference, Evans also
touched on a number of issues that have
lingered since the furore over the contract
first erupted, including the history of the
local and the origins of the contract.

He said that Local 777 was chartered by
the international on Jan. 17, 1989 and was
subsequently certified by the Industrial
Relations Council on Feb. 7. Five days
later, on Feb. 12, the contract was ratified in
Kelowna by members of the first bargaining
unit, made up of some 120 people at a
Westfair-owned Extra Foods store.

That contract, he said, will cover all
operations owned by Westfair Foods Ltd.
which are opened within 12 months of the
contract’s signing, as well as all Superstores
in B.C. Evans suggested that employees of
any. of those stores would not necessarily
have to ratify the agreement to be covered
by it.

On the establishment of the local, the

Locals reject
Evans’ report

Ina joint statement issued late Thursday,
UFCW Local 2000 president Leif Hansen
and Local 1518 president Brooke Sundin
declared that the report and decision on the
Superstore agreement “surprised and dis-
appointed” them.

“We believed when we filed out com-
plaint with the international union that the
Local 777 agreement severely damaged our
union as a whole,” the two unionists stated.
“We remain unalterable in that position.”

The statement continued:

“Both Local 2000 and Local 1518 are
faced with a most difficult position. Our
first allegiance must be’to our members and
negotiating the very best collective agree-
ments that we can in the current ‘set of
negotiations with the province’s major food
industry employers. However, at the same
time, we are not prepared to accept the
intrusion of Local 777 into the B.C. market,
nor the substandard agreement which that
local has negotiated.

“With the report of the international
union, it is clear to both unions that our
continued challenge of Local 777 and its
contract with Real Canadian Superstore
will take a considerable length of time. We
cannot negotiate a collective agreement for
our members and continue the challenge to
Local 777 at the same time. |

“This morning we. met with the B.C.
Federation of Labour seeking its assistance.
The federation agrees that our first priority
as local unions must be to negotiate con-
tracts for our members. Therefore, the fed-
eration in consultation with our local
unions will, on our behalf, continue to chal-
lenge Local 777 and its substandard agree-
ment with the Real Canadian Superstore.
Precisely how the federation will pursue the
challenge will be determined over the next
few weeks. :

“We wish to reiterate that both local
unions reject the report of the international

union and will continue to challenge Local
777 and its substandard agreement with all
the resources available to us.”

12 Pacific Tribune, April 24, 1989

CLIFFORD EVANS ... gives endorse-
ment to cut-rate pact.

UFCW national director noted that Local
777 was the result of some three years of
discussions during which time the topic of
organizing the Superstores was raised with
other unions as well as existing UFCW
locals. Evans stated in his written report
that Superstore’s planned investment in
B.C. “forced the UFCW to choose between
chartering a new local union to organize the
employees or losing a major retail food
employer because of personality conflicts.”

As a result, he said, “we looked for
someone to lead the local union. I asked
(Gilbert) Whitlock and he agreed. Then we
went looking for a business representative.”

Asked why the existing locals — 1518
and 2000 — were not considered in organ-
izing the Superstores, Evans replied: ““We
didn’t think and we understood that they
might not be successful.”

Evans did not explain further but it is
known that Superstore has attempted to cut
special contract deals for its stores wherever
they open. Neither Local 2000 or Local
1518 was likely to sign any such agreement.

Evans also noted later that there were
“personality conflicts” with members of
Local 1518 and 2000 although he declined
to elaborate.

He was asked if it was not unusual to hire
as a business agent someone who had pre-
viously led a raid against one of the union’s
locals. Local 777 business agent Hugh Fin-
namore, representing a small rump union,
the Textile Processors; Service, Trades,
Health Care Professional and Technical
Employees Union, raided Local 1518 at
Extra Foods in Burnaby in 1986, and sub-

sequently signed a substandard contract

there.

Evans responded that the union had
checked out Finnamore and found his cre-
dentials and his record of servicing his
members to be “unquestioned.” Evans’
report called Finnamore a “creative and
innovative organizer.”

Although he told reporters he did not
want to “get into a debate about it,” Evans
also alluded to one of the undercurrents in
the debate, the issue of Canadian auto-

nomy. _
In opening the press conference, Evans

said: “There are some who shall go name-
less who saw this as an opportunity to
engage in more international union-bashing
in order to appeal to Canadian chauvinism.
~ Evans did agree with local UFCW lead-
ers that the Superstore contract would have
a bearing on current negotiations with
Safeway and Overwaitea. But he emphas-
ized: “There is absolutely no reason for
Safeway to expect rollbacks.”

Hansen had earlier declared that the two
locals — 1518 and 2000 — “are not pre-
pared to address rollbacks in our con-
tracts.”

Last week, like the classical plot in an
old movie, the Tories began part one of
their long awaited agenda of revenge.
Full of such gobbledegook as “we're try-
ing to make more active use of passive
monies,’ Employment Minister Barbara
McDougall’s speech outlined the govern-
ment’s plans to gut the principles govern-
ing the Unemployment Insurance Act.

This is only the first part of the cuts to
UIC. The second part will come in
Finance Minister Michael Wilson’s April
27 budget. It’s speculated that this will be
the occasion for Ottawa to announce
cuts to its 25 per-cent contribution share
to UI — meaning workers will be pay-
ing considerably more for considerably
less.

This latest move is among the Tory
payoffs to the corporate sector for their
help in the last election. Business has

long urged changes to UI and now it’s
collecting the reward. The campaign has
been spearheaded by such free traders as
John Bulloch’s Canadian Federation of
Independent Business (CFIB), fully sup-
ported by the Business Council on
National Issues (BCNI) and the Cana-
dian Chamber of Commerce.

Business’s main complaint is it can’t
get skilled labour because of competition
from UI. It argues that workers prefer
collecting UI rather than working for $5
or $6 an hour. It finds no contradiction,
or shame, in suggesting workers be
forced below the poverty line. It’s all for
a greater good, they say — in this case,
competition with the American border
states.

McDougall’s changes are a boost to
business in two ways — wages are kept
down by forcing people off unemploy-
ment rolls, while at the same time, wage
demands are dampened.

A jobless worker will now have to wait
longer for his cheque, claims run out
sooner and it takes more weeks of work
to qualify. A horrifying addition is the
cut in benefits from 60 per cent to 50 per
cent of former wages. This will save the
government an estimated $1.3 billion,
most of which is now to be allocated to
job re-training.

UI cuts bare Tories’ |
plan for ‘retraining’ |

This last twist should provide the lead- |
ership of the Canadian Labour Congress
with ample evidence of their error in get-
ting involved with the Canadian Labour
Market and Productivity Centre
(CLMPC), and its preoccupation with
adjustment and retraining programs. —
That’s particularly true since govern-
ment has ask both labour and business to
play a central role in deciding how the -
“new” job training funds will be spent.

This recommendation comes directly —
from the report of the CLMPC’s “Busi- |
ness/Labour Task Force on Adjust-
ment.” In the executive summary, under —
“reducing the burden of change” it reads:

“Recommendations include policies
to co-ordinate government programs,
streamline decision making, to provide —
more equitable access to adjustment
programs, and to involve business and

John
MacLennan

for CLC president Shirley Carr to drop

LABOUR
IN ACTION

labour in the administration of labour
market programs.”

Now that it’s been made clear where
the money is coming from for this
retraining and if the CLC chooses to
participate, it will be helping cut the |
throats of the unemployed, who through |
no fault of their own, are denied their
rightful benefits. At the same time it will |
undermine the trade unions.

If ever a reason or excuse was needed }

the co-chair of the Canadian Labour
Market and Productivity Centre this is it. —

Leadership also has some accounting
to do. After giving assurances to its Feb-
ruary meeting of ranking officers that the
development of a fightback plan would
be a priority, this item was dead last on
the agenda of the March executive coun-
cil meeting. 4

It’s quite clear the CLC must place its
efforts on retraining and. adjustment
programs in the context of a co-
ordinated fightback against the UI cuts.

This is now time for leadership. No
one can wait. Every labour council, local
union, and provincial federation has to
be mobilized to fight the UI cuts. Rallies,
lobbies, and demonstrations are needed
to show this pro-business government
they’ve gone too far.

1
i
t
t
|
I
t
[
[
f
1
i
1
[
1
l
i
i
1
f
?
)
1
1
i
i
1
1
rf
[
f
f
i
i

L

FTHaIBUNE-

: ‘ |
i Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street |
E Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186 1
5 .-Name = so Ae att Pi a ehen  . . ee b
H Address: steak etn acs Reo Sh Be eae :
Poort teeter ence eee eees Postal Code >... .tse22-2. 2228: - < di
§ lamenclosing 1yr.$200 2yrs.$350) 3yrs. $500 Foreigntyr.$320 §
i Bill me later Donation$........ t
E

ee a