ee ieittenrcreenetnt naa aa. Car 7 ot S Che: bess i : i ACCORDANCE with its public promise, the provincial yi “— government has introduced a bill to amend the Industrial . @onciliation and Arbitration Act, and in view of the im- ;.§) tance of these amendments to the people of British Colum- aa and particularly the trade union movement, we intend to 7 gi Minister of Labor Pearson is to on) Dighly commended for the intel- 5 went and progressive leadership fe has given in bringing these rim@atendments before the legisla- care £0 set maximum produc- nie 2 for war purposes requires + utmost cooperation between jor and management. How is is possible while reactionary iployers adopt the attitude that ey refuse even to recognize the thts of their employees to or- nize into trade unions of their m choice, belligerently insist at under no circumstances will 5 Wey deign to sit around a table > “id bargain with a union, and hit “We roof when it is suggested that Sisy sign a collective) asreement. % is our firm conviction that if 2 proposed amendments are en- 4 ted and labor is given its right- io) place, industrial relations will y greatly improved and a basis 3S— provided for real cooperation ingtween management and labor Onc Maximum production, which ‘7M so essential today to destroy tlle Hitler‘ menace. There is no y@paer single thing that can con- tg bute more to stepping up our am tion’s war effort, making it ssible for labor to devote its d energies to achieving victory the shortest possible time with ie ee possible loss of life and inh 22 és. ites ( ray tH e@ B WD now, what do the proposed /q@j* amendments provide? The x hendments contain a number =< very important steps forward, na. most important of which is 7 + guarantee by law that where ind 5 majority of the employees f@ members of a trade union, “4 /at union shall have the right 4 bargain for all employees af- eted. This provision will clarily © status of unions as bargain- stst S @agencies—a point which has | @2en the subject of considerable he mtroversy in recent months and fs direct cause of more than ea 7O-thirds of our industrial dis- ole ites. The original act, of course, 7 } Salized the right of employees nid ad employers to organize for seu 2), lawful purpose, but it didn’t Wefine the bargaining powers of jade unions as such. } Lhe new amendment states that mployees may elect bargaining resentatives by a majority €, but if a majority of em- ey soyees affected are members of , @2e trade union, that trade union ng fall have the right to conduct ie bargaining, and in that case, “@.€ officers of the trade union _@- Such persons as the union may jeg ect for the purpose, shall be ite bargaining representatives on a2half of all employees affected, ad hether members of the trade wpi0n or not. This principle only ot pplies to a genuine trade union, of ‘hich is defined in the act as zing a national or international fog Sanization of employees, or a ; gical branch chartered by and #2 00d standing with any such goody. Section five further discour- a5eS company union setups by tatine: “It shall be unlawful }r any employer to dominate of ‘yote our broadcast tonight to an explanation and analysis the changes proposed by the government. or interfere with the forma- tien or administration of any or- fanization of employees, or to contribute financial or other sup- port to it. Thus the fostering or aiding in any way of company unions will be definitely made illegal and a punishable offence if the government’s proposed leg- islation is adopted. Another safe- guard against company unions is the provisions in Section eleven which states that after expiry of Six months from the date which notification was given to the min- ister of labor for coliective bar- gaining rights ,application may be made by a majority of the employees to change that bargain- ing agency. The minister may, after investigation of the books of that organization, or after an election has been held showing that the majority of the employees desire to be represented by some other bargaining agency, give those employees the opportunity of establishing new bargaining representatives. e HE procedure outlined in the amendments to the act for the establishing of bargaining rights are briefly as follows: FIRST, the majority of the em- ployees must be members in good standing of the union, making application. SECONDLY, notifi- eation must be given to the min- ister of the election of the bar- gaining representatives whether elected by the employees under the old system, or through a trade union. THIRDLY, the minister may take such steps as he thinks proper to satisfy himself that the election was regularly and prop- erly conducted, or in the case of a trade union claiming the right to bargain, that a majority of the employees affected, are boni fide members of the trade union and in good standing. For this purpose, the minister Shall have the right to inspect the membership records of the union and also the payroll of the employer. FOURTH, if the minister is not Satisfied that the election of the bargaining representatives has been regularly and properly con- ducted, or if the union does not represent a clear majority of the employees affected, he will, of course, reject the claim to bar- Paining rights or order a new election. When the minister is satisfied that the bargaining representa- tives are proper constituted, he shall then notify the employer and the employees or the union, and the employer shall conduct collective bargaining with their representatives. If either the em- ployer or the union refuse to bar- gain collectively, or,delay for more than 21 days after notification, the act states that whichever one is responsible shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, for which provision is made for a fine of up to $500. In another section, the amend- ments contain another provision long requested by organized labor, namely, where a trade union is entitled to bargain collectively and has endeavored to consumate an agreement with an employer but has failed or vice-versa, the union or the employer may notify the minister of labor in writing, giv- ing the particulars. The minister may then, without referring the matter to conciliation, establish an arbitration board. This proviso will speed up those cases where either side is stalling, evading or in any other way not playing the game and sincerely trying to reach a peaceful and amicable sct- tlement of the dispute. i) HE government has been under heavy pressure from employ- ers to refrain from ‘introducing any legislation affecting labor re- lations during wartime, on the argument that such legislation “Might rock the boat.’ This is a feeble plea, and the government has acted wisely in ignoring it. To continue te deny to the working people of British Go- lumbia rights which in Great Britain, Australia and New Zea- jand have been firmly estab- lished for many years and which the Wagner Act in the US strongly protects, is no more Beveridge HWA Leader Analyses Labor Bill Revisions Excerpts appear below from a radio speech made by Nigel Morgan, B.C. District Representative of the IWA, over CJOR this week. justified in wartime than in time of peace BUT IT IS MORE DANGEROUS AND HARM- KUL; for it makes it impossible for workers and employers alike to row in the same direction at a time when the utmost de- gree of cooperation is a pri- mary necessity of total war. While organized labor will no doubt press for additional changes respecting the time required for dealing with disputes and other sections of less importance, the major changes should and un- doubtedly will receive the support of all sections of the labor move- ment of British Columbia. Let no one confuse or dis- tort labor’s demand for enact- ment of these amendments, lest the proposals be shelved for another year—as was done re- cently in the province of On- tario. : @ HE benefits to be derived from such progressive changes will have a far-reaching effect on em- ployer and employees alike, as well as the community at large. The main principle involved, and con- ceded, is that where a majority of employees have become members Plan Crisis NIGEL MORGAN of a recognized bona fide trade union, the employers must meet and bargain collectively as to hours, wages and working condi- tions with his employees’ chosen union and union representatives. This in itself gives labor recogni- tion and individual collective dig- nity, a basic feature of any real democracy. With this, of course, comes new responsibilities. A responsibility on the part of the unorganized workers to find his or her place in the ranks of the organization enjoying jurisdiction in each re- spective field. Comes too, the added responsibility of the organi- gation itself in firmly and intel- ligently, in a statesmanlike man- ner, removing conditions that re- tard production, and cooperating with government and manage- ment in hastening the day of vietory over Hitlerism. Stirs Britain's Labor Movement — By IVOR MONTAGU LONDON. qpe® parliamentary crisis over the Beveridge Plan was very real The failure to approve the plan leaves a dangerous situation which is likely to worsen. The Beveridge Plan of social security after the war had become a symbol, not of a future paradise, but of a program of minimum benefits constituting a test of the sincerity of all those who talk about changes in the postwar world. The National Council of Labor of the Trades Union Congress, plus the Labor Party, plus the Labor Party parliamentary lead- ership, and also the Liberal Party, the Communist Party and even many Conservatives, had expressed formal support for the Beveridge Plan. Support was also expressed by the whole press, with the excep- tion of Lord Camrose’s Daily Telegraph and his brother, Lord Kemsley’s, Daily Sketch. There was also an exception of a pro- vineial newspaper chain which always expresses the viewpoint of Big Business. In this case it tool the viewpoint of the big insurance companies. The Government had indicated its intention of awaiting the views expressed in the Commons debate before deciding its own attitude. For the formal purposes of the debate, the resolution was pro- posed by Arthur Greenwood, par- liamentary Labor Party leader, and by non-minister members of the Liberal and Conservative Parties. It expressed merely a general welcome for the principles of the Beveridge Plan in colorless and non-committal terms. This alarmed all groups: the Liberals, a group of Laborites and a group of doughty young Tories, wide-awake enough to realize the fatal electoral danger to the Tory Party if this stampede them as the only anti-Beveridge Party. They all slapped down amendments demanding definite steps to be taken in the realization of the Pian. LABORITES RAP GOVT. The Tory die-hard group off- ered an anti-Beyveridge amend- ment as a tactical move to make the original resolution appear as the middle-way” and the “golden mean.” The course of the debate horri- fied Beveridge supporters. First, two Government spokes- men, the Munichites Sir John Anderson and Sir Kingsley Wood, indicated such lukewarm enthusi- asm and insisted on so many qualifications that the whole par- liamentary Labor Party (that is, all the Labor members of Parlia- ment) decided to vote against the government as a unit for the first time. Even the pressure of the Labor members in the Cabinet could not shake the government from this position, nor could Greenwood’s withdrawing his support from the resolution bearing his name. The view of Herbert Morrison and other Labor ministers was that 70 percent of the Beveridge report was accepted. This view was arrived at by a counting of paragraphs. (1) The Government complete- ly capitulated to the insurance in- terests by refusing to accept that part of the Beveridge Plan elim- inating those interests. (2) The decision to make all provisions generally dependent on the post-war financial situation constitutes a rejection of the prin- ciple that social security has pri- ority. (3) The refusal to make an im- mediate beginning of a “Ministry of Social Security indicates in- Sincerity in the apparent accept- ance of the basic principles in the apparent acceptance of the basic principle of the Beveridge report. Morrison’s final speech for the Government in the debate failed to influence the Labor MP’s. But it did end the rebellion of the young Tories. They saw that with Morrison’s support the Conserva- tive Party would not be isolated as the sole anti-Beveridge party. The result was 119 votes, con- sisting of all the Labor MP's ex- cept two, some of the Liberals and Independents, and William Gallacher, Communist MP, stand- ing against 3385 Tories, Liberals and the Labor cabinet ministers. The consequent crisis in the la- bor movement here is still un- solved. The Trades Union Con- gress leadership and the Labor Cabinet Ministers regard the Par- liamentary Labor Party as ‘“reb- els.” Technically, the cabinet min- isters are “rebels” since the Par- hamentary Labor Party rules for- bid voting against the Party de- cision, which in this case was to oppose the government. The formal disagreement will probably be glossed over without a Labor Party split, or resigna- tion of the labor ministers. But the matter is far from settled.