EDITORIAL

Union Shop

‘THE IWA demand for union shop conditions

under the Coast master contract has been seized
upon by the operators as a pretext to force a
stalemate in the bargaining talks. All the time-
worn arguments against the union shop have
been re-hashed in the process.

The employers overlook the fact, that the
demand for the union shop originates, not only
because of the desires of the employees but also
because the establishment of the union shop in
other industries has been found to work to the
advantage of management as well as labor.

For the same reason that the Union desires
the union shop, the employers oppose it. The union
shop enables the union to exert its maximum bar-
gaining strength. Employers have always wanted
to weaken the bargaining strength of the union.

The employers cannot successfully argue that
the union shop imposes additional financial obli-
gations on them. They are forced to fall back on
the argument that it is not democratic, or that
it involves an element of compulsion, which the
employer is reluctant to apply.

The steps by which the union shop conditions
are established are essentially democratic. By
vote, the majority of the. employees select the
Union as their bargaining agency, thus placing
upon the union the responsibility of bargaining
for all employees whether members of the union
or not.

It immediately becomes apparent, that the
individual employee can only exercise his demo-
cratic right to a voice in the bargaining decisions
through membership in the union. It is not incon-
sistent with the present-day conception of democ-
racy, that he should be required to act with the
majority, and accept his share of responsibility.

Under the union shop, the employer hires
whom he pleases. When applying for work, the
new employee is advised that one of the condi-

* tions of employment will be membership in the
certified union. :

He may then elect to accept the condition or
reject it. He may agree to work in harmony with
the majority of his fellow-employees. If he does
not accept the condition, he indicates that he does
not believe in cooperation, and thus disqualifies
himself on more grounds than his objection to
union membership.

His right to work is not challenged. The ele-
ment of compulsion is no greater than is imposed
with regard to all the other-conditions of employ-
ment held to be compulsory by the employer. No
man is employed, on the understanding that he
can have all his own way in his relations with
his fellow-workers. ~

It has often been said in the past, that the
IWA must prove its competency to (1) command
the confidence of the lumber workers, and, (2)
faithfully observe the contract conditions.

The record of the IWA speaks for itself. Over

and over again, the Union has proven that it has
the complete confidence of the rank and file. This
is so, because the rank and file control the Union.

The vital point overlooked by the operators is
that the refusal of the union shop is an expres-
sion of their determined opposition to the com-
plete unionization of the workers. All their com-
plaints are based on incidents, which have been
provoked by this opposition to unionization, and
which in turn has forced the workers to battle
constantly for recognition of their rights.

Those employers who genuinely desire more
harmonious labor - management relations will
adopt an attitude of trust in their employees .as
organized within the Union, and encourage rather
than oppose the orderly and democratic bargain-
ing arrangements which can be developed through
the union shop.

2
EMPLOYE
LUMBER

Sa
conpitions IN

INDUSTRY
a

ae ET

ay

aimeetenretes Se

el
,
|
H
a)
y |

Li ALD

katchewan Labor Relations

Said the report, signed by
Chairman P. G. Makaroff, Q.C.,
“This is a case in which the
employer is openly anti-union, if
not hostile, and states frankly
that since it has not a union in
any of its hundreds of shops on
the continent, it does not desire
its store at Weyburn unionized
if it can help it.”

Behind this language, polite
in face of the circumstances, is
a story of how Woolworth’s tried
‘to help it” by using almost
every kind of union-busting tac-
tic short of mayhem.

13 Employees

The latest chapter in the case
started when an application sign-
ed by 13 employees of the com-
pany asked that union certifica-
tion be rescinded. The union in-
volved is the Saskatchewan Joint
Board, Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union (CCL-
CIO).

By the time the Board was
through with the hearing these
“13” were reduced to six. A key
applicant called Evelyn Kennedy
was labelled “an agent of the
company”. Another, Mary Pron-
to, was just “Saturday -help-
student”, Three were new em-
ployees barred from application
for failure to join the union in
30 days as required by the Act.
One of the three had, in fact,
left the. company to take up
nursing when she signed the ap-
plication for decertification. Two
others were on the job less than
a week. Of such stuff were the
applicants made.

Three Left

Of the final six, only three
were employed when the union
was originally certified early in
1953. It was not hard therefore
for the Board to find that a ma-
jority of the employees in the
original certification was still in
favor of a union in Woolworth’s,
Weyburn.

But before setting down this
finding, Chairman Makaroff docu-
mented a list of company viola-
tions of union rights, long
enough to satisfy Murdoch and
the gold barons of Ontario.

4 Found Guilty

Just a year ago this month the

Board Raps.

By MORDEN LAZARUS
REGINA (CPA) — A majority decision of the Sas-:

Board has, in a carefully-

worded report, charged the F. W. Woolworth Company,
of Weyburn, with skullduggery and union-busting.

company was found guilty of in-
terference, coercion and restraint
and other crimes against the
Trade Union, Act 1944 “with a
view to discouraging membership
in or activity in...” the RWDS
union local 653 and the RWDSU
Joint Board, and so on.

Then in June, 1953, a group of
company employees led by the
aforementioned Miss Kennedy,
applied for decertification. The
Board comments: “This applica-
tion for decertification was pre-
ceded by a prolonged and ran-
corous strike on the part of the
employees in an unsuccessful at-
tempt to extract a collective bar-
gaining agreement from the
company. Employees refusing to
take part in the strike and
another, induced to abandon it,
were rewarded immediately for
their ‘loyalty’ to the employer
by a boost of $5 per week in
wages...”

$5.00 Less

The Board pointed out that
union members did not get the
$5 a week and said “such dis-
crimination must act as a severe
strain upon the loyalty of union
members who are called upon to
pay union dues for the privilege
of getting $5 a week less pay.”
It is very remarkable, says the
Report, that such a high propor-
tion of a small staff should con-
tinue to support the union group.

The battle continued. The
union got another favorable de-
cision from the Board in August,
1958 when it charged the com-
pany with “failing and refusing
to bargain”.

And -then in November the
Board condemned the company
for ‘interfering, restraining and
coercing”, and for “failing to

“OLD DOC”

Dr. R. Llewellyn Douglas has
moved his Dental Office from
9 East Hastings St. to 712
Robson St., Vancouver, B.C.

NEW ADDRESS,

Woolworth’s

bargain collectively” again, and
for “threatening employees” and
for “discriminating against mem-
bers of the union”.

Crowning Insult

And that was by no means all.
But the crowning insult of the
Board’s intelligence and author-
ity was contained in the applica
tion for decertification dated in
January this year. Ostensibly it
came from 18 employees of the
company. The Chairman cut”
this down to six, of which three
really counted. But, even more
important, the majority of the
Board assured themselves, that
from beginning to end, the appli-
cation was company - inspired,
bought and paid for with com-
pany funds. “The majority of
the Board is satisfied that but
for the moral and financial help
of the employer, neither of the
two applications for decertifica-
tion would have ever been
brought . . .”

What now? The Board had
done its best, the company has
done its worst. The union still
has a fighting chance, thanks to
the Saskatchewan Trade Union
Act and to a stalwart group of
union members who didn’t buckle
under some of the severest pro-
vocation ever recorded in a La-
bor Board report in this country.

Urban transit systems carried
118,899,956 passengers last year,
5,808,981 fewer than in the pre-
ceding year.

* «oo

Used Cars: 382,106 sales were
financed for an average $838 each
last year as compared with 375,-
825 for an average $753 each in
1952, an increase of 2% in num-

ber and 11% in average financed
value. — - .

Abramson &
A

Optometrists

Eyes Examined

734 GRANVILLE STREET
MArine 0928 MArine 2948

Ground Floor,
Houre: 9 45 baee
29 to 5:80 p.m.
Wednesdays, 9 to 12 Noon ~

JoaAns

On DIAMONDS, JEWELRY, SILVERWARE, FURS AND

ALL VALUABLES

Immediate Cash!

No Red Tapet

Unredeemed Diamonds for Sale

B. C. COLLATERAL LOAN BROKERS LTD.

77 EAST HASTINGS, Cor. COLUMBIA

PA cific 3557