2 B.C. LUMBER WORKER From Page 1 “Bill fl In his explanation of the men- acing features of Bill 43, Presi- dent Morris said in part: “I am most anxious that every union member who finds it difficult to follow any discussion of legal matters should not gain the impres- sion that this controversy is merely a battle of words over legal technicalities. I want every trade union member to realize that this Bill, when passed, will be used to block any progress in the struggle to obtain better wages and working conditions for him. Every IWA member should know that this Bill is designed to hamper our own IWA nego- tiations which open this month. I intend to discuss the Bill on just such a basis now, for there can no longer be any doubt that the IWA, as the largest and one of the most militant unions, will be one of the chief targets of the vindictive features of this Bill. Gov’t Sides With Employers The determination of the Gov- ernment to enact the Bill to include all these unjust feat- ures, which will work serious harm to Trade Union interests, is evidence that the Govern- ment is taking the side of the employers to “hold the line” at all costs on wage increases. When this is realized, the aver- age worker will then under- stand why organized employers have been so gleeful over this Bill. Their spokesmen have said that it is good legislation for the province because it is des- igned only to stop illegal strik- es. I propose to show that it does much more than this, and anything said to the contrary is an attempt to fool the work- ers, Right To Strike Indispensable I ask the Trade Unionist who is concerned about his urgent need for a wage increase to stop and think what happens when his Union reaches the bar- gaining table, and how this will be altered by Bill 43. When the negotiators thresh out all the pros and cons of the demands and counter-demands, 43" they finally reach a stage where the employers must decide whether or not they are willing to make reasonable concessions in the light of the facts. The Union’s negotiators will prob- ably indicate a basic minimum “package” which they are pre- pared to recommend for accep- tance by the members they rep- resent. Employers are not noted for their benevolence in such matters, and only concede what they must. It is at that point the Union must be enabled to speak firmly for the membership with the Knowledge that strike action may be instituted if necessary. Everyone familiar with these situations knows that a Union takes strike action as a last resort, and only when all other means of satisfactory settle- ment fail. Nevertheless the right to strike is so indispensable to the Union that they can force the employers to realize that if they refuse reasonable set- tlement, the Union’s member- ship can, if they so choose, withhold their labour from employment that does not offer them adequate reward. Take away the right to strike from the bargaining Union, and it is completely helpless to do anything but accept the employers’ suave rejection of all contract demands, Fundamental Right Attacked This fundamental right is at- tacked by Bill 43. It pretends to preserve the right to strike for the Unions, but so restricts the means of making a strike effec- tive that the right to strike is made an empty mockery. The right to strike without the right to picket is most unreal, as every experienced Trade Union- ist realizes. Consider what this Bill does to the right to picket, and re- member that I am speaking of a strike that is legal under the Labour Relations Act, as re- quired in the Bill. The right to picket is restrict- ed by Bill 43 to the members of the striking Union at the employer’s place of business. Picketing at another place DUNCAN BUSINESS GUIDE LOUTET AGENCIES LTD. INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE Duncan Lake Cowichan J. Lindsay Loutet Gordon R. Loutet 131 Jubilee St. S. Shore Road (Graham Complete Stock of Work and Dress. Clothing “THE STORE WITH THE POPULAR BRANDS’ HANEY MacGREGOR’S MEN’S HANEY BUSINESS “ESQUIRE MEN’S WEAR PORT ALBERNI BUSINESS GUIDE For Everything A Man Wears + WORK, SPORT or DRESS GUIDE Mowatt) BRITISH COLUMBIA We Can Afford To Sell The... BEST For LESS! WEAR Phone 1600 WOODWARD STORES (PORT ALBERNI) LTD. “YOUR FAMILY SHOPPING CENTRE” Closed Wednesdays All Day Hours: 9 - 5:30 “STORM TROOPER” TACTICS employed by these Mounted Police shown here with their steel helmets guarding the buses containing the IWA strikers arrested following the riot at Badger, Newfoundland, have been criticized by impartial observers who were at the scene of the riot. where his products are being handled is absolutely prohibited. The Bill forbids other Unions or persons not members of, or authorized by, the striking Un- ion from giving any form of support to the Union on strike. Our attorneys advise us that it will not be legal to publish anything in a newspaper that may be construed as persuading others not to deal with the struck employer. To illustrate the tricky phras- ing of the Bill, Section 3 states that picketing may be carried on at the employer’s place of business “without acts that are otherwise unlawful.” In other words, the right to picket is made subject to all the old res- trictions on peaceful picketing as well as the narrower permis- sive provisions of this Bill. Pub- lication of a “We Do Not Pat- ronize’”’ list will be made illegal. Picketing Made Actionable Not only are many of the customary methods of peaceful picketing prohibited under this Bill, but they are made action- able. The employer is invited to sue the Union for damages. This places a Union at a grave dis- advantage in comparison with the employer. The Bill pretends that employ- ers and Unions are dealt with on the same footing; but this is quite unrealistic when the circumstances are considered. The right to strike and the right to lock-out are carried out in entirely different ways. An em- ployer follows a very simple procedure to lock-out. It is not necessary for him to take steps similar to a Union’s picketing to make a lock-out effective. The Union, perhaps with thou. sands of members, must be free to communicate with its mem- bers and other workers to make a strike effective. Guilt Presumed Section 4, Sub-section (2) of the Bill states: “The act of any member of an employer's or- ganization or Trade Union is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to be done, authorized, or concurred in by the employ- ers’ organization or Trade Un- ion.” Here the attempt is again made to carry out the pretence that the employers’ organization and the Trade Union are on equal footing in this matter. The employers are represented by a very small group of peo- ple, who are held directly res- ponsible to the company con- cerned for their actions with clearly defined and direct res- ponsibility. The members of the Union may number thousands and, as in the case of the IWA may be scattered throughout many operations over a large area, under circumstances which make it impossible for | the Union to direct their actions in every detail during a dispute. Picketing Made Ineffective Here the rule of justice that a person must be regarded as innocent until proven guilty is reversed. The Union is held guilty for unlawful acts of its members until it is pos- sible to prove that such acts have not been authorized by the Union. It would be just as sensible to say that the actions of every shareholder of the B.C. Electric shall be presumed to have been authorized by the B.C. Electric until the cont- rary is shown. When it is remembered that an unlawful act committed by any one member of the Union can make all picketing illegal, and that such thoughtlessness on the part of one member might bring a damage suit and ruinous consequences to the whole union, the gross in- justice in, this is clearly seen. It becomes quite clear that picketing is to be so restricted even in a legal strike as to be ineffective. It will also be seen that the Bill is designed to enable the employers to at- tach Trade Union funds for damage suits. It requires very little imagin- ation to realize that an unscrup- ulous employer could very eas- ily use a stool-pigeon to create mischief and involve the Union in damage suits that would wipe out its financial resources. No Equality Here I should point out here the difference between the Union and employers’ organization in regard to the right to sue and be sued. This Bill definitely stat- es that a Union is a legal entity for purposes of being sued. A Union’s officers could always be sued, but this Bill makes it easier for employers to raid Union treasuries with damage suits. ‘An employers’ organization has few assets that could satis- INSTRUCTION IN INDUSTRIAL FIRST AID available through Correspondence Cou! First Aid Certificates approved by the ‘ork Board of B.C. Also Correspondence Course in Basic Accident Prevention. THE INDUSTRIAL FIRST AID ATTENDANTS ASSN. OF B.C. 180 West Hastings Street 3 leading to Industrial en’s Compensation Timekeeping and Vancouver 8, B.C. fy any judgement gained by a Union in the courts. The me) bers of the employers’ org ») zation are usually limited liable ity companies. In the case of the Union, its financial resources are accu- mulated by the regular contri- butions of the members, are substantial, and can be attached with greater ease. In addition, their liability is not limited, and as our attorneys point out, it .would be possible for an inno- cent member of the Union to have his personal assets attached as one liable for the damages awarded. Trust Funds Menaced We are obliged also to con- sider the lack of protection for trust funds held by the Unions for welfare purposes or death benefits. Hitherto these funds have been protected under Bri- tish law. This Bill takes away such protection. Funds Protected The majority of the unions are now seeking legal counsel to determine in what manner their funds may be protected against the possibility of attach- ment by the employers in the event of a strike. It is expected that International unions will withdraw funds now held on deposit in Vancouver, as Inter- nationals are now exposed to damage suits under the terms of the Bill. A serious feature of the situ- ation confronting the Trade Unions as a result of this Bill is that former rights are swept away because it repeals the pre- sent Trade Union Act. The Social Credit Government pro- poses to cancel the guarantees given by the Legislature in 1902. At that time the Rossland Min- ers’ Union was sued by an em- ployer who was awarded $12,500 damages in the courts. The Leg- islature took action which paral- leled the action of the British Parliament in its amendments to the British Trades Disputes Act to relieve Trade Unions of the effects of the Taff Vale decision, which awarded an em- ployer damages for business losses occasioned by a strike. In 1924, the Legislature again acted by way of amendment to the Act to relieve Trade Unions from responsibility for wrong- ful acts not authorized by them. Decisions have since been ren- dered in the courts based on the present Act which have amply protected the interests of the community. Rights Wiped Out These rights—maintained by Jaw in Britain—are now cancel- Jed for Trade Unions in British See “Bill 43 Page 10