FROM PAGE ONE

“CONVENTION”

quite frankly, we are tired of packing so
many people on our backs and at the same
time being blamed for low productivity.

The Regional Council and Local Unions
are presently awaiting a court date in the
Court of Appeal in an attempt to establish
that our Canadian Constitution gives us the
right to protest Political decisions.

The Political Protest, assuming we have
that right, should not then be unlawful if
that Protest is successful. It seems to the
officers that if you stand on a street corner
with a sign protesting and your protest is
not effective, then no one seems to be
concerned. But if you stand in front ofaship
that is being loaded with logs for export asa
result of a political decisions, then if that

Political Protest is successful, it should not
become illegal in our view.

We should mention in the General Section
that it must be obvious to everyone that the
employers have decided that in order to
destroy the effectiveness of the Trade Union
movement, they must attempt to negotiate
away employees’ protection against losing
our jobs to Contractors and/or Sub-
contractors. These demands are the major
issue in, certainly, the Forest Industry, the
Hotel Industry, the Hospitals and the B.C:
Government.

These trends are not only in British
Columbia but throughout the western world
with the Reagan’s and Thatcher’s philos-

ophies.

MERGER DISCUSSIONS:
REGIONS #1 and #2

Since the last Regional Convention, a
number of meetings have been held between
the officers of Regions 1 and 2 and the
International President or Vice-President
Brother Viala working to find solutions to
the many problems that such a merger
presents.

Much of the work has been done by a
subcommittee of G. Stoney of Region #1, W.
Pointon of Region #2, and F. Viala of the
International. :

Many of the details have now been worked
out and the challenge before us in to deal
with the problem of merging the many small
locals in Region #2 into large geographic
locals.

A tentative time table has been agreed on
which calls for the following:

(a) An intensive promotion and educa-
tional program in Region #2 between now
and March 1984 to explain the proposed
merger and its effect on the IWA and its
membership.

(b) A resolution to the International
Convention in March +1984 to give the
International Executive Board the author-
ity to approve the proposed merger and
make the necessary accommodations
regarding membership on the International
Executive Board, etc.

(c) A Referendum ballot of the members of
both Regions to be held: after the 1984
conventions of each Region.

(d) Subject to approval by the member-
ship, a founding convention of the new
Canadian Regional Council will be held
early in 1985.

Hopefully, by the time of our next
Regional Convention, we will have all ofthe
pieces in place to bring about, the merger.

PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS

You Provincial Negotiating Committee
commenced bargaining with the Forest
Industry on May 16, 1983 in the Vancouver
Island Room, Hotel Vancouver for ther first
time with employing companies represented
from all parts of the Province of British
Columbia.

As aresult of 1981 negotiations, the Coast,

3

‘HEY, I'M SELLIN’A DREAM HERE! GEORGE WASHINGTON, OLD GLORY, THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL
OF RIGHTS, SEA-T0-SHININ'= SEA— WHATS NOT HAVIN’ ENOUGH TO EAT GOT To DO WITH IT?”

Northern & Southern Associations along
with a number of major independents
committed themselves to bargain collective-
ly at the same time with your Committee.

One set of-bargaining moves us a step
closer to establishing one Master Agree-
ment for the membership presently covered
by individual agreements. The acquiring of
a Provincial agreement would have
beneficial rewards for everyone.

The idea of one set of negotiations was
sound, the timing, unfortunately, turned out
to be lousy. Because of the extended
downturn in the economy and the length of
shutdowns, and/or closures, the employers
have collectively taken a “hardnose”
position in these talks. This position stems
from them all being at the same table.
Individually, companies from different
Associations have voiced grave concerns
over the Industry’s official hardnose stance
but collectively continue to give it public
support.

Through the process of Local and
Regional Wage & Contract Conferences, a
Programmatic Resolution containing thirty
demands was formulated. These demands
were presented to the employers at the
initial may 16th meeting and were met with
derisive scorn and contempt by Keith
Bennett, Spokesman for the Industry.

Mr. Bennett said that our demands were
ludicrous, unwarranted and inflationary at
a time when the Industry needed conces-
sions as well as restraint. He stated that this
was their year, the giving was over and their
demands had to be addressed.

A three-year agreement, flexibility of
operation, and contracting out became their
main issues and throughout the subsequent
thirty-one meetings with Your Negotiating

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT BOB BLANCHARD

Committee, they showed little interest in or
talked on anything else.

Bro. Munro informed the industry that we
were not unaware of the circumstances
facing our industry, and that we were
receptive to negotiating a settlement that
both sides could live with. He stressed we
were not prepared to be “kicked into
submission” by our employers and most
importantly, we were adamantly opposed to
‘concessions.

SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT NEIL MENARD

Your Negotiating Committee clearly
identified a three-year agreement, flexibility
of operation and contracting out were strike
issues.

The Industry countered by accusing us of
not speaking for our members. They said we
were not representing our members’ views
but the views of your Negotiating
Committee only.

On August 29th, the Industry placed on
the table a proposal that included those
three areas identified as strike issues.

Your Committee continually refused to
conduct a strike vote prior to the offer. We
had stated over and over again that a strike
at this time, in this industry, would be
assinine. Even after the two Pulp unions
had conducted strike referendums and
Industry had concluded their lockout vote,
the IWA refused to conduct a strike vote.

However, with the proposal came a
decision. Do we take a rejection vote or a
strike vote? We decided to take a strike vote
based on the employers’ proposal.

We were also faced with complying with
the Government’s legislated verbage for

strike ballot: “Are You in Favour of a
Strike?”

SEE “CONVENTION” PAGE THREE

2/Lumber Worker/Fall, 1983