Ds io

Scores of delegates lined the microphones at the annual general

meeting of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation in Vancouver Tuesday to
grill education minister Pat McGeer about the government's restric-

tive financing policies and the

minister's “‘negative” attitude

towards the school system. Delegates also affirmed a militant

All labor codes in Canada (pro-
vincial and federal) contain a provi-

sion for the arbitration of
grievances during the life of the col-
lective agreement.

For example, Section 93 (2) of the
B.C: Labor Code reads as follows:

“Every collective agreement shall
contain a provision for final and
conclusive settlement without stop-
page of work, by arbitration or
such other method as may be agreed
upon by the parties, of all disputes
between the persons bound by the
agreement in its interpretation, ap-
plication, operation or any other
alleged violation of the agreement,
including the quesion as to whether
any matter is arbitrable.’’

This arbitration procedure is
widely used as the final stage in the
grievance procedure.

In most arbitration cases I have
been involved in, the grievors were
of good character and they had
every justification to expect that
their claims would be met in full,
whether it was for reinstatement
with all wages and benefits paid for
time lost; a higher rate of pay for
the work they had done or elevation
to a higher classification under the
union agreement. In some cases
they won and in some cases they
lost. In other cases, a saw-off was
made and they received somewhat
less than what they were entitled to.
By a sawoff, I mean a compromise
award where a majority could not
agree to meet the grievor’s claim in
full.

Here, of course, it should be
noted that I am speaking of the nor-
mal, three-man arbitration board.
Such boards are made up of a
representative appointed by . the
union and one by the employer,
plus a chairman agreed to by the
two parties or appointed by a
mutually acceptable authority, such
as the minister of labor. In some
cases, the parties, by mutual con-
sent, use a single arbitrator whose
ruling is final and binding.

With the complexity of current
labor legislation and the increasing
scope and complexity of collective
agreements, the legal profession is
now playing a large role in labor
relations. Lawyers are serving as
chairmen and as representatives on
arbitration boards for employers
and unions. In most cases, an

employer will use a lawyer to pre-
sent a case before such a board and
in some cases the union will do the
same. It is common knowledge that
many top law firms in Vancouver
have one or more lawyers who
specialize in labor arbitration work,
as chairmen, as board members or
as counsel.

However, civil law in Canada is
basically designed to deal with pro-
perty relationships and the protec-
tion of property rights. That ex-
plains why some experts in labor

LABOR
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

relations are beginning to wonder if
this arbitration procedure, with its
built-in shortcomings, is losing
whatever appeal it had for the
unions. For example, there is a
special article on arbitration costs in
British Columbia in the February
1979 issue of Labor Research
Bulletin, published by the B.C.
Ministry of Labor.

The opening paragraph is most
informative: ‘‘Once the ‘favored
child’ of labor policy, grievance ar-
bitration has, with advancing years,
developed some disturbing symp-
toms which tend to undermine its
reputation as a quick and inexpen-
sive mechanism for settling disputes
during the term of a collective
agreement. There are persistent
complaints of increased delays, so-
called creeping legalisms, shortage
of competent arbitrators and,
above all, rising costs.”’

In reporting on a recent survey,
the article brought out the follow-
ing facts, among others: ~

@ In 1977, the average number
of days between the hearing and the
date of the award was 29 days in
cases before a single arbitrator and
47.7 days in cases before arbitration
boards. (I don’t know how these
averages were arrived at, because I
have worked on cases where it took
three or four months to get an
award, after it took five and six
months to get the case before the
board).

policy in defence of education standards, electing progressive can-
didates Allan Blakey, Larry Kuehn and Al Cornes respectively to the
Federation’s top three spots, president and first and second vice-

presidents.

@ The average total cost for
employers before a single arbitrator
was $2,960, as compared with
$1,726 for the union. In cases
before arbitration boards, the
average total cost was $3,254 for the
employers and $2,082 for the
union. (Frankly, I believe this is an
understatement based on lack of
adequate information).

@ In arbitrations before a single
arbitrator, the average cost for the
arbitrator was $1,330, divided bet-
ween the two parties:

@ In arbitrations before a three-
man board, the average cost for the

arbitrators was $5,320, divided bet-

ween the two parties.

@ In arbitrations before a
board, the average cost for the
chairman’s services was $1,960,
divided between the two parties.
(As most experienced chairmen
charge a considerable amount per
day, this figure is very interesting. I
must say from my own experience
that I believe it is too low).

@ The average expense for in-
dividual .representatives appointed
to boards (apart from the chair-
man) was $550.

@ The average cost per party us-

ing legal counsel to present a case
was $2,100. Professional legal help
accounted for 47.7 percent of the
total cost, where it was used.

The larger unions with substan-
tial treasuries can meet these costs
much more easily than some of the
smaller locals with more limited’
resources. However, even the large
locals are checking their costs and
are training staff members to argue
arbitration cases where a lawyer is
not considered necessary.

The grievance procedures in col-
lective agreements are supposed to
be set up so that the worker will
have some rights when his or her
case goes to arbitration. However,
it must also be said that an arbitra-
tion hearing permits management
to press its case for the upholding of
a disciplinary measure free of direct
pressures from the union member-
ship.

The increasing involvement of
the trade union movement in legal
procedures in processing grievances

particularly on

—Sean Griffin photo

is leading to frustrating delays and
heavy financial costs. It has been
my experience that the vast majori-
ty of grievances are legitimate, aris-
ing from the arbitrary and unfair
use of management prerogatives.
These prerogatives are to a great ex-
tent, upheld by statutory and com-
mon law designed to protect private
ownership of the means of produc-
tion and, in many cases, by the wor-
ding of the collective agreement
itself. When that ownership is
vested in a multinational corpora-
tion or a huge conglomerate,
management tends to be very im-
personal and callous in respect t

workers’ rights.

All this points up the need to
develop a militant job stewards’
organization in every union, with
support from all levels of leader-
ship.-

Unioris should also press forthe
right to strike during the life of a
collective agreement on all matters,
such issues as
managerial abuse, intolerable work-
ing conditions, inhuman speed-up,
the enforcement of safety regula-
tions and against violation of the
collective agreement by the
employer. The union should have
the exclusive right to refer a
grievance to arbitration, if it
chooses that road, and that decision
should be binding on management.

It is high time, in my opinion, for
organized labor to start changing
the rules in order to ensure that the
rights of people will more readily
prevail over the rights of corporate

property.

RIBUNI
Read the paper that fights for labor

Anes So ea Soporte ERE Ae
Address .....5. 20 eee eee e tenet nent e nent ee eee
City or town .......200eeeee ees PFOVINGE. . 2... ew ae

Postal Code ......-.-..+::

SOAR ANE ATES

_ traffic leading to the universit

1 am enclosing:
1 year $10[ ] 2 years $18[ ] 6 months $6[ ]
Old[{ 1. New[] Foreign 1 year $12[ ]
Donation $....... :

Dropping
of charge
demanded

Local 2 of the Association 0
University and College Employee
on strike at Simon Fraser Universi
has demanded that all charges}
dropped against the 18 people wh
were arrested by RCMP last Thur
day on the union picket lines.
_ The demand was voiced at
emergency executive meeting of fh
Local following the arrests [a
Thursday and was later reaffirmé
at a membership meeting Tues

The police action, widely co
sidered by eyewitness accounts!
have excessively violent, came altt"
close to a hundred students
other strike supporters had jo
the picket line and began blox

-

Police had initially re-direc!
traffic but suddenly, began to alld
it to build up at the main inte
tion and then moved in. :

According to the account in th
SFU newspaper, The P
“Several people were shoved
kicked to the ground while o
students were handcuffed and d
ged back to a waiting police ve

The 18, most of them stud
are scheduled to appear in col
April 25. They were initially chan
ed with obstructing a police off
in the course of his duty, alth
that charge may be changed.

The action by RCMP added f
biterness to the increasingly cont
tious strike-lockout which was p
mpted by the administratio
lockout last month of sev
AUCE staff workers. The uniy
ty has made no change to its w
offer of six percent over two ye
despite nearly a year of bargaini

Continuing mediation efforts:

quarters Tuesday, with the
ministration remaining adamant
its position. 3
The university dispute has b
seen as a clear example of the att
on public sector employees and
attempt in impose an inferior set
ment that employers would seek
maintain elsewhere. ;
The members of the Employe
Council of B.C. — including ©
Council’s chairman, Bill Hamil
— are on the university’s r
body, the Board of Governors,
both of them are on the f
member labor relations comm
responsible for bargaining.
Despite the police raid on pick
lines last week, students and ott
unionists have continued to off
picket line support throughout thi
week. :
A Labor Relations Board rulifi
last Friday also gave a boost to ti
strikers when LRB chairman ft
jected an application by Cana Col
struction to have picket lint
restricted to allow its workel
to return to the construction
Munroe ruled that such restri
would reduce ‘‘to an unreasonabl
extent the actual and lawful im
of (AUCE) picketing.”’ }