BERGER ANALYZES A

By TOM BERGER, M.P.

Da Spins

In 1959 B.C.’s Social Credit Government passed what became known as Bill 43, legis-
lation designed to curb the economic status and moral strength of trade unions. Two years
later, the same government passed what has become known as Bill 42, designed to cripple
the political rights of trade unions. These two pieces of legislation are important not only
to trade unions, but also to their members, for in curbing the economic and political rights
of trade unions, the government has likewise curbed the rights of individual trade unionists.

Bill 43, the Trade Unions Act,
was an Act passed to replace the
old Trade Unions Act of 1902. The
effect of the old Act was to ex-
empt trade unions from liability
to pay damages and to make it
clear that peaceful picketing was
legal. It was passed after the de-
cision of the Supreme Court of
B.C. in the Rossland miners’ case,
holding the Miners’ Union in
Rossland liable to pay damages
because of an illegal strike.

1902 Legislation ~

The legislation of 1902, which
protected trade unions, was re-
pealed by Bill 43, and trade
unions stand exposed to liability
to pay heavy damages today, just
as they did prior to the passage
of the first Act, and their picket
‘lines have been enjoined in cir-
cumstances . wherein previously
they would not have been.

What does Bill 43 do? First of
all, it makes trade unions liable
to pay damages for illegal strikes
and vastly restricts the right to
picket. It should be emphasized
that, as far as I know, no one in
the labour movement contends
that unions should be above the
law. Labour should be — and is —
subject to the same laws as any
other group.

Trade unions and their mem-
bers must obey the Criminal Code
of Canada as every citizen must;
they must pay their debts, and
they do. But liability to pay dam-
ages is another matter. Employ-
ers in reality are under no such
liability. Bill 43 purported to
make employers’ organizations
liable for damages for illegal
lockouts but this, of course, is an
unreal liability because employ-
ers’ organizations, as: a whole,
have no assets whatsoever.

No Liability
An individual employer has no
real liability either to his em-
ployees or to the trade union
which represents them if he un-
lawfully locks them out. Practi-
cally all employees who are. or-
ganized in trade unions have
hourly wage contracts and, ac-
cording to the law, are entitled to
no more than one hour’s lost
wages if they are wrongfully dis-

missed or locked out.

So far as trade unions them-
selves are concerned, there have
been countless cases where the
courts set aside injunctions which
employers have obtained against
picketing by trade unions, and
though trade unions in such cir-
cumstances have a theoretical
right to damages against the em-
ployer, the law does not provide
that.the union’s loss of bargain-
ing power can be made the sub-
ject of legal damages. Thus it is
patently unfair and one-sided to
make unions liable in damages
when employers are not.

It might be asked, how many
trade unions have been held
liable-to pay heavy damages since

the enactment of Bill 43? The -

answer would be very few. But
the point is that the fear of sub-
jecting both their unions and
their members to the payment of
heavy damages prevents trade
union leaders from taking effec-
tive action on many occasions —
and who can blame them?

$40,000 Damages
A trade union leader, realizing
his union may be liable to pay
heavy damages for even a techni-
cal infringement of the Labour

Relations Act or any other stat-
ute connected with strikes and

picketing, in many cases is un-
able to protect the rights of his
membership. In fact, one trade
union was recently obliged to pay
$40,000 in damages to an em-

ployer.

Bill 43 interferes with the right
of free speech. This should be a

matter of concern to all who are
interested in the preservation of
civil liberties, whether they be
pro-labour or pro-management.
Section 3 of the Trade Unions
Act not only prohibits picketing
except at an employer’s place of
business, but it also prohibits any-
one, except during the course of
a legal strike (and even lawyers
are often unable to say whether
a strike is legal), from attempt-
ing to persuade the public not to
do business with an employer.
This affects all of us, not only
trade unions. For instance, Sec-
tion 3 prohibits consumers’ groups
from warning the public not to
patronize businesses using fraud-
ulent merchandising methods.

As far as unions are concerned,
the effect of this section extends
far beyond simply restricting the
right to picket. It prohibits the
labour movement from _ using
newspaper advertisements, press
releases, or other means to ad-
vise the public of the existence
of what it regards as unsatisfac-
tory labour conditions, for any of
these things might well be re-
garded by the Courts as an at-
tempt to persuade the public not
to do business with certain em-
ployers (indeed, that would no
doubt be the object — hitherto a
legal method — of such action).

Fear of Bill

Now some people may say that
Bill 43 really does not go as far

as this. But the fear of violating
the law has caused many news-
papers to adopt a policy of refus-
ing to run advertisements that
trade unions want them to print
in order to acquaint the public
with facts of labour conditions.

No one suggests that trade
unions should have an unrestrict-
ed right to picket. Before the
passage of Bill 43, trade unions
could not picket in a way which
violated the Criminal Code and,
if picketers committed any un-
lawful act, such as an assault or
intimidation, or even a trespass,
the courts put a quick end to the
picketing. But Bill 43 prohibits
picketing of the kind which serves
not only the interests of trade
unions and their members but
those of the public as well.

Scab Labour

For example, if an employer is
using scab labour or running a
sweat-shop, the labour movement
can no longer attempt to organ-
ize or to advise the public of facts
of this kind without running
afoul of the law. If such an em-
ployer is shipping his goods to
businesses which have no com-
punction about merchandising
such goods and profiting by the
existence of sub-standard condi-
tions at the expense of labour and
of fair employers, the trade union
movement has no means of bring-

i

ing this fact to the attention of
the public.

Having thus attempted to curb
the economic rights of labour,
the Social Credit government last
year passed Bill 42, designed to
curb the political rights of labour.
Bill 42 prohibits a trade union
from contributing money to a
political party or a candidate for
political office. That Bill 42 pro-
hibits a trade union from using
check-off money for political pur-
poses is well known.

However, Bill 42 also prohibits
a trade union from using dues
received directly in cas@ from
members for political purposes.
Thus, the usual sources of trade
union income cannot be used for
one of the legitimate purposes of
the labour movement, political
action.

Bill 42 also provides that em-
ployers do not have to honour the
check-off provisions of their col-
lective agreements unless they
are supplied with statutory de-
clarations from the trade unions
representing their employees that
none of the check-off money will
be used. for political purposes.

This legislation prevents trade
unions from taking part in poli-
tics, and consequently interferes
with the growth of political par-
ties in Canada. There can be no
doubt that Bill 42 was designed
to curtail labour participation in
the New Democratic Party. Not
only does it prevent trade unions
from making contributions to the
New Democratic Party, it also
prevents affiliation to the New
Democratic Party, since affiliation
involves payment of per capita
dues; and check-off money can-
not be used to pay these; nor

likely would have no objection
to curbs being placed upon poli-
tical expenditures, provided these
curbs applied to all other groups
as well as to trade unions. Like-
wise, limitations upon the
amounts that could be spent by
candidates for public office would

be welcomed by the trade union
movement.

However, large corporations in
B.C. are not limited in making
contributions to political parties;
nor does Bill 42 prohibit profes-
sional bodies from doing so. The
legislation discriminates against
trade unions and is apparently
designed to make sure for years
to come that the reins of gov-
ernment in B.C. will remain in
the hands of those who have held
them for years past — the hands
of big business.

Destroy NDP

If the New Democratic Party
had not been established last
year, the government might never
have passed this legislation; the
government’s only purpose in
passing it was to destroy the New
Democratic Party at its birth, if
it could.

Not only supporters of the New
Democratic Party should oppose
this kind of legislation, Everyone
who wishes to see our civil rights
retained should be concerned, for
once trade unions are deprived
of their civil rights, who will be
next?

—Reprinted from Canadian Labour

ENERATIONS OF THE PARIS FAMILY

—————

ES >

Me ey
Tie ewe PY Ee

aie La
oe)

Je SE Bet 8d SE

YOUR GUARDIANS OF A GREAT TRADITION

Steve - George - Pierre -

Mike - Greg - Roger -

Richard

DYNASTY OF SHOE CRAFTSMEN

Pierre, founder and proud grandfather, shows the four boys how to pull over and keep the upper properly balanced.
He also points out the importance of pulling the upper tight for good arch-fitting. These are points that distinguish
the true shoe craftsman and reach down to the roots of the Paris philosophy:

51 WEST HASTINGS STREET

“ONLY MAN CAN PROFIT BY EXPERIENCE,
AND EXPERIENCE IS BEST HANDED DOWN
WITHIN THE FAMILY"

Pierre Paris & Sons

Tel. MU 5-0164

VANCOUVER 3, B.C.