. ; ge Thatcher’s Tory government. By WILLIAM ALLEN Seeking to handcuff the British trade unions who recently or- ganized a 50,000-strong march on London, protesting $7-billion in social cuts, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has _intro- duced a “‘Trade Union Reform Act’. it bans the closed shop, secondary picketing, takes over control of elections by a union on strike votes or election of officers. With a 40-seat majority in the House of Commons, Thatcher is expected to ram the bill through, the purpose being to cripple labor the mas- sive fightback in Britain against the cuts in social needs. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer Sir Geoffrey Howe has threatened to increase taxes and more spending cuts for social needs if wages continued to in- crease. In the House of Commons he called for ‘‘realism and respon- sibility”’ in bargaining for wages.. His Labor Party ‘‘shadow’’, Denis Healey, (he had the same job as Howe in the recent Labor Government) called on Howe to follow the precedent, set by Ed- ward Heath, the Tory leader in 1976 who introduced a wage freeze. Healey the Laborite, speaking in Parliament, advised Howe; “You must start talking to the trade union movement about a ra- tional approach to the economy and pay in particular.’’ By this he meant return the social contract that froze wages back in 1976 and in 1978. Two million engineering work- ers, the Ford workers, and the miners refused to abide by any social contracts freezing wages. The Heath-Tory government was defeated by them ir 1976 on this social contract and _ the Callaghan-Labor government similarly by the same unions de- feated in 1978. The Tories got back in with a 40-seat majority, ousting the Labor Party. Healey, former Labor chancellor, now again calls on the Tories to reinsti- tute the social contract. His treacherous speech made a mockery of the labor movement’s contribution in bringing 50,000 workers to London recently, to demonstrate against the $7-billion cuts in social services, against wage freezes, and for a shorter Over 50,000 marchers converged on London to protest the $7-billion cuts in social services by Margaret work week to help the two million British jobless. At the time of Healey’s speech calling for a return to the social contract, the parliamentary Labor Party in the. Commons moved an amendment condemn- ing the government’s policies and demanding they end cuts, and stop trying to freeze wages. While tens of thousands of men and women workers: were still marching in London, from all over Britain, demanding the cuts be killed, the Laborite Healey was betraying the demonstrators inside the House of Commons. ~ Now the die is cast by the Thatcher class-war government, for confrontation and disruption of the labor movement and to cripple its leadership of the great anti-Tory movement. This is the third time in 10 years the attempt has been made to place British trade unionism in a strait jacket. The ‘Trade Union Reform Act’’ is the latest to wreck the right to picket, and strikes at the _ foundations of the closed shop. Masquerading as an ‘‘Employ- sas LAMBETH BS British labor fights cut ment Bill,”’ it will, the Tories are* saying help employment because it will put curbs on union power. George Guy, leader of the sheetmetal workers union, when asked about the new bill said, “the government is taking a hard line of confrontation, but it will find it has bitten ‘off more than it can chew. The new measures will make 1980 a year of unrest and distruption. Earlier Tory curbs on unions have been defeated be- cause the role of the rank and file defeated them. Separate cam- paigns now against the cuts, on jobs, education, pay and all the others ‘have got to’come together into one movement powerful enough to bring this government down.”’ Trades Union Congress (TUC) secretary Len Murray, said the government might follow this bill up with another even more dras- tic, unless this one is defeated. The TUC has said through Murray that a nation-wide general work stoppage of its 12, million members is one of the resistance moves planned to defeat the bill. 4 BRITISH STEEL © gust. The steel industry in Britain 10 is state-owned. The average Steel- 2 worker’s pay is reportedly 110 STRIKE BEGINS LONDON — For the first time since the General Strike in 1926 the | entire British Steel industry was shut down when 103,000 British Steelworkers hit the bricks for a 20% pay hike. The strike began Jan. 1 and followed the recent announcement by Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government of ; Widespread steel plant closures which will destroy some 52,000 jobs in the industry by next Au- pounds a week or about $240. COURT RULING “TERRIBLE” REGINA — The recent court decision declaring the strike by the Saskatchewan Goverment Employees Association (SGEA) illegal will be appealed, SGEA leader Larry Brown said recently. Brown called the court’s decision to declare the ‘strike illegal be- cause of the way the union con- ae | ducted its strike vote, ‘‘a terrible ; precedent.’’ Nadine Hunt, presi dent of the Saskatchewan Federa- tion of Labor, said the decision “provides the basis for over turning local union decisions — which are arrived at through democratic processes...’’ She — added, the ruling ‘‘cannot go un challenged.” MICHELIN BILL PASSES ON BLACK FRIDAY HALIFAX — “...A black Fri- — day for the democratic rights of Nova Scotians ... a tragic event the history of our province”’, this was how Nova Scotia Federation of Labor president Gerald Yetmant reacted to the passage of the Miche lin Bill Dec. 28. He said full time — federation staff and organizers will meet Jan. 7 to set a timetable for implementation of an action plan to continue fighting the bill, action that was hammered out at ai emergency federation convention, Dec. 13. Zeichnung: Prof. Beier-Red. ‘Can’t freeze wages’ labor board rules OTTAWA — The Canada Labor Relations Board has ruled that chartered banks can’t freeze the wages of workers trying to join a union, the Union of Bank Employees announced Dec. 7. The Board recently upheld the Canadian Labor Congress- chartered union’s charges. that denying general wage increases to bank workers trying to join a union violates federal labor laws. ° Employees who have suffered this kind of discrimination must be fully compensated by the banks as a result of the Board rul- ing. UBE launched the unfair labor practices complaints after the banks decided to implement gen- eral salary increases to all bank workers except those in branches where the union had either applied for certification or had al- ready been certified by the board. The three banks < originally charged were the Canadian Impe- rial Bank of Commerce, Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank of Canada. The last two agreed dur- ing the hearings they'd be bound PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 11, 1980—Page 6 by the board’s decision in the Commerce case. Larrainge Singler, heading the CLC bank workers’ organizing drive, predicted the board deci- sion would have ‘‘far reaching ef- fects. for thousands of bank employees across the country who have feared the con- sequences of a long term wage freeze if they joined the union. “The banks have lost the threat of financial penalty that was used to dissuade employees from be- coming unionized’’, she said. Singler added that the remainder of the board’s 40-page ruling against the Bank of Commerce may have an even greater impact on the overall campaign to help bank workers join unions. Having nailed the Commerce for engaging in anti-union ac- tivities for the fourth time in a row, the board responded with a harsh judgement this time, pin- pointing top level management as the source of thé anti-union poli- cy. The board cited the example of acircular sént by Commerce head office to all. workers across Canada telling them that anyone seeking union certification wouldn’t get the general salary in- crease. _. ‘Why would an employer circulate such a message (to employees not affect by the bank’s decision) ... if it was not intended to intimidate those thousands of employees with the threat of a long-term freeze on their salaries if they opted for the collective bargaining regime?”’ the board asked. “The board can come to no other conclusion. than that the employer issued the circular ...’’ for the purpose of persuading thes€é employees not implicated by any unionism, to refrain from exercising their rights under the Code and this in the very midst of a burgeoning and massive or- ganizing campaign by the labor movement right across Canada. To counteract the Commerce’s interference with its employees’ rights under the Code, the board ordered that the banks’s president sign a board-dictated statement to all employees informing them that the bank had been found in contravention of certain provi- sions of the Canada Labor Code by ‘‘interfering with its employees’ rights to organize for the purpose of bargaining collec- tively’’; retracting any statement made in the past which so inter- fered; and promising to ‘‘cease and desist from participating in any activities which may tend to interfere with (its) employees’ ’ rights under the Canada labor Code.” The bank’s management was also ordered to post the board’s full written decision ‘‘in a con-. spicuous place’’ in all its branches across the country. The board decision, Singler noted, is aloud and clear message to all bank employees that they have nothing to lose and every- _ thing to gain by exercising their right to join a union which will help them improve their working conditions and defend them against any unfair attempts by employers to prevent them from using this right.”