This was the scene in June, 1972, as construction workers, marching in downtown Vancouver, demonstrated
their opposition to compulsory arbitration imposed by the former Social Credit government. A unified front
of building trades unions is vital, writer Phillips contends, if construction workers are to defeat attempts by
the present Socred government to bring in new anti-labor legislation.

LABOR COMMENT

By JACK PHILLIPS

The second lockout in the
British Columbia construction
industry has ended, but not the
debate among the 17 international
unions and their forty thousand
members. The interval between
the two lockouts imposed by
construction labour relations
association was so short that some
workers have called it a recess.

The justification advanced by
CLRA for the first lockout was the
strike of the cement masons. In the
second lockout, the plumbers’
strike was the alibi.

After the workers were out for
six and a half weeks the first time,
asettlement was negotiated. It was
based on a report by Industrial
Inquiry Commissioner James
Kinnaird, the key recommendation
of which called for a package wage
increase of $1.29 over one year,
along with other contract im-
provements.

However, the Plumbers’ Union
voted for rejection, because they
wanted payment for downtown
parking in Vancouver and
payment equivalent to 15 minutes
work time for going to lunch on an
industrial project, plus a few other
concessions. Once the lockout got
underway, other unions came up
with unresolved demands.

Thus, although the majority of
the unions and the vast majority of
the 40,000 workers had accepted, or
were prepared to accept, the
Kinnaird report, the plumbers’
strike was used as an excuse by
CLRA to impose the second
lockout.

The B.C. and Yukon Building
Trades Council and the B.C.
Federation of Labor, concerned
over the threat of more anti-labor
legislation, offered their assistance
to the unions, With this help, and

COUNCIL

cont'd from pg. 1
year’s civic elections to dispose of
proponents of this legislation on
municipal councils.

United Fishermen and Allied .

Workers Union president Homer
Stevens pointed out that when the
UBCM convention voted on the
anti-labor resolutions, only three
delegates voted against them. The
three were all trade unionists who
had been elected to councils
around the province.

after all earlier attempts to

promote unity had failed,
representatives of 14 of the 15
unions involved reached

agreement to form a voluntary,
common front bargaining struc-
ture. That agreement was subject
to ratification by the membership
of all 15 unions. The Teamsters and
Culinary Workers, the other two
unions, were not directly involved
with the 15 unions in the 1976
negotiations.

With the agreement on joint
negotiations in 1977 concluded, the
union negotiators set out to bargain
for a settlement to end the second
lockout. CLRA had been counting
on direct intervention by the
provincial government, but on
September 16 the government

declared its intention not to in-

tervene and called upon the parties
to work out a settlement on their
own.

Also, and in the long run more
significant, the government
declared its intention to introduce
more restrictions on the labor
movement in the next session of
the legislature. Indications are
that the government intends to

‘ bring in legislation authorizing the

cabinet to impose a 40-day
“cooling-off’’ period in any

dispute. With. this power, any
strike or lockout could be
suspended for 40 days. In the long
run, unions would get the worst of
the deal, because the objective of
the bill would be to help the em-
ployers, not the unions.

However, when the caumuaea cit
made its hand-off announcement
on September 16, negotiations
between the unions for a new
bargaining structure were speeded
up and agreement was reached by
14 unions on September 20. The
Electrical Workers were not
present because of a case they had
before the Labour Relations
Board. Then, on September 21,
CLRA agreed to re-open contract
talks.

As a result of the new round of
bargaining, the Plumbers won
their 15 minutes pay for going to
lunch on industrial projects. It was
also agreed that if an industrial
union goes on strike and con-
struction plumbers are put out of
work, their return fare to the point
of dispatch will be paid.

The Elevator Constructors, the

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 8, 1976—Page 12

—Carey Robson photo

Boilermakers and the Ironworkers
also won some concessions.

While these concessions were
rated as important by the unions
directly concerned, they were
relatively small in the overall
picture. The Kinnaird recom-
mendations remained as the basic
points of settlement. It was only
with the backing of the unions
representing the overwhelming
majority of the total membership
—who had nothing to gain directly
—that additional concessions were
achieved.

According to a number of key
union spokesmen interviewed by
the Tribune, the gains won after
the second lockout could have been
obtained without a‘ strike or
lockout, if there had been an all-
inclusive common front from the
beginning.

All this underlines the concern
now felt by thousands of con-
struction workers over the
rejection of the common front pact
by a membership meeting of the
Plumbers. The Electrical Workers
have not voted on the issue, but
there is good reason to believe that
the pact could also be voted down
by this union. The same can be said
for some other unions. While it is
true that the unions representing
the majority of construction
workers are in favor of a common
front, it is equally true that a
minority of unions can bring the
whole industry down by going on
strike, irrespective of the wishes of
the majority.

CLRA is more united than ever,
and committed to a policy of
shutting down the entire industry if
any union goes on strike. The
Socreds in Victoria_are eager to
utilize any disunity in labor’s ranks
as justification for imposing ad-
ditional curbs on the labor
movement. In such a situation, a
united trade union DES isa
vital necessity.

The ability of the trade union
movement to close ranks and

‘ defeat all attempts to impose more

anti-labor legislation would be
greatly enhanced if the unions
representing 40,000 construction
workers established a common
front. If that common front worked
in cooperation with the B.C.
Federation of Labor, the provincial
government would be compelled to
reconsider its plan to introduce
more legislation to restrict trade
union rights.

B.C. Federation of Labor
secretary Len Guy told the East
Kootenay Labor Council last week
that the October 14 National Day of
Protest has taken on a new
dimension with the revelation that
the provinéial government is
“testing the wind’ over the in-
troduction of new anti-labor
legislation.

Guy told the council delegates
that anonymous surveys are cir-
culating to test public reaction to
further anti-labor legislation, and
that the Federation had uncovered
a chain letter campaign, again
anonymous, which urged people to
wrote to the minister of labor and
their MLAs advocating such anti-
labor legislation as ‘‘so called right
to work legislation.”

The only way to fight these ac-
tions by the provincial govern-
ment, and deal a death blow to the
federal wage freeze at the same
time, Guy said, was to ‘stand
together and fight, relying on our
traditional militance to defend
ourselves”’ and he predicted ‘‘with
absolute assurance’ that October
14 will see a successful demon-
stration.

Guy said that the labor
movement should not be surprised
at the’ fact that the Socreds were
preparing anti-labor legislation.
“Immediately after their election
our Federation warned, and was
criticized in some quarters for
saying it, that this gang was going
to be even worse than the ald
Bennett Socreds.

‘‘We’ve warned time and time
again that the labor movement
should not get sucked into thinking
that working people’s battles could
be won by cosy chats with
government, nor by glossy public
relations campaigns.” ;

The Federation secretary said
that October 14 will ‘‘not only finish
the Trudeau government and mean
an earlier end to wage controls, but
it will also serve as a warning to
Joe Clark and Bill Bennett that the
political gimmick of attacking
labor is not worth the price.”

In respect to the National Day of
Protest, Guy said that the BCFL
expects full support from all af-
filiates. “‘In B.C. our Federation
has built the strength to assist local
unions in tough disputes because
we have been able to develop
among trade unionists the practice
of following Federation policy.

“This hasn’t happened by ac-
cident. Our conventions have

LEN GUY

passed solid, sensible policies. The

Federation officers have con- |
sistently taken the position that |
they are responsible for carrying ©

out the policies passed by con-
vention, rather than fooling around
withthem or watering them down.
And we have demanded that af-
filiated unions follow the policies.

“Accordingly,

once the CLC

policy of a one-day work stoppage ©

had been established,

our —

Federation expected affiliates to
support that policy. We do not see it |

as a question for discussion as to

whether or not a policy, adopted

democratically in convention,

should be followed or not,” Guy |
said in obvious reference to the few |

unions who have wavered on the
question of supporting the National
Day of Protest.

He debunked the idea that large
segments of the trade union would
not support the Day of Protest.
“Since the work stoppage was
announced, we have been visiting

union after union and receiving |

|

strong support from the over- |
whelming majority of local unions. |

“‘Theodd union whose leadership |

;

has been weak or non-existent and |
whose members, denied any ex- |

planation or understanding of the
issue and the purpose of the day of
protest, have decided not to par-

ticipate. What you haven’t seen ©

much of is the fact that for every
local who had decided not to
participate, ten or twenty have
been committing their full’ sup-
port.”

It was for this reason that Guy |
said that “‘tens of thousands of |
working men and women’ are |
going to be out against controls on.
October 14,

Read the
Pacific
Tribune

“B.C.'s ONLY

LABOR
WEEKLY"

Join the Fight

Clip and Mail to
No. 3 Mez., 193 E. Hastings, Van. 4

Enclosed: ..... $8-1 yr...-- $4.50-6 mos.

errr eee ee ee ee i)

ob 6 054 6G 0.5 616-0 6 © Bin 0.09 0 6 06 08 © © © 64 O10: 8) 6 66 6 8s 60.06 ou 6 0 70.8! 6

FIGHT

INGTON

Nor