FEATURE

—

Confronted in 1959 with the Socreds
dhti-labor Bill 43, which unleashed a
00d of injunctions against picketing,
trade unionists had to face the

htOspect of imprisonment for contempt
ttcourt if they were to defend their
ight to strike and to picket.

a

rr
pain And the courts’ own use of the
iss ee against defiant trade union-
“npaign In step with the employers
Year in geonomists would call 1966 a boom
time ar usiness cycle. But it was alsoa
dat Ktherto unprecedented inflation
ting f me when corporate profits were
eet than wages.

ty »s.CONomic factors, coupled with a
rae on the part, particularly, of

Nger workers, gave a considerable

to
Wag Wage demands — a push that
the eed by an equal determination on

ne ae employers to resist.
Ploy, Ol the province’s main corporate
tS, including Cominco, B.C. Tel,
liken . 1 Bloedel and Pacific Press had
eet in the establishment of the
tion “cial and Industrial Research Foun-
blo Which was later to become the
eB Council of B.C. and currently,
sence Council of B.C.
Of» remediate task of CIRF was to head
{lon ofa of the success the B.C. Federa-
1965, Th bor had scored the year before, in
‘ar 9 €n On the cue of a threatened 48-
ip ecral strike throughout the province
Biche of striking oil workers at the
ity, Erican refinery, the unionists had
Slop i. toric concessions from a commis-
Ble duty set up by the Bennett
Beat The commission’s recom-
Months giving workers the right to six
yj NOtice of any technological change
me nine for displaced workers
x" © model for industry-wide con-
teatin Nd later the basis for all unionists
But ee automation.
Up © more fundamental purpose of
Stipain to co-ordinate the employers’
tad against the growing militance of
i an Union movement.
Nien,“ Was a lot of spontaneous move-
“et tee Ong unionists at that time,” Prit-
toy alls. “There was a resurgence in the
8s of but at the same time, there was a
‘threat Income because of inflation and
Tee Job security because of automa-
ig, “TE Was also a kind of second gener-
Mbitantancy and the left played a
tip of t Tole in that, both in the leader-
Sys Unions and at the rank and file

«

2a ™Ployers were also aware of that

econ “te Were attempts all the time to use
pp, 224 injunctions to break strikes,”
let pasizes,

Ning Wer, in 1966 the president of the

love Workers, also recalls that the

retthe 'S “provoked confrontation wher-

hg th Could — they were going to try to

Nm, "© backs of the trade union move-

%

Any 4
i ee anybody went to strike, if

le anini line was effective at all, there

Says WUNction granted to the employer,”

Jy
: ne few months, Power would feel
"or op € effects of the courts’ bias in
Une ® employers.
AS the strikes at Northland and
‘ , 8ineering, the strike at Lenkurt
‘tke,’ Sttictly speaking, legal, since the
«the cd been provoked into walking
Mw Str, before they were in a legal posi-
h dem, ke. But as events in 1959 and 1962
i the OUstrated, legality had little bearing
io utingness of the courts to grant
to prevent picketing.

Almost immediately, after the walkout .

the employer, Lenkurt Electric, got an
injunction barring any demonstrations by
employees seeking to protest their arbitrary
firing by the company. On May 2, after
trade unionists had rallied to the defence of
the Lenkurt workers, the court’s order
became more sweeping. ;

On that day, Judge Kirke Smith, sitting
as a local judge in the Supreme Court,
ordered “those persons whose identity is
unknown” to halt any picketing of the Len-
kurt Electric site in Burnaby. To back the
order, dozens of uniformed RCMP were
dispatched to the site.

With them were at least four undercover
RCMP dressed as workers who, it was later
revealed, had a dual role — to provoke
picket line incidents and to identify those
participating in support of the strikers.

Back at the bargaining table, the IBEW,
together with the B.C. Federation of Labor,
sought to reach an agreement for reinstate-
ment of the fired workers but were met with
reiteration of the company position that
reinstatement would only be granted if they
gave up pension and seniority rights.

In response, the B.C. Federation of
Labor stated what would be the labor
movement’s credo throughout the injunc-
tions campaign: “The 257 workers did not
walk off their jobs without good cause and
under extreme provocation,” it stated. “The
B.C. Federation of Labor has no intention
of submitting to this kind of intimidation.”

At the national level, the convention of
the Canadian Labor Congress, held in
Winnipeg April 22-29, gave new emphasis
to the fight in this province against injunc-
tions as delegates turned back a vaguely-
worded resolution and then gave over-
whelming backing to a militant statement
brought in its place. It called on unionists to
“engage in strong and militant campaigns
to eliminate the use of injunctions in labor
disputes; to challenge injunctions wherever
and whenever they are granted; to organize
systems of mutual aid of trade unionists;
and to promote legislative, political and
other activities in opposition to injunc-
tions.”

Jeff Power was only back a few days
from that convention when he went out to
the Lenkurt line, responding along with
hundreds of other trade unionists to the call
for assistance to the Lenkurt workers.

“There were hundreds of people out
there, at the rear entrance to the plant,” he
recalls. “I remember when I got there that
there was a cop beating on an old man and I
helped the man up. Shortly after, I heard a
voice saying “There he is, grab him!’ ”

Power was charged initially with assault
although the charge was later dropped. But
on May 19, 76 people, Power among them,
were charged with contempt of court for
their defiance of the two injunctions barring

picketing. In a story May 20, the Tribune
called the sweeping court action “unprece-
dented in B.C. labor history.”

Even as the case was being prepared
against those involved in the Lenkurt dis-
pute, longshoremen on the waterfront
decided to take the Victoria Day holiday
off — in defiance of an injunction granted

their employer which ordered their union .

leaders to instruct them to report for work
on that day.

The ILWU argued that the B.C. Mari-
time Employers’ Association could not
apply one standard for the payment of
Canada Pension Plan premiums and
another for statutory holidays, but the
injunction said otherwise. On June 17, Jus-
tice D.R. Verchere sentenced ILWU Cana-
dian Area president Roy Smith to four
months in jail, and nine local union presi-
dents to three months each for refusing to
order their members to work ona statutory
holiday — a holiday which they should
have been entitled to under federal law.

The storm was gathering. All around the
province, both unions inside and outside the
federation, the Communist Party and oth-
ers demanded the release of the IL WU lead-
ers and called for an end to injunctions in
labor disputes. NDP leader T.C. Douglas
rose in Parliament to demand to know

see UNITED page 23

a bls ont? ”

, WEST Bexseye
i EMJGNCTIONS WONT BiILD BRIDGES

PHOTO — THE FISHERMAN

CARL ERICSON

OR CATCH FISH’

Photos, clockwise from top:
Fisherman editor is welcomed
home from jail after serving 30
days for contempt of court in
1959; Jeff Power is led, hand-
cuffed, to paddy wagon and
prison following dismissal of
his appeal for contempt in
November, 1966; RCMP keep
road open for scabs at Lenkurt
picket line; B.C. Fed conven-
tion delegates picket court-
house the day before appeal in
November, 1966.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 30, 1986 e 17