B.C. FEDERATION STATEMENT

Labor code ‘potentially disastrous’

The B.C. Federation of Labor
Voiced its opposition to the new
labor legislation early Tuesday and
Made it clear that “unless it is
drastically amended, will cause in-
Creased labor unrest in. the
province.”

In a press conference Tuesday
following a lengthy meeting of
Federation officers and represen-
tatives of the Canadian Labor
Congress, the Federation stated
that “the government has departed
drastically from the policies of the
New Democratic Party as es-
tablished in convention and from
the spirit of the eight-point
Program in the 1972 election cam-
Paign.”’

Secretary Ray Haynes
characterized some of the changes
as “beyond belief’’ and referred

Specifically to the placing of un-'

Precedented powers in fhe hands
of the Labor Relations Board
Which will be dominated by
Professional people and employer
Tepresentatives.

The Federation urged all MLAs
to press for amendments in keep-

‘Ing with the stated policy of the

‘DP as adopted by several conven-
tions and stated that unless sub-
Stantial amendments are made,
that the proposed Labor Code
Should be referred to the
€gislature’s standing committee
On labor ‘‘to make clear the poten-

tially “disastrous implications of

Many sections of the Code.”
A preliminary analysis of the

_ Sgislation was also prepared by

the Federation, the text of which
follows:

Unorganized

~. While the proposed legislation

Contains some useful provisions to
aSsist unions to extend trade union
ganization to unorganized
Workers, there are serious inade-
quacies, combined with provisions
Which negate the value of some of

BILL KING

“ quprovements. Beginning with

aeons which still exclude,
asa without justification,
and jj nN, agricultural workers
Beet professionals, the
[ae Code would still make
t pon picketing, a vital
dustries, Hea ears

we Provision is made requiring
ney abe when rejecting a unit as
a8 to ee to advise the union
Nor, it at is the appropriate unit;
sion appears, will there be provi-
0 provide lists of employees
bee seeking certification.
on ¢o c S to tighten up restrictions
Pany unions were ignored.

Oard can still permit

Wette e

em
- sgployers to try to defeat union

SSSSSES ESSE SESSA ASSEN

organizing by raising wages
without the consent of the union.

While such provisions as those
permitting one-person units, allow-
ing ‘certification votes based on
application by 35 per cent of the
employees and improved protec-
tion against unfair labor practices
are all potentially helpful, the un-
satisfactory structure of the
proposed Board can largely offset
these improvements. On balance,
the proposed Code does not appear
to significantly assist in organizing
the many unorganized workers in
the province.

Board Powers

To our knowledge, never have
such sweeping powers been given
to any Labor Relations Board. The
powers granted to the defunct
Mediation Commission pale in
comparison.

Among the powers given to the
Board -which we believe to be ex-
tremely dangerous are the power
to form councils of trade unions for
bargaining purposes, irrespective
of the wishes of the workers in-
volved; the power to decide if
national agreements are to be in
effect in B.C.; the power to have
panels, even one-man _ panels,
decide all questions of law; the
power (referred to subsequently)
of life and death over a strike
through the power to restrict or
prohibit picketing; the power given
to each member to exercise the
considerable powers of a Public
Inquiry Commissioner and (highly
offensive to labor) the power to in-
trude into the internal affairs of a
trade union.

In addition to all of these sweep-
ing powers, there are no
democratic checks. There are no
provisions that management and
labor nominees are genuinely
representative; there are no
specific terms of appointment,
such as a two or three year term,
and there is a structure which
means that the majority of the
Board consists of people who are
not trade unionists and. who have
no connection with the hundreds of
thousands .of people over whose
future they have control.

While we appreciate the efforts
in the Code to get labor matters out
of the courts, our appreciation is
diminished by our concern over the
Board's structure and composition.

We believe that such sweeping
powers, in the hands of a body over

which there is no democratic con-

trol, is highly dangerous and in-
compatible with a truly democratic
society.

Compulsion

In addition to the sweeping
powers detailed above, the Board
is given the power to impose com-
pulsory arbitration in the case of
negotiations for first agreements.

While the government can point
to situations in which this provision
might be beneficial to’ particular
groups of people, it is our view that
compulsory arbitration is wrong,
that compulsion has no place in
labor-management relations and

that, once the principle of compul- -

sion is embodied in a piece of labor
legislation, the opportunity for ex-
tension of its application is ever
present. This is a particularly dis-
tressing section in view of the
strong and unequivocal opposition
to compulsion contained in the
policy of the New Democratic Par-
ty and in the 1972 election

program. ans yiiW be

Rs 6.9.0.6 chimes
SESSA

The new labor legislation, introduced by labor minister King Monday, confirmed the fears of the B.C. Federa-
tion of Labor. Here Ray Haynes and George Johnston question Skeena MLA Hartley Dent atlast week’s
labor lobby.

Picketing

While one or two useful changes
with respect to strikes and
picketing have been included in the
proposed Code, the net effect of
the many changes is to restrict still
further the right of trade unions to
pursue effectively the interests of
their members. The continued
provision for the extended ap-
pointments of Mediators, with the
curtailment of the right to strike
during such appointments, is a
serious error. Experience with the
previous legislation had shown that
such provision will severely impair
the effectiveness of the Mediator
whose presence is viewed as a tool
to deny workers their legitimate
right to strike.

The strikes will still occur, as
they have in the past, legal or not,
and, at the same time, the appoint-
ment of Mediators will continue to
be viewed with suspicion. This
provision is directly contrary to the
government's expressed desire to
improve the mediation process in
British Columbia.

Existing right to picket would be
curtailed by provisions which out-
law picketing the employers’
secondary places of business if the
union concerned or any other un-
ion has a collective agreement at
that secondary place of business.
Again, dangerous powers are given
to the Board to limit. or curtail
picketing .where two or more
employers occupy the same site.

Finally, trade unionists are still
denied the right to secondary
picketing, except in a few cases
where direct collusion can be es-
tablished. Workers involved in a
labor dispute are still, therefore,
denied rights of attending at a par-
ticular place of business to dis-
seminate information — rights
which are enjoyed by practically
everybody else in our society. It
appears, for instance, that our pre-
sent campaign of picketing Super

Valu in support of California farm
workers would still be illegal.

Balanced against these restric-
tions, the improvements with
respect to trespass and secondary

- boycotts: appear relatively minor. ©

SoU RE RU RS Nh ee Stem

* ——
te RN Stig Oe ae

Technological
Change

The inadequacy of the
technological change provisions
are seen very clearly if they. are
compared to the provisions includ-
ed in the legislation introduced at
the last session of the Legislature
relating to government employees’
bargaining rights. Under those
proposals, employees would have a
simpler and more satisfactory
procedure relating to technological
change. Under Bill 11 the right to
strike is almost unobtainable, as
the conditions and restrictions are
even worse .than in the federal
legislation.

We must point out that the NDP
policy proposed effective methods
to protect workers against the
adverse effects of technological
change, while this legislation falls
far short of providing any effective
protection.

Union Shop

A glaring omission in the Code is
the absence of any provision that,
when the majority of people in a
certified bargaining unit desire a
union shop provision, it shall
automatically be included in the
collective agreement. Not only
does the proposed Code fail to
provide this measure of union
security, it undermines union
security by providing an opportuni-
ty for an anti-union minority to opt
out of the union on so-called
religious conscience grounds. We
have previously outlined the strong
arguments against the introduction
of this partial right - to - work law

and warned of its great dangers.
Trade unionists in this province
cannot be expected to work

towards improved industrial,

relations while the union shop is
threatened by such ‘legislation.

Accreditation

We have repeatedly stated our
many objections to the provisions
for the accreditation of employer
groups. We have stated and still
state that these provisions are an
obstacle to improving industrial
relations in the province.

In addition, the provision for a
labor ombudsman is an insult. We
have fought for and will continue
to fight for a provincial om-
budsman covering all citizens in
the province. We find it extremely
offensive, however, that trade un-
ions have- been singled out for
special attention in this area, par-
ticularly since the record of
organized labor in B.C., as far as
fair treatment of individual
members is concerned, compares
favorably with virtually any other
organization in the province.

With respect to the specific
provision, we suggest they are a
bureaucratic nightmare and will
prove unworkable and the source
of constant unwarranted intrusion
into the affairs of unions.

There are many lesser, but
nevertheless important, points
which we will deal with in a sub-
sequent, more detailed analysis.
All of the major points contained
herein require amendment if this
legislation is to serve the interests
of the working people of British
Columbia and if it is to promote
improved industrial relations in the
province.

of the following people:
Chairman will be Toronto law

national Nickel and Air Canada.

Employers Council of B.C.
Jack Moore, formerly of the

These four will constitute the

The new all-powerful Labor Relations Board will be made up

been the company representative on innumerable arbitration
boards and has represented such giant corporations as Inter-

His right hand man and next in command will be Ed Peck,
president of Towboat Industrial Relations Association, who will be
administrative vice chairman. Peck is an active member of the

man, and Nancy Morrison will be third vice chairman. She is a
former city prosecutor and is reported to be a Liberal.

provides that the full board of 10 will be made up by an additional
six members, three from labor and three from the employers.

professor Paul C. Weiler. He has

IWA, will be second vice chair-

executive. The new Labor Code

#¥is

eFOAd—¢

} 68589

Se aie

iii i au iil