CLC report basis to settle Ro IWA, construction dispute Organized labor in British Col- umbia needs a jurisdictional war about as much as Jim Kinnaird, president of the B.C. Federation of Labor, needs a hole in his head. That’s what came to mind when I read the report on a debate in the Victoria Labor Council, in the Col- onist June 7. The controversy arose when the 60,000-member B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council failed by a narrow margin to win endorsement for its action in sending an open brief against the International Woodworkers of America to the Canadian Labor Congress. The IWA with 47,000 members in B.C. is the largest single union in the pro- vince. The executive of the labor council had recommended concurrence in the Building Trades action in sen- ding its brief to the CLC, but stated it was not taking sides on the substance of the issue. One paragraph in the news report sums up the tragedy of such a jurisdictional squabble. ‘‘The fight is being renewed as both sides are having troubles of their own. The building trades are suffering severe unemployment—some local unions have 30 to 50 percent of their members out of work. And the IWA says it is losing as many as 50 to 60 jobs to automation each time a new mill opens.’’ The corporate elite must be laughing all the way to the bank. JIM KINNAIRD could play positive role in resolving IWA, Building Trades dispute. Instead of resolving their jurisdictional dispute on a common sense basis and fighting together for policies to create full employment, the unions are fighting each other. Paradoxically, it is only a few weeks since the leaders of the Building Trades Council and the IWA were as one in calling upon. their members to defeat the political par- ties of big business, provincially and federally, by voting NDP. The brief charges that for several years, Building Trades unions ““have had to contend with jurisdic- tional aggression on the part of a few unions in other industries, most notably the International Wood- workers of America.’’ Specifically, the Building Trades accuses the IWA of the following violations: Expanding into the traditional jurisdiction of building trades unions, through its collective agreements with contractors who build new sawmills and do major construction in conection with the expansion of existing mills. Some of the figures given to me indicate that specific contracts in Port Alberni, Nanaimo and Duncan could have an aggregate value of $150 million. Other jobs in the central area of B.C. are said to involve a total value of $16 million. The CLC, to which the IWA and most of the building trades unions are affiliated, has constitutional machinery for dealing with such jurisdictional disputes. When an affiliate complains that it work jurisdiction has been violated by another affiliate, a PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 15, 1979—Page 12 mediator is appointed. If voluntary settlement is not reached within fourteen days after such appoint- ment, a hearing is then held by an impartial umpire selected from a panel of umpires. The determination of the umpire is supposed to be final and binding unless set aside after an appeal to the executive council of the CLC is upheld. According to the open brief, the Building Trades invoked the disputes procedure several years ago, which led to a decision in July, LABOR COMMENT BY JACK PHILLIPS 1971 by the umpire, Dr. Carl Goldenberg, QC, that ‘‘all new con- struction, including new construc- tion within the ambit of the forest products industries, was properly the jurisdiction of building trades unions and that the [WA had the right, but the limited right, to carry out maintenance, repairs and con- struction improvements in existing mills.”’ The brief states that the executive council of the CLC officially ap- proved Dr. Goldenberg’s ruling. To quote that document: ‘‘While con- struction unions were not fully satisfied by the ruling, this Council and its affiliates accepted it and conscientiously set about to operate within it. The two IWA locals ig- nored the ruling and the sanction process proved inadequate to ob- tain their compliance.” The brief argues that the situa- tion has continued to worsen. ‘‘In the last year or so’’ the authors claim, ‘‘the situation has become severely aggravated by further IWA intrusions into the construction field coupled with external attacks on construction unions. As a result the situation has now reached the intolerable point where building trades unions are forced to fight for their very existence. In short, the Goldenberg Report was not im- plemented.’ I obtained a copy of that report and studied it very carefully. Goldenberg submitted his findings in these words, after stating the issues and the background to the dispute: “In summary, I find that: a) New construction falls within the traditional jurisdiction of the building trades unions. b) The basic jursidiction of Woodworkers is the processing and handling of wood products at all Stages but building trades unions recognize that Woodworkers’ jurisdiction also extended to maintenance, repair and construc- tion improvements in existing mills whether such work is done by the mills or is contracted out. c) Some maintenance contractors in the forest industry in collective bargaining relationship with Wood- workers and also with some building trades unions have expand- ed their operations to include con- struction of new mills as distinct from construction in existing opera- tions, and have assigned or agreed to assign such work to members of- Woodworkers. d) Wages and working conditions of Woodworkers’ tradesmen employed in construction have im- proved considerably but have not reached the standards negotiated by Carpenters and Plumbers, with the result that contractors relying on their agreements with Wood- workers have a competitive advan- tage in bidding on contracts for new construction.’’ The open brief maintains that the IWA agreements for new construc- tion re mains inferior to those negotiated by the Building Trades. The following quotation demonstrates the bitter feelings over that issue: “Bluntly put, they are welcomed by employers because, when all fac- tors are included, their rates and conditions are less costly to employers than those which have been won by building trades unions for construction workers.’’ The open brief further. charges that the IWA is not structured to service members on construction jobs, nor to police the collective - agreements. In my discussions with members of building trades unions I was told that some contractors who hold col- lective agreements with the IWA are double breasted, i.e., they also hold collective agreements with construc- tion unions under a different com- pany name. In addition, they claim these contractors have to go out in- to the open market to find tradesmen for construction work under IWA agreements. This means in many cases that members of con- struction unions are hired. Where the latter is the case, they say, workers pay dues to both unions and work for inferior wages and conditions. Goldenberg pointed out that jurisdictional disputes between the Building Trades and the IWA tend to rise during periods of expansion in the forest industry, which is the case today. He also stated that as « long ago as 1944, such a dispute led to an understanding between the IWA and the Carpenters which recognized the jurisdiction of Carpenters ‘‘for the purpose of new construction’? and that the same understanding was reached after another dispute in 1951. My sources in the Building Trades tell me that contractors under agreement with the IWA are further aggravating the situation by bidding on work completely remov- ed from any forest complex. For ex- ample, they say that during 1975, Nootka Sound Construction built a concrete bridge at Gold River and during 1978, a dock for the federal department of public works at Nootka. It is not the task of this writer to be a partisan for either side in this complex issue. I would, however, in the interest of labor unity, suggest the following: Means should be found to imple-. ment the 1971 Goldenberg Report so that all new construction and new additions to existing mills will eventually be covered by agreements held by building trades unions. That an equitable demarcation line be established between in-plant (TWA). forces and construction forces where reconstruction is in- volved. In order to realize these objec- tives, the unions concerned should negotiate in good faith and be prepared to make some com- promises. I am hopeful that Jim Kinnaird, president of the B.C. Federation of Labor, and former president of the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council, will be able to play a positive role in this dispute, before it degenerates into a situation in which unions put up picket lines against other unions and the at- mosphere is poisoned with recriminations and threats of withdrawals from central labor bodies. _the picket line several months after wars MUCKAMUCK WORKE RS MUCKAMUCK RESTAURANT STRIKERS. ..right to picket resto™ ’ LRB, court decisions — back Muckamuck strikt) Native Indian workers who have from tae been trying for more than a year to wrest a collective agreement from a downtown. Vancouver restaurant last week faced two major challenges to their strike — but managed. to overcome both of them, with some assistance from the labor movement. Some 18 employees of the Muckamuck Restaurant which specializes in Northwest Indian food have been out since June 1, 1978 in a bid for a first contract. They are members of the Service, ted angry protest unionists. B.C. Federation of Labor pre dent Jim Kinnaird sent a telegt® June 6 to attorney-general Gal) Gardom asking him to interven® | have the injunction repealed He emphasized that the actiom!) Justice Proudfoot ‘‘set dangerous precedent in erodin| power and jurisdiction of the L Relations Board.”’ The three owners of # Muckamuck have held no negott” tions since last July with the str workers most of whom were © ing the minimum wage at thes e of the walkout and had been ha ed by punitive firings. The restaurant was shut dow! © Office and Retail Workers Union of Canada (SORWUC). A decertification bid, initiated by a few employees who had crossed the strike began, was turned down by the Labor Relations Board last week, as vice-chairman Ron Bone ruled that those seeking decertifica- tion did not constitute ‘‘a majority of either the original unit or the employees who made the decision to strike.” ‘There is no justification for the Board to interfere with the collec- tive bargaining process to decertify the union at this critical stage of its strike activity,’’ he stated in the rul- ing last week. A more critical ruling came from the B.C. Court of Appeals last Wednesday which overturned an earlier Supreme Court decision by Justice Patricia Proudfoot banning picketing at the restaurant. The Ap- peals Court returned to SORWUC the right to picket although it limited the number of pickets to six. The Supreme Court ban on picketing — which would have been in effect until June 18 when a fur- ther injunction hearing is scheduled — was unprecedented action during a legal strike, a fact which promp- RIBUN Read the paper that fights for labor with strikebreakers. The %4 owner’s plans to open a seco? restaurant, however, have not successful althouth an art gallé The Ace Gallery, also in downt0 ~ Vancouver was opened. 4h The Muckamuck strike has tracted considerable attenti because of the owners’ refus bargain and their attempts eat iy! the strike to solicit the assistanc®") Native Indian leaders in brea! the strike. A mass march last summer rol p Ace Gallery, demonstrated support, however, as Union of }: Indian Chiefs’ president G0? 0 Manuel pledged his backing fot Muckamuck workers. i Following the rejection of t decertification application, “ WUC Local | president said, hope that the employers will ™, recognize their obligation bargain a contract with ¢ employers whose right to uo representation has be reaffirmed.’’ Name...... Address......... City or town -.5....3<...;..0..;. Provinces...) «a Postal Code*. 22345 + Ce ee eee ey peeenanene Se eo ‘ | am enclosing: 1 year $10[ ] 2 years $18[ ] 6 months $6[ ] Old{ ] New[] ‘Foreign 1 year $12[] Donation $. SOE SER RR ELS es some months before it re-ope™) - PS pL me PIR 8 yt ieee a a a MF pay py on ra SBSas