_LABOR

“Ver no strike can take place until 48 hours
after the fact finder has reported.

| Peck can also prevent a strike by ordering
that the union have a secret ballot vote on
tte employer’s last offer. Moreover, if a
Strike has not yet commenced, the employer
can require that Peck make such an order.
(Clearly this provision will be a major new
Weapon in the employer arsenal, and no
intelligent employer will ever bargain
Seriously until such a vote tests the weak-
Nesses of the union.

| Once a strike is in progress and Peck
Considers it to be “in the public interest” to
nd it, he can immediately order the union
back on the job and impose a number of
Measures including a mediator or fact
Inder, or a 40 day “cooling off period”.
An insidious invention of the govern-
€nt in Bill 19 is the power of Peck to order
a union back to work and to establish a
Public Interest Board of Inquiry.” This
quiry would be set up to inquire into the
Sues into a dispute and how the dispute
allects “the public.” To make sure that the
mion demands are played off against the
i. terests of the so called “third parties”,
#¢ck will also appoint a major third player
0 Participate in the Board of Inquiry. That
Person would be called the ‘Public Interest
Advocate.”

The legislation is indeterminate with
€gard to what happens when such an
Nquiry issues its report. If accepted by both
Anion and management it then becomes the
Pasis of a contract. If not acceptable to the
‘inion, Peck can nevertheless order a secret

- Dallot vote of the recommendations and if it

asses, it will then become the collective

dgreement. The legislation does not offer

_ iny remedy if the union votes for rejection.

“fresumably it is left to the even larger pow-

_ tts of the government to impose compul-

)

|

sory arbitration.
__ Bill 19 presumes compulsory arbitration.
there is no other explanation for the
quirement that a report must be filed with
€ minister by the commissioner when any

_ Strike is 28 days long. If the minister decides

at the strike is against the public interest,
© Commissioner will be ordered to end the
trike. Any of the above interventionist

f Measures may be applied, and in this case,

)
5
I

d

¢t another. A “special mediator” may be
appointed, and the mediator may write a
“Port to the commissioner which will take
€ form of a binding collective agreement
®n the union.
imposed collective agreement would
ventually have to be put to the legislature
i. Tatification. This is the Socred’s escape
ause from the criticism that Peck and the
mediator will play “God” over the lives of
Orkers. But by the time any such agree-
“lent reaches the legislature, the ink will be
°ng dry and the contract imposed.
his compulsory arbitration is highly
miniscent of the Mediation Commission
at Operated between 1968 and 1972,
Ch the trade union movement defied and
Ntually defeated.
ay, Ue Second set of amendments to labor
pt B.C: target the closed shop. The
i388 d shop describes union security provi-
De 4S which require that all workers in a
‘e ular bargaining unit be members of
_ Union as a condition of employment.
eSlation which prohibits closed shop
ha Security provisions has been called
= LO-Work laws, A form of right-to-work
been included in Bill 19. |
Sho € first major exemption to the closed
ae @ provision which prevents any
aso T expelled from a trade union for any
n other than the failure to pay dues to
‘mployment as a result, regardless of

the )
~ Collective agreement in force. In effect,

means that scabs and agent provoca-

“th discip 1 by employers to bust unions can

lined by the union, but they will

continue to work side by side with union
members.

The second exemption is a new law which
exempts all apprentices or any person hired
in a training program from closed shop
provisions of any collective agreement.
There are no restrictions on the kind of
“training program” that the employer may
wish to establish. Most important, the new
law states that these apprentices and trai-
nees even after the training program is
complete need never join the union and will
be exempt from closed shop provisions of
any contract. It is not difficult to foresee
how in smaller operations the trainees and
former trainees would soon outnumber the
union members.

As if to underscore the message, Bill 19
has yet another new provision requiring
that all persons in a bargaining unit,
whether they be union members or not,
shall have the right to vote on collective
bargaining matters.

Still another devastating blow at the
closed shop is the new prohibition against
“non-affiliation” clauses in any contract
except for building trades contracts cover-
ing construction. This means that the pro-
visions of the pulp union contracts, for
example, which require that any construc-
tion crews or other subcontractors that
enter a pulp mill be unionized are to be
voided by Bill 19. The effect is the same:
union workers will be forced to work side
by side with non-union workers.

The third set of changes to labor law
provide employers with improved condi-
tions to union-bust through corporate re-
organization and through open intimida-
tion.

Building Trades unions will bear the
brunt of much of these new laws, but other
unions will be severely affected as well.

Foremost of the changes in this area is the
stripping away of any meaningful protec-
tion against “double breasting.” A common
practice in the construction industry, this
refers to a union employer setting up a
parallel corporate structure and then hiring
non-union workers. Formerly some mea-
sure of protection existed under Section 37
of the Code which stated that if the second
company was under “common direction
and control” it too would be covered by the
certification. The new law states that it must
be under “the same operational direction
and control” and this can not include the
“skills or abilities” of individuals. In other
words, the employer can fully finance a
parallel company, send the general manager
to run the new operation, and conveniently
escape the union. :

The second major change allowing union
busting is the relaxation of restrictions over
successor rights. Formerly, if business or a

rt of a business was sold or transferred, or
if a substantial part of its assets were sold,
the certification also went with the business
or assets. Now, no “asset sale’? will be sub-
ject to successor rights. This allows any
company to sell all its machinery and raw
materials to another company, and leave
the union out in the cold.

A further amendment will henceforth
require that not just a part of a business be
sold, but a “substantial part” of it if succes-
sor rights are to hold. This will have sweep-
ing impact on corporate reorganization in

very industry. : :

: Employers are also given assistance in
resisting union organization by changes to
the definition of an “unfair labor practice.

The new Act grants employers ‘freedom of
speech” that is, the right to say anything
they want to workers during an organizing
drive ora labor dispute. A basic principle of
the Labor Code was that euplgyers sola
have no right to interfere in the decision 0:

workers about unionization. The

are giving employers every right to interfere

in certification campaigns with relish, and
this can only intimidate workers against
joining unions.

The fourth set of amendments incorpo-
rated in the new Industrial Relations Act
targets the picket line. The most important
new provision here is the banning of “hot
declarations.” An important principle in
B.C.’s labor movement is that just as picket
lines are not to be crossed, goods produced
behind picket lines shall not be handled.
This principle is often implemented by a hot
declaration from the B.C. Federation of
Labor which declares on behalf of a union
in a dispute that certain goods or services
are “hot” and not to be handled. Many
unions have negotiated terms in their own
contracts which allow them to refuse to
handle hot goods. The new law would make
any such contract provision illegal and void.
The intent is simply to make the enforce-
ment of any hot declaration an illegal work
stoppage. Even information picketing

which identifies hot goods will be illegal
under yet another new provision in Bill 19.

The Industrial Relations Reform Act
then turns its attention to secondary picket-
ing and stipulates a range of new restrictions

at heart of union rights

Another provision, potentially far reach-
ing, instructs that votes must be taken so
that no member’s choice is ever evident, and
further prohibits the counting of ballots in
any particular unit until the voting is com-
plete in all bargaining units participating in
the vote.

Perhaps the most meddlesome of the
intrusions into union affairs is an amend-
ment to the section of the Act dealing with
the duty of fair representation which
extends the supervision of the Industrial
Relations Council into union hiring halls.
Any particular worker who feels that the
hiring hall has failed to treat him or her
properly will be able to seek remedy before
the council.

Taken together, the amendments to B.C.
labor law contained in the Industrial Rela-
tions Reform Act live up to the govern-
ment’s slogan of “a new era in labor
relations.” The new era is one in which the
legal framework for trade unions denies the
right to free collective bargaining, the night
to have a union, the right to strike, and the
right of workers to democratically run their
own union affairs. That is a framework not
for unions, but for de-unionization.

GAINERS STRIKERS, JULY 1986 ... under Bill 19, the hot declaration issued
against the company by the B.C. Federation of Labor would be ruled illegal.

which for all purposes eliminates the legal
use of secondary picketing in labor disputes.
Secondary pickets are picket line actions
against an employer, business or person
which although not technically in a labor
dispute themselves, are in some way assist-
ing an employer which is in a labor dispute.
Even the NDP Labor Code contained
unjust restrictions on secondary picketing,
but the Socreds have tightened the screws
with successive labor law changes. The
newest restrictions make it possible to
employ secondary pickets only if it is
against an “employer” that is performing a
“substantial” portion of the business or
work which is normally performed behind a
legal picket line, and that work must be
carried out “under the control and direc-
tion” of the struck employer. These are
requirements which any struck employer
can easily see are never met.

A fifth category of new measures in the
Industrial Relations Act increases state
intervention in the affairs of trade unions.
One such measure requires that trusteeships
be reported to the Industrial Relations
Council and prohibits any trusteeship of a
local or a union for a period of more than
one year without the council’s permission.

The immediate response from the labor
movement that if these provisions. become
law that they will be boycotted points to the
immediate conclusion that Vander Zalm’s
new era will necessarily put the defence of
workers and unions outside of the law, and
that labor leaders will be compelled to mas-
ter legal and illegal forms of struggle.

To some extent the government has con-
templated even this and in forcing the labor
movement outside the law has at the same
time acted to stiffen the penalties that will be
dished out as a consequence. This is the
motive behind yet another change in labor
law which will now permit any employer to
sue a union for any illegal action, imme-
diately and without requiring the permis-
sion of the Industrial Relations Council.

Bill 19 is the clenched fist of the state and
it delivers a body blow to trade union rights.
But it will be the iron heel of repression each
time that the Industrial Relations Act is
used to beat down and bust another union
that will wreak the long term destruction.
The trade union movement has nothing to
lose by fighting this legislation by all means
necessary.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 8, 1987 e 7

eet

oo