ELLIOT LAKE — Blasting the
Ontario government for trying
to whitewash unsafe working
‘conditions in the area’s uranium
mines, the United Steelworkers
issued a leaflet, appropriately
titled “Whitewash”. The pam-
phlet accuses the Tory govern-
ment of trying “to convince peo-
ple that the serious health pro-
blem of the Elliot Lake miners
is. over.”

The pamphlet was sent to’ all
the homes of Elliot Lake in res-
ponse to a leaflet produced by
‘the provincial government and
signed by the ministers of health
and natural resources and the
chairman : of -the Workman’s
Compensation Board, which was
also sent to the homes of Elliot
Lake.

In a 13 point exposé of the
government whitewash, the
Steelworkers told the real story
the government is hiding from
the miners and their families in
Elliot Lake.

Quoting the Government leaf-
let stating that less than 2% of
the miners examined had silico-
sis, the Steelworkers pamphlet
showed that when all the cases

#

‘Above: Silicosis victim and former miner from Elliot’ Lake. United Stealecitehs leaflet, Whitewash,
blasts the Ontario government and its recent pamphlet, for attempting to play down the unsafe working
conditions in Elliot Lake’s uranium mines, were silicosis is one of a number of diseases that plague

miners.

of respiratory problems were
taken into account the real fig-
ure pointing to serious health
problems was one in six.
Answering the government
claim that every working miner
examined was still capable of
doing normal work, the union
stated that 40 Elliot Lake miners
had died of lung cancer from the
unsafe working conditions in the
mines. As to the cleanliness of
the mines the leaflet pointed out
that recently officials of Deni-
son Mines informed the Steel-
workers local safety committee
that the mine could not meet the
new provincial health standards
for exposure to radiation. Furth-
er, the union labeled as a lie the
government claim that high
radiation exposures were a thing
of the past.
, Quoting Prof. Fred Knelman
an unpaid adviser to the union
in his report to the Royal Com-
mission on the Mines earlier this
year, the union pointed out that
no level of exposure to radia-
tion is really safe. The union
went on to show that where the
government’s old recommended
radiation exposure levels produc-
ed three times the number of

- — ewok

lung cancer deaths that were ex-
pected in Elliot Lake, the new
so-called ‘“‘safe’”’ levels establish-
ed by the government in 1975,
according to scientific research,
will mean twice the number of
cancer deaths.

The miners’ leaflet also lashes
out at the inadequacy of com-
pensation to encourage sick
miners to re-train. In the past,
the union claimed, re-training
meant that. the miner lived on
unemployment insurance losing
his seniority, fringe benefits, and
pension credits. The,union de-
mands full wages and benefits
as the only practical and fair
way to encourage sick miners to
re-locate and re-train. :

' What is: evident from this
union leaflet is that the union
and the miners want less talk
about how pleasant working
conditions are in the mines by
the government and more action
in the direction of tougher en-
forcement of standards, new

rights for safety committees to

take their own air and radiation
samples, investigate all unsafe
conditions and close down all
operations that are too dan-
~ gerous.

/
/

_
=

Z

#

Peterborough workers strike
to better wages and benefits)

By MIKE PHILLIPS

PETERBOROUGH — Workers
at the Raybestos - Manhattan
plant here are entering their fifth
week of strike against. this ma-
nufacturer of break linings for
automobiles. - Better wages, a
cost-cf-living clause, ahd an im-
provement on their petisions are
the chief issues in this dispute.

The workers, members of Lo-
cal 5141 United Steelworkers
want $1.80 over two years with
a good cost-of-living clause. Alf
Maio, picket captain, stated that
great strides would have to be
made in the area of pension im-
provement. To illustrate this, he
cited the example of an em-

‘ployee who recently retired on

$91 per month after 35 years of
service. :

Another irritating issue for
the 94 preduction workers is the

_company’s proposal to’ initiate

“job slotting.” This would mean
a graduated pay scale for differ-
ent jobs in the plant above the
company’s offer of 65 cents over
two years. The feeling among

the workers is that there are no -

jobs in the plant that coulnd’t be

done by everyone already em- .

ployed, and that this is a com-
pany tactic to divide them as
well as: get away with a cheap
settlement. According to Alf
Maio, if the company’s plan
were to be adopted it would
mean only an average wage in-
crease of 3 to 5 cents an hour.
Health Hazards
Looming in the background of

this strike is the issue of health -

and safety with regard to the ef-
fects of working in asbestos.
The Workman’s Compensation
Board has confirmed that it has
files on seven Raybestos-Man-
hattan workers who have con-
tracted asbestosis since 1947.
Caused by inhaling too much as-

“pestos dust, asbestosis is an ir- ~

reversible lung disease which
has claimed the lives of eight
workers in this Peterborough
subsidiary of the U.S.-owned
manufacturer.

A ninth victim is presently

still employed with the firm but’

- clause, and said that the unio!)

is collecting a partial disabilll
pension. 7

Union officials have criticize)
the government’s regulation)
and standards for the plant)
They want to see mandatofl)
dust levels in Ontario asbest0)

ment has issued as a guidelin
a maximum of two fibres p&
cubic centimeter of factory all)
The provincial ministry has-!
commended the level be droppel)
to 0.2 but the labor ministry h@)
not yet decided on the reques!
At present there are no regl
lations in the province prohibit)
ing maximum readings. Results|
of readings taken around a Pp?)
tentially hazardous area show®)
readings of from five to eigl!
times the provincial thresholé)
guidelines. The readings wé
taken in February, April 2
May of 1974, and shown
union officials at a meeting df
the company-union ‘safety com)
mittee on Sept. 7, 1974.
.° Pretty Bad
In the U.S. a maximum read)
ing of 10 is enough to allow
government to close a_ plal)
down and the law requires avel)
age dust levels to be below tw
fibres per c.c. of air. j
Seven fatalities in a plant em)
ploying fewer than 100 peopl!
over a period of 35 years We)
described as “pretty bad” Di}
John Dement, a researcher will)
the U.S. federal. agency whi
polices the asbestos level law)
in that country. ‘
However, the union has bee?
clearly pointing out that the &
sue of safety, important as it
is one which has to be fought!)
out through public pressure 0
the government to change 4,
existing legislation on dv5)
levels. :
Union president Bill Nadeal|
addressing the Peterborous)|
Labor Council, said that the real
strike issues were money, a pe)
sion plan, and cost-of-livinb

would continue to press 0

safety legislation.

QUEBEC'S BILL 24

Serious danger to all working people |

By HERVE FUYET

The Quebec Government’s
draft Bill 24, already submitted
to the Advisory ‘Council on
Labor and Manpower, will soon
go to the National Assembly.
While the draft bill takes the
innocuous form of amendments
to the actual labor code, it
would, in fact, take away all
real power from the trade
unions. It is a serious danger
for all working people.

At present, the labor code
forbids strikes and work slow-
downs while a collective agree-
ment is in effect. It lets the gov-
ernment alone define essential
services where strikes are for-
bidden. It permits, through in-
junctions, the levying of heavy
fines and prison sentences for
any infraction of the numerous
laws, ordinances and regulations
already in existence.

But the amendments are more
far reaching. For example, ar-
ticle 55a of Bill 24 which would
become article 94a of the labor
code reads: “No one should
start a strike, and no wage earn-
er should be on strike, before a

secret
taken of all wage earners in-

cluded in the bargaining unit

and . .. the majority of these
wage earners has voted to
strike.

Vote Every 90 Days

Furthermore “When 90 days
have elapsed since the beginning
of the strike, and every 90 days
thereafter, the workers‘ associa-
tion has to submit to the wage
earners included in the bargain-
ing unit the last offers of the
employer and must hold a secret
ballot vote on whether to accept
or reject these offers.”

This is a hypocritical way to
make almost any strike illegal
because an absolute majority,
not only of the voters, but of all
the members of the bargaining
unit, whether or not they are
members of the union, must be
in favor of the strike. Further-
more, anyone could contest the
legality of a strike and this at
the union’s expense ~ (article
50a). Finally, the employer
would have to be warned 72
hours in advance, in writing, be-
fore a strike can start.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 20, 1975—Page 8

ballot vote has been

A well-known politician was
writing a few years ago... “If
the right to strike is suppressed
or seriously limited, the trade
union movement becomes no-
thing more than an institution
among many others at the ser-
vice of capitalism.” (Pierre El-
liott Trudeau (Cité Libre).

Any Pretext

With this, we have many in-
junctions in perspective. If the
minister of - justice decides to
sue under the criminal code pro-
visions, disobedience to an in-
junction can become a “crime,”
(precedents: to Tilco Plastics.
strike, Ontario 1965, United
Fishermen strike, British Colum-
bia 1967). It happens that article
‘19 (g.a.) “forbids anybody con-
victed of a criminal-act . . . to
hold a leadership position in, or

to be employed by a union,” and -

demands his immediate replace-
ment and the rescinding of any
decisions he could have made.

Any militant judged a “cri-
minal’ could also be if convicted
of an altercation with the police
or with scabs on a picket line,
without speaking of possible ac-

cusations of libel, or even’ an
infraction of the highway code.
As the Human Rights League
rightly said, we don’t ask so
much of a senator or minister!

The government will not be
short of information to apply its
law. According to article 19 of
Bill .24, all union locals must
give ‘name, address, citizenship
of every leader by the general

‘commissioner of labor” (19a2g)

as well as “a certified copy...
of the financial status presented
in the form and containing the
information determined by the
presiding lieutenant - governor”
(19 a2g). - :
Repressive Government

To top it all, any change must

be reported within 15 days,

otherwise a fine of up to $100 a

day for the local and $50 for its
president will be imposed. Unions
would have to devote a good
part of their resources to the

. creation of a special department

only to meet these obligations.

Jerome Choquette, minister of
“police” said at the National
Assembly on May 14 concerning
the bludgeoning of the 34 occu-

“
pants of United Aircraft: |
hope this will serve as an exa™ |
ple for the future.” at

We understand the milital Hie
of the National Trade ua r
Centre. who voted at a spé
meeting on May 18 in Que?” |
City ‘to take every action, #
cluding the general strike, inf
prevent such a policy from bé ;
implemented,” . . . “and to U ip
with the other labor bodies t
common actions.” It is clear
Bill 24 is part of a general policy
of bludgeoning the trade uni?
movement, of “war against © |
unions” to talk like Robert Boy
rassa. Guy St. Pierre, minis
of commerce and industry, S#
recently that “the actual role f
the government is to defend the
employers .. .” : t

Communists, and the mos)
class-conscious workers in ge?’
ral must mobilize and strength itt
the unity of their unions, the)
democratic organizations #
the population in general t
prevent the passage of this m2
un-democratic and even fas¢
law, as they did against
passage of Bill 89 in 1972.

=.
—

Ses 3