LABOR

fi

Hoisting of Tories’
de-reg bills urged

Federal NDP transportation
critic Les Benjamin addresses
demonstrators outside the Four
Seasons Hotel in Vancouver
where the parliamentary trans-
port committee studying the
Tories’ two de-regulation bills,
C-18 and C-19, was conducting
its only scheduled B.C. hearing
in Vancouver March 16. Repre-
sentatives of several unions
demonstrated outside the hear-
ings to protest the government's
refusal to schedule hearings in
other B.C. centres despite more
than 40 requests from munici-
pal governments and local labor
councils and 4,000 postcards
signed by individuals. Benjamin
charged that the Tories have
refused to allow the bills, which
will result in the loss of hundreds
of jobs, particularly in communi-
ties outside Vancouver, to be
put to the test of public review.
"They say they've consulted the
people, but they haven't,” he
said. “They've only consulted
the big shippers and the Cana-
dian Manufacturers Associa-
tion.” The CLC has demanded
that the bills be tabled.

le

~ ZEFEQ; “
 CBRT- aw

&

rr ra anne
Ves ‘ANY?

JIN
v GUSTING
: LOCAL 100 j;

ill

Lite GOui

The clear message from Bill Vander-
Zalm’s first throne speech is that the most
significant changes to B.C. labor legislation
since 1984 will dominate the politics of the
province over the coming months.

The premier has already indicated that
the changes will be controversial which, of
course, means that the trade union move-
ment won’t like them and will protest.

If the B.C. Federation of Labor has a
good idea of what to expect, it isn’t telling
anyone. Apparently keeping quiet until the
bad news arrives is part of the strategy of
ensuring that Vander Zalm looks like the
confrontationist. The same strategy involves
hooking the federation up with the B.C.
Business Council in the new “Pacific Insti-
tute of Industrial Policy” to make the point
that business and labor can get along
together and there isn’t any need for new
legislation to enforce the peace.

We can be assured, however, that new
legislation is on the way. A reasonable guess
on the areas it will be aimed at would
include the following:

@ Compulsory mediation: the govern-
ment has made no secret of its opinion that
major strikes such as last year’s forest strike
must be prevented. This could involve a
broadening of essential service legislation or
some sort of compulsory mediation pro-
Cess,

@ Restrictions on picketing: the reference
in the throne speech to protecting innocent
victims of strikes likely refers to a further
restriction on picketing to the primary place
of business alone. Although secondary
picketing was already outlawed in the 1984
amendments, the LRB has allowed picket-
ing at secondary sites where the struck
employer carries on any portion of business;

Common employer designation: changes
to Section 37 of the present code which
prevent employers from escaping their con-
tractual responsibilities to unions by chang-
ing their corporate structure are widely
expected. This is a particularly important
issue for the building trades unions which
face the practice of “double breasting,”

12 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 18, 1987

Wilson

whereby a union contractor establishes a
parallel non-union company;

® Successor rights: Section 53 of the
present code also seeks to protect union
rights from corporate re-organization,
requiring that in the case of a change in
ownership of a business, all existing trade
union rights be continued under the new
ownership. This section also is expected to
be modified or removed, with specific appli-
cation to construction unions, but with pro-
found implications for any union facing a
change of ownership;

@ Democracy in the workplace: this
demagogic slogan cited in the throne speech
has caused deep concern over its potential
implications. It could imply new regulations
on strike votes or a requirement that the last
offer of the employer must be voted on
before strike action; it could mean
expanded employer rights during organiza-
tion drives or strikes; it could mean an
attack on the closed shop, which is tanta-
mount to “right-to work” legislation;

The larger question than the detail of the
legislation is the response of organized
labor. B.C. Fed president Ken Georgetti
has stated repeatedly that the federation will
not hesitate to fight vigorously against anti-
labor legislation, and that its new coopera-
tive attitude towards business will depend
on what happens with the labor code
amendments. In the meantime, the federa-
tion is still insisting that business also
opposes new anti-labor legislation.

At the March 6 press conference
announcing the Pacific Institute, Georgetti
put it this way: “They (the business com-
munity) appear to us to be essentially of the
same view as labor in terms of what’s

needed in B.C. ... I think that we all agree
that a new approach will not be acomp-
lished through legislation. The approach
has to be toward more open dialogue and
exploring areas where we can agree, and
that has been reflected in the majority of
briefs from the business community who
are practitioners in this province...”

Those statements are remarkable consid-
ering the actual demands of Forest Indus-
trial Relations, Construction Labor Rela-
tions and the Business Council to the
minister of labor during the present review.
All of the possible anti-labor measures
noted above, and more, were included in
those briefs. In particular, the Business
Council brief called for:

@ Strict limits on picketing to primary
employment sites;

@ LRB/court crackdown on “illegal
work stoppages,” with the use of cease and
desist orders similar to ex parte injunctions,
and automatic recourse to the courts to sue
unions;

wie 0 38 @ a 0.2. ee

are er GE OEE PC BA GE ORE EE
2
®
3
©

ee ae

Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street & |
Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186 3 1

%.8° ~ B2e © o>) ee B02 6-6-5 50: 6 9. bnew

Postal Code

lam enclosing 1 yr.$160) 2yrs. $280) 6mo. $100
Introductory offer, 3 mo. $3 Foreign 1 yr. $250 Bill me later 0

READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR LABOR”

@ New restrictions on strike votes;

e Employer rights to campaign during
organization drives and strikes; ;

© Removal of protection under Section”
37 and 53 for unions in the construction
industry.

The Business Council’s political guide
lines for changes in labor legislation weré
written especially for the Socreds, and for
mulations not unlike these will undoubtedly
accompany the legislation: “Any changes
should support and encourage new invest
ment ... changes should complement the
needs of the province to compete success”
fully in the international market place .-*
illegal action should not be tolerated .. a

It may be overstating the case to say that
the writing is on the wall. But enough has
been written in briefs and throne speeches
and stated in public to reach general expe
tations. There is no doubt that the majo!
employers of the province are the architect$
of what is to come.

This will put the issue squarely to Kea
Georgetti and the officers of the B.C. Fed
who will then have to lead in one of tw
directions. The amendments can be criti@
ized, while the “new approach” with bus®
ness is pursued further — or the resource’
of the labor movement can be mobilized t@
do everthing necessary to force the gover™
ment and business to retreat.

SA
soticusl? 6
e

si i Be IEG ALE ty

© 0 69 0.0 66 0 6 6 610 © 00,6 8.0.0 OFm