8 THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER Local 1-71 Executive nails false statement The publishers of “The Barker” recently saw fit to expose to public view a mat- ter concerning the internal administration of the Loggers’ Local. They headed their ar- ticle “Close Loggers’ Vote Leads to Dismissal” and the article itself contains numer- ous suppositions, i.e. ‘reasons suspected for firing’, “sus- Picions are’, “it is indicated”, ete. The article also included a number of inaccuracies and was obviously biased, with the intent of confusing the mem- bers of the Union. This is not the first time The Barker has chosen to in- trude itself into the affairs of other Locals of our Organiza- tion and it probably will not be the last time due to the obvious intent of the leader- ship in the Vancouver Mill Local of attempting, by every means possible, to gain con- trol of the Regional Council. We have no quarrel with vigorous campaigning for of- fice in any election within the Organization, as we sincerely feel that strong competition in these elections will provide the best possible leadership in our fight to better wages, hours and working conditions. We do however, take strong exception to the type of ac- tion evident in The Barker’s article concerning the dismis- sal of a Business Agent in the _ Loggers’ Local. We have no intention of attempting on these pages to justify the action that was taken by the Local President and endorsed unanimously by the Local Executive Board. But we do feel that clarifica- tion of this issue is imperative in view of the inaccurate and biased report in The Barker. Morris Anderson was not an Officer or Executive Board Member of the Local Union, but was a paid representative. His dismissal did not result from dissatisfaction over the close acceptance vote in the Local Union and the rejec- tion vote in the area in which he was working, but. resulted from his outright lies to the Membership, the Local Presi- dent and the Local Executive Board and also in his mis- conduct in not presenting the majority decision of the Policy Committee in a fair and un- biased manner to the mem- bership, who looked to him as a local representative, for guidance at the conclusion of negotiations. The majority of our Local rank and file members, upon being presented with the true facts of this situation, have given their strong support to the actions taken by the Local President. We have it on fairly good authority that Morris Ander- son was in close connection with certain Officers of Local 1-217, during the course of events which led to his dis- missal, and has been receiving considerable advice and assis- tance from them since that time. This assistance has in- cluded the article in The Barker, as previously men- tioned. The article in The Barker claims that letters from Camp Chairmen have been pouring in to Morris Anderson since his dismissal. It would be more factual to say that let- ters from Morris Anderson have been pouring out to Camp Chairmen and others asking for their support. In our opinion it is deplor- able that affairs within the Regional Council have reached the point where Local is pitted against Local for the political benefit of those whose lust for power is para- mount to the aims and ambi- tions of our Organization, to serve the best interests of all the members—such a division within our ranks can only serve the best interests of the bosses. EXECUTIVE BOARD LOCAL 1-71 IWA IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO A QUESTION °* KNOW HOW | -.- and Pierre Paris & Sons have KNOWN HOW for nearly 60 years. finest logging boot that lt was PIERRE PARIS & SONS 51 West Hastings Strect Vancouver 3, B.C, Family Teamwork in Craftsmanship since 1907 then, and still is now, the money can buy. JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR WAS ORDERED... Walls exposes LRA inadequacy Unscrupulous employer op- position to the unionization of unorganized lumber workers in the Interior has caused Clayton Walls, Assistant Di- rector of Organization, to pro- pose that the Regional Con- vention should press for more adequate protection for union rights under the Labour Re- lations Act. In order to prevent the vic- timization of workers who join the Union, it has been necessary to appeal to the courts for restraining orders against intimidation of the worst type. The necessary quick action has not been possible under the Labour Relations Board. The case of the Commercial Lumber Co. Ltd., Lillooet, is cited as an example. Walls reports that organiza- tion of this plant had no soon- er started when the employ- ees were subjected to a cam- paign of threats and intimi- dation. On behalf of Local 1-417, application was made to the Supreme Court for an injunction to restrain the company from ‘its unfair la- bour practices. i Mr. Justice Atkins granted the injunction but the Com- pany moved to have it set aside. Mr. Justice Atkins de- nied the appeal and continued the injunction until trial. In the meantime the com- pany protested the Union’s application for certification, using as evidence the alleged “drop-outs” secured under pressure. It was quite obvious, said the organizers, that the company had endeavoured to create a situation which would defeat a representation vote. The Union has accumulated the necessary evidence to sub- Stantiate its application for certification, and refute the company’s trumped-up charg- es. Says Walls, “It has become evident that existing legisla- tion is weak and ineffective in stopping the employer and his agents from threatening and intimidating employees during a period of organiza- tion. “The only form of practical redress open to the Union is to lay unfair labour practice charges under the Act and re- quest a hearing before the Labour Relations Board. From the time the charges are laid and the LRB hearing takes place, three to four weeks have elapsed. In the meantime, the employer may continue to flout the law, harass his workers with a massive anti-union campaign, promote revocations from the Union and fire active Union men on trumped-up charges — all for the purpose of de- stroying union organization. “During this critical period, there is no provision to stop the employer from breaching the provisions of the Labour Relations Act prohibiting un- fair labour practices, “In the final analysis, if the Union is successful at the hearing, the only action open to the Board is to issue an order ‘to cease using coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or in- ducing any person to refrain from becoming or continuing to be a member of a trade union.’ “The fact is that the dam- age has already been done to the union organization. No form of redress is given the union. No form of punitive action against the offending employer is provided, save in cases where the Union proves discharge for union activity. “What effect does a Labour Board order to ‘cease and de- sist’ have on the guilty em- ployer? Actually, none. The damage has been done. He has achieved his p se. “In addition to the above inequities, the total onus of proof and expense for wit- nesses rests solely on the in- nocent parties — the Union, and the aggrieved employees. “Tt was in view of the above considerations, that we found it necessary to resort to the use of the injunction. “We solicit any action Local Unions may take, such as resolutions to the forthcom- ing Regional Convention’s Legislative Committee that will help alleviate the gross injustice to unions contained in the Labour Relations Act.” Retail sales rose 5.4 per — cent in March to an estimated $1,513,748,000 over a year earlier and the rise for the was 9.2 per _ first three months cent at $4,343,630,000.