_* By OBSERVER

The’ British Columbia
Mediation Commission was set
up as a direct agency of the
Socred government in Victoria.
It was to be the instrument of
imposing compulsory arbi-
tration in labor disputes by order
of cabinet. Like many other
instruments of oppression
forged by capitalist govern-
ments, it was blunted by the

_ opposition of the working class.

The successful boycott against
appearing before the com-
mission instituted by the B.C.
Federation of Labor succeeded
in making this body the most dis-
credited government agency in
the province.

The Teamsters and the Van-
couver Policemen’s Union,
unaffiliated to. the Federation,
made the mistake of going
before the commission to accept

compulsory arbitration. The

treatment they received was
such that they
announced they would never
appear before the commission
again.

As the opening of the current
session of the provincial legis-
lature approached, there was
open speculation in the daily,
press that legislation might be
brought down to make the com-
mission more acceptable to
labor. The spokesman for the
Employers’ Council of B.C., the
main organ for big business,

~ indicated that the commission

had failed and that big business
would not be opposed to change.
The change they seemed to favor
was a change in emphasis rather
than content. — :

It was rumored that strong

_ pressures were being brought to
bear to bring the mediation com-
mission under the direct control
of the Department of Labor and
to. switch the right to impose
binding arbitration from the
cabinet to the Minister of Labor.
It is no secret in labor circles
that Bill Sands, Deputy Minister
of Labor, strongly favors such a
course. He sees himself as the
key man in the department and
has barely been on speaking
terms with the chairman of the
commission.

It is common talk in labor and
government circles that if Sands
had his way there would be more
emphasis on the role of media-

~ tion officers. Be this true or

otherwise, the fact ren.ains that
a mediation officer has no
power under the present legis-
lation to make recommen-
dations and request the parties
to the dispute to vote on them.
All that he can do is to assist
them to arrive at a settlement
through negotiations. If media-
tion fails, he is not allowed to
make a report indicating what
he would consider to be an area
_of settlement. Ad hoc mediators
-appointed in disputes under
federal jursidiction have much
wider powers.

_ To some, it now appears that
the mediation commission: has
received a new shot in the arm.
Firstly, the Registered Nurses
Association voluntarily agreed
to submit their contract dispute
to the commission for binding
arbitration. Secondly, the
Hospital Employees Union,

publicly ~

SOONER THE BETTER ie aig
~ Remove Mediation Commission
_ Monstrosity irom labor scene

representing the bulk of the non-
professional employees in hos-
pitals throughout the province,
caved in and, under protest,
accepted a cabinet order to
submit their contract dispute to
binding arbitration by the com-
mission.

It is significant, however, that
it took the provincial executive
of the Hospital Employees Union
several days to make its
decision. The final count saw
almost as many opposed to

appearing before the com- -

mission as those in favor.

It doesn’t say much for the
shot in the arm received by the

‘commission that it involved one -

semi-professional association
not connected with organized
labor (nurses) and a trade union
which would be in a difficult
situation to mount a province-
wide strike because of the hature
of their ’ work
emaployees).

lt is to the credit of the’

Hospital Employees Union that
it first proposed to submit its
dispute to a privately chosen
arbitrator rather than strike the
hospitals of the province. It is to
the shame of the provincial
cabinet that it refused to accept
this offer. Their position was
that the dispute had to go to the
Mediation Commission for a
binding decision. They felt
strong in this position because
the nurses had already agreed to
go before the commission. .

If the Hospital Employees

executive had said no and
insisted on arbitration outside of
the mediation commission, the
government would have found it
difficult to maintain a negative
position. Instead, the issue was
debated on the basis of whether
to appear before the com-
mission or engage in an illegal
strike. This was not the union
and the hospitals were. not the
battleground for an alternative
placed in these terms, particu-
larly at this time.

What should be our attitude,
then, to arbitration of labor
disputes? Progressives strongly
favor direct negotiations
between unions and employers in
the settlement of labor disputes.
Employers with their wide

(hospital

influence have a better than
average chance of winning to
their side the single arbitrator
or the chairman of a three-man
arbitration board. However,
progressives are not opposed i
principle to workers accepting
arbitration when direct nego-
tiations fail, when a strike is
inadvisable or when it is advis-
able to call off a strike and
submit the unresolved issues to
arbitration.

In such cases, great attention
must be given to the selection of

the single arbitrator, or the

board of three arbitrators. The
workers want to improve their
wages, hours, working condi-
tions and job security and where
it is necessary to use arbitration
such improvements should
remain the prime objectives.
Having said this, we must
reaffirm our opposition to
compulsory arbitration which
takes away the right to strike
and places the workers at the
mercy of the employers and

their representatives. .

.We must also beware of undue
reliance on middle class liberal
elements, such as university
professors and judges, who have
blossomed out in the last few
years as professional, ad hoc
mediators and arbitrators.
Despite their fair-sounding
words, there is no guarantee
that they will not side with the
employers in a tight situation.

The following principles
should serve as a guide when con-
sidering whether or not to
submit a dispute to arbitration:

e Do not go to arbitration
unless the union is certain it

cannot force the employers to _

concede an acceptable agree-
ment through direct nego-
tiations and strike, if nétessary.

e@ Compel the employer, prior
to arbitration, to grant as many
of the union proposals as
possible.

e Make a vigorous fight to get
the best single arbitrator
available, or the best possible
board of thrée arbitrators.

e@ Make it clear that an unsatis-
factory award will not satisfy
the workers.

As. to the Mediation
Commission, the sooner this
monstrosity is removed from
the labor scene, the better.

i ° i . a
“Briefly, they lose the right to strike, we keep the right
: to pay low wages !”

housing,

victory.

achieving their demands.

INGIHE
LEGISLATURE

" By NIGEL MORGAN

Highlight of the week in the Legislature has been the
reaction to indications of a Provincial general election shortly
after this session ends. And, although only two years and nine
months of the constitutional five year term have elapsed, a
spring election is in line with the pattern. Premier Bennett is
known to be getting edgy, and Socred Provincial President
Driedeger’s letter that ‘‘there is every reason to believe that
we ‘will be seeking a new mandate as early as May of this
year,” is sufficient grounds for getting prepared.

Not for many. years has there been the widespread and
deep-rooted dissatisfaction with an administration that there is
today with the Bennett government. Monopoly interests }
dominate the economic and political life of B.C. more and
more. Unemployment is mounting, while our natural resources
in raw or semi-processed form are being shipped off to foreign
lands, and with them thousands of job opportunities.

’ The Socreds are pressing monopoly’s offensive against the
democratic rights and living standards of the people. Tens of °
thousands of trade unionists, teachers, nurses and hospital

‘workers, doctors, civil servants (still denied collective
bargaining rights), pensioners, tenants, PTAs, municipal
ratepayers, anti-pollutionists and others have been forced on
the tread-mill for monopoly profits.

Their lack of unity is the most serious problem facing these
forces, among whom are NDPers, Communists, some
disenchanted Socreds and Liberals, and a large proportion
without any definite political affiliation. Big mass movements
of the people in opposition to Socred giveaways and monopoly
policies are arising on every hand. The only thing that stands
between them and victory in their campaign for new policies
and the ousting of the present big business administration is
their unity around a common front program. ;

Today’s imperative need is to find a way of ridding B.C. of
‘unemployment, unbearably high municipal taxes, compulsory
arbitration (Bill 33), and the sacrificing of urgently necessary
social expenditures (pensions, welfare, education, health,

etc.) And, with the Socreds present top-heavy

Legislative majority 39-10, it is self-evident that only if a much

wider section of the people can be united, is that possible.

Agreement on united political action to achieve solution of
a number of immediate pressing problems, with the aim of

achieving a common front against big business policies and
their carriers in the Legislature holds out the surest chance of

Obviously the NDP can’t do it alone (39 years of history
demonstrates that over and over again). And neither can the
trade unions, the teachers, pensioners, ratepayers, farmers or
_ the jobless, do it alone. Together, however, these groups
constitute the majority and nothing can block them from

‘We will not live with
Bill 3’ say teachers

Bill 3, now before the leg-
islature, gives the government
power to limit by regulation
increases in teachers salaries,
and the teachers have responded
in one phrase: We won't live
with it!

Adam Robertson, president of
the Teachers’ Federation, said:

~ “At stake is a principle that

took teachers vears of struggle
to get accepted. We cannot let it
be taken from us through the
action of an unfriendly govern-
ment, bent on controlling costs
even at the expense of social
values.”

In a newsletter to the teachers
of the province the president
pointed out that the amendment
takes away from teachers their
collective bargaining rights. It
denies trustees, as duly elected
representatives of the people,
the authority to exercise respon-
sibility accorded to them in law
of - acting as employers of
teachers.

Robertson told the teachers he
has sought to keep politics out of
all policies, but through Bill 3,

ae es

re

his offer of good will and co-
operation has been spurned. The
government's attitude to
teachers was made clear. They
don’t care what we think.

“The government has acted
politically against us, and a
hostile act at that. A political
act must be countered by
another political act. We have
no choice but to turn to political
action in defending ourselves.”

Robertson said this does not
‘mean that teachers should or
would engage in _ partisan
politics.

“Our objective must be to get
the offensive legislation
withdrawn and we must never
relax our opposition to the legis-
lation until it is withdrawn. It
may well be that the govern-
ment will withdraw it through

_one of its famous second looks

“If not, we must actively
oppose the policy until a new
government is elected .. . We
have taken a stand and we mean
it: We will not live with this legis-

~ lation!”

Re a a

" PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1972—PAGE 3

3