oe ca a ithewestern Canadian IWoorA VOL. XLIV, No. 2 VANCOUVER, B.C. lumber worker APRIL-MAY, 1976 IN U.S. DEEP SOUTH REGION BACKS STRIKERS IWA DEFEATS P.P.W.C. RAID The Pulp, Paper & Wood- workers of Cannes have failed in their attempt to raid the Nanoose Forest Products crew from the IWA. Fernie Viala APPOINTED TO INTERNATIONAL IWA International President Keith Johnson has appointed Fernie Viala, the very popular President of Local 1-80 IWA, Duncan, to the position of International 2nd Vice-Presi- dent. Fernie has been President of Local 1-80 since 1972. Prior to that he was the ist Vice-Presi- dent for a number of years. In announcing the appoint- ment, President Johnson stated he believed that Fernie was highly qualified for the position and would do an ex- cellent job for the entire Inter- national Union in the years Vencouver, B.C. 4E LUMBER WORKER 9 Commercial Dr.. The operation employs ap- proximately sixty-five workers who are members of Local 1-80 IWA, Duncan, Vancouver Island. The PPWC organizers gave up the raiding attempt after signing up only a handful of members. IWA trouble shooter Jim Mochuk was assigned by the Regional Council to look after Regional Council No. 1, is planning an all-out campaign of support for the 3,000 members of Regional Council No. 5, who have been on strike for the past eight weeks at the Weyerhaeuser operations located at Adel, Georgia, Jacksonville, North Carolina and Dequeen, Arkansas. The decision to support the strikers was unanimously endorsed by the Regional Executive Board March 16, after hearing a report on the strike from International President Keith Johnson. Johnson reported that Wey- erhaeuser, which is the second largest forest products com- pany in the U.S., is determined to widen the already large wage differential existing be- tween its Southern employees and those in the North West United States. Southern Weyerhaeuser opera- tions is $2.75 an hour compared to $5.03 an hour in the Com- pany’s North West plants. The Company had proposed a three-year agreement pro- viding a wage increase of 40 cents an hour in each year of the contract. The employees the operation and protect the IWA’s interests. EDITORIAL N page ten of this issue are letters to the editor for and against the publication of material in the Lumber Worker supporting the views of the New Democratic Party. Those in opposition object strongly to the Lumber Worker's partisan NDP coverage and state The present base rate in the ‘that politics should be kept out of union business. While we respect the right of anyone to oppose support for the NDP, we question the judgment of a union member to argue that unions shouldn* tbe involved in politics. This is utter nonsense and indicates an abysmal lack of thought on the part of the writers. Where would unions be: today if they hadn’t become politically involved? Major social reforms such as Workmen’s Com- pensation, Unemployment Insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, and the lowering of the work-week, were not handed to the workers on.a golden platter by benevolent governments. It took the combined pressure of the labour movement in co- operation with the CCF-NDP to wring these concessions from them. One of the most reluctant of these governments was the old Social Credit administration.: During its twenty years in office it treated labour with utter contempt. Only a fool would believe that the gang of opportunists now in government in Victoria, will treat labour any better. Their record to date is abominable. They have lied and twisted facts in an attempt to discredit the previous NDP government and now are con- centrating their vindictiveness on all the social re- forms they violently oppose. The IWA recognizes that the labour movement can expect the same treatment when the govern- ment considers the time ripe. This Union, however, is not prepared to allow this to happen without a fight. For those of our members who disagree with this policy all we can repeat is that is your right. _ The majority of us believe that it would be far safer _to have a fox guard chickens than for labour to rely on the good intentions of the Socreds. ty are seeking a two year agree- ment based on 68 cents in the first year and 65 cents in the second year. Such a settlement would maintain the previous |} | wage differential that existed prior to June, 1975. Johnson stated the strikers are fighting a virtual life and death struggle against a com- pany determined to beat them into submission. He pointed out that the major forest compan- ies have spent and are spend- ing millions of dollars building huge mills and plywood plants in the South chiefly because of the low wages paid and Weyer- haeuser would do everything in ‘KEITH JOHNSON International President its power to prevent the IWA improving the economic climate there. He stated that already the Company has started a propa- ganda war against the Union See “STRIKERS” Pg. 2 HISTORIC DECISION WON BY 1-80 FALLER The Workers’ Compensation: Board, in an unprecedented decision, allowed the appeal of a Local 1-80 faller for com- pensation for a knee disability which he was unable to show resulted from a ‘‘spécific in- cident’. The faller, Don Phye, stated in his original claim that his knee started to give him pain five years previously and got progressively worse to the point that he was forced to have the knee operated on. In his claim he contended that the knee ccudition was job related because of the difficult terrain he worked in. The WCB claims adjudicator disallowed the claim on the ground that the WCB legisla- tion did not provide coverage for compensation for such a disability. Ed Linder, the former Financial Secretary of Local 1- 80; appealed the decision to the Boards of Review. A review board by unanimous decision disallowed the appeal claiming that the Board policy only allowed compensation for cummulative effects of em- ployment in industrial disease cases. The Board, however, because of the principle in- volved, referred the decision to the WCB Commissioners. The Commissioners, after con- sidering the reasons for dis- allowing the claim stated as follows: “Although we can under- stand how the adjudicator and the board of review came to believe that such a policy exists, we are bound to say that this is not so. There appears to have lingered a belief in the need for a ‘‘specific incident” as a requirement of eligibility for compensation . . .” ... it is clearly no bar to a claim for compensation to say that the injury was not one resulting from a ‘‘specific incident’. “This does not, of course, mean that the presence or absence of a specific incident is never relevant in the decision of a claim for compensation. What it does mean is that the absence of a specific incident is not of itself ground for denying a claim.” As a result of the Com- missioner’s ruling, Don was granted compensation in the amount of $2,645.56.