The executive council of the Ca-
nadian Labor Congress has met in
Vancouver and taken a strong posi-
tion in respect to the dispute be-
tween the CLC and the top leaders
of the building trades unions. Ba-
sically, the CLC position is that
they are prepared to settle the dis-
pute on an amicable basis, but fail-
ing such a settlement, and in the
event of withdrawal by the con-
struction unions, the CLC will issue
charters to local unions wishing to
remain in the CLC. The CLC lead-
ers have also indicated that they
will, if it comes to a break, set up a
Canadian Building Trades Depart-
ment.

Members of construction unions
in the CLC should continue to
press their international offices to
pay their per capita to the CLC and
to resolve all outstanding differ-
ences within the CLC itself. If these
points could be won, without any
unprincipled concessions on the
part of the CLC leadership, it
would avoid the danger of a long
and bitter fight between the build-
ing trades and the CLC.

loyalties, division, raiding and
counter-raiding. All this at a time
when the trade union movement is
faced with a whole complex of ex-
ternal problems which can best be
solved by a united labor move-
ment. The best outcome of the

Such a fight would bring divided’

talks between the CLC and the in-
ternational leadership of the build-
ing trades would be an affirmation
of Canadian autonomy for the Ca-
nadian locals and a firm commit-

Labor
Comment
Jack Phillips

ment that they will remain within
the CLC on that basis, with all out-
standing differences to be resolved
in that context.

It is difficult to see how the CLC
can retreat on the three issues in dis-
pute. According to Dennis McDer-
mott, president of the CLC, the
building trades leaders want to lim-
it attendance at CLC conventions
to delegates appointed by the top
leadership — as they do in the
AFL-CIO. We can all agree with

McDermott that this is totally un- -

acceptable to the vast majority of
Canadian trade unionists.

On the question of Quebec, the
building trades will have to recog-

nize the special situation therein re-

spect to the building trades and
how that relates to the right of

French Canada to self determina-
tion.

On the question of the running
jurisdictional quarrel between the
building trades and certain in-
dustrial unions over who will do
disputed construction work, the
agreement signed last April be-
tween prominent leaders of the
building trades and industrial un-
ions, and endorsed by the executive
council of the CLC, provides an ex-
cellent basis for resolving the out-
standing problems.

If the international officers of
theconstruction unions continue to
take a hard nosed position on these
three issues, and if they insist on
trying to force unprincipled
concessions from the CLC leader-
ship, then the CLC leaders should
be given every support in the battle
that ensues. The principles of Ca-
nadian autonomy for the member-
ship of the construction unions and
independence for the Canadian
Labor Congress should be non-ne-
gotiable items.

Leaders of the building trades
and the International Woodwork-
ers of America in B.C. can play a
Positive role in assisting the CLC to
resolve these problems. In order to
do so, they should refrain from at-
tacking each other publicly. In
short, let them have a truce and let
them back the CLC executive in its
efforts to obtain a principled settle-
ment with the building trades lead-
ership. :

The executive council of the
Canadian Labor Congress Friday
reaffirmed that the Congress
would ‘‘open the door’’ to any
building trades local wishing to
remain in the CLC in the event
that no agreement can be reached
with the international offices of
building trades unions now
withholding per their capita
payments.

CLC president Dennis McDer-
mott, who had earlier advanced
that position during a television
interview Sept. 15, told a-press
conference Friday that the ex-:

endorsed the stand and was
prepared to ‘‘go to the mat”? if
agreement could not be reached.

“The executive council has also
given me the authority to set up a
contingency plan which will ‘click
in’ if we are unable to an amicable
settlement with the building
trades in Washington,”’ he said.

The council, which was
meeting for the first time since its
election at the May convention of
the CLC, put a December
deadline on any agreement with
the building trades. -

The building trades interna-

ecutive council had unanimously .

{ CLC executive ‘unanimous’
in stand on building trades

‘DENNIS McDERMOTT ...
building trades issue.

tionals earlier this year moved —

unilaterally to withhold their per
capita payments to the CLC in an .
attempt to pressure the Congress
over issues of CLC voting pro-
cedures, direct affiliation by the
Quebec Federation of Labor of
Electrical Workers locals and
continuing jurisdictional disputes
with industrial unions.

However, McDermott told the

press conference, the building |

trades have still not given the
Congress a clear outline of their
position.

He said that the action was a
“hasty, knee jerk reaction by a
small group of leaders taken
without reference to the member-
ship; 2%. o,

The Congress executive is to
begin series of meetings, both in
this country and the U.S. aimed
at finding some solution to the

issue which will see the building ecutive council last May, filling
trades resume per capita the positions vacated by interna-
payments without compromising tional building trades represen-
| ae <— ~©the CLC position. tatives Ken Rose and Raymond
ROY GAUTIER . . . completely Lane Kirkland, president of Gall who had resigned as part of
identified with CLC stand. the AFL-CIO has been asked to _ the pressure move on the CLC. |

prepared to ‘go to the mat’ on

“native. If you don’t, you invite

co-ordinate the meetings,
McDermott said.

In response to reporters’ ques-
tions that the CLC was putting an
ultimatum to the building trades,
McDermott responded: ‘‘You
have to go in there with an alter-

them to put a gun to your head
and tell you: ‘Do what you’re
told zz.

Roy Gautier, president of the
B.C. and Yukon Building Trades
Council, and an executive council
member, told the press con-
ference that he ‘‘completely iden-
tified himself ‘*with
McDermott’s stand, adding,
“We're trying to find a pro-
gressive position which will
resolve the issue.”’

Gautier and Walter Majeski,
president of the Toronto Labor
Council, were elected to the ex-

_IWA, Trades should cool off feud

To give you an idea of the kind ©
of public recrimination that should -

cease, I offer the following quota-

tions from a printed statement re-
cently distributed in large numbers
by the B.C. and Yukon Building
and Construction Trades Council
and then a rebuttal from the IWA:

From the building trades: “IWA
aggression has increased. At one
time IWA intrusion into building
trades jurisdiction was restricted to
construction work related to saw-
mills and plywood plants. Now
there are more IWA certified con-
struction firms, all looking for
more and bigger jobs. As aresult, a
large number of major construc-
tion projects scheduled in B.C. this
year are being carried out by IWA
construction firms. In recent mon-
ths they have been involved in con--
struction projects for a brewery,
mine construction and renovations"
at Vancouver International Air-
port. Clearly the situation has be-
come intolerable. Why is the IWA
expanding their intrusion into our
Jurisdiction? Why are they able
to?

- “Only employers benefit: Em-
ployers use IWA construction
firms because they feel they can get
a cheaper job. IWA construction
firms are able to underbid. Why?

_ Why is it cheaper for the employer

to have an IWA job? We don’t
want to bad mouth IWA construc-
tion contracts, but the fact is that
overall, they do not provide as
good wages and conditions as those
which have been won by building
trades unions. Even more import-
ant, the employer with an IWA
crew has a cheaper crew because it
contains just a few journeymen,
with the balance of the crew being
improvers and helpers, with much
lower rates. The wages and condi-
tions and apprenticeship require-
ments which have been won by
hard struggle by building trades un-

‘ions are being undermined.”’

‘Building trades unions are
under attack: All of organized
labor is threatened by the anti-un-
ion right-to-work campaign by un-
ion-busting employer groups and
their political allies. Building trades
unions are a particular target as we
also face the highly-organized
merit-shop campaign, closely
related to right-to-work. This cam-
paign is being waged by the Asso-
ciated Building Contractors of
America whose organizers boast
that half the construction jobs in
the U.S. now include non-union
crews. The ability of the building
trades unions to defeat the right-to-
work elements in the construction
industry is predicated on their be-
ing able to retain a base in industrial
construction.”

In the August, 1980 issue of The
Chipper, published by New West-
minster IWA Local 1-357, there
was a rebuttal with this heading:
“Building trades tactics despic-
able.”’ A few quotations are in
order: -

“Negotiations are concluded
with the building trades and their

RiBUNE

employers, and some things ms
be said about their reporting #
during the negotiations. During
building trades contract re
tions, bulletins were put a
membership accusing ind in
unions, including the IWA; “nd
tacking the building trades, i
association, of being connected

the right-to-workers in this po
ince. Their bulletins also acct
union of working hand-it of

: and playing a game with laree

porations to neutralize the a
of building trade unions, ani
the wages and conditions of a
ing trades workers. Any fair i
ed observer of the trade ull
movement and industrial relation
in B.C. knows that nothing ©
be further from the truth. _,_ |

“Our leadership recog”
their responsibility and bit sat
tongues during a time any»,
ment criticizing the building 4
unions could have im eal
ability to negotiate a coll
agreement, or could have be

terpreted as a lack of unity W
the trade union movement. | tg

“The result of these bulletins™”
been to develop hostility amol
the building trades workers agai
the TWA rank and file member

“Surely the message in the bu

tins mentioned above is not ,
message from the rank and file ‘
the building trades} but only ta
a poison pen artist who has 07”
ously been given much m0
authority and leeway than ©
should have been allowed.”

It is not the purpose of my at
to take sides in this jurisdict!
quarrel. I don’t believe this to be
situation where all those on th

side are angels and all those 08
other side are devils. It is not th?
simple.

However, the Tribune of a

20, 1980 published the terms ° {
agreement that was worked On
resolve the IWA-building é
dispute and similar disputes. TH
following trade union leaders sig?
ed that agreement in April of

year: .

Robert White, United Aut
mobile Workers of Americ
James Levia, Canadian Brothe’
hood of Railway, Transport 4
General Workers; William Pus
nett, United Rubber Workel
Jack Munro, International W
workers of America; J. Russ C
Eloi, Plurnbers; Roy Gautier, B.©
and Yukon Building Trades Cou®
cil; Jim Kinnaird, B.C. Federati®®
of Labor; and James McCambly:
executive secretary, Canadi
Building Trades. _

I would suggest that the leadefs
of the building trades and the IwA
and B.C. should cool it and helf
the CLC executive council to ©
solve the dispute with the top lead
ership of the building trades in 4
principled fashion. If that is 2
complished, then the IWA-builé
ing trades dispute will be m
easier to resolve on the basis of thé
April agreement.

City or town
Postal Code

g Pat eee

, lam enclosing:

Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,
Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186

Read the paper that fights for labor

© c.ebe © 6 © aXe 0 9 0 0 a 00's 0

Seip Sag 0 fe 620 a: 0. pnetmh ues otal e ce cdi Phage o%

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPT. 26, 1980—Page 12

1 year $10 [] 2 years $18 (2 6 months $¢
Old NewC. Foreign 1 year $12 L
Donation $........