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 $........