BRITISH COLUMBIA

Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations
Bureau imposed an_ industry-wide
lockout on 12,700 union members Feb.
1 in a move to “soften up” the pulp
unions and to boost market prices,
Canadian Paperworkers regional vice-
president Art Gruntman has charged.

The PPIRB shut down 20 mills
across the province Feb. 2 after
members of the CPU and the Pulp,
Paper and Woodworkers of Canada
rejected the industry ultimatum that
they return to the bargaining table or be
locked out. 5
‘4 “Our members don’t react to ultima-
Qo tums,” Gruntman said last week,

: adding that the employers had already
Ze been informed that the union would

a return to the bargaining table but not
until after a local presidents’ meeting
set for Feb. 13.

The CPU and the PPWC, which
have maintained a joint strategy after
the TWA went its own way and signed
the three-year agreement, are to meet
together Feb. 14.

The PPIRB has since launched a
major radio and newspaper advertising
campaign commending the IWA’s rati-
fication of the agreement and insisting
that the forest industry “cannot play
favorites with its unions.”

In fact, the industry’s final offer
which has already been rejected by

is even worse than the agreement rati-
fied last month by the IWA. Pulp

more than 80 per cent by both unions, |

Lockout linked to markets

ART GRUNTMAN...won’t be pres-
sured into three-year pact.

workers would have to give up one
statutory holiday and to accept pen-
sions that don’t keep up with inflation.

The two unions have also rejected a
three-year agreement, arguing that the
pulp industry itself has forecast a bright
sales and profit picture in 1984. and
1985. “But our members don’t know
where the hell the Consumer Price
Index will be in six months, let alone
two years,” Gruntman said.

The market forecasts have .been
widely seen as a crucial reason behind
the pulp employers’ decision to impose
the lockout now.

A report released in late January by
the Canadian Pulp and Paper Associa-
tion predicted that pulp and paper

shipments in 1984 would rise by eight
per cent over 1983, wth exports to the
U.S. — the main British Columbia
market — up 10 per cent.

‘The association also noted that pulp
mills were running at about 93 per cent
capacity in 1983. Increased demand
could therefore create favorable cir-
cumstances for price increases —
especially if B.C. pulp were temporarily
off the market.

In fact, producers posted a $40 per
tonne increase to the U.S. just last
week, pushing the price to $490 US.
An increase had been scheduled for
Jan. 1 but had been postponed because
of poor European markets.

Gruntman said that B.C. accounts
for some 35 per cent of total world pulp
sales.

Employers clearly want to avoid any
coordinated bargaining strategy
between the CPU in the west and in:
eastern Canada where the union is
about to begin contract bargaining for
agreement expiring Apr. 30. In the east,
the CPU has set its sights on an eight
per cent wage increase and a reduction
in the hours of work.

Significantly, PPIRB imposed the
lockout only days after the CPU wage
and contract conference in Montreal.

Both Gruntman and PPWC presi-
dent Jim Sloan have declared that they
won't be bulldozed into an agreement
either by the IWA precedent or by the
employers’ lockout. :

Members of the United Fishermen
and Allied Workers’ pressed Labor Min-
ister Bob McClelland Feb. 2 to “take one
extra step” and include fishermen under
the B.C. Labor Code to assure them of
full bargaining rights. ‘

aa The minister was also pressed to say
jj whether he was “listening only to the
ft employers’ lobby” in considering Labor
fy Code amendments and whether farm-
workers would be brought under the
Workers Compensation Board regula-
tions and minimum wage laws, as dele-
gates took the microphones during a
question-and-answer session at the
union’s annual convention.

McClelland’s appearance at the
UFAWU convention was the first for
any labor minister in many years. The
union has routinely extended an invita-
' tion but it has almost invariably been
it ~— turned down.

The issue of bargaining rights, a major
one for union fishermen who caught ina
-no-man’s land of conflicting federal and
provincial jurisdictions, came up follow-
_ ing an announcement by McClelland
_ that his ministry would be launching
¥ action to recover money owed to fisher-
c¥ men and other employees when Cassiar
_ Fishing Company was put into receiver-
ship by the Royal Bank last year.

Fishermen were owed some $800,000
when the receivership took effect but
because, under federal law, they are con-
sidered “‘co-adventurers,” they were not
put down as employees entitled to
_ unpaid wages but rather as “unsecured
_ creditors.”

Nevertheless, McClelland told dele-
S:\ gates, the Employment Standards Branch
would be issuing orders for payment of
the $800,000, orders which, once filed in
court, will have the full authority of law.

By issuing the orders, the ministry is
Proceeding as if the fishermen are
_ employees and the province has
=", jurisdiction.

; However, McClelland cautioned that
the case could be challeneged on jurisdic-

par giee

tional grounds and could cause lengthy .

delays in the courts. Still, he added, “‘it
could be a landmark case in which the
whole grey area of jurisdiction over
fishermen could be clarified.”

The ministry’s stand on behalf of Cas-
siar fishermen was welcomed by dele-
gates but at the end, UFA WU president
Jack Nichol urged McClelland: “If
you’re going to go after the money from
Cassiar and take on the jursidictional
issue, then go one step further and take
over the jurisdiction and bring fishermen
under the Labor Code.”

He emphasized that in the past the
union has urged Victoria to make legisla-
tive.changes to include fishermen and to
make them as comprehensive as possible
so as to render them unassailable in
court.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have
already assumed jurisdiction for fisher-
men without federal challenge.

In response to questions, McClelland

said he had “no objection to having all
employees under the B.C. Labor Code
whether they are fishermen, railway
workers or interstate truckers.”

He was challenged by delegates, how-
ever, when he said that he had not heard
representations from the union and
added “you won’t talk to us.”

The delegates, Jim Rushton and
Homer Stevens, reminded him that the

union had made several submissions to —

Victoria and had lobbied MLAs to press
the case for inclusion under the Labor
Code. 2
McClelland did agree to hear a delega-
tion from the union on the issue.
Elsewhere in the question and answer
session, several delegates warned
McClelland not to tamper with trade
union rights under the Labor Code.
The minister had spoken earlier on his
intention to introduce code amend-
ments. He re-echoed the theme he has
developed in other speeches, that the cur-
rent system of labor relations is “‘too
expensive, too complicated and too
cumbersome.”

? Bring fishermen in, minister told

Sk ae

SHERMEN «ALLIED WORKERS

JIM RUSHTON...union has repeatedly
pressed for inclusion in Labor Code.

‘Insisting that the system “‘may not be
serving either individual rights or the
public interest,” he said the new
policies — in the form of code amend-
ments which, he said would be intro-
duced some time in the middle of the
current session — would “let parties act
responsibly rather than preventing, or
limiting the extent of irresponsibility.”

Code amendments are widely expected
to ease decertification procedures and to
aid non-union contractors.

Stevens also challenged McClelland
~ on whether he wasn’t “‘listening only to
the massive employers’ lobby in Victoria.
“You don’t see organized labor asking

for code amendments,” he said.

A surprise announcement by McClel-
land that the Workers’ Compensation
Board’s independent boards of review
would be scrapped and replaced with a
new appeal system brought a sharp reac-
tion from the B.C. Federation of Labor
the following day. :

Federation president Art Kube blasted
their announcement as “‘irresporsible
and totally unacceptable,” adding that it
would strip workers of any process of
independent appeal. The announcement
also angered unionists because it came
only one day after a meeting had been
arranged between the federation’s com-
pensation committee and McClelland.
The meeting is to take place Feb. 10.

‘No new hike,
roll back B.C.
Tel rates—CP

B.C. Telephone, which is seeking further rate
hikes after a year of record profits, should instead
have its rates rolled back by three per cent, the
Communist Party’s B.C. leader has urged.

Maurice Rush, in a letter to the head of the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunica-
tions Commission, said the three per cent hike
granted by the commission last year was “totally
unwarranted,” and a further six per cent would be
“scandalous.”

“We find it incredible that this giant monopoly
should have the gall to ask for such an increase at
the very same time that it reported record profits
for 1983 of $86.2 million — nearly 20 per cent -
higher than the previous record year of 1982,”
Rush told CRTC secretary general J.G.
Patenaude.

The U.S.-owned corporation stated its inten-
tion to procure an “interim” hike of six per cent in
local and provincial long-distance rates and ser-
vice charges, effective July 1, in local newspapers.

In the public notice required under CRTC reg-
ulations, B.C. Tel also announced it would be
seeking unspecified rate hikes to come in to effect
in May, 1985. A hearing has been tenatively sche-
duled for Feb. 12 next year.

B.C. Tel publicized its application less than one
week after its chief executive officer announced
the 1983 record profit figure.

The hike, if approved, would raise rates on
residence phones across the province. For exam-
ple, Vancouver’s rates would rise to $14 from
$13.20 monthly, Victoria’s to $11.10 from $10.45,
White Rock’s to $17.70 from $16.70. A Van-
couver business phone would cost $46 monthly,
up from $43.40.

All long-distance calls within B.C. would also”
rise by six per cent, as would the price for tele-
phone installation and other service charges.

B.C. Tel’s record profit figure for 1983 of $86.2
million was achieved despite a slower-than-
projected rate of economic recovery, chief execu-
tive officer Gordon MacFarlane announced Jan.
PAL

That increased the value of an individual share
to $2.36, up from $2.11 the previous year, and
resulted in an eight-per-cent hike in revenue,
MacFarlane stated.

The corporation owes its profit margin in part
to a three-per-cent interim hike granted last year
by the CRTC. B.C. Tel had asked for six per cent,
and the commission’s decision to grant half that
figure came after intervention from scores of indi-
viduals, and businesses as well as government.

In announcing the application for the latest
hike Jan. 28, B.C. Tel vice-president Leo Dooling
gave what by now is the company’s traditional
rationale to raise its rate of return and attract
investors.

B.C. Tel is aiming for 13.5 per cent, a rate that falls
between the 12.75 and 13.75 considered “‘reason-
able” by the CRTC.

Rush, in his letter to Patenaude, called that rate
“exhorbitant.

“Coming at a time when the federal govern-
ment has adopted a program of allowing only six
and five per cent increases, when pensioners are
allowed only a five per cent increase, and when
wage settlements for working people in B.C. are
an average of three per cent, a rate of return of
13.5 per cent would be scandalous,” Rush
charged. — ry

“Once again, as it has done for years, B.C. Tel
is repeating the old hackneyed argument that if it
doesn’t get the rate increase, it would lead to
‘serious deterioration’ in its financial performance
and its efforts to raise capital for its construction
program,” said Rush.

“The public will no longer buy this superficial
pretext on which it (B.C. Tel) has applied for, and ~
been granted, phone rate hikes repeatedly over .
many years.”

No hearings are scheduled for the interim hike
application. Protests can be sent to Patenaude at
the CRTC, Ottawa, K1A 0N2.

’ PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 8, 1984 e 3