Right-to-work lobby ‘twisting arms’ in B.Cy Continued from pg. 1 “Gs one of total contempt for workers’ rights.” McIntyre also noted that the various goals outlined in the AMR brochure could well be violations of the provincial labor code. “One of the goals is to teach management how to ‘restructure personnel practices to counter unionization — a possible violation of Section 51 of the code,” he said. Section 51 of the code specifically prohibits employers from changing conditions of em- ployment when a union cer- tification application is pending. “The suggestion that employers ‘convince employees that it is in their best interests to remain union free’ is clearly in violation of Section 3(2) (c),” he charged. The section states that no em- ployer shall ‘seek by intimidation, by dismissal, by threat of dismissal, or by any other kind of threat, or by the imposition of a penalty, or by a promise, or by a wage increase, or by altering any other terms of employment, or by any other means, to compel or induce an employee to refrain from becoming, or continuing to be, a member or officer or represen- tative of a trade union.” McIntyre emphasized: ‘The spirit of the labor code of B.C. is to protect the lawful right of workers to decide on union representation without employer interference, intimidation or coercion. The stated objective of this conference is to frustrate and undermine that process.”’ The labor federation has demanded to know who is behind the decision to bring the U.S. firm to this country and what employers are taking part in the two-day seminar. “Who are the participants at this conference?’’ McIntyre asked. “Are any of them here to break existing unions that their workers have chosen to join?” Whether seminar participants do, in fact, have such objectives is not known because of the secrecy of the seminar, but the par- ticipation of such groups as the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District has raised serious questions. The Okanagan area was the scene earlier this year of a con- certed bid by the employers’ association, the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labor Relations’ Association, to curtail significantly the rights and con- ditions of public employees. The AMR conference also comes at a time of greatly increased activity by anti-union ‘“‘right-to- work” organizations, seeking to th- wart union organization and pressing for removal of union security clauses from labor legislation. The Independent Contractors and Businessmen’s Association, a local organization which has long been connected with non-union construction, recently took out a number of huge newspaper ad- vertisements calling for ‘‘a return to free enterprise’ and “‘respon- sible union leadership” all catch-phrases used liberally by the right-to-work movement. Based on the number of newspaper in which the ads ap- peared, the campaign is expected to cost the association in the neigh- borhood of $30,000 — an investment on which it clearly hopes to get a return. Accordingly, ICBA~ vice- president Ralph Purdy who founded the Vancouver Island Right-to-Work Association in 1971, is a frequent lobbyist in Victoria where he “‘spends a lot of time at the Legislature twisting arms and promoting right-to-work demands,’’ according to con- struction unions in Victoria. The Social Credit government, although it has ostensibly resisted demands for _ right-to-work legislation, is not completely unresponsive to the ‘‘arm- twisting’’ and a number of Socreds, including two cabinet ministers, finance minister Evan Wolfe and economic development minister Don Phillips, are known supporters of such anti-union legislation. Another organization, the United Right-to-Work Association, is also putting pressure on the govern- ment and puts out material similar to that produced by the ICBA, but is more direct in its appeal for curbs on labor which enable em- ployers to get workers who would “work for less or not work at all.’’’ The Association also points with admiration to the clout wielded by the U.S. National Right-to-Work Committee which has lobbied right-to-work laws through some 20 state legislatures with the results that wages have often been driven down to starvation levels — tangible return on the $4.5 million the U.S. association paid out in 1975 alone. In response, the trade union movement in this province has mounted a wide campaign, utilizing leaflets, newspaper ads and other forms to expose the phoney ‘‘freedom’’ and right-to- work” appeal advanced by the various organizations. FEDERATION PICKETS . . . pro- test AMR seminar. ad! - which: the provincial governme! 7 Apprenticeship and Training ?%) . a The B.C. Federation of Lali recently ran an ad in da} newspapers warning against ¥ ICBA’s. demagogic appeal declared: “‘ ‘Right-to-Work’ — creates no rights. It creates ! work. Don’t be misled.’’ | The Federation also debunk? the claim, advanced by the ICBH that the B.C. Federation of Lal and the Building Trades Count were preparing to spend $700,008 fight right-to-work. The claim 4 ludicrous, the Federation not@ — since the amount is more than” entire annual budget for all of? operations. In addition to the Federatit! several unions including ™ Provincial Council of Carpente? the International Woodworkers" America and the B.C. and Yuk! Building Trades Council ha! circulated factual brochul* outlining the threat to worke? rights inherent in the clamor {0 right-to-work. a Unionists have warned that tH : threat does not lie so much if sweeping ‘‘Right-to-Work Bi sacs would probably be hesitant introduce, but more in am ments to present labor legislati® which would increasingly encroad! on union rights and security would present new barriers © union organizational drives. Already, changes proposed to “Be Se and amendments to strike representation vote procedul® have provided evidence of ™ trend in that direction. In the case of the Apprentices™ Act, proposed regulations would,” order in council, strip apprenue& of union protection retroactively).