$y LABOR Trades forced to fight back — On three fronts By SEAN GRIFFIN The signs that pickets at the Penny- farthing site began wearing last week had a simple, blunt message. They read: “Opera- tion Survival.” And for the Building Trades unions in this province, that is just what the issue has become: their survival. It’s not merely a question of whether Kerkhoff Construction will finally be able to proceed with the con- tentious Harbor Cove project; it’s a ques- _ tion of fighting for the survival of union wages and conditions — and for trade unionism itself — in the construction industry. Although the picket line battle with Kerkhoff Construction has dramatized the threat posed by non-union contractors that isn’t the whole problem.. : Carpenters Local 452 business agent Tom McNeice has compiled a list of some 24 changes to labor legislation and amend- ments to regulations that have come down over the past few years, each adding another restriction on the ability of the Building Trades to maintain a union presence in the industry. That has combined with the current eco- : nomic times when virtually every trade is suffering 60 per cent-plus unemployment to create a situation which employers, union and non-union, are eager to exploit. The result, said Carpenters provincial Council secretary Lorne Robson, is that government and employers “have built a solid wall all around us — and now they’re trying to pour a slab over top.” But, he added: “‘We’re not about to lie down in that tomb.” The solid wall around the Trades has virtually closed off any legal avenue to fight the threat posed by non-union contractors. The most significant changes have been those made to tendering policies by public bodies — deleting clauses which stipulated that only union companies would be considered — and the imposition of a “low bidder” policy which forces publicly-funded bodies to accept the lowest bidder regard- less of other factors. — Together, those measures combine to ensure that a non-union firm will be awarded most contracts on public con- struction. : Premier Bennett took those policies one major step further with his announcement Mar. 15 that any public project in the pro- vince would be open to all contractors’ bids, non-union or union. “Since we’ve been government, where public money or credit is expended, every British Columbian has a right to bid on work and supply for government,” he told reporters in Victoria. With that anouncement, “Bennett has effectively stated that B.C. is a right-to-work province,” Robson declared. ‘‘That’s what his statement means.” In fact, while many have waited with apprehension for Labor Minister Bob McClelland to introduce amendments to the Labor Code that will restrict the Build- ing Trades, those changes may not even be necessary as far as the construction industry is concerned. If the low bidder and open bid policies prevail and the Labor Relations Board con- tinues the regressive course set by recent tulings affecting the trades, there will be de facto right-to-work in operation for the Building Trades in this province. It wasn’t surprising to some Building Trades leaders that the Socred budget didn’t even mention unemployment — the catas- trophic jobless levels in the construction industry have created the economic climate 12 » PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 28, 1984. in which Bennett’s “open shop” policies can be achieved without legislation. _ The most disturbing trend in Labor Rela- tions Board cases affecting the trades has been revealed in cases involving Section 37 of the Labor Code. The section stipulates that where two or more companies are operating under common ownership or control, they are to be considered one com- pany for the purposes of the code. In theory, it prohibits the common indus- try practice of “‘double-breasting”, whereby . a union company. sets up a non-union dummy company to circumvent union agreements. But the board’s rulings on that section have changed for the worse over the past four years, with the most dramatic change coming in the past year. In fact, said Rob- son, “we have to say that the LRB has assisted non-union contractors and hasn’t applied the law of the province. “Now we can’t get a decision against a dummy company even when it’s a clear cut case.” The Carpenter’s lawyer Ian Donald has prepared a detailed analysis of LRB cases between 1979 and 1983 which supports that contention. ~ One recent instance involved a construc- tion firm whose owners went to the Baha- mas and established another non-union company under Bahamian registry. The owner then returned to B.C. and undertook construction work under the new company name using the same equipment and the ‘same foreman as the old company. The union applied to the LRB but the board panel ruled that there was no evi- dence to support a case under Section 37 — since the LRB lacked the legal authority to subpoena company records from the Bahamas. Another more disturbing case last year involved a union contractor, Zagreb Con- struction, owned by Dan Bralic. His wife, the vice-president of Zagreb, set up another non-union company, M.B. Construction, which used the same equipment, occupied the same offices and even got contracts signed by the same controller as Zagreb. The LRB acknowledged that the “cir- cumstantial evidence (of common control of the two companies) was impressive.” Nevertheless, it ruled against the Carpen- ters. The cast is still being appealed. The inconsistency of the board was also underscored in a Feb. 27, decision by LRB vice-chair Shona Moore. The case was a ‘reversal of roles in that the lawyer for a non-union contractor had applied under Section 38 of the code for a ruling that the two companies involved were not com- monly controlled. Moore ruled against the application and agreed with the union that the companies were one. But she added, in commenting on an earlier case to which the non-union laywer had referred for precedent, that had her panel heard that case, she could have come to the opposite conclusion and ruled in favor of the union in that instance as well. Construction companies have found literally hundreds of way of setting up dummy companies. Some evade LRB scrut- iny, some do not. But every case affects the wages and conditions — and the jobs — of Building Trades workers. In Kelowna, two union contractors were recently fired off a shopping mall project when the Carpenters lost a Section 37 case - on appeal. The developer then brought two non- union contractors on to the site. The journeymen carpenters working for those contractors are paid $5.30 an hour if they PICKETS AT VAN MAREN CONSTRUCTION SITE. .low bidder policy forced accepta" non-union contractor over opposition of developer. have three years experience, $4 if they have less. Not surprisingly, the big unionized employers look to those wage levels with envy. And far from trying to halt the growth of the non-union sector, they are nurturing it. Testimony during the board’s hearings into non-union contractor Kirkwall Con- struction’s project at Vancouver General Hospital last fall revealed that the Amal- gamated Construction Association lobbied . the hospital board to remove its “‘union- . only” clause for bidding on hospital projects. The association’s board of directors is drawn mainly from the major unionized contractors in the province. Construction Labor Relations (CLRA), the employers’ bargaining association, has pressed ‘ government to allow union employers to set up non-union subsidiaries “to be more competitive” with the non- union sector. In fact, Robson charged “the employers want to put the Building Trades into a pincer. “One arm is the non-union sector aided by the Socred government and the union- ized sector, which is taking away jobs of construction workers and forcing them into the position where they have nothing unless they’re prepared to work for one-third or one-half the union rates,” he said. “The other arm is the unionized sector demanding wholesale cuts in wages and contract conditions.” He warned that the CLRA may impose a lockout when contracts expire Apr. 30 and use the threat to go non-union to attempt to ‘get the contract concessions it wants. _ So far, none of the five major employers which dominate the non-residential con- struction in this province has set up non- union companies. But it has happe? i Alberta. & The tragic irony is that it has not resulte in any more construction jobs — just me companies vying for what little work HS ' is. According to the Alberta Const Association, there are some 3,000 to 4) more companies than in 1978 — a0 & mated SO per cent over-capacity. a Amidst that fierce competition, wit non-union companies’ slashing rates ™ undercut union bids, an increasing YOR" of work has gone non-union. That, 19 has put pressure on the Alberta @ the which have accepted wage cuts despit€ efforts of some trades to resist. The Building Trades are determined tha won't happen in this province. They Tf als determined to fight the non-union sectO® And whatever happens at Kerkhof Harbor Cove project, that fight has t0 8° on, Robson emphasized. “There’s. a militant tradition amon Building Trades in this province and they ® not about to give up their unions withouts fight,” he said adding that the picketing ® the Pennyfarthing site showed “just HO™ determined they are.” 4 But the support of the labor moveme# crucial he emphasized — especially when the focus shifts to Expo 86 and B.C. Place where Bennett’s scenario for an “open ShoP province” is expected to be played out. ~ Speaking to the Vancouver and District Labor Council last month, he urg B.C. Federation of Labor to consider P ing a hot edict for the duration of the faif 8 any part of Expo 86 which goes UP non-union. pies a He reiterated that call and emphasized that it should be part of an “escalating ca™ paign” by the Building Trades and the BC tis Fed. PACIFIC RIBUNE Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186 Name: 7.2.0...” Address eto Sag 2 ia Ee @postal Code. 52, “Aiea ae lam enclosing 1 yr.$14(0 2yrs.$250 6mo.$80) Foreign 1 yr. $200 ©