in-

IT IS WELL known that
junctions in labor disputes
are usually granted to restrict

or prevent picketing which is,
from the labor point of view, the
only realistic way in which to
conduct effective strike action.

That has been found to: be
the case because picketing not
only conveys information about!
the dispute promptly and imme-
diately to the public, but also
acts as a deterrent to those who
might -otherwise. be disposed _to

deal. with the struck firm; .and,

the reluctance of workmen gen-
erally to cross: picketlines is well
known.

Without the picketline, how-
ever, the force of the appeal can
well be lost and many a strike
has been defeated by removal
of picketlines.

Therefore, in the immediate
context of an industrial dispute,
if an injunction is granted and
causes removal of a picketline,
and if the strike is then lost,
any economic benefits which
would otherwise have occurred
to union members will also be
lost. They, their families and the
merchants serving them are hurt
economically. ee

In a very large strike in which

a great deal of money is in issue, .

or where some even more impor-
tant factor such as automation
is at the root of a dispute, an
injunction which causes the em-
ployees to lose out can have
even more serious economic re-
percussions.

Assuming that you look with
favor upon a generally higher
standard of living, there is a
case against injunctions because
they tend to prevent it.

But in the long run, the ef-
fects of the injunction go further
and cut deeper than even a re-
duction in living standards of
families.

I believe that to be so because
in the eyes of far too many
people the injunction neither
does justice nor gives the ap-
pearance of doing it. On the
contrary, it is an inept, unso-
~ phisticated and basically inaffec-
tive way of dealing with econ-
omic and social problems, often
of great magnitude. :

In the first place, the real
issue, being economic and not
legal, the court has no jurisdic-
tion to deal with it on its true
merits as such.

Nevertheless, the issue fre-
quently does go before the court,
- but collaterally, disguised in
_ legal form. Thus its true econ-

- omic content cannot be litigated
nor judged, but one of its legal

INJUNCTIONS

have no place

In Peterborough, Ontario, 26 men were found guilty of defying a court injunction ban-
ning picketing at the Tilco Plastics company. In Vancouver, 10 members of the International
Longshoremen’s union were sentenced by a B.C. court to three months in jail for refusing to
carry out a court injunction. The photograph shows Ray Haynes, secretary of the B.C. Federa-
tion of Labor speaking to union leaders outside the courthouse in a solidarity demonstration
with jailed ILWU leaders last June.

IN STRIKES ©

A British Columbia lawyer, John Stanton,
thinks Canadian courts should be divested of their
rights to grant injunctions in labor dispues. He’
argues that the basic issues involved are econo-
mic, rather than legal and the court is in no posi-
tion to judge on this issue. Mr. Stanton's view was
outlined in a paper presented to the British Col-
umbia section of the Canadian Bar Association.
Excerpts from his paper are reprinted below.

forms or aspects frequently is
decided upon by the court.

In the case of ex parte injunc-
tions, only the employer’s view
of the situation is disclosed and
then only the small fragments
of it which relate to the breach-
es, alleged or actual, of the law
upon which the injunction is
sought: for example, an act of
violence on a: picketline or a
threatened breach of some con-
tractual relationship.

N

In the case of injunctions
sought on notice, the argument
will also take place on the col-
lateral legal issue because the
union’s defense is of necessity
devoted to answering the em-
ployer’s’ allegations.

In either situation, then, the
court cannot in the nature of
the situation either be called
upon to determine the real issue,
or to decide it in the collateral
context in which it is placed

before the court.

Nevertheless, the granting of
the injunction to redress some
legal wrong will have repercus-
sions far beyond the legal frame-
work within which the court had
to deal with the issue.

The immediate economic re-
percussions involved in a_lost
strike have already been men-
tioned, but the legacy of frus-
tration and sometimes bitterness

which such a situation leaves

behind it can have a most unde

sirable cumulative effect in con
vincing a considerable sectio?

of public opinion that the courts

are against them and side with

the employers in labor disputes:

Secondly, some injunctions 89
further than merely ° forbidding’
certain activities such as picket
ing. They are cast in the form
of mandatory orders.

On occasions, these have bee?
granted ex parte to direct union
officials to order men back t0

work. They have also directly

ordered persons named as dé
fendants to return to work.

The reaction of those at the
receiving end of such an ordef
has to be seen to be believed.

In the third place, because the

efforts of union people for #
better livelihood -have, been 1°
terfered with on:so many occa

sions by the use of injunctions,”

there has arisen a clamor for

reform which is tending to groW

rather than: diminish and whi¢
has brought with it regrettable
criticism of the courts...

In my view reform is to b@
welcomed and can properly be
supported because of the fa¢
that economic issues should not
be decided in courts of law, eve?
if those issues present them
selves in the guise of a lega
problem.

That reform might well take
the form of legislation remov

ing from the court’s jurisdictio?

the power to grant injunctions
in labor disputes.

There then arises a further
question: should there be some
tribunal other than the court,
endowed with jurisdiction 1
investigate and determine thes®
economic issues?

Attempts have been made !?
England, in Australia, and doubt
less elsewhere, to set up indus
trial courts; but I have nevel
understood that they function?
with any notable degree of su
cess.

Plenty of machinery already

exists to compel the parties
deal with each other in bargal?

ing and they certainly have —

ample opportunity in which

“square off” and define the mat
ters which are in differencé
between them. Probably it is bey
to leave the situation at th
and not to create a new tribun@™

- In thé long run, I think settle-
ments reached between contes
ing parties themselves, aS f
result either of bargaining or °
a strike or a lockout, to be more
productive of satisfaction tha

some solution imposed by 2 |

outside agency.

September 2, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 8