Attempts by Canadian building trades members to gain autonomy have consistently been met with interference from the Washington-based leadership. In 1976 at the CLC conven- UNITY ... AUTONOMY... DEMOCRACY al ia ‘tion, resolutions were passed calling for Canadian autonomy in international unions. Most unions have conceded to Canadian labor's request. The struggle for Canadian autonomy Between 1975 and 1980 Canadian local and provincial © building trades councils waged an intensive battle-for a measure of Canadian autonomy. It took the form of a ' demand on the Building and Construction Trades _- Department, AFL-CIO in Washington for a charter for a national or Canadian building trades council, elected by Canadians dealing with Canadian needs, responsible to Canadians and operating with a Canadian constitution. How this struggle was defeated and ended up in its Opposite in an instructive story of how the leadership of these undemocratic unions operate. There has never in the history of either the U.S. or Canadian labor movements been a Canadian Building and Construction Trades Department. In 1908, the American Federation of Labor set up its Building and Construction Trades Department. It is still head- quartered in Washington, and it still calls the shots for all building trades unions throughout the U.S. and Canada. , _ Local and provincial building trades councils in Canada are chartered by the Washington-based building trades department, and until the late 1960s the only Canadian building trades structure, existing as such, were two Canadian directors, one each for eastern and western Canada. ~ 5 _ Washington replaced the directors in. 1967 by appoint- ing an Canadian Advisory Board made up of the top Officers or international ‘representatives of the inter- - National unions involved. ee The 1970 Canadian Labor Congress convention, in Edmonton, responded to the growing demand in the r Movement for Canadian autonomy by adopting a set of “‘minimum standards of self-government of the Canadian sections of international unions.” These minimum standards included: the ‘‘election of Canadian Officers by Canadians, policies to deal with national af- fairs to be determined by the elected Canadian officers and/or members; and, Canadian elected representatives to have authority to speak for the union in Canada.” Winnipeg, July 1975 Refusal by most of the building trades to implement the minimum standards prompted provincial and local building trades councils to take matters into their own hands. On July 25, 1975, 33 delegates from the B.C., berta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New- . foundiand building trades councils met in Winnipeg and - agreed on the aim of setting up a National Council of Building Trades, chartered by the Washington Building Trades Department. é The conference set up a seven-person Steering Com- mittee to plan a Canadian conference the following year at would be attended by delegates from all local "nlons, district and provincial councils. ngs were looking up when in September the S8th AFL-CIO Building Trades convention in San Francisco granted its Executive Council the authority for “‘the special chartering of a National Building Trades Council in Canada.’’ The Advisory Committee agreed and the Steering Committee from the July .Winnipeg meeting planned the national building trades conference for Jan- uary 1976. The call went out to 534 local building trades unions, 42 building trades councils and to the 33 members of the Washington-appointed Canadian Advisory Board. Washington Cracks Down ; Then, Washington decided to crack down on this Canadian conference. In November they tried to have it postponed, then in January, five days before the meeting . was to take place on Jan. 17-18, Building Trades De- partment president Robert Georgine wired the Steering Committee and all Canadian building trades councils saying the AFL-CIO didn’t recognize the conference and that he wouldn’t attend. The Advisory Committee echoed Georgine by advising local unions not to take part. In spite of Washington’s effort to organize a boycott, the first building trades conference was ahit, with the 182 delegates who attended representing some 133,000 local union members, 19 local building trades councils and nine provincial councils. " Aconstitution for the National Building and Construc- tion Trades Council of Canada was adopted stating the organization would co-ordinate the activities of affiliated councils and unions, foster apprenticeship training, promote health and safety practices, adjust trade and jurisdictional disputes, aid affiliates in bargaining and engage in legislative activity. The council agreed to hold annual conventions with delegates selected by local unions, local and provincial building trades councils and provincial and national craft councils. : A broad Steering Committee was set up including the presidents and secretaries of each provincial building trades council, and it was instructed to meet with the Washington building trades department ‘‘to work to- wards chartering a national building trades council in Georgine’s Reply . Georgine replied Jan. 22; 1976 to the Steering Com- ~ mittee’s request for a meeting, saying he wouldn’t meet with the ‘‘so-called Steering Committee’ from the “so-called National Conference of the Building and Construction Trades in Canada.”’ Any views they might have, he told them should be sent to the Washington- appointed Advisory Committee, ‘‘A legal body estab- lished by the Executive Council.” Nevertheless, significant negotiations followed, bet- ween the Steering Committee and the Washington department, which fundamentally changed the course of events in Canada, resulting in a U.S.-imposed and ap- pointed structure that entirely negated the Canadian- elected and Canadian-controlled concept of a national council projected in Winnipeg. The Washington building trades department set up: a committee, composed of international building trades union presidents to deal with the ‘‘Canadian problem.”’ Steering Committee chairman Ken Martin met in Washington with Georgine and other top leaders, includ- ing Advisory Board chairman Ken Rose, of the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and outlined the case for a Canadian council. Unwarranted Concessions Then, it was at a follow-up meeting with the Canadian Advisory Board, that the Steering Committee agreed toa compromise that put all the cards back into the hands of the Washington mandarins and their roadmen. It was agreed that the second Canadian Conference, May 15-16, 1976 prior to the CLC convention in Quebec would have no decision-making powers, wouldn’t . necessarily reflect the views of the individuals or unions attending, and would only be a forum for discussing Canadian building trades issues. These unwarranted concessions undid and under- mined all of the efforts to set up a Canadian-controlled, democratically elected national council for Canada. Washington was back in the driver's seat. The Quebec conference was the last Canadian build- ing trades meeting to be called by Canadians. Though it reiterated its support for a National Building Trades Council in Canada and agreed to a joint committee of the Steering Committee and ‘named Representatives of the Advisory .Board .... to. proceed with the matter of establishing a National Council for the Building Trades’’, the meeting in Ottawa, July 13-14, 1977 re- flected little of what the 235 Quebec delegates had intended. : Back in the Saddle ' The purpose of the Ottawa conference of the AFL- CIO building trades department, Georgine told the par- ticipants was “‘to give you an opportunity to say what you think should be done in Canada ...’’ But instead of talking about a Canadian building trades council, Geor- gine referred constantly to a ‘‘structure?’ for Canada. ‘*There will be a national voice for Canada’’, Georgine said, ‘‘a structure set up under the Building and Construction Trades Department and under the au- spices of the affiliated international unions.” The following July, in Toronto, the structure that Washington decided was; good enough for Canadian building trades workers was revealed to the first Cana- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 1, 1981—Page 13