Et ET — LABOR island woodworkers pressing rejection of three-year pact International Woodworkers on Van- couver Island are urging rejection of the: three-year proposed agreement with Forest Industrial Relations, arguing that it “falls far short of IWA members’ needs” and would mean “a retreat for the union.” The same basic agreement has already been rejected by more than 80 per cent by members of the two pulp unions, the Cana- dian Paperworkers’ Union and Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada. However, the [WA negotiating committee, which had been in joint bargaining with the CPU and PPWC, opted for approval of the agree- ment and recommended acceptance to the membership. Members of Local 1-85 in Port Alberni were the first to take issue with that position and at a meeting Dec. 10, the local executive voted unanimously to recommend rejec- tion. This week, the Local began distribut- ing copies of a newsletter which outlined the reasons for the executive’s opposition and again urged rejection. The Port Alberni newsletter followed another leaflet, issued by “IWA Members for Rejection” which has been widely circu- lated on northern Vancouver Island over the past two weeks. In both cases, the three-year length of the agreement and the wage package — no increase in the first year followed by four per cent hikes in each of the next two years — were cited as major reasons for turning the contract down. Both argued that accepting a wage freeze at a time of seven per cent inflation entails “a cut in real wages.” Another central issue in the rejection call was that of contracting-out of logging. The proposed agreement calls for an extension for the duration of the contract of the Moore-Billings letter — a 1970 memoran- dum which stated that logging would be done by IWA members — but the letter is now subject to the condition that IWA executive members will participate on a task force which is to find ways of improving the efficiency of logging. The “Members for Rejection” leaflet terms the provision “‘of little help” in addressing the long standing issue of contracting-out and questioned how the task force, given its terms of réference, “could ever defend the interests of workers.” The local 1-85 executive also emphasized several other objections to the contract proposals, including: @ Preferential hiring: the agreement has no provision for extending recall rights for those employees who have been laid off longer than 18 months and have lost recall rights provided for in the current contract. The issue has particular importance in an area such as Alberni where many members have been laid off for extended periods and have no assurance that they will be the ones hired if jobs do open up; e Employment standards changes: the proposed contract includes no provision to cover severance pay under certain condi- tions, such as when employees are laid off indefinitely because of technological change while the plant where they.worked remains open. That coverage had been provided by the Employment Standards Act but disap- peared (for workers with union contracts) under the Socreds’ Bill 26 which removed automatic protection by Employment Standards legislation where it did not exist in the collective agreement; © Local agreements: last spring, Macmil- lan Bloedel, cancelled all local agreements which covered, among other things, cook- house and bunkhouse facilities for loggers. The new agreement has no provision for protection of those facilities, many of which are now slated to close. “This is simply not acceptable,” the IWA newsletter declared. It added: “Many members of Local 1-85 felt that the negotiat- ing committee should have done much more to protect wages (through COLA) and to protect jobs (through extended recall provisions). ; It cautioned, however, that the local executive was “not urging rejection on the basis of a strike”. Instead, it pointed out that the bargaining climate was more favorable, citing improved markets and recent com- ments by M-B’s chief spokesman in the Alberni Valley who has predicted a tenfold increase in profits for the area in 1984. The newsletter noted particularly that the IWA negotiating committee “should have continued to negotiate on a common front basis with both pulp unions.” The “IWA Members for Rejection” also urged coordinated action with the pulp unions. Their leaflet cited the plans by the pulp union to mount a coordinated offensive in the spring as other pulp union agreements across the country come up for re-negoti- ation. “A rejection vote (in the IWA) would mean coordinated action with the pulp: union,” the leaflet stated. “It would mean a vote for one union in wood.” Similar calls for rejection on Vancouver Island have in the past been outvoted by the preponderance of union members else- where on the coast. But there has been wider dissatisfaction in this bargaining round because the agreement closely fol- lows the U.S. agreement which had earlier been repudiated by the regional leadership and because that leadership decided to fol- low a different course from that of the pulp unions despite the joint bargaining strategy. The outcome is not expected to be known until at least the end of January as votes are scheduled for various dates over the next two weeks. The Vancouver local held its vote last month — although only some 15 per cent of the membership turned out — and the New Westminster local, the largest in the province, voted Jan. 8. PACIFIC RIBUNE Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C, V5K 125. Phone 251-1186 jam enclosing 1 yr. $141 2 yrs. $250) 6 mo. $800 Foreign 1 yr. $150, Bill me later ~Donation$ READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR LABOR 12 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 11, 1984 Vancouver New Westminster Building Trades Council secretary George Jalava (left) and B. Building Trades Council president Roy Guatier address rally at VGH sit as trades launch j job action Nov. 10. Key decision expected on VGH building site A Labor Relations Board ruling deter- _ mining whether or not construction pro- - jects at Vancouver General Hospital constitute a “common site” was expected to be brought down this wekk — and it will be of critical importance to Building Trades union members bastaut the province. However the decision goes, it will be a signal to Building Trades fighting the increasing encroachment of non-union contractors. And it will likely have an impact on the multi-million development slated for B.C. Place. Building Trades unions working on a VGH construction project staged job action - Nov. 10 to protest the awarding of the con- tract for an adjoining project — known as Research Facility Phase I — to a notor- iously anti-union firm, Kirkwall Construc- tion Ltd. It was the first time a VGH contract had been awarded to a non-union firm and reflected a decision made at the highest level of the provincial cabinet. Unionists invoked their “reservation” clauses — giving them the right to refuse to work alongside non-union or non- affiliated workers — and stayed off the job until Nov. 29 when they agreed to return to work on the basis that the LRB would expedite its decision on the nature of the construction site. The B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council had sought a declaratory ruling by the board as to whether construction at VGH constitutes a common site under the terms of the Labor Code. Strictly speaking, if the site is ruled to be common, the right of the Building Trades to invoke their reservation clauses is upheld. But the LRB has proscribed that right considerably in past rulings and its decision in this case is not likely to set a different pattern. “Based on the facts, the Building Trades have established pretty clearly that VGH is one site,” said Carpenterse business agent Colin Snell, who monitored the 2 nels of hearings Nov. 29 and 30 and Dec. “But for all we’ve got a good case, it will be a political decision that will finally be made,” he said. Moreover, he added, the board could acknowledge that it is a common site and make special provision for the non-union project to continue unimpeded. The direct involvement of the cabinet in the awarding of the contract to Kirkwall — involvement that was further borne out in hearing testimony — has also indicated that the ruling will have an impact on development slated for B.C. Place. The construction work on the B.C.) Place stadium was all completed with union tradesmen but the government 1s known to be seeking an open site for upcoming B.C. Place development to pro- vide an opportunity for a host of low-wage non-union firms to get a_ substantial amount of the work. At the VGH hearings, testimony by Mel Gamble, the senior project coordina- tor for hopsital programs for the provin- cial Ministry of Health revealed that the cabinet itself unilaterally imposed the pol- icy of accepting the lowest bid without reference to any specific legislation. Asked how the government would act if. the contract at the hospital did not go to the lowest bidder, Gamble indicated that. the property would probably not be trans- ferred to the hospital building committee if the committee did not conform to the low bid policy (the land is owned by the provincial government and is routinely transferred to the hopsital for $1). The property was transferred to VGH on the basis of VGH conforming with cabinet policy, Gamble told the hearings, adding that the policy was acceptance of the lowest bid. Union lawyer Morley Shortt charged that since the lowest bid would invariably be the non-union bid, the policy amounted to right-to-work by cabinet order- in-council. VGH director of planning Bill Goodsir also revealed at the hearings that the pro- ject had originally been tendered in early 1982 with a clause stipulating only union contractors. But the “union contractors only” clause was removed following a lobby from the Amalgamated Construc- tion Association and the project was re- tendered, the only stipulation being that contractors pay “fair wages”. The Building Trades have since sought a meeting with the director of the Employment Standards Branch to press the point that in this pre ves fair wages are union wages.