LABOR The 2,600 members of the Independ- ent Canadian Transit Union were expected to give overwhelming endor- sement Wednesday to a tenative non- concessions contract pact with Metro Transit Operating Company (MTOC) which has been two years in the making. The agreement, outlined to union members at a meeting Sunday, removes the main concession sought by the company — part time dri- vers — and in- cludes provision GERRY KRANTZ for retroactive pay increases to Apr. 1, 1983. The four-year agreement runs to Mar. 31, 1987 and calls for wage increases of three per cent in the first and second years, zero per cent in the third and two per cent in the fourth year. It will increases wages by about $1 an hour by the final year and most drivers in Van- couver and Victoria will pick up about $2,000 immediately in retroactive pay. ICTU local 2 president Gerry Krantz called it “a fair contract”, adding that any concessions to company demands were “‘minor” compared to those sought by MTOC for nearly two years. The major demand pressed by MTOC for part-time drivers was dropped, although the company will be able to hire some part-timers during Expo, subject to union consultation and agreement. The contract also provides for appointment of an arbitrator if agreement cannot be reached. % The language of the working practices clause, which the company had sought to change, will also remain intact. The union did give up some minor vacation provisions and maintenance workers will not be able to bank as many statutory holidays as they had pre- viously. The agreement came after a long bar- staging rotating walkouts. gaining session last week, prompted bya new proposal from MTOC delivered to mediator Clark Gilmour. The new company proposals came as something of a surprise since the stand adopted by the transit company through- out the dispute has been one of adamant confrontation, particularly in the demand for part-time drivers. After months of bargaining without progress, ICTU members adopted their “unstrike”’ tactic last year, refusing to wear uniforms, handing out forms urg- ing riders to pay part of their fare only after the settlement of the dispute and They finally launched a full-scale strike but it was ended last September when the Socred government legislated drivers back to work. The impending merger of MTOC and B.C. Transit and the Socreds’ concern with getting an agreement before Expo were thought to be considerations in prompting the new proposal. LAB tightens picketing rule | New restrictions on the right of unions to use picket lines to stop scabs from doing strikers’ work were imposed Feb. 28 by the Labor Relations Board which based its rul- ing on last year’s amendments to the Labor Code. A board panel head by LRB chairman _ John Kinzie ruled that locked-out workers at Slade and Stewart may not put up picket lines around customers of the food supply company except at the precise moment that a Slade and Stewart truck is making a deliv- ery. Members of the Retail Wholesale Union who have been locked out since last May by the U.S.-owned company, had _ picketed throughout the day Feb. 27 at National Caterers, which has been taking deliveries from Slade and Stewart despite the lockout. The RWU also gave notice to Slade and Stewart Feb. 20 that the union “intends to exercise their right to picket at the custo- -mer’s location after the Slade and Stewart delivery has been completed.” That letter prompted the company’s application to the LRB. In the ruling, the board panel noted that under the amended Section 85(3) of the Labor Code, “the focus of permissible pick- eting is on the employees and the locations where they perform work for the employer.” Because the employer and his employees are not present at the customer’s location except at the time a delivery is made, that location is not a site or place of permissible picketing, it ruled. **...We have concluded that it would not be consistent with the intent of the new Section 85 of the Labor Code to treat a customer’s premises as a ‘site or place’ of permissible picketing during those periods when the employer’s delivery truck is not RWU PICKETS...facing new restric- tions. making a delivery of goods there,” the rul- ing stated. “Accordingly, the board defines the ‘site or place’ at which picketing is permitted under Section 85(3) in these circumstances as being ‘the customer’s premises at those times during which the customer is taking delivery of goods from the employer.” RWU steward Gail Beau said the union was “disappointed but not very surprised” by the decision of the LRB which has already imposed restrictions on the picket- ing as a result of the code changes. In one of the first decisions following the passage of the code amendments, a one- man LRB panel ruled last July 5 that as a result of the legislative change, the union did not have the right to picket deliveries to customers at any time. That decision sparked: outrage through- RIBUNE Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. VSK 125. Phone 251-1186 Postal Code lam enclosing 1 yr. $1400 2yrs.$25(11 6mo.$80) Foreign 1 yr. $200 Bill me later Donations READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR LABOR 12 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 6, 1985 SEAN GRIFFIN TRIBUNE PHOTO — out the trade union movement and was later amended on appeal to allow picketing of customers’ loading docks when a Slade and Stewart truck was making deliveries. But the ruling upheld the prohibition against picketing of Slade and Stewart trucks while in transit. The restrictions have forced the union to continue its often frustrating campaign of following Slade and Stewart trucks in the hope of getting to a customer’s location before the truck has made its delivery and gone. Beau noted that the company has instructed its scab drivers to lose union pickets. ““They’re some of the worst Evel Knievel kind of drivers in traffic,” she said. Despite the difficulties, the union has managed to cut off more than 75 per cent of Slade and Stewart customers. Another major dealer, David Oppenheimer and Associates, dropped off the Slade and Ste- wart list after the RWU sought to have the food brokerage firm declared an ally of Slade and Stewart and therefore subject to legal picketing. The B.C. Federation of Labor has also mounted a campaign to adopt each of the 76 Slade and Stewart workers around the province to ensure that they can maintain the dispute as long as it takes to win an agreement. The federation is also developing a pro- gram to put additional pressure on the company. Unionists have emphasized that it will take a concerted effort by the trade union movement to wrest an agreement from Slade and Stewart. The company, owned by the U.S. multi- national Pacific Gamble Robinson, set out from the opening day of the lockout to operate non-union and has spent thousands maintaining security guards, blanked-out trucks and scab drivers in an effort to break the union. Not surprisingly, the lawyer handling the company’s application to the LRB was Wil- liam Kaplan — the same lawyer who is act- ing for the non-union companies and the right-to-work Independent Canadian Busi- nessmen’s Association in the attempt to overturn a Vancouver Parks Board decision awarding a building contract to a union company. Kaplan works for the law firm of Jordan and Gall which has had a high pro- file in the anti-union campaign by compan- ies such as J.C. Kerkhoff and Sons. ‘Expo jobs shrink, pay ‘levels low By IVAN BULIC After hearing more than four years of Socred promises about the billion dollars in wages that Expo 86 would create, B.C.’s unem- ployed workers are starting to learn the sad truth behind that Expo myth. In July 1982, then Socred cabinet minister Peter Hyndman, speaking before revelations about his sumptuous dinners at public expense forced him out of the cabinet, claimed, “Expo'will create © 30,000 jobs and boost B.C.’s ailing economy by $1 billion.” In the next two years the Expo 86 snake-medicine show grew almost as quickly as the provincial debt, and Bennett, not to be out- done by his minister, made some promises of his own. Just when Expo officials were starting to squirm under question- ing about their ballooning budget last April, Bennett said, “*. . for the six months during which the fair will run, 27,000 full-time workers will be needed at the site and another 42,000 will find jobs in support services.” Less than 10 months later, how- ever, those 69,000 jobs have shrunk by more than 50 per cent. Expo public relations spokes- man Brad Philley said last week, “only about 27,000 jobs may be created during the fair. “T really don’t know,” he admit- ted, “what this figure is based on. It sounds high to me and [| think it takes into consideration even the extra clerks hired at Woodwards.” Most of-those jobs, moreover, will be at minimum wage levels. “The jobs at the fair will be in the service sector: host and hostess, maintenance workers, ride opera- tors and food service,” Philley said, “and they won’t be less than min- _imum wage.” Given Expo’s stubborn deter- mination to hamstring any union involvement on site, those jobs may generate less than $70 million in wage benefits. Some would say even these reduced figures are beneficial, but _ taking into consideration a $311 million loss predicted by Expo officials and remembering that more than 110,000 students alone need summer jobs in B.C. every year, 27,000 is hardly impressive. Organized labor is pessimistic about Expo doing much to solve the underlying problems of unem- ployment in B.C. Summing up the situation quite succinctly, CUPE ressearcher Gene Errington said: “Unions feel that dealing with unemployment by creating some temporary jobs at minimum wages is an inadequate way of dealing with the problem.”