CANNERY WORKERS HIT THE BRICKS BURLINGTON — About 198 members of International Association of Machinists Local 863 struck Canadian Canners Ltd., March 30 for a new collective agreement. ‘There were actually no real gains ac- complished in wages or in benefits’, Bob Burroughs, Local 863 secretary-treasurer, said after his members voted to rejected an inadequate three-year offer. The old con- tract expired Jan. 25. B.C. INSURANCE WORKERS STRIKE VANCOUVER — Three months of spar- ring between the Insurance Corporation of B.C. and the Office and Technical Employees Union has finally erupted into a full-blown strike by the 2,200 ICBC workers throughout the province. The workers, who haven't had a contract since September 1980, had to contend with all kinds of management resistence to their just demand for a 30.5% wage hike over two years. ICBC stubbornly refused to entertain any wage hike. of more than 22.5% over the same period. When the workers, who earn an average of $1,440 a month, tried to press ICBC to negotiate, by banning overtime work, the provincial insurance company locked 300 of the workers out. The union hit back in February by pulling some 90 workers off the job. Union leaders are preparing themselves for a long strike and the workers are de- termined to get the kind of wage increase that will help them cope with the soaring cost of living in Vancouver which is one of the most expensive places in North America to live in. 3 U.S. COAL MINERS VOTE DOWN OFFER WASHINGTON. — U.S. coal miners voted by a two-to-one margin March 31 to reject a tentative pact between the representatives of the coal mining com- panies and the United Mine Workers of America. The UMW miners have been on strike since March 27 when the old contract erided. The UMW represents 160,000 miners in the soft coal industry, and the vote on the bargaining committee to reject the tenta- tive pact was 69-31. traditionally, UMW miners have refused to work as long as there was no contract in plate. UMW president Sam Church announced April 1 that the union would be contacting the coal operators as soon as possible to resume talks on the basis of the miners’ rejection vote. : : By MIKE PHILLIPS HAMILTON — Rank-and-file building trades workers will soon get the chance to see the issues threatening to split the Canadian labor movement debated by a top leader of the building trades, Canadian Executive and the president of the Canadian Labor Congress. Delegates to the 10,000-member Hamilton-Brantford Build- ing and Construction Trades Council voted overwhelmingly, April 1, to sponsor a meeting for all building trades workers to give them first hand information on the issues which forced the CLC to suspend 12 international building trades unions for non-payment of per capita. ~ The resolution called on the council to invite either Jim McCambly, or Ken Rose to represent the Canadian Executive of the building trades and Dennis McDermott for the CLC. So far, McDermott has been confirmed as a participant in the meeting, April 15, at the Local 105 International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, (IBEW) hall in Hamilton. Spokespersons from McDermott’s office responded to the invitation saying the CLC president ‘‘would be more than pleased to attend.” Members Want Vote The members of Local 105 IBEW have been kept abreast of the issues behind this historic and unfortunate confrontation within the house of labor and there is widespread support for the demand that votes be taken.in each local union on whether the building trades unions should remain inside the CLC. Barry Fraser, Local 105 business manager and president of the Ontario Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council is a well-known advocate of Canadian autonomy within the international building trades set up. Recently the local executive issued a leaflet to the members of Local 105 outlining the reasons behind the CLC-building trades fight. ‘*The-single most important reason’’, Fraser said last week, ‘‘is that they (the Canadian Executive of the building trades) don’t like the structure of the CLC. They’re totally opposed to the system of representation to the congress by local unions and if the truth were known, most of the international building trades union leadership would like to have the final say on who gets to go to CLC conventions.” The new labor body proposed March 26 by Rose and the Canadian Executive which promises a “‘united, democratic, voluntary, national labor body for the benefit of all union ’ members in Canada’’, leaves Fraser and rank-and-file building trades union members skeptical. ‘*There’s a lot of talk of delegates to this body having the democratic right to do this and that’’, Fraser said, ‘‘but they don’t tell us anywhere how you get to become a delegate.” Demands Non-negotiable CLC president Dennis McDermott described the proposed new labor central flowing from the two-day meeting of the Building Trades Council’s Canadian Executive, March 25-26, as ‘“‘another example of a mountain bringing forth a mouse.”* McDermott also called the Canadian Executive’s move ‘‘a poorly disguised attémpt at forcing the CLC back to the bar- gaining table.’’ He ruled out further talks as long as the build- ing trades continued to push three points the congress consid- ers non-negotiable. These are: e that the international building trades leadership should be given the authority to appoint delegates to CLC conventions, se BOER Building trades members to hear both sides of SRG Ae dispute thus by-passing their local union members and denying the locals their right to elect their own delegates; e that only the national offices or international offices of unions be allowed to send resolutions to CLC conventions; e and, that the CLC step in to dismantle the building trades” union structure in Quebec which the majority of workers there have voted to participate in, and whichis legally recognized by the Quebec Government. . ; The CLC, McDermott stressed, can’t go along with thes¢ demands by the building trades because, ‘‘they threaten tO ~ undermine the democratic tradition of the Canadian labor movement (by denying) basic rights to the rank-and-file membership, who after all, pay the dues. “In my book’; McDermott said, March 27, “‘if you pay the - piper, you should also call the tune.”’ . Responsible Decision Claims by building trades leaders, particularly Rose, that the congress has forced the split in the labor movement, were rejected by the CLC president as ‘‘diametrically opposed to the truth.” ‘ The CLC didn’t force the building trades out of the con- gress, McDermott said. ‘‘ They, (the building trades leaders) were determined to leave and did all they could to take theif membership out of the CLC’’, he said. ; He also denied Rose’s March 26 claim that the suspensions of the 12 internationals was a unilateral action. ‘“The action waS- anything but unilateral’’, McDermott countered. ‘It was_ taken after two days of intense debate at the executive council level where representatives of all major CLC affiliates, includ- ing some from the building trades, had a chance to thrash out the question thoroughly and conclusively. : <4 “It was a regrettable step and a difficult one, but one taken unanimously by responsible trade unionists who knew full” well the consequences of their actions’, McDermott stressed. ‘‘We are now prepared to stand by our decision.”’ Rank-and-file building trades members are looking forward to the April 15 meeting in Hamilton so they can have a measure of direct input into decisions affecting the future of the labor movement, that in most cases up to now, they’ve had no consultation in making. : Many will come sharing the outlook expressed last week by Barry Fraser who noted, ‘‘in the final analysis no uniof member will benefit from this internal split in the Canadian labor movement. Only the employers, who will play off one union against another, will be pleased by the actions taken by the Canadian Executive of the building trades.”’ Carpente By PAUL PUGH THUNDER BAY — Last November, John Carruthers, general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, on behalf of the union’s general executive board, dropped a bombshell on Local 1669 in north-western On- tario. A provincial agreement had been reached between the Car- penters' Ontario Provincial Council: and the employers, represented in the Heavy Con- struction Association of Ontario (HCAO). This agreement was never ratified by the membership in north-western Ontario. A col- lective agreement was already in effect at the time, between Local 1669 and the HCAO. Worst of all, the province-wide agreement featured cutbacks in all areas compared to the existing Local 1669 contract. For example wage rates were $1.29 an hour lower than in the local agreement, and a 50-hour work week of five 10-hour days was negotiated in the provincial agreement with a provision for make-up time on Saturday for any work time lost during the week. Overtime pay in the Ontario-wide contract was to be paid at time-and-a-half after 50 hours compared to double time after 40 hours in the Local 1669 pact. 5 Travelling room and board allowances were dropped in the provincial agreement, an item which workers in north-western Ontario need to have in their agreements because job sites are PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 10, 1981—Page 6 usually very far from home. Carpenters of this region were shocked at the arbitrary imposi- tion of what they properly call a sell-out deal and some tough questions were asked. This kind of dictatorial be- havior by the Washington-based international building trades lead- ers continues to be a powerful driving force for the. growing movement among the Canadian membership for autonomy. Op- position by the U.S.-controlled Canadian building trades leader- ship to the right of the Canadian rank and file to run and control their own unions in this country, is one of the key issues in the cur- rent split between the Canadian roadmen for the internationals and the Canadian Labor Con- gress. It soon developed that Local 1669 members were the seeming victims of an attempt by the On- tario provincial council of the Carpenters to regain contracts and work from the rival Laborers International Union of North America, (LIUNA). Laborers Local 183, based in Toronto, has been on a vigorous organizing drive for several years and as a consequence has greatly increased its membership and col- lective agreements with some 200 employers all the way to Sault Ste. Marie. The Ontario carpenters’ coun- cil apparently hopes to recover bargaining rights with employers by imposing lower wages and in- ferior working conditions than those provided in the laborers’ union contracts. rs’ local fights sell-out pact Alarmed by this threat to theif local agreement; the membership of Local 1669 filed a complaint under section 79 of the Ontario Labor Relations Act charging un- fair practices by the Carpenters’ international, the union's Ontario provincial council and the — HCAO. Consequently an agreement | has been reached excluding Local 1669 and members under its jurisdiction from the terms of the sell-out agreement between the - provincial council and. the employers’ organization. For the time being, at least, | wages and working conditions for carpenters in Local 1669’s jurisdiction have been safe- guarded.