Hope arbi tration a landmark rulin

On Mar. 14, 1981, the Telecom-

Sept. 22, 1980 and involved only
530 of the 10,000 workers in the
bargaining unit. It was limited to
the coastal division and included
five groups in a category called
“outside plant construction.’’
With 2,650 supervisory employees
who, with few exceptions, worked
during the strike, the company
went all out to scab the jobs that
would normally be done by the
strikers. This caused a lot of bit-
terness and many confrontations.
The original strikers were linemen,
splicers, cable maintenance men,
PBX installers and repairmen and
CCG data installers and
maintenance men. By Jan. 21,
1981, 850 workers were on strike
and on Feb. 5, 1981, all remaining
workers joined the walkout.

Earlier, on Mar. 2, 1981, the
parties reached agreement on the
terms for a new collective agree-
ment except on the issue of 24
workers who had been dismissed
by the company because of in-
cidents arising out of confronta-
tions with supervisors. The union’s
position was no return to work
unless all members were permitted
to return, but the company refused
to take back the a dismissed
workers. .

The terms of the return-to-work
agreement of Mar. 14 can be sum-
marized as follows:

1) Allan Hope, a lawyer from
Prince George with an extensive
practice in labor arbitration, was
named as the -sole aeeBiaita ce on
matters dealing with the return to
work.

2) All employees were to return
to work on Mar. 23, 1981.

3) By 6 p.m. Sunday, Mar. 22,
1981, Hope was to rule on which of
the 24 dismissed employees could
return to their normal jobs.

4) Employees ordered tem-
porarily suspended by Hope would
report to work on their normal
shift and then leave. They would
receive full pay pending final
disposition of their cases. If the ar-
bitrator later brought down a
suspension or a dismissal, he could
order the union to reimburse the

company for any monies paid to”

5) The arbitration was to com-
mence on the date of the return-to-
work and conclude as quickly as
possible.

There was one very interesting
and significant sentence in the
return-to-work agreement: “It is

agreed that no mention of anything _

that transpires at the arbitration
will be used at any subsequent

court proceedings.”’

Hope ordered the temporary
suspension of 10 workers and the
return-to-work took place as per
the agreement. Hearings on the 24
cases were held Mar. 24-30, 1981.

In his 22-page report the ar-
bitrator ruled that ‘‘all the
employees should be returned to
work immediately,’ which the
company accepted in bad spirit.
This was a clear victory for the
union.

The following excerpt, from
page 21, explains the thinking of
the arbitrator in making that rul-

ing.

“The union itself has taken the
position in this arbitration that it
does not encourage or condone
violence or criminal conduct and it
does not expect the employer to ac-
cept those standards of behavior.
On that basis, I propose to measure
the conduct of the employees on
the following basis:

‘fa) Is the conduct related to the
labor dispute?

“*b) Does the conduct justify the
inference of that the employee will
continue to conduct himself in a
manner prejudicial to the interests

_ of the employer after the settlement

of the labor dispute?

“c) Is the conduct of the
employee such as to be incompati-
ble with a continuation of the
employer-employee relationship?

“In applying that test . . .Ido
not see it is open to me to consider
alternate forms of discipline such
as suspension or reprimand. To do
so would be to return to the

MAY DAY
CONCERT-MEETING

Sunday, May 3 at 2 p.m.
Templeton School, 727 Templeton Dr.,
Vancouver

Keynote speakers:

JIM KINNAIRD

Bc. Federation of Labor

“JACK PHILLIPS

Communist Party

IAN WADDELL, me

New Democratic Party

FELIP ORTIZ |

Central America Suipport Committee |

Donation proceeds to Central America Solidarity
Child care provided

' agreement)

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 24, 1981— Page 12

disciplinary approach that I have
concluded is inapplicable. The
issue is whether the employee
should return to work.”

The reference to a disciplinary
approach as being inapplicable
refers to an earlier section of the
report which I consider to be of ma-
jor importance toevery active trade
unionist. To summarize::

@ The employer-employee
relationship, stated crudely, is that
the employee sells his labdr to the
employer. In return, the employee

Labor Comment |
Jack Phillips

receives wages and benefits.

@ The industrial relations
society emerging from that rela-
tionship is undemocratic.

@ The rights and privileges of
both parties are governed by con-
tract and, to a lesser extent, by
public statute.

@ The right of an employer to
impose discipline is a fundamental
right that gives the employer domi-
nion over the conduct of the
employee at the work place, arising

from the contract of employment. ©

@ Thesignificance of astrike is
that the employees, individually
and collectively, withdraw their
labor as a means of compelling the
employer to reach agreement with
them. In that withdrawal; the
employer-employee relationship is
severed.

@ Once that relationship is
severed, it can only be restored by

bargaining. The employer is under _

no legal compulsion to re-employ
any of the workers who have gone
out on strike.

Once the strike commences, the
parties are subject to the public law
and not the law of the collective
agreement — unless there is some
provision of the agreement that ap-
plies during a strike. (This would

apply to a wildcat strike during the:

life of an agreement — JP).

The telephone workers come
under federal labor law and the ar-
bitrator dealt at some length with
Section 107 (2) of the Canada
Labor Code. (There is a similar
provision in the B.C. Labor Code):

“*107(2) No person ceases to be
an employee within the meaning of
this part by reason only of his ceas-

ing to work as a result of a lockout

or strike or by reason only of his

dismissal contrary to this part.”’
According to the arbitrator, the

meaning of this part is ‘‘to preserve

’ the employment status in order to

permit the union as bargaining
agent to continue to bargain on
behalf of the striking employees.”

However, if the employer accor-
ding to Hope has no right to
discipline a striking employee
because of his conduct during a

strike, for the reason that the con-

tract of employment (collective
has been terminated
‘and the employee has withdrawn
his services, then it must follow that
the individual employee has no

_ guarantee of getting his job back
_ | - except through the strength of his
| union, again according to Hope.

This concept that the employer is
legally free not to re-employ any

' striker once the strike is concluded -

by a collective agreement, if the
union can be pressured to accept
such a condition for a return-to-
work, is contrary to how many
trade unionists interpret the B.C.
and Canadian labor codes.

But in real life there have been

situations in which a strike was lost
and only some of the strikers got
back to work. In other cases, an
agreement was signed but soon
after the return to work production

was cut back and layoffs took’

place. At best, the guarantee of
Section 107 (2) is meaningless
without a strong union supported
by union solidarity, as in the case of
the B.C. Tel dispute. e

Although precedents set by ar-
bitration rulings do not-carry as
much weight as precedents set by
court rulings, they do establish pat-
terns for future arbitrations, par-
ticularly when they deal with high
profile situations like the B.C. Tel
dispute. This is especially true when
the precedent is set by a well-known
arbitrator like Allan Hope, com-
plete with references to rulings of
the Supreme Court of Canada.

To give Hope’s precise wording
on this key issue:

“*’. . I conclude that the
statutory provision in question
preserves the status of the employee
for the purpose of collective
bargaining but operates as no
guarantee that employees on strike
will be restored to their jobs. It
simply affords the union bargain-
ing agent the right to negotiate with

the employer to achieve that result

and to fix terms of the employment

* employees in a highly automat

 take-it or leave-it attitude, alwat

contract that will give effect to thi
result.’?

It should be noted here that BC.
Telis a wholly-owned subsidi

alarge U.S. multinational corporé i

tion. It has a monopoly of
telephone service in B.C.

gouges the public for every pennyit
can extract. Of all the large cof

porate employers in B.C., this oné |

has the worst labor record. Time

and again it has rejected therecom:

mendations of a conciliator
mediator — which have been
cepted by the union — and for
confrontation. With more thé
one supervisor for every 3

operation, it approaches every
of contract negotiations with

hoping, it appears to break
union or make it a docile tool.
every confrontation has seen mo
militancy on the part of telepho
workers and more support fro
the trade union movement as
whole.

The fight to nationalize B.C. Ti

should be stepped up. The

telephone services in the

prairie provinces are under public”
ownership. Public ownership i

B.C. would mean better servi
and more control in the interest
the general public, and a better deal
for telephone workers. ;

Delegates to the Vancouver
and District Labor Council
voted unanimously Tuesday to
ask the B.C. and Yukon
Building Trades Councils to call
a jointly sponsored meeting of
Building Trades workers ‘‘to
enable rank and file members to
make an intelligent and inform-
ed assessment of the CLC-
Building Trades dispute.’’

Ironworkers Local 97
delegate and VDLC executive
member Des Szakal, who pro-
posed the motion, also called

, for representatives of both the
Congress and the Building
Trades to address the meeting.

made by the CLC executive
council last month, Building
Trades locals have until Apr. 30.
to affiliate to the new CLC
Building Trades Department or
stand suspended from the Con-
gress because of their interna-

tionals’ failure to pay per capita.

In retailiation, the U.S. head-
quarters of the Building Trades
have already moved to set up a

tion of Labor in opposition to
the CLC.

Unionists have voiced con-
cern about the repercussions of
the Building Trades decisions,

VDLC urges meeting
on CLC-trades issue

underscoring the need for |

According to the decision -

- Trades department to attend.

breakaway Canadian Federa-

meetings to clarify the issues.
Last Wednesday
Hamilton, more than 300

Building Trades workers, most |

of them electrical workers, turn-

ed out toa public meeting spon-

sored by the Brantford and
Hamilton Building and Con-
struction Trade Council. Both
CLC president Dennis McDer-
mott and Ken Rose, Canadian
executive board chairman of the
AFL-CIO Building Trades
department were invited to pre-
sent the two sides of the dispute
but only McDermott appeared.
On Apr. 20, the Toronto and
Central Ontario Building and
Construction Trades Council
sponsored a meeting in Toronto .
for the Building Trades and in-
vited Ontario Federation of
Labor president Cliff Pilkey
and James McCambly, ex- —
ecutive secretary of the Building

Although McCambly did ad-
dress the closed meeting, he
refused to enter the closed .
meeting until Pilkey had com-’
pleted his remarks: He also ask- —
ed that the press be escorted ©
away from the doors leading to.

the meeting - hall during. his B

speech. —

in

Pe ee ee

City ortown
Postal Code

> satnnnas :
ES
a3
8 ©

a ie tee ean ecco eh aie nd Be Re fees

CC

lam: enclosing: :
1 year $12.1) 2 years $22) | ‘6 months #7 0.

Old New) Foreign 1 year $16.0 |
Bill me later  Donation$...... toons

a

Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,
Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186

Reed tie page that ight foe ela

Ce ee ee ee eee ee eee es