LABOUR The B.C. Federation of Labour’s execu- tive council meets this week in Vancouver to assess the state of its boycott campaign against the Industrial Relations Commis- sion. The important assessment is the extent to which the government’s labour relations policy has been discredited, and whether the boycott campaign is leading to decisive action to defeat Bill 19, now the Industrial Relations Act. Another consideration is if the boycott is assisting unions to defend themselves against government and empl- oyer attacks using the powerful new wea- pons granted to them in the Act. There are sounds of discontent from sec- tions of the labour movement which are beginning to doubt if the boycott will lead to the political confrontation with the gov- ernment that was anticipated. It is far too early,though, to reach those conclusions, especially considering the bargaining time- table which has delayed the most likely areas of confrontation for several months. The superficial calm on the labour relations scene during the summer weeks of August is not a real barometer of the west coast labour relations climate, which remains volatile. Of more validity is the general concern that the boycott is being implemented tech- nically without ongoing political action to involve the membership. There is the danger that the membership who voted overwhelmingly for the boycott and joined in action on June 1, may think the fight is over. It is a perception that the public may also have, in the absence of the political action program to explain the boycott. There is a limited public relations campaign declaring Bill 19 to be bad legislation, but it is woe- fully short of presenting to the trade union membership and the public the resolve of the labour movement to defeat undemo- cratic legislation. Part of the public relations problem is a certain gap in policy now that the Industrial Relations Act is law. The point of the boy- cott is to declare the illegitimacy of the legis- lation, but it needs to be complemented by a popular demand for repeal of the Act anda process to restore democratic rights in new labour legislation. Technically, the boycott has been suc- cessful in ensuring a lonely existence for labour relations super cop Ed Peck. He has been in business more than a month and no affiliate of the B.C. Federation of Labour has responded to any IRC summons. Unions have begun to establish their independence from the IRC. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union was likely the first union in the province to take a strike vote under the boycott when in mid August about 30 workers at Fjord Marine in Richmond voted under the supervision of Richmond Alderman Harold Steves. B.C. Nurses Union members on strike against a Kinsman Lodge long term care facility in Surrey also took a vote without reference to the IRC, when they voted last week on the employer’s last offer. They called on independent arbitrator Peter Geddis to observe the vote. Other unions have gone unrepresented at IRC hearings on matters held over from the Labour Relations Board, and still others have indicated to employers their unwil- lingness to meet with IRC appointed arbi- trators. Meanwhile the federation is planning a two day workshop style conference Sept. 20-22 to elaborate the boycott strategy further and brief unions how to operate outside of provincial labour law. A measure of the potential effectiveness of a comprehensive boycott strategy is seen in the unprecedented tactics that Peck has responded with, by calling hearings and inviting representations on interpretation of two of the most contentious parts of the new Act, sections 37 and 53. Section 37 legalizes “double breasting” by narrowing _ impossibly the definition of a common employer, while section 53 all but eliminates successor rights. Peck now thinks it would be useful to seek advice on the “‘interpreta- tion” of the new law. Look for Peck to use the process to woo unions into his den by appearing to be more fair and reasonable than the intent of the law. Herein lies the potential and the suscepti- bility of the boycott. The boycott has politi- cal currency because the Industrial Relations Act and the machinery to enforce it is inher- ently anti-union and undemocratic. Unable to seek justice under the law, labour there- . fore has only its own strength and public support to rely upon. This situation trans- forms each act by unions outside of the IRC machinery into a political battle against the government, and leads inevitably to con- frontation. The susceptibility of the process is co- option, at first based on tactics; then on the argument that appearing before Peck will produce a better ruling than if the union does not appear, and the ruling will be enforced by the courts in any case; finally the argument that labour can not and should defy the law in order to defeat the law and should instead prepare to fight the next election. These options will be squarely before the federation leadership when it considers the reportedly large number of applications for exemptions from the boycott, and a prop- osal for a blanket exemption on all certifica- Rail arbitration imposed Continued from page 1 The legislation paves the way for the imposition of contracts facilitating the layoffs and wage cuts certain to accom- pany deregulation and the entry into the Canadian market of larger U.S. carriers. The bill provides stiff fines for break- ing any provisions of the Act: $500- $1,000 or $10,000-$50,000 for individuals and $20,000-$50,000 daily for institutions contravening the provisions of C-85. The legislation is reminiscent of other moves by the federal Conservative government towards employees falling under, or relating to, its jurisdiction. The use of scabs at Canada Post during the recent Letter Carriers strike, and their threatened use in an anticipated inside workers walkout, are the most recent examples. Previous rail strikes, in 1966 and again in 1973, have been ended by legislation. Vancouver’s rally followed a meeting of 400 angry rail workers in Surrey ear- lier that afternoon. The CBRT’s Storn- ess-Bliss said members maintained picket lines Friday “right up to the last minute.” Demonstrations in several other cen- tres greeted the imposition of Bill C-85. In Ottawa some 500 strikers demon- strated. 42 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 FISHERMAN PHOTO — JIM SINCLAIR Richmond alderman Harold Steves (in background) supervises as United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union shop steward Ed Adliwal explains the ballot during strike vote at Fjord Pacific plant Aug. 14. The vote was the first taken by a union since boycott of the Industrial Relations Commission. tion issues. A blanket exemption on certifications could be an umbrella for a host of other matters including decertifica- tions, designation of bargaining units, suc- cessor rights, common employer designa- tions, and unfair labour practices. Many of these questions go to the heart of the provi- sions of Bill 19, and there is concern on the left in the labour movement that wholesale exemptions will undermine the political basis of the boycott. On the other hand, some exemptions on new certifications or other selected matters where the vital inter- ests of a union are at stake and other courses of action are not possible, could be a wise tactical decision. Underlying the pressure for exemptions is almost certainly the lack of appreciation that the Industrial Relations Act has forced (ee Name Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 125. Phone 251-1186 oe? pd Se Ie te ws lg ca tee onl a eae son e-e we CBee a ek oe 9) 8 Res SRY Oe SRT o +4; 5 Se a ie Saleh © ob 2. 9 Oe o 9.8. 2G eee Poe 98 Oe Ro Rie ee Serer es * Postal Code lamenclosing 1 yr. $160) 2yrs. $280 Introductory offer, 3 mo. $310 Foreign 1 yr. $25 O Bill me later 0 a newera of confrontation on working pe ple. Employers will attempt to use the boy” cott to evade their responsibilities unde collective agreements, and to secure conces” sions from unions that may be wary of proceeding with strikes without IRC autho rized strike votes. They will use the new provisions of Bill 19 to gain the advantage ™ every dispute. The only answer that the labour mov ment has is its own militancy and readiness to take job action, the unity of the labouf movement and the assurance that no unio® will stand alone, and a program of political action to win public support. What many trade unionists want are these genefé answers made specific at this executive council meeting and the boycott conferen® in a program of action. i 2 . mo: > 0. 008. * 9 0 9 » 0:10 20 Cee 6 mo. $100 READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR LABOUR