:
|

‘

~

s
n

:

™

HE organized labor moyement has been well des-
cribed as the watchdog of the people. It stands

_ Suard over their living standards and their demo-
cratic rights. It warns of approaching danger. It is among
the first of all groups in the community to go into action

- when attacks are made agai

nst the people’s intereSts.

For these reasons, any new law which adversely affects
the labor movement is of concern to the whole community.

Such a law is Bill 39, details

Of which were first made public-

by Labor Minister George Pear-
Son on March 10.

Although the Bill contains cer-
tain progressive features, a num-
ber of its key provisions are
outstandingly reactionary. These
So outweigh its good features
that, if enacted in its present

form the Bill would gravely in-
jure

: organized labor in this
Province. It would also encour-
@ge other provincial govern-

Ments to bring in similar harm-
ful laws.

Before - examining its actual
Provisions, one essential fact
Should be borne in mind. No
law can be fully understood,
nor can its social significance
per srasped, if only the pro-
visions written into it are con-
Sidered. The wording of a law
‘Ss important, but it is only half
the story—and often the lesser
halt. The other and vital half

4s the real situation in which
that law makes its appearance,
and the manner in which it is
administered,

_if these statements are true
= general, they have particu-
ar force in any examination of

Bill 39.
Consider the ‘situation in
Which the Bill appears. War-

4 time labor legislation is rapidly
Se to an end. Wage con-
tols, for example, ended some
months ago, and PC 1003 term-

inates on March 31. Ahead we

+ Can already see the end of the

Postwar boom and the gatheér-
ARE Clouds of another depres-
Sion, Indeed, big business is
actively preparing the people
ee “new version of ‘hungry
eee Increased prices, wage
ss 8, growing unemployment
2 assaults upon labor’s rights
“re all on the immediate agen-
da of ‘free enterprise’.

Bill 39 expresses the big em-
Reoers own estimation of the
or situation in this province.
lle not yet able, because of

labor's strength, to break openly

_ With the unions, the big em-

meyers, through the Coalition
fe. ment in Victoria, want

crippling provisions to put
€mselves in a strong position
Or. union-busting campaigns in
© immediate. future.

‘
ae the ‘situation ‘in which this
i appears is important for an
nderstanding of it, so also will
gs the prospects of its method
f administration. In the day-
cry application of any Act,
a ere are a thousand opportuni-
€s for progressive or reaction-
"ry interpretations. These can
ae a vast difference to the
®ct which a law has upon the
People. In this particular case

_ the: minister. of labor and his

Ae are heavily endowed with
me tionary powers and the
anner in which these are used

_ S0Uld well be decisive in a giv-

hap uation. As to whether or
t these wide discretionary
Powers will be used to build or
© destroy the labor movement,
© strength of that movement
8nd its unity—will be the de--
Siding factors.

4

Paci,

‘ie ela Ha Ti
aaeanbTe

®@ Smelterworkers stand
by Fred Pearson

[Wits

mn

© © 'Will U.S.-cbandon atom control’?

a by Joseph Clark

[a

ciaeelllieanttinns

Er 2° ia y

HAT of the Bill itself ? It is -

considerably longer and has
more’ detailed provisions than
any labor law hitherto in force
in B.C. Summarized, its main
points are: te a eae
@ Rights of Employees,

No express right “to organize
into unions is granted, as in
former . provincial acts and in
PC 1003. Instead, the right of
every employee to belong to and
participate in unions and em-
ployees’ associations is guaran-
teed.

@ Unfair Labor Practices

(a)' Discrimination against em-
ployees for union activity and
intimidation of employees to re-
strain them from union activ-
ity are forbidden. So also is
employer interference in the af-
fairs of unions and employee
groups. The language used to
prohibit the interference of em-
ployers in union affairs is the
same as the weak language of
PC 1003 which Labor Minister
Pearson in the past repeatedly
refused to test
A new and progressive clause
has, however, been added. It
empowers the minister to re-
fuse to certify any union or
any bargaining representatives
if he thinks they are ‘domin-
ated or influenced’ by the em-
Ployers. Rigidly and fairly en-
forced, this clause could go far
towards elimination of company
unions.

(b) Other ‘unfair’ labor prac-
tices include any ‘attempt’ to
organize workers on the job.

_Doing this Without ‘the employ-
er’s consent carries a penalty
of $100 for the individual, and
$250 for the union. Without
doubt this is one of the most

vicious provisions of the Bill. It —

means that any worker and any
union is barred, under heavy
Penalty, from even attempting
to organize the men ‘at em-
ployer’s place of employment
during working hours’ except
with the consent of that em-
ployer!

(c) ‘Condoning’
intended to limit or restrict
production is also an _ offence.
Thus a union paper which, from
labor’s viewpoint, justified on-
the-job action by workers could
be fined up to $250 in the courts.

(d)* A closed provision in a
collective agreement is expressly
“allowed, as is the ‘voluntary re-

any activity

vocable check-off’. The latter
has its shortcomings, as em-
ployees signing the chéck-off

_slip could be influenced by the
employer to revoke their sig-
_ natures. However, the Bill does
enact the present clause of the
IWA master agreement into
law, and can certainly be re-
garded as a partial gain.
@ Bargaining Rights
(a) These rights are granted
alike to trade unions and to
‘bargaining representatives’. The
_unions must have a majority of
‘the employees in the bargaining
unit as members before they
“can be certified. ‘Bargaining
representatives’ must have been
elected by a similar majority be-
fore certification.
Throughout the Bill, this dual-
ity between ‘unions’ and ‘repre-

a Te

at

i Tum
| iw) ris

& NG a

Hhasceteeettnccanionui Dcsrrvvarerereelll hye

(Le

Dississcousavnsttll

behind their union
Page 11

ss Page 12

in the courts. .

"By JOHN STANTON ti;

sentatives’ is maintained. It
means in effect that employees’
associations and trade unions
are given an equal standing be-
fore the law. This is one of the
most undesirable features of the
old ICA Act (1987) and should
never have been carried over
into the new Bill.
@ Conciliation Machinery:
This part of the Bill is com-
plex. It parades a long and ex-
traordinary array of Officials

from referees to boards of con-

ciliation, all of whom have some
part or other to play in settl-

ing industrial disputes.

After’ a dispute occurs, it
seems that the first official on
the scene is a Conciliation Of-

ficer, unless provision is made

for a ‘Mediation Committee’ in
the union agreement, or unless
the minister (or the Labor Re-
lations Board—a nebulous body
yet to be established) appoints
an ‘Industrial Inquiry Commis-

. sion’ or a ‘referee.’

In such case the Conciliation
Officer, the Mediation Commit-
tee, the Industrial Inquiry Com-

mission or the Referee reports

back to the minister (or the
Board) after a stated period of
time (usually 14 days). But
failure of these personages to

‘fufill their function within the

allotted time does not affect
the situation, They apparently

: can go on forever conciliating,

mediating, inquiring and refer-
reeing, as the case may be.
Assuming that they finally ad-
mit their inability to settle the
dispute, the next step (except-
ing the case of the Referee) is
the usual three-man Board of
Conciliation. It, too, has unlimit-

ed time within which to report
to the minister. :
All these bodies and _ indi-

viduals are under’ the jurisdic-
tion—to same extent at least—
of the proposed Labor Relations
Board. This body is to be set
up by the government when it
is ‘considered advisable’. There
is no assurance of labor repre-
sentation on it; but the Board
will have power (among other
things) to decide whether or not
there has been collective bar-
gaining, whether a group is a
union or not, ang what is a
collective’ agreement. Presum-
ably one could be held up a
long time in the conciliation,
referring, mediation, or concili-
ation board stages by having to
refer some policy question or
other to the Labor Relations
Board for decision.

When a dispute has finally
gone through this complicated
machinery, the Board of Con.
ciliation reports to the minister,
who holds a vote on acceptance

or rejection, if such a vote is.

necessary. No time limit is re-
quired within which this vote
may be held.

@® Strikes

Here we come to the essence
of the Bill—the measures most
dangerous to the labor move-
ment. In effect, the Bill virtu-
ally forbids strikes, not by any
direct prohibition, but by plac-
in endless restrictions in the
way of strikes. ;

To illustrate: Strikes are pro-
hibited: (a) after certification of
the bargaining authority; (b).
during collective _ bargaining;
(c) if collective bargaining fails;
(d) during conciliation; (e) be-
tween conciliation and the vote
on the award; (f) 14 days after
the vote and then only if em-
ployers and employees disagree
on the finding; (g) during the
life of a collective agreement;
(h) after a collective agreement
expires; (i) if a dispute arises _
otherwise. than during the term
of a collective agreement.

Enough -has been said about
the time limits on these vari-
ous phases of a dispute to show >

\that, by the time a strike may

egally occur, the morale and

the financial strength of a union
could well have been drained
“away. sy A ne "
(Continued On Page 11)

4