: | ‘ ~ 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