Crisis not solved by wage cuts Continued from page 1 companies are looking for as much profit as they can. Anytime they feel they can con people into think- ing things are worse than they are, they’ll try it. We don’t see any cut- back in the pulp industry.” His remarks were backed up by Gruntman of the CPU. Citing company statements, the paper- workers’ leader said three major forest employers — B.C. Forest Products, MacMillan Bloedel and Crown Zellerbach — received highly profitable rates of return totalling 26.5 percent, 14.4 percent and 24.4 percent respectively in their pulp and paper divisions over the last five years. Both Sloan and Munro note that the forestry giants have refused union overtures to reopen negotia- tions and share booming profits with workers during peak years. The company announcements had the air of a well-orchestrated press campaign, timed as they were _ for Monday’s media. “If they were really serious about cutting costs, you would think they’d approach the unions directly, not through the media,” said Sloan, in reference to the fact that neither pulp union has been contacted by the companies. Ac- cording to IWA communications Forests minister Tom Waterland also joined the campaign, urging workers to accept the wage defer- ral. His comments gave further credence to suggestions that the pressure for wage concessions may _ be the prelude to government- _ imposed wage control. David Fairey, an economist with the Trade Union Research Bureau in Vancouver, stressed that wages _ have nothing to do with lumber or a pulp sales and that wage cuts would do nothing to relieve the forest in- _ dustry’s economic slump. “All it would do is minimize losses to the companies. It would have no long-term impact on the economy, and in fact would only make things worse,”’ he said. Fairey said the forest companies’ problems are related to their efforts to automate the industry, resulting in high-interest loan payments for _ which they have no cash flow. “So they have to cut losses _ wherever they can. The question is, why don’t they go to the banks and ask for deferred payments and see what kind of response they’d get. If » the banks won’t help them, why City or town Postal Code \ LABOR Va Steelworkers Local 480 presi- dent Ken Georgetti said Monday that he hoped the union ‘‘can get on with the job of representing its members”’ following the surprise ruling Feb. 11 by the Labor Rela- tions Board which denied the ap- plication by the Canadian Associ- ation of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers (CAIMAW) 5,000 Cominco workers at Trail and Kimberly. He added that the only people who would benefit from a contin- uation of the raid would be ‘‘the lawyers and Cominco itself.’’ In a 29-page decision, LRB chairman Stephen Kelleher ruled that there had not been compell- ing enough reason given to alter its three-month limit on member- ship applications. The decision came as a surprise to many since the very size of the bargaining unit and a Cominco ban on worksite organizing, which was later ruled illegal, were presumed to be unusual enough circumstances to prompt the board to alter its traditional rules. CAIMAW vice-president Peter Cameron, a key figure dur- ing the bitter raid, denounced the LRB decision as ‘‘craven and de- spicable. The LRB shafted us,” he said in a public statement at the LRB offices Thursday. CAIMAW had maintained that the workers in Trail ‘‘should have been given a democratic choice in a vote,”’ and reiterated that stand in LRB hearings held Jan. 18-20. But board panel members Kelleher, Fritz Herman and Nora Paton stated in their de- cision that declaring a vote “would be a relatively simple de- cision but it would be wrong.”’ When it applied to the LRB for certification Nov. 30, 1981, CAIMAW claimed it had signed up a majority of Cominco work- were several hundred members who had been signed before Aug. 30, 1982 — more than three mon- ths before the certification appli- cation was made. That was spelled out in a ruling regarding a 1977 raid at Phillips Cable in which the board stated: “In the normal course of events, the board requires that member- ship in a union will have been taken out in the three month pe- riod prior to the date of applica- tion for certification or that the union member will have main- tained active membership i in the union by paying dues in that three-month period.” The second part of the Phillips Cable decision was also of rele- (vance in the Trail raid because for a representation vote among: ers. But crucial to its application . Pibtbbah enibdy eh bath i sav Gack Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3x9. 416 Commarcil Drive, Read the paper that fights for labor | am enclosing: Tyr. $14 0 2yrs. $2650 6mo.$8 0 OidO New( Foreign 1 year $15 0 PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEB. 19, 1982—Page 8 ‘No reason to change the rules,’ LRB says in denying Trail vote THE TRAIL/KIMBERLEY Canachan Unionist} 'OL.1,NO.1 AUGUST, 1981 - ? ee CAIMAW LEAFLET . some 250 people who had signed CAIMAW cards subsequently revoked them and so informed both CAIMAW and the LRB. CAIMAW challenged the three-month rule, arguing that an earlier B.C. Supreme Court deci- sion involving the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada (now the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers) dismissed as impermissible a reg- ulation in the old Labor Relations Act which had also stipulated a ‘three-month limit on member- ship applications. The independent union had al- so contended that, even if the three-month limit did apply, it should not be applied in the case of Trail because the circum- stances were not ‘‘normal’’ due to the size of the bargaining unit and because of an illegal ban on work- site organizing during breaks which was imposed by Cominco and was only lifted by the LRB following a lengthy appeal. But the board rejected both arguments. It ruled that the reasoning in the Supreme Court case cited by CAIMAW was ‘‘no longer ap- plicable’’ since the Labor Rela- tions act had been replaced by the Labor Code. which gave to the LRB the exclusive right to decide any question under the Act in- cluding a determination on whe- ther workers were union mem- bers in good standing. The board noted the difficult- ies involved in organizing Trail workers but noted that CAIMAW had ‘‘the benefit of 30 successful raiding campaigns’’ and had successfully overcome problems faced by geography i in other raids. It did acknowledge that Co- minco’s ban on worksite organiz- ing was not overturned for two months after it was imposed and added that, if the ban could be shown to have unduly restricted CAIMAW’s organizing, that would have provided reason for _\ altering the three-month rule. But that was not the case, the board declared, noting that even the legislative ban on on-the-job organizing did not stop wide- spread union activity. “‘Notwith- standing Section 4(1) of the Code, the board heard considerable evi- dence that employees on both sides were actively engaged in un- ion activity in the work place. . . ‘There was even a sign posted in an area of the heat treatment plant reading ‘CAIMAW sign up heret.?* In addition, the board noted, the numbers of members which CAIMAW was able to sign up af- ter the ban was lifted on appeal belied any suggestion that the ban had frustrated CAIMAW organ- izing. ‘‘During the 15 days up to and including Oct. 30, the date of the decision (lifting the ban), CAIMAW signed up 355 people, an average of 23.67 per day. Dur- ing the 15 days following the de- cision, only 232 signed up, an av- erage of 15.47 per day. “On all the evidence, we have concluded that CAIMAW was not significantly affected by the Employer’s breach. . .”’ said the board. Kelleher’s ruling emphasized that the three-month limit was “not the only policy which the board has established with regard to membership evidence.’ Referring to a 1980 decision, the LRB stated that its policy ina raid ‘‘is not to deduct from the to- tal number of members the num- ber of those who had revoked or resigned their membership in the raiding union. That policy is bas- ed on the judgment that revoca- tions can only render membership evidence equivocal and that any doubt can best be resolved by a representation vote. “If we were to reconsider or ex- tend our three-month policy, even though we feel that member- ship evidence which is more than three months old has an equivocal quality of its own,’’ the board stated, “‘we would open to doubt other policies respecting member- ship evidence, including our pol- icy with respect to revoations of membership.”’ In the case of CAIMAW’s ap- plication, if the numbers of those who revoked their membership were subtracted from the total, the union would again have lost its majority. “To some observers,’’ the board declared in its summary, “it might seem the more natural course simply to extend the time limits and order a representation vote. It could be argued that this is the pragmatic answer: it would permit the employees themselves © to decide the question of repre- sentation at the ballot box... That would be a relatively simple decision but one which would be wrong. “The Code dictates that a vote be held if and when a trade union provides to us evidence that a ma- jority are members in good stand- ing. In the normal course of events, the board requires the evi- dence of majority support to be no more than three months old. We have decided that there can be exceptions to this policy. How- ; saradnesday- . it launched the raid officially last August. ever, no exception should be | made here. On the facts of q case, we are persuaded that | CAIMAW has a full opportunity | to sign up members in a three- |) month period. If we ordered a | vote we would be ignoring either the board’s policies, the eviden at the hearing or both.”’ “When you read the ruling, you can see that it’s the only deci- sion the board could have com! to,’’ Georgetti told the Tribune an interview Monday. ; CAIMAW has vowed to con- fj | tinue the raid, however, and con- || | demned the LRB for thwarting | CAIMAW’s application for the J | third time. Hl The independent Canadian | Workers Union first applied in | 1973 and CAIMAW sought to |) take the certification a year later, but each time the application fora vote to represent Trail workers was turned down by the LRB. In each instance, the union’s” raiding drive was fuelled by u happiness over the Steelworkers contract with Cominco and th unhappiness was again a major | factor in the latest raid. “If I could generalize about those who signed up with]. CAIMAW, most were either un- happy with the contract or were dissatisfied that they had not got more out of the cooperative wage study (on job reclassifications),”” J Georgetti said. He added that] many were young workers, to the trade union movement. J Those factors also figured pro- f minently in the large numbers} | who subsequently revoked thei membership in CAIMAW. at Questioned about the growing | — demand for Canadian independ- | ence which has given CAIMAW | prominence, he pointed to the task force on Canadian auton omy mandated by the Steelwork- ers’ Canadian policy conference last October which is to study the issue and poll the membership. “If autonomy is what th membership wants, then I’m pre- pared to fight for it,’’ he said. H added that he was ‘‘convin that most of the members don want to break away.’’ ‘ For themoment, theembattled_ local president who, since his elec- | tion last year had had to contend | first with internal debate over | the contract settlement and later with the raid, wants to consoli- date the membership and ‘‘get oD with the battle with Cominco. “If CAIMAW continues the raid, it will just hamper us in that job — and the only ones it really benefit will be Cominco, he said.