Continued from page 1 fought for and won a generation ago, Kinnaird charged. -. The document, entitled ‘‘Un- employment Insurance in the 1980s: A Review of its Appropri- es CROWD AT FEDERATION RALLY . ate Role and Design,”’ includes among its sweeping changes, re- ductions in benefits for single claimants and elimination of sick- ness and maternity benefits. Both Kinnaird and Leggatt .em- phasized the proposal to dis- mantle PetroCan as an example of the Tories’ disastrous economic policies. ‘‘This government’s an- swer to the economic problems of this country is to let corporations —Sean Griffin photo . blasts government for attack on jobless. Fight back as in 1930's’, rally urged like Shell Oil make more > profits at the pumps while fixing it so more people won’t be able to collect benefits,’’ Kinnaird charged. : ‘*But how many jobs have they produced while selling out the Ca- nadian people?’’ he asked. “Reducing the unemployment statistics by throwing people onto welfare rolls, is not the;answer,’’ Leggatt said. ‘‘Neither is dis- mantling PetroCan, the only ra- tional approach to developing an energy policy for Canada.”’ Unemployment committee co- ordinator Joy Langan cited the plight of women and_ youth, stating, ‘‘women and young peo- ple are the hardest hit by the lack of jobs and the new UI regula- tions. “It will be almost impossible for single parents to collect UI benefits if they have to show that their kids are in day care. But how can they pay for that if they can’t get UI or a wage?”’ she asked. Warning that without a fight- back campaign, ‘‘we’ll go back- wards to the good old days,’’ she won a standing ovation when she told the crowd: “‘We have to rally round the labor movement and the labor movement has to rally JOY LANGAN .. . Ul change hit women, youth hardest. round the unemployed. We have | to get people back to work.” | Kinnaird and Federation secr tary Dave MacIntyre also emph sized the need for action to ‘‘hel; those hardest hit to fight back.’” Kinnaird urged people to sign the petition protesting UI cuts” which has been circulated and sai that the B.C. Federation of Labor | *‘will do what it can for union and | non-union workers alike. “We have to fight back — w must fight back.’’ McKay ae landmark in The Restrictive Trades Practices Commission must be unhappy with the recent judgment of Justice Harry McKay.in reply to the action against George Hewison, Homer Stevens and Jack Nichol of. the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union. In effect, the judge ruled that officers of the union did - not have to answer questions put to them by the Commission in respect to union activities. He also said that in his opinion, fishermen are workmen and suggested that they should be entitled to collective bargaining rights. The action taken against Hewison (secretary-treasurer of the . union), Stevens (former union president) and Nichol (union presi- dent) was designed to compel them to ‘‘answer any questions relating to union activity’? put to them by the Commission. This new harass- ment of the UFAWU was yet another battle in the 20-year war against the union by successive federal governments, in which the Combines Investigation Act has been used as a convenient weapon. Every Liberal and Conservative government in Ottawa during this period had the power to end- this persecution by enacting definitive legislation granting full collective bargaining rights for fishermen. The UFAWU enjoys a unique position in the labor movement as the largest and most effective union of fishermen, shoreworkers and tendermen in the country. By its very nature, the union has-had to speak out and campaign publicly around such issues as the division of the catch between Canada and the U.S., international fish treaties, the effect of proposed oil pipelines and oil tanker routes on the West Coast fishing industry and other con- troversial issues affecting the livelihood of its members. This, of course, has projected the union into a high profile, adversary position in respect to many issues of major significance in the field of interna- tional affairs. Simply put, the UFAWU ns consistently fought for the protec- tion of Canada’s fisheries resources against all attempts to give or barter away these resources to the United States and other foreign powers. During the last 20 years, this ag- - gressive union has been a thorn in the side of successive Conservative and Liberal governments in Ot- tawa. Also, its leadership has not endeared itself to the handful of corporations who dominate the in- dustry or to the huge multinational corporations which have promoted such schemes as the proposed oil port in Kitimat. Both Socred and NDP provincial governments have failed to meet the issue of collective bargaining for fishermen, hiding behind the alleg- ed constitutional question of whether this should be done under federal or provincial legislation. If the NDP government had taken a LABOR COMMENT BY JACK PHILLIPS bold stand and enacted such legisla- tion — as both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have done — it would have forced a settlement of the con- stitutional issue. Be this as it may, the recent court decision ushers in a new stage. A study of the proceedings of. the 1978 convention of the British Col- umbia Federation of Labor leads me to believe that this issue has become the concern of the whole trade union movement, sparked by the militant struggle of the UFAWU itself. Resolution I-50, as adopted by that convention, demanded: (a) That the Combines Act attack on the UFAWU be forthwith end- ed; (b) That comprehensive amend- ments be enacted to the Combines Act to exclude its application to organizations of fishermen; (c) When appropriate, that an ap- peal be made to all affiliates to sup- port morally, politically and finan- cially the B.C. Federation of Labor’s UFAWU Defense Commit- tee. Resolution I-57 called on the federal government ‘‘to use its Combines Investigation Branch and the Foreign Investigation Review Agency to deal with the problem of foreign investments instead of wasting its energy in attacking the United Fishermen and Allied PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 19, 1979—Page 12 ~ Workers’ Union for carrying on legitimate trade union activity. Further, the adoption of Resolu- tion I-56 clearly indicated that the Federation convention understood the big economic and_ political issues that were directly and in- directly involved in the long strug- gle of the UFAWU for collective bargaining rights for fishermen. In summary, the resolution demanded the following: (a) A national fisheries policy to develop Canada’s fisheries in the best interests of Canadians and to protect them against U.S. interests. (b) A lifting of the veil of secrecy _ Over international negotiations bet- ween Canada and the U.S. in respect to negotiations in connec- tion with fishery questions. (c) A Canadian position in inter- ‘national talks based on a return to: “the principle of an equalized in- terception of each other’s salmon.’’ The UFAWU, and, in particular, Hewison, Stevens and Nichol, have been publicly associated with these demands and, on a number of occa- sions, to the embarrassment of the external affairs department in Ot- tawa which tried to silence them after including union represen- tatives as advisors at international meetings. In short, the anti-monopoly, pro- Canadian policies of the UFAWU and its principled fight to protect and preserve Canadian fishery resources for future generations have not endeared the union to big business and their friends in govern- ment. This helps to explain the op- position to collective bargaining rights for fishermen. If we gave the 18-page judgment of Justice McKay to six of the most experienced lawyers in B.C., and asked each one for an assessment of it, we might end up with six dif- ferent viewpoints, the law being what it is. However, I believe that all six would agree that it represents a significant gain for the UFAWU and the labor movement as a whole. A few quotations should prove that contention: “The union represents three groups of ‘workers’ — tendermen, shoreworkers and fishermen.’’? Up to that time, it was argued, in op- position to the UFAWU, that fishermen were not workers. The judge went on to say: ‘‘With respect labor campaign to the first two groups it is the cer- tified bargaining agent under the B.C. Labor Code. It does not however enjoy a statutorily recognized bargaining status for the fishermen component of the union, although it has for many years been - recognized as the de facto bargain- ing agent for its fishermen members.”’ ‘Fishermen would certainly seem to be workmen in the sense that word is used in ordinary speech. One would have some difficulty in convincing a deck hand on a fishing boat that he is not a workman. “T have been unable to come tp with any logical reason for the plac- ing of combinations or activities of fishermen for their own reasonable protection in any less favorable _ position than combinations or ac- tivities of others in the labor force.”’ While denying the application ‘of the Restrictive Trade Practices © Commission, however, Justice McKay did not close the door to further harassment of the union. For example, Justice McKay stated in his judgment: _ “In other words the exemption, if available, is available at all stages of the proceeding, including the in- quiry stage. If objection is taken to the answering of a question on the ground that it relates to activities of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection, then the chairman must determine whether the activity can be said to be ‘for their own reasonable protection.’ If it can be so characterized then the exemption applies — if not then the witness must answer. Assuming, of course that the questions are rele- Address .. City or town Postal Code NS NORINCO OT Nk SN SAR RN NR Ba cay Read the paper that fights for labor | am enclosing: 1 year r $10 O 2years $180 6 months $6 0 OldO New( Foreign 1 year $12 0 Donation $........ vant — it is not all conduct that cal be looked into. It must be cond that is relevant to the inquiry.”’ However, the McKay judgm will, at least in my opinion, severe!) curtail any further questioning union officials by the Restrictiv Trade Practices Commissio Justice McKay has already denied the application by the Commissio? to fine or jail-union officers fo! continued refusal to answer qu tions. The Commission is theref in a poor position to ask the sé or similar questions. Whether the Commission is considering an ap” peal against the judgment email to be seen. 3 The second to last paragraph of 3 the judgment deals with alleg agreements between the UFAY ‘and processors to withhold ice 2 other supplies or to refrain from 4 cepting fish from non-membd@) fishermen. On that issue, the jude” ment suggests that the union cann0” claim exemption from answerif questions by the Commission. If 1 | UFAWU enjoyed full bargaini rights, this matter would be resol | ed, ultimately, by the collectiv? bargaining process. ~The labor movement can counted on to continue its sup} of the UFAWU. The three demands at this time will most like be along the following lines: (1) An end to all investigation the UFAWU by the Restrict’ Trade Practices Commission; _ (2) Full collective bareailg rights for fishermen; (3) A full and public inquiry ! the extent of foreign and monopoly ownership of the fishing industry ™ British Columbia.