8/Lumber Worker/August, 1980

LARRY BAIRD

LOCAL 1-85

TROUBLED EMPLOYEES

REPORT

By LARRY BAIRD
Second Vice-President, Local 1-85

In the Spring of 1978 I was given the task
of dealing with Troubled Employees as
defined in the joint Industry and Union
policy paper. I made contact with all of the
major operations and the little ones as well
and explained to thern my goals and aspira-
tions with regards to a Troubled Employees
Program.

Contact was also made with the local
counselling services staff, Bob Phillips and
Don Cochrane as well as the Native counsel-
lor, Beryl] Cardy. Over the past two years I
have dealt exclusively with the personnel
supervisors in all the M.B. operations, with
varying success and degrees of commit-
ment, that is not to say they all weren’t
interested. Of all the personnel supervisors,
Ray Morris, of Alply comes to mind the most
often, I guess because of this individual’s
unwavering commitment at all times to the
needs of Troubled individuals in times of
crisis. This commitment has gone beyond
the scope of the average man dealing with
problems and troubled employees he is.
committed to helping, we can only hope he
doesn’t burn himself out in helping others.
Hats off to you, Ray!

The Personnel supervisors of all M.B.
operations here in Local 1-85 and counsel-
lors of Family Guidance also deserve a

hearty round of thanks for a job that’s just
beginning.

There have been a myriad of problems in
the sphere of Troubled Employees. Some
have been attitude problems, legal, mone-
tary, drug and in the larger realm, alcohol
and alcoholism as well as referrals to
Mental Health. I have even had occasion to
visit some of our members in jail.

My primary role is that of a resource
person. I can usually get the necessary
funds and time off if needed for those
individuals who admit to a problem and
want and need help. I also have on occasi-
on made the appropriate arrangements to
get our members admitted to treatment
centres and when they are released and
arrive back in town, I meet and have coffee
with them to give them support.

As of 1978, Ross Stryvoke and I had
discussed the idea of pulling all the M.B.
Divisions into a joint meeting to discuss a
Troubled Employees Program, our idea
back then was toinvolve all of the chairmen,

and personnel supervisors. This was an idea
until 1979, when Ross was transferred to

Logging Headquarters which made arrang-
ing a joint meeting all that more viable.

In our first meetig we had also invited a
chap M.B. had hired to proceed to develop an
Employee Assistance Program, his name
was Jim Stimson. At that meeting a basic
outline of a proposed program was outlined
and during this day-long session a lot of
good came of it. There were reps from all of
M.B.’s camps and plants as well as
observers from the Pulpmill, who inciden-

tally are not enjoying the same type of
co-operation that I am.

After this first meeting it is safe to saya
majority of us came away a little confused
with the information and statistics given us
to digest, plus a lot of sobering facts. The
chief contributors to this meeting were Jim
Stimson, Ross Stryvoke, and Don Cocah-
rane, Alcohol Counsellor, as well as some
input from myself. We all came away witha
positive feeling based on the reaction and
input of those at this meeting. So good was
this first session that we arranged a second.
At our second meeting the same people came
back with one exception. I invited Bob
Blanchard, First Vice-President of the
I.W.A. Region No. 1, tocomeand sit in atour
next session. My primary and main reason
for bringing Bob in was to dispel any
mistrust or negative feeling our chairmen
may have had about the direction we were
heading with this proposed program,
mainly because it seemed like an employer
oriented type proposal.

Bob explained that this program as
proposed wasn’t far off what the I.W.A. was
after, the only hold-up was in the actual
monetary commitment from the employer.
The second meeting made a few recom-
medations to be acted upon by the camp and
plant chairmen and the company. One of
which was to have Jim Stimson in to the
divisions to explain the program to foremen,
grievance committee members and safety
committee members.

To date, Sarita River Division, Franklin
River Division, Cameron Division, Sproat
Lake Division and Kennedy Lake Division
have complied with this request. The three

waterfront plants have yet to havehiminas
of June 23, 1980.

This area, because of a majority commit-
ment, in all probality will be used as a pilot
project and will hopefully set the trend, if
successful in the rest of the Forest Industry:
The program we have today is approxi-
mately the same as the proposed E.A.P. and
it would take very little to modify it to suit
our needs.

The only real concern Ihave is the upcoast
area, i.e. isolated logging camps consisting
of 15 and as high as 70 men. This area from
Gold River, North has limited access to
alcohol and Drug Counselling Services,
which creates more problems than you can
imagine. Nevertheless, thisis a priority area
we will have to work on.

The program of recovery here in. the
Alberni Valley for our Troubled Employees
has over the past year or so worked effi-
ciently and with a good percentage of
success. We as a union have benefited in
that the employee who has taken treatment
successfully no longer has to be off for
extended periods of time due to real or
imagined health reasons. The chronic
absenteeism problem usually disappears
also, resulting in far less grievance and
suspensions or other forms of disciplinary
measures. The employer gets back a far
more productive and stable individual. The
money saved in the recovery of a skilled
troubled employee is tremendous, not only
in terms of skills but also in training dollars.

For the most part, the program here in the
Valley has worked well, but asin everything
else improvements can and will be made.
The proposed E.A.P. pilot project program
here in Local 1-85 is at the stage where with

a little push it will be off the ground with a
majority of M.B. operations opting to at
least give it a try. Hopefully, by 1981 the
program will be in the first stages of opera-
tion, from that point I don’t think there will
be any turning around. :

This program as a program is pro people,
not pro union nor pro company. Its primary
function is to help people make changes in
their lifestyles so they and their family
can live a more healthy and productive life.

FAR TOO MANY
LOGGING FATALITIES

By A. D. HEPPNER
Safety Council Officer

Do we have safety in logging today? An
industry that employs 1% of the work force
and last year had 35% of the fatalities in
B.C.

Today, as I look across the valley from the
landing, I can see the spot where a cat rolled
as the roadbed gave way and a cat skinner
died. On the way home the crummy passes
the spot where the first aid man was killed
when a block fell on him. A few miles along I
glance up a side valley and am reminded of
the chokerman who died there when a log
rolled unexpectedly. A few more miles and
down a hill we come to the place where a
loaded logging truck left the road and the
driver met his demise. Another few miles
and yet another side valley and I am
reminded of the faller who died when the
tree he had dropped threw a chunk back at
him and broke his neck.

Before we reach the marshalling point
there is yet one more well remembered spot
where another driver was crushed when he
had a runaway.

The marshalling yard at last. We are safe
now; but tomorrow we will be back. These
accidents were the bad ones. The injuries are
too numerous to count or remember. They
did not all happen at once, but over a
number of years. What is important is the
fact that they happened in a very small
area. Multiply this small group of loggers by
the total number employed in this industry
in B.C. and you begin to see the volume of
deaths and injuries in logging.

Yes, needless accidents are fewer than
they were in bygone years. Equipment is of
better quality, safety standards are better,
workmen are better informed. However, the
time when we can sit back and say we have
safety in logging is a long way off. An
industry that produced in the neighborhood
of fifty fatalities in 1979 can hardly afford to
be complacent or smug.

Only through constant vigilance and
never relenting efforts can we hope to
achieve a better safety record than we have
today.

Safety in logging? Think about it.

Violation of safety policy is an
offence against the Union, and the
offending worker or workers in such

cases may be called before the Local

Union Executive Board for appro-
priate action.