12 THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER 38,000 copies printed in this issue, Published twice monthly as the official publication of the INTERNATIONAL WOQDWORKERS OF AMERICA Western Canadian Regional Council No. 1 Editor — Pat Kerr Business Manager — Fred Fieber Affiliated with AFL-CIO-CLC 2859 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, B.C. Phone 874-5261 Advertising Representatives — Elizabeth Spencer Associates Forwarded to every member of the IWA in Western Canada in accordance with convention decisions. Subscription rate for non-members $2.00 per year. Authorized as Second Class Mail, Post-Office Department, and for payment of postage in cash. > GUEST EDITORIAL “WHEN A GOVERNMENT'S WORD IS WORTHLESS" The following editorial submitted by Dr. Paul Phillips, research director of the B.C. - Federation of Labour, points up the treatment organized labour can expect once the pro- vincial government implements Bill 33. DELEGATE to the last convention of the B.C. Federation has been quoted as saying, “These verbal agreements aren‘t worth the paper they are written on.” Labour has come to accept this bit- ter truth, that with most employers the only guarantee worth anything is a writ- ten agreement signed by both parties and legally enforceable. In the past it has been the practice to accept the verbal guarantee of a government which is sup- posedly responsible to the people of the province. The present situation with the B.C. ferries should forever undermine trust in our present government. It should also reinforce labour’s opposition to the restrictive and arbitrary Bill 33 now be- fore the House. Let’s review the history leading up to the present ferry strike. In January of 1966 the ferry employees struck for eight hours to bring about negotiations of work schedules. A labour-management com- mittee was the result but it proved ineffec- » tive. Six months later the ferry workers again had fo threaten to strike. Under this threat a nine-point program was agreed to but the authority ignored sev- eral of the points. In September of 1967 the ferry work- ers were again forced to threaten a strike in order to achieve a dues check-off. The following month the government began layoffs due to the Queen of Prince Rupert fiasco. Again there were verbal promises regarding wages, conditions and job se- _curity and a commitment that these would be placed in writing. All of these promises proved worthless. APPRENTICESHIP MILLWRIGHTS attending the Burnaby Vocational School. Percy In February of 1968 the government began lay-offs of 168 people, ignoring seniority and job security, thereby throw- ing so-called permanent employees out on their ears without unemployment in- surance. A meeting with management and the Civil Service Commission pro- duced a compromise solution but a week later it was reneged on by management. Now we find out that agreement was reached with the Minister of Highways to settle the ferry strike but that the premier overruled the solution in order to keep the ferry workers as second. class citizens. It is this history of the government's refusal to negotiate (except. under strike threat), to abide by its verbal agree- ments and to commit itself in writing, that has led to the present situation. How can the ferry workers accept anything short of full collective bargaining and a written agreement when faced with this history of duplicity? If Bill 33 is allowed to pass, the ferry workers will lose the only weapon they have had to force negotiations, the threat of a strike. If this vicious legislation is passed they are faced with fines of up to $10,000 just to protect their jobs. This bleak prospect faces all civil servants and many other unions. Our government has promised that the compulsory arbitration provision of Bill 33 will not be used indiscriminately. But as the ferry workers have found. out, such guarantees are worthless. If labour accepts Bill 33 all unions face compulsory arbitration when they have the economic strength to achieve a realistic settlement but no help when they do not. This kind of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment must sfop. Hesla, former millwright from Canadian Forest Products Pacific Veneer Division, is instructor of the class. PERSONALLY | THINK WE SHOULD GET TH’ SAME DOUGH AS ON TH’ COAST .. . WE DO TH’ SAME WORK... . GIVE US A HAND SHORTY! PULPWOOD TAKEOVER ADVOCATED IN NEWFIE A former government of- ficial who was chairman of a Newfoundland royal commis- sion on forestry has advo- cated the provincial govern- ment take over pulpwood holdings now held by two large newsprint companies on 99-year leases. L. Z. Rousseau, former fed- eral deputy forestry minister, recommended the takeover as , a means to protect and ex- pand Newfoundland’s dwin- dling forest resources. There is a growing fear in Newfoundland that unless strong action is taken the provinces forest resources will be exhausted in the not too distant future. Poor con- * servation, reforestation and afforestation by the com- panies in the past are blamed. There is estimated to be 8,380,000 productive forest acres on insular Newfound- land, more than half of which is controlled by Bowaters Newfoundland Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. of Corner Brook and Price Nfld. Pulp and Paper Mill Ltd. of Grand Falls, Bowaters holds the biggest slice—3,105,000 acres. Most of the renewable leases were signed before the mills opened at Grand Falls in 1909 and Corner Brook in 1923. Another 3,029,500 acres of forest land on the island—all that the Crown holds — has been promised to proposed operators of a third newsprint mill long sought by Come-By- Chance. UNION MUST O.K. COMPANY INCENTIVE PLANS An arbitration board has ruled that a company cannot unilaterally institute an in- centive plan without the con- sent of the union. The case arose from a ' grievance filed by the United Rubber Workers of America against Fluid Power Ltd. The parties had agreed on intro- duction of a bonus incentive plan for a trial period. At the end of that period, the union demanded its withdrawal, but the company insisted it was within its rights in continuing the plan. | The company maintained it was merely giving the em- ployees more money than the collective agreement entitled them to. It was company money to distribute as it wished in the interests of ex- tra efficiency and productiv- ity. - But the board under Pro- fessor P. Weiler in a unani- mous decision noted that the negotiated agreement had set- tled the relative claims of dif- ferent jobs. But under the bonus plan, the whole struc- ture of equitable relationships among the employees which the union was able to obtain in the agreement had been disrupted. Some employees, though not worse off in an ab- solute sense, suffered “rela- tive deprivation” by compari- son with others and felt dis- criminated against. The board said its ruling was in line with the statutory policy concerning collective bargaining. * ine eae ey oe cer