Editor’s note: IWA Regional officers concerned at the amount of pressure “right-wing” groups are exerting to have the provin- cial government bring in so-called right to work legislation in British Columbia, that they had the Union’s Public Rela- tions Director Tom Fawkes do a study on the subject for the IWA. The following are excerpts from the booklet Fawkes prepared and the Union had published. The excerpts will run in the Lumber Worker in serial form over the next few issues. PART THREE In the Tampa Shipbuilding suit the state court ruled that a closed shop clause in a collective agreement be- tween a labour union and an employer was in fact not contrary to the public policy of the state. To add insult to in- jury, the court further ruled that Watson had.no authority to bring the suit against the company because neither the Tampa company nor the unions had laid a com- plaint. The court ruled further that closed shop agreements did not violate any- one’s constitutional rights. 1942 LAW SUIT Similar to Watson’s actions in 1941, the 1942 law suit kept the closed shop is- sue in the public eye during a year when the legislature was not sitting in session. At the sitting of the legislature in 1943 another Bill was submitted to outlaw the closed shop in Florida. This bill was backed up by a constitutional amend- ment and both were submitted by Re- presentative Joe Jenkins. Unlike the Watson Bill of 1941, Jenkins proposed that the closed shop be outlawed in all industry in the state, (Watson had hidden behind the patriotism issue and_pro- posed that the closed shop be outlawed only in war production industries). OUT OF HOUSE The Jenkins Bill did not even make it out of the House Labour Committee to the floor of the legislature for a vote. The fact that it did not receive Labour Com- mittee support is interesting especially in light of what happened to Jenkins Con- Stitutional Amendment. The Constitutional Amendment Com- mittee heard the constitutional amend- ment, and within a few hours it had passed through the Committee. The amendment was adopted by the Amend- ment Committee one day, presented to the house the same day, debated for two hours the following day, and set for vote _ the next day the House sat in session. The amendment was placed before the for vote on monday, April 12, 1943 d received the two thirds majority © to pass. f the movement of the Right to Work ! al Amendment through the THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER committee and the legislature looks like a railroad job to you, then you are not far off the mark. Representative Joe Jenkins just happened to be the Chair- man of the House Constitutional Amendment Committee. There is no evidence to suggest that Jenkins used his constitutional amendment to back up his right to work legislation, in the case that the latter failed to make it to the house for a vote, but such a move woul make good political sense. The proposed constitutional amend- ment read as follows: “The right of a per- son shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-member- Ship in any labour union or labour or- ganization.“ FAR FROM OVER But the battle was far from over. Under the Florida State Constitution the amendment passed by the state legis- lature had to go before the people for ratification at the following general elec- tion. The amendment went to the people with a further amendment that had been made during the passage procedure of the original amendment. The campaign that was fought-over the ratification of the amendment was vicious to say the least. The leader of the pro-right to work groups was the American Farm Bureau Federation, the same group that had become so vocal during the Smith-Vin- son hearings in Washington. The AFBF was joined in their propaganda cam- paign by other farm groups including the American Grange and other small agri- cultural organizations. As always, other industrial employer groups helped the cause. PROCESS OF LAW The actual right to work amendment was attached to an existing constitution- al clause before it was presented to the people. The pro-right to work legislators were successful in having the amend- ment attached to the section known as the “due process of law” section. The amendment was presented to the people for ratification worded thus: “Section 12: Double Jeopardy; Selt- Incrimination; Eminent Domain; The Right to Work — No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, nor compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private pro- perty be taken without just compen- sation. The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or _non- membership in any labour union or labour organization; provided that this clause shall not be construed to JUNE, 1978 deny or abridge the right_of em- ployees by and through a labour union or labour organization to _bar- gain collectively with their _em- ployer.** The State Senate found it necessary to amend Jenkins’ original amendment to bring it into line with the Federal labour legislation which guaranteed the right of workers to bargain collectively with their employer. *The underlined portion is the addition. SWEETEST SECTION The legislators were accused by organized labour of picking the “sweetest section” of the entire consti- tution upon which to add: the amend- ment. The fact was that the amendment, as presented to the people, was mis- - leading. Many voters did not know that the first, and substantial portion of what they were voting on had been part of the constitution for years. They were clearly voting on an anti-labour amendment but did not know it. The campaign of the business and farm interests was simple, effective and well financed. They used the old propa- ganda that the New York Times had started some years earlier complaining of the “tribute” paid by workers to the “union bosses” so they could keep their jobs. The fact was that the unions were collecting dues in the legitimate and tra- ditional manner and this is what the em- ployers called “tribute.” LABOR OUT-FINANCED Out-financed, the labour movement fought as best it could, pointing out that dues collected from members were set by members, and that all expenditures of funds were voted on by the membership before their money was spent. The Car- went. The labour campaign, however, was to no avail, the amendment was passed by a 55% majority and Florida became the first right to work state in November, 1944. ; It should be noted that Arkansas fol- lowed closely behind Florida to become. the second so-called right to work state in the country. Although the amendment passed, the labour movement did not give up the fight. The AFL brought a suit to the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that the amend- ment was not self-executing as Attorney General Tom Watson was contending. The Supreme Court judge found that the amendment was not self-executing, but rather than passing down a ruling to that effect, he returned it to a state court for final ruling. The effect of the judge’s finding was that although the amend- ment outlawing the closed shop was a Part of the constitution, it was in itself