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