Continued from page 1
Striker Cathy Braithwaite ad-
ded tersely; ‘‘They’ll just roll
their trucks right over you if
you’re in the way. They don’t
care.””

At least one of the drivers has
been seen carrying a handgun —
but by the time the report was
checked out by police, the gun
had disappeared.

The union has laid an unfair
labor practice charge against
Nabob for using professional
strikebreakers — prohibited by
the labor code — but so far the
charge has been held up by a
legal obstacle that may prove to
have wider significance.

In arguing the case lawyers
for Nabob have contended that
since the workers were original-
ly locked out last September, —
and did not, themselves, go on
strike — the labor code provi-
sion does not apply. The Labor
Relations Board initially ruled
against that argument but the
point was won on appeal, rais-
ing the crucial question as to
whether professional strike-
breakers might be ‘“‘legal’’
where there is a lockout rather
than a strike.

Since then, the union
declared the strike and pressed
the unfair charge although it
was again held up by hearings
into the legality of the strike
declaration. The union won that
point two weeks ago but the
strikebreaking charge still
awaits further hearings and a
ruling

CAMRWU is anxious for
those hearings to begin because
of the network of strikebreakers
that evidence is expected to
reveal.

One man whose name is ex-
pected to figure prominently is
that of Alberta-based Len
Baldini, who has organized the
scab trucking operation for
Nabob, buying and leasing
trucks in his name and organiz-
ing the strikebreakers to drive
them. He was also involved in
the strikebreaking operations at
Endako on behalf of the
employer, Placer Development.

The Canadian Farmworkers
Union has slammed as a ‘‘Soc-
red double cross’’ the new regu-
lations to the Employment
Standards Act which effectively
exclude farmworkers from the
provisions of the Act.

The regulations were intro-
duced by cabinet Jan. 16 and
followed government passage
of the new Act during the spring
session last year. At the time, la-
bor minister Jack Heinrich said
that he would “‘stake his cabinet
post’’ that the legislation would
include farm workers.

But in fact, the regulations
place farmworkers outside the
Act on three key provisions:
minimum wages, general holi-
days and hours of work and

Endako scab trucks
reappear at Nabob

CFU slams regulations

workers. ‘“‘But we have no rea-

overtime. _ The CFU has demanded that
On the minimum wage, the the Jan. 16 regulations be re-
\ section does not apply to “farm- pealed. 3

But more than anything the
union wants a settlement in a
dispute that has grown increas-
ingly ugly over the last five mon-
ths.

On Monday, 50 members of
CAMRWU lobbied. the Social
Credit government calling for
the appointment of an industrial
inquiry commissioner to probe
the issues.

Tims said that hey had met
with deputy labor minister
James Matkin and were hoping
for an answer by Friday on the
commission’s appointment.
But it could falter since the ap-
pointment requires the agree-
ment of the employer.

And Nabob recently has
shown little inclination to agree
to anything. Taken over from
the Weston empire four years
ago by the huge Swiss con-
glomerate, Jacobs Interna-
tional, the company has since
automated some 125 people off
the payroll despite promises to
the Foreign Investment Review
Agency that employment would
not be affected.

For the workers, the ra-
tionalization of production has
givena particularly hard edge to
the main outstanding demand
on the bargaining ‘table at the
time of the strike — the com-
pany demand to increase the
work week by 1% _ hours.
Workers now work four 9-hour
days but Nabob wants to in-
crease that to five 72-hour
days.

CAMRWU members see the
company ’s intransigence on the
issue as an indication of
something deeper. ‘‘Nabob’s
prime objective is to break the
union,’ Braithwaite said. ‘‘We
know that for sure.”

But CAMRWU isn’t about
to be broken. Tims emphasized,
that the B.C. Federation of
Labor’s hot edict against Nabob
products has been effective,
removing coffee particularly
from scores of store shelves.
And despite little press coverage
of the dispute, there has been in-
creasing support from trade
unionists.

workers historically employed
on a piece work basis to hand
harvest fruit, vegetable or berry
crops.”” All farmworkers, do-
mestic workers and horticultur-
al workers are excluded from
hours of work and overtime
provisions, while general holi-
days do not apply to those “‘em-
ployed primarily to harvest fruit
or berry crops.”

CFU spokesperson said that
the labor department hinted
that new regulations. covering
seasonal workers would be
brought down in June and
would supposedly cover farm-

son to believe that they will,”
she said, ‘‘and what regulations
we have here are horrendous.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE--JAN. 30, 1981—Page 12

GVRD bid for board order
shows provocative stance,

The Labor Relations Committee

’ of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District seems to have gone all out
to provoke a general strike or lock-
out of civic employees in the Lower
Mainland.

This attitude is reflected in its ap-
plication to the Labor Relations
Board of Jan. 22 to restrict picket-
ing in the event of a strike. The ap-
plication was made on behalf of the
municipalities of Burnaby, Coquit-
lam, Delta, New Westminster,
North Vancouver City, North
Vancouver District, Port Moody,
Richmond and Vancouver. Named
as respondents are nine locals of the
Canadian Union of Public Em-
ployees and the independent Van-
couver Municipal and Regional
Employees Union.

The letter to the LRB assumed
that a substantial number of CUPE
locals would be on strike by no later
than Saturday, Jan. 24 and that
“anticipated picketing .
likely hamper, if not entirely halt,
fire and police services in the muni-
cipalities. . .” As it turned out, the
assumption was wrong.

The unions named in the appli-
cation represent inside and outside
workers whose collective agree-
ments expired Dec. 31, along with
the agreements of the fire fighters
and municipal police. (Only five of
the municipalities have their own
police forces: Vancouver, New
Westminster, West Vancouver,
Port Moody and Delta. The others
are served by the RCMP.)

The Labor Relations Committee
is seeking an order from the board
that would ban picketing by the
named unions at fire halls and po-
lice buildings, including RCMP
stations.

The background information
given to the board adds up to the
following picture:

@ Negotiations for a new col-
lective agreement between the un-
ions and the municipalities began in
October, 1980.

@ By mid-December, govern-
ment mediator Ken Albertini was
appointed and negotiations contin-
ued, until Jan. 21.

@ On Jan. 20, all the munici-
palities named received strike not-
ices from their CUPE locals.

@ The VMREU, representing
clerical, technical and janitorial
employees at the Vancouver city
hall, parks board offices and police
stations, was scheduled to take a
strike vote Jan. 27.

@ Meanwhile, negotiations for
new agreements with the fire fight-
ers and municipal police were to
continue.

@ The Vancouver police work
from two locations where members
of the VMREU provide clerical,
communication and dispatch ser-
vices, along with building main-
tenance and janitorial services.

@ CUPE would be entitled to
picket fire halls and police stations,
in accordance with the provisions
of the labor code.

@ VMREU members would
not cross picket lines and neither
would uniformed members of the
Policemen’s Union-or the senior
officers who belong to the Vancou-
ver Police Officers’ Association.

@ Even if the police crossed the
picket lines, their functions would
be ‘‘stymied’’ without the support
services of VMREU members.

e Fire fighters would also re-
fuse to cross CUPE picket lines at
fire halls.

@ The situation in other muni-
cipalities would be much the same.

The application of the Labor Re-

. would:

lations Department proposes the
following “‘remedial’’ action:

@ That the LRB prohibit pick-
eting at fire halls under Section
85(2) of the labor code because a
collective agreement isin force with
another union. Alternatively, the
board could move in the same di-
rection under Sections 31, 33 and
27 of the code, which provide them
with broad powers in terms of in-
terpretation and laying down pol-
icy guidelines. :

e es anes alternative be

Labor
Comment

Jack Phillips

considered, namely, acting under
Section 29(1) to impose conditions
on picketing that would allow nor-
mal fire services to continue.

@ That the board utilize Section
86 to restrict picketing at police and
RCMP buildings. (This section
provides that where two or more
employers operate out.of a com-
mon site, the board can issue in-
structions to limit picketing against
the employer. directly involved in
the strike or lockout.

I discussed this situation with an
officer of one of the CUPE locals
and he told me the following:

The vast majority of CUPE
members do not want a work stop-
page if it is at all possible to negoti-
ate a settlement they can live with.
However, they are prepared to
back their negotiating committees
all the way.

Why, he asked, did the Labor
Relations Department put a ‘‘final
offer’ on the table which it knew
was completely unacceptable and
could provoke a strike? Does this
mean, he said, that it was out to
provoke a general work stoppage
to ‘‘teach us a lesson,”’ even if it
meant a lockout? _

My sources pointed out that
while the general i increase for out-
side workers in the proposed one-
year agreement was computed at 15.
percent of the average wage (in-
cluding four percent described as

catch-up) it was tied to a proposi-
tion that all employees must pay

_two percent of their gross pay to

cover the cost of wages for the first
two weeks in case of non-Occupa-
tional illness or injury. At present,
the majority of employers pay the
full cost of this benefit. In addition,
a number of valuable fringe bene-
fits (like cashing in unused sick
leave credits on retirement would
have to be given up).

He also told me that the propos-
ed adjustment for tradesmen (75
cents an hour above the general in-
crease) would still leave them a long

way behind the rates for tradesmen .

in other unionized operations.
For inside employees, the guar-

anteed increase is set at only 12.97 —
percent. CUPE is also concerned —
that the proposed restructuring of ©
the pay scales would mean a saving
for the employer at the expense of
the workers and an increase in the ~

gap between the rates for inside ani
outside workers, thus worsening
the relative position of female cleri
cal workers.

This struggle of the Lower Maing
land civic employees is an integral”
part of the overall situation con-
fronting the trade union move-—
ment. In addition, it has its own —
political overtones. For at oe ;
am certain that the leadership of
the B.C. Federation of Labor,
which is so deeply committed to —
supporting the NDP, must be con- —
cerned with the role of Vancouver
mayor Mike Harcourt in this situa-
tion.

Harcourt is a leading light in the |
NDP and was labor’s choice in the
recent civic election. Is he going

along with the hard, provocative —

line of the GVRD, orishe prepared _
to give the kind of leadership now
that-would lay a basis for realistic
negotiations andasettlement? lam —
certain that if he took this course, —
the three COPE aldermen would —
support him all the way.

From what I have been told, rep-
resentatives of CUPE met with of-
ficers of the B.C. Federation of La-
bor this week, along with repre-
sentatives of affected unions, to —
discuss picketing policy. Also slat-
ed for discussion was the question 3
of providing essential services in
line with Federation policy.

CUPE can win with the backing
of the Federation and its affiliates, —
and such backing should include, —
in my opinion, representations to
all the NDP council members in the
Lower Mainland area. They had
labor’s support for their election.
Now, the least that can be expected —
of them is that they should do
everything possible to create the
conditions for a resumption of ne-
gotiations on a fair and reasonable.
basis. To start with, they could de-
mand the rescinding of lockout —
notices and the withdrawal of the —
Labor Relation Department’s ulti- —
matum in respect toemployees.

(As these lines were being writ-
ten, the GVRD committee was re- —

portedly meeting to discuss the —
CUPE request that the ultimatum —
— which demands that workers ac- —
cept the final offer or be locked out —
Jan. 28 — be rescinded.)

Don't

Vancouver, B.C. V5L

Read the paper that fights for labor

SONS NUNN UN
s
ra
3
©

Published weekly at puis 30 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,

Address .......::.++++++>

Gity-ortown= =. ose-2s-.:

Postal Code ..............
| am enclosing:

1 year $10 2 years $180 6 months $6

OldO New( Foreign 1 year $12 0
Donation $

A SA SR RA

3X9. Phone 261-1186

ate 9 “0.0. 0> 010 eis 10: wieue.».0 ep 0 ee bee ere