Continued from page 1 The urgent need for more in- spectors and inspections, as well as the stringent enforcement of existing health and safety regula- tions, were underscored in the the safety commission wound up hearings at the Sheraton Villa in Burnaby. In a moving address to the commission Wednesday, John Takach, president of Local 452 of the Carpenters — the same local of which the four killed on the Bentall tower were members — declared: ‘‘What happened on Jan. 7, 1981 at Bentall IV will never be forgotten by our union, its officers and members, and we intend to do whatever is needed to ensure that the way Gunther Couvreux, Brian Stevenson, Don Davis and Yrjo Mitrunen died will never be repeated.” Takach echoed the statement made in the Carpenters Provin- cial Council brief to the commis- sion Oct. 5 which said, ‘‘That unless regulations are not only tightened up but also enforced, our efforts will make very little substantial difference in the health and safety of our industry. Unless workers have the right to on and refuse what they think is unsafe, health and safety cam- paigns will not get to the root of participate, to know whatis going . Two WCB rules: on paper, on job the problem. Unless time is allow- ed each worker to do work at an acceptable pace and speed-up stopped, all regulations, educa- tion and programs are rendered of little value.” submissions of several unions as _. The Carpenters local cited fig- ures, provided in annual reports of the WCB to show that between 1975 and 1979, work site inspec- tions and board ~ compliance orders dropped significantly. But over the same period, it noted, the number of disabling injuries rose alarmingly. Those statistics, the. local’s © brief stated, ‘‘show total disregard by the WCB of its own regulations and we are satisfied that unless more inspectors are hired and the present soft-line ap- proach is changed and orders and penalties are applied in a forceful way, construction employers will not respect the WCB as an en- forcement agency.” Both the local and the Car- penters Provincial Council made extensive _ recommenda- tions to the commission calling for a greatly increased number of job site inspections, the hir- ing of new inspectors -with special training in the construc- tion industry, regular “toolbox. meetings”’ on safety and several changes in regulations to ensure safety in such areas as guard INQUIRY COMMISSIONERS . rails and floor and roof open- ings. Of central importance in the submissions was the demand that the current WCB health and safety regulations giving workers the right to refuse un- safe conditions be maintained and expanded to make it a “duty” for workers to refuse such work while retaining the authority to enforce such a regulation solely with the WCB. That regulation — Section 8.24 in the WCB regulations — has been thrown into question recently by proposed Board amendments which would place, enforcement of the regulation . in the hands of. arbitrators or the Labor Relations Board, a proposal which has. been universally condemned by trade ' unionists. Jim Biddle, secretary of Local 115 of the Operating Engineers, told the commission Friday that if the WCB is allowed to shift responsibility for enforcing Section 8.24, ‘“‘the - resolution of disputes over safe- ty issues will inevitably take place long after the job in ques- tion is finished and the worker is injured or dead.’’ Section 8.24 should be amended and enforced to re- quire the worker to refuse work where there is undue hazard and to require employers to refrain. from disciplining workers who refuse to work under such conditions, he said. The same call was made by Manny Conceicao and Tom Petras of the Laborers Union, Local 602; who urged ‘‘unions and members to get much tougher with regards to the right to be able to refuse to work in unsafe conditions.” The Operating Engineers slammed the construction in- dustry for its “‘profit first’? ap- proach to safety, noting, “. .. while millions are spent each year on developing new techni- ques and new, machines to in- crease the profit margin: .. pennies are spent in improving the safety margin.”’ Employer submissions to Ly Z expected to. issue their report early in 1982. - opinion with a proposal for | committees “‘with authority to | commission have focused pri- marily on the establishment of. a joint labor-management con- | struction safety council. A council now operates in On tario, with a $6 million budget, although it has no labo representation. BE The B.C. Construction Asso- ciation, which comprises 2,200 construction firms, urged the | formation of such a council in } its submission Friday, noting at || the same time that such a coun- | cil could do much to ‘“‘change atlas tudes.” Association president Peter Thornton had earlier suggested | that “‘attitudes’? were part of the safety problem, claiming that “‘there are people on job sites who think that safety is sissified and unmanly.”’ The Electrical Contractors } Association, which also ap- peared Friday, buttressed that | joint labor-management safety penalize workers who follow || unsafe practices.’’ By SEAN GRIFFIN Proposed constitutional changes, long sought by large af- filiates like the International Woodworkers and the B.C. Government Employees Union to increase the size of their delega- tions, are expected to be a conten- tious issue at this year’s B.C. Feder- ation of Labor convention, set to open in Vancouver Nov. 30. The executive council of the Federation has now reportedly en- dorsed a specific recommendation submitted to it by the committee on constitution and structure which will now go before the convention. lf adopted — a procedure which requires a vote by two-thirds of the convention delegates — the pro- posal would give local unions one delegate for the first 250 members or less and one delegate for each 250 members or major portion thereof. That formula would entitle such unions as the IWA, Hotel, Restaurant and Bartenders and BCGEU more than half again as many delegates as they had at the 1980 convention. At the same time, unions such as the UFA WU, Letter Carriers and Canadian Union of Postal Workers would see their ‘delegate entitlement reduced sharply. There have been several such new formulas proposed for chang- ing delegate entitlement over the years but the latest proposal'comes - at a critical time when the Building Trades, which seated some 90 delegates last year, will be off the convention floor as a result of their Suspension from the Canadian Labor Congress. That Federation officers also see the proposal as more than just another formula was indicated by president Jim Kinnaird who told the Building Trades convention that the proposed constitutional changes should be considered ‘‘a gesture which can be used at the CLC as well.” ‘ But at least one executive council ’ member, UFAWU president Jack | Nichol, who is also a member of the constitution committee, has already opposed the change ina let- BUNE ec ee er City or town Postal Code ee Published weekly, at Suite-101 — 1416 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186 Read the paper that fi fink for labor ee 1 am enclosing: 1 year $120 2 years $22 (J % months $7 O Old 0 .New () Foreign 1 year $15 0 Bill me later 2 Donation$.......... SAAR! Bw ee eee we eee we ee ere ee SoS SoS 0 weiss be > epee eb te oe ae eee PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOV. 13, 1981— Page 12 ter to the Federation. That opposition undoubtedly will be echoed on the convention floor in a debate that will not only involve the size of delegations but the policy direction of the Federa- tion as well. Under the present formula, it unions are entitled to two delegates ‘regardless of the size of their local, plus one additional delegate for each 500 members. The large affiliates have assailed that system, arguing that it tends to give unions with a relatively small membership but a large number of locals — the UFAWU is most fre- quently cited as an example — a large delegation relative to its total membership. Several of those unions, the UFAWU among them, have acknowledged the disparity and have been willing to accept some formula which would reduce the size of their delegations without _ enlarging those of other unions. That is in keeping with the overall ~ objective of limiting the size of the B.C. Fed convention. For their part, the larger af- filiates have argued ‘‘we have the membership, we pay the per capita’’ and insist that their strength and influence should be felt both in the convention — and in the policies adopted. It-was with the intention of flex- _ ing that membership muscle that the IWA and BCGEU forced the unprecedented roll call vote at the ’ Federation convention in 1976. Significantly, although the con- stitution committee had several proposals before it, it insisted on pushing through that proposal which would create a whole new disparity by both reducing the delegate entitlement of such unions - asthe UFAWU and the Letter Car- riers, while greatly i increasing the representation of such unions as the IWA and Hotel and Restaurant. Together with the BCGEU, they would virtually con- ANALYSIS trol the convention proceeding and policy. Kinnaird, in an interview with the Province last month warned of the ‘‘conservative’’ policies that would prevail under such domina- tion. | Past conventions have already ~ indicated the areas of policy that would be affected, including tripartism, role of the trade union movement in relation to the NDP _ and any future NDP government, public ownership and mobilization of the labor movement around political and economic issues. UFAWU president Nichol cited Kinnaird’s interview in sounding a warning about the impact both on- convention debate and policy of a Federation dominated by the big affiliates. : “We might just as well turn in our charter and just phone up the IWA and BCGEU to tell us what they’ve done,”’ he said. Nichol said that his union had been prepared to accept areduction in delegation size, adding that he had proposed a slightly different formula which would have reduced the size of the UFAWU and other © - Fed structural changes contentious issue delegations while maintaining 4 size of the IWA and other delega- tions at roughly the 1980 level. “But by endorsing this othet proposal, they’ve made the whole thing disproportionate as hell,” yi said. If adopted, the new formula would give the IWA 198 delegates (up from 110) and the BCGEU some 178 delegates (up from 105), he said. Ironically, the BCGEU will be able to seat the largest delegation! in its history at this convention evel — without the constitutional change: That is the result of a new arrange ment the union has apparently negotiated with Federation offi | which will see the union seated | local rather than by component has been the case ever since the BCGEU reaffiliated in 1973. The government employee’ _ union, which has over 100 locals but only 11 components, opted if 1973 to affiliate by component so as to limit the overall size of the convention. It sought in 1976 to renegotialt that arrangement but was turn down by then secretary Len Guy and the B.C. Fed executive. Bul apparently it was successful ; year, with the result that there could be as many as 250 BCGEU delegates seated. That overwhelming presente might demonstrate the union’s clout but it is also likely to rankle ~ scores of unionists who will see the - rank and file character of convell” tions and wide local unio representation diminished. % A united opposition of “those | unionists could effectively turn By proposal back.