ie

Canada

It was with great fanfare last July that

_ Ted Blanchard, Newfoundland’s Minister

of Labour, publicly announced the three-

Way agreement signed by the province’s

union contractors, the building trades
unions, and the provincial government.

That “milestone” agreement, called the
“Memorandum of Understanding”
(MOU), would have ensured a legislated
end to the practice of “double-breasting”
in the construction industry and a substan-
tial improvement in the wages and benefits
of non-union workers in return for a five
year, industry-wide “no strike pledge” by
building trades unions.

Six months later, on Jan. 31, 1989, the
“Memorandum of Understanding” was
Officially declared dead. It had been
scuttled, at least officially, by the New-
foundland Construction Labour Rela-
tions Association, representing unionized
contractors, who withdrew their support
for the tripartite deal.

The collapse of the MOU should not
have come as a surprise to anyone, but the
history of the agreement and the real rea-
sons for its demise bear important lessons
for the whole labour movement across
Canada.

The roots of the MOU can be traced to
the early 1980s when double-breasting
really began to take off throughout the
province’s construction industry. ““Double-
breasting” is a notorious union-busting
tactic whereby a unionized contractor sets
up a second company employing non-
union labour and then underbids during
the tendering process.

The practice of double-breasting has
teached alarming proportions in New-
foundland’s construction industry. Accor-
ding to Derm Cain, a spokesperson for the
Newfoundland and Labrador Building
Trades Council, almost 90 per cent of the
non-union contractors bidding on indus-
trial and commercial contracts are in real-
ity double-breasted companies, set up to
circumvent union agreements and increase
contractors’ profits.

The situation came to a head in the
summer of 1986 when the building trades

walked out on strike, virtually shutting
down the entire industry in the province
for weeks. The strike was finally settled
when the union contractors agreed to end
“double-breasting,” and the provincial
government promised to follow the recom-
mendations of the Harris Conciliation
Report and introduce legislation to
enforce a prohibition.

But the Peckford government never fol-
lowed through on its promise to outlaw
double-breasting. By the following Febru-
ary, another showdown developed over
the refitting of the Come-By-Chance
refinery. The government allowed the con-
tract to be awarded to Marco Ltd. and

management and the government will join
this effort, it holds out great hope for
labour peace” in the industry. But they
warned at the same time: “If there is no
such legislation (banning double-breasting)
forthcoming then our resolve to make
peace will, of necessity, have to change.”

Government concern over maintaining
“stability” in the construction industry,
especially with the Hibernia offshore oil
project on the way, and growing public
opposition to double-breasting prompted
both Labour Minister Blanchard and the
contractors to react positively at first to the
unions’ generous offer. By July 1988, the
memorandum was drawn up and signed

Miguel Figueroa

Tom Hickman, the self-appointed “Ram-
bo” of the province’s scab operators. Mass
pickets surrounded the refinery, and
dozens of trade unionists were dragged off
and charged by police.

It was in this labour-management set-
ting, then, that the Building Trades Coun-
cil brought forth their proposal for “A
Better Way” in February 1988. The coun-
cil’s brief offered “to forego the right to
strike” for three years (later increased to
five years) and agree to a binding arbitra-
tion mechanism for negotiations in return
for a ban on double-breasting, a certifica-
tion process for all trades, and an industry-
wide minimum rate schedule for all
construction workers, whereby non-union
workers would be paid not less than 75 per
cent of the going union rates for wages and
benefits.

At the time, the unions believed that “‘if

FROMTHE MARITIMES

by the three parties.

The non-union contractors, however,
immediately cried foul and “declared
war” on the MOU. They launched an
intense lobbying effort with their friends in
the Tory cabinet and received the editorial
backing of the corporate press across
Newfoundland. The Evening Telegram,
for instance, lamented: “It doesn’t seem
fair, or legal for that matter, that a minor-
ity ... can force an agreement on a (non-
union) section of the workforce ....”

Eventually the Peckford cabinet backed
down on its commitment to revise the
non-union pay scales in line with the
agreement, and the union contractors then
decided to pull out of the deal, signalling
its complete collapse.

In fact, the contractors and their friends
in the Conservative government were

Demise of pact a lesson for labour

playing an elaborate shell game with the
unions from the beginning. The non-
union contractors who declared war on
the memorandum are in fact the same
actors who in the name of the “union”
contractors had signed the agreement with
the unions and government. When the
Peckford cabinet, under pressure from the
non-union contractors, reneged on its
commitment to set acceptable wage rates
for all construction workers, the union
contractors used the excuse to scuttle the
agreement which they never wanted in the
first place.

There are bitter lessons here for the
building trades unions in Newfoundland
and for the whole labour movement. Hav-
ing been seduced into making this gener-
ous “no-strike pledge” in an honest desire
to eradicate double-breasting in their
industry, the unions have been played
back and forth by the union contractors,
their non-union “alter-egos” and their
mutual friends in cabinet over the past
year — all in an elaborate effort to wring
more concessions from the workers and
their unions.

In an interview with the Tribune, Derm
Cain admitted that “relinquishing the
strike weapon for five years wasn’t done
easily.” But he added: “Blanchard had
made a solid commitment to legislate an
end to double-breasting even if the con-
tractors pulled out ... Blanchard and the
whole cabinet betrayed that promise.

“It’s clear now that mainly the large
contractors wanted to crush the agree-
ment all along ... they just want to con-
tinue to make big bucks by exploiting
non-union labour.” he said.

Now that all existing union contracts in
the industry have expired, the building
trades are back in bargaining. While the
unions will face a tough round of negotia-
tions, they will now have a deeper under-
standing of the true motives of their
adversary across the table. No doubt they
will also be giving some thought to the
inevitable hazards involved in seeking tri-
partite arrangements when the decks are
stacked against them.

Into the vortex: fighting the NATO tests

By PAUL OGRESKO

“At the bottom of this significant turn-
about in Goose Bay’s fortunes is the fact that
it lies at the heart of what remains very much
an isolated part of the world. With nobody
much out there to disturb, aircrews are able to
get down to the serious business of low flying,
free from virtually all the constraints that
they have to tolerate in Europe.”

That comment is from an article in the
March issue of British Aviation News, a right-
wing military journal. The article goes on at
length to extol the virtues of Goose Bay,
Labrador as the site for a planned NATO
flight training centre, one which the Mulroney
government has been lobbying for.

This three-part series will attempt to show
that, contrary to the quoted article, there is a
lot out there to disturb: Native cultures that
have made the area their homeland for thou-
sands of years; a peace movement that is
showing growing concern for what may
become the most frightening example of
Canada’s new role as a vast military testing
ground; and the problems and potential in
bringing progressive movements together.

The 10,000 Innu of Nitassinan (‘our
land”) have lived in the area of what is now
Quebec and Labrador for over 9,000 years.
They have evolved a culture that is at one

with the land and its animals, one tar
removed from the dominant culture of
southern Canada where urban living and
crass materialism have become the driving
force of that society’s goals and conscience.

Like the Dene and other Native com-
munities in Canada that still maintain a
traditional lifestyle, the Innu have survived
the ravages that have decimated so many
southern Native communities. It is an isola-
tion that has been, until recently, a protec-
tive barrier.

It is a barrier now being shattered by the
sonic booms of jet fighters flying at low level
and the isolation has become somewhat of a
curse. The media centres of the large Cana-
dian cities have tended to ignore the goings-
on in the “backwoods” of Canada and the
public at large has remained largely ignor-
ant of and apathetic about the issues
involved.

There can be no question of apathy for
the Innu. They have found themselves face
to face with a military presence that threat-
ens their cultural survival and their existence
as a people. Their land, Nitassinan, which
they have never signed away in any treaty, is
on the verge of becoming a vast war base.

The threat is emanating from Goose Bay,
Labrador.

Goose Bay has a long history as a mil-
itary base. During World War II, it served
as a centre of operations and as a base for
anti-U boat operations. Military operations
declined after the war but as the cold war
freeze descended, and the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization was formed, Goose
Bay saw a return of the American military
as the base became part of the Strategic Air
Command system. During the ’70s and 80s
it evolved into an expanding NATO flight
training base and has become the Mulroney
government’s candidate in a bidding war
with Turkey as the site for a $800-million
dollar NATO Tactical Fighter and Wea-
pons Training Centre.

Since 1987 the Innu have been protesting
the low level flights — they have occupied
bombing ranges, dismantled tactical targets
on the range, and have set up camps on the
Goose Bay air strips. They have been
arrested and held in custody, but the pro-
tests have continued.

The Innu men, women and children have
fallen down passively as police and RCMP

arrived to arrest them. RCMP have sur-.

rounded the camps during the arrests and
fire trucks have been around to hose down
potential resistors. As 21 Innu awaited trial
this April stemming from the fall protests,

another 40 Innu went back on March 18
and pitched tents on the runway. Sixteen
were arrested and charged with mischief
while nine, who had charges stemming from
last fall were held in custody. Among those
arrested was Chief Daniel Ashini who had
just returned from a tour in British Colum-
bia raising support for the Innu campaign.

The Department of National Defence is
currently using motorized augers to dig
through the frozen ground around the air
base, racing to complete a 14-foot high barb
wire fence by the middle of April when the
test flights resume.

Speaking with the Tribune, Greg Pena-
shue, president of the Naskapi Monthenais
Innu Association, said the fences will not
keep the Innu away.

“The Innu people are very successful at
climbing over fences,” he said. “A-lot of
people in our community will be able to
make it over. That’s what happened last fall.
They had the barbed wire fence up. We got
cut and everything but we still went over.
It’s that much of a life and death situation
for us:”

(Next week: “Western Vortex” —
Canada as the “perfect” testing ground,
more on the Innu and attempting to make
links between the Native and Peace move-
ments.)

Pacific Tribune, April 3, 1989 « 7

rape i OY