COMPLETE TEXT OF REPOR

Vancouver 1, B.C.
June 22, 1966.

The Honourable L. R. Peterson, Q.C.,
Minister of Labour,

Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

Re: Dispute between certain locals of District Council
Number One, International Woodworkers of
America and certain Employers represented by
Forest Industrial Relations Ltd.

Dear Mr. Minister:

You will recall that this dispute, involving some 27,000 workmen
and affecting the largest industry in our province, has been before
your Conciliation Branch since March of this year. At that time the
disputants were unable to reach agreement on any of the 34 items
in dispute. In May, the union took a strike vote of its membership
and over 94% voted in favour of striking the industry if an agree-
ment could not be reached.

As a consequence you appointed me on May 25, 1966, as an
Industrial Inquiry Commission under the relevant provisions of the
Labour Relations Act of British Columbia.

| undertook this grave responsibility in the hope that | might
be able to avert such a strike with its catastrophic affect not only
upon the industry and its employees but upon all the people of
British Columbia. | have therefore at all times kept uppermost in
my mind the duty | have to the public to make every effort possible
to prevent a strike such as occurred in 1959 and which carried on
into September of that year and was settled only by the recom-
mendations of Dr. John Deutsch. | have read his recommendations
as well as the recommendations of Dr. Perry made. in 1962 and

Mr. Fisher in 1964.

Since my appointment and until Tuesday, June 21st, | have
had continuous discussions with both sides in this most difficult
dispute. | have no hesitation in saying that from the very first it
became apparent to me that such a lack of confidence existed
between the parties that no mutual agreement was likely. Never-
theless, | acceded to the union’s request for direct negotiations under
my auspices which took place from May 31st to June 6th. Following
June 6th, | had separate meetings with the parties.

On June 13th, | obtained from the negotiating committee of
the union their unanimous recommendation to their members that
no strike action would be taken until | prepared and submitted my
report. On my part | had indicated that with this undertaking |
would try to complete a report during the week of June 20th.
Despite the unanimous recommendation of the union negotiating
committee certain units did go on strike and, in fact, at this writing
are still on strike. | had then to consider whether any useful purpose
could be served by continuing in my position as commissioner. |
decided to continue for two reasons. In the first. place because alll
three parties concerned, you, sir, representing the people of. this
province; Forest Industrial Relations Ltd. representing the employers
and the bargaining committee representing the employees, asked
me to continue. And, secondly because at a special meeting with
the union held all day Saturday, June 18th, certain members of
their committee drew to my attention the special efforts they had
made to visit their locals and explain the gravity of the situation

‘ with the result that production continued by and large in six of the
eight locals of the union. The committee unanimously undertook
to put my recommendations to their membership. They further
undertook to recommend acceptance if the report seemed fair. |
have therefore fo gauge what recommendations would be fair in
the circumstances having regard not only to the union’s point of
view, but to that of management and the welfare of the public.

After anxious reflection | have come to certain conclusions which
I will discuss later in this report. Before doing so, however, | would
like to draw to your attention a fundamental weakness in the
labour-management bargaining process in this industry which
should be corrected if future relations between the parties are to
be improved. That weakness lies in the bringing to the bargaining
table of a host of varied subjects which cannot possibly be reasonably
or adequately reviewed or determined within the immediate period
of the conclusion of the contract. In my judgment, problems involv-
ing such fundamental and pressing issues as the full economic use
of plant and equipment, implementation of job evaluation throughout
the industry, and amelioration of the effects of technological change
and sub-contracting can only be properly analysed in an atmosphere
free of strike deadlines. There is nothing new in this concept. Presi-
dent Johnson’s special committee in their report “Technology and the
American Economy” correctly, in my view, called for the wider use
of the year-around discussion technique to enable labour and man-
agement the opportunity of greater areas of contact and freedom
of discussion in an unhurried atmosphere. That report said in part:

“Basic issues . . . cannot be resolved by a small team of
negotiators working themselves into a state of physical and
mental exhaustion for a few months every two or three years.

INDUSTRIAL INQU

. .. These issues must be dealt with patiently, carefully and, —
above all, continuously until satisfactory solutions emerge.”

This industry has already taken one step in this direction by the
establishment of a-Job Evaluation Committee in its Plywood Division,
| commend its work. Such joint committees must, in ne Opinion, be
expanded, not only to deal with job evaluation but also with such
complex and basic issues as travel time. .

in addition to such joint committees it is, in my respectful
opinion, incumbent upon your Department of Labour to continue ifs
efforts to provide increasing services to labour management com.
mittees, particularly in the field of statistical analyses. A great deal
of time was wasted in my discussions by the lack of availability of
mutually accepted figures relating to costs of production, costs of
fringe benefits and comparisons in all aspects of the industry with
American competitors.

Finally, it is my opinion that if the matters under review before

eel Ce al Se

J

a joint committee in the lumber industry affect the welfare of the _

public, consideration should be given to adding, with the consent

of the parties, impartial persons to this committee. Such persons —

could act both as resource consultants as well as representatives of
the public interest.

| could not, because of the pressure of time, examine fully each

of the proposals made by the union and management during these —

talks. Some of the original matters raised were dropped by mutual
consent, others presumably were reserved for future contract
negotiations.

Although some of these proposals had merit | made it clear
to both sides that it was-impossible for me to deal with all of them
but that | would deal only with those proposals requiring immedi-
ate action and which, in my opinion, if resolved would make an
agreement between the parties possible.

At the outset it became abundantly clear that no agreement

could be reached without providing some significant change in
wages, travel time and methods of plywood job evaluation and rates
for female employees in that industry. The recommendations |
propose in regard to these items have been reached after hearing
the parties and their specialists and relating their proposals to
what is “right and proper,” having regard to the realities of circum-
stances existing today. In addition | must perforce be guided by the
intentions of the Legislature of this province as enacted in Section 44
of the Labour Relations Act providing that such things be done as
are “calculated to maintain and secure industrial peace and promote
conditions favourable to the settlement of disputes.”

MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW:

(a) THE PUBLIC INTEREST

THAT THERE BE CREATED FORTHWITH A HIGH LEVEL STANDING
JOINT COMMITTEE COMPRISED OF THREE MEMBERS FROM LABOUR
AND THREE FROM MANAGEMENT TO STUDY ISSUES ARISING FROM
CHANGING CONDITIONS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY AND THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ASSIST SUCH STUDIES BY THE
PROVISION OF STATISTICAL SERVICES. IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE

TO APPOINT TO THIS COMMITTEE TWO IMPARTIAL PERSONS TO
REPRESENT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

In making this recommendation | would hope that the matters

| have referred to above would form the first priorities of the agenda
of such committee.

(b) PLYWOOD JOB EVALUATION

The establishment of this plan some seven years ago was a

farsighted and important step in the creation of a foundation for
intelligent and rational consideration of labour-management prob-
lems in the plywood industry. Without its existence it would have
been impossible to give any worth-while consideration to the com-
plex problems arising in that division of the lumber industry. Great
credit is due management and the union for establishing this

progressive system. The experience gained here should be carefully
studied by the standing committee | have recommended for possible
utilization in the remainder of the industry.

At meetings held under my auspices, the parties were able to
agree or narrow their differences on the outstanding issues regarding
Plywood Evaluation. | THEREFORE RECOMMEND:

(1) FEMALE RATES

THE ELIMINATION OF THE 13c DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE
MALE AND FEMALE RATES BY BRINGING FEMALE RATES UP TO
THE MALE RATES AS FOLLOWS:

AN INCREASE OF 7c PER HOUR EFFECTIVE JUNE 15, 1966;
A FURTHER INCREASE OF 6c PER HOUR EFFECTIVE
JUNE 15, 1967.

(2) SPREADERS AND HOT PRESS GROUP
THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW FACTOR 4 TO BE CALLED

MANUAL DEXTERITY AS PER THE AGREEMENT REACHED ON JUNE ©

10, 1966, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE WAGES OF SPREADER C