serve

ion of academia
led last week by the
Woodsworth Memorial
to examine the
‘The Technolobical So-
is annual conference.
started when
it, of Lament of Na-
, gave a “definition”
ed of no definition
opinion “man is a
defines himself and
defined ourselves as
because technology
”

himself a “diognosti-
healer” Grant indic-
he has now resigned
the complete absorp-

ida into North Ame-
nperialism which is
0 the world with tech-

ose who stay within

stream of our soci-

aid, ‘‘and are therefore

in its institutions, the

ism is the narrow-

unmitigated reliance
’

ew technology

mankind

He continued, “Therefore as
our liberal horizons fade in the
winter of nihilism and as the
dominating amongst us_ see
themselves within no horizon
except their own-creating of the
world, the pure will to techno-
logy (whether personal or pub-
lic) more and more gives sole
content to that creating. In the
official intellectual community
this process has been called ‘the
end of ideology’ . . . We live
then in the most realized tech-
nological society which has yet
been; one which is, moreover,
the chief imperial centre from
which technique is spread
around the world . . . Yet the
very substance of our existing
which has made us the leaders
in technique, stands as a barrier
to any thinking which might be
able to comprehend technique
from its own dynamism.”

In contrast to this pessimism,
the subsequent contributors all
attempted to set technology
within a man-controlled frame-
work, From physicist Lynn Trai-

nor who opted for committment
to nationalism, to geographer
Ian Burton who favors particip-
atory democracy to Melville
Watkins who called for a
“healthy dose of non-continen-
tal anti-American Canadian na-
tionalism” to curb the power of
the multi-national corporations,
partial solutions to the contra-
dictions arising from the tech-
nological society were advanced.

However, it was left to econ-
omist John Rowntree and his
wife Margret to present a fully
rounded picture of how techno-
logy ean be subordinated to
man in their Marxist analysis
that showed that “the machine's
danger to society is not from
the machine itself but from
what man makes of it.”

In order to stop “bowing to
our own creations” they pro-
pose:

e “Seeing that technology is
the product of hand and brain

of man and is subject.to his..

control;

e “destructive effects of tech-
nology is result of who controls
it and for whom;

e “existing use of
itself contains the seeds of its
own transformation.”

“The truth is,” they said,
“that the greater the technical
ability to control men, the great-
er is man’s technical ability to
control his technology.”

The evil effects of technology
to them exists “simply because
in this society based as it is on
private property and private
profit, technology is not used
for human ends but to serve ca-
pitalist society and to maintain
the strength of corporate capi-
tal.”

Thus, they say, socialism is

the solution. “The radical use of
technology requires the radical
transformation of society.”

This theme was taken up in
the final speech of the confer-
ence when J. E. Broadbent, NDP
M.P. pointed out in
that technology can be subor-
dinated to man but political ac-
tion of serious change is needed
for this.

“The New Democratic Party,”

he said, “must clearly move in a
leftist direction. We must move
away from the politics of the
welfare state to the politics of
socialism.”

He was hopeful that the up-
coming NDP federal convention
would move in that direction
and asked the conference parti-
cipants to send the federal
members of parliament their
suggestions for necessary
changes in NDP policy.

Court rulings strike at labor

LLIS CLARKE

SO many years ago
o’s trade union move-
ed the right to strike
life of a contract off
gislation for arbitra-

© court decisions last
@ upset the balance and
w confronted with re-
this problem,
e Court of Canada
© arbitration awards
isions which swing the
isively in favor of

first case, that of Port
Shipping Company, a
f arbitration had reduced
charges of three members
lworkers Union and
Suspensions. There
Specific clause in the
which gave to arbitra-
S the right to make
tion which it deemed
id proper and on dischar-
ly thing the contract
Was that it must be for
Cause.

Sole issue,” says the key
ph of the Supreme Court
“in this case was whe-
three employees left
to work for someone
Whether this fact was
cause for discipline.
Board had found that
® facts justifying dis-
particular form
not subject to review
ion.”

d Arbitration News,
Martin Levison and
ick, commenting on
Said this:

Opinion of the editor,
ng of the Court flies
of common sense.
ppose an employee
years of seniority,
excellent record, is
hutes late. His reason

for lateness is inexcusable—he
was drunk the night before and
slept in. No doubt his conduct
justified discipline. But the Sup-
reme Court of Canada says
that’s the end of the matter, A
board of arbitration has no
power to review the penalty of
discharge even if 999 out of
1,000 agree the discharge is un-
just.

“For over two decades, a host
of reasonably intelligent people
have chaired arbitration tribun-
als in Ontario involving dis-
charge and discipline cases. Al-
most all of them have recognized
that factors such as length of
service, work records, had a
bearing on the justness of a dis-
charge. Both labor and manage-
ment generally agreed with
them.”

The other major decision of
the Supreme Court is that in-
volving Union Carbide. In this
case the union gave notice to
arbitrate one day later than was
required by the collective agree-
ment.

The arbitration relied on the
section of the Labor Relations
Act which provides that no pro-
ceedings under it are invalid “by
reacon of any defect of form or
any tchnical irregularity and no
such proceedings shall be quash-
ed or set aside if no substantial
wrong or miscarriage of justice
shall occur.”

The Supreme Court reversed
this stating that section of the
act only applies to the courts.
Their decisions says, “Section
86 does not enable a board of
arbitration, as the majority
thought in this case, to ignore
the plain and emphatic language
of the written contract. ,.. In
this case there is the only pos-
sible finding of the board that
the union had not complied with
the grievance procedure.”

As. Labor and Arbitration

News says of this decision, “One
of the inequitable results of the
Supreme Court of Canada deci-
Sion is that if a union breecaes
a mandatory time limit, the
grievance is dismissed. If man-
agement similarly breaches, the
union can only move the griev-
ance on to the next step of the
procedure. Even more basic is
the dissatisfaction which results
from the use of technicalities in
labor disputes.”

Now obviously there are ways
in which the trade unions can
adjust their contracts to take
into account these two decisions.
But far more basic is the fact
that as long as arbitration board
awards are subject to review by
the courts, the arbitration pro-
cess can continually be frustra-
ted by costly court actions and
new anti-labor decisions.

The courts have held that ar-
bitration boards in Nova Scotia
and Alberta as well as those
under federal jurisdiction are
not reviewable but because of
the wording of the Ontario act
they have held it reviewable.

With this in mind the Labor
Council of Metropolitan Toron-
to has asked the Ontario Fede-
ration of Labor to press for the
appropriate changes in the Labor
Relations Act to close this loop-
hole which is bringing the whole
arbitration process into question.

It is for this reason also that
experienced arbitration person-
nel have also made representa-
tion to end the right of review
by the courts, An article in the
UE News pointed this out:

“A warning that the process
of labor arbitration in Ontario
is in danger of encroachment
from the courts was sounded in
a letter to Labor Minister Dal-
ton Bales by 16 persons who
serve as chainnen of arbitration
boards.

“The letter asserts that the re-

cent reversal by the courts of
arbitration board decisions poses
a crisis in labor arbitration, and
if legislation to remedy the situa-
tion is not forthcoming, increas-
ed industrial strife will be the
result.

“The arbitrators suggested
amendments to existing labor
legislation were needed in order
to create a new legal frame-
work for arbitration free from
such intereference by the courts.
Labor Minister Bales has appar-
ently rejected such proposals and
reportedly has given the arbitra-
tors little or no encouragement.

“The 16 arbitrators told the
labor minister that the whole
system of arbitration cries out
for informality and flexibility and
humane administration of rules

and procedures and said that if
legal rules require arbitrators to
decide cases in a mechanical and
legalistic fashion, then the rules
should be

As one of the delegates from
the Steelworkers Union said at
Toronto’s Labor Council, we
can’t allow a situation to conti-
nue where the arbitration proce-
dure is eroded by the courts and
where we still uphold the pro-
position that we will not strike
during the contract’s life-time.

Labor has long known that in
the courts they are up against
the bosses’ men and the Supreme
Court has just proved it again.

So the way is clear—a public
fight to prevent the courts re-
viewing Ontario’s arbitration
awards.

Need tax reform—Archer

“We believe if Prime Minister
Trudeau is really sincere about
a just society he can find no
better starting place than chang-
ing our unjust and unfair taxing
system” David Archer, Presi-
dent of the Ontario Federation
of Labor told a meeting of the
Metro Toronto Tax Reform
Council January 23.

“We believe Canada’s tax
system as it is now constituted
is unfair to the small individual
taxpayer.

“The average Canadian family
of four, with an income of
$5,200 must pay out approxim-
ately $1,550 or almost 30 per-
cent of their income in various
taxes. About $450 of this is
hidden in indirect taxes.

“In comparison, the big insur-
ance, mining and oil companies
are only lightly taxed. They

would pay $300,000,000 a year
more if they were taxed at the
same rate as the wage earner.

“We believe it is indefensible
that land speculators should be
allowed to keep their illgotten
gains at a time when the aver-
age Canadian cannot find suit-
able shelter at prices within his
budget,” Archer said. “We
agree with the Carter Report
that a tax policy should ende-
avor to ‘share the burden of the
state fairly among all indivi-
duals and families’, that ‘every
addition to purchasing power,
no matter what its source,
should be taxable at progressive
rates’ and that ‘it should ende-
avour to ‘share the burden of the
of opportunity for all Cana-
dians and make it possible for
those with little economic pow-
er to a a decent ce
of living.”. . i

“PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 31, 1969—Page 9