Labour

_—_——<——

‘Dangerous’ IRC ruling to be appealed

The B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation warned this week that the recent decision by the Indus- trial Relations Council allowing teachers to opt out of their union because of religious disagreement with its social policies was “dangerous and undemocratic” and could have sweeping implications for the entire trade union movement if allowed to stand.

BCTF president Ken Novakowski said Wednesday that the teachers federation would look at all avenues of appeal for the decision, including a review by the full IRC and/or a court review. The B.C. Fed will also be a participant in any appeal.

“Giving permission to a couple of teachers to leave the union solely because they disagree with the B.C. Teachers’ Federation’s policy of supporting a women’s right to reproductive choice is dangerous and anti-democratic,” Georgetti said in a

statement Wednes- A

day. GEORGETTI

He added that if the ruling were allowed to stand, “it could erode the underpinnings of the trade union movement.”

In its decision, a three-person IRC panel ruled that two North Vancouver teachers, Nancy Wasilifsky and her husband Justin, should be exempted from membership in the BCTF because their religious views were irreconcilable with the BCTF’s _long- standing position in favour of women’s right to choice on abortion.

The ruling was a 2-1 decision, with IRC vice-chairs Robert Arseneau and Heather McDonald expressing the majority view and vice-chair Nora Paton dissenting.

Paton argued in her minority opinion that the religious exemption should only be used where religious views precluded union membership and infrequently at that. Oth- erwise, she noted, “the council will be

drawn into the fray over controversial issues which in reality are internal union dis- putes.”

The ruling was itself a reconsideration of an earlier decision from September, 1988 in which the IRC ruled that the Wasilifskys were not entitled to the exemption from union membership.

The basis for the ruling is drawn from the “religious exemption”’ clause in the Indus- trial Relations Act, carried over from the former Labour Code. Ironically, the clause was first inserted when the code was written in 1973 by the former New Democratic Party government.

But it has been rarely used over the years and the precedent has been followed since 1976 that the exemption would only be granted where religious views were irrecon- cilable with trade union membership itself.

But the IRC ruling changes that dramati- cally.

Significantly, the IRC’s» exemption is aimed directly at the social policies of trade unions, opening the door to potential reli- gious objections to union membership on a variety of issues.

The decision also comes at a time of intense campaigning by a religious minority seeking to undermine women’s right to reproductive choice and a time when a small number of people within the BCTF have sought to erode the union shop rights won by teachers in their recent certification and bargaining efforts.

The decision is also another example of the anti-union bias of the IRC and the legis- lation, Georgetti charged.

“This latest IRC fiasco once again con- firms the failure of that body to be at all balanced and neutral,” he said. “The deci- sion is an attempt to stifle a union’s right to democratically formulate positions of social issues which affect us all.”

He said he was confident the decision would be overturned in an appeal proce- dure, adding that the union position “is one upheld by the law of the land.”

Gov't study understates the impact of cuts to Ul

Continued from page 1

The announcement of the hearings sche- dule coincided with release of public opin- ion surveys, conducted by the Tories own pollster, Decima Research, which showed widespread opposition to the UI cuts and a deep mistrust among Canadians over the government’s motives in shifting the money from UI to retraining schemes which would benefit business.

The UI changes have been widely seen as the result of the Free Trade Agreement as the government seeks to reduce unemploy- ment insurance entitlement and benefits to the level currently prevailing in the United States. :

“These cuts are part of the fallout from the free trade deal,’ Sean O’Flynn, secretary-business manager of the 28,000- member Hospital Employees Union said in a statement last week. He added that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was trying to “harmonize all of our social programs with the U.S.”

The changes will inevitably have a devas- tating effect on many regions of Canada —

a fact recognized even in the government’s

own research.

An impact study released by McDougall Aug. 10 stated that 82,000 people in British Columbia alone would face a loss of income as a result of the UI changes — more than one-fifth of UI claimants in the province. Of

8 e Pacific Tribune, August 21, 1989

those, it said, 3,000 would lose their UI -

benefits entirely as.a result of the changes.

In addition, the cuts would take $140 million out of the B.C. economy, the study acknowledged.

But even those figures don’t tell the full story, Wilson emphasized.

“A great many more than 3,000 people will fail to get the required 16 weeks of insurable earnings in Vancouver, the Lower Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island, he said. —

He noted that according to department statistics for May, 1989, there were 12,938 claimants on UI in the province who had between 10 and 14 weeks of insurable earn- ings. °

“That entire group, with the exception of a relatively small number in Kamloops, will not qualify for UI in 1990.” he said.

The government’s impact study “is an

indictment of the Tories’ cruel policies” —_

but it understates the effect, he said.

Wilson said that the parliamentary committee’s decision not to hear the CP’s brief “leaves us no choice but to use tradi- tional demonstrative forms to make our point.”

The CP earlier launched a campaign against the unemployment insurance cuts under the slogan “Stop the Attack on U and I” and was expected to step it up as the parliamentary committee begins its hear-

ings.

In the free trade debate I first heard the phrase: ““When the sheep lies down with the lion, the lion gets up and burps.”

This could apply to the union representatives who have agreed to sit on the six task forces looking into how best to use the monies the Tories gutted from the Unemployment Insurance program.

These task forces are the brainchild of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre (CLMPC). It is a creature of government and big business and is aimed at increasing labour’s productivity and competition.

But increasing labour productivity and competitiveness in the bosses’ game under the bossés’ rules literally means cutting the throat of workers.

This latest development takes on a new twist and helps to sow confusion with activists inside the ranks of labour. The make-up of these tasks forces have some notable trade union representatives.

It's time to decline Tories’ ‘last supper’

John MacLennan

‘the participation of brother White

Has labour accepted the lion’s share of the Tory agenda? Are they content to chew away at a — few edges of the Tory plan for Canada left to them by big business? Has labour abandoned the coalition movement and any possibility of leading Canadians in the fight for a new direction for Canada? Some trade union leaders will use

and others on the task force to justify their own involvement in the CLMPC ~ and other such schemes. ;

These are logical concerns when one considers that both the CAW and the Toronto Labour Council were first off the mark fighting the Free Trade Agreement last year.

The Toronto Labour Council was quick off the mark in protesting the Tories gutting of UI programs by taking bus loads of unemployed workers to Ottawa to confront the government.

Unfortunately, there has been little or no response from the CLC across

Pierre Bcd Seema Oak ce eal

They include: Bob White from the Canadian Autoworkers (CAW), Linda Torney, Toronto Labour Council (TLC), and Jim Turk from the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL).

The above trade unionists constitute some of the most progressive people in the labour movement and have consistently fought against the trade deal and the Tories’ efforts to re-structure the Canadian economy to suit international capital. They have been in the forefront of the struggle for workers’ and progressive rights.

And while these trade union leaders will no doubt fight to win the best possible programs for any affected unemployed workers, the fact remains that by sitting on the task forces these same brothers and sisters have given the government, big business, and the CLMPC a huge injection of credibility.

These actions will confuse labour activists and send the wrong signs to the government and big business.

LABOUR IN ACTION

Canada, and the trade union movement will be among the main victims of the UI cuts.

To sit down now to divide up the Tories ill-gotten gains, especially in face of a reactionary budget and a new massive tax grab, will leave a foul taste in the mouths of working people.

Perhaps the above trade union leaders know something others in the trade union movement don’t? That remains to be seen. .

But it’s biologically impossible to suck and blow at the same time. How can you sit down with the Tories and big business to plan the spending priorities of monies that were stolen — from a social program won by working people, and at the same time] try and mobilize the membership and — the coalition forces against the neo- conservative agenda?

It’s not too late for progressive trade unionists to bow out of the Tories “last supper” for Canadian labour. And that’s just what they should do.

Name Address

Ce

FIRIBONE

Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186

Ce

. e 0 ee © 06 6:0 06 © 0 080 00 0 0 0 0 00 6 6 9 0 00: 0 00 6 60 6 6 010 6 0 00 0 0 0 +59

Postal Code

lamenclosing 1yr.$200) 2yrs.$350) 3yrs. $500) Foreign 1 yr. $32 i) Bill me later 0 = Donation$........

-

a

met |