B.C. FEDERATION STATEMENT

Labor code ‘potentially disastrous’

The B.C. Federation of Labor Voiced its opposition to the new labor legislation early Tuesday and Made it clear that “unless it is drastically amended, will cause in- Creased labor unrest in. the province.”

In a press conference Tuesday following a lengthy meeting of Federation officers and represen- tatives of the Canadian Labor Congress, the Federation stated that “the government has departed drastically from the policies of the New Democratic Party as es- tablished in convention and from the spirit of the eight-point Program in the 1972 election cam- Paign.”’

Secretary Ray Haynes characterized some of the changes as “beyond belief’’ and referred

Specifically to the placing of un-'

Precedented powers in fhe hands of the Labor Relations Board Which will be dominated by Professional people and employer Tepresentatives.

The Federation urged all MLAs to press for amendments in keep-

‘Ing with the stated policy of the

‘DP as adopted by several conven- tions and stated that unless sub- Stantial amendments are made, that the proposed Labor Code Should be referred to the €gislature’s standing committee On labor ‘‘to make clear the poten-

tially “disastrous implications of

Many sections of the Code.” A preliminary analysis of the

_ Sgislation was also prepared by

the Federation, the text of which follows:

Unorganized

~. While the proposed legislation

Contains some useful provisions to aSsist unions to extend trade union ganization to unorganized Workers, there are serious inade- quacies, combined with provisions Which negate the value of some of

BILL KING

“ quprovements. Beginning with

aeons which still exclude, asa without justification, and jj nN, agricultural workers Beet professionals, the [ae Code would still make t pon picketing, a vital dustries, Hea ears

we Provision is made requiring ney abe when rejecting a unit as a8 to ee to advise the union Nor, it at is the appropriate unit; sion appears, will there be provi- 0 provide lists of employees bee seeking certification. on ¢o c S to tighten up restrictions Pany unions were ignored.

Oard can still permit

Wette e

em - sgployers to try to defeat union

SSSSSES ESSE SESSA ASSEN

organizing by raising wages without the consent of the union.

While such provisions as those permitting one-person units, allow- ing ‘certification votes based on application by 35 per cent of the employees and improved protec- tion against unfair labor practices are all potentially helpful, the un- satisfactory structure of the proposed Board can largely offset these improvements. On balance, the proposed Code does not appear to significantly assist in organizing the many unorganized workers in the province.

Board Powers

To our knowledge, never have such sweeping powers been given to any Labor Relations Board. The powers granted to the defunct Mediation Commission pale in comparison.

Among the powers given to the Board -which we believe to be ex- tremely dangerous are the power to form councils of trade unions for bargaining purposes, irrespective of the wishes of the workers in- volved; the power to decide if national agreements are to be in effect in B.C.; the power to have panels, even one-man _ panels, decide all questions of law; the power (referred to subsequently) of life and death over a strike through the power to restrict or prohibit picketing; the power given to each member to exercise the considerable powers of a Public Inquiry Commissioner and (highly offensive to labor) the power to in- trude into the internal affairs of a trade union.

In addition to all of these sweep- ing powers, there are no democratic checks. There are no provisions that management and labor nominees are genuinely representative; there are no specific terms of appointment, such as a two or three year term, and there is a structure which means that the majority of the Board consists of people who are not trade unionists and. who have no connection with the hundreds of thousands .of people over whose future they have control.

While we appreciate the efforts in the Code to get labor matters out of the courts, our appreciation is diminished by our concern over the Board's structure and composition.

We believe that such sweeping powers, in the hands of a body over

which there is no democratic con-

trol, is highly dangerous and in- compatible with a truly democratic society.

Compulsion

In addition to the sweeping powers detailed above, the Board is given the power to impose com- pulsory arbitration in the case of negotiations for first agreements.

While the government can point to situations in which this provision might be beneficial to’ particular groups of people, it is our view that compulsory arbitration is wrong, that compulsion has no place in labor-management relations and

that, once the principle of compul- -

sion is embodied in a piece of labor legislation, the opportunity for ex- tension of its application is ever present. This is a particularly dis- tressing section in view of the strong and unequivocal opposition to compulsion contained in the policy of the New Democratic Par- ty and in the 1972 election

program. ans yiiW be

Rs 6.9.0.6 chimes SESSA

The new labor legislation, introduced by labor minister King Monday, confirmed the fears of the B.C. Federa- tion of Labor. Here Ray Haynes and George Johnston question Skeena MLA Hartley Dent atlast week’s labor lobby.

Picketing

While one or two useful changes with respect to strikes and picketing have been included in the proposed Code, the net effect of the many changes is to restrict still further the right of trade unions to pursue effectively the interests of their members. The continued provision for the extended ap- pointments of Mediators, with the curtailment of the right to strike during such appointments, is a serious error. Experience with the previous legislation had shown that such provision will severely impair the effectiveness of the Mediator whose presence is viewed as a tool to deny workers their legitimate right to strike.

The strikes will still occur, as they have in the past, legal or not, and, at the same time, the appoint- ment of Mediators will continue to be viewed with suspicion. This provision is directly contrary to the government's expressed desire to improve the mediation process in British Columbia.

Existing right to picket would be curtailed by provisions which out- law picketing the employers’ secondary places of business if the union concerned or any other un- ion has a collective agreement at that secondary place of business. Again, dangerous powers are given to the Board to limit. or curtail picketing .where two or more employers occupy the same site.

Finally, trade unionists are still denied the right to secondary picketing, except in a few cases where direct collusion can be es- tablished. Workers involved in a labor dispute are still, therefore, denied rights of attending at a par- ticular place of business to dis- seminate information — rights which are enjoyed by practically everybody else in our society. It appears, for instance, that our pre- sent campaign of picketing Super

Valu in support of California farm workers would still be illegal.

Balanced against these restric- tions, the improvements with respect to trespass and secondary

- boycotts: appear relatively minor. ©

SoU RE RU RS Nh ee Stem

* —— te RN Stig Oe ae

Technological Change

The inadequacy of the technological change provisions are seen very clearly if they. are compared to the provisions includ- ed in the legislation introduced at the last session of the Legislature relating to government employees’ bargaining rights. Under those proposals, employees would have a simpler and more satisfactory procedure relating to technological change. Under Bill 11 the right to strike is almost unobtainable, as the conditions and restrictions are even worse .than in the federal legislation.

We must point out that the NDP policy proposed effective methods to protect workers against the adverse effects of technological change, while this legislation falls far short of providing any effective protection.

Union Shop

A glaring omission in the Code is the absence of any provision that, when the majority of people in a certified bargaining unit desire a union shop provision, it shall automatically be included in the collective agreement. Not only does the proposed Code fail to provide this measure of union security, it undermines union security by providing an opportuni- ty for an anti-union minority to opt out of the union on so-called religious conscience grounds. We have previously outlined the strong arguments against the introduction of this partial right - to - work law

and warned of its great dangers. Trade unionists in this province cannot be expected to work

towards improved industrial,

relations while the union shop is threatened by such ‘legislation.

Accreditation

We have repeatedly stated our many objections to the provisions for the accreditation of employer groups. We have stated and still state that these provisions are an obstacle to improving industrial relations in the province.

In addition, the provision for a labor ombudsman is an insult. We have fought for and will continue to fight for a provincial om- budsman covering all citizens in the province. We find it extremely offensive, however, that trade un- ions have- been singled out for special attention in this area, par- ticularly since the record of organized labor in B.C., as far as fair treatment of individual members is concerned, compares favorably with virtually any other organization in the province.

With respect to the specific provision, we suggest they are a bureaucratic nightmare and will prove unworkable and the source of constant unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of unions.

There are many lesser, but nevertheless important, points which we will deal with in a sub- sequent, more detailed analysis. All of the major points contained herein require amendment if this legislation is to serve the interests of the working people of British Columbia and if it is to promote improved industrial relations in the province.

of the following people: Chairman will be Toronto law

national Nickel and Air Canada.

Employers Council of B.C. Jack Moore, formerly of the

These four will constitute the

The new all-powerful Labor Relations Board will be made up

been the company representative on innumerable arbitration boards and has represented such giant corporations as Inter-

His right hand man and next in command will be Ed Peck, president of Towboat Industrial Relations Association, who will be administrative vice chairman. Peck is an active member of the

man, and Nancy Morrison will be third vice chairman. She is a former city prosecutor and is reported to be a Liberal.

provides that the full board of 10 will be made up by an additional six members, three from labor and three from the employers.

professor Paul C. Weiler. He has

IWA, will be second vice chair-

executive. The new Labor Code

#¥is

eFOAd—¢

} 68589

Se aie

iii i au iil