_. Fascist Labor Labor Board’s BRE are many organizations that I can

aay el

T think of and that I have seen, which ~ would have gone out of business if they had had half the opposition that the CSU (Can- _adian Seamen’s Union) has had. It is a fact that the efforts that were made by the bosses and by treachery to put this organization out of business, and the fact that none of them _ succeeded and you emerged stronger than ver, is why I am particularly pleased to be here today.”

That was what Percy Bengough. presi- dent of the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada, said to the seventh convéntion of the _ CSU in Toronto on February 24, 1948.

What Bengough and his lieutenants (now

n the camp of reaction and war) say today is

_of course quite different. So different, in fact.

_that it encourages the bosses and their agents

in govertfment and in the ranks of labor to

try again and again to completely blot out a bona-fide, militant Canadian trade union.

__ For long months under direct attack by the federal government, the ship-owners and the scab “Seafarers’ International Union” SIU), the CSU is. now faced with a new attack—the decertification of the CSU by the Canada Labor Relations Board, as of Decem- _ ber.7, 1950. ee

Encouraged by the open treason to labor of the Bengoughs, Moshers and Conroys, the ship-owners, with the tacit agreement of the St. Laurent government, prepared: the next step in attempting to transform Canadian labor into a Hitlerite “Labor Front.”

All that was needed was for the boss, in this instance Branch Lines Ltd., a St.. Law- rence shipping company, to allege that the CSU did not represent a majority of its crew members and request therefore that the Labor Relations Board: revoke CSU certification.

The shipping company did not, and could not present one shred of evidence before the board to validate its claims. It didn’t have to. The board’s “judgment” duly records the com- pany’s lack of evidence—and then picks up the old red-herring of “communism” from its well-filled basket ready to hand.

,“Regardless of what claim the Respondent (CSU) may have at an earlier date to be a trade union . . . the Board is satisfied for

the reasons hereinafter set out... .”

What are the “reasons” cited by this august Board in which a number of promin- nt trade union burocrats and faker§.sat,-in- duding CCL president A. R. Mosher? They re the British “White Paper” issued by Labor ‘Minister George Isaacs of the Attlee-Bevin ocialist” government. which charges that the CSU strike of 1949 “was a cold and de- tate plan . . . to restore the Communist | dominated Canadian Seamen’s Union... in ‘the promotion of policies and activities which are entirely foreign to the purpose of a trade union under the Act.” (Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.) _

Ait

e .

a

,EOPLES’ China Stands For Peace” is the title of an attractive two-color 5-cent pamphlet, available at the People’s Coopera- tive Bookstore, 337 West Pender, Vancouver, in single copies or bundle orders. This pamphlet is the verbatim text of the address given ‘by General Wu Hsui- Chuan, leader of the delegation representing the Chinese People’s Republic. to the United Nations. It is a vibrant historical expose of the role of exploiting imperialism in Asia, and the desire of the Chinese people ;for~ peace, based upon the right of the Chinese | people—and the people of Asia—to run their affairs according to their own desires. It is also a scorching indictment of the U.S.

-

China. -

fet aim of

ruling on CSU

All this claptrap was characterized by Percy Bengough as “treachery” to labor, up to the time he became a TLC rubber stamp for the U.S. state department... It is still treach- “ery, founded upon humbug, perjudice, and sheer falsehood.

Just as the St. Laurent “Compulsory Ar- bitration Act” by which the government and the Mosher-Hall union leadership broke the recent railroad strike, stands as a threat to the right of organized labor to’ bargain col- lectively or to withold its services to win just demands, so also this latest ruling of the Labor Relations Board (doubtless with government approval) is an even graver threat to organ- ized labor. A precedent has been established in the CSU case. whereby any boss or cor- poration can complain that the union of hts (or it’s) employees, holding bargaining rights, is under “communist-dominated” leadership, and presto,'the board (and perhaps, provincial boards) will obligingly respond, by revoking certification on the flimsy grounds that the said union is no longer a union within the meaning.of the Act. Wecoe

The board’s report on CSU. decertifica- tion “democratically” sets forth that “expul- | sion from a trade union congress cannot in itself deprive a union of its status under the Act” but the report “does ... give weight to the ‘reasons given by the trade union con- gresses in the expulsion . Well might the CSU say with Ceser, “Et tu Brutus.” only Brutus in this case has shrunk to a Bengough!

Working men and women, CCF, BREE liberal; party or non-party; this Labor Rela-— tions Board ruling strikes directly at you... at your union. You either toe the line the warmongers and their agents in the ranks of ion can be

labor have chalked, or Your un

outlawed by a labor board. ee

_ “I know all your ‘fights,” said Ben- gough at the 1948 CSU convention. “The Canadian Seamen’s Union-is no different to any other organization of workers. and it will therefore not be any better or worse

than the membership want to make it, < Site ©

those words, in the light of the board’s rul- ing, have another significance. lt is the CSU today—it can be your union ‘tomorrow, in the mad drive of reaction for a supine Hitlerite “Labor Front” in the rear of its war machine. ea, It is shameful that men claiming to rep- resent organized labor, who draw their fat salaries from the pay-envelopes of working men and women. should lend their support to. such legal treachery. They and the govern- ment of Canada should be inundated with a flood of telegrams, letters. resolutions from organized labor throughout the country, d “manding the complete and immediate rescind- ing of this infamous ruling. In this way labor will help defend the CSU—and itseli—from the grim threat of fascism implicit in the board’s decree. Compared with this CLRB ukase, the infamous U.S. Taft-Hartley law is but a mild attempt to throttle organized labor. ~ rie ces é

hat the dailies suppressed o

government for “the unlawful and criminal | act of armed aggression” against China.

_ The monopoly press of the capitalist world ‘(including the Canadian press, of course) was almost silent on the content of. General Wu’s address to the UN. It was

given less than one-fiftieth the space given |

to Truman’s threat to use the A-bomb against The reasons for “playing it down” are not difficult to understand when you read the full text of this address in “Peoples” China miamds Hor Peavey cH Oea bea ot oho

_ Order your copies now and pass one along to your neighbor. This pamphlet — makes an excellent Yuletide resolution for O51, 4 Ae ot phe eee

%

becOt esOp Uo @

_ questions only come closer to. hom

€- \ ers” are particular]

- man’s han

__ Published Weekly at Room 6 - 426

TOM McEWEN

As We See lt

A FEW days before civic election day in Vancouver, ex-mayor Charlie “Electric” Thompson, big pooh-bah in the Non-Partisan

political wigwani, gave out with the idea that under his “continued

adminiistration”, all civic employees would be “screened.”

This “screening” idea didn’t originate with Charley, In fact, we have yet to hear an¥one claim, partisan or non-partisan, that Charley ever had an original idea, “Screening” is a low form of individual intimidation, lifted from Hitler’s Brown Book by the U.S. staite depart- ; 3 ment, already extensively used in the US. and now spilling over into Canada as part of Wall Street’s “defense” (read war) program.

About the same time as Charley announced his “screening”, (Chief Mulligan ‘gave out to the press that all his men had already been “screened”. “Nothing to it,” piped the Chief, “I was screened myself.’ One lone cop, whose IQ must have been higher than average was reported “subversive” after being put through the “screen.”

While we have no direct answer at the moment to the $64 question, “who screens the screeners?” it can be said that on election day “Electric” Charlie

eo got the best screening his kind can get from a disgusted electorate. They “screened” him out of office with an overwhelming anti Non-Partisan vote, Down on the skidroad the boys now refer to him as “Screendoor Charlie” since his tenure of office in serving the BCBHlectric (at the taxpayers’ expense) has been dram- atically; cut short. <

Another co-incidence! While “Screendoor” Charlie was intro- ducing his “screening” hobby, press reports stated that a branch of the U.S, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is to be set up in Canada to “co-ordinate” its work with the RCMP in tracking down “subversive activities”, which in the language of the FBI covers

eh from the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the late New

, Deal to quoting from the not quite late Declaration of Independence.

With such “co-ordinators” now resident in Canada it may be ex: pected that the “screening” which in a quiet way has been. going on for quite some time in our civil service and other semi-overnment spheres of service, will now become a mass production industry, geared to put the people, and particularly organized labor, ‘through this Hitlerite thought- control “screen”. 3

If and when this “screening” business really gets going in

Canada the “sins” of the fathers will sure as hell be visited upon the

children. The dead past will be resurrected to knead the present and

future into a Wall Street pattern of life motif. The “screening”

technique of the RCMP-FBI snoopocracy goes something like this: " rs x %

-. Was your great-grandfather a supporter of the Mackenzie- Papineau “gang” in the Upper Canada rebellion of 1837? If he was, you're a cinch for a “subversive.” ; :

Did your grandmother knit socks for the Paris Communards of 1871? If the dear old soul did, you’re stuck in the “screen.”

Did your parents ever make any comments sarcastic or other- wise, about the government (Liberal) war scandals of 1914-18? Bet- ter check with the old man before you hit the “screen.” Those were Some of the choicest scandals ever cooked up by any capitalist govern- ment, ranging all the way from the famous Sam Hughes perforated ‘spades and Ross rifles, to nags, purchased by the government as cavalry horses, which 14 years earlier had been rejected for Boer ‘war service. _ : 5

Were you a member, or did you have anything whatsoever to do with the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion of the International Brigade fighting Hitler-Mussolini-Franco fascism in Spain? . .. You were! You did! Gawdhelpus, that puts you down as a potential guer- illa—and everybody knows from our daily dope sheets that guerilla fighters against our “democratic “free enterprise hopelessly subversive of something or another ~ se te er

Even if: you should manage satisfactory replies to all of the above, you’re not. through the “screen” yet, not by a long shot,- The

e .. . into your home. If you've harbored any fool notions about a Canadian’s home being his castle,” the RCMP-cum-FBI “screeners” will soon disillusion you. ae

Have you ever belonged to a trade for higher wages and shorter hours? When, where, and what. did YOU do? You'll never get through the “ to do (even the most remote “to do

”) with the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, Estevan, Corbin, Nanaim

0 or Cape Breton, Our “screen- Yy sensitive on these events, They have good reason to be. The workers still remember their dead. i 4

Did you support the Canadian Seamen’s Union (CSU) strike, by resolution or financial aid, or any form of support? Are you now, or

way of life” are

have you ever been a member of the Communist party, the Labor-

Progressive party, or any organization sympathetic to the Soviet Union, or to the general idea of universal peace? Did you sign the Stockholm peace petition? j oe ¢ ee si The thought-control mesh in the “screen” believe in God, that is, as defined by the Bank ; Criminal ode? Who did you vote for in the last federal elections? What papers and books do you read, and what ditto, ditto, ditto does your wife read and do? Do either of you read books or papers written by Tim Buck? “Now don't interested in Mr. Coldwell.” eee d aa & 2 Labor and the people in Canada are facing a test—the defense of their birthright, their ideals, their very conscience, against the most despicable and insidious weapon of fascism, designed to turn d against his neighbor. The “screening” of their ideals and

beliefs means’ destruction of the basic £:

and most sacred concept o democracy and peace—the right to think, to give expression to thought.

gets tighter. Do you of Montreal and the

i

oe:

Pie ;

CI junarseoel eu | Re

pace co TM MORTON:

hs ett taset ini [hem

wee

_ By THE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMP. Pikaais Wisma ge _ Telephone MA. 5288 © Tom McEwen ...... : ?

Subscription Rates:

j Printed

nion that went on strike ~

screen” if you had anything ~.

get smart,” snap our screeners, “we're not —

every —

4

ie ah

Main Street, Vancouver, BCE LTD.