Labor board decision hits workers for backing union

_ TORONTO — Because “‘labor Aidemen on the Ontario Labor Relations Board aren’t account- Able to the labor movement which \elps nominate them for the gov-

“Arnment appointment, four un- ucky printers have been Qunished for supporting the To- Tonto Typographical Union.

The workers, and their union had charged Accutext Ltd., with Anfair labor practices when two Were fired and two others were Nid off by the company. The “Anion brought the charges to the

-\abor Relations Board arguing ‘hat the.company’s actions were Aart of an on-going pattern of ac- _‘vity against the union. - The typographical union, ‘Which was certified last October, ‘\ in the process of negotiating its \rst agreement with Accutext, a

Arinting company which has as

Ane of its owners a member of the ‘gal firm of Stikeman, Elliot, Nobarts and Bowman. The Robarts in the partnership is

“‘ormer Ontario Tory premier

John Robarts.

_. The board unanimously re- ‘%cted the union’s charges Feb. 14 Nespite union evidence showing a

-Yharp change in the company’s at-

“Ntude to the workers after they

‘ormed a union to protect their

‘\ghts.

“The decision said, “the Labor

Relations Act does not protect “Amployees from the unfair or un- easonable action of an employer

IF those actions are not tainted by

Anti-union motive. one

In effect the board said it’s all

Aght to fire or lay off workers,

“Anjustly as long as the boss didn’t

Ao it with an anti-union motive.

jim Buller, TTU president, re-

kets the board’s findings and was deeply disturbed” because the

‘bor sideman on the board,

_{ormer Ontario New Democratic

a leader Stephen Lewis con-

“\urred in the unanimous decision.

Buller has raised the issue with ‘the Metro Labor Council and cal- ted on Ontario Federation of

The removal of Stephen Lewis from Labor Relations Board has

been demanded by Typographical union president Jim Buller.

Labor president Cliff Pilkey to demand Lewis’ removal as a part-time member of board.

The TTU president said the evidence in the hearing showed that since the certification of the union at Accutext only union members have been fired or laid off.

This, he said, is in sharp con- trast to the company’s practice prior to union certification of never firing or laying off any of its workers. Buller notes that in the past workers were retained by the company even during periods when business was slow.

The union, he said, had forced the company on one occasion to rescind a layoff of two other em- ployees and to compensate them for lost time, by threatening to take the matter before the Labor Relations Board. ‘‘We filed charges and the company agreed to settle, including compensation

- for the workers, without coming

before the board,”’ Buller said. The company’s actions the day following the board ruling confirm the union’s opinion. With negotia- tions at the conciliation stage the company refused to accept any form of union security in the first agreement and offered nothing on

wages. Their immediate proposal was to freeze wage levels at cur- rent levels, with next to nothing being offered as an increase in the future. :

Calling it a ‘“‘most unjust deci- sion”, Buller charged the board “chose to accept the company’s explanations without giving any weight to the union’s testimony.” Neither did he rule out the appa- rent influence such a prestigious law firm as the one partnered by the former Ontario premier might have at the board, or at the high levels of the Ontario Tory gov- ernment.

The decision, he said, showed that when workers can be vic- timized in this way by the com- pany and be upheld by the board, all union supporters can be vic- timized. ‘‘The union is extremely shocked though, that Stephen Lewis the employee member of the board would make common cause with such a union-busting company and law firm by concurr- ing with this ruling,”’ he said.

Buller and other labor leaders have had cause in the past to question the calibre of labor rep- resentation on the Board. He cited the 1976 Board ruling which unanimously upheld the employ- er’s argument that the Oct. 14 Day of Protest against wage con- trols was an illegal work stop- page. E. Boyer, the labor repre- sentative on the Board panel con- curred with the decision.

Critics within the labor move- ment of the current practice of using appointment to the OLRB as a kind of lush pasture for re- tired union leaders, say the labor movement should demand the right to make their representa- tives more directly responsible to the movement. They suggest that labor should have the power to recall the appointees, and that in- stead of appointing people who are retiring from the movement, that appointees ought to be union representatives still actively in- volved in union work.

CIVIC WORKERS’ STRIKE CONTINUES

MONTREAL — The city’s 5,600 civic workers continued their strike last week as talks ordered by the Quebec Government broke down Feb. 26. Management’s re- fusal to negotiate a contract pro-

. viding the workers with the mea-

sure of job security they are after was the cause of the breakdown, just as it has been the key strike issue from the beginning.

BOARD LOCKS TEACHERS OUT

SUDBURY — Rather than negotiate with its 870 high school teachers the Board of Education announced last week it was lock- ing the striking teachers out effec- tive Feb. 29.

The teachers took strike action Feb. 6 to back demands for a new contract with the board.

PUBLIC WORKERS CONSIDER STRIKE

TORONTO — Workers in On-

_ tario’s mental retardation centres

and psychiatric hospitals, mem-

LABOR ™ BRIEF

bers of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) say they might defy law for- bidding them to strike, in order to back wage demands on Queen’s Park.

The government has offered them a two-year pact with 5% in the first year and a 4.5% wage hike in the second. A strike by 3,000 jail guards in defiance of the unjust law last December produced a two- year contract with wage increases of 27.4%, though OPSEU presi- dent Sean O’Flynn spent 23 days in jail for counselling the workers to exercise their trade union rights.

ATLANTIC PILOTS VOTE TO STRIKE

GANDER, Newfoundland — Shorter flying hours per month is the key issue for 97 Eastern Pro- vincial Airways pilots as they an- nounced a March 4 strike dead- line to back demands last week for a new contract. The Canadian Airline Pilots Association said the pilots will strike March~4 if management refuses to negotiate. The company wants them to fly 80 hours a month, and the pilots are fighting to have their flying time reduced to 75 hours a month.

DILIGENCE AND HARD WORK:

You WILLRE PAID __ \ 5+ AN HouR MORE,

- Public Accounts unveils

By MIKE PHILLIPS

TORONTO — Management of Nhe Art Gallery of Ontario admit- Ned Feb. 26 before the legisla- ure’s Public Accounts Commit- \ee they have blown some $35,000 Of the taxpayers’ dough in their id to stop union organizing at the

ery.

_ Fraser Elliot, chairmain of ~AGO's Board of Directors and AGO chief executive officer Wil- ‘\iam Withrow told the committee “that in the year ending March 31, 1979 they had paid ovt $12,000 in legal fees as a result of matters

‘arising from a drive by the Cana- _ dian Union of Public Employees “to organize Gallery workers, and ~ $23,000 so far this year in their

response to the successful cam-

" paign by the Ontario Public Ser-

_ vice Employees Union (OPSEU).

_ CUPE failed in its earlier organiz- . ing attempt. ;

Elliott also told the committee

"that a federal grant from the |

Department of National _ Museums of $8,000 was used to _ commission the notorious Field ! Management Resources Ltd., to conduct a series of ‘‘how-to- _- bust-the-union’’ seminars for Gal-

lery management and super- vision.

Elliott denied the money was spent for union-busting purposes saying the federal grant was for management training. He also denied that AGO had hired legal aid to help stop the OPSEU drive. The lawyers he said Were hired to advise management how to relate properly during an organizing drive.

However Field describes its two-day seminars as ‘‘Strategies to stay Union-Free’’ and its ser- vices aS “‘a Management con- sultant firm specializing in per- sonnel practices and helping to preserve their non-union status.”’

OPSEU representatives also attended the committee hearings prepared to present a brief out- lining their concerns in the man- ner in which a public-funded in- stitution like the AGO is using these funds to engage in illegal ac- tivity and union busting.

But, the committee chairman refused to hear the OPSEU presentation on the grounds it would ‘‘set a bad precedent’’ by allowing the public to make sub- missions. He was_ upheid throughout the hearing by Liberal

MPP David Peterson and the Tory members on the all-party committee who were anxious to keep the inquiry strictly focussed on a superficial examination of AGO’s bookkeeping practices.

-He refused OPSEU'’ s bid to tes- tify even though the union’s re- search director Martin Sara pointed out ‘‘we’ re not asking this committee to pass judgement ona union-management dispute. We're here because we believe the AGO has made serious financial expenditures from the public trough we feel ought not be made.”

Opposition New Democratic Party members on the committee challenged the chairman’s ruling. However the committee was evenly split and the chairman cast the deciding vote to uphold his ruling to exclude OPSEU’s tes- timony.

_ Had it been presented, the brief would have show that contrary to the myth that AGO exists because of the generosity of corporations and wealthy citizens, the gallery depends mostly on public funds to exist.

During 1978, AGO. received $4,085,153 from the Ontario government and $628,429 from

Gallery scandal

other public agencies for a total operating budget of $5,412,820.

OPSEU showed that the gal- lery had been found guilty by the Ontario Labor Relations Board on six unfair labor practices charges and that between the June 5, 1978, start of the OPSEU organizing campaign and Dept. 4, 1979 ‘‘no fewer than 11 unfair labor practices charges were filed by the union.” »

The charges, the brief said “‘in- volved several instances of intimidation by the employer in an attempt to coerce employees to stop their organizing activity and to refrain from becoming members of the union.”

The union brief called on the

"government to exercise more di-

rect control over AGO and that ‘tat least AGO management should receive a stern public warning that recipients of public largess must comply with public policy.”

The brief said, ‘‘just as government exercises control over the behavior of the other agencies it supports, ‘so too should it exercise control over the cultural agencies which depend on it for funds.”

OPSEU representative Pauline Anidjar criticized the chairman for restricting the hearing to such a ‘“‘narrow focus’’ but pointed out, that ‘‘for once, someone from the AGO has admitted that yes — they are guilty of unfair labor practices.”’

Though this admission of guilt exposed the anti-union behavior of AGO management, the com- mittee hearing is not expected to have taught the ‘‘old boy net- work’’ running the gallery any lessons about public accountabili- ty.

A recent memorandum from William Withrow to AGO staff dated Jan. 20, 1980 reflects how those whorun the gallery see their role relative to the public. Dis- cussing what priorities the gallery should set itself in the coming period, Withrow said, ‘‘although elitism has gone out of style let us hope that our sense ofresponsibil- ity and our quest for excellence is still very much with us. To my mind it would be a dereliction of our duty to permit public opinion — as determined by the in- creasingly popular poll — to dic- tate our priorities.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 7, 1980—Page 5