BRITISH COLUMBIA

Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations Bureau imposed an_ industry-wide lockout on 12,700 union members Feb. 1 in a move to “soften up” the pulp unions and to boost market prices, Canadian Paperworkers regional vice- president Art Gruntman has charged.

The PPIRB shut down 20 mills across the province Feb. 2 after members of the CPU and the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada rejected the industry ultimatum that they return to the bargaining table or be locked out. 5 ‘4 “Our members don’t react to ultima- Qo tums,” Gruntman said last week,

: adding that the employers had already Ze been informed that the union would

a return to the bargaining table but not until after a local presidents’ meeting set for Feb. 13.

The CPU and the PPWC, which have maintained a joint strategy after the TWA went its own way and signed the three-year agreement, are to meet together Feb. 14.

The PPIRB has since launched a major radio and newspaper advertising campaign commending the IWA’s rati- fication of the agreement and insisting that the forest industry “cannot play favorites with its unions.”

In fact, the industry’s final offer which has already been rejected by

is even worse than the agreement rati- fied last month by the IWA. Pulp

more than 80 per cent by both unions, |

Lockout linked to markets

ART GRUNTMAN...won’t be pres- sured into three-year pact.

workers would have to give up one statutory holiday and to accept pen- sions that don’t keep up with inflation.

The two unions have also rejected a three-year agreement, arguing that the pulp industry itself has forecast a bright sales and profit picture in 1984. and 1985. “But our members don’t know where the hell the Consumer Price Index will be in six months, let alone two years,” Gruntman said.

The market forecasts have .been widely seen as a crucial reason behind the pulp employers’ decision to impose the lockout now.

A report released in late January by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Associa- tion predicted that pulp and paper

shipments in 1984 would rise by eight per cent over 1983, wth exports to the U.S. — the main British Columbia market — up 10 per cent.

‘The association also noted that pulp mills were running at about 93 per cent capacity in 1983. Increased demand could therefore create favorable cir- cumstances for price increases — especially if B.C. pulp were temporarily off the market.

In fact, producers posted a $40 per tonne increase to the U.S. just last week, pushing the price to $490 US. An increase had been scheduled for Jan. 1 but had been postponed because of poor European markets.

Gruntman said that B.C. accounts for some 35 per cent of total world pulp sales.

Employers clearly want to avoid any coordinated bargaining strategy between the CPU in the west and in: eastern Canada where the union is about to begin contract bargaining for agreement expiring Apr. 30. In the east, the CPU has set its sights on an eight per cent wage increase and a reduction in the hours of work.

Significantly, PPIRB imposed the lockout only days after the CPU wage and contract conference in Montreal.

Both Gruntman and PPWC presi- dent Jim Sloan have declared that they won't be bulldozed into an agreement either by the IWA precedent or by the employers’ lockout. :

Members of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ pressed Labor Min- ister Bob McClelland Feb. 2 to “take one extra step” and include fishermen under the B.C. Labor Code to assure them of full bargaining rights. ‘

aa The minister was also pressed to say jj whether he was “listening only to the ft employers’ lobby” in considering Labor fy Code amendments and whether farm- workers would be brought under the Workers Compensation Board regula- tions and minimum wage laws, as dele- gates took the microphones during a question-and-answer session at the union’s annual convention.

McClelland’s appearance at the UFAWU convention was the first for any labor minister in many years. The union has routinely extended an invita- ' tion but it has almost invariably been it ~— turned down.

The issue of bargaining rights, a major one for union fishermen who caught ina -no-man’s land of conflicting federal and provincial jurisdictions, came up follow- _ ing an announcement by McClelland _ that his ministry would be launching ¥ action to recover money owed to fisher- c¥ men and other employees when Cassiar _ Fishing Company was put into receiver- ship by the Royal Bank last year.

Fishermen were owed some $800,000 when the receivership took effect but because, under federal law, they are con- sidered “‘co-adventurers,” they were not put down as employees entitled to _ unpaid wages but rather as “unsecured _ creditors.”

Nevertheless, McClelland told dele- S:\ gates, the Employment Standards Branch would be issuing orders for payment of the $800,000, orders which, once filed in court, will have the full authority of law.

By issuing the orders, the ministry is Proceeding as if the fishermen are _ employees and the province has =", jurisdiction.

; However, McClelland cautioned that the case could be challeneged on jurisdic-

par giee

tional grounds and could cause lengthy .

delays in the courts. Still, he added, “‘it could be a landmark case in which the whole grey area of jurisdiction over fishermen could be clarified.”

The ministry’s stand on behalf of Cas- siar fishermen was welcomed by dele- gates but at the end, UFA WU president Jack Nichol urged McClelland: “If you’re going to go after the money from Cassiar and take on the jursidictional issue, then go one step further and take over the jurisdiction and bring fishermen under the Labor Code.”

He emphasized that in the past the union has urged Victoria to make legisla- tive.changes to include fishermen and to make them as comprehensive as possible so as to render them unassailable in court.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have already assumed jurisdiction for fisher- men without federal challenge.

In response to questions, McClelland

said he had “no objection to having all employees under the B.C. Labor Code whether they are fishermen, railway workers or interstate truckers.”

He was challenged by delegates, how- ever, when he said that he had not heard representations from the union and added “you won’t talk to us.”

The delegates, Jim Rushton and Homer Stevens, reminded him that the

union had made several submissions to —

Victoria and had lobbied MLAs to press the case for inclusion under the Labor Code. 2 McClelland did agree to hear a delega- tion from the union on the issue. Elsewhere in the question and answer session, several delegates warned McClelland not to tamper with trade union rights under the Labor Code. The minister had spoken earlier on his intention to introduce code amend- ments. He re-echoed the theme he has developed in other speeches, that the cur- rent system of labor relations is “‘too expensive, too complicated and too cumbersome.”

? Bring fishermen in, minister told

Sk ae

SHERMEN «ALLIED WORKERS

JIM RUSHTON...union has repeatedly pressed for inclusion in Labor Code.

‘Insisting that the system “‘may not be serving either individual rights or the public interest,” he said the new policies — in the form of code amend- ments which, he said would be intro- duced some time in the middle of the current session — would “let parties act responsibly rather than preventing, or limiting the extent of irresponsibility.”

Code amendments are widely expected to ease decertification procedures and to aid non-union contractors.

Stevens also challenged McClelland ~ on whether he wasn’t “‘listening only to the massive employers’ lobby in Victoria. “You don’t see organized labor asking

for code amendments,” he said.

A surprise announcement by McClel- land that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s independent boards of review would be scrapped and replaced with a new appeal system brought a sharp reac- tion from the B.C. Federation of Labor the following day. :

Federation president Art Kube blasted their announcement as “‘irresporsible and totally unacceptable,” adding that it would strip workers of any process of independent appeal. The announcement also angered unionists because it came only one day after a meeting had been arranged between the federation’s com- pensation committee and McClelland. The meeting is to take place Feb. 10.

‘No new hike, roll back B.C. Tel rates—CP

B.C. Telephone, which is seeking further rate hikes after a year of record profits, should instead have its rates rolled back by three per cent, the Communist Party’s B.C. leader has urged.

Maurice Rush, in a letter to the head of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunica- tions Commission, said the three per cent hike granted by the commission last year was “totally unwarranted,” and a further six per cent would be “scandalous.”

“We find it incredible that this giant monopoly should have the gall to ask for such an increase at the very same time that it reported record profits for 1983 of $86.2 million — nearly 20 per cent - higher than the previous record year of 1982,” Rush told CRTC secretary general J.G. Patenaude.

The U.S.-owned corporation stated its inten- tion to procure an “interim” hike of six per cent in local and provincial long-distance rates and ser- vice charges, effective July 1, in local newspapers.

In the public notice required under CRTC reg- ulations, B.C. Tel also announced it would be seeking unspecified rate hikes to come in to effect in May, 1985. A hearing has been tenatively sche- duled for Feb. 12 next year.

B.C. Tel publicized its application less than one week after its chief executive officer announced the 1983 record profit figure.

The hike, if approved, would raise rates on residence phones across the province. For exam- ple, Vancouver’s rates would rise to $14 from $13.20 monthly, Victoria’s to $11.10 from $10.45, White Rock’s to $17.70 from $16.70. A Van- couver business phone would cost $46 monthly, up from $43.40.

All long-distance calls within B.C. would also” rise by six per cent, as would the price for tele- phone installation and other service charges.

B.C. Tel’s record profit figure for 1983 of $86.2 million was achieved despite a slower-than- projected rate of economic recovery, chief execu- tive officer Gordon MacFarlane announced Jan. PAL

That increased the value of an individual share to $2.36, up from $2.11 the previous year, and resulted in an eight-per-cent hike in revenue, MacFarlane stated.

The corporation owes its profit margin in part to a three-per-cent interim hike granted last year by the CRTC. B.C. Tel had asked for six per cent, and the commission’s decision to grant half that figure came after intervention from scores of indi- viduals, and businesses as well as government.

In announcing the application for the latest hike Jan. 28, B.C. Tel vice-president Leo Dooling gave what by now is the company’s traditional rationale to raise its rate of return and attract investors.

B.C. Tel is aiming for 13.5 per cent, a rate that falls between the 12.75 and 13.75 considered “‘reason- able” by the CRTC.

Rush, in his letter to Patenaude, called that rate “exhorbitant.

“Coming at a time when the federal govern- ment has adopted a program of allowing only six and five per cent increases, when pensioners are allowed only a five per cent increase, and when wage settlements for working people in B.C. are an average of three per cent, a rate of return of 13.5 per cent would be scandalous,” Rush charged. — ry

“Once again, as it has done for years, B.C. Tel is repeating the old hackneyed argument that if it doesn’t get the rate increase, it would lead to ‘serious deterioration’ in its financial performance and its efforts to raise capital for its construction program,” said Rush.

“The public will no longer buy this superficial pretext on which it (B.C. Tel) has applied for, and ~ been granted, phone rate hikes repeatedly over . many years.”

No hearings are scheduled for the interim hike application. Protests can be sent to Patenaude at the CRTC, Ottawa, K1A 0N2.

’ PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 8, 1984 e 3