Hope arbi tration a landmark rulin

On Mar. 14, 1981, the Telecom-

Sept. 22, 1980 and involved only 530 of the 10,000 workers in the bargaining unit. It was limited to the coastal division and included five groups in a category called “outside plant construction.’’ With 2,650 supervisory employees who, with few exceptions, worked during the strike, the company went all out to scab the jobs that would normally be done by the strikers. This caused a lot of bit- terness and many confrontations. The original strikers were linemen, splicers, cable maintenance men, PBX installers and repairmen and CCG data installers and maintenance men. By Jan. 21, 1981, 850 workers were on strike and on Feb. 5, 1981, all remaining workers joined the walkout.

Earlier, on Mar. 2, 1981, the parties reached agreement on the terms for a new collective agree- ment except on the issue of 24 workers who had been dismissed by the company because of in- cidents arising out of confronta- tions with supervisors. The union’s position was no return to work unless all members were permitted to return, but the company refused to take back the a dismissed workers. .

The terms of the return-to-work agreement of Mar. 14 can be sum- marized as follows:

1) Allan Hope, a lawyer from Prince George with an extensive practice in labor arbitration, was named as the -sole aeeBiaita ce on matters dealing with the return to work.

2) All employees were to return to work on Mar. 23, 1981.

3) By 6 p.m. Sunday, Mar. 22, 1981, Hope was to rule on which of the 24 dismissed employees could return to their normal jobs.

4) Employees ordered tem- porarily suspended by Hope would report to work on their normal shift and then leave. They would receive full pay pending final disposition of their cases. If the ar- bitrator later brought down a suspension or a dismissal, he could order the union to reimburse the

company for any monies paid to”

5) The arbitration was to com- mence on the date of the return-to- work and conclude as quickly as possible.

There was one very interesting and significant sentence in the return-to-work agreement: “It is

agreed that no mention of anything _

that transpires at the arbitration will be used at any subsequent

court proceedings.”’

Hope ordered the temporary suspension of 10 workers and the return-to-work took place as per the agreement. Hearings on the 24 cases were held Mar. 24-30, 1981.

In his 22-page report the ar- bitrator ruled that ‘‘all the employees should be returned to work immediately,’ which the company accepted in bad spirit. This was a clear victory for the union.

The following excerpt, from page 21, explains the thinking of the arbitrator in making that rul-

ing.

“The union itself has taken the position in this arbitration that it does not encourage or condone violence or criminal conduct and it does not expect the employer to ac- cept those standards of behavior. On that basis, I propose to measure the conduct of the employees on the following basis:

‘fa) Is the conduct related to the labor dispute?

“*b) Does the conduct justify the inference of that the employee will continue to conduct himself in a manner prejudicial to the interests

_ of the employer after the settlement

of the labor dispute?

“c) Is the conduct of the employee such as to be incompati- ble with a continuation of the employer-employee relationship?

“In applying that test . . .Ido not see it is open to me to consider alternate forms of discipline such as suspension or reprimand. To do so would be to return to the

MAY DAY CONCERT-MEETING

Sunday, May 3 at 2 p.m. Templeton School, 727 Templeton Dr., Vancouver

Keynote speakers:

JIM KINNAIRD

Bc. Federation of Labor

“JACK PHILLIPS

Communist Party

IAN WADDELL, me

New Democratic Party

FELIP ORTIZ |

Central America Suipport Committee |

Donation proceeds to Central America Solidarity Child care provided

' agreement)

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 24, 1981— Page 12

disciplinary approach that I have concluded is inapplicable. The issue is whether the employee should return to work.”

The reference to a disciplinary approach as being inapplicable refers to an earlier section of the report which I consider to be of ma- jor importance toevery active trade unionist. To summarize::

@ The employer-employee relationship, stated crudely, is that the employee sells his labdr to the employer. In return, the employee

Labor Comment | Jack Phillips

receives wages and benefits.

@ The industrial relations society emerging from that rela- tionship is undemocratic.

@ The rights and privileges of both parties are governed by con- tract and, to a lesser extent, by public statute.

@ The right of an employer to impose discipline is a fundamental right that gives the employer domi- nion over the conduct of the employee at the work place, arising

from the contract of employment. ©

@ Thesignificance of astrike is that the employees, individually and collectively, withdraw their labor as a means of compelling the employer to reach agreement with them. In that withdrawal; the employer-employee relationship is severed.

@ Once that relationship is severed, it can only be restored by

bargaining. The employer is under _

no legal compulsion to re-employ any of the workers who have gone out on strike.

Once the strike commences, the parties are subject to the public law and not the law of the collective agreement — unless there is some provision of the agreement that ap- plies during a strike. (This would

apply to a wildcat strike during the:

life of an agreement — JP).

The telephone workers come under federal labor law and the ar- bitrator dealt at some length with Section 107 (2) of the Canada Labor Code. (There is a similar provision in the B.C. Labor Code):

“*107(2) No person ceases to be an employee within the meaning of this part by reason only of his ceas-

ing to work as a result of a lockout

or strike or by reason only of his

dismissal contrary to this part.”’ According to the arbitrator, the

meaning of this part is ‘‘to preserve

’ the employment status in order to

permit the union as bargaining agent to continue to bargain on behalf of the striking employees.”

However, if the employer accor- ding to Hope has no right to discipline a striking employee because of his conduct during a

strike, for the reason that the con-

tract of employment (collective has been terminated ‘and the employee has withdrawn his services, then it must follow that the individual employee has no

_ guarantee of getting his job back _ | - except through the strength of his | union, again according to Hope.

This concept that the employer is legally free not to re-employ any

' striker once the strike is concluded -

by a collective agreement, if the union can be pressured to accept such a condition for a return-to- work, is contrary to how many trade unionists interpret the B.C. and Canadian labor codes.

But in real life there have been

situations in which a strike was lost and only some of the strikers got back to work. In other cases, an agreement was signed but soon after the return to work production

was cut back and layoffs took’

place. At best, the guarantee of Section 107 (2) is meaningless without a strong union supported by union solidarity, as in the case of the B.C. Tel dispute. e

Although precedents set by ar- bitration rulings do not-carry as much weight as precedents set by court rulings, they do establish pat- terns for future arbitrations, par- ticularly when they deal with high profile situations like the B.C. Tel dispute. This is especially true when the precedent is set by a well-known arbitrator like Allan Hope, com- plete with references to rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.

To give Hope’s precise wording on this key issue:

“*’. . I conclude that the statutory provision in question preserves the status of the employee for the purpose of collective bargaining but operates as no guarantee that employees on strike will be restored to their jobs. It simply affords the union bargain- ing agent the right to negotiate with

the employer to achieve that result

and to fix terms of the employment

* employees in a highly automat

take-it or leave-it attitude, alwat

contract that will give effect to thi result.’?

It should be noted here that BC. Telis a wholly-owned subsidi

alarge U.S. multinational corporé i

tion. It has a monopoly of telephone service in B.C.

gouges the public for every pennyit can extract. Of all the large cof

porate employers in B.C., this oné |

has the worst labor record. Time

and again it has rejected therecom:

mendations of a conciliator mediator — which have been cepted by the union — and for confrontation. With more thé one supervisor for every 3

operation, it approaches every of contract negotiations with

hoping, it appears to break union or make it a docile tool. every confrontation has seen mo militancy on the part of telepho workers and more support fro the trade union movement as whole.

The fight to nationalize B.C. Ti

should be stepped up. The

telephone services in the

prairie provinces are under public” ownership. Public ownership i

B.C. would mean better servi and more control in the interest the general public, and a better deal for telephone workers. ;

Delegates to the Vancouver and District Labor Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ask the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Councils to call a jointly sponsored meeting of Building Trades workers ‘‘to enable rank and file members to make an intelligent and inform- ed assessment of the CLC- Building Trades dispute.’’

Ironworkers Local 97 delegate and VDLC executive member Des Szakal, who pro- posed the motion, also called

, for representatives of both the Congress and the Building Trades to address the meeting.

made by the CLC executive council last month, Building Trades locals have until Apr. 30. to affiliate to the new CLC Building Trades Department or stand suspended from the Con- gress because of their interna-

tionals’ failure to pay per capita.

In retailiation, the U.S. head- quarters of the Building Trades have already moved to set up a

tion of Labor in opposition to the CLC.

Unionists have voiced con- cern about the repercussions of the Building Trades decisions,

VDLC urges meeting on CLC-trades issue

underscoring the need for |

According to the decision -

- Trades department to attend.

breakaway Canadian Federa-

meetings to clarify the issues. Last Wednesday Hamilton, more than 300

Building Trades workers, most |

of them electrical workers, turn-

ed out toa public meeting spon-

sored by the Brantford and Hamilton Building and Con- struction Trade Council. Both CLC president Dennis McDer- mott and Ken Rose, Canadian executive board chairman of the AFL-CIO Building Trades department were invited to pre- sent the two sides of the dispute but only McDermott appeared. On Apr. 20, the Toronto and Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council sponsored a meeting in Toronto . for the Building Trades and in- vited Ontario Federation of Labor president Cliff Pilkey and James McCambly, ex- — ecutive secretary of the Building

Although McCambly did ad- dress the closed meeting, he refused to enter the closed . meeting until Pilkey had com-’ pleted his remarks: He also ask- — ed that the press be escorted © away from the doors leading to.

the meeting - hall during. his B

speech. —

in

Pe ee ee

City ortown Postal Code

> satnnnas : ES a3 8 ©

a ie tee ean ecco eh aie nd Be Re fees

CC

lam: enclosing: : 1 year $12.1) 2 years $22) | ‘6 months #7 0.

Old New) Foreign 1 year $16.0 | Bill me later Donation$...... toons

a

Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186

Reed tie page that ight foe ela

Ce ee ee ee eee ee eee es