The recent lockout of the
shoreworkers employed by the
Prince Rupert Fishermen’s
Copoperative Association has
ey many repercussions. When
one directly chartered union of the
Canadian Labor Congress accuses
another chartered union of
scabbing during a lockout, it is a
serious problem. The CLC has a
special responsibility in this case.
If the two locals involved belonged
to a provincial, national or in-
ternational union, which they
don’t, that body, and not the CLC,
would have the first responsibility
to work out a solution.

The seven-week lockout im-
posed on the Amalgamated
Shoreworkers and Clerks Union by
the Prince Rupert Fisherman’s Co-
operative caused much bitterness
in Prince’ Rupert. The 500
shoreworkers were locked out by a
co-operative enterprise which is
effectively owned and operated by
several hundred fishermen, who in
most cases belong to the Co-
operative Fishermen’s Guild,
another union directly chartered
by the CLC.

As reported in the Tribune, the
ASCU charged Guild members
with scabbing during the lockout
and the Guild was expelled from
the Prince Ruper Labor Council.

The British Columbia Federation
of Labor was involved in
discussing this problem with the
parties. Now, I am_ informed,
Donald Montgomery, secretary-
treasurer of the CLC, is scheduled
to come to B.C. soon to meet with
the affilates involved, as well as
the largest union in the industry,
the United Fishermen and Allied:

Workers Union.

_ Tounderstand the background to
this dispute, we should start from
the fact that the fisheries industry
in B.C. is the most highly
monopolized industry in the
province. B.C. Packers (a Weston
company) and the Canadian
Fishing Company (owned by the
U.S.-based New England Fishing
Co.) control 75 percent of
production between them.

The Prince Rupert Fishermen’s
Co-op accounts for about 11 percent

— Co-op issue vital for trade unionists

of production and is a member of
the Fisheries Council of Canada
which represents, in the main, the
big corporations who dominate the
industry on both coasts. The Co-op
management claims that this link
is maintained for the purpose of
exchanging information § on
mechanical and marketing
techniques and not for any pur-
poses related to collective
bargaining.

As this production co-op is
considered to be the most suc-
cessful and profitable in its class in
Canada, it raises the whole
question of the role of producer co-
ops under the capitalist system and

LABOR
COMMENT

BY JACK PHILLIPS

their relation to the trade unions
and the class struggle against the
monopolies who dominate the
economy. It will be very helpful if
Montgomery of the CLC examines
the Prince Rupert problem in this
global context.

There are those in the labor and
progressive movement who place
their main hope for the future on
‘co-operative, group property and
underestimate the importance of
socializing the main means of
production and distribution, that
is, making them the property of the
people as a whole. Some of them
believe that any country with a
more or less developed co-op
movement contains the elements
of a socialist society. The truth is
that co-operation~in itself in any
country is not a socialist form of
management. The character of co-
operation is determined by the
predominant form of ownership
and by whoever sets the tone in the
co-operative movement. That
explains why, under capitalism, a
co-operative enterprise is a
collective capitalist enterprise. A
co-operative enterprise becomes a
socialist form of economy only
with the establishment of working

class power, when the means of
production and distribution belong
to the working people as a whole
and a co-operative enterprise
becomes an association free of

‘exploitation operating within the

framework of the overall, planned
economy.

Iam not suggesting that we take
a completely negative approach to
production co-ops under conditions
prevailing today in Canada.
However, I do suggest that their
role be realistically assessed and
that all progressive fishermen who
belong to the Prince Rupert Co-op
should fight to make that co-op the
ally rather than the enemy of the
trade union movement.

The Prince Rupert situation goes
back to 1967 when the United
Fishermen and Allied Workers
Union (then an independent union
outside the CLC) conducted a

coast-wide strike to obtain its

first agreement on the division of
the catch between the vessel
owners and the crews. At that
time, the overwhelming majority
of trawler crewmen were in the
UFAWU. The importance of this
struggle was accentuated by the
fact that trawling is much less of a
seasonal operation than say
salmon or herring fishing. The
union was seeking an agreement
with B.C. Packers, Canadian
Fishing Company and the Vessel
Owners Association. According to
UFAWU spokesmen, the Vessel
Owners were (and remain) the
dominant group in the co-op.

The Deep Sea Fishermen’s
Union, a tiny affilate of the CLC,
then came into the picture by
signing a backdoor agreement with
the vessel owners one week into the
strike. Partly as a result of this
development, the UFAWU became
embroiled in court actions leading
to the jailing of some of its leaders
and heavy fines against the union.

The strike dragged on for nearly
five months and the forces lined up
against the UFAWU proved to be
too much for it. The union had
to contend with the Prince Rupert
business and political establish-
ment, a hostile press, radio and
television, “marching mothers”’

UFAWU to meet Munro appointee

The United Fishermen and
Allied workers Union will meet
with federal labor department
lawyer Cliff Scott as the first step
towards what the union hopes will
result in fishermen receiving full
bargaining rights, so far denied
them by both the federal and the
B.C. provincial governments.

Relax with friends and enjoy
Steve Gidora, Keeton, Dean and
Lane, and Chris Urbanski. Bring

your instruments; food,
refreshments, games available.
$1 admission.

AUG. 25
8:00 P.M.
AUUC HALL
805 E. PENDER

-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—AUGUST 25, 1978—Page 8

Scott, who has been assigned by
labor minister John Munro to draft
the amendments to the Canada
Labor Code which Munro has
pledged will include fishermen,

ill begin meetings in Vancouver
Friday.

He will also-meet with various
other fishermen’s organizations
including the Pacific Gillnetters’
Association and the Pacific
Trollers’ Association, both of
which are opposed to the UFAWU
being granted bargaining rights.

Among various subjects in
discussions between the labor
department counsel and the
UFAWU will be the certification
applications made to the Canada
Labor Relations Board in 1973
which, after nearly five years in
the courts, were declared to be
outside the jurisdiction of the
CLRB.

Following on rulings by both the
Federal Court of Canada and the
Federal Appeals Court, the
Supreme Court of Canada ruled
last December 14 that the cer-
tification sought by the UFAWU to
represent fishermen working for
some 11 fishing companies could
not be granted since the labor
legislation did not apply.

However, the court skirted what
lower courts had seen as a complex
issue, a determination as to
whether bargaining rights for
fishermen came under federal or
provincial jurisdiction.

The UFAWU had initially sought
the certifications in March, 1973,
basing its application on 1972
amendments to the Canada Labor
Code which stated that ‘‘dependent
contractors” would be considered
employees and further, that many
fishermen would be considered as
dependent contractors.

Within five months, however, the
fishing companies applied for a
writ to prohibit the CLRB from
dealing with the cerifications and
also sought a declaration that the
amendments to the labor code
were either beyond the scope of
Parliament to enact or, alter-
natively, did not apply in the case
of the UFAWU applications.

In its December 14 ruling, the
Supreme Court took the alternative
course, ruling only on the specific
applications sought.

Since that time, federal labor
minister Munro has pledged to
fishermen that government would
enact the necessary amendments
to the Canada Labor Code to give
fishermen full bargaining rights.

ASCU PICKETS . . . they’re' back at work but the Co-op’s actions
during the lockout are still at issue.

descending on the picket lines in
large numbers and threats against
new immigrant workers that they
could face deportation. First it
lost the trawlermen through a back
door deal. Then it lost the
shoreworkers at the co-op through
decertification after the plant
resumed its normal operations.
Although, the shoreworkers had
carried out supportive actions for
almost five months, it should be
noted that only 40 of them returned
to work when the picket lines were
lifted, out of a total crew of some
500. The fact that the Deep Sea
Fishermen’s Union was an affiliate
of the CLC gave it the official
support of that body even though
many CLC affiliates in the
province were openly sympathetic
to the UFAWU. Later, when the
UFAWU became an affiliate of the
CLC, the picture changed to some
extent in favor of the UFAWU. It
should be noted at this point that
the UFAWU was expelled from the
predecessor of the CLC (Trades
and Labor Congress of Canada)
along with other unions during a
period in which the spirit of Mc-
Carthyism crossed the Canadian
border and infected many top

‘leaders of our labor movement.

on changes to Canadian labor code

However, it wasn’t long before
the shoreworkers employed by the
co-op withdrew from the DSFU and
set up their own Amalgamated
Shoreworkers and Clerks Union,
chartered by the CLC. This
reflected a strong feeling on their
part that the DSFU was dominated
by large vessel owners who in turn
dominated the co-op. In short, they
felt that they were in a trade union
dominated by their employer.

Soon thereafter, the DSFU
changed its name to the Co-
operative Fishermen’s Guild. As
originally set up, the Guild was
expanded to include vessel owners
and crew members on large co-op
boats and owners and crew

Back

”

— Geoff Meggs photo

members on small boats involved |
in marketing contracts with the co-
op. According to an early press |
release, only co-op fishermen could —
join the Guild, but membership in

the Guild would be voluntary.
Some critics of the Guild claim to

this day that the main objective in
setting it up was to guarantee its”

members and all co-op fishermen

the right to fish and dispose of theif —

catch during strikes by the
UFAWU membership.

Now that the lockout of the co-op —

shoreworkers has ended with the
acceptance of the same money

package as that won by the ‘

UFAWU in coast-wide nego-
tiations, the question of the future
role of the Guild can be examined

somewhat more dispassionately

than was possible during the
lockout.
According to the information 1

have, the Guild has approximately —
250 members, leaving some. 1,250 —
co-op fishermen outside that union. —

The Amalgamated Shoreworkers
has some 500 members. The

UFAWU, on the other hand, has —

some 7,000 members.
Because all three unions are

affiliates of the Canadian Labor .
Congress, it is incumbent upon the —
CLC leadership to help them work —

out a relationship consistent with
established trade union principles
and in the
shoreworkers and _ working
fishermen. I am certain this can be

done, but it will require a firm

stand by the CLC leadership, based
on the realities of the situation and

the need for unity against the
monopolies. Any tendency 0
perpetuate the present situation, —

by omission or commission,

most likely be construed by the
UFAWU und its many friends 0

B.C. as part of a scheme to un-
dermine its position as the majol

union in the industry on the Pacific

coast. :

the paper that fights for labor
SUBSCRIBE NOW |

Clip and mail to:

101 - 1416 COMMERCIAL DR.,

NATE RAR NARRATES EAE NESE

VANCOUVER, B.C. V5L 3X9

interests of all —