MARCH, 1978 THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER FROM PAGE FOUR “RAYNAUD'S DISEASE” and dryrooms were found to help.) (7) Don’t smoke. It blocks ef- ficient transfer of oxygen and constricts arteries (likely al- ready constricted in a victim), tg off nutrient and oxygen flow to hand tissues. (A Polish paper showed fallers prone to cardiovascular disorders, and related it to the job’s psycho- logical, and _psysiological stresses. Smoking only in- creases the load on the cardio- vascular system.) (8) Let your partner know. There are too many unem- ployed on the market. One more who says “nobody told me’”’ is one more too many. "MAJOR DECISIONS OF THE B.C.-L.R.B. Editor’s note: The following is a look at major decisions of the B.C. Labour Relations Board prepared by the Legislative Department of the B.C. Federation of Labour. McGeer unsuccessful in claiming ‘‘parliamentary. privilege” As a result of public statements made by Education Minister McGeer in June 1977 about the undesirability of having a union represent university faculty at the ill-fated Notre Dame University, an unfair labour practice charge was filed on behalf of the Faculty Association of Notre Dame University (ACTE Local 1728) with the LRB. McGeer claimed that the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint, because as an MLA, he was making comments on matter of government business coming within his portfolio, and that therefore, the statements are covered by ‘‘parliamentary privilege’. The Board disagreed. The Board stated that “parliamentary privilege’ only affords MLA’s protection from legal liability for statements made in the course of ‘‘proceedings in Parliament.’’ While parliamentary privilege has occasionally been interpreted to extend to statements made outside the Legislature, the Board ruled that “These (McGeer’s) alleged comments simply are too removed from any proceedings in the provincial Legislature, either in terms of geography or of content (to be considered ‘proceedings in Parliament’).’”’ Therefore, the Board found that it has jurisdiction, and will hold a hearing on the merits of the com- plaint. (Weiler; Dec. 20 / 77; No. 83 / 77) BOARD REITERATES ITS POSITION PLICATIONS In the spring of 1977, the Board held a hearing on an unfair labour practice charge. brought by IBEW 213 against Western Cash Register Ltd. Much to the dismay of the union, and to others in the labour movement, the Board found in favour of Western Cash. Recently, the Board heard an appeal application by the union, under Section 36 of the Code, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that ‘‘the substance of the applicant’s case is (only) that the original Panel ‘improperly interpreted the evidence’. . . (The) original issue turned on a finding of motivation, and. . . one party’s particular interpretation of facts which were fully aired at a hearing is no basis on which to grant an appeal.’’ The Board decided to ‘‘take this opportunity to reiterate the policy in summary fashion for the guidance of the labour relations com- munity.” “The procedural restrictions under Section 36 of the Code are set out in the Regulations of the Board and may be summarized as follows: — an application must be made within fifteen (15) working days after publication of the decision under appeal, and must set out the particulars of those matters objected to and the reason for seeking review; — the “‘particulars’’ must clearly set out those features of the case which would justify an exercise of the Board’s discretion; — the “reasons” must include a full statement of the arguments to he advanced on the merits with respect to how the original decision was wrong and why it should be overturned; — the Board shall assume that the applicant has stated the entire basis for the appeal in his submission; (if the reasons for appeal are insufficient, the Board will dismiss the application summarily without forwarding it to the other party or parties concerned).” “Regarding the matter of substance of an appeal, the Board will give favourable consideration to an application for. recon- sideration in the following circumstances: 1. if there was no hearing in the first instance and a party sub- sequently finds that the decisions turns on a finding of fact which is in controversy and on which that party wishes to adduce evidence; or 2. if a hearing was held, but certain crucial evidence was not adduced for good and sufficient reason; or 3. if the order made by the Board in the first instance has operated in an unanticipated way, that is, has had an unin- tended effect in its particular application; or 4. if the original decision turned on a conclusion of law or general policy under the Code which law or policy was not properly by the original panel. (This factor is generally as the most important in the use of Section 36.)”’ (Peck, Vander Woerd, Macdonald; Dec. 19 / 77; No. 84 / 77) ON APPEAL AP- “COMPOSITE PHOTO shows Local 1-206’s delegates listening to merger nae suggested By Regional Council to amalgamate 1-206 and 1-207, Alberta. WOMEN ARE THE FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANADA By Judy Wasylycia-Leis Federal NDP Women’s Organizer ‘‘Woman are the forgotten victims of unemployment,”’ the national leader of the New Democratic Party stated on March 6, 1978 in the House of Commons. Ed Broadbent is the only national political leader ex- pressing concern that women have become the scapegoats for a government unable to. deal with high unemployment. Oni numerous occasions he has criticized the Liberal govern- ment for perpetuating myths that women are causing unem- ployment, taking jobs away from men, and abusing unem- ployment insurance. The criticisms being directed at the Liberal govern- ment are well founded. Unem- ployment among women, in- cluding those who want a job but have given up looking for * non-existent openings, rose to a staggering 17 percent in January. The comparable fi- gure for men was 12.8 percent. As Mr. Broadbent states, ‘‘Un- employment, like so much of our society, is always depicted in male terms. Yet, when we examine it, we see it is women who are hardest hit.” At a time when unemploy- ment has never been higher among women, the Liberal government has chosen to deli- berately overlook the problem. In government documents pro- posing to improve employment opportunities for certain groups, women no longer ap- pear as a target group. Money is being allocated to help youth and native people while women are being completely neglected. The Liberal government is not only avoiding. the problem. There is also a deliberate at- tempt by Liberals to encourage negative attitudes about women in the work force. Marc Lalonde, the Minister re- sponsible for the Status of Women, has stated: “I rejoice as does this government, in the fact that women are joining the work force in greater numbers, but obviously one should .not ignore this phenomenon in terms of its impact on unem- ployment.” In one sentence, this Liberal cabinet minister is suggesting that working women are a _ strange oc- currence and that they are causing high unemployment. What he fails to mention is that between 1967 and 1977 the participation rate for women increased by 25 percent while the unemployment rate for men and women during the same period increased by 100 percent. Finally, the Liberal govern- ment is doing nothing about re- ported incidents of discrimina- tion in manpower and unem- ployment insurance offices. Evidence of such discrimina- tion is rapidly growing. For ex- ample, a married couple in Prince Edward Island recently became unemployed. The husband was granted unem- ployment insurance with very few questions asked. She was told she would have to have a housekeeper before becoming eligible for benefits. Even after providing proof that her children were being cared for, she was declared ineligible. Her only recourse would have been to appeal the decision. It has also been reported that several separated women in Victoria, British Columbia were told by Manpower coun- GOVERNMENT NEEDS JR’S CONTRIBUTION HAMILTON (CPA) - me The 2 labour movement will continue discussions on the economy with business because ‘“‘when the country’s in trouble, some- thing has to be done,’’ says Canadian Labour Congress exective vice-president Shirley Carr. Speaking to a _ business seminar at McMaster University, Carr said labour has much to contribute to finding a solution for the country’s economic ills. ‘‘for the government not to see this is beyond belief.” sellors not to go out to work but to get separation payments from their husbands. Another woman in Victoria wanted to participate in a Manpower training programme in order to become a cook. The Man- power councellor refused and channelled her into a clerical course which she immensely dislikes. Clearly, the Liberal govern- ment has. no intention of im- proving employment op- portunities for women. It is, however, not even remaining passive. It is creating social pressures on women to get out of the work force, inciting fear in other that their jobs might be threatened, and allowing its own employees to discriminate against women. One by one, the national leader of ‘the NDP is exploding these myths being fostered by the Liberal government. On several occasions, Mr. Broad- bent has explained that one- third of all working women are single, that there are 200,000 single-parent mothers working for poverty-level incomes, and that almost half of the families with both husband and wife working had a total income of less than $15,000 a year. He is showing that women work or want to work out of economic necessity and not for the “frills.”’ The myth that women are taking jobs away from men is also being dismissed as utter nonsense by Mr. Broadbent. Two-thirds of working women are in clerical, sales and ser- vice jobs, areas traditionally shunned by men primarily because of the low wages. Women and men are in fact in different labour markets and, therefore, not directly compe- titive with one another. Women in Canada are no longer buying Liberal propa- ganda that great progress has been made. They realize that in terms of wages and employ- ment opportunities they are worse off now than they were ten years ago. Women are also beginning to realize that the New Democratic Party is the only party committed to achieving equal economic op- portunities for women and that they too are being represented at the political level.