.

_ too many had seen hard-won benefits - obtained on the collective

THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

In a hard-hitting address to the Annual Meeting of the New Democratic Party’s South Okanagan Constituency Association, J. Clayton Walls, International assistant direc- tor of organization, stated the labour movement is interested in government and politics to protect immediate self-inter- ests and to give expression to public policy goals.

“These two reasons,’ he stated, “provide the motiva- tion that drives the trade union movement to political action in order to obtain its objectives.”

He ridiculed those critics who claim that unionism and politics don’t mix by pointing ont that there is scarcely a phase of wages, hours, work- ing conditions, labour- man- agement relations, the opera- tions of unions, and the gen- eral social and economic wel- fare which government action and legislation does not affect, in one way or another.

He added that the labour movement has no intention of making politics its main busi- ness nor do its leaders desire to control any political party.

He stated that labour’s alignment with the New De- mocratic Party resulted be- cause their aims and objec- tives were similar.

“Unions have found through sad exverience,” he said, “that the old-line parties, and their off-shoots (Social Credit, ete.) are the political arm of big business. Manage- ment-oriented legislation is proof positive that these par- ties are the instruments of business,”

POLITICAL FRONT

He stressed the fact that on occasions labour

bargaining front, vanish a stroke of the pen

on the political front.

ae

Z

To back his argument, he

cited a number of concrete examples of business-oriented

lation put into force by present government of

for the employers to attack the workers.

He went on to give the fol- lowing comprehensive report on how the Labour Relations Act works:

LEGAL RIGHTS

“The arrogant and con- temptuous disregard that an ever increasing number of emovloyers have for the legal rights of their workers, to join and form a trade union, has become ‘a public scandal in British Columbia. The em- ployers are riding roughshod over their workers, if there is even a whisper that his em- ployees are mildly interested in union organization. Threats, vicious acts of intimi- dation, coercion, bribery and firings are used to create an aura of fear and submission to the boss’ wishes.

“In practically every plant or camp the Union has or- ganized in the past five years, our organizers have met with this massive anti-union cam- paign promoted and planned by the employers to defeat union organization. All this, in spite of so-called protec- tive legislation.

“Because the employers’ anti-union offensive has been partly successful, their cam- paigns have gained momen- tum. This has brought into sharp focus many deficiencies and inadequacies in many provisions of the British Col- umbia Labour Relations Act. This legislation is ineffective in curbing the employers’ ille- gal interference with union organization and in protecting the workers against the many malicious onslaughts on their rights.

“There are some _ high- sounding sections in the B.C. Labour Relations Act that, on the surface, would appear to give a measure of protec- tion to workers and unions against unfair labour prac- tices of unserupulous employ- ers.

The Act, Section 3 (1) says: “Every employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to partici- pate in its lawful activities.”

WALLS SCORES LABOUR BOARD IN KELOWNA POLITICAL ADDRESS

(c) Seek by intimidation,

by dismissal, by threat of:

dismissal, or by any other kind of threat, or by the im- position of a penalty, or by a promise, or by a wage in- crease, or by altering any other terms of employment, or by any other means, to compel or to induce an em- ployee to refrain from becom- ing or continuing to be a member or officer or repre- sentative of a trade union.”

“A very laudable, all-em- bracing section of the legisla- tion to protect the worker and the union, it would seem. However, upon close scrutiny we have found in practice, other sections supposedly set up as the mechanics to im- plement the section are load- ed against the worker and the union. On the other hand, the employer has all kinds of loopholes to circumvent the provisions and attack his workers for joining the un- ion. Labour Relations Act Regulation 7 (a) says in re- ference to laying unfair la- bour practices complaints:

“The onus is on the com- plainant to satisfy the Board (L.R.B.) that a person is do- ing or has done an act pro- hibited by section 4, 5 or 6 of the Act.”

“What does this mean? This means that the worker and the union has the total responsibility to dig up all the evidence of an employer’s wrong-doing. The union must bear all the costs to prepare and prosecute. the charges heard by the Labour Rela- tions Board. This includes gathering of evidence, defray- ing costs of wages, transport- ation, hotel and meals of wit- nesses and legal fees and ex- penses.

LEGISLATIVE ACTS

“Contrast this with the en- forcement to other legislative acts. To name a few: Annual Holidays Act, Factories Act, Health Act, Fair Employment Practices Act, Equal Pay Act, Hours of Work Act, etc. In the administration of these acts, when an offence is claim- ed, the Government Depart- ment concerned is usually re- sponsible for assembling evi- dence and prosecuting the guilty employer. In many cases, extraordinary powers of inspection are given the. responsible departments, boards, board members and departmental inspectors, to obtain evidence or carry out board decisions. Why is the administration of our labour laws so different when an employer commits an offence against a worker or the Un- ion? Why is the worker and the union burdened with bearing the expense of en- forcing the unfair labour practices section of the La- bour Relations Act?

“During the critical period of union organization, there

is no provision in the Labour Relations Act to stop the em- ployer from breaching the unfair labour practices sec- tion of the act, either before a complaint is laid by the union, or during the period in which that complaint is being processed. He can con- tinue breaking the law right up until the time the Labour Board makes a decision to issue a “cease and desist” or- der enjoining him from com- mitting further breaches of the act.

“Experience shows that once the Union lays unfair labour practice charges against an employer, this is the signal for the employer to step up his anti-union cam- paign by promoting revoca- tions from the union (if cer- tification has been applied for) demoting or firing the active union men, pressuring or bribing weak members of the crew into taking up peti- tions to the effect that the workers did not know what they were signing when they joined the union. This is done with a view to destroying the union organization in the plant and requesting the La- bour Board to order a repre- sentation vote.

“A ‘cease and desist’ order has little or no real effect on an offending employer. Why should he care? The fact is he has accomplished his pur- pose. The damage has been done to union organization. No form of punitive action is provided to penalize him for his unlawful activities, save in the case where the union proves dismissal for union activity.

“Under our democratic electoral system, a person is elected by receiving a major- ity of votes cast in a ballot. Does this principle hold true when the Labour Relations Board orders a representation vote to decide whether or not the workers in a plant wish the union to represent them as their bargaining agent? No, it does not.

MAJORITY VOTE

“Under Section 12 (4) of the Act, the union must ob- tain a majority vote of those workers who are eligible to vote! Mark — not a majority of those persons who exer- cise their franchise! The only persons who may be struck from the eligible list, under Section 12 (6) are those “em- ployees absent from work, during voting hours and who do not cast their ballots shall not be counted as eligible.”

“As a practical example of the unfairness of this special voting procedure for unions, the following actually hap- pened in the Interior, a few years ago:

Results of the representa- tion vote:

IWA - 134; not for IWA -

“The union lost the vote be- cause there were 274 employ- ees eligible to vote—94 work- ers did not choose to exercise their franchise. The union was short by seven votes to have a majority of those elig- ible to vote. In other words, the union was penalized for failure of those persons who did not recognize their re- sponsibility to cast a vote.

VOTE LOST

“Another inequity in the Labour Relations Act’s regu- lations on voting procedures is regarding the issuance of the voters list of eligible per- sons, used in a representation vote. Here again, in all seg- ments of democratic society — be it civic, municipal, pro- vincial or federal — a voters’ list is prepared well in ad- vance of the polling date. The lists are then published for all to see and check. This is not so when the union is at- tempting to get elected as the bargaining agent to represent the employees.

“The company prepares a certified voters’ list and gives four copies to the Department of Labour. The union is de- nied access to the list until immediately prior to the opening of the polls, when the union scrutineer is given a copy. He must return that copy to the Returning Officer on completion of the ballot.

“Here again the legislation and its regulations are loaded against the union. How can the union check the voters’ lists properly, and if need be intelligently challenge any voter the union may deem in- eligible? Too, we know from Several cases, some employers are not above padding the voters’ lists. In one instance, we know where an employer had added 21 persons who were ineligible. We were able to stop this because we spent three days comviling our own lists. Why is there one set of rules for our democratic elec- toral system and another that works a hardship on the workers and their unions?

“Under our judicial system, decisions of the courts are open to scrutiny. The judge gives reasons for his deci- sions. Not so with the B.C. Labour Relations Board. Though it is a quasi-judicial body, the reasons for its de- cisions are made in secret meetings. Under the legisla- tion, the Board is required simply to make the decision known, without giving the reasons.”

He concluded his address by stating that it was this type of inequity in the law that forced labour to take political action and it would continue to do so until legis- lation was enacted that was

imvartial to both unions and employers.