RBC FIRES FIRST SHOT IN RENEWED CLASS WAR By Ken Howell

Post date: Jan 08, 2018 10:4:0 PM

The Banking Insurance and General Workers Union (BIGWU) was granted recognition on behalf of employees of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) after seven years, only to have it taken away by the High Court. The Bank applied for Judicial Review because it did not agree with the decision of the Registration Recognition and Certification Board (RRCB). It is well known in judicial circles that some members of the High Court have a very low opinion of the competence of the members of the RRCB. It is also well known that the High Court and the Court of Appeal has commented, in the past, about that section of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) which appear to have granted immunity from adverse consequences which might arise from decisions of the Board. Section 23 (6) says: “No decision, order, direction, declaration, ruling or other determination of the Board shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any account whatever; and no order shall be made or process entered or proceeding taken by or in any court, whether by way of injunction, declaratory injunction, declaratory judgement, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise to question, review, prohibit, restrain or otherwise interfere with the Board or any proceedings before it.”

That section seems to call into question the judgement of the High Court in the above matter. But on further examination, what the bank has done, with the support of the High Court, is to begin the process of demolishing that wall which was erected to shield the Tripartite Recognition Board because of its composition, from this very type of attack.

If section 32 (6) of the IRA is unconstitutional as the judgement of the High Court seems to imply, then the Recognition Board will be continuously looking over its shoulder, always expecting its decisions will be challenged in the High Court.

Proceeding from that premise that the view of the High Court is that it has Supervisory powers over the Board, and because some of its Judges seem to have an axe to grind on the question of jurisdiction, it agreed with the contention of the Bank that Tripartism as a mechanism for resolving recognition issues is not working.

While it may not have been spelt out in the submissions of the Bank, it is implied that the Union representatives on the Board seem to be dictating the outcome where applications for certification of recognition issues are concerned even when it is clear that a Union failed to satisfy the requirements of the law and its rules. What the Court ignored is the reality that the Board, like the Industrial Court, must also consider the following when an application for certification of recognition is received: the substantial merits of the case, the balance of probability, the environment in which the application is made, the question of good industrial relation practices as well as all the other issues which the law requires that it must consider. This is because by exercising its right to organise, the union is engaging in the practice of industrial relations which is covered by Conventions of the ILO.

It is necessary to be reminded that trade unions were not always in agreement with many decisions of the Board. In fact in the 1960s and 1970s, there were trade unions who were opposed to the passage of the Industrial Stabilisation Act and IRA into law and there were unions which were in support of the decision of the government to the extent that they mobilised their members to support legislation which as is demonstrated by the judgement of the High Court; is not in the interest of the working class.

While some members of trade unions may be too young to remember the international and national political climate in which these pieces of legislation became law, it is important to paint a picture of the period. There was a cold war raging between the Soviet Union which held up the dream of workers internationally of the possibility of workers taking state power on the one hand and the USA the leader of the capitalist world on the other. With the support of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions the USA was successful in dividing the World Federation of Trade Unions to which the Trinidad Labour Congress was affiliated.

This led to a split in the Labour Congress in the 1950s and to divisiveness which plagued the movement since then. It was against that background that these laws were imposed on the workers of this country. What we are witnessing today, in the trade union movement is even far worse than in the 60s and 70s, because there were trade union leaders on both sides of the divide who understood the importance of unity and solidarity on the job and among trade unions, even when they were using it to further the political interest of the pro-capitalist party in which they were members.

In the last few years, however, the leaders of the movement attempted to attach themselves to political parties in which they were not members, hoping to receive benefits from the false perception that they control or have influence in particular constituencies and as a result they control votes. This is not something that was given voice on platforms, but by their actions it was implied. Some people may be of the view that these things should not be pointed out. If we choose not to, we will be failing in our duty to expose for the scrutiny of the membership the mistakes we made, in order to allow them to review the performance of the movement.

It is the members who must have the final say about the direction which the movement must take. But because of the failure of the leadership to prepare the membership for struggle at the level of the branch, the ability of the movement to counter any attack from the capitalist class is questionable at this time. That is why Royal Bank of Canada chose to launch this attack at this time. It had already succeeded in dismantling the membership of the union in the bank without opposition from the movement. It knew that it could deliver the fatal blow.

The capitalist class understands the way institutions charged with the responsibility to dispense “justice”, behave when it comes down to the business of dispensing “justice” in the arena of the class struggle. The Referee, can be persuaded, if consideration is applied with the right amount of influence and political tactic.

What we must understand is that foreign and local capitalists understand the current political and industrial relations climate. They have taken the pulse of the current leadership and concluded that they are not prepared to take the fight to the employers, because they are not prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Many of them, perhaps with a few exceptions, have come to the belief that all disputes between unions and employers should be settled in the Industrial Court. They are not prepared or willing to use the strength of the workers on the job to resolve disputes.

After the national strike in 1989, industrial action at the work site has been few in number. In the current situation, where the government as employer is going to step up the attacks on workers, in the public and state sector, private sector employers are going to seize the opportunity to join in the war against the unions. You see, they are already aware, of the fact that there is a war which is quietly being waged against the tripartite concept of the Court.

This war has taken the form of an influx of persons who are from the legal profession who have no interest in the concept of an Industrial Court that was established in accordance with ILO Conventions to which this country is a signatory. While there are a few Judges who came from the trade union movement there is still a serious imbalance with regard to the number of members who came from the trade unions.

This has occurred because the political directorate is very much aware of the interest which the current crop of leaders represents. However, even though the situation appears to be challenging, the potential danger which the High Court judgement seems to present needs to be discussed and analysed by all trade unions. A strategy has to be worked out and implemented. The leaders must come to the realisation that the movement has no choice but to resort to the fundamental strategies and tactics with the use of new technology in order to beat back the attacks which are coming thick and fast.