¹ “Pressure Group Demands and the Struggle for Organizational Status: The Case of Organized Labour in Canada,” this Journal (1970), 56–72.

² Kwavnick, , Organized Labour and Pressure Politics: The Canadian Labour Congress 1956–1968 (Montreal and London, 1972)Google Scholar especially chap. 5.

³ This organization is known in French as the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN).

⁴ Kwavnick, Organized Labour and Pressure Politics, 123–33.

⁵ Union A is said to be “raiding” Union B when Union A's organizers attempt to convince workers already organized and represented by Union B to switch their allegiance to Union A.

⁶ For example, the following taken from the Report of the Executive Council to the Sixth Constitutional Convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (Ottawa, 1966), 17:

“During the year 1964 the Confederation of National Trade Unions launched a major general program of raiding against Canadian Labour Congress affiliates…

Officers of the Congress and the Quebec Federation of Labour decided to establish a jointly-controlled team of organizers directed by a Co-ordinator, which would be mobile enough to serve as a defensive force wherever raids occurred…

During the early stages of the opposition's raiding activity substantial inroads were made on the membership of Congress affiliates. More than 10,000 members were lost during this period. By the end of 1964 the counter measures taken by the Congress and the Quebec Federation of Labour had begun to take effect. In spite of continued vigorous activity on the part of the CNTU, the unions under attack, with the assistance of the flying squads of organizers from the special team, were able to bring the string of successful raids to a halt…

The activity of the special team was not confined to defensive activity. In several cases raids against the CNTU were undertaken, which, although not always successful, indicated very clearly that the CNTU is far from invulnerable…

At the end of the year there were signs of an increase in the tempo of raiding activity by the CNTU and it has become necessary to set up defence programs on behalf of members of affiliate unions in very strategically important bargaining units, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the railways.”

⁷ Canadian Labour Congress, Report of the Executive Council to the Seventh Constitutional Convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (Ottawa, 1968), 3—4.Google Scholar

⁸ The Public Service Alliance was formed in 1966, following the introduction of collective bargaining in the public service, by the merger of previously existing organizations. These organizations (the Civil Service Association of Canada and the Civil Service Federation of Canada) had been in existence for many years.

⁹ In fact, the Public Service Alliance is an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress.

¹⁰ Le Devoir, 4 February, 1970, p. 3.

¹¹ Le Devoir, 7 February, 1970, p. 1.

¹² Parity committees in Quebec are empowered to establish minimum wage rates for various trades in different parts of the province. Their rationale lies in the traditional Roman Catholic social philosophy of Quebec and their original purpose was to ensure the payment of a “just wage” in accordance with the various papal encyclicals on the subject.

¹³ Order-in-Council P.C. 1970–492 dated 17 March, 1970.

¹⁴ Le Devoir, 28 March, 1970, p. 2.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Le Devoir, 30 March, 1970, p. 4. This editorial is cited in detail because it appears that the government's offer of 6 April was made with one eye on its recommendations. The probable reasons which prompted the government to make this offer are discussed later.

¹⁷ Treasury Board press release, 7 April, 1970 (mimeo).

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Le Devoir, 8 April, 1970, p. 1.

²⁰ This view was shared by others, see Le Devoir, 13 April, 1970, p. 4, and 8 June, 1970, p. 2. In April 1971, the CNTU published a small book on the affair by a member of its Secrétariat d'action politique, Pierre Vadeboncoeur, entitled 366 Jours et tant qu'il en faudra. The book dwells exclusively on the issue of preserving the bargaining unit as the stumbling block to an agreement with the government.

²¹ Le Devoir, 13 April, 1970, p. 3.

²² Le Devoir, 10 April, 1970, p. 3.

²³ Le Devoir, 13 April, 1970, p. 4.

²⁴ CLC news release, 21 April, 1970 (mimeo).

²⁵ Post Office Department news release, 17 December, 1970 (mimeo).

²⁶ Strike pay alone was costing the CNTU over $12,000 per week.

²⁷ Le Devoir, 30 December, 1970, p. 4. Also La Presse, 29 December, 1970.

²⁸ Le Devoir, 10 February, 1971, p. 1.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 1 and 2.

³⁰ Le Devoir, 16 February, 1971, p. 6.

³¹ Le Devoir, 17 February 1971, p. 10.

³² It was also during this period (January 1971 to June 1972) that the position of the CNTU leadership changed from one of staunch opposition to separatism [see Jones, Richard, Community in Crisis: French-Canadian Nationalism in Perspective (Toronto, 1972)Google Scholar, chap, III] to one favouring separatism. In September 1972, the CNTU refused to issue a policy statement on the forthcoming federal general election on the grounds that federal elections are “irrelevant” to Quebec.

³³ Organized Labour and Pressure Politics, 145–66.

³⁴ Globe and Mail, 10 June, 1972, p. 12.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Similarly, the public service strike of May 1972 has been another milestone in the social development of Quebec although the direction in which it will lead is thus far uncertain.

³⁷ The particular vulnerability of the union member to abuses of trust on the part of union leaders has been generally recognized, inside the labour movement as well as outside it. At its 1970 convention, the Canadian Labour Congress established a review board to deal with complaints of individual union members against their leaders. The board was established in spite of the opposition of the CLC leadership which was able, nevertheless, to emasculate it by gaining acceptance of an amendment which stipulated that all members of the board would be chosen from within the CLC itself. The establishment of review boards to protect the union member from his leaders has also been recommended in Ontario by the late Mr Justice Rand, I.C., Royal Commission Inquiry into Labour Disputes (Toronto, 1968), 57, 92–4Google Scholar; and at the federal level by Woods, H.D., Canadian Industrial Relations: The Report of the Task Force on Labour Relations (Ottawa, 1969), 101–5 and 149–52.Google Scholar