CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
DAMAGE
SUIT
HEARINGS
violation of a current signed agreement, coincided with the Prince Rupert tieup.
Evidence showed that UFAWU trawl crews in Prince Rupert had been preparing to replace the old and frequently violated oral agreement with a signed contract for several months before the 1987 strike, the court was told.
Union representatives were shown to have contacted a number of owners during that period to discuss proposals for a trawl agreement. Letters had been sent to the PRFVOA and individual owners announcing a March 17 deadline to enable discussions for an agreement to take place.
The plaintiffs' refusal to negotiate with the UFAWU was linked with earlier efforts to oust the union in a section of the herring fishery and to the owners' violation of an  agreement involving
longliners.
PRFVOA INVOLVEMENT
The owners acted not as individuals but as members of the PRFVOA, Stevens said.
This view was reinforced by evidence that three plaintiffs, Ralph Deinstadt, Alf Ritchie and Arne Paulsen, who were not members of the PRFVOA, made hurried verbal applications to join the association a few days after the strike began.
Owners Perry York, Viggo Mark, Milton Bush and Clyde Smith already were members of the association and "were determined, from the very outset of the dispute, to use every possible means to avoid signing an agreement."
Former association president Foster Husoy's evidence showed that "on every occasion when the union requested negotiation on the trawl and longline issues during the period of the strike, the association refused such negotiations."
Prime motive of the owners in refusing to recognize the UFAWU was economic, Stevens told the court. This was underlined by the backdoor agreement allegedly signed with the DSFU on March 25.
The agreement with the DSFU "was to the economic advantage of the plaintiffs and against the interests of striking trawl crews, some of whom are named as defendants in this action."
UFAWU  MEN PRESSURED
Dealing with the claim that owners had been caught in the middle of a ''jurisdictional dispute" involving the UFAWU and DSFU, Stevens said:
"The evidence shows that any semblance of a jurisdictional dispute lies at the door of the plaintiffs and their association through their actions designed to oust the UFAWU, coerce its members, and supplant it with an organization (the DSFU) which they could manipulate to their own economic advantage."
Trawl members of the UFAWU gave evidence during the hearings of pressure applied by the plaintiffs and DSFU business agent Vince Dixon aimed at forcing them to relinquish UFAWU
membership and join the DSFU as a condition of employment, Stevens pointed out.
Extent of the cooperation between the owners' association and DSFU while trawl crewmen were on strike was underlined by Husoy's evidence relating to a "chance meeting" with Dixon.
According to Husoy, the DSFU business agent happened to have with him a list of names which /the association accepted as proof of DSFU claims to represent trawl fishermen. Husoy said he thumbed rapidly through the list but could remember no details.
The owner's president said in evidence he had asked for the information because he "could forsee some of the trouble we were going to get into."
Yet, Stevens noted, Husoy had not even bothered to check out details on the alleged list. Nor did he request a copy which might have been produced to the court as evidence of the DSFU's status in the trawl fleet.
MEMBERSHIP PROVED
In fact, none of the plaintiffs presented concrete evidence in-
dicating their crewmen had been members of th DSFU.
Despite this, they argued that "by custom" they had always dealt with the DSFU in the trawl fishery — although no written agreement existed in that section of the industry.
By way of contrast, the UFAWU produced documentary evidence substantiating its claim that at least two thirds of all crewmen aboard 10 Prince Rupert vessels involved were UFAWU members.
And, while the UFAWU produced a number of trawl fishermen who testified about their membership in the union and their involvement in the 1967 strike, the plaintiffs "did not bring a single witness from the union (DSFU), which they claimed constituted a majority, when the heart of their complaint is that they were innocent victims of a jurisdictional dispute," Stevens noted.
DSFU 'MANIPULATED'
Earlier, Rankin told the court: "Far from being a jurisdictional dispute between the DSFU and the UFAWU, the strike was clearly a bitterly contested fight between the plaintiffs and the defendants in terms of applying economic force, one against the other ...
"That there were elements of the DSFU involved is, of course, not denied . . . Basically these (DSFU) people were being manipulated by the plaintiffs in the economic fight.*'
Rankin also noted it was "much more economical" for the owners to sign with the DSFU than with the UFAWU." But for the owners to claim that they were bound by custom or in any other way to the DSFU was "to fly completely in the face of facts."
Rankin pointed to Husoy's testimony that no agreement with the DSFU was in effect at the time and that the alleged agreement subsequently arrived at was signed "on the basis of a hurried-up situation" while trawl crewmen were manning the picket lines.
Vessel owners "chose the course
i
John Rutka photo
Prince Rupert Fishing Vessel Owners Association president George Howe (left) and vessel owner Clyde Smith are pictured leaving Vancouver Courthouse where final arguments were heard this week in the damage suit against the UFAWU launched by a group of Prince Rupert trawler owners. Smith, owner of the Zapora, is a plaintiff in the case. Howe is not, but his attendance in court attests to the association's close interest.
of their own economic harm and steered a steady course in that direction, despite every opportunity to sit down and negotiate
RELATIONSHIP CLEAR
Rankin argued extensively in support of the union's contention that an employer-employee relationship clearly exists between trawl fishermen and vessel owners.
The owners held that no such relationship exists and, consequently, actions of the UFAWU and its members had been a violation of the provincial Trade Un-ions Act.
The status of commercial fish-men, working on a share basis.
Rankin said, differs in no wa from that of other groups employed on piecework rates or for commissions, and who are recognized as being employees.
In addition, he pointed ou' fishermen are recognized as era ployees under a number of statutes, including the Combine Investigation Act, Unemployment Insurance Act, and for the pur pose of the Labor Relations Ac
The owners' status as employer within the meaning of the act i. confirmed by recognition of their responsibility to determine how all facets of the fishing operation in which they are engaged are conducted, and in their power to hire and replace crews.
1970 Models
A
All Glass
Stem to Stern
Inn
DURING
(BUILT BY BEAVER GLASS HULLS LTD.)
BEAVER GLASS HULLS LTD
1242 BRIDGEPORT ROAD RICHMOND, B.C.
Bus: 273-3981 Dave Palmer Res: 263-5443
ALBION BOAT WORKS LTD
23284 McKAY ST., R.R. No. 1
HANEY, B.C.
Bus: 463-9727 Don Puska Res: 462-7505
THE FISHERMAN
FEBRUARY 20, 1970