Volume 13, numéro 3, juillet 1958

FR :

L'auteur décrit d'abord une série d'équivoques « secondaires » du régime légal de règlement des conflits d'intérêts dans la province de Québec hors les services publics. Il rattache ces ambiguïtés actuelles ou virtuelles à une équivoque « fondamentale », qui est l'écartèlement entre la liberté qui doit servir de base à une société démocratique et la peur qui suscite les lois restrictives. Pour éliminer la crainte et pour redonner à la démocratie industrielle toute sa vitalité, l'auteur s'efforce de situer le conflit social (surtout industriel) dans sa véritable perspective, en décrivant sa diversité et ses conséquences utiles fort nombreuses.

EN :

We shall be dealing here with the legal arrangements for the prevention or the settlement of union-management disputes over matters of interests, thus excluding conflicts over rights. The Quebec conciliation system shall be used as a case in point, since it is typical of most labour legislations in Canada and other "free entreprise" countries. Conflicts in public utilities shall not be dealt with, nor shall we analyse the whole picture of union-management relations, since our study is strictly juridical and theoretical in nature.

Our aim is to improve labour legislation in the area of disputes settlement by pointing to a number of ambiguities and confusions in the law which should be corrected. Any body of social legislation which is not constantly improved on the basis of its obvious consequences is a dead body and a dangerous nuisance. It should be noted, however, that the most technically correct piece of legislation will yield poor results in a hypothetical climate of political tensions, antagonisms and distrust, while a less perfect body of laws will foster peace and harmony where there exist freedom, confidence and co-operation.

SOME SECONDARY CONFUSIONS

1. "Arbitration". Our "councils of arbitration" arbitrate nothing, inasmuch as the final award is solely a set of recommendations which have no binding power (and more often than not very little moral authority) on the parties. They constitute only the second step of the conciliation procedure.

2. It might be very useful for our legislation to distinguish clearly between "conflicts of interests" and "conflicts over rights", in order to determine the proper jurisdictions (conciliator or arbitrator) and effects (binding or not) of the award, if any. Although most collective labour agreements do draw the line by stipulating compulsory arbitration of grievances, some ambiguities still remain. The main one is the tendency to assimilate "grievances" with "conflicts over rights", and to limit conflicts of interests to the pre-contract phase, while it should be obvious that many disputes arising while an agreement is in force cannot be dealt with on the basis of clear predetermined rights. Since the agreement cannot foresee and provide for every situation, conflicts of interests are bound to arise after it has been signed, and deserve the same careful discussion and honest consideration as conflicts arising at the negotiation phase prior to the signature of the agreement.

3. The meaning and scope of the word "dispute" must be looked for, not in the Quebec Trades Disputes Act, but in the Labour Relations Act. And care must be taken not to unduly restrict the field of so-called "conditions of employment" nor to limit the scope of the agreements which the parties are allowed to reach, with a view to reducing the possibilities of conflict.

4. "Equity and good conscience" are resorted to only when the law is silent or ambiguous. They are mere natural justice and common sense. And since objective economic criteria are lacking, on the whole, for the "council of arbitration" to make a scientifically-based award, it should be kept in mind that "equity and good conscience" will permit only an approximation of justice.

5. Being the first step in a compulsory procedure, the conciliation officer does not have an easy job, especially when the parties are powerhouses in strategic bargaining centers and are expected to create patterns which will be followed by an industry or a region. True, he intervenes only when direct negotiations break, and at the request of one of the parties; but as an essential part of a rigid procedure, he is often seen as a hurdle to be cleared as quickly as possible, rather than as a competent friend eager and able to help. He can be imposed by either party upon the other whenever negotiations (whether seriously carried out or not) run into a deadlock. It is this very imposition that irritates some of the parties and leads them to retaliate by treating the conciliator lightly, particularly so in the hypothesis of a tense political environment. The conciliation officer will usually be more welcome in sectors where collective bargaining is new or relatively weak, or where one party is much weaker than the other. In all cases, however, the conciliator may be relatively useful he realizes that he is above all the servant of the parties themselves, and never the distributor of rules of conduct and "solutions" to the parties.

6. The president of the "council of arbitration" will do a helpful job (again despite the compulsory character of the procedure) in some cases if he understands clearly that his first duty is to serve the parties, and not the minister of Labour who appoints him. He is primarily a man of conciliation, not a man of awards. He will realize this more easily if he ponders over the scarcity of sound and safe economic criteria by which he can reach not too haphazard decisions in a most complex field, economic activity. For conflicts of interests are born out of the antagonism of two freedoms which, left undefined by law, may pretend to total discretion. Such being the case, the president will never attempt to pass judgment as a magistrate would do in a court of law, but will on the contrary always be looking for the very mobile point of mutual acceptability at which the parties may agree.

7. The representatives of the parties on the "council of arbitration" are exactly that; they should not be expected to be impartial, since their appointment is suggested by the respective parties and since they are in most cases remunerated by them. They may be assimilated to assessors trying to enlighten the president on the merits of a given viewpoint (their own) and to get the best possible deal for their party. To see them as "arbitrators" would be extremely misleading.

8. The award of the "council of arbitration" is usually at best a good guess, having little claim to scientific accuracy. It is a set of recommendations, and not a judgment, since in the first place it is not binding for the parties which constitute our object of study here. Therefore, it deserves little publicity, and should never be intended to be used as precedent. It is strictly the property of the parties themselves, and should not, as a rule, be used as an instrument of public control. If made public prematurely, it may have most injurious effects on subsequent, post-arbitral negotiations, on the precarious equilibrium of the parties, on the relative flexibility of their positions, by creating false hopes on not too certain grounds and by possibly displacing artificially and arbitrarily the point of mutual acceptability and thus delaying the settlement of the dispute.

THE MAIN CONFUSION

All the above confusions may be traced to one fundamental ambiguity, one big opposition between two prime movers: liberty, on the one side, and fear, on the other. In a democratic society, the freedoms of association, professional activity, expression, enterprise and contract, among others, are held as sacred and seen as the very foundations of democracy itself. And yet, in the face of oppositions of interests (just another definition for conflicts), we are tempted to quickly throw overboard all principles, allowing ourselves instead to be governed by sheer physical fear of potential outbursts of violence. Without realizing that aggressive forms of conflict are the exception in Canada and in Quebec particularly, and possibly led by fear-mongers with an axe to grind, we are inclined to favour restrictive measures (in legislation and administration) destined to prevent conflict at all costs. Needless to say, conciliation legislation based on freedom will be diametrically opposed to another based on fear. In the first instance, the parties will be allowed to bargain on all matters which do not go against public order and safety; the preventive procedure will be optional and will provide alternatives; if for a while the procedure remains compulsory, its steps will be as few and as short as possible; and the conciliation services provided by the government will be aimed not only at prevention, but mainly at education of the parties in the intricacies of collective bargaining. In the perspective of fear, conciliation legislation shall be exactly the opposite. To prevent open conflict, the law will provide a number of time-consuming steps, with the hope that the parties will gradually "cool off".

Unfortunately, the "cooling-off period" more often than not turns into a "warming-up period", and the procedure defeats its avowed purpose by creating or at least magnifying the object of its fear. The parties, frustrated and irritated by long delays, and compelled to stimulate their respective militancy during the protracted debates under "public scrutiny", are often led to uncompromising stands where flexibility could have been possible otherwise, thus multiplying the possibilities of aggressive conflict.

THE NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT

The fear just described has its main root in a false notion of the meaning, variety and functions of conflict, social and particularly industrial. Conflict is essentially an opposition, manifested in a good number of ways, "diplomatic", "aggressive" and possibly violent. "Conflict and co-operation are not separable things, but phases of one process which always involves something of both". "Social conflict... mean[s] a struggle over values and claims to scarce Status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals". Furthermore, conflict is everywhere, and seems only partly avoidable: we have it in primary groups (family, groups of friends, neighborhood), within and between cities, associations and countries; once institutionalized, however, conflict becomes an essential element of the social structure.

Industrial conflict, for instance, can be expressed in a number of ways, such as: systematic restriction of output, sabotage, excessive turnover, absenteeism or lateness, boycott, grievances, accident-proneness, waste, pilfering, unduly strict abidance by the letter of the agreement or deliberate dents into its provisions, and more aggressive and concerted forms like the strike. We exclude the lockout, which has ceased to be a tactically useful and socially acceptable mode of industrial warfare.

Social conflict, despite the harm which may accompany it in some instances, has many positive functions. It is an essential element of sociation, together with co-operation. It is responsible for most of the dynamism of a social structure. It helps a group or a society rid itself of violently disagreeable features which weaken it. It provides a safety-valve for the reduction of conflict of a more violent and persistent nature; by bringing oppositions into the open, it permits their quick solution under the eye of public opinion. It increases the cohesiveness and individuality of the contestant groups. It provokes associations and coalitions which are so many forms of sociation; in a perspective of synthesis, of global social relationship, opposition ( even violent ) between individuals, groups or societies may be signally positive in its consequences.

Now with regard to industrial conflict, the strike, for instance, does perform a useful function. It is, either as a fact or as a possibility, part and parcel of the collective bargaining process. "In the last fifteen minutes of big controversies, it is the right to strike, the possibility of a strike, that is the instrument with which the controversy is settled. It is always present at the conference table. Without it, you do not have collective bargaining". Moreover, the strike helps reduce social tensions by airing grievances, suggesting improvements and establishing a new "order" on more acceptable grounds.

And finally, the strike is a symbol of freedom and independence. The fact that it occurs or can happen is a clear indication of the vitality of a society and of the liberty therein.

CONCLUSION

The above notions may suggest a new outlook on social and industrial conflict which would eliminate fear, restore freedom in practice and provide us with a more rational labour legislation in the specific field of disputes settlement.

EN :

Trade unions in Britain have developed against a particular cultural background, and many of their attitudes and aims stem from this environment and its effect on their members. The last twenty or thirty years have seen great changes in political, social and economic backgrounds: this has led to certain strains and tensions in the union structure, and to the gradual abandonment of traditional symbols, beliefs and modes of action.

FR :

On a jusqu'ici étudié le syndicalisme surtout comme une institution économique, politique et juridique, à la suite des travaux, admirables mais d'allure un peu officielle et statique, de Sidney et Beatrice Webb ( Industrial Democracy, History of Trade Unionism ). Une telle perspective demeure partielle et quelque peu trompeuse. D'où l'importance d'études inspirées par l'anthropologie sociale et la sociologie sur le syndicalisme contemporain.

Traditionnellement, le syndicalisme anglais fut la réponse à l'exploitation et à l'arbitraire patronaux de la part de salariés vivant dans la pauvreté et l'encombrement. On commença par voir dans les syndicats des conspirations illégales, et dans les syndiqués des criminels à mettre au ban de la société. De cette période noire sont restés certains souvenirs, symboles et rituels, mais guère autre chose. Ces rituels, aujourd'hui, rendent compte moins d'une réalité sociale hostile que d'un besoin de mousser la loyauté et la solidarité des membres du syndicat. Et si le vocabulaire de l'exploitation est demeuré assez riche, les attitudes des chefs syndicaux surtout se sont modifiées considérablement.

Le syndicalisme vise des objectifs plus larges que le ventre plein et le porte-monnaie bien garni, comme en fait foi l'enthousiasme des syndiqués, il n'y a pas si longtemps, à s'efforcer de transformer le régime économique de concurrence en un régime de coopération, de propriété publique.

La plupart des travailleurs anglais ont le syndicalisme dans la peau. C'est la chose la plus normale du monde pour te jeune ouvrier de faire partie du syndicat; toutes sortes de pressions subtiles s'exercent d'ailleurs sur lui en ce sens. Toute la famille est pour le syndicat, et l'enfant en entend parler dès son plus jeune âge. Il comprend tôt le sens et la nécessité de la communauté d'action pour faire contrepoids à la force de l'employeur; cela est surtout vrai chez les enfants des familles moins fortunées, qui, faute d'espace au foyer, doivent s'amuser dans la rue où ils acquièrent vite le sens et la discipline du groupe.

Et quand le jeune homme entre à l'usine, son infériorité sentie devant ses supérieurs trouve un remède dans l'adhésion au syndicat, source de force et d'appui. La grève renforce la solidarité des syndiqués.

D'autre part, la diversité des industries entraîne la diversité des syndicats. Ainsi, les unions de métiers différeront en certaines matières des unions industrielles; les mineurs ne se comporteront pas nécessairement comme les électriciens, ni les métallos comme les tisserands. Mais au-delà des divergences, mineures au fond, subsistent les similitudes profondes qui elfes sont autrement importantes pour expliquer le phénomène syndical.

Peu à peu, le syndicat se développe comme une institution, distincte à certains égards de ses membres pris individuellement, et avide elle aussi de sécurité et de stabilité. Avec les années, le syndicat peut accumuler des fonds imposants qu'il placera dans toutes sortes d'entreprises (clubs, édifices publics tels que cinémas, etc.). Une bureaucratie s'installera pour en diriger les destinées.

Le syndicalisme, en somme, est le produit d'un arrière-plan culturel précis sur lequel, en retour, il influe d'une certaine façon. Mais depuis un quart de siècle, cet arrière-plan s'est modifié considérablement, et avec lui le visage même du syndicalisme anglais. Aujourd'hui, le syndicalisme en Angleterre est accepté comme pièce intégrante de l'économie industrielle, et a ses coudées franches auprès des gouvernements; le plein emploi est la réalité du jour; et surtout, le travailleur manuel a progressé dans l'échelle sociale en même temps que son revenu s'apparentait à celui de l'employé de la classe moyenne. Sans compter que la presse, la radio, la télévision et le football ont rapproché toutes les classes en comblant d'une façon anodine le vide idéologique des travailleurs.

Les changements technologiques ont également fait éclater les métiers traditionnels et les solidarités et défenses qu'ils provoquaient, tout en modifiant considérablement la structure de l'industrie elle-même. Les écarts de salaires ont été réduits peu à peu. Au lieu du front commun contre l'employeur, on commence à constater la rivalité intersyndicale (les fameux conflits de juridiction) et les tensions entre les travailleurs qualifiés et les moins qualifiés.

La campagne de productivité lancée en 1948 sous un gouvernement travailliste imposa au syndicalisme une politique de collaboration avec le patronat; et la politique du « wage restraint », de mesure dans les revendications économiques préconisée par le même gouvernement et suivie pendant quelques mois par le TUC, en édulcorant la fonction syndicale par excellence, provoqua de nombreux conflits non autorisés et dut être abandonnée après quelques mois.

Aujourd'hui, l'attitude du syndicalisme anglais à l'égard des nationalisations comme panacée est beaucoup plus pragmatique, ce qui a entraîné chez les syndiqués une désaffection partielle à l'égard de l'action politique, surtout depuis que le « Welfare State » a réussi à améliorer les niveaux de vie, l'habitation, la santé et l'emploi.

D'autre part, la concentration et l'intégration industrielles ont entraîné le gigantisme syndical, avec son cortège de bureaucratie et d'impersonnalité et l'affaiblissement de l'enthousiasme des syndiqués.

On peut toutefois noter, depuis l'arrivée du gouvernement conservateur au pouvoir (1951), un certain retour des attitudes syndicales traditionnelles. Un certain chômage, fortement ressenti en certaines régions, a créé du mécontentement. L'inflation a provoqué des batailles assez vives sur le plan des salaires. Et des luttes s'annoncent sur celui de la législation, un projet de loi se préparant pour prohiber certaines formes extrêmes de sécurité syndicale.

Bref, le syndicalisme anglais tend à se rapprocher de plus en plus des modèles américain et canadien; il a décidément perdu en radicalisme, en conscience de classe et en activité politique au cours du dernier quart de siècle.