Les conflits intersyndicaux au Québec (1957-1967)

Dans cette étude, on trouve une analyse des conflits intersyndicaux survenus au Québec durant la période du 1er avril 1957 au 31 mars 1967. Deux formes de la rivalité syndicale sont distinguées : le recrutement simultané et le maraudage. L'auteur précise l'évolution de l'une et de l'au-au au cours de la dernière décennie, identifie les principaux modèles d'agression et examine le comportement des diverses organisations syndicales. Il tente en outre une comparaison entre la situation américaine en 1951-1952 et la période de pointe de la rivalité intersyndicale au Québec, 1964-1967. Il conclue en revoyant brièvement certaines caractéristiques des deux principales organisations syndicales.This analysis follows, and I hope completes, Dion's (1) paper published previously in this review. It is based on information drawn from the files of both the Quebec Labor Relations Board and the Canadian Council on Labor Relations. For the time span under study, we observed 230 disputes of which 77 were cases of rivalry and 153 were cases of raiding. The distinction of these two forms of conflicts must be stressed : when a rivalry occurs, the actor, in this case the prospective union member, has a simple choice to make between two alien organizations ; when raiding occurs, people are faced with a much different choice, that of maintaining or severing an allegiance.RIVALRYRivalries occured mainly between the CNTU and the international unions affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress (17 cases) and between these and the unaffiliated locals (16 cases). Cross-tabulations (fig. II to VI) show higher frequencies in transport and communications, in greater Montreal, for 1965-1966, for small negotiations units accounting from 10 to 49 members in similarly small establishments.RAIDINGRaiding is the most severe form of conflict whether we consider the number of cases or the number of implied workers. Figure VII gives information on who attacks, who is attacked, and who wins. Figures VIII to XII show cross-tabulations on each of the five used variables : industrial branch, region, date, importance of negotiating units and importance of establishments. The main conclusions are that the CNTU is the most agressive and the most resistent organization. In addition to this, let us note that the worst years were the last three : they account for 92 cases of raiding out of a total of 153.A BALANCED-SHEET FOR RAIDINGNo previous paper, to my knowledge, has tried to give an accurate figure of the number of people affected by raidings nor to provide an estimate of the consequent gains and losses in membership. Balanced-sheet were drawn against a detailled list labour organizations for each year (fig. XIII to XXII) and then aggregated into one single figure (fig. XXIII). Used symbols should be translated : Ti represents the number of implied workers ; P, the number of those lost, G, those won, * those for which no information was available ; GN, the net gain for the organizations listed in the column. Finally the letter C states the number of workers who changed allegiance.The reader should remember that, for the ten years studied, 35,400 workers were implied in such disputes and that 23,568 did change their allegiance. The number of people affected by raidings grew steadily from 1957-59 to 1964-65 when it jumped to a peak of 4.287 : the bulk of raiding took place between 1964 and1967 ; most of the workers implied, 74.2% were implied in raiding that occured during that period ; for 1964-65 alone the figure is 31.8%.Yearly, the CNTU and the international unions affiliated to the QFL show a net gain. The reverse is true for all the other groups. Figure XXIII shows that, for the ten years, the CNTU has a net gain, by raidings alone, of 11,710. The QFL's international unions are far behind with 3,297. The most severe blow is received by the Canadian unions affiliated to the QFL : they showed a net loss of 4,190 members.But who wins who from whom ? The CNTU takes 11,208 members to the CLC against the 183 that is loses to the Canadian wide movement ; the CLC however takes 6,563 members to the unaffiliated locals. The preceeding figures are consistent with the most general pattern of agression revealed by a detailed examination of the behavior of each group of unions. On the whole, the CNTU is more agressive towards the CLC — and within the CLC proportionnally more agressive towards Canadian than international unions — than towards the unaffiliated locals. The converse is true for the CLC, while unaffiliated locals behave much like sitting ducks.AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONThe comparison of two peak periods of union feuds, those that did prevail in the United States in 1951-1952 and in Canada (1964-1967), shows striking dissimilarities. While the importance of the phenomenon is roughly the same — annually about 0.70% of all unionized workers are implied in such conflicts — the percentage of workers implied who finally change their allegiance is much lower in the US than in Quebec, 17.0% as against 86.7%. More, while the net gain of the mutual raiding between the AFL and the CIO was ridiculously low — 8000 members in favor of the AFL out of a total of 366,470 implied worked — the CNTU, out of the 10,700 workers implied in its raiding with the CLC affiliates, has a net gain of 9,356 new members.CONCLUSIONCrispo recently pointed out the poor services furnished by some international unions in Quebec (2). In my opinion, however, a more general explanation must be seeked to account for the two following facts : first, the average CLC members in Quebec is probably better off than his counterpart in the CNTU, merely because the CLC membership is more heavily concentrated in greater Montreal and in the more prosperous, more paying, branches of the economy ; second, the Canadian unions suffer as badly as, and even more badly than when one takes a proportional perspective, the international unions.Shortcomings in the daily operations of these unions and recent changes in the political climate in Quebec have an explanatory potency, but the former is also true of the CNTU while many people in the QFL are as nationalists as the next man. This explanation should be seeked in such a few structural characteristics as the distribution of powers, the relative importance of regional and central bodies as compared with industrial unions, and functional characteristics as the importance attributed, and content diffused by, education services. On each one of these counts a careful comparative analysis would show some important differences between the CNTU and the CLC.(1) DION,Gérard, « La concurrence syndicale au Quebec ».Relations industrielles, vol. 22, no 1, 1967 pp. 74-84.(2) CRISPO, John,International Unionism : A Study in Canadian American Relations, Toronto, McGraw-Hill, 1967