In the last issue of Playback (Sept. 18, pp. 10-11), we examined some issues around iatse’s plans to organize commercial technicians in Toronto. Time to offer a little more info.

The union says one of the big reasons to have a collective agreement is to give workers standardized wages and working conditions from all production company signatories. This way, says the union, prodcos would not conduct, as we wrote last issue, ‘on-set and last-minute’ negotiations with workers. The producers say haggling on set and on contracts will always vary from one company to another – just like in long form. So far, the industry’s prodco association, cpat, says it won’t serve as bargaining unit for the employers; that said, there is talk employers could agree voluntarily on standardized wages and working conditions.

The next big issue is which crafts would be included in the bargaining unit? Producers reckon all departments would be included, such as gaffers, grips, wardrobe, props, makeup, hair, sound, continuity. They point out, however, that gaffers and grips tend to outnumber ‘beauty’ craftspeople by about 3:1, so they could carry the day in a certification vote.

And would drivers be included in an ia union drive? Producers say they don’t want the drivers in because that would complicate splitting of responsibilities on the set, and add unreasonably to costs.

Next issue: if commercial and long-form techs were in the same local, would commercial issues get equal time from the union? Some producers say they’re resigned to the notion that a unionization drive is coming to Toronto (but not likely to Vancouver), but will push ia to deal with prodcos one at a time.

Then, which people are union-eligible – that is, those who are somehow defined as ’employees’ or ‘dependent contractors’ and not ‘independent contractors?’ Producers say Canada Customs and Revenue will give rulings on individual cases, but this would take years; meantime, complaints about payroll practices may lead to big fines for prodcos which were treating ‘invoicers’ as independent contractors. If ccra showed that some workers who are currently invoicing prodcos are actually ’employees,’ prodcos would have to pay ‘back’ fringes while ccra could go after the worker for back taxes.

Don McLean of The Partners’ Film Company says lots of prodcos would go bankrupt if suddenly hit with back fringes. To avoid payroll charges and uncertainty, McLean supposes he’ll have to convert a lot of ‘invoicers’ to employees. He adds this would suit ia since Ontario labor law permits only employees and dependent contractors working for a company on the day a proposed vote is to occur to vote on certification.

At first, ia apparently stipulated it would include the cost of fringe benefits in the hourly rates it has proposed. But a memo from cpat summarizing a q&a between cpat and Paul Harding, president of IA Local 873, adds some doubt, noting ‘Fringes will not likely be added on top of wages.’

SUSAN TOLUSSO

Editor