Dying For Gold: The True Story Of The Giant Mine Murders
By Authors Lee Selleck & Francis Thompson

Published in 1997, Dying for Gold is an exhaustive work of investigative journalism written in the prose that one would expect of a riveting novel. Not only do the authors tell a true story that exhibits all of the intrigue and mystery of a contemporary action script; but their work, and the issues upon which it is based, are instructive to those active in Canadian industrial relations-workers, employers, unions, labour relations boards, industrial inquiry commissioners, politicians, and especially legislative policy-makers. Dying for Gold tells the tragic story of the death of nine replacement workers in a massive underground explosion that was purposely set to kill someone, if not them specifically. Their horrific deaths were the culmination of a calamity of conditions providing fertile ground for industrial violence of a magnitude rarely seen in modern times. Canadian industrial relations practitioners would be wise to study the Giant Mine case, as the conditions which practically made it inevitable that violence would erupt during that dispute are not anomalous in Canada today; and history has a habit of repeating itself.

The story really begins when, in 1990, Royal Oak Resources Ltd. assumed control of Giant Yellowknife Mines Ltd. Heading up the new management team was Peggy Witte, soon to be known as “Piggy Witte” by the mine’s unionized workers. Witte became notorious as a typical American-style union buster and she tried her best to live up to that reputation. After negotiations toward a new collective agreement reached an impasse, the members of Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers (CASAW) Local #4 voted to go on strike on May 23, 1992. In a blatant attempt to break the union, Witte kept the mine operational using staff, replacement workers and hourly union members who crossed the picket line. Practical warfare broke out on the picket lines as striking miners watched other workers cross their lines to take their jobs, while they and their families suffered the financial devastations of the strike. Royal Oak, on the other hand, continued to enjoy the income from production, albeit on a reduced scale.

Continued production was not all that the Royal Oak enjoyed, as the NWT government and RCMP were clearly on the side of the employer. Riot police and Pinkerton’s private security forces lined up against the strikers and complaints of harassment and intimidation were countered by those of assault and violence. Royal Oak dismissed 45 striking workers for alleged picket-line misconduct. Eventually, Royal Oak would be found guilty of numerous bad-faith violations of the Canada Labour Code; but that decision would not be forthcoming from the Canada Labour Relations Board until November 11, 1993 – that decision ending the strike at last. In the words of the Board, the strike had “been marked by a great deal of violence, vituperation and hatred, and among the horrible events associated with them has been the mine explosion of September 18, 1992, in which nine persons working in the mine died”. The decision is cited as Royal Oak Mines Inc. 93 di 21; 94 CLLC 16, 026 CLRB Decision No. 1037 Board File: 745-4513, for those interested in reading it in its entirety.

The striking miners did not return to work until December 1993 and Royal Oak Mines filed for bankruptcy in 1999. The story of the strike itself is intertwined with the investigation surrounding the murder of the nine replacement workers in the explosion of September 18, 1992. The authors examine the police investigation from numerous perspectives and the reader is led to the conclusion that an innocent man could very well be imprisoned for a crime which he did not commit. Ex-miner Roger Warren remains in prison for second degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, his appeals have been exhausted, and he will not be eligible for parole until 2013. If Warren is in fact innocent of the crimes, then the murderer or murderers are walking free today.

The story of the Giant Mine strike, with the violence and societal breakdown surrounding it, carries many lessons for industrial relations practitioners. In my opinion it most poignantly demonstrates the need for prompt pluralistic regulation of industrial disputes-in particular, the enactment of so-called “anti-scab” legislation in all Canadian jurisdictions. If Canadian society recognizes the legitimacy of collective bargaining – and by extension, the strike/lockout – (which it does), then those economic weapons within that system must be allowed to serve their intended purposes. When an employer can, in good faith or bad, undermine one side of the economic equation by continuing operations with replacement workers while strikers are economically starved, then the frustrations born of inequity that were seen at Giant Mine will assuredly erupt on a greater or lesser scale. Allowing replacement workers also enables employers to pit workers against each other as desperate unemployed persons are used to undermine the wages and conditions of employed unionized workers; a situation that can result in an economic race to the bottom for the working class.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dying for Gold and recommend it to all. For those who have no interest in industrial relations it is comparable to a well-written mystery novel, only it is true; for those who do, it is doubly fulfilling and educational. Being involved in the labour movement, I have had the pleasure of becoming personally acquainted with several of the individuals appearing in the book: Leo McGrady, the union’s lead labour lawyer; Gina Fiorillo, the junior lawyer in McGrady’s firm; & Vince Ready, one of the two Industrial Inquiry Commissioners appointed to the case.

Wayne E. Benedict is a Locomotive Engineer at BC Rail and President of the National, Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW) Local 110. He is working toward his Bachelor of Human Resources and Labour Relations at Athabasca University.

Earlier this year I wrote an article called “?Writing Fiction to Improve Your Non-Fiction Prose’ that appeared in the June 26, 2002, Volume 10 Issue 24 of The Voice. As a special Halloween inclusion into the paper, I would like to share with you the results of one of my own fiction writing efforts, a short story entitled “Tag”. I hope you all enjoy it!

TAG

“Tag! You’re it!” shrieked Nate, slapping Daniel on the back. Sliding to a stop in the slippery mud, he reversed his direction and tore off down the tree-lined trail.

“I’m right behind you!” called Daniel. “I won’t be it for long!”

Nate could hear the thump of his pursuer’s runners against the well-worn dirt path. He could feel Daniel closing in on him and he silently cursed his shorter legs. Fake right, leap left, and he found himself scrambling through the thickets of willow that grew along the riverbank. Branches broke and scraped at his bare arms and legs as he pushed his way wildly through the thickening undergrowth. Heart pounding and lungs burning, he risked a glance behind. No sign of Daniel.

Nate stopped and holding his breath, he tried to listen for an indication of his friend’s whereabouts over the pounding of his heart.

Nothing.

Peering through the thick bushes, he waited for the inevitable charge.

Ten seconds. Thirty seconds. One Minute.

A squirrel chattered its annoyance at the uninvited intruder within its territory. The river gurgled contentedly behind Nate and the hair rose on the back of his neck.

“You’re it,” he said quietly. “You’re still it Daniel!” he called out, his voice muffled by the dense forest.

Silence.

A bird chirped somewhere overhead.

“Daniel? : Dan! : This isn’t funny any more”.

Crack! A large branch broke in the distance.

“Dan?”

Silence.

Nate began to move stealthily through the willows back the way that he had come, listening for noises over those of his own.

A call in the distance.

Nate stopped, held his breath and listened.

The squirrel chattered. The bird chirped.

He started to move again, feeling his way through the thick foliage. The willows began to thin and Nate found himself standing on the path. Looking down, he examined his own skid marks in the mud, imprinted there when he had veered off the trail to avoid Daniel’s long arms. Looking back the way they had come, he could see the prints of his friend’s runners overlaying his own, but beyond the point where Nate had left the footpath, Daniel’s tracks continued without pause, disappearing amongst the long shadows that fell from the trees.

Facing the direction that Daniel had seemingly gone, Nate cupped his hands over his mouth, took a deep breath and called “Daniel!”

Silence

Curving his hands into half circles behind his ears, he closed his eyes and strained to detect a sound from his friend.

A rustle through undergrowth. A bird singing. The river gurgling.

His ears began to ring and he dropped his hands to his sides. His body shuddered slightly although the summer afternoon was warm. Tightening his stomach muscles to force out the butterflies, he said “shit” and took a step along Daniel’s tracks in the dirt.

Two steps. Five steps. Ten.

The path curved gently toward the river. Running-shoe prints were clearly visible in the middle of the trail. Shadows grew deeper and the air grew dense as the willows closed in on the borders of the path.

Twenty steps. Thirty steps. Thirty-seven.

A white object was visible in the middle of the trail. Nate took a few more steps toward it, stopped, listened, a few more steps. It was a shoe. It was Daniel’s shoe resting upright as if he had stepped out of it in mid step. Nate crouched down and picked it up. He could feel his heartbeat within his skull. No tracks in the dirt beyond this spot. He stood up holding the footwear in both hands. He breathed in short, shallow gasps as he stared down into the orifice of the sneaker.

The willows exploded on his right as two arms were thrust toward him.

Nate screamed, eyes wide and body frozen in place. One of the hands grabbed the runner; the other shoved Nate, open palmed, in the sternum. Nate stumbled two steps back. A face appeared above his.

“TAG! YOU’RE IT!” exclaimed Daniel, pulling the runner free and vaulting himself into a comical gate. He lurched a few paces and then hopped on his left foot trying to stuff his muddy right sock back into the runner, lost his balance and staggered again.

A tear trickled from Nate’s right eye as his face became a scarlet mask of rage. “You bastard,” he said. “YOU BASTARD!” he screamed and broke into a frenzied run.

Daniel was laughing and had just managed to replace his shoe when he caught sight of Nate over his right shoulder. His eyes widened slightly and his face grew slack when he saw the look on Nate’s face. “Oh shit” he said and began sprinting with the seriousness of an Olympian.

Nate was gaining on his quarry. Daniel’s longer strides were no match for the fiery heat of Nate’s anger.

“It’s just a game! : I was only kidding,” Daniel sputtered between deep breaths.

“Son:of:a:bitch.” Nate pumped his arms high, his hands balled into fists.

The willows thinned and the trees flew by as they raced down the trail. Passed the spot where Nate had left the path, he was finally close enough. Nate reached out with his right hand and made a grab for the back of Daniel’s shirt. He brushed it but never caught hold. Daniel suddenly vaulted to the left and Nate ran passed him. Putting on the brakes, he skidded to a stop and whirled around. Daniel was on the other side of a cottonwood tree, hands against the trunk and head peering around its side.

“Get hold of yourself man”.

“You scared the hell out of me!”

“I’m sorry. I thought it was funny”.

“Well it wasn’t”.

“Sorry”.

They stood looking at each other for a few seconds.

“You were scared something happened to me,” Daniel said.

“Scared something was going to happen to me,” said Nate, looking away toward the river.

“You’d miss me if I was gone”.

“Not. : Well, maybe a little”. Nate looked back at Daniel. “Lets go home”.

“OK”.

Daniel came out from behind the tree and Nate fell in beside him on the trail. They walked in silence for a few minutes, enjoying the summer afternoon and listening to the river gurgling to their right.

“Really scared you eh?”

“Yup. You plan it or it just happen?”

“Just happened”.

“Got me good, I owe you one you know”.

“I know”.

Suddenly they were both jerked to a stop and spun around. A dirty man towered over them, his clothes tattered and his black hair unkempt and long. He had them each by a shoulder and as he stooped to look into their faces, his lips parted in a lopsided grin. Missing his front teeth and the others rotting, the stench hit their noses like a corporeal entity. Frozen by fear, the boys stood riveted in place and stared at the nightmare before them.

“Tag. Your it,” said the man. He released them, turned, and slowly sauntered back into the trees.

Nate was running for home, Daniel beside him and they were both too far away to hear the man’s chuckles echoing through the forest.

Wayne E. Benedict is a Locomotive Engineer at BC Rail and President of the Canadian Union of Transportation Employees Local 1. He is working toward his Bachelor of Administration in Industrial Relations and Human Resources at Athabasca University.

One of my interests is science and I have, for years, subscribed to Scientific American magazine. One of its ongoing sections is dedicated to reviewing newly released science-related books and a couple of years ago (it takes me a while to get through my yet-to-read list) I bought a book on the magazine’s recommendation with the above-mentioned title. Although not everyone shares my penchant for things scientific, I will venture to assert that the vast majority of homo sapiens share my interest in examining human sexuality and, as such, this book would appeal to many readers. The authors, one a zoologist and the other a psychiatrist, combine their scientific knowledge and superb writing abilities to take the reader on a journey of sexual discovery from an extremely novel perspective.

As the title suggests, the work examines monogamy, or the lack thereof, across species in an attempt to better understand human sexual and social practices. Monogamy can be divided into two types: sexual monogamy, or mating exclusivity; & social monogamy, or a social system in which the reproductive arrangement appears to involve one male and one female. The reader will also be introduced to numerous other sexual and social arrangements, such as: polygamy which is a mating pattern wherein a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex; polygyny which is a mating pattern wherein a single male mates with more than one female; and polyandry which is a mating pattern wherein a single female mates with more than one male. Much of the book examines the sexual practices and characteristics of different species of animals, birds and insects; teaching the reader about sexual bimaturism, sexual cannibalism, sexual dimorphorism, sexual jealousy and many other fascinating topics.

I consider myself to be fairly well-read, however, I must admit that many of the examples of insect and animal sexuality had me shaking my head in incredulity. Take, for example, traumatic insemination used by the bedbug: “the males simply pierce the body of their mate/victim [with their penis], injecting sperm that then travel through the blood, collecting in the gonads and achieving fertilization”. A more incredible version of traumatic insemination occurs amongst the males of the cave bat bug: “:males attack other males, injecting sperm as well as seminal fluid directly into the victim’s body cavity, which is pierced by the attacker’s sharp penis. The male recipients metabolize the seminal fluid, thereby gaining some calories from the transaction. But some surviving sperm also migrate to the recipient’s testes. If and when the victim copulates with a female cave bat bug, he will therefore transfer some of the sperm of his attacker, who gets paternity by proxy”. More widely known are cases of females literally eating their male sexual partners immediately after (or even sometimes during) copulation”?some species of spider and the praying mantis are examples.

The book is full of strange and wondrous sexual properties and tactics and it reads more like a fascinating literary novel than a scientific treatise. Being a book based in science, the Myth of Monogamy is written from the perspective of evolutionary biology, genetics and the like. For one such as me, who needs proof as opposed to faith, the scientific standards used by the authors, and those of the studies they quote, give their theories credibility. Of course, the question that automatically came to my mind was “are human beings naturally monogamous”? The answer is in the book (according to the authors’ observations) but I won’t ruin the ending of a good story for you”?to find out, you’ll have to acquire and read the Myth of Monogamy.

Wayne E. Benedict is a Locomotive Engineer at BC Rail and President of the Canadian Union of Transportation Employees Local 1. He is working toward his Bachelor of Administration in Industrial Relations and Human Resources at Athabasca University.

We’ve spent the last two weeks examining the political perspectives surrounding BC Rail from opposing political factions, the Liberals and the NDP’s. Today, we continue our discussion by delving deeper into the history of BC Rail itself.

Let us examine how BC Rail has been, and continues to be, privatized over the past decade right under the noses of British Columbia’s public. First, as mentioned in the last issues article, the railway was split into numerous divisions residing under the common umbrella BCR Group of Companies. Once arranged thus, the sales and divestitures could begin without actually “privatizing” BC Rail per se. In other words, politicians can claim that “the government hasn’t actually sold BC Rail””?merely everything that made it worth anything. The first to go was BC Rail’s restructured communications system, Westel Telecommunications Ltd. “Its estimated revenues [in 1997] were close to $50 million. BC Tel, which ha[d] long viewed Westel as a small but irritating thorn in its side, applauded the [government’s decision to sell Westel] and said it [would] consider bidding for the assets” (Boei, 1998). As is the case with the vast majority of privatizations, Westel was not sold to a local, regional, or national interest; it went for $55 million to New York-based RSL Communications. Was the money garnered from the sale returned to BC Rail from whence the communications division originated. Of course not, “Money from the sale [was] used to pay for capital projects within the provincially owned BCR Group and to return a dividend to the government” (Wilson, 1998). Not only were the assets and money from their sale removed from BC Rail, but its formerly in-house supplied communications needs would thereafter have to be purchased from a private communications supplier”?a foreign one at that.

The next portion to go was BC Rail’s truck and intermodal service. Although it was known that “the trucks [were] necessary to help BC Rail remain “?competitive'” (Landry et al, 2000), the company divested itself of its truck and intermodal services in a move that was “more of a political decision than a business decision” (Hogben, 2001). Some might say that closing down a business is not the same as moving it from the public to the private sector”?privatizing it. But the fact is that the shippers who were utilizing BC Rail’s trucking and intermodal service had been doing so because it had provided the service at the most competitive pricing. Those shippers still needed to move their products after BC Rail was forced politically to close down those portions of its operations. And who do you think ended up with all of that business? Why, the private-sector member-companies of the BC Trucking Association, of course. Did the move increase private-sector competition, as privatization proponents claim should have occurred? One need only inquire of BC Rail’s former intermodal customers for the answer to that question. In any case, from BC Rail’s perspective, it had now had its communications arm severed and its trucking business, which was purportedly necessary to help it remain competitive, removed. It wouldn’t take a business genius to predict an impending decline, not for the BCR Group, but certainly for BC Rail. The government told the railway to “sink or swim” without government subsidy, while simultaneously abrogating its means of staying afloat.

Next to go was the Royal Hudson, world-famous tourist attraction and the biggest draw to BC Rail’s other passenger services. “The 60-year-old patient needs a new boiler and fire box at a cost estimated at $1 million” (Spencer, 2000). And yet, “The B.C. government, which owns the 1940-vintage Royal Hudson, revered by train buffs around the world, but out of service since 1997, has said it will not offer the money”?estimated at $8 million to $10 million”?to fund the restoration” (Daniels, October, 2001). And so there sits BC Rail’s greatest tourist attraction, in moth balls, cover by a sheet. The divestitures, unbeknownst to the general public, had only just begun. The employee unions were being provided with numerous notices of material change by the company. Months before the general public was aware of BC Rail’s plans to cease operation of its North Vancouver-Prince George passenger service”?the Cariboo Prospector”?the company had already made the decision. In a letter dated April 15, 2002, the unions representing conductors and locomotive engineers were instructed to “be advised that the Company will cease operation of the Cariboo Prospector on or about October 31, 2002″ (D. A. Lypka, personal communication, April 15, 2002). This cessation of service is planned in the face of the fact that the government’s own Transport Minister Judith Reid has stated that: “We [the Liberals] have made our promise that we are not going to privatize or sell BC Rail: The passenger service is really important to the lives of people in northern communities” (emphasis added) (Daniels, July, 2001). In June, the unions were informed that “the company proposes to transfer the Fort Nelson Subdivision to a third party (shortline company):It is expected that a commercial agreement with a shortline company will be completed by September, 2002″ (D. A. Lypka, personal communication, June 17, 2002). Carefully missing from any of the communications was the word “privatization”, a fact not at all surprising since the government’s own web site still caries the promise that “a BC Liberal Government will: not sell or privatize BC Rail” (Campbell & BC Liberals, n.d.). The most recent notice to the unions came in September 2002, it stated that “The company has now decided that it will not reinstitute the operation of its Northwinds and Starlight Dinner Trains following the completion of their normal seasonal operation this year” (D. A. Lypka, personal communication, September 12, 2002).

Meanwhile, the BCR Group of Companies, which had arisen out of, and divided up the profits and assets of, BC Rail, had been dissolved and BCR Marine put up for sale. Would it be sold to another government? Of course not, it would be sold to the private sector”?privatized. However, nowhere in the mass media would the word be used to describe the sale of assets formerly held by BC Rail. The dissolution of the group was touted to the employees as a purportedly positive business move:

Today’s announcement that the Board has decided to sell BCR Marine is the first step in implementing a new direction for the two major companies in this Group; a direction that will allow them to pursue their goals and objectives free from the restrictions imposed on them by the BCR Group structure. This decision is consistent with my earlier messages to you about the need to consider BCR Marine and BC Rail, as two separate, disparate businesses requiring unique solutions to the business challenges facing them (Phillips, B., personal communication, March 28, 2002).

Hindsight is always 20/20, so they say. It appears clear that a profitable crown corporation, regarded as a Crown jewel by politicians, has been systematically dismantled over the last decade; its profitable divisions having been sold off to the private sector, or profitable business opportunities abandoned to the private sector. Today, with the empty shell of BC Rail wallowing in a $600 million debt, it is an easy thing for politicians, who promised the British Columbian public that they would not sell the “people’s railway”, to make glib statements such as that recently made by Walt Cobb, Liberal MLA for Cariboo South:

Tell me how I can be best representing my constituans (sic) by spending everyones (sic) hard earned money on a Rail line that has such a poor record of managing, promoting or operating a financially viable service. I believe we need the infastructure (sic) to get our goods to market but we need to find a way to at least break even in that operation. Trucking companies seem to be doing fine so the rail service better clean up its act if it wishes to stay competetive (sic) (W. Cobb, personal communication, August 29, 2002).

To those who truly believe in the doctrine of privatization, nothing will get in the way of their plans”?not even a public which does not ascribe to it. The BC public has clearly and consistently rebuffed the notion of a privatized BC Rail, and yet, that state has practically come to pass. Only a few strings are left to tie up. In 1987, Briton Madsen Pirie Ph.D. traveled to Canada to deliver a speech on behalf of the right-wing think-tank The Fraser Institute on the Principles of Privatization. Not surprisingly, his speech did not touch on a single issue of concern expressed by opponents of privatization, of which there are many. Presumably, everyone in the audience already believed that privatization is a good thing and that no debate was necessary. The speech was not a rebuttal of the many challenges against privatization, but rather a “how to privatize” guide for those already motivated to promote governmental divestiture of public assets”?the private sector business community. Pirie proposed numerous rules that politicians undertaking privatization should follow: “the public does not take kindly to governments which cancel their human rights. So, never cancel a benefit especially if you can buy it instead; determine who could become your enemies and make them your friends, whether it’s the management, the workforce, customers or the general public; identify all possible objections to privatization:disarm the opposition. Find out every single objection and deal with it in advance; spread share ownership very widely, it’s going to be very difficult for subsequent [governments] to come along and reverse the process; don’t do the difficult and unpopular [privatizations] first. Do the easy ones first and use the success and popularity of those to gain support for the other ones; privatization is easy:because it’s about politics as well as economics” (Pirie, 1988, pp. 109-113 & 115-116). Entirely devoid of social commentary on the subject of state divestiture of public holdings, Pirie’s speech was narrowly geared toward methods of manipulating public opinion into the support of privatization. It would be interesting to know how many members of the present BC Liberal government sat in the audience that day.

After Pirie’s speech had concluded, a question and answer session ensued. The following question was raised:

When privatization occurs, has management changed; i.e., have civil servants remained or has new management come in?

And Pirie’s response:

The basic answer is, no. When we privatize, management stays right through, normally. That said, we often change the management in order to prepare for privatization. It’s very important that you put someone at the top who believes in it. If you have management that has long been tied to the traditions of state ownership and control and locked into bureaucratic ways, then it’s a good idea to change to someone who’s given the brief, “go in and privatize, you’ve got four years”. It concentrates the mind wonderfully, and you’d be quite amazed at the amount of restructuring and reorganization that can be packed into a couple of years. So, you might want to change management if the thing needs to be prepared for privatization (Pirie, 1987, pp. 123-124).

The fact that BC Rail’s entire upper management was changed out several years ago could be mere coincidence. However; the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Whether one believes in private capital accumulation, shared public ownership, or a combination of the two, there is no denying that 1) the BC government promised the electorate that it would not sell or privatize BC Rail; and, 2) BC Rail has and is undergoing privatization in spite of that fact. Evidence would indicate that the plans for its privatization were laid before the Liberals even came to power. Anyone who is surprised, in this day and age, that politicians would lie in order to achieve power, is naive at best. But even the most ardent opponent of privatization must give those who orchestrated BC Rail’s obscure privatization credit for the plan’s sophistication and the insidious manner in which the public has been fooled for over a decade.

References:

Beatty, J. (June 22, 2002). We’ll drink to booze privatization, but not Hydro. The Vancouver Sun, p. E1 / Front.

Benedict, W. (2002). The debate over the public sector: Major issues. Retrieved September 24, 2002, from
http://www.cute1.org/debate_over_the_public_sector.htm

Boei, W. (February 10, 1998). Competitor delighted as Westel goes on block. The Vancouver Sun, p. D1 / Front.

Cameron, D. (1988). In defence of public enterprise: A critique of the economic efficiency Case for privatization of crown corporations. Ottawa Ontario: Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Center

Campbell, G. & BC Liberals. (n.d.). A new era for British Columbia: A vision for hope and prosperity for the next decade and beyond, (p. 9). Retrieved September 10, 2002, from http://www.bcliberals.com/files/bcliberals_platform.pdf

Daniels, A. (July 17, 2001). BC Rail taking on `new spirit’: `People’s railway’ won’t be privatized, transport minister promises. The Vancouver Sun,, p. C5 / Front.

Daniels, A. (October 24, 2001). Without more cash, Royal Hudson facing end of line. The Vancouver Sun,[ei ]p. C1 / Front.