Labour and Capital

Relations between labour and management in the Turner Valley oilfields were shaped by a wide range of factors, including the nature of the oil industry, the policies of employers and the priorities of the workers themselves. In stark contrast to some other natural resource industries, such as coal mining, there was a notable lack of working-class organization, protest and strike activity in Turner Valley. The labour movement did not take strong root in the oil patch—in the words of historian David Finch, unions had a “less than impressive” record attempting to organize workers in Turner Valley.

One of the reasons for this lack of success was the hostility of the oil companies to organized labour. “You talked union and you were gone,” reflected one long-time worker, who further noted that labour organizers would be run off the worksite. The largest employer in the region, Royalite, set the tone for labour relations with a strong

effort to discourage unions at its facilities after World War One. Royalite’s parent company, Imperial Oil, enacted an Industrial Relationship Plan that sought to win employee loyalty through health benefits, retirement annuities and investment opportunities. At the same time, the company established Joint Industrial Councils, comprised of representatives of both labour and management, which would mediate disputes and address worker concerns. Though workers were represented, the councils were dominated by management and served as a useful means of containing working-class grievances without disrupting production. This model was used by Royalite during World War Two when faced with the prospect of unionization. In July 1942, the Canadian Labour Congress granted a charter to workers to organize a union at the gas plant. Within a year, a Joint Industrial Council had been imposed on the plant, and the union disappeared.

The effort to organize labour in Turner Valley was weakened not just by corporate resistance but also by the nature of the oil industry and the attitudes of the workers. Oil workers earned relatively high wages, and the cyclical nature of the industry further discouraged organization and strike activity: disrupting production in an industry where a boom could end abruptly was viewed as a risky strategy. While not representing a complete cross-section of opinion, interviews with former oilfield workers suggest that many were indifferent, or actively opposed, to the idea of unionization. “The crews, the people working there were against it,” reflected one former Royalite employee when interviewed in 1984, “and if one or two would agitate, they didn’t get anywhere.” Others commented that Royalite was a “very good” employer and praised the company for distributing food relief to needy families during the worst years of the Great Depression. Coupled with the relative labour stability in this period, such anecdotes suggest that Imperial Oil’s plan to secure employee loyalty and fend off unionization was very successful.

While labour organization was uncommon in Turner Valley, workers did assert their rights and protest against mistreatment.

Workers at the Royalite plant demanded and won an eight-hour workday in 1928, a concession that oil companies strongly resisted elsewhere in the oil patch. A dispute between steam engineers and drillers over inspection and maintenance of equipment was taken to the Alberta Federation of Labour in 1930 and 1931. As a result, resolutions calling for regulations to strengthen the steam engineers' authority at the work site were passed. The initial dispute that sparked this controversy involved a Canadian steam engineer and an American driller. This reflected another source of tension in Turner Valley— the employment of American workers over Canadians during the Great Depression, in defiance of government regulations that limited foreign employment. Oral histories suggest that there was tension between Canadian and American workers, and correspondence from one worker hinted at an “effort to get rid of the Americans” during the Great Depression. Taken together, these examples illustrate that workers in Turner Valley were not passive; rather, they defended their interests and asserted their demands. Labour relations in the Turner Valley area thus reflected both resistance and accommodation in a dynamic and unique industry.