Projectionists. face lockout A’ CONTRACT — dispute . between projectionists and Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon likely won’t mean blank screens at local theatres. By fan Noble - ‘ News Reporter Martin Hoare, secretam’-for the B.C. Projectionists and Video Technicians Local 348, said “a real possibility” exists projectionists at North Vancouver's Park and Tilford and Esplanade 6 cinemas will‘ be locked out. But he expects replacement work- “sers hired and trained by the cinemas to keep the films rolling; Hoare said four of the 57 union- ized projec- - tionists ‘ employed _in B.C. the- atres work Of the “North Shore at the two cine- mas... = Union “members ”_ say they are - battling’: a. ’ 67%: wage. cut, ‘wanted by. manage- "ment. * ’. Hoare said that cut would . mean projectionists ‘could earn as lit- tle'‘as $9.50 per hour. 1 Currently, the single screen rate “for projectionists is $21.83 per hour. - That rate goes up to $38.49 per hour for someone operating seven screens, he said, Projectionists held : ‘talks with “Cineplex last month and are current- “dy “in contract negotiations with Famous Players. ‘Talks with Cineplex: lasted two “days, and the company failed to show up for the third day of talks, the union said: According. to aunion press elease, ‘Cineplex Odeon asked the “mediator to book out, but he refused. Projectionists have been without a contract since Jan. | of this year. Hoare said what he hoped would be a-full-time career may become | -part-time under management's plans. — : That, he said, is upsetting. His career choice “is under attack,” he said; To become. a. member of . the “union, a projectionist must. serve a minimum of [,000 unpaid on-the-job hours as an apprentice. -"-John Nixon, the spokesman :for Cineplex .. Odeon’ and‘ . Famous _ Players, « could. not be: reached for — Wednesday, April 12, 1995 ~ North Shore News ~- 3 NEW! photo Brad Ledwidge CONSUMER ADVOCATES Steven Schaffer and Matt Casselman sample three salsa sauces for cost, size,, chunkiness, and con- tent. The Grade 7 Braemar elementary school students were participating in a consumer-testing display." A COUNCILLOR’ S keen observation: Monday night that a duplex: with illegal suites is no longer a duplex did not stop council from extending its moratorium on enforcement of. the city’s illegal suite policy to include: - the. multiple-family | dwellings.. NORTH VANCOUVER CITY. COUNCIL By Robert Galster A recommendation calling for the continuation of the city’s enforcement program against illegal suites in multiple-family developments was passed Monday, but was amended | to exclude duplexes. The amendment was intro- duced by Coun. Bilt Bell, who , appealed to council to think of the single-parent families ‘cur- rently residing in duplexes being pushed out onto the street. He added that most of the 700 duplexes in North Vancouver City have illegal suites. Coun. Darrel] Mussatto added his Support for the amendment and pointed out that it is “an incredibly sensitive way to increase density i in neighborhoods.” But not all the.councillors favored the amendment to exclude duplexes from enforcement: 66 Duplexes are purpose-built for two families to live in-— not four or five families. G9 — Coun. Barbara Perrault Tesources. °* complete. Coun. Barbara Perrault. and Coun. Stella Jo Dean both voted +§ _ against it. : “Uncontrolled growth like’ f . this will result in increasing den- sity,” said Perrault. “Duplexes are purpose-built for two families to live in — not four or five fam- ilies.” The city originally legalized secondary suites within single- family residences in 1993,in an ‘attempt to provide affordable. rental housing and provide . homeowners with ‘mortgage pay- ment help. Dean’ added that. she has “sympathy. for single’ mothers” ~ but she also has “sympathy for the neighborhood.” Council first instituted a city moratorium . on . enforcement action on illegal suites in multi- ple-family buildings pending a : policy review, The move followed an appli- cation made before council earli- er this year to legalize illegal Suites in an apartment building. The staff recommendation to resume enforcement against ille- gal suites:‘is based on staff's inability to provide a policy review of this magnitude without rescheduling existing staff The amended mation also included a request of . staff to produce an information report on duplexes. The report is expected to take several months to “sleep in Financial cleterrent debated From page 1 between $24,500 and. $34,000. by Nicolson and two other arborists.-: Daniels asked for a conditional . discharge which would carry no - criminal record. A fine would result in a criminal record. ‘ Daniels said his client spends 60 days a year out of the country on refrigeration business in the King county and Olympia areas: of Washington state. ; “The conviction would play. havoc to travel abroad in relation to |” ~ his business,” said Daniels. The defence lawyer. said com- pensation was sufficient deterrence to anyone thinking about chopping. down trees on public property. Grandison disagreed. “Here are fost. {20- -year-old trees. You can’t replace them... There is no deterrent if all you do is pay compensation,” said Grandison. Richmond apologized for taking up the court’s time... “She was absolutely paranoid of those trees. She -would literally the basement,” said Richmond about his wife during the first two years of living beside the park. — He said that he apologized to. neighbors. “I never thought he (Bill Stuart) would cut those trees dows,” said Richmond. ‘ ’ Selbie MacDonald "said Richmond's, comments showed that he still was not remorseful and not taking responsibility for his actions. “He never thought a tree-cutter. would cut down the trees,” she said. . New. trees are scheduled to replace the ones that were felled.