UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF CANADA, LOCAL 517
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES
LUMBER AND BUILDING MATERIALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, CANADIAN COUNCIL -- ONTARIO DIVISION
ONTARIO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF CANADA
HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 353
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT GROCERS
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL SECURITY
CONTENTS
Wednesday 5 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Ontario Federation of Labour
Julie Davis, secretary-treasurer
Chris Schenk, research director
Ken Signoretti, executive vice-president
Gordon Wilson, president
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada, Local 517
Steve Farkas, national staff representative, Hamilton
Mike Menicanin, national staff representative, Welland
Gary Schryer, president
Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies
Louise Leck, manager, education services and accreditation
Sylvio Mainville, executive director, Hamilton-Wentworth Children's Aid Society
Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario
Ernie Forsey, vice-president, human resources, Cashway Building Centres Inc.
Hannah Hancock, executive vice-president
Steve Johns, member services manager
Jill Kitchen, manager, human resources, Lansing Buildall
Ontario Chamber of Commerce
Don Eastman, vice-president, policy
Wallace Kenny, chair, employee-employer relations committee
Amalgamated Transit Union, Canadian Council--Ontario Division
Ken Foster, executive secretary
Wally Majesky, FP Labour Consultants Services Inc
Ontario Home Builders' Association
Andy Manahan, director of industry relations
Phil McColeman, first vice-president
More Jobs Coalition
Dale Kerry, chairman
Intercede: Toronto Organization for Domestic Workers' Rights
Irma Charles, member
Laxmi Rao, member
Pura Valasco, president
Fely Villasin, coordinator
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada
Joe McCabe, national representative
Prakash Persaud, member
Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario
Frances Randle, president
Brian P. Smeenk, chair, task force on labour law reform
Council of Ontario Construction Associations
J. W. O'Riordan, chair, labour legislation committee
Dr David Surplis, president
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353
Joe Fashion, business manager and financial secretary
Bill Robinson, business representative
Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers
Carole Nap, vice-president
American Society for Industrial Security
Brian Patterson, chair, legislative committee
Wayne Renwick, president, Toronto chapter
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Conway
*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Jordan
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 in room 151.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 o'clock and we're scheduled to start, and so we will. The first presentation is by the Ontario Federation of Labour, if the people seated would please give us their names and their titles.
Mr Gordon Wilson: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. We have informed the clerk, but for the record, let me introduce the members of our delegation. With me are Ms Julie Davis, the secretary-treasurer of the federation; Mr Ken Signoretti, executive vice-president of the federation, and Mr Chris Schenk, who is the research director of the federation.
We have made a submission which I believe members of the committee now have. We would propose to read the introduction and file with the committee the rather comprehensive brief that we have developed to assist the committee members in making a determination about the matter before them. If I can, I'd like to begin.
The Chair: Yes, sir, please. We have half an hour. Please try to save at least 15 minutes for dialogue.
Mr Wilson: I'll try to move as quickly as I can.
The Ontario Federation of Labour is pleased to have the opportunity to present our views on Bill 40, the government's proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, to the members of the Ontario Legislature's standing committee on resources development.
The Ontario Federation of Labour is comprised of affiliate unions representing 800,000 members who are engaged in many and varied occupations and who live in virtually every community of our province. The federation has represented the interests of Ontario workers, both organized and unorganized, since 1957. Prior to the 1957 merger, our predecessor organizations represented the interests of workers in this province for almost 100 years.
We are not newcomers to the subject of workers' rights and the struggle to obtain those rights. On the subject at hand, we have made many submissions advocating reform since October 1959. We have advocated for not only the reforms contained in Bill 40, but for many others as well. Some have been acted upon by previous provincial governments.
Our credentials for addressing the issue of workers' rights are well established in our province. We believe that the issue of Bill 40 is clearly an issue of workers' rights. In the simplest of terms, the proposed legislation outlines the manner in which workers will be treated in a modern economy and in the context of a democratic society.
In the course of these hearings, this committee will entertain submissions of indignant protest and hear expressions of outrage from some -- and I underline "some" -- members of the business community. These representations will argue that there has not been sufficient consultation on the subject of labour law reform. In our experience, as I mentioned earlier, of over a century of representing workers, we cannot recall another proposed legislative initiative which has been discussed as thoroughly as Bill 40. An exception, perhaps, is the national debate on the Canada-US free trade agreement.
The degree to which business has conducted its campaign in opposition to these amendments, within government and publicly, is unprecedented in Ontario. A slick and American-style Hill and Knowlton campaign of fearmongering and misinformation has been visited upon the citizens of Ontario. For what purpose? For the single purpose of protecting and advancing the vested interests of the business community.
Some business spokespersons have attempted to advance the theory that this legislation's sole purpose is to advance the interests of Ontario's unions. I respectfully remind this committee of what is obvious: Unions don't join unions; workers join unions. Workers who believe they are treated unfairly by their employer and believe they cannot as individuals obtain relief join with other workers to seek representation. This legislation stipulates that it must be a majority of workers who feel they require relief through representation prior to an alteration of the status quo. When a majority of workers feel relief is necessary, they must, in a democratic society, be granted the same right as employers to join together in their pursuit of their common interests.
We would ask those who oppose Bill 40 why they believe it is all right for individuals to combine their resources as shareholders to improve their mutual wellbeing and security, yet somehow it is not all right for workers who wish to exercise that same democratic right. Why is it that workers who combine the resources of union members to improve their mutual wellbeing and security are characterized as harming Ontario's future?
Why is it that employer organizations such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Business Council on National Issues and a myriad of other trade and commercial employer organizations exist to advance their common interests without interference, intimidation or punitive action, yet they protest vigorously against granting that same basic democratic right of association to workers? Surely the members of this committee must recognize the inconsistency, if not the clear hypocrisy, of a business representative opposing Bill 40 while at the same time exercising those very same rights of collective association.
For over a year now, voices within Ontario's business sectors have engaged in a campaign to dissuade foreign investment from locating in Ontario. We have been astonished by the number of reputable employers who have been caught up in the hysterics. Billboard slogans, reminiscent of political editorial cartoons found in Ontario around the period of 1943 to 1945, are an insult to the intelligence of our citizens and reveal a mentality inconsistent with Ontario's wellbeing.
Unfortunately, these slogans and attitudes have been parroted by some members of this Legislature. Suggestions that Ontario is an anti-business province, simply because of the introduction of legislation already commonplace in the world's strongest and most productive economies and designed as well to recognize that workers are entitled to relief from employer abuse, can hardly be characterized as pro-Ontario. These negative messages cast doubts upon the abilities and productive capacities of Ontario's hardworking men and women.
No doubt these voices also subscribe to a business opinion which appeared in the Toronto Sun on June 5 of this year, the day after the introduction of the legislation, an excerpt of which I will quote, "What the socialists in power at Queen's Park don't seem to realize is that labour is a commodity, like a can of beer, an automobile or a refrigerator."
The workers of this province, we can assure you, do not see themselves as inanimate, senseless, unintelligent, unthinking commodities. It would appear by the proposals contained within Bill 40 that the provincial government's view of the workers and their value to society, their worth and their dignity, is much more humane than the brutal view expressed by the Toronto Sun. We trust the opposition parties in the Legislature will distance themselves from this disparaging view and attitude towards workers and support the advancement of workers' rights proposed in the legislation before us.
We ask the members of this committee to focus on the fundamental issue before you, granting relief to countless thousands of Ontario workers who suffer abuse at the hands of their employers.
We want to be clear. We do not think that all employers are the same in their treatment of their employees. Ontario has many employers who treat their workers fairly and with respect. However, the reality is that many employers act in a punitive and negligent manner and do abuse their workers.
The records of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Ministry of Labour, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission show that thousands of this province's workers have suffered sexual harassment, injury and death as a result of employer negligence. Many have been cheated out of statutory benefits, disciplined and discharged without cause, forced to work without statutory compensation and even threatened with deportation.
We believe many other cases never see the light of day because of the workers' fear of reprisal by their employers. Most often, these cases are to be found in non-union workplaces. We find it difficult to understand why business is fighting so hard to protect abusive employers and maintain an environment which will guarantee continued abuse of defenceless workers.
In this short introduction, we wish as well to ask members of the committee to keep in mind that business opposition to the advancement of workers' rights is not new, although the level of the current volume is somewhat surprising.
Employers have, as a matter of historical record, opposed, among other public policy measures, the Factory Act of 1884 prohibiting the use of child labour and establishing minimum workplace rules. They have opposed suffrage and the extension of a right to vote to women; reductions in the workweek of 60, 54 and 48 hours to the present 40; the removal from criminal law of the provision of engaging in a conspiracy if a worker joined a trade union; the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915; the health and safety acts, Bills 79 and 208; public education; the Canada pension plan and, of late, pay equity and Bill 40, to name a few.
Employers have supported public policy measures such as wage controls, the Canada-US free trade agreement, unemployment insurance cutbacks, pension clawbacks and reduced social expenditures. On the other hand, enabling the most vulnerable in Ontario's workforce to gain fairness and equity has been met with opposition from most employers. Either through support or opposition to public policy initiatives, the pattern has been consistent: Any measure designed to help workers has been opposed by business spokespersons.
1010
As you have now gathered, the Ontario Federation of Labour is particularly interested in the amendments contained in Bill 40, not from any narrow, self-serving perspective, but from the perspective of fairness and equity for all working people. This is why we support the legislative initiatives in areas of pay equity and employment equity and this is why we support the labour law reforms contained in Bill 40.
We believe that more needs to be done for those working people in Ontario who need help the most: women, visible minorities and youth, who are increasingly employed in the poorly paid small workplace sector. We therefore would particularly like to draw to the attention of the members of the committee that part of our submission that speaks to the issue of broader-based bargaining.
The remainder of our presentation is contained within the following pages of this brief. For the convenience of this committee, we have indicated as best we can which amendments we support and why we support them and where in our opinion the proposals are either incomplete or as yet inadequate.
We are ready to respond to any questions on the foregoing remarks, and of course upon the content of our submission.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have about six minutes per caucus.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to ask you a question that has to do with the matter of picketing and the right to organize. As I understand it, Bill 40 says that such matters can only be dealt with by the labour relations board and that no action lies to the court as to whether any of those matters are legal, the correct number for picketing, the proper restrictions etc.
The labour relations board is chosen by the government of the day. My question to you on this specific matter as to increasing the powers of the labour relations board, particularly when it can be quite political, is, is this a proper way of dealing with a matter such as this when we're trying to harmonize the relationship between the employer and the employee?
Mr Wilson: I wonder if I could just clarify what your question is. You're asking the difference between our preference with regard to a board procedure versus a court procedure?
Mr Tilson: I'm simply saying there is now no court procedure; it is all in the hands of the labour relations board. I'm submitting to you that when these matters involve questions of law, and particularly when the courts are independent on these matters and the labour relations board, because it's chosen by the government of the day, clearly may not be as independent on such very important matters, is that proper?
Mr Wilson: I think you have to rely upon the process which has been part of the culture of Ontario, which incidentally was introduced by your party's government. I believe you're a Conservative member.
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Mr Wilson: I believe it was introduced by the Conservative Party. It really said that rather than pursuing tort, workers and employers would rely upon a quasi-judicial body or agency to make decisions and which would be more familiar with the aspects of what those decisions would be. I think the same roots are found, as an example, in the Workers' Compensation Act where the tradeoff clearly was that workers gave up the right of tort or to pursue relief through the courts in exchange for a speedy and adequately rendered system of compensation, which we have some quarrel with and have had for some time, but nevertheless, I think that is clearly part of the culture of Ontario and one which the government is not, as we understand the bill, proposing to alter. We have not made any suggestion in that regard either.
Mr Tilson: I only submit to you that the whole purpose of labour is to get these matters out of the courts and into the Ontario Labour Relations Board where those types of matters have been more favoured on the labour side. I'm simply submitting to you that when those matters are dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- very important matters -- on the legality of those issues, they will not be dealt with as independently as they would be by the courts, which are traditionally more independent.
Mr Wilson: I have some quarrel with that because I have some knowledge of the workings of the labour relations board. I think you really cast some aspersions upon the quality of those members advanced to the board from the labour community, the employer community and those individuals who sit as vice-chairs, and of course the appointment of the chairs themselves, whoever they may be.
Mr Tilson: I'm simply saying that those members are appointed by the government of the day.
Mr Wilson: That's not entirely true, sir, with great respect. They are in fact appointed by the government of the day, but certainly the way the system works, they are appointed based on the nominations, at least, from the business and worker constituencies, those people advanced by those constituencies as nominees.
Mr Tilson: Clearly, I submit to you that when you're dealing with matters of law, the legality of matters, quite appropriately those matters should be dealt with by the courts, as opposed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I'm not making any disparaging remarks about the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I'm simply questioning that there are some matters, specifically legal matters, that are more appropriately dealt with by the courts than by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That's all I'm saying to you.
Mr Wilson: The board has some limitation on what its ability is as well. Those decisions of the board are subject to the courts in circumstances that are described as where the board has exceeded or gone beyond its jurisdiction, and there's quite a body of evidence to support that.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Wilson, to me the most interesting presentation we had yesterday was from the Christian Labour Association of Canada. The last sentence of their brief was, "One positive step in that direction would be to restore unions as voluntary organizations and prohibit the practice of compulsory union membership." I suspect you would find that certainly our party would be a lot more friendly to this legislation if that in fact were to be introduced. This was a trade union saying it believes something should be done to change the law, but this would be one of the most positive steps. Could you comment on that?
Mr Wilson: Mr Turnbull, I'm sure you would agree with me. Our federation represents 800,000 members in this province. If I remember rightly, the Christian Labour Association of Canada represents a membership of around 13,000, so it is on the margin of the views advanced by workers in this province through their organizations.
I would agree with you to this extent: Quite frankly, one of the most important and pivotal points of the legislation before us is to grant a worker the right to choose whether or not he wishes to belong to a union, and we very much support that initial choice as to whether or not workers wish to join a union. Of course, the legislation as it is currently constructed, prior to these amendments, also contains a provision to allow workers to exercise another choice, and that is to get out of a union if they decide they no longer want to belong in it. So I don't know to what extent, then, you're referring to the matter of choice.
Mr Turnbull: There's a school teacher in this province who very much objects to having union dues taken from him and sent, partly, to the NDP.
Mr Wilson: As I understand, in that case the Supreme Court agreed, as did lower courts, with the position of that worker's organization, that teacher's fellow workers.
Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Mr Wilson, they agreed within the framework of the existing law. I'm talking about the aspect of being forced to belong.
Mr Wilson: This is not a society that's monolithic. There are many and varied opinions, and one worker out of, in fact, millions isn't a bad record for us and I thank you for the compliment.
The Chair: Ms Murdock. Please leave Mr Huget some time.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I will.
Thank you for coming. I want to ask a question we've been hearing an awful lot about from a number of groups in terms of the secret ballot vote for certification purposes. Although they haven't gotten into the process, they've just basically asked why we wouldn't even consider or wouldn't look at the possibility of going for a reasonable secret ballot vote after a certain number of memberships have been signed. I'd like your opinion on that, and if you agree, then the process that would be used, and if you don't agree, why not?
Mr Wilson: I assume -- I'm making a presumption here, admittedly -- this government has looked at a number of jurisdictions in forming the legislation before you. I presume the reason that provision has not appeared in the current proposals is that you have looked at the American experience. The American experience has been absolutely a disaster for working people, and I can give you a couple of examples.
I think what the vote does in that circumstance is lead beyond the possibility of, to the exercise of circumvention, and most important, delay. In the process of delay, as we all know, an employer that wishes to exercise the ability to intimidate its workers, harass them, put pressure on them within the workplace certainly has that ability. That's not to say all employers do that, but the opportunity is there.
1020
I think when you look at the practice in the United States around delay with regard to the vote, what you will find is that both parties, the workers' representatives and the employer's representatives, have the ability to appoint scrutineers to the process. So one of the ways you exercise delay is that your scrutineer, for whatever reason, can't be there on the anointed date. He is sick or he has another court case; often they're from the legal profession. As a result, the process is delayed considerably. Then you get into the environment where those employers who wish to exercise those methods that would not be conducive to allowing a person a free and unimpeded choice begin to happen. I think the records of the national labour relations board substantiate what I've just said.
Second, I would like to make this point: It also has attached to it a presumption that workers are not able to make a decision in their own interests. In my experience in organizing -- and many of my colleagues, who are seated here today and those who are not here but whom you might later hear from, will tell you -- workers consider heavily and thoroughly, I would suggest to you and members of the committee, the decision as to whether or not they wish to join a union when they sign a card.
It is not a spontaneous act. It is one they clearly have lent some thought to and they make a decision on in the same way they make those decisions important to them when they go to the grocery store or when they are figuring out how much rent it is going to cost them or whether they can afford a mortgage.
Workers are not as the Toronto Sun and others may describe them. They are thoughtful people who think hard upon the decisions they're making, including joining a union.
Ms Julie Davis: I'd like to add one point about that. Unions want to know that a majority of the workers in a workplace are interested in belonging to that union, so when they sign a card they have in fact expressed a clear desire. The act requires more than a simple majority; in fact the act requires 55% for automatic certification. Balloting could be less than 50% of the workers in a workplace. You can't force people to vote. We know that from the numbers of the population that turn out to vote in municipal elections or federal elections or provincial elections. Municipal elections in particular are less than 50%. So the union could find itself in a position where it doesn't have a clear, expressed desire by a majority of the workers in that workplace. They'd much rather have a clear desire, which happens when the workers sign cards and those cards are submitted and the signatures are validated.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I'll get right to the point. Opponents of the reforms contained in Bill 40 point to a balance and suggest that there is a balance in the current Labour Relations Act, and then go further to suggest that the reforms contained in this bill will shift that balance. Is it your view or your organization's view that the current act is a fair balance between workers and employers? If it's not, what about it is unbalanced and unfair?
Mr Wilson: You're speaking of the current act prior to any amendments being placed upon it; let's be clear on that.
Mr Huget: Yes, sir.
Mr Wilson: No, it is not. If it were, if workers were given a clear, unimpeded right to make a choice whether or not they wished to belong to a union, I suggest to you the files in the ministry and the agencies I mentioned earlier would be considerably less than they currently are. The whole process has been one of attempting to circumvent that right and to delay that right.
Let me give you a case in point. In the city of Toronto, in which we now sit, in June of last year, 1991, over 5,000 taxi drivers voted as to whether or not they wished to belong to a union. These people are by and large those workers who are at the lower end of the income scale -- we all know who they are -- and some 14 months later as we sit here today, those ballot boxes have not yet even been opened to determine whether or not those workers, by expression of ballot, wish to belong to a union or not. That is all simply because of delay and circumvention.
The second point I make very quickly is that clearly with the introduction of the Canada-US free trade agreement, there is no question that the balance in collective bargaining, whatever there was, moved very quickly to the employer side. We have seen increased demands for concessions. We have seen employers threatening to close down and move to Buffalo. I'm sorry that even though the majority of the people of this country voted in opposition to that bill, the way the vote broke out the majority party now in power federally was able to sign that agreement. Unfortunately, it intends to exacerbate an already ugly situation by entering a North American free trade agreement.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. It's unfortunate that the time is so limited we aren't able to ask a series of questions on various aspects of the legislation in this short time allocated. However, I know my colleague Mr McGuinty has a question.
In your previous answer, you spoke about the need of workers in the area of the balance of the legislation, that they should be informed, that they should have a right of association, a right to join a union; none of which, I don't believe, anyone takes issue with. As you know, there has been a suggestion made that to promote that right, to promote the right of choice, of association, of the right to organize, full disclosure should be made, to an individual, whether he or she should join a union and what that entails, disclosure also from the employer's side, all of which is lacking in this particular bill, and that at the end of the day, in a free, open and democratic way, there should be the right to cast a secret ballot by the workers for or against the joining of a union, which is, I agree, a basic, fundamental right.
My question to you, Mr Wilson, is: What is the position of the OFL with respect to giving that freedom to the worker, in terms of full disclosure, to join or not to join a union, and to give to the worker the right to make his or her choice in a free, secret manner?
Mr Wilson: I agree that you have to reflect upon the record and the experience, and I can tell you -- I would share this with you, because I don't believe, Mr Offer, you've had the opportunity to organize workers. I have, and so have many of my colleagues, and those of us involved in organizing campaigns know full well that when you make full disclosure, when you talk to the workers about your dues structure, when you talk to them about comparative collective agreements you have negotiated in whatever sector or industry they may be located in, those organizing drives tend to be more successful and the workers agree with you, see an advantage to joining a union and in fact do join the union.
Where union organizers are not as open about their dues structure, where they are not as open about how successful they have been in representing workers' interests, then the record also shows, I think, that those organizing drives tend more often than not to fail. So the balance in the process is whether or not you want to see workers join your union or perhaps another union that may be more open. We've had cases of that as well.
But again it goes back to the basic fundamental right of workers to make a choice based on the information before them, and I've found in my experience, and I'm sure many members around this table have, that working people are like the other citizens of Ontario, whoever they may be. They're very thoughtful, they're incisive, they look carefully at the issues before them and they come to a conclusion. In some cases they agree that a union is a benefit to them and they opt to join; in other cases they decide it is not and they do not, and that will be the reflection, I think, of this legislation when it is finally passed.
Mr Ken Signoretti: Can I just add something to that? It's always very frustrating when you get into this kind of a situation and you hear about workers' rights and full disclosure. There's always a connotation that the union organizer is trying to con a worker into joining the union. And that happens. I'm sure it does. There's no question about it.
The fact of the matter is that you try to fully disclose and you give the information to those employees. Those employees then join a union, and two years from now or three years from now, they have the right to decertify. I want to tell you right here and now that if there was complete lack of sensitivity towards the employees, they wouldn't stay in that union. They would get out of that union, believe me.
Mr Wilson: And they have.
Mr Signoretti: And they have, in some instances, for that reason. And let's be honest about it: It's because they have been conned. In the vast, vast majority of instances, you always find that there's full disclosure, that people understand, and people make those decisions. There's kind of a resentment here on my part when you think people, or individuals, can't make an honest decision on their own.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, just before I commence, I don't know if there's enough time for a short supplementary and then a question by Mr McGuinty.
The Chair: One or the other.
Mr Offer: I'll have to yield the floor to Mr McGuinty, though I do have a supplementary.
Mr Wilson: I hope you guys are going to get around to the anti-scab question.
Mr Offer: Not enough time; we would very much appreciate addressing those questions.
1030
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I appreciate your prompting there, Mr Wilson. Maybe I'll touch on that briefly. With respect to replacement workers, you know, one of the arguments advanced by the proponents of Bill 40 is that this is an important provision; it'll eliminate picket line violence.
But let's set that aside for a moment and look at another provision which provides that workers who do not form part of the bargaining unit will be given the right to refuse to work during the course of a strike. For instance, if I'm one of those workers, I do not belong to the bargaining unit and I am not on strike. I approach the picket line and my fellow workers tell me: "Look, hang on a sec. You now have the right to refuse. You didn't have that right before. We don't want you to go in there." But I want to go in and work. Is it not reasonable to anticipate that this kind of provision is in fact going to lead to some kind of violence where hitherto it has not existed?
Mr Wilson: In most cases, Mr McGuinty, what you're referring to are supervisors -- who incidentally we argued fiercely should be included in the legislation; the government has seen fit not to do that, as far as their ability to organize is concerned -- or it would be some clerical workers if it were a production unit on strike. Our experience has been that in those cases, there really isn't much production going on. Quite frankly, those people were not very happy about having to do it in the first place, including supervisors incidentally, who we talked to and who I have as neighbours, as I'm sure you have.
The reality is that I don't expect there's likely to be heightened opportunity for conflict because the workers will be secure on the picket line knowing that we are now back to the balance which was presumed when the legislation was first introduced by a Conservative government in this province, and that was it's a simple economic contest: Can the workers hold out longer or can the employer hold out longer without the introduction of a third party, which must be rationalized and dealt with following the altercation? So I expect less altercation on the picket line. That has been the experience in Quebec as well.
The Chair: Gordon Wilson, Julie Davis, Ken Signoretti and Chris Schenk, on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Labour, we appreciate your participation and your valuable comments. We trust that you'll be keeping in touch. Thank you for being here this morning.
Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. For those members who feel there was not enough time, I would say on behalf of my colleagues that we would be prepared at any point to enter into a public debate before any audience on the subject matter with them.
The Chair: I want to remind people watching that we're at Queen's Park, that we're going to be sitting until 9 o'clock tonight and that these are public hearings; people are entitled to and encouraged to attend. There's seating for observers, and the public is heartily invited to come up here to Queen's Park and watch this in person. I want to tell people also there's coffee and some soft drinks at the side. Those are for the benefit of people visiting us. Please make yourselves at home and try to feel comfortable.
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF CANADA, LOCAL 517
The Chair: The next participants are the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada, Local 517. Please come on up, seat yourselves in front of a mike. I'd also tell people of course that transcripts by way of Hansard are available of any part of these proceedings. It's simply a matter of contacting an MPP or the clerk of the resources development committee. Similarly the submissions, most of which have been made exhibits, are available to the public, any single one of them or a collection of them.
Please tell us your names and your titles. We've got till the hour. Try to keep your comments restricted to the first 15 minutes so that we have time for dialogue.
Mr Mike Menicanin: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We'll argue about that five minutes that we seem to have lost at the end.
The Chair: Maybe you want to take it up with Mr Wilson.
Mr Menicanin: He's already left. I'd like to introduce the members of the panel that we brought to Queen's Park. Mr Steve Farkas is a national staff representative for the United Electrical Workers union in Hamilton. Mr Gary Schryer is a relatively new local president of Local 517, which represents the outside city employees in the city of Welland. My name is Mike Menicanin. I'm a national staff representative for the United Electrical Workers union in Welland as well.
I'd like to start, Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee, representatives of the business community, brother and sister trade unionists, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada (UE) in the Golden Horseshoe area, we wish to thank you for this opportunity to comment on the government's initiative in the area of labour law reform.
We represent four locals in the Niagara region and a further nine in the Hamilton district and have agreements covering some 5,000 workers in a wide variety of occupations. UE Hamilton Local 504 has been in operation for over 55 years, Local 520 is in its 50th year and Local 523 in Welland will be celebrating its 50th anniversary in 1993.
As you can well imagine, our organization has represented workers in the days when there was little, if any, labour law and workers were forced to take direct action against their employers whenever they wanted recognition, fair treatment and a living wage for their families and for themselves.
We have survived successive federal and provincial governments that have reluctantly introduced labour law protection in the face of massive popular demand, as well as the obvious need to give employees at least some say in the workplace. We are before you today as a legitimate, well-established organization that has grown since 1937, both in our ability to represent the interests of working people and also to act as a force for positive social change.
Unfortunately, the sad fact remains that in the eyes of the business community, clearly evident in its response to the government's initiatives, we are still a radical and subversive element that needs to be suppressed. As far as business is concerned, things haven't changed since the days of Hal Banks. This is why we support the courage and the foresight of the NDP government of Ontario in bringing the issue of labour law reform to the forefront.
While most everyone across the province, business, governments and the population, agrees that we continue to experience very fundamental change in our society, this government has responded to change in a way that, in our opinion, can only benefit the average worker of Ontario.
Having said this, we must also express our bitter disappointment that you have held back as much as you have, not only from the recommendations made by the labour community in the Burkett report -- the labour side, anyway -- Partnership and Participation in the 90s, but also you have retreated from the position taken in the Ministry of Labour discussion paper of November 1991.
We know only too well the massive pressure brought to bear by the business community's well-heeled and, in our opinion, utterly irresponsible campaign against these initiatives. In fact we don't think there has ever in the history of Canada been such an outright attack by representatives of capital designed not only to defeat proposed legislation but to undermine and ultimately destroy a government elected by the people of this province. We'll have more to say on this issue later in our presentation, but for now we'd like to address some of the specifics in the legislation.
We are pleased to see a purpose clause included in Bill 40. While this is an improvement over the current preamble to the act, it falls short of recognizing effective trade union representation as a catalyst in advancing equality between employees and their employer. In our view, the purpose clause sets the tone for the entire act and must be strongly worded. Certainly there remains room for considerable improvement in this area.
The right to organize has at long last been extended to those who were previously excluded. We can only take this as a positive move. However, the proposed amendments still make for some second-class citizens, the continued exclusion of supervisory employees being the most notable. Our union has long advocated the right to organize such employees. The argument of conflict of interest is easily resolved through the separation of bargaining units. We find it strange that a government which supports the right of everyone to freely join the trade union of his or her choice maintains a prehistoric attitude of the past.
The inclusion of domestics in the act is obviously welcome, but in reality it's only half a victory. This style of employment means separate workplaces, separate employers and security of their jobs continuously at risk. In order to put teeth into a domestic's right to organize, the act must provide for organization and representation on a sectoral basis. In fact the broad issue of sectoral representation is one that the government should revisit, due to the ever-changing employment structures in the province.
Protection from unfair labour practice is one of the most important issues facing workers. That's the right to choose to belong to trade unions and their ability to exercise this right without being molested by their employers. Acts of employer intimidation are commonplace during union-organizing campaigns. The government's proposal, even though an improvement over the existing process, falls far short of what is needed to protect the very fundamental right of a worker to choose to join a union. In our view, the only solution to this very real problem is the complete prohibition against discharge and discipline during an ongoing organizing drive.
1040
Now the business community will surely cry foul and charge undue interference in its ability to operate a business, but if it acted responsibly, and perhaps in the spirit of our direct competitors in the European market, we might even agree that this level of protection would not be required. I ask you, Mr Chairman and other members of this committee, to look at the face business has put forward during this campaign. Is it a face expressing reason, or is it more like that of Nightmare on Elm Street's Freddy Krueger? I'll leave that for you to decide.
Regarding the access to third-party property, we welcome the improvements made for organizing and picketing purposes at direct entrances and exits to the workplace in question. We are very concerned, however, that the labour relations board properly interpret the term "undue disruption" as it applies to limiting these activities. We will be watching closely that this interpretation is applied in the interests of fairness and reassert our belief that access should be granted to areas such as parking lots and lunchrooms for organizing purposes as well. We really do want to come out of the bushes and take the cloak and dagger out of the union organizer's job description.
Finally on this issue, we still believe that lists of employee names should be provided to unions engaged in legitimate organizing campaigns upon request. The confidentiality argument put forward by the opponents of this move is simply out of touch with today's reality. Just ask anyone working for Publishers Clearing House about the sanctity of names lists.
On membership fees, we support the government amendment that removes what has historically been nothing more than a frustrating loophole exploited by employers to delay the certification process at the board. The removal of the $1 will make the establishment of union membership before the board easier, reduce taxpayers' costs and eliminate unnecessary delays.
On support for certification, we can only view this as a massive retreat by the government. In the November 1991 discussion paper the government's preferred option was absolute majority for automatic certification and 40% for a vote. While we support the move to 40%, the 55% level for automatic certification remains out of touch with other jurisdictions. We urge the government to reduce the level needed for automatic certification as set out in its 1991 document.
On anti-union petitions, it's high time Ontario moved in the direction of other Canadian jurisdictions in banning anti-union petitions after the union has applied for certification. The rampant use of these petitions has resulted in one of the most disruptive and costly aspects of workers trying to join unions, with protracted litigation before the board. As an organization, we can parade a host of examples where these petitions have been used as a weapon of fear during organizing drives. The target of this weapon was certainly the dignity, and often the jobs, of innocent workers. We firmly believe and strongly urge this government to take the final step to eliminate the use of anti-union petitions in its entirety.
In dealing with the structure and configuration of the bargaining unit, we welcome the advantages proposed regarding the consolidation of units, as framed in the government's proposals. We are, however, again concerned that this does not become another point of excessive and expensive litigation. The board will hold a major share of the responsibility in ensuring that it is applied fairly and in the best interests of both parties involved.
We are also very disappointed to see that the government has backed away from the issue of facilitating employee access to collective bargaining. We know that many workers -- and domestics are a prime example -- face extraordinary physical and technical barriers when they consider joining a union. The government must respond to this need if it truly wishes to accomplish the goal of updating our labour laws to meet the challenges of today and the future.
On first-agreement arbitration, while we believe that the government's amendment to access first-contract arbitration after a 30-day period is an improvement, our union has argued that it should be granted upon application by the union.
The fact remains that there are employers out there who still have an attitude such as the one expressed by one of the more famous Tory MPs, Mr Don Blenkarn, who is quoted as saying: "The Canadian worker can either work harder for less money or not work at all. That's what competitiveness means." Well, 30 days of economic confrontation is not in the best interests of either party when trying to reach a first contract and certainly won't improve the labour relations climate in Ontario. When you're faced with that kind of attitude, first-contract arbitration may be the answer.
On the use of scabs, this has been by far the most controversial section of the proposed amendments. Since the introduction in 1978 of the Quebec anti-scab legislation, there has been considerable debate and study. The effects of that legislation have been carefully tracked. Their experience shows an improved labour relations climate and, more important, a drastic reduction in picket line violence. We are confident that the Ontario government's anti-scab provisions will also reduce, and hopefully eliminate, hostile picket line confrontation.
Recognizing the giant step taken by this government, this proposal also has some serious limitations, and they prove to be another retreat from the November 1991 discussion paper. The limitation on performing bargaining unit work during a strike would only apply to the workplace where a strike is occurring and it would allow the employer to shift work to another location or simply contract it out.
In addition, the significant change from the November 1991 paper would also allow those non-bargaining unit employees who work at the struck location to perform the work of strikers -- another retreat. The shoddy attempt to cover up this move by giving those employees the right to refuse such work only goes to show how short the memory of the government really is.
Prior to breaking its promise by allowing wide-open Sunday shopping, the government introduced a bill that would limit Sunday shopping, giving those who did not want to work on Sunday the right to refuse. After some careful review and the application of good old common sense, even the government concluded that the right-to-refuse provision would be difficult to enforce and maybe even impossible. Well holy cow, Mr Chairman, here we are at the Ontario Labour Relations Act reform and it's back. Further, there is no requirement on the part of the employer to advise the employees that they have the right to refuse.
The government released a fact sheet with its proposals and suggests that its initiative will shorten the duration of strikes and help Ontario in the new global economy. We can assure you, Mr Chairman, they are dead wrong. For as long as there remain loopholes for employers to exploit, as they have done historically, they will continue to do so. We believe that the government must fill these loopholes if we are to truly succeed in today's economy.
On the preservation of bargaining rights, in considering these proposals we recognize that they represent an improvement over the existing provisions, but we must point out that the relocation of businesses remains a major problem.
Our union, the UE, is no stranger to runaway plants, and we have been plagued in the past by this terrible example of Canadian corporate citizenship. While our union initially proposed in our response to the government's paper full successor rights for business relocations in the province of Ontario, in our view, in the world of Brian Mulroney and George Bush, we will have to extend it right down to the Maquiladora zone and beyond. We strongly urge that you address this problem if you truly support the right of workers to join unions and have a real say in the workplaces across the province.
Finally, on the issue of adjustment and change in the workplace, we can only observe that this is a very tentative step in the right direction and that the problem calls for a much stronger solution. If we agree that equal footing in the workplace is the right road to travel, it must be recognized that in the Ontario of 1992 we have a long way to go.
The points put forward in these proposals will be workable only if the workers have a very strong bargaining base and the employer happens to be magnanimous enough to agree to improvements during a plant closure or mass layoff; about as common, in other words, as a blue moon.
We have unfortunately had the experience of trying to bargain closure agreements recently in Niagara Falls. On the first day of the announcement, 60 workers lost their jobs; the vast majority lost them within the month. In that particular instance, the well-established union had limited success with a somewhat responsive management, but the net effect left much to be desired.
In conclusion, the government is to be commended for initiating a full consultation process, hearing all points of view and for proposing from these consultations significant amendments to the act. We urge the government to consider our comments and continue with the reform of the act.
It's unfortunate that there are still some of those in the business communities who continue to wage war on the government and these proposed amendments. May we take this opportunity to remind this committee, for the benefit of our Liberal and Tory friends, that throughout history business has opposed progressive change: child labour laws, women's rights, workers' compensation, health and safety. There has always been a fight with the employer community.
How could we help but note the behaviour of both the organized business lobby and some members of the Ontario Tory and Liberal opposition when it comes to the important matter of labour law reform? As far as the business community is concerned, let us simply set the stage by considering the learned remarks of one of the big business giants, a man who has surely inspired many business administration students, including, we're sure, some of our opposition friends. We're speaking, of course, of Mr Conrad Black, who writes on labour law reform from the hallowed pages of the business bible, the Financial Post. We quote:
"I have in the past applied a few flourishes to my descriptions of the Rae government, but in this case it is nothing less than the truth to say that the provincial government plans a union usurpation of the means of production, expropriation without compensation." Very reasonable remarks.
1050
Let's deal with one of the descriptive flourishes from Mr Black, and we again quote:
"Unless the Ontario business community fights effectively for its life and the government of Ontario has a spontaneous or induced deathbed conversion to the incentive economic system, Canada's prosperity and status as a member of the Group of Seven will be martyred to the innumerate Luddite biases of the NDP. And not even the traditional NDP at that; Bob Rae's government is a bagel of single-issue fanatics: militant homosexuals, feminists, abortionists, ecogeeks, worker radicals and social agitators, standing and shrieking on each other's shoulders. This is neither novelty nor democracy."
The most unfortunate thing about this attitude is that it's not exclusive to Mr Black. This somewhat hysterical tone can be found in business attitude towards labour law reform as a whole. This ongoing terrorist-style campaign is, in a word, bizarre. We strongly suspect that the labour law reform is really a front for the much more sinister agenda, which is simply the destruction of the New Democratic government.
We strongly suggest to the members of the opposition that they would be wise to distance themselves from the tactics of Ontario's big business lobby. They should spend less time cataloguing our beautiful provincial lakes and direct this wasted energy to assisting the government in bringing business and labour together in dealing with the very real problems we face in this rapidly changing world. We strongly believe that a prosperous future depends on meaningful partnerships, even if some of the parties have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming.
We want to thank you, Mr Chairman, and just note that there is in the package that was distributed an article from yesterday's Welland Tribune, where a member of the business community says: "`Unions will not have to go back to their members with the employer's final offer. They (unions) can say no. The members will be at the mercy of their union leaders.'"
This is representative of the kind of comments being made by the business community. It is totally inaccurate and incorrect. The Welland chamber of commerce made that comment. They will be here next week, and some of the members of the committee might want to ask them where they got that information.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you for coming forward with a good presentation. I notice that you all have buttons on: "Labour Reform, It's About Time."
Leading into my question, part of the reason why the bill has been brought forward is to reduce conflict, confrontation and have good labour union relationships in the changing workforce that has taken place over the last number of years. I notice that, on page 10 and again on page 13 of your presentation, you're talking about replacement workers and how that affects the relationships that go on afterwards.
Personally, in my community in northern Ontario there's a monument up. A few years ago, where replacement workers were brought in, hunting rifles were brought out and 11 people ended up on the ground. Three died and eight ended up in the hospital. The monument is along Highway 11, which is an extension of Yonge Street up there. I want to know what your experience has been as far as replacement workers are concerned and how that affects the community and the workforce.
Mr Menicanin: I've had two experiences with a strike. One fortunately did not involve replacement workers and one did. All I can note is that while they were both difficult situations, the strike -- and it was in Niagara Falls -- that did use replacement workers left a bitterness not only at the workplace that had to be dealt with for some six or seven years -- before the plant closed, mind you, and the bitterness was still there. It also left a bitterness in the community, because you find that replacement workers are your son or your daughter or somebody who's in desperate economic straits. In our opinion, they're being exploited, especially in today's economy.
In the other community the strike was again difficult and there was some hard feelings afterwards, but there was no lingering hatred, I suppose, because of the confrontation the scab issue produces. Personally, I noticed a vast difference, and frankly it was a lot easier to work through the one company after the strike than it was with the other.
The Chair: Mr Fletcher, a short question.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a really quick question. Does your union or any union you know of actively go out to destroy a business, to create disharmony in a workplace? Are you working with or against?
Mr Menicanin: Let me give you a quick answer. I think if we went in to actively destroy a business, the members of that particular place of employment wouldn't have us as a union any more. We're there to try to preserve employment to our best ability and to represent the needs of our members. Certainly we wouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot that way.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. We'll have two very short questions because of the limited time permitted.
Just as an opening comment before I get into my question, I must say, if I can share this, there is some concern when, for instance, you've characterized the business community and its opposition and its campaign exercising its right to comment on its concerns about the bill as something evil.
As an opening comment, I think that's a basic right that we all share. If people feel that there is something about a piece of legislation they have concerns about, they have the right to do that. It's very similar to the right for yourself to wear the button you're wearing now, "Labour Reform, It's About Time." It's very similar to that right. It's very similar to the right I believe the OFL exercised when it had radio ads commenting about the other side of the bill.
I must say as an opening comment that I find it disturbing that when one group wishes to exercise its right in terms of its concerns about a bill, that somehow is evil, whereas if someone is using the same right in talking about why the bill is necessary, that happens to be good. I find that disturbing.
My question, however, is that in your presentation you say, "The right to choose belongs to a trade union." I would like you, if you could, to please expand upon that, because I believe it has been indicated earlier on that this right is not to a trade union, it is to an individual. I would like you to expand upon why you feel the right is to a trade union.
Mr Menicanin: My apologies, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. We put this brief together last night very late and did not run through a final draft. That particular section is a typo, and if you listen to the remarks I made as opposed to what's in the brief, the right is not for a trade union; the right is for a person to choose. I have to apologize. There are a number of typos in this particular brief. If the committee wishes, when we do a final draft we will send you another 25 copies. We wanted you to have the best we could produce in the short period of time allowed.
Just to respond to your initial remark, Mr Offer, I suppose that the evil, if you want to use that term, is the inaccuracies, the misleading statements that are being made by members of the business community. We don't support going to a newspaper and telling lies, and that's what's happening. Now, if you think that they have the right to do that, you're absolutely right. They do. They have the right to lie or they have the right to mislead. But we don't support that as something that's right. If we want to be fair about it, let's talk turkey. Let's talk reality. Let's not spread fear, and that's what's happening.
Mr McGuinty: Yes. One of the things that really holds a lot of appeal to me is a statement in your presentation here where you said, "We really do want to come out of the bushes and take the cloak and dagger out of the union organizer's job description." If I could broaden that, I think we could say that we want to take the cloak and dagger out of the union organization.
Am I being too idealistic if I can foresee some kind of process whereby an employer is required to allow reasonable access in order for union organizers to meet the employees? The process would also require that the employer have an opportunity to address the employees in that regard as well, and subsequently, after some period of time, there would be a vote, a secret ballot to determine whether or not they're going to have a union. Am I being overly idealistic? What is unfair with that kind of process?
1100
Mr Menicanin: Simply, Mr McGuinty, the employer holds the economic life of that worker in his hands. For whatever reason, an employer can decide to terminate an employee if he does something he doesn't like.
Our experience in organizing campaigns is very simply that when the employer gets wind of an organizing campaign there are activities, to some degrees lesser and to some degrees greater, to try to convince employees that they should not have a union. If I go, for example, to a vote and the employer scrutineer is my production manager or the man who signs my paycheques and he looks me in the eye and I know what he's thinking, then I don't think you're going to get the result you really want.
I think individual workers should have the right to express themselves by signing membership cards, by making a commitment with their signatures, and in our opinion 51% should be sufficient for automatic certification. We said that in our brief. We don't think the climate in a workplace where there's a vote to be held is fair. It's not going to be fair to those employees because of our experience where intimidation has taken place.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): How much time does our caucus have?
The Chair: You have the same time as everybody else, two questions.
Mr Arnott: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in this morning. To follow up on that last question from Mr McGuinty, do I understand correctly that your union is opposed to a legislated requirement of a secret ballot for ratification and acceptance of a final contract offer?
Mr Menicanin: I don't think that was the question. The question was some kind of vote.
Mr Arnott: That's my question. Are you opposed to that?
Mr Menicanin: To what?
Mr Arnott: To a legislated requirement for a secret ballot on those matters?
Mr Menicanin: On organizing?
Mr Arnott: On ratification of contracts or acceptance of final-contract offers, for example.
Mr Menicanin: First of all, I don't know that is part of the reform being proposed by the government.
Mr Arnott: No, but that is a private member's bill before the Legislature at the present time which has been sponsored by a member of our caucus.
Mr Menicanin: Yes. Frankly, I can only speak to our experience. We have a secret ballot in my local. Our shops certainly did not come here today, though, to discuss another piece of legislation.
Mr Arnott: It's labour law reform we're trying to discuss.
Mr Menicanin: We're here to discuss Bill 40. I don't know whether that's --
Mr Arnott: I guess we're hoping to see amendments to Bill 40, as well, coming out of this committee process. We hope that might be one of the outcomes.
Mr Menicanin: So would we. I don't know if that's the amendment we would be asking for.
Mr Arnott: So you're not going to answer my question.
Mr Tilson: I'd like to ask for your comment with respect to the fact that there now will be no protection for individuals to change their minds in the certification process. That has been taken out, notwithstanding the fact that that may not be explained to them. The whole process may not be explained to them. They may not understand what they're doing etc. Could you comment as to what your position or your union's position is on that specific provision?
Mr Menicanin: You're speaking, Mr Tilson, about the issue of petitions?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Mr Menicanin: I think, again, we're very strongly in opposition to petitions. The way a trade union is set up --
Mr Tilson: No, my question was about the provision that when an application is made for certification, individuals, employees, cannot change their minds if they have voted in support of certification.
Mr Steve Farkas: Our position is very, very clear and I think it's spelled out in the brief. Through our experiences, Mr Tilson, we have run into situations time and time again with the question of petitions where the decision to change one's mind regarding union organization or the signing of a union card is, in most cases, employer driven by the use of certain intimidation tactics by the employer.
Of course our position, as far as we're concerned and what you see in our brief, is quite simply that we do not believe, once that card is signed, there should be the right to change your mind. Working people aren't ignorant. Working people are intelligent people. They ask questions of union organizers. I don't know where the idea or the perception comes from that you simply go to a doughnut shop, hand out the union cards and everybody signs them. That's not the case. Hours and hours sometimes are spent explaining the process, explaining what the union does and explaining the collective agreement in order to secure a union card. It's not a misinformed decision by an individual; it's a very well-informed decision.
The Chair: I want to thank Mike Menicanin, national staff representative, Steve Farkas, national staff rep from Hamilton, and Gary Schryer, president of Local 517. Mr Schryer, it's Wednesday in Welland. I don't know whether it's one of those Wednesdays that made it possible for you to be here or not, but in any event --
Mr Menicanin: It'll be wacky next week.
The Chair: -- the committee welcomes, enjoys and appreciates your comments. The Hamilton-Niagara region has a long and significant history and you've made a valuable contribution to this process. Thank you to you and your membership.
We will await the edited copy of your brief to be made an exhibit. I trust you can have that to us before the end of next week.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES
The Chair: The next participants are representatives of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. Please come on up and have a seat in front of a microphone. Tell us your names, please, and your titles. We've got until the half hour. Please try to restrict your comments to the first half of that so we have time for exchanges.
Ms Louise Leck: My name is Louise Leck. I'm the manager of education services and accreditation at the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. With me is Mr Sylvio Mainville, the executive director of the Hamilton-Wentworth Children's Aid Society. After I conclude my opening remarks, Mr Mainville is prepared to give you some specific examples about managing a children's aid society through a fairly lengthy strike situation so that you'll have some practical things to think about in terms of what's involved.
This legislation in its current form, we feel, poses a serious threat to the "best interests, protection and wellbeing of children," which is the paramount objective of the Child and Family Services Act, under which children's aid societies are designated.
Children's aid societies are mandated to ensure the protection of children and the prevention of circumstances which would require their protection. Portions of this proposed labour legislation puts the demands of the workforce ahead of the needs of children during a strike or lockout. We feel children should not be put in second place.
When this proposed legislation forces CASs to choose between their responsibilities to protect children under the Child and Family Services Act and obeying certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act, their choice will have to be clear. From a policy perspective, children's aid societies must and will continue to protect children first.
We will speak to you about three aspects only of the legislation which in particular affect children's aid societies' ability to provide adequate services to children during a labour disruption.
Just some background, first of all: There are 54 children's aid societies in Ontario, three of which provide services exclusively to native children and families. The remaining 51 provide services to approximately 79,000 families per year whose children are living with them in the community. In addition, they provide residential services for another 20,000 children per year, and many of these services are mandatory under the Child and Family Services Act.
CASs are required to investigate all allegations that a child may be in need of protection and respond to crises involving children on a 24-hour-a-day basis. Legislation and government standards require that societies respond within certain defined time lines. Some of the services which children's aid societies must provide are described in our brief, and Mr Mainville will speak to those in a few minutes.
The kinds of services we provide are provided by approximately 3,000 front-line social work, residential child care and clerical staff in 51 societies. The majority of those societies, 40 of them, and the majority of front-line staff, 2,700 of the 3,000, are unionized already.
Social work, legal and residential child care services must be provided by staff with particular professional qualifications. Children's aid societies have on the whole enjoyed constructive relationships with their unions. A recent survey of our member societies, with 31 of the 40 reporting to us, revealed only eight strikes, ranging from a few days to three months over the last 10 years. In fact, CASs have worked very hard to improve staff salaries, benefits and working conditions in order to attract and maintain the well-qualified and experienced workforce we need to provide quality service to children.
1110
Before proceeding further, it's important to state clearly that the majority of employers in our sector have been operating successfully within the current labour legislation and see no compelling reason for the major changes which are proposed in the revised legislation before us now.
Children's aid societies were alarmed when the suggested revisions to the Labour Relations Act first became public, and they voiced their objections to the Minister of Labour around three particular changes. The first is the expansion of the bargaining unit to include supervisors; second, removing the exclusion of professionals such as lawyers, and third, prohibiting the use of replacement workers.
These revisions would, each in its own way, compromise a CAS's ability to provide the mandatory services required under the Child and Family Services Act, leaving children in danger and child welfare authorities in breach of either one piece of legislation or the other.
The minister has responded, in part, to two of these three areas of concern in the proposed legislation. I will review briefly our reactions to what the proposed legislation says on these three issues.
First, the exclusion of supervisors from the bargaining unit: Child welfare authorities were relieved that supervisory staff will remain excluded from the bargaining unit. Supervisory staff in our system are essential to the ability of a CAS to provide mandatory services during a work stoppage.
However, a serious problem with the proposed legislation still remains where supervisors are concerned. The use of newly hired managerial staff is prohibited in situations where these staff have been hired or transferred into their positions after the earlier date of either the notice to bargain or the date on which bargaining begins. In practical terms, this prohibition could put unnecessarily harsh restrictions on CASs, particularly on small and medium-sized ones. Children's aid societies come in various sizes. For example, two of them have a total of only three managers each, and 12 others have between four and six. At the other extreme, the large urban societies have between 54 and 108 management positions to work with.
Consider the following scenario, which would not be unusual in a small children's aid society: 16 months may have elapsed between the notice to bargain and the commencement of a strike. Two of the society's three complement social work supervisor positions came open and replacements were made during that period. Two other management positions that the society has are executive director and business manager.
In this scenario, the society would have only one supervisor and one executive director who would be qualified to provide mandatory social work services without resorting to the complex bureaucratic process for having prohibited, "newly hired" managers approved as specified replacement workers. While it is possible in a strike situation that the union might simply consent to these new managers being approved as specified replacement workers, it is also quite likely that the union would not.
This prohibition unfairly penalizes societies which have simply had the unavoidable and unpredictable misfortune of turnover within their management ranks after the union had served notice to bargain. It also increases the level of bureaucratic process with which the employer must deal while trying to provide basic essential services to children, and it leads to costly Ontario Labour Relations Board hearings.
Our second concern relates to the removal of the exclusion, particularly for legal staff in children's aid societies. Most CASs have legal counsel on staff to handle the court-related requirements dictated by the Child and Family Services Act. These lawyers are specialists in child welfare related legislation and are critical to societies' ability to discharge properly their legal obligations under the CFSA. Societies' legal obligations remain during strike situations. Our legal staff has special expertise which cannot be duplicated either by contracting out with outside firms or by using non-legal personnel.
The Minister of Labour, in a June 17, 1992, letter to Jim Wilson, MPP for Simcoe West, said, "Children's aid societies could be affected...but the impact of this amendment cannot be accurately determined in advance." We are concerned that the minister is prepared to proceed with this change without examination of the potential consequences, particularly in our sector.
The possibility of lawyers organizing their own bargaining units would be an issue only in a few of the largest societies. In the majority of small and medium-sized societies, however, the one or two legal staff would simply become part of an existing bargaining unit. CASs without the necessary in-house counsel during a strike, but required to meet their legal obligations under the CFSA, are again put in a position where they must choose between violating the Labour Relations Act or the Child and Family Services Act.
The state must ensure that CASs are making appropriate and timely decisions about children who are alleged to be abused or neglected. The court process and the safeguards for children and families that it represents must not be compromised because societies do not have access to qualified, experienced legal staff.
Similar problems may arise in the larger societies which employ psychologists and other specialists to provide in-house assessments of children receiving CAS services. If societies are not permitted to purchase such services from outside contractors, then once again employers are faced with the need to break one law in order to fulfil their obligations under another.
Our third issue concerns the permitted use of specified replacement workers. First of all, let me say that children's aid societies are pleased to see that the government has recognized that certain essential, mandatory services must be maintained during a work stoppage, using replacement workers if necessary.
The proposed legislation states very clearly that such workers will be permitted to provide residential care for children in need of protection to assist those children to live outside a residential care facility and to provide emergency shelter or crisis intervention services to children in need of protection or victims of violence, and also to prevent danger to life, health or safety.
At first glance these exemptions appear to allow CASs the necessary resources to carry out their mandatory requirements. On closer examination, however, a number of troubling issues arise which require some further clarification and thought. Replacement workers may be used but "only to the extent necessary to enable the employer" to provide necessary services or prevent danger to life, health or safety.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the level of staffing required to provide the essential services. Reasonable estimates can be made by children's aid societies based on the requirements of the legislation, current service patterns and demands and the assessed level of risk to children in individual cases which the society is dealing with.
Problems are likely to arise in a strike situation, however, when the union is asked to consent to a society's estimated level of need for provision of mandatory services and number of replacement workers required. If the union consents, there is no problem for the CAS in going ahead to provide those services. If the union, however, disputes the society's estimates of the level of staffing to provide the services or disagrees with the society about the specific services that are mandatory, what then? The obligation of CASs to deliver services to children in need of protection cannot be subject to the whims of union representatives during a labour dispute.
Although the employer appears to have the right to use specified replacement workers in emergency situations and inform the union later, the union's agreement still seems to be required. What if the union disputes the employer's definition of an emergency and its subsequent decision to utilize a replacement worker? It appears that such disagreements must be settled by a labour relations board, which will give directions about the manner and extent to which the employer may use replacement workers and modify any determination or direction in view of a change in circumstances.
We view with grave concern the apparent granting of powers to a labour relations board to interpret a CAS's accountability to provide mandatory services under the Child and Family Services Act. CASs may be placed in the untenable position of choosing between their accountabilities under the Child and Family Services Act and a direction or determination of a labour relations board.
Once again, this legislation virtually necessitates violations by conscientious CASs that are acting as substitute parents and must put the safety and wellbeing of their vulnerable clients first and threatens to increase dramatically the number of time-consuming and costly labour relations board hearings.
The proposed legislation requires that employers use bargaining unit employees to perform proposed work to the extent that the trade union has given its consent and employees are willing. We see this as a constructive provision and support it as providing an opportunity for some bargaining unit employees who wish to work to be able to do so and also as providing clients with services from experienced workers during a strike situation. So we're pleased to see that provision there.
While the government has on the one hand provided relief for mandatory services from the no replacement worker rule, it has on the other hand devised such a complex bureaucratic process for obtaining this relief that we feel ridiculous amounts of time and money will be spent on preparing for and participating in the hearings that would be required to make these arrangements.
1120
In conclusion, we would like to recognize again that the proposed legislation has responded to the need to provide certain essential and mandatory services to vulnerable populations and allow the use of management staff, bargaining unit employees and other replacement personnel in certain situations.
But the proposed legislation at the same time, we feel, throws up excessively costly, time-consuming bureaucratic roadblocks to children's aid societies that must provide mandatory services, forcing local definition and constant bargaining over what and how much service is essential during a strike situation when mutual consent will be highly unlikely; allowing the Ontario Labour Relations Board to be the final arbiter of need defined under the Child and Family Services Act; restricting the use of newly hired management staff; removing access to specialized services provided by staff lawyers and psychologists and, finally, placing CASs in constant conflict between their obligations to children under the CFSA and the requirement of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
We ask that the government consider the following three recommendations.
1. Remove restrictions on the use of newly hired management staff in covering bargaining unit work. These management staff are simply filling complement positions and should be allowed to provide service.
2. Exclude staff lawyers, psychologists and other specialized professionals in mandatory services from union participation.
3. Permit a child welfare system definition of mandatory services which must be provided to meet CFSA requirements, thus eliminating the necessity of bargaining this particular issue in each strike situation and hopefully reducing the number and related costs of labour relations board hearings which would otherwise be required.
The government must remove the obstacles to the provision of basic mandatory services which this proposed legislation puts in the way of children's aid societies, which are simply doing what they have to do under the CFSA. This labour legislation in its current form threatens the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children. This is not acceptable. The government must put first and foremost, ahead of its other agendas, the protection of the best interests of its youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
Thank you, Mr Chairman, for this opportunity to put our concerns and recommendations before this committee. Mr Mainville would like to provide you with some information about a specific strike situation and the kind of services which a CAS actually provides during that kind of situation.
Mr Sylvio Mainville: I have a few comments just to give you a brief picture about our situation in Hamilton, where we had a three-month strike between April and July 1989. Again our interest is simply to be able to respond effectively to the requirements of the legislation for the protection of children. I'm sure that you share that objective with us.
Here are some of the basic services that we provided during that three-month period. We received 677 referrals for children in need of protection. This included children where there are some concerns that they may be abused. It included situations where there's severe marital conflict between the parents and other situations where children are in need of protection.
The society had, during that period, 414 kids in its care and custody through the courts. As well, it also provided mandatory services to 447 active protection cases. That gave us a total of 1,538 mandatory cases that we had to provide service to with 25 people, which is about 20% of our workforce.
Let me break that down a little bit more for you. For example, an admission to care requires approximately 24 hours of service. This includes work around preparing the child; it includes taking the child for a medical assessment and services related to the placement of the child who is being separated from his natural family and placed usually in a foster home. This information is from a workload study that was conducted in southwestern Ontario.
An initial child abuse investigation requires 15.5 hours of service. That's simply a very preliminary investigation which includes a record check, checking with the provincial child abuse registry and often involves a face-to-face contact and a basic assessment about the family situation to determine if the child is in fact in a situation where he's being abused and where further service needs to be provided.
During that period we provided 246 mandatory visits to children. Under the legislation, when a child is removed from his home and placed in a foster home, within seven days and 30 days visits have to be made. As well, other visits need to be made on a regular basis to supervise the children in foster care and other resources the society uses for children in its care and custody.
During that three-month period there were 176 court appearances. I want you to pay particular attention to that, because the exclusion of lawyers would have placed the society under considerable stress. We have three full-time lawyers on our staff, and there were again 176 appearances required during that three-month period.
Some 177 of the 447 active protection cases we had were identified, based on specific criteria we utilized, to be medium- to high-risk, so those were cases that required ongoing service during that three-month period.
I went back to check on some of our records. If in fact we had to comply with what is being proposed, which is not to have the ability to make use of supervisors who were hired following the notice to bargain being issued, there were three supervisors we would not have been able to use.
I want to go back to the earlier comment that was made by my colleague. There are 14 children's aid societies in Ontario, places like Norfolk, Haldimand, Dufferin, and Timiskaming in northern Ontario, that have six or fewer managers and would be severely hindered in trying to meet the requirements of the legislation and in effectively protecting children if they were not able to make use of supervisors who are hired after the notice to bargain has been issued.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think many people in the province will be extremely alarmed by the provisions of Bill 40 when they recognize and realize, as per your submission, that what is in the best interests of the child may in fact be delegated to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in this province. I think that would cause some great concern, taking it out of the hands of the children's aid society.
It seems from your submission that what you are requesting is that the replacement worker provision not apply to anyone within the employ of the children's aid society in a variety of tasks. I'm wondering if that is a fair characterization of your position, and as a supplementary, whether, if that doesn't happen and there is work stoppage, you will necessarily find yourself in contravention of the principles and the purposes of the Child and Family Services Act of this province, where your paramount objective is to promote the best interests of the child.
1130
Ms Leck: I can respond to that, Mr Offer. First of all, some portions of the replacement worker clause are quite acceptable to us. For example, we're quite happy to have bargaining unit employees that the union agrees to have work work in the case of a stoppage. That's best for clients, to have people who are experienced and who know the community and the case load. That's in the best interests of everyone. We're also happy to have supervisors being able to replace, with the concern that we should have all supervisors, not just those who might have been there a long time.
Our concern mainly is with the process by which you would have to obtain permission to use specified replacement workers. What we've suggested in our third recommendation -- although it's not a detailed sort of recommendation -- is the idea that we think it's important to come to some general agreement about specific kinds of activities and services the CFSA requires us to continue to provide during a strike, and not have to go through the process of bargaining each and every time. We feel it's unnecessarily cumbersome.
In fact, the whole process of child welfare requires you to respond to situations when they happen. We'll frequently be going out and saying there is an emergency and that we're going to deal with it and then having to argue about it later.
What we're looking for is some way to reduce the need for lengthy and costly arguments before the board in order to provide services we have to provide anyway, and simply because of a strike situation the parties may not mutually consent. We would like some provision that would allow us to make that arrangement ahead of time, so we don't have to argue in each and every situation the merits of providing a service to children who are ordered by the court to be supervised in their own homes. We have to do that. If a union doesn't agree, we still have to do it and break the provisions anyway.
Mr Tilson: You touched on an area that gives me great concern. I represent one of the communities you spoke of, and that is the county of Dufferin, which doesn't have the size of staff other societies have. The system goes on, the social problems continue, the problems that end up in the courts continue, and the general advice that you give and the general protection to children when it's required continues. I believe there clearly will be some violations of the act, of other pieces of legislation, if these recommendations go through and that you -- not you individually but members of the children's aid society -- will end up possibly violating other pieces of legislation.
That's my personal view and you may or may not agree with me, but my question really is, what will happen to the system if the recommendations you're putting forward -- I'm dealing specifically with these smaller types of communities. What will happen to the system, the legal system, just the general operation, the general protection of the children?
Mr Mainville: It's difficult to predict what the exact outcome is going to be, but I think it's easy to anticipate. Again, I appreciate the comments you've made. We certainly share your concerns and I could not express them any better than you have, particularly with respect to smaller children's aid societies in Ontario. I don't see how they could continue to respond effectively to the needs of children we need to serve under the mandatory legislation we have in this province. It is very good legislation, but how we could respond effectively to the "best interests, protection and wellbeing of children" would be something that would be very difficult and I believe would place some children at risk, particularly in those small areas of Ontario that do not have the resources we have, for example, in Hamilton, where that danger would not be as severe as in your own county.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I appreciate your brief. I found it very informative. I noticed, unfortunately, that labour disputes do occur in children's aid societies. In fact, there is one, effective yesterday, in Durham where 80 employees, including clerical to social workers, have felt compelled, for whatever reasons, to reluctantly walk off the job. The existing managers, it's my understanding from a newspaper article, will be doing the work on a priority basis etc to ensure that the children's needs are taken care of.
From my understanding and listening to your brief, it appears that my reading of section 73.2 in the bill would cover your concerns in these unfortunate cases where a labour dispute does occur. It may be advisable for you to have a meeting with ministry staff to run over scenarios, because it's my impression that there's perhaps a misunderstanding of the process and the intent of that particular section. As I read it, it appears to deal with your concerns as far as ensuring that children are taken care of is concerned. They're the primary concern from the standpoint of society, your organization as well as our government and the people of Ontario.
My question deals with the professionals' right to organize children's aid societies across Canada. The professionals' right to organize is already allowed in the federal jurisdiction, BC, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. I'm wondering how children's aid societies have dealt with that and what impact, if any, it has had, because that may be something else you have a fear of.
It is a change here in Ontario, but it is in place in the federal jurisdiction and in BC, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. I was just wondering if the children's aid societies in those locations have been impacted at all by professionals being given the right to organize in those jurisdictions, which has already been in existence, in my understanding, for many years now.
Ms Leck: I can't speak to that except to say that children's aid societies in Ontario are organized differently than in most other provinces. They are part of direct government services, as opposed to independent corporations.
Mr Ward: Is it possible in terms of clarification --
The Chair: No; stop.
Mr Ward: Okay. Thank you for the answer.
The Chair: Ms Leck and Mr Mainville, the committee thanks you very much for what has been a novel insight into the impact of the legislation. We appreciate the time you and the association have spent preparing the submission. We appreciate your coming here to the committee today. We trust that you'll keep in touch, and we thank you sincerely. Take care.
LUMBER AND BUILDING MATERIALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The next participant is the Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario. Would the people presenting that brief please come forward and seat yourselves in front of a microphone. I'm reminding other people here visiting that there's coffee and soft drinks behind the TV camera. Make yourselves at home. Please tell us your names and your titles and then proceed with your submission.
Ms Hannah Hancock: My name is Hannah Hancock. I'm the executive vice-president of the Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario.
Mr Steve Johns: My name is Steve Johns. I'm the member services manager for the Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario.
Mr Ernie Forsey: My name is Ernie Forsey. I'm the vice-president of human resources at Cashway Building Centres Inc.
Ms Jill Kitchen: I'm Jill Kitchen, manager of human resources, Lansing Buildall.
Ms Hancock: It gives me great pleasure to address this committee in my capacity as executive vice-president of the Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario.
The LBMAO is a not-for-profit trade association that represents some 900 retail lumber and building supply stores in Ontario. The LBMAO's retailer members, ranging from the major chains to the small independents, generate over 80% of the industry's total annual sales volume in Ontario of approximately $4.5 billion. The LBMAO also has some 250 associate members. Included in this category are manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and buying groups, among others. In short, the LBMAO is the largest and most diverse regional building supply association in Canada.
After having had an opportunity to review Bill 40 and the supporting documentation on labour reform in Ontario, as well as hearing from numerous concerned LBMAO members -- as a matter of fact, this proposed legislation has generated more concern among our small business members than any legislation I have been privy to in my capacity over the last 20 years -- it remains the position of the LBMAO that Bill 40 be rejected, notwithstanding recognition that certain concerns raised in the consultation process that followed the release of the discussion paper in November 1991 have been heard and heeded to some extent.
At the outset, the proposals contained in the original discussion paper and now in Bill 40 are based on an apparent assumption, as far as we can determine, that the workforce and the workplace in Ontario have undergone a degree of change that necessitates legislation designed to facilitate union-organizing activities which will allegedly result in improved productivity, competitiveness and relationships between employers and employees.
1140
What is conspicuously absent is any factual evidence of need for the proposed change, and perhaps more importantly, demand. In the latter connection, of the vast numbers of trade associations that operate in Ontario on behalf of hundreds of constituencies, not one that we are aware of has asked for increased powers for trade unions. This is significant in that associations have frequently distinguished themselves as being accurate barometers of public sentiment.
To take this a step further, it was suggested in the discussion paper that the increased numbers of part-time workers, women and visible minorities entering the workforce today require additional protection and rights through legislation. While this claim is not substantiated, this does not speak well of the Pay Equity Act, the Employment Standards Act, the Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the many other employee-oriented acts that have driven the costs of doing business beyond the limits that many small businesses can bear, and eroded the powers, rights and profits of business operators in the process.
On the latter score, it can be argued that it is these escalating costs of doing business that are forcing employers to change the workplace profile in Ontario, particularly with regard to the influx of part-time workers and corresponding reduction in experienced full-time employees. While this may be a separate issue entirely, a commitment by the Ontario government to do its part to keep these costs in check would unquestionably minimize the domino effect that fuels the ever-increasing regulatory burden that business and industry in Ontario are being subjected to. In the process, a climate of confidence, the incentive to invest in Ontario and the enhanced ability of Ontario's business community to compete domestically and internationally would surely follow.
Paradoxically, many of the amendments contained in Bill 40, if implemented, will in our estimation limit the rights of employees rather than protect or expand them.
Let's look at a few of these proposed amendments.
First agreement arbitration 30 days after a legal strike-lockout date: This amendment flies in the face of negotiating and bargaining in good faith and with conviction. Moreover, to think that any progress on any issues that may have been made in the days leading up to the 30-day deadline would be shelved after 30 days is truly unfortunate in that there would be no guarantee that such progress would be resurrected through arbitration.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board to consider evidence of trade union membership only as of the date of application for certification: In our view, employees wishing to change their minds after that date will no longer have that right. Given the fact that a reduction to 40% in the level of support required for representation is also being proposed, workers who may have been coerced into signing a union card or who signed without full knowledge of the implications would have no recourse short of legal action.
Use of replacement workers: This amendment is most curious in that it is admitted in the discussion paper that approximately 95% of all collective agreements in Ontario are reached without recourse to strikes or lockouts. On this basis, there is obviously no need to implement such a proposal. Moreover, if an employer were not able to sustain operations onsite through the use of replacement workers as required during a lengthy strike, and if as a result he were ultimately forced out of business, ironically, the striking workers would be permanently out of a job at the company in question.
Finally, in our view, it is inappropriate to attempt to appease the sensitivities of striking workers through legislation. In fact, it is naïve to think that legislation will eliminate the emotional scars a labour dispute or strike will invariably leave.
Access to third-party property: While very few lumber and building materials retailers are situated in a shopping mall where third-party access is required, in principle it is thoroughly objectionable to think that a business owner who has nothing to do with a company that is the target of union organizers could have his or her affairs disrupted by the said organizers.
That individual's interests and those of his or her customers must be safeguarded, and there is certainly no guarantee that restricting picketing and organizing activity to the entrances to and exits from the workplace will be adequate insurance. For many, the prospect of having to cross a picket line is sufficiently intimidating to warrant doing business elsewhere.
In these difficult economic times, very few businesses can afford to absorb any further decreases in revenue, let alone those caused by circumstances beyond their scope and control. Unfortunately, according the Ontario Labour Relations Board powers to issue interim orders restricting such union activity if such activity is deemed necessary by the OLRB, is not very reassuring.
Grievance arbitration process dealing with all questions of fact and law: While the arbitration process can at times be lengthy, it would be inappropriate to confer powers upon arbitrators without legal credentials that rightfully are only in the domain of lawyers and judges. This could set a dangerous precedent.
Consolidation of bargaining units: We were dismayed to discover that Bill 40 now makes possible combining existing bargaining units in a chain or franchise operation with the OLRB having ultimate decision-making authority. With all due respect to the abilities of the OLRB, this clearly presents the dangerous possibility of non-compatible employees being banded together and a collective agreement being applied to different stores serving vastly different markets, economic conditions and demographics. This could create a counterproductive situation for employees, their union and the company alike and is of particular concern to the LBMAO as 50 of our retailer members have multiple locations throughout Ontario numbering in excess of 240.
Probably the most offensive aspect of the proposed reforms from our perspective is the fact that they seem geared towards facilitating easier union access to the retail sector on the supposed basis of need. In the Ontario retail lumber and building materials industry, only 11.6% of the over 14,000 full-time and 4,000 part-time employees are unionized as indicated by our 1991 survey of wages, salaries and benefits. It is our conclusion, based on the survey responses, that the low percentage of unionized employees is due to industry salary increases being competitive and keeping pace with the consumer price index and inflationary increases, and improved employee benefits packages.
In the latter connection, the survey revealed that the number of companies offering bonus packages, pension retirement plans and group insurance programs increased by 24% over the 1989 figures. As well, increases were also noted in the range of benefits offered, the number of employees eligible to receive these benefits and the percentage of the costs of those benefits borne by the company.
Lumber and building materials retailers recognize that to successfully operate in recessionary times and in an increasingly competitive industry, where consumer demand for quality service and selection has reached new heights, they have a vested interest in retaining competent employees, developing their skills and assisting them in establishing long and fruitful careers in the industry. This reality does not need to be forced upon lumber and building materials retailers by union organizers.
The Ontario economy is starving for economic stimuli and an atmosphere that will foster improved competitiveness. Unfortunately the onslaught of legislation in Ontario has made the cost of doing business untenable and has had the opposite effect. Businesses are closing or relocating out of province, prospective investors are spending their money elsewhere and, most important, thousands of jobs are being lost in the process.
1150
It is our view that the proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, if implemented, will be the biggest disincentive to investing in Ontario. It will also seriously erode the authority and ability of employers to run their businesses in a profitable and market-sensitive manner and will drive a wedge between employers and employees in the process.
In the latter connection, the traditional role of trade unions in Canadian society and, for that matter, the stated role of many major Canadian trade unions is to protect and advance the economic interests of their members. Generally this has been achieved through an adversarial approach to management. In fact numerous trade unions, including the Canadian Auto Workers, are on record as opposing any form of cooperation with management. Accordingly, the claim that changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act will bring about improved labour-management cooperation is frankly hard to comprehend.
In conclusion, it remains the position of the LBMAO that the proposed amendments contained in Bill 40 are dramatically slanted in favour of the trade unions and would if put into law be unfairly punitive to employers. We also view the proposed increased powers of the OLRB as an infringement on the ability and enthusiasm of employers and employees to bargain in good faith. In short, the amendments make a mockery of the term "labour relations" which has always implied balance in labour-management dialogue.
Again, as was indicated at the outset, the minister has failed to demonstrate need for the proposed amendments. The references to the Quebec situation and other jurisdictions do not qualify, in our estimation. In fact evidence is contained in supporting documentation from the Ministry of Labour which strongly suggests no need whatsoever for the subject amendments.
In addition to the aforementioned assertion that approximately 95% of all collective agreements in Ontario are reached without recourse to strikes or lockouts, it was also stated in a ministry document entitled Why Labour Law Reform? that "Ontario is considered a good place to invest...not least because of the quality of its workforce and the stability of its industrial relations system."
Therefore, we view the proposed amendments as nothing more than change for change's sake. We also share the feeling of many that Bill 40 represents an attempt to placate the government's pro-union constituency, which was snubbed when it did its flip-flop on the Sunday shopping issue, another issue that was very close to our hearts. If the latter is the case, then it should be noted that the lumber and building materials industry in Ontario resents being used as a pawn in a political chess game.
In closing, the LBMAO recommends that Bill 40 be scrapped on the basis that its stated purpose has not been substantiated -- in this case we think the government hasn't done a very good job of telling us why these changes are necessary -- and, more particularly, on the basis that Ontario is starving for investment and jobs which simply will not arise out of the bill's passage. Thank you very much.
Mr Tilson: I believe that of all the changes that are being put forward in this bill the most dangerous is the change which outlaws replacement workers during a strike of any duration. My question to you is -- you are the lumber and building association -- dealing specifically with your membership, can you comment on how you believe the anti-scab rule or the 60% rule will affect specifically the industry which you represent?
Ms Hancock: Ernie, would you answer that?
Mr Forsey: I think in a typical store that the association represents you have two management people: the store manager and the assistant manager. Essentially, as I understand it, given that there is a work stoppage, these are the only two employees who would be eligible to work. There's no question in our business that essentially puts us out of business. We have in a typical store the traditional run of sales clerks, labourers, truck drivers and so on. Without additional staff the business couldn't operate.
Mr Tilson: Dealing specifically with your comments that this legislation will drive employers and future investment out of Ontario, I don't know how large your association is, but can you share with the committee any specific facts to substantiate, because you're not the only organization that has made those comments.
Ms Hancock: I can give you two examples of our members, not in Metro but in rural Ontario, who have already indicated to their employees that if this legislation goes through, they plan to close their businesses, put the employees out of work and use their existing buildings as warehouses.
Mr Tilson: How many employees would that be?
Ms Hancock: Fifteen. These companies were small independents.
Mr Tilson: These communities are in the north?
Ms Hancock: In the central and eastern part of Ontario. They just feel they cannot operate, given that they would be forced to be unionized.
Mr Tilson: You made a comment with respect to the access to third party and the effect specifically on shopping malls. I'd like you to elaborate on that to some extent because I believe not only what you've said, but that the landlords or the owners of these specific third-party places could be in violation of their own leases because of other tenants claiming you're not keeping order in those malls.
Ms Hancock: No, we stated that most of our businesses are standalone units. You might be referring to hardware stores, which are not members of our association; that would be the Canadian Retail Hardware Association. We take the viewpoint that it would be disruptive. I'm thinking of, say, a store in a large mall that had union organizers out in front of the mall so that customers could not go in. Is that what you're referring to?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Ms Hancock: They would feel obligated not to go in and would go elsewhere. I don't think it affects our membership. Do you have any members?
Mr Forsey: No.
Ms Hancock: No, we don't have members that fall into that category.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Thank you for your presentation today. My question to you is in regard to your page 7 where you talked about the good working relationship you've had with your workers. As a business person myself -- I'm self-employed, but a lot of times I hire people -- I've worked for people and indeed I've always been lucky enough that if people treat me right, I treat them right, and I appreciate what you're talking about.
There has been talk within this legislation that it will allow people the right to think about joining and making it easier. If you have a cooperative relationship now and your statistics prove that, what do you see in this legislation that would cause me, as a manager now or an owner of an independent, to all of a sudden change my attitude towards my workers because of these changes? What do you see in there that would make me, as a business person, all of a sudden turn my back on probably the same people I go to church with?
Ms Hancock: I defer that to my colleague Jill Kitchen of Lansing Buildall, if I might.
1200
Ms Kitchen: We've actually had a situation where there was a certification attempt, and it doesn't necessarily arise from a massive switch in opinion. In our business, we have a high percentage of seasonal employees: summer students who come in, short-term employees. They don't appreciate basically -- and they don't share in a lot of the benefits, because of their length of service -- what some of our longer-term employees do value.
So you can have a certification process come in place. No matter how pleasant your relationships are with your employers, there are always periods of disgruntlement on individual bases. Unions are very well organized, if they get a foot in the door, to promote that certification process. In our experience at our Kennedy Road store, it was the part-timers, the seasonal employees, who signed certification cards, really not understanding or appreciating what was going on.
Contrary to what the gentleman who spoke to people before us said, it was not management intervening that said all of a sudden, "No, we're going to penalize you if you participate in this certification process." It was the full-time employees who ended up hiring their own lawyers, who then said, "Hey, listen, you guys don't value what we have to offer here or what we've got here," and that's where the petition to decertify came into effect.
With that petition to decertify being removed from the act, it means there's no sober second thought. There's no chance for the employees to sit around and say, "Yes, this is what I truly do value in my operation, and no, I do not want to have a union environment here."
Also, union environments, once they come into your place, are long-term. They get transferred to several owners. It's a long-term commitment that the employee is making, and I do believe it should be an informed decision. Removing that petition will change and will improve or gain greater access to unionization where it might not necessarily be wanted by the majority.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Fletcher, unless you want Mr Klopp to have your question.
Mr Fletcher: On page 9, you say that the Canadian Auto Workers "are on record as opposing any form of cooperation with management." I look at the investment that's been made by Chrysler in Windsor and by Ford in Oakville, where they're spending millions of dollars, and then the Oshawa plant. If I can just go to a quote from Oshawa, it said that, "This couldn't have happened without the cooperation of the Canadian Auto Workers." In other words, they could have lost every job at the Oshawa plant without their cooperation. An investment is coming in from the auto industry, and across the province there are a lot of industries that are still investing in Ontario, who feel that Ontario is a good place to be.
But do you honestly believe -- and this is my question part -- that if Bill 40 goes through, you will have instant unions popping up all over the place, that people are going to be browbeaten, coerced, forced to join a union? Getting back to what Mr Klopp said, if you have a good employer, is there a need for that? Do you honestly believe that is going to happen?
Ms Kitchen: I don't believe it's going to the extreme of being browbeaten and coerced. What I believe is that it might not truly represent the views of those people who have the inherent investment in working at that company -- the fact that the long-term employees, because of our high percentage of seasonal workers, because of the high percentage of part-time workers who don't have the same investment, could end up in a situation of being unionized that is not what they desire. I do believe it opens that up. No, I don't believe there are going to be sledgehammers out there, or coercion.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer, then Mr Cleary, in whichever order you wish.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): First I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I happen to live in eastern Ontario, and you mentioned eastern Ontario. I've had presentations made to myself by some of the local people who are in the same business you're in. We happen to be a border community there, which seems to be affecting their business. I guess my question to you is: Would the two businesses that you said might close and be warehouses if this legislation goes through be in border communities?
Ms Hancock: No.
Mr Offer: I have a question. On page 5 of your presentation, you refer to the issue of access to third-party property. I think in your submission, and I believe in your response to Mr Tilson, you didn't believe that this was really an issue which affected --
Ms Hancock: I think we stated while very few are, we would support --
Mr Offer: Right. I'm not taking issue with that.
Ms Hancock: We don't believe third-party access would be a value to anybody.
Mr Offer: I don't want to heighten your concern with the legislation, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to do that. You're assuming the third-party property only applies to the industrial or the commercial mall setting. That certainly, I believe, was in the press releases by the ministry. However, when one reads the actual legislation, I think it is clear that it is not limited to the mall setting. It is clear that the access to third party would apply to standalone businesses. Of course I'm trying to visualize the business you're in. It is also evident that much of your inventory, the things you sell are not located within the store but are indeed located outside the store.
Ms Hancock: Yes.
Mr Offer: I'm wondering, because I have had this checked and verified by a number of individuals, if what I've said is correct -- and I say that after having checked this by a number of people -- and it does apply to stores which stand alone to which the public normally has access, what would be the impact to your establishments when so much of your product is on the outside?
Mr Johns: As far as I'm concerned, having spoken to a number of our members, I think we recognize that you're in fact correct. I think the point we were making in the submission was that this situation might initially tend to manifest itself more so in the mall situation than any other situation, but, yes, in conversations we've had with some of our members there is recognition of the possibility of disruption in their standalone situations, and you're quite right there.
Our operations tend to consist of a store but also significant warehouse space, some indoor, some outdoor. Given the competitive nature of the industry, if there was any kind of activity that a consumer simply would not want to deal with in terms of trying to gain access to the store or the warehouse or whatever, it's a fairly simple process to simply redirect the shopping initiative to another store down the street. That would be unfortunate and I think that's a fear we hear on an ongoing basis.
The Chair: The committee wants to thank you, Hannah Hancock, Stephen Johns, Ernie Forsey from Cashway Building Centres and Jill Kitchen from Lansing Buildall, all appearing on behalf of the Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario, for a well-prepared presentation. You've obviously provoked some of the members of the committee and you've generated some thought. We appreciate your taking the time to prepare this submission and to appear here. Of course Hansard has recorded your submission as well as others. You and anybody else can obtain copies of today's Hansard or any other portion of Hansard of the committee hearings by contacting an MPP's office or the Clerk of the Legislature.
We're going to be recessing till 1:30 this afternoon. These are public hearings at Queen's Park. People watching on television can and are invited to attend here at Queen's Park and use the facilities that are made available to visitors. They're entitled to that. We welcome them. At 1:30 there will be the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and we are recessing until then.
The committee recessed at 1209.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1330.
ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: It's 1:30 and we're going to resume. The first participant this afternoon is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, if the people with that organization would come forward and seat themselves at a microphone.
Mr Don Eastman: We're looking for the copies of our brief. The guy with it is supposed to be on his way.
The Chair: Tell us who you are, sir, and your status with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
Mr Eastman: I'm Don Eastman, the vice-president of policy, and with me is Wallace Kenny, chair of our employee-employer relations committee.
The Chair: We have till the hour. Please leave at least the second half of the half-hour for questions and comments.
Mr Eastman: Thank you for having us.
In our opinion, Bill 40 is the most critical piece of economic legislation this province has ever faced. The committee has the potential to dramatically and permanently alter this province's economic and social future. I'd like to think that our words and our discussion over the next half-hour have some possibility, however remote, of positively affecting the decisions that will be made.
At this point, all of us should be deeply ashamed of ourselves. We don't know whether Nero really was fiddling while Rome burned, but we've been squabbling, arguing, ranting and posturing while the people of this province have been suffering through an economic collapse unprecedented in current memory.
The government should be ashamed for bringing forward ill-considered proposals that are naïve in their economic consequences, and then turning the consultation process into a sham. Organized labour should be ashamed for driving its narrow, near-sighted, self-interest agenda forward while remaining oblivious of its impact on everyone else and even on itself longer term. The public should be ashamed for finding changes to the Labour Relations Act to be too dull, boring and complex to spend time on when it's possible to have an instant opinion on Sunday shopping and casinos. And last but not least, the business community should be ashamed for becoming part of the problem of increased rhetoric and destructive verbal warfare rather than finding a constructive way of communicating the far-reaching economic consequences of the proposed changes.
So far, the whole process of developing proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act has been an unmitigated disaster. The proposed changes and the ongoing war over those changes have been major contributing factors in the dramatic increase in Ontario's unemployment levels. It is still possible but difficult to turn this into good legislation. There are so many problem areas in the draft legislation and discussions that never took place that we do not see how it is possible to get there unless we can find some way of getting to a true consultation process.
However, within the committee modification-amendment process, there are a number of important things that can be done to dramatically improve what is currently before you. There are four areas we'll concentrate on: the right to vote, bargaining integrity, picket line violence and the right to operate.
The current Ontario Labour Relations Act is antiquated and outdated and is in serious need of reform. Right now it is possible for an employee to show up at work and discover that he or she suddenly belongs to a union -- no advance notice, no opportunity to discuss the merits of unionization or the choice of unions with other employees, and no vote.
If 55% of the other employees at the workplace paid a whole dollar and signed a union card, you're unionized. It doesn't matter how badly misinformed they were when they signed the card, it doesn't matter how much peer pressure was involved and it doesn't matter how late at night or how many drinks were consumed. If 55% of the other employees at the workplace signed union cards, you're forcibly unionized.
Today it is possible to stop the automatic certification process. To get a democratic vote, you have to get a sufficient number of card signees to recant from their earlier membership decision through a petition process, a difficult and painful procedure. But only then can you be assured that the unionization decision reflects the true wishes of your fellow employees as exercised in the sober, unpressured environment of a secret ballot.
There are two important issues at stake here: (1) Automatic certification is an abuse of personal rights. (2) The current process poisons the employee-employer relations environment at a time when mutual understanding and cooperation are critical, just in advance of first-contract negotiations.
Rightly or wrongly, most of the business community views the unionization process with alarm. In many instances, the employer sees certification as a personal defeat or insult. The first natural human response is, "It can't be so." The current legislation encourages employers to believe that if the employees had only had the chance to express themselves in a secret ballot, a majority of them would vote against unionization. Even if that is an exercise in self-delusion, it's a widespread perception.
Think about what that means for the negotiation of a first contract: an employer who fervently believes the union sitting across the table really doesn't represent the true intentions of the employees. Little wonder that first-contract negotiations are so difficult. Change the legislation so that it requires a secret ballot prior to any union certification. It solves most of the human rights problems. First-contract negotiation problems won't disappear, but the environment for them would be substantially enhanced.
The legislation before you actually makes these problems worse. The right to petition is severely curtailed. Once the union has applied for certification and the employees are informed of the application, the admission of petitions is prohibited. Catch-22: Once you find out about the certification application, it's illegal to petition to require a vote. Incredible.
The requirement for the token $1 membership fee is dropped. Even that short pause to help an employee consider the implications of signing the union card is eliminated. Automatic certification with 55% signed membership cards stands. Threshold support to require a vote is dropped from 45% to 40%.
We have no problem with dropping the support required for a vote from 45% to 40%, but maintaining the automatic certification process is retrograde and irresponsible. Please require a vote. If this legislation is to have even the remotest claim of being a positive reform of the existing Ontario Labour Relations Act, it has to find this simple, positive solution for some serious ongoing problems.
Having compounded the first-contract negotiation problems by extending automatic certification, Bill 40 solves the first-contract problem by providing relatively immediate and unjustified unilateral access to arbitration. Having trouble coming to a settlement? Not to worry; no need to bargain seriously in good faith. Just wait 30 days and then ask the government to hand you a contract through its arbitration process. One of the laws of legislation is that legislation that can be abused, will be abused. This is one of several provisions of Bill 40 that invite abuse.
1340
If you really believe in collective bargaining, access to arbitration should only be possible as an avenue of last resort, where it's clearly demonstrable that the other party has not been bargaining in good faith. Limit the access to arbitration.
Our largest single concern is the proposal to make it illegal in most circumstances to replace workers who have gone on strike. There was some minor modification and window dressing between the white paper and Bill 40, but for most businesses and for all practical purposes Bill 40 would make it illegal to replace workers who have gone on strike. The stated reason for this provision is to reduce picket line violence, but the provision represents a massive shift of power that has far-reaching implications for the entire provincial economy.
During the consultation process, we tried to express our concerns about this shift in power and how it would affect job opportunities in the province. The minister and his staff were adamant that any shift in power was minuscule. Their only concern was reducing picket line violence.
If that really is the concern, there is a much simpler solution that does not put jobs and the economy at risk. Picket lines are legally entitled not to obstruct, not to intimidate, but to inform. Picket line emotions are such that striking workers find it difficult to confine themselves to legal activities.
The Stelco strike of two years ago was marred by a number of ugly incidents. They arose not from the use of replacement workers but from the company's attempt to ship steel from remote warehouses. This was steel that the striking employees had already been paid for producing. The union members felt they had the right to use the picket line to prevent the company from selling the steel.
Our legal system has turned a blind eye on the use of the picket line to obstruct and intimidate. If you want to eliminate picket line violence, enforce the existing legislation. If unions and their members are unable or unwilling to observe and respect the law, then perhaps we need to have a long, hard look at the picket line.
We need to somehow eliminate what has become a sordid perceived entitlement to obstruct and intimidate, unless, of course, violence isn't what the real problem is here.
Nothing has so frustrated us in our attempts to have a positive discussion about changes to the Labour Relations Act as the mental stone wall we have encountered whenever we have attempted to discuss the unintended economic consequences of a ban on replacement workers. We truly have trouble believing that it is possible for so many people in the union movement and in the government to be so stunned about the massive transfer of power to the union movement inherent in the ban on replacement workers.
We have been continually told that banning replacement workers will make little economic difference, because they are seldom used; 95% of contract negotiations are settled without a strike.
Why not solve all the problems? Just make strikes illegal, because the prospect of the economic damage from a strike has a substantial impact on the final contract even in the majority of the cases where it is never used. It seems to us that those who wish to ban replacement workers are acutely aware that the risk of a strike is an important tool in negotiations.
The right to strike gives the union a substantial capability to inflict economic damage on a company. A ban on replacement workers dramatically escalates that power. It gives unions the capability to bankrupt any Ontario-based business virtually at will.
Why the apparent inability to recognize that a ban on replacement workers will also affect all negotiations, not just those where a negotiation breakdown leads to a strike and ultimately to the use of replacement workers?
Is it possible that the problem isn't an inability to understand, but a deliberate, calculated deception? The real purpose of the ban on replacement workers is to transfer power to the unions and use picket line violence as a smokescreen to get it through. If that is in fact what's happening, it's truly despicable.
We sincerely hope that it is only the paranoia induced by the current situation leading us to see winks and nudges that really aren't there. But it is hard to find other explanations, rational or otherwise, that explain why it has been impossible to get this government or union leaders to understand the business community's concerns about the proposed legislation. I share those observations with you not to accuse but to help you understand the frustration we feel.
Fact: Banning replacement workers does dramatically shift the power to unions. Even for those who may happen to believe that transfer in power is appropriate, it is clear that it has extremely far-reaching economic implications, implications that desperately need to be discussed, understood and considered before we proceed with this extremely dangerous provision. To this point, that discussion has not been permitted to take place, as the government has hidden behind the picket line violence bogeyman. The people of this province deserve better.
Much has been said of Quebec. Quebec has had legislation since 1978 banning replacement workers. From 1970 to 1977, Ontario had 46 more strikes than Quebec. Since Quebec's legislation, from 1978 to 1991, Quebec has had 652 more strikes than Ontario. Quebec has also had substantially higher unemployment since its legislation than it had in the previous 10 years. While Ontario's unemployment rose one and a half percentage points, Quebec's rose two and a half percentage points. Is all of that increase due to their labour legislation? Probably not. Certainly some of it is.
Quebec's economy is resource-based. Regardless of how bad their legislation is, companies can't pick up the trees, mines and hydro power and move out. Ontario's economy is much more vulnerable. Its core is based on manufacturing and tradable services that are relatively mobile and have to be competitive on a global basis.
If Quebec's permanent increase in unemployment was one percentage point, what do you think it may be in Ontario? Each percentage point means 50,000 jobs, and it's not just the number of people but the quality of jobs that is at stake. The ban on replacement workers would hit hardest at the companies and jobs that we most want to have: Canadian-owned single plant operations, world product mandates and highly capitalized high-tech jobs. Our relatively small locally owned and managed companies would be particularly at risk.
Ontario currently faces a major challenge in the area of social welfare. In order for social welfare reform to work, there have to be job opportunities to move as many people as possible into self-dependence. High unemployment constitutes a continuing barrier to those currently trapped in the welfare system.
Partially fixing the replacement worker provisions so that they are passable for large multinational companies while ignoring the legitimate concerns, needs and fears of the smaller businesses that are the backbone of this province's economy simply isn't good enough. If you fix everything else but leave Bill 40's ban on replacement workers intact, this legislation will still be a disaster.
Time is getting short. Is it possible to get the substantive changes this bill requires? For the good of all of the people of this province, how do we get there?
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is not just willing but anxious to help in any way we can to be part of a process to reach positive changes to this proposed legislation. Thank you for your time and consideration.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Four minutes per caucus.
Ms Murdock: Thank you for making your presentation. I just want to go back to the first part of your presentation, because we've heard it quite frequently from groups other than the chamber in terms of the timing of the legislation.
When one considers that the three fastest-growing jurisdictions during the 1980s, when times were good and money was free-flowing, more or less, were Ontario, Massachusetts and Florida, yet in 1990 those same three jurisdictions were also the ones that showed the fastest business loss, or companies that closed during that same period, that's long before this legislation was even thought of or long before anyone even thought there would be a New Democratic government in Ontario.
I'd like you to explain, or give your opinion. I'm wondering, in terms of investments -- because that's basically the fear that has been raised, that investment is going to be lost if this legislation is put through -- how that jibes with companies like Crayola crayons, which opted to choose Lindsay, Ontario, rather than Pennsylvania or Kansas when it has its own operations in the United States yet chose Ontario to increase its operations in terms of selling 4 million packages of crayons. I mean, we can all identify with that.
1350
Mr Eastman: Let me be careful. I do not want to overstate the implications of the act. I think they are immense, but let's be careful we don't overstate them.
The act, if passed, will not mean that suddenly the day after it's passed every business in the province will shut down. It will not mean that the day after it is passed there will never be another dollar spent in the province. What will happen will be that the province will see less investment than it would have had otherwise and fewer jobs than it would have had otherwise.
On one of the graphs that's attached -- I think that paper finally came round there -- if you look at Ontario's unemployment experience relative to that of the other areas of this country since the fall of 1990 when this legislation became a risk, there is a very clear message there about what this legislation means for potential investment in the province.
Ms Murdock: Could you say the last part over again? I'm sorry.
Mr Eastman: There is a very clear message there of what this legislation means for future investment in the province. It won't mean that it's all going to disappear, but it will mean that there'll be less of it than there would have been otherwise.
Mr Wallace Kenny: I take it that you would disagree that there's going to be less investment in the province as a result of this.
Ms Murdock: I'm having some difficulty with it. If in times of recession, such as we are experiencing -- and everyone is agreeing this is a bad time and has been for the last year or so -- despite the fact that we have been in recession, companies in other jurisdictions, as well as our own companies in the province, have invested, albeit maybe not to the same degree as they would in good times, but they have been investing. They haven't pulled out. There have been major losses in the manufacturing sector, I'm not disputing that, but I would say, in own view, it would come not as a result of the labour reform legislation but as a function of other things.
Mr Kenny: It hasn't been passed yet.
Ms Murdock: Yes, it's not law.
Mr Kenny: What we're dealing with here, hopefully, is attempting to identify the problems if the legislation is passed, and one of the problems we're attempting to identify is the loss of investment in the province. It's not what's happened now, it's what's going to happen in the future which is of concern to us.
Business compares jurisdictions from one province to one state to the next as to whether or not it's a favourable climate to invest in. We are in competition with other provinces and states. There's no debate about that, that's a reality, and it is a reality that business will look less favourably upon the province of Ontario if this legislation is passed. That is fact. I mean, it's not really something that one should debate. It's a question of whether you want to put up with that, whether you think the costs are worth the legislation. That's something we can debate, but you shouldn't debate the fact that you're going to lose jobs; you are.
Mr Offer: You brought forward some important areas in your presentation. If possible, I'd like to ask you a question on an area that wasn't brought forward in your submission, and if there's no position on it, then I'll go on to another area, if time permits.
It has to do with the issue surrounding the ability to picket and organize on third-party or private property. It's not in your presentation. I know, as we all know, that the Ontario chamber is made up of a number of businesses located in industrial malls and shopping malls, a lot of small businesses. I'm wondering if there is a position the chamber has taken on the issue of picketing and organizing on private property.
Mr Kenny: Yes. We have taken the position that we don't think we should extend it to the extent that has been suggested in the legislation. I'll give you an example. A department store licenses out a variety of its departments to other owners: a hair salon, for example, in the middle of a department store. The way the legislation is drafted, you would have picketing if that hair salon was unionized. You would have picketing in the department store, outside the entrance to the workers' workplace.
This is not just outside in public areas. The way the legislation is drafted, you are inviting people to organize and picket within other people's premises. There are severe problems associated with the way in which the bill is drafted because of the way in which business is organized in those kinds of settings.
Mr Offer: On that same issue, if time permits, there are those who would have us believe that provision of third-party picketing is limited only to the industrial mall or the commercial mall. I'm hearing clearly from what you're saying that the wording of the legislation is much broader in its scope.
Mr Kenny: There's no limit. That's an example, but the legislation certainly doesn't limit itself to that at all.
Mr Offer: One short question in the area of the secret ballot. That's an area obviously you have touched upon, as have others. Clearly you're in favour of the ballot. Have you directed your mind on this issue to the percentage before a secret ballot is called? I think it's assumed by a number of people that for a secret ballot or full and open disclosure for a worker to choose one way or the other in terms of joining a union, the qualifications would be the same, 40% or 55%. Have you directed your mind as to whether there should be any lowering of that percentage required?
Mr Kenny: I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
Mr Offer: What would be the trigger point before a secret ballot would be called?
Mr Kenny: We have no objection to the lowering to 40%. We think that's quite fair and quite legitimate. What we think is fair and legitimate is that there be a vote so that people have the right to consider these issues in a fair and open manner, which is the way we choose our government and any other form of organization that is going to represent us. We're really quite surprised that there's opposition to that concept.
Mr Tilson: Continuing with the issue of the voting process, you commented, on pages 2 and 3 of your report, on your concern with the fact that a potential member no longer will have the right to change his mind and opt out of the organizing drive. Essentially, the petition process is now gone and you deal with that.
I asked one of the union groups this morning what their thoughts were about the democratic process of it and their answer was essentially the answer that has been given by a number of unions. In fact, one is quoted in the Financial Post this morning. It states that what should concern Ontarians is that this legislation presumes such a low level of intelligence on the part of workers that their rights are needlessly diminished in favour of the rights of trade unions.
That answer was given to me this morning when I posed that question. So I pose that question to you and ask for your thoughts. I would like you to comment on this standard question that seems to be coming forward by the unions and the NDP.
Mr Eastman: Let me comment first. I think one of the major advances in democracy was the development of the secret ballot that permitted people to express their opinions without having outside pressure on them. I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have that concept extended to the choice of a union.
1400
Mr Tilson: I don't either, but we obviously know why. I find the answer preposterous, quite frankly, but I'd like to hear --
Mr Kenny: What the unions say in that regard is exactly what the bill does now. It treats people as if they are not able to -- and I don't say the bill; the existing act.
Mr Tilson: No, that's not true. You're right, at the outset, but they then have the right to petition, to go through a petition process to change their minds. That is gone now.
Mr Kenny: Yes, quite right.
Mr Tilson: That's the important part. Now you wake up and you find a union and you have the right to petition that you've changed your mind; you realize what you're getting into. With this new legislation, you wake up and you find that a union is organized. Tough luck: That's what this new legislation is saying.
Mr Kenny: Yes, quite right. But the whole petition process is necessary in the existing act because there isn't a right to vote. If what you had was an application process and then a right to vote in all cases, you don't need petitions because people get to express their points of view like everybody else does in a secret ballot circumstance. The reason petitions are being eliminated is because they're time-consuming in terms of a certification process. You have many days of hearings to find out whether the petition is legitimate or not. You can eliminate petitions by having a vote in every case. That means you have labour relations promptly and you have a decision-making process promptly which is fair to everybody in the workplace.
Mr Tilson: One second area I'd like to pursue is a question that I think Ms Murdock raised, and that had to do with the subject of investment. The standard answer that seems to be coming forward from the NDP and the unions is a quote that was again given by Mr Mackenzie this morning and talks about the number of companies that have increased. I think it was 106 companies have increased. They're going to invest over $5 million in Ontario and that's just since January. So he and Ms Murdock simply disagree with you. They say that everything's fine in the province of Ontario and investment is just fine. Can you tell us your thoughts on those comments?
Mr Eastman: If that were really true, Ontario would have a much lower unemployment problem than it does currently. Simply, a lot of people are deciding they will invest elsewhere while there is uncertainty surrounding this legislation or wait until they see what happens before they decide what their investment intentions will be.
The Chair: Mr Eastman, Mr Kenny, the committee thanks you and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce for your submissions, for your participation in the process. We trust you'll be keeping in touch and monitoring the development of the hearings. Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon. Take care, gentlemen.
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, CANADIAN COUNCIL -- ONTARIO DIVISION
The Chair: The next participant is the Amalgamated Transit Union, Canadian Council -- Ontario Division. Gentlemen, please seat yourselves in front of a mike and tell us who you are, what your positions or titles are and try to leave the second half of the half-hour for questions and dialogue.
Mr Ken Foster: My name is Ken Foster. I'm the executive secretary of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Canadian Council.
Mr Wally Majesky: My name is Wally Majesky, a consultant who does work with the Amalgamated Transit Union.
Mr Foster: Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing and hopefully make our views known in regard to the amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
Our union represents 17,000 unionized public transit workers in Ontario, where a sizeable portion of these members work at public transit systems or in intracity transportation systems such as the Toronto Transit Commission, OC Transpo, Transit Windsor, and that's just to name a few. We also have members involved in providing public transportation in an intercity context, for example, GO Transit, Gray Coach, Greyhound and Trentway Wagar.
Without question, our industry is very much reliant upon good, progressive labour legislation, which we hope will potentially foster good, sound labour-management relations. We can honestly say that in many instances we have what we could call a good, solid working relationship with our management counterparts.
It is fairly obvious there are many areas that cause us great concern, ranging from harassing potential union organizing drives to the use of supervisory personnel during strikes, which we will elaborate on further in our brief.
Clearly, this whole issue has gone through a lengthy consultative process and we are now entering into the final phase of this exercise. We are not totally convinced that this process should have taken this long, but be that as it may, the proposed legislation is now drafted. Furthermore, the sooner it is approved, the better, and hopefully the government will take into account the concerns raised by our union.
We would like to commend the Ontario government for introducing these much needed amendments and changes to the Labour Relations Act. We think they are long overdue and will, in the long run, improve the overall climate of collective bargaining.
Having said that, we want to go on record as saying that the changes are by no means too extensive or far-reaching. In fact, they do not meet all the concerns of the labour movement. However, we still are convinced that this is a first good step. Hopefully, we can expect some other changes when this whole process is looked into again at some future date.
Since we are discussing the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act, we would like to comment on how these proposed changes are being viewed and ultimately characterized by the business community. There presently exists a certain paranoia within business circles, which believe the proposed labour amendments will, virtually overnight, turn the Ontario workforce into a totally unionized environment. This, they predict, will happen as a result of these proposed changes.
Let us dispel this myth once and for all. These proposed changes, which we consider quite moderate and fairly minimal, will not accomplish what the business community is alleging; for example, everybody in the workforce will literally become unionized in one fell swoop. I would like to certainly support the business community if it thinks this is true, and we hope it's right in that case. This is anti-labour business rhetoric in its purest form and should be viewed in the context of how these changes are being portrayed by these so-called business lobbying coalitions as they try to stir up public discontent for their campaign.
Secondly, let's be very honest and look at how these proposed labour amendments are being characterized by the business community and, to a lesser extent, the two opposition parties. The business community warns that these amendments, if implemented, will create a negative environment for businessmen and investors alike, which will force the business communities to leave Ontario in droves.
Let us put this argument to rest, once and for all. If the Ford Motor Co can invest $2 billion in Ontario at the present time -- and also, as we all know, Chrysler Canada is starting a new production line in Bramalea. When you look at General Motors expanding its work in Oshawa, and now we find out that Ford Motor Co as well in Essex has gone and invested more money, how can the business community say this? It's totally amazing to us.
Clearly, if there is any substantial loss of jobs and investment, we would argue that this displacement of business activity is due in large part to the Canada-USA free trade agreement, as opposed to the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act.
Lastly, these proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act are being labelled as "revolutionary." However, in reality these proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act are very similar to what already exists in other Canadian jurisdictions, namely, the province of Quebec. For the record, the financial wellbeing of Quebec has not been impaired or hurt, nor have businesses left Quebec in droves in any way as a result of its current labour relations legislation. We keep hearing comments about how the unemployment rate has risen in Quebec. How can you relate that to the changes in the labour legislation? I think we all know where that comes from. Again, we feel it's the free trade agreement that's been doing most of it.
This is just another example of the scare tactics incorporated in the media campaign being carried out by the business community in this province. If they had their way, they would set back business-labour relations to what they were in the Dirty Thirties and take us back to the days of child labour. More accurately put, they would like to see a labour climate on a par with the Sunbelt states in the US, where wages and social benefits are literally the worst in North America.
In addition, the word on the street is that the international public relations firm Hill and Knowlton, which is known for its ability to bend public opinion on certain issues and which was retained by the Bush administration to sell the US-Iraqi war, has been conspicuous in its involvement with certain business coalitions. We ask, why has this been necessary?
1410
We think we should set the public record straight before we comment on specific changes in the Labour Relations Act.
Unfair labour practice and certification organizing: We would like to comment on these two proposed changes, and in particular the unfair labour practices section where we have had personal experience in organizing. One was with Penetang-Midland Coach Lines and the other one was with the airline limousine drivers at Pearson International Airport.
In these cases, the employees in both of these union-organizing drives were systematically harassed, threatened and intimidated. In some instances, specific people involved in the organizing drive were actually fired. These employers used every method available, such as surveillance, interrogation of employees etc and, even worse, the employers even preyed on the ethnic culture of some East Indian employees to dissuade them from joining the union. Thus, in light of these experiences, we strongly support the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
The use of scabs: The ATU considers this to be the cornerstone or literally the key part of these proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and we therefore totally and unequivocally support this specific amendment. Ironically, our support does not necessarily stem from the case of scabs in the transportation industry in Ontario. Instead, it stems from other experiences our union has had with notoriously anti-union companies such as Greyhound Lines, which thrive on trying to break strikes and, in turn, our union.
We welcome the amendment in subsection 73.1(6), which prohibits an employer, after notice is given to bargain or bargaining has begun, whichever earlier, from transferring workers, supervisors or other persons from another location into a shared location.
We welcome this change because we have had instances in our largest bargaining unit at the Toronto Transit Commission where management personnel, for example, inspectors, were utilized to man the subway system, thus creating a very hostile and unfriendly labour relations environment. The reason we bring this to the attention of the committee is that management wants it both ways; for example, they want their managers to act as strikebreakers.
On the other hand, when the union takes internal action by having these union members fined or, in this particular incident, expelled from the union, management then takes the attitude or alternatively goes to arbitration and agrees that middle management personnel like TTC inspectors should be allowed to work during the strike and in fact do the work of striking bus drivers but be immune from any union discipline of any sort.
However, this proposed amendment to the Labour Relations Act would go a long way in eliminating these types of anti-union practices, but particularly the use of supervisory replacement workers. Consequently, our approach is tempered by the subtle change the government is also advocating, and that is the change that says non-bargaining unit employees or supervisors who normally work at a struck location will be able to perform the work of striking employees.
This amendment, in our opinion, is flawed because we think that, in essence, this change to a large extent negates subsection 73.1(6). Thus, we refer to this proposal as a two-step dance in that it's two steps forward and one step backwards. In the final analysis and in many instances, this subtle change would do little to improve labour relations or shorten the length or duration of strikes.
The grievance arbitration process: The issue that is of great concern to us is the proposal to change the deemed arbitration from a tripartite panel to a single arbitrator unless specified or contained in an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.
Before we set our concerns, we want to be crystal clear what our position is. We do not want any changes to the deemed arbitration subsection 45(2) as proposed by the Ministry of Labour.
Our reasons simply are that the current system, though not totally perfect, provides for the maximum flexibility and opportunities for a union to get a fair and expedient hearing through the current tripartite arbitration process. Therefore, we want the present system maintained because it gives the flexibility to use either single arbitrators, should the occasion warrant, or we can use the tripartite board, should the circumstance warrant.
In fact, the Amalgamated Transit Union is not convinced in the slightest that tripartite boards are the cause of considerable delay and added expense to the arbitration process. As a matter of fact, we agree with some labour experts such as Clive Ballentine, a long-standing member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, who says: "One of the greatest delays in the arbitration process are lawyers who, by the very nature of their profession, cause delays by requesting and agreeing to adjournments, arguing preliminary objections, introducing needless and repetitive evidence, and in some instances, coming to a hearing being improperly prepared to argue the case."
Furthermore, we also have some other arguments, and these are direct quotes from arbitrators that serve as chairpersons of tripartite boards on many ATU arbitration cases.
"There are very specific situations where experienced nominees (sidepersons) have been instrumental in ensuring that the final award reflected the specific needs of the parties, given the nature of the sector."
The most compelling reason, however, is the ability of the board of arbitration, through labour-management nominees, to encourage settlements, and there is consensus that settlements arrived at by the parties are infinitely preferable to the arbitrated settlement. There is a rule-of-thumb analysis that states that when you have intervention by the sidepersons, nominees, the rates of settlement are far in excess of 60%. By comparison, because of the legal difficulties of single arbitrators getting intimately involved in the mediation process, the settlement rate is less than 25%. Therefore, it's fair to say that settlements save the parties more money than the cost of nominees.
In ending, the ATU cannot comprehend why this whole question of single arbitrators, as opposed to tripartite boards, is considered such an important issue by the Ministry of Labour. We are hard pressed to see why this is on the political agenda. Clearly, in the scheme of things, we would argue that this is really not relevant or even important considering the scope of labour amendments being proposed. Thus, we would strongly urge the government to note our concerns on this issue and not change the deemed arbitration clause in subsection 45(2).
In summation, we have highlighted some issues which are of concern to us. Clearly, we support the Ontario Federation of Labour's position on virtually everything it is advocating, with the exception of subsection 45(2), the deemed arbitration clause that supports single arbitrators versus tripartite boards.
We think that these proposed changes are good fundamental changes that will go a long way in establishing good labour-management relations in the province. We also commend the provincial government for bringing forth these changes which, to us, are long overdue. We can only hope that the proposed Labour Relations Act amendments receive speedy approval when the House reconvenes in the fall of this year.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, five minutes please.
Mr Offer: I was listening very carefully to your presentation. I might want to ask you this question in the area of organizing. Forgive me for being repetitive in some of these questions, but I think it's important that we do get the perspective of many of the deputants that come before the committee.
There have been suggestions that the organizing, whether or not to join a union, could be enhanced if there were a secret ballot. Right now, under the current legislation, certainly we know about the aspects of the bill where the $1 membership fee has been taken away, where the criterion for a vote has been reduced from 45% to 40%, where automatic certification has remained at 55%.
There has been an underlying concern of people coming before the committee that this could all be enhanced if there was free and open information given to workers as to the benefits of joining a union, where there would be the opportunity for the employers to provide their position on organizing and where, as a result of that, there would be the opportunity for the workers to cast their votes in a secret ballot on the basis of the information that they've heard in order to finally determine whether they wish to be part of a union and, as I've heard outside of the committee, that this type of vote should take place within the premises of the employer.
I'm wondering if you can share with me your thoughts on this. This isn't an issue as to the right to associate, which is given, or the right to join a union, which is given; this is based on the premise of the right of a worker to be fully informed and to freely cast his vote in a secret manner.
Mr Foster: I'm certainly not going to speak on behalf of any other unions; they certainly have their opinions on it. My opinion, and certainly I represent our members, is that when it comes down to an organizing drive, and you say let the members have the right to a secret ballot, at what point do you offer that to the employees?
If that's the case, then why have an organizing drive at all? Why not just have one meeting and have both labour and management sit at the head table and field questions from the employees and hopefully at that point in time future members? After those two parties have heard this, then let's take our chances on a vote. But at this particular time I don't think management would want to take that chance. I'd certainly like to hear their comment on that one.
1420
Mr Tilson: But the unions take that chance.
Mr Foster: Like I say, I'm not going to comment on other unions. I would take that chance, based on the comments I've heard from people we've tried to organize. I'm very confident we'd win.
Mr Majesky: I'd like to comment, especially to Mr David Turnbull, who is a great fan of mine, I'm sure. There's a concept out there that democracy reigns supreme in the workforce. The fact of the matter is that management isn't interested in democracy. I have had experiences where management will intimidate, fire people and sit there in front of an organizing drive, especially with newly arrived immigrants in this country who are very scared of authority. So I'm really taken aback by this superdemocratic attitude of the business community, as if it's really interested in superdemocracy for minority shareholders when it makes political donations to political parties in this country arbitrarily. This is a lot of baloney.
The fact of the matter is this person represents a union. He said very clearly he's quite willing for management and labour to make their pitch and may the best person win, but the fact of the matter is management doesn't play by those rules. These people will exert any kind of pressure to intimidate, fire or cajole. To listen to the chamber of commerce in its high and mighty tones talk about democracy, that's a lot of baloney. The chamber of commerce isn't interested in democracy; it's interested in protecting its vested interest.
When they talk about how investment in this country is going to be put aside by the labour relations legislation, they're living in a world of Technicolor. There have been 500,000 jobs lost in this province. That has nothing to do with labour relations. It has a hell of a lot more to do with the free trade agreement and there's going to be a hell of a lot more when we sign a free trade agreement with Mexico. Quite frankly, I think the Labour Relations Act pales in comparison to what the hell's going to happen somewhere down the line. So I get a little tired of all this democracy. It makes me a little sick, because they don't believe in democracy.
Mr Tilson: I was going to ask a question, but I yield the floor to Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: He mentioned my name. I've never met the gentleman.
Mr Majesky: Since you mentioned mine in the House, I thought it was only apropos to mention yours in the select committee.
Mr Turnbull: Oh, this must be Mr Majesky. Oh, wonderful.
Mr Majesky: Who'd you think it was? Bob White?
Mr Turnbull: I didn't know. You're not on the list. Okay, now we'll have some fun. Let's first of all put to bed the rubbish about free trade. The fact is Ontario has sold more to the United States since free trade than before it.
Mr Majesky: And more jobs?
Mr Turnbull: There are jobs being lost throughout the world, Mr Majesky.
Mr Majesky: Show me the figures on jobs where we gained them.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Majesky, let me speak and then I will let you speak.
Mr Majesky: This is a free forum. I don't have to observe parliamentary procedure.
Mr Turnbull: You may not want to respect the politenesses.
Mr Majesky: You weren't that polite in the names you called me so I don't have to be that polite in what I call you either.
Mr Turnbull: Fair enough. We know that it's rubbish with respect to free trade because there's more being exported to the US today than there has ever been in history, but I just want to ask you about --
Mr Majesky: How many jobs have we gained?
Mr Turnbull: There are jobs being lost throughout the world.
Mr Majesky: Put the figure forward. You can't prove that.
Mr Turnbull: By the same token, 300,000 jobs are going to be lost as a result of this legislation.
Mr Majesky: It's not in place. We've lost the jobs under the free trade agreement now.
Mr Turnbull: That's rubbish.
Mr Majesky: That's your vision of the world, Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: We are selling more to the US than we have in history. It doesn't sit very well with your political cronies but it's fact.
Mr Majesky: That's why all my neighbours are out of work.
Mr Turnbull: Tell me something about a presentation that we had last night from the Christian Labour Association of Canada. The last sentence of their presentation was, "One positive step in that direction would be to restore unions as voluntary organizations and prohibit the practice of compulsory union membership." I'd be interested to see how you respond to that. You talked a good deal about democracy. Now tell us how democracy fits with being forced to be in a union and being forced to have part of your dues sent to the NDP coffers even when you don't want it.
Mr Majesky: Look --
Mr Foster: Can I just --
Mr Majesky: You go ahead, Kenny.
Mr Foster: Let me just answer that.
Mr Majesky: He would know what it's like anyway.
Mr Foster: Again I cannot comment on what other unions do with their dues. If you're referring to this union, I will make no hesitation in saying that we have locals that are directly affiliated to the New Democratic Party. There's no question about it, and I might say we're proud of it. But also in that particular scene there is access to any member in our union -- and I can prove this -- who does not want to contribute his dues to any political party whatsoever. We have access for that. Don't say that it's mandatory.
Mr Turnbull: What happens to that money? Can it be directed to other parties?
Mr Foster: If the membership so desires, yes.
Mr Turnbull: Can individuals say: "I don't want it to go to the NDP. I want it to go to the Conservatives or the Liberal Party"?
Mr Foster: I just said yes, they can.
Mr Turnbull: Individuals?
Mr Foster: Yes.
Mr Turnbull: Good. Last year during the TTC strike, I remember members desperately wanting to be sent back to work, shouting at the Conservative bus that we ran up and down Yonge Street as a courtesy bus, "Tell Bob Rae to get us back to work." They wanted legislation. Does it not seem appropriate that we have mandatory secret ballots on everything with respect to strikes and everything to do with unions?
Mr Foster: Just in comment to that, I suppose, in regard to the TTC, our local there is the largest local we have in Canada and runs around 9,000 members. Do you think the majority of people who were yelling at this Conservative bus to get them back to work represented 4,500 of those members?
Mr Turnbull: All the people who were standing outside the TTC headquarters were urging us to go down and tell Bob Rae to get them back to work. They weren't exercised with us.
Mr Foster: If the majority voted or directed our executive board to settle the agreement, then our people would have settled the agreement, but obviously those people who yelled at the Tory buses were not the majority.
Mr Turnbull: They were asking us.
Mr Foster: But they were not the majority; far from the majority.
Mr Turnbull: It was everybody standing outside the headquarters.
Mr Foster: You don't get 4,500 people in front of their headquarters.
Mr Turnbull: They were on the picket line and they didn't want to be on the picket line.
Mr Foster: I know --
Mr Turnbull: Let me ask a question to Mr Majesky. Do you think it appropriate that we have legislation going through where the minister refuses to do an impact study as to how many jobs can be lost by this and denies the validity of any other study done by other outside agencies, refuses to do it and yet is spending money on paying you $165,000 for a study about which the Ministry of Transportation, when it saw the first proposal, said: "We don't need it. We've already got the figures"? Then they changed the study to be able to pay you.
Mr Majesky: The fact of the matter is that I'm not going to comment on the study. I think the thing was brought up in the House and was dealt with in the House. Unfortunately you didn't get your way and you'll have to wait for another day.
On the question of the Minister of Labour, these changes --
Mr Turnbull: Yes, it's called the next government.
Mr Majesky: Look, when I'm speaking -- you asked a question. I'm going to give you an answer. This is the way it works in the House. I don't know how the hell you people operate. You asked a question and I'm going to give you an answer.
The fact of the matter is that I don't think there's been any kind of impact studies. These are fair and reasonable propositions. They've been done around the world.
Mr Turnbull: According to you.
Mr Majesky: According to me and a lot of other people, and if you don't happen to like it, that's too bad.
Mr Turnbull: According to the union leadership.
Mr Majesky: That's exactly what I am, and I happen to be a labour consultant. If you don't like the answer, then so be it. That's tough luck. I don't think it's going to hurt the country. I don't think it's going to hurt Ontario.
Mr Turnbull: The average Ontarian doesn't agree with you.
Mr Majesky: The sum total of the present labour legislation was brought in by your government under Bill Davis.
Mr Turnbull: That's right, the most progressive legislation in Canada.
Mr Majesky: That's right, at that time. I have always publicly admitted it, long before the southern states and whatever. This is just an extension of that and is taken one step further. I don't see any kind of need for people to panic. It won't have a flight of investment from this province. It will do nothing. It will only improve labour-management relations in this province.
1430
Mr Turnbull: Would it not be reasonable to prove that out?
Mr Majesky: Three years from now, you and I will meet somewhere and we'll hash it out over hamburgers on O'Connor or wherever you want and we'll see which one of us is right.
Mr Turnbull: That sounds reasonable.
The Chair: Mr Wood, briefly, please.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for coming forward. It was an excellent presentation towards --
Mr Majesky: Len, don't say that. He'll say you're biased.
Mr Wood: Nice to see you again, Wally. I haven't seen you for quite some time.
Mr Majesky: Make it on a first-name basis, eh?
Mr Wood: Major changes have taken place in the workforce -- the number of additional women who have gone into the workforce, the number of part-time workers who have come forward -- some of them as a result of the free trade agreement that was pushed down the throats of the people of Canada and put people off into that. I am wondering what effect that has on your union. Do you have a lot more women in the workforce as bus drivers, for example, or part-time workers in either your organization or the union, or that you've seen around the area?
Mr Majesky: Don't mention the part-time worker thing too loud, because that's still a sore issue right now. In so far as the number of women in the workplace in the transit industry is concerned, it is still relatively very low. I certainly can't put my finger on why, and I don't believe management can either, but I think it's certainly got to do with the work climate. It's certainly got to do with the industry, because of the hours that we have to work in the transit industry, especially when it comes down to a single parent when he or she has to work three shifts in one day to get eight hours of work. It's really hard to put your finger on it, but I know the number of women in the workforce in the transit industry is very low.
The Chair: I want to thank Ken Foster and Wally Majesky, speaking on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Canadian Council -- Ontario Division. We appreciate the effort and the insight contained in your submissions, and we appreciate your taking the time to be here and participate in this process. We trust you'll be keeping an eye on what's happening with this legislation and how the committee functions.
Mr Majesky: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and good luck. You're going to need it, I think.
ONTARIO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next participant is the Ontario Home Builders' Association. Will those people please come forward and have a seat. I want to remind people watching that of course these hearings are public and people are invited and indeed encouraged to come to Queen's Park during the course of this week and next week to observe these hearings. The committee is sitting from Monday through Thursday, as I say, this week and next week, and then we'll be travelling about the province.
Gentlemen, please tell us your names and your positions. Try to leave the second half of the half-hour for dialogue, which as you can see is sometimes lively and always interesting, and sometimes more animated than at other times.
Mr Phil McColeman: Good afternoon. I'm Phil McColeman, the first vice-president of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, and I will be the president this October. On my right is Andy Manahan, the director of industry relations. I introduced you; you didn't introduce yourself; sorry about that.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns today on Bill 40. I'm a renovation contractor from Brantford, and I can testify to the difficult economic times we are in and the necessity for government and business to pull together to improve our situation. I've been a volunteer with the provincial association for six years, and with the Brantford Home Builders' Association for nine years.
At the outset, I wish to state that I am not anti-union. I'm for a healthy business environment because without businesses, there are no jobs.
The Ontario Home Builders' Association is the voice of the residential construction industry in Ontario, representing 3,800 member companies which are organized into 35 local associations across Ontario. Our membership is made up of all disciplines involved in residential construction, including builders, land developers, renovators, trade contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, realtors, mortgage lenders, apartment owners and managers, housing consultants, economists, planners, architects, engineers and lawyers. Together, they produce 80% of the province's new housing.
In a survey conducted of the Ontario Home Builders' Association membership in the spring of this year, the Ontario Labour Relations Act proposals for reform were viewed to be the third most important item for consideration. This and another "Government Report Card" survey taken in the summer are appended to this submission. The latter member survey found that the OLRA received the worst rating: 1.7 on a scale of 1 to 10.
This legislation reminds me of the controversy which currently surrounds the debate over garbage sites in the Toronto area. It is being imposed on communities that simply don't want it. We believe the proposals contained in last year's discussion paper have already had a negative effect on Ontario's business climate. If Bill 40 is passed as is, the detrimental consequences will be even worse. Although consequences of government policy are difficult to measure, certainly the surveys and polls taken point to a more pessimistic frame of mind.
It is relatively easy for a plant to relocate outside of Ontario and distribute goods into the province. Many individuals have heard stories of the intention of firms to move out of the province if the OLRA proposals are implemented. Therefore, not only are dollars global, but even existing plants and fixtures are internationally mobile.
I'll just stop for a moment, at that point in my notes, to give you what I would consider a very grass-roots example.
I come from a relatively midsized community. This winter, when I was flooding the rink with a neighbour down at the park at the end of the street, who I didn't know particularly well, we got to talking about business and how things were and such. I found out that this fellow was a former worker at a large farm implement manufacturer in Brantford that no longer exists, and currently had taken a job with a large manufacturer in the Cambridge area.
He went on to inform me that he was heading a production group at that firm, and he went on to tell me about how they had developed plans for an expansion of that facility to double its size and to double the workforce. But the reason for it not proceeding, in his mind -- and he was not an upper-level manager but certainly felt the effects of this proposed legislation -- was because the company would not be proceeding at this point in time because of the uncertainties of this pending legislation. This, by the way, is a company that does not have a union. He came from a company that had a very strong union, with which I'm very familiar as well.
He also told me about the good wage he was making -- better than average, better than he was making in the previous plant -- and he also commented on the mobility of this plant in the way it was built. It was built with a slab and then all the machinery was hung from the ceiling. This is the type of construction that certain new plants are being made of to be mobile. I just want to give you that as kind of an example from, I suppose, a very grass-roots level that I had this past year.
OHBA is even more perplexed by the recent announcement of an industrial strategy that does not recognize the dampening effects of the OLRA proposals. Any such strategy should realize the importance of supportive public policy to foster investment and promote job creation of all types.
I will briefly state how members of the Ontario Home Builders' Association will be impacted by this legislation.
1. Indirectly: If, for example, manufacturing or investment moves south of the border, then there could be a net outflow of jobs. Therefore, the overall demand for housing will be diminished in this causal relationship. Housing starts in 1991 were only 52,794, only half the level experienced during the peak year of 1987 of 105,213. Despite the federal housing incentives of the 5% down payment plan and the use of registered retirement savings plan funds for down payments, the housing market remains extremely sluggish. In 1992, we will have a modest gain to approximately 60,000 starts. Let me tell you again, being in business, how tough it will be even to get to 60,000.
2. Directly: Many of our members are small builders and renovators who have low volumes -- less than five homes built per year -- and most are outside of Toronto, and in particular, our membership is highly non-union. We do not see the purpose of attempting to unionize these small businesses, which seems to be one of the major goals of this bill, as this would serve no practical or productive purpose. Those who work in the residential construction industry generally have good paying jobs and have the flexibility of working at different job sites and sometimes even different companies.
In fact, the recent Environics poll demonstrates that the public has very little interest in joining unions at all.
1440
We would respectfully suggest that the government place less emphasis on its ideology and instead listen to the people who have expressed concern over this dramatic change in the way Ontario businesses are allowed to operate. While you likely will have heard these points already from other business groups and will undoubtedly receive more detailed analyses over the next few weeks, let me highlight some of the more damaging consequences.
The ban on the use of replacement workers would seriously affect business operations, impede economic development and sour labour-business relations. Individuals who disagree with the stance of the union would lose their democratic voice by not being allowed to cross the picket line to work. Thus, the long-term viability of a business could be eroded, especially during a fragile economic period.
Not only would the private sector be impacted, but municipal service provision would also be disrupted. For example, critical public services such as the post office, hospitals, education and public works will be affected by these anti-scab proposals. This type of disruption would be grossly unfair to the taxpaying public and to businesses that depend on these types of services.
By allowing the Ontario Labour Relations Board to settle terms of a collective agreement, Bill 40 obliterates the impartial underpinnings of the board. This transformation of power transcends any judicial logic and runs counter to the more open and fair system that we have enjoyed in Ontario.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board will also have the power to grant automatic certification to a union and will not necessarily reflect the blessing of the employees. Furthermore, the elimination of post-application petitions will prevent employees who may not have been fully aware of the union organizing drive to express displeasure with the certification process.
The purpose clause definitely promotes the interests of unions. In the current act, there seems to be more balance, as the public interest is recognized, particularly with regard to collective bargaining. In OHBA's view, the encouragement of union organization will take precedence over social and economic objectives and, to us, this is clearly wrong.
The current act requires both parties to bargain in good faith, but Bill 40 removes the existing criteria for access to first-contract arbitration. It is unfathomable that arbitration would be available in every contract dispute once 30 days have elapsed after the calling of a strike. A union could simply bide its time in order to virtually guarantee a first contract, and this will undoubtedly make unionization attractive to employees despite the more detrimental long-term consequences.
In the interests of time, I will restrict my comments to these items even though there are other negative aspects of Bill 40.
All Ontarians are hoping for an economic renewal, and this proposed legislation will have just the opposite effect. It will create a climate where good management-labour relations are potentially soured and where both parties end up losing to our global competitors. When the Minister of Labour announced Bill 40 on June 4, he stated, "The legislation will be better for working people; better for employers through streamlined procedures and better for the province as a whole because it recognizes the fundamental changes in our economy."
In OHBA's opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. Surely, if the Premier and the government are genuine in their intentions about working with the business community, then, at a minimum, the proposals advanced in Bill 40 should be dramatically modified. OHBA's president sent a letter to the Premier on April 10, 1992, in which he asserted, "The proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act have fuelled a debate that is spreading like an insidious cancer." By not even slightly altering the intent of the bill from the discussion paper stage, it is our opinion that the cancer is continuing to spread.
The polarization on this issue has continued to intensify. OHBA looks to this government to implement changes which will truly benefit society and lead us out of this recession rather than prolong it. OHBA would encourage the government to recognize the current global economic realities and to not proceed with this seriously flawed piece of legislation.
On that note, I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee members.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Tilson and Mr Turnbull, five minutes.
Mr Turnbull: Welcome to Queen's Park as one of my constituents. I suppose in going through these hearings regrettably we come up with the conclusion that there's a great polarization, and I have the feeling we're not going to achieve a terribly great amount. When you consider the consultation that occurred prior to the bill coming down, as you've suggested, very few changes of a substantive nature were made. The government would suggest that isn't true. It would suggest there are substantive changes. This obviously goes to the heart of the problem when you have a very polarized government which represents a very special interest group, but by the same token, they could say that about us.
As we go through these hearings, I know we're going to hear the same answers over and over again from both sides. My question to you would be, how can we persuade the government that the suggestions that there will be job loss and loss of income to Ontario are real? You mentioned the Environics poll. The government says: "Look, we don't agree with it. We think it's flawed." They've refused to do their own study. They've spent large amounts of money. They spent $50,000 on subscribing to pay for the new union song, believe it or not. That's how taxpayers' money is being spent. The last person who was sitting here, Wally Majesky, is getting $165,000 to do a study that the Ministry of Transportation initially said it didn't need, but they've refused to do a study of their own.
What can we do to persuade them that the harm we're suggesting is real? It's a long dialogue to begin with, but the question is what can we do to persuade them?
Mr McColeman: Specifically, as we've discussed this among the residential community of builders in the province, as with a lot of issues, you would put together a task force perhaps of some people like the neighbour of mine and ask them to give input through their own experiences. The task force could consist of labour, management and government and could take a hard look at the potential downside this will have on the future growth of existing companies and also on the creation of new businesses in Ontario in terms of job creation.
I think the single biggest thing we continue to hear from our membership is that this does nothing to create jobs, it only puts another impediment in the way of operating a business in Ontario. It's another disincentive.
Mr Turnbull: In fact, the Conservative Party has consistently suggested a tripartite commission to look at this, consisting of workers, government and business, and the government has seen fit not to pay heed to that. It has launched ahead with this. I guess it's payoff time for the union bosses.
Nevertheless, I keep on going back to the core question I'm asking you. The business community is saying there's going to be serious economic loss to this province both of jobs and investment. The union leadership -- not the union members, because many of the rank and file are telling us they're concerned about the implications of this legislation -- is pushing very hard to get this. How can we persuade the government that there is some validity to the studies or at least to pay attention to doing its own study?
1450
Mr McColeman: Hopefully, at the end of the day, when the hearings are finished, they'll recognize the detrimental effects that this is having, has had already, and the effects that it will continue to have, and they will pause and put together a task force and the necessary studies to just measure those effects and give us that information. Hopefully, at the end of the day, that's what happens.
Mr Tilson: There's been some discussion here and outside this committee on the effect of this legislation on investment in all industries, but specifically in your industry. I'd like you to comment, because I'm sure the two of you deal with people who are investing within and without and from outside the province. Allegations have been made by the NDP this afternoon that there's all kinds of investment coming into the province of Ontario and that everything's just fine.
On the other hand, there have been comments made that if this labour legislation specifically is passed as presented, investment will practically dry up as far as even the housing industry is concerned. Do you have any facts to give the committee from conversations that you've had with investors from within the province or outside the province on that whole subject of investment?
Mr McColeman: I do not have facts which I can give you today, but I can certainly pass along at a later date to all of you the comments that some of our key builder members have made and some of their rationales for not making investments in new property or development. There is not a lot of new development happening in the private sector. It seems to be very government-focused, non-profit housing. That's basically what's happening right now. There is very little private development happening.
Mr Ward: It's good to see you again. We meet on a regular basis, being from Brantford, and I always enjoy those meetings. I think you're going to be an excellent president of the home builders' association.
Mr McColeman: Why are you being so nice, Brad?
Mr Ward: In Brantford, our community has been hard hit. I agree that we never really recovered from the demise of the farm implement industry, Massey-Ferguson and White Farm, which went down just before the boom was supposed to come along. We really never did share in that boom.
However, we have had some good news in Brantford, and I can relate one investment decision by a Canadian company, Inter-City Gas, which made the decision -- and it was during the original debate of labour reform -- to close a plant in Red Bud, Illinois, and locate the lines for that company in KeepRite in Brantford, which was good news for Brantford, in anticipation of doubling the workforce there over the next five years.
So there has been good and bad. I share your concern when we do have bad news, but we must balance that with reports of good news as well.
From the debate we've heard or the presentations we've heard as a committee and prior to this committee being formed to review this proposed legislation, I think there is consensus that the workplace and workforce have changed dramatically since the 1970s -- more women than ever in the workforce, part-time work increasing dramatically over the last few years -- and that the intent of labour reform is to deal with those changes that have been occurring since the 1970s.
I know there are concerns, because when we have our lunches we discuss this issue and others, and I realize there are specific concerns. But when you look at some of the proposals -- a couple of examples: security guards' right to join trade unions is in every other province, including the federal jurisdiction; the petition restrictions are in existence in every other province; the full part-time workers right to single-unit representation is in every other jurisdiction, including the federal.
Those three areas are examples, since they are in existence in other jurisdictions throughout Canada. Ontario is the lone wolf in not having those. Do you feel you would be compelled to support those specific areas of labour reform, recognizing you do have specific concerns in other areas?
Mr McColeman: I don't believe, as an association of business people and tradespeople, that we would have any objection to the improvement of the labour environment for our workers. In fact with many of our companies our workers would totally resist the union because of the good treatment that is given and is necessary in today's business environment. We have talked many times about how you cannot operate today and treat workers as -- perhaps management has changed over the years as well.
The need for stronger unionization perhaps doesn't even exist out there today. Perhaps it's a carryover from other reactions to management, as we've discussed in situations such as the farm implement industry where there were horrendous things happening on both sides of it.
I would suggest to you, first of all, that your rationale that it's happening elsewhere is not something we would subscribe to that should automatically be transposed into our environment. We should make our own bed and decide for ourselves, based on the health and the benefits of such a program.
We suggest, as an association, that it's been clearly stated today that we do not believe this is the time when these types of changes should be made to influence how businesses have to operate in this province. We do not believe this is the right economic time. Our members are struggling; they're falling by the wayside; they're hanging on by their fingernails to be in business. To have to then face further government intervention in their businesses is not something any of us would want at this time.
That's not to say we do not believe improvements shouldn't be made. In fact we would participate to help draw up those benefits or improvements, as I suggested earlier with a question that came from this side, if that was decided. Things have changed and they've changed in a significant way in the way owners, operators and managers treat their employees today. We do not need this imposed on us.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I've had the opportunity to meet with some of the local home builders in our area and, Phil, I think you made an excellent suggestion there about a task force with all three parties involved. We heard that same suggestion when we travelled around on Bill 118, the Power Corporation Act, that we should listen more. Anyway, it didn't happen, the legislation was brought to the House. Why should you think if it didn't happen on Bill 118, it might happen on this particular bill?
Mr McColeman: I suppose I can relate to that in only one way. I grew up in a very pro-labour home. That was my philosophical basis as I started out into the work world. I don't believe there's bad intent in terms of what people are trying to achieve, but hopefully all of the factors are considered and I don't know whether, as I read the research information that's been made available to us and also talked to the people, whether all avenues and things have been considered.
I hope our MPPs of all political parties have the common sense to stop and pause, because this issue has become so polarized, as was mentioned, and so antagonistic that implementation at this point will never be friendly no matter what happens, as has been mentioned.
Why not use the commonsense approach I believe was taught me, as I said, in a political way that should be taken on an issue like this. What I hope will prevail at the end of the day is that people will pause, think it through, think of the effects, study it and look at it at another time.
The Chair: Gentlemen, Phil McColeman and Andy Manahan, thank you very much for being here on behalf of the Ontario Home Builders' Association. It's a significant industry that you speak on behalf of. Your points were well made. We appreciate the time your organization took to prepare this submission and your interest and willingness to participate in the process. We trust you'll be keeping in touch. Thank you kindly.
1500
Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, I have a point of order, or a question to you. The clerk has distributed to members of the committee a list of organizations that wish to address this committee and I don't know whether he's counted them up or not. I suppose it's about 900 to 1,000 --
The Chair: If I can interrupt you, do you want to use up the time of the next group, the More Jobs Coalition, or do you want to wait until 5 o'clock to recess, when the participants have finished making their presentations?
Mr Tilson: That's fine, Mr Chairman, if you're allowing us to speak at 5 o'clock.
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Tilson: That's all I was asking. Thank you.
MORE JOBS COALITION
The Chair: The More Jobs Coalition is here. We have your written submission which has been distributed. It will be made an exhibit, as will all the others and of course it will be available to any member of the public who wants it merely by inquiring of the clerk or of an MPP's office. Tell us your name, please and your position with the organization, if there is a title, and try to leave the second half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges.
Mr Dale Kerry: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll try to leave the time free.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dale Kerry and I'm the chairman of the More Jobs Coalition. We're a group of about 110 businesses which came together to try to understand and to express our views on what is now known as Bill 40.
This a large, very complex piece of legislation requiring an awful lot more than the 15 or 20 minutes available today, so I'm only going to be able to touch on a few points. The More Jobs Coalition has, however, commissioned an extensive analysis of the bill and we will submit that report to your committee within the next few weeks, certainly before you cease to sit.
As an object lesson in how not to do something constructive, the labour relations process really stands alone.
We, and I think this would be equally true of other business groups as well, have had literally dozens of meetings with government officials, both bureaucratic and political staff. We've made submissions, we've pointed out the adverse consequences that will flow from the legislation, consequences for our labour relations system and our economy, to little avail.
Giving credit where it's due, some changes have been made. For example, the hot cargo proposal, which would have spread conflicts to entirely innocent parties, has been dropped, but most changes from the earlier proposals really have not addressed our fundamental concerns.
The government has many times claimed that the Labour Relations Act has been the object of the most extensive consultation in Ontario's history. But if by consultation we mean "to deliberate together," as Webster's dictionary puts it, then there really has been no consultation with the employer sector worth mentioning.
Not surprisingly then, in view of the process, we're now on the verge of passing the most radical and ideological labour legislation in the industrialized world.
Governments, once elected, are supposed to represent everyone. This legislation does not do so. Rather, it represents the interests of union leaders and it does so at the expense of employers and of individuals.
We call on the government to involve capable representatives of all the parties to work out a good bill. Only by involving a balanced panel of knowledgeable labour relations practitioners can we hope to achieve legislation which will work for everyone, and this must be our goal.
It's our belief that Bill 40 will undermine investor confidence in Ontario and put at risk present and future jobs. Indeed, it may already be doing so. Previously, potential investors in Europe, Britain, Asia and the United States have expressed clearly their apprehensions about investing in a jurisdiction with the sort of legislation found in Bill 40.
Why should they be apprehensive? Clearly, it's because these people understand that the thrust of Bill 40 is to diminish the value of their investment by pushing up costs and/or by placing their ability to operate and adjust to competition severely at risk. Investors perceive the force of government being used to push up costs and close down businesses which are trying to be competitive. That's why they are apprehensive.
The government's expressed view is that Bill 40 will be good for investment and for the economy. Investors are saying just the opposite.
Employers recognize also that Bill 40 will have a seriously negative impact on the collective bargaining process, which is the bedrock of our industrial relations system. The collective bargaining system in Ontario has been developed over about half a century. Employers and unions bargain together, and where there are disputes the labour relations board intervenes to keep things on a fair basis and to achieve a settlement. As a result, the board has attracted many outstanding members who, over time, have developed extensive and learned jurisprudence. The system has been fair and non-political. Preceding governments and the board have striven successfully to keep the system in balance.
In collective bargaining, the purpose is first of all to cause each party to focus on those things which are really important. The second purpose is to require the parties to determine their real bottom line.
The collective bargaining process provides a communication channel for the exchange. Abuse of the process is an unfair practice which brings penalties against the transgressor. Our collective bargaining system is successful and civilized. More than 95% of the contracts are bargained successfully, and our citizens enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, as the government has recognized.
How will the collective bargaining system be damaged? Here are a few -- but really only a few -- of the reasons:
The purpose clause states that one of the purposes of Bill 40 is to bring about improvement in terms and conditions of employment. Improvement in terms and conditions is what the collective bargaining process is designed to achieve. However, the purpose clause mandates that collective bargaining must achieve this improvement, thereby undermining the collective bargaining process itself.
Ontario has been fortunate in the quality of people who have sat on the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The board has developed the view that bargaining units should be comprised of employees who share a community of interest appropriate to effective collective bargaining. Bill 40 seeks to override established principles of bargaining unit configuration. The resulting bargaining units will not be conducive to effective representation of employee interests, because the bargaining units will not have been brought together for that purpose.
Currently, first-contract arbitration is available when bargaining has been unsuccessful due to a lack of effort, intransigence or bad faith. Under Bill 40, a first contract can be imposed merely through the passage of time. If one of the parties can get its way just by setting a clock running, where is the incentive to use the collective bargaining process to its proper effect?
More than 95% of Ontario collective agreements are settled without a strike. The mere threat of a strike, and the prospect that the employer will continue operations during a strike, is usually enough to provide each party with an incentive to find an agreement. Under Bill 40, one party is free to strike while the other is not free to continue operations. This restriction, which will affect most employers, removes the balance needed for an effective collective bargaining process to work.
We might think of this anti-strikebreaker provision as an attempt to give one party a monopoly on the supply of labour. Where is the incentive to bargain seriously when you can get what you want by force? It's naïve to assume that better employment relationships will emerge from this provision.
Bill 40 enables the labour relations board to deem that all contracts contain certain provisions even if they were not agreed to through collective bargaining. This provision may even override provisions that were agreed to.
For example, take the provision requiring that an adjustment plan be negotiated in the event of a downsizing affecting 50 or more employees. If, through collective bargaining, the parties traded other things for an adjustment plan, one will be imposed anyway. Further, the parties may have agreed in a previous contract to an adjustment plan. Bill 40 seems to permit this previous agreement to be overturned if one party demands. Finally, there are already requirements of an adjustment plan in the Employment Standards Act, so the employer faces triple jeopardy under this provision.
1510
In short, ladies and gentlemen, we believe that the government, in its zeal to increase drastically the power of organized labour, seems willing to inflict great damage on the collective bargaining process itself. When that occurs, the entire labour relations system in the province will have been undermined.
The present labour relations system is balanced in such a way as to identify and preserve the rights of the three main parties; that is, the rights of trade unions, employers and employees. Bill 40 moves a great deal of power to trade unions at the expense of the other two groups. In the process, it seems likely that the balance needed to protect the rights of those groups will be lost.
For example, currently, employees who have signed a membership application but who later change their minds can sign a petition against union membership. This right will now be lost to employees.
Bill 40 allows unions the opportunity to combine bargaining units without any reference to the wishes of employees. Thus, employees who joined a union for one purpose may find their wishes disregarded in collective bargaining. Worse, they may find themselves out on strike against their wishes, and over issues of no concern to them.
The anti-replacement worker provision takes away from employees the right to return to work if union leaders don't want them to return. We then have the ludicrous possibility of being forced to strike against one's wishes and being prevented from returning to work.
In summary, the balance of power in the employment relationship is so tilted by Bill 40 in favour of unions, and to the detriment of others, that the rights of employers and individuals are compromised.
Our prognosis for the labour relations system under Bill 40 is bleak. The effects must surely spill over into our economy and affect our ability to manage organizations efficiently and effectively. The irony is that by so damaging one party, Bill 40 removes any reasonable basis of an effective partnership between the parties just when one is urgently needed.
We have asked repeatedly that the government bring the workplace parties together to work out a fair, sensible and balanced approach to labour relations changes. Perhaps the Premier's advisory group will have a significant impact on what stands at the moment as a very ill-advised piece of legislation. We urge you on the committee to press the case urgently. After third reading it will be too late.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Fletcher, five minutes.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I know this is only the second day of presentations, and we've already heard a number of briefs. As we go along, I'm hearing the concerns of people from the labour movement who are saying that there's coercion, that there's mistreatment of employees, especially in organizing, even in the workplace. One person from the anti-poverty group was talking about a person who is an immigrant, who was working from 9 o'clock in the morning until 11:30 at night at a pizza place and was too afraid to exercise his rights because he was afraid of reprisals from his employer.
We've heard from the business community, from different businesses that are saying, "There have to be changes, but we're not sure what the changes are." They're not really addressing the concerns of what the labour movement has been saying.
Even before this went on, the rhetoric that was going on, the hostility before this even became a draft piece of legislation, the back and forth rhetoric, the things that promoted the polarization we've been talking about, the opposition parties picked up on what was being said by different groups, such as your group and other groups, who were throwing the barbs out, back and forth. Now all of a sudden, even from the chamber of commerce, I get this conciliatory approach I'm sensing that, "Hey, we can work together on this."
We've come this far with a piece of legislation where we were forced, as a government, into a corner. We were being forced by the opposition and by different groups, through rhetoric, through that polarization, through that adversarial approach that seems to dominate the Ontario labour scene.
What we are trying to promote and what we see as being part of the promotion of this legislation is trying to get an understanding between labour and management, a way to work things out, and collective bargaining is one of those positions and one of the ways of doing it. If we look at some of the economies of other countries where they do have progressive labour legislation, and also take into account progressive environmental laws, you can see where it's been working.
Then I have to look at my community, where there've been union and non-union shops that have reinvested. Just a few weeks ago, Linamar in Guelph, instead of moving to the United States, reinvested in Ontario, reinvested in Guelph, because of the Jobs Ontario Training fund it was accessing. It was something Mr Hasenfratz, really the owner of the company, applauded the government for, this initiative as far as training is concerned, because he said that in other countries we don't get this.
Then I'd also look at other companies such as Pavaco and a few other companies that have accessed some of the government funding as far as upgrading their facilities is concerned. What they did in that company was they went to the union and they got together with the people in the union and said, "Look, we're in dire straits and we have to work together to get this company rolling again." They all pitched in and did work together. There was no animosity, no adversarial approach to working things out.
When I look at this legislation, from what has been said, again from the adversarial approach, as far as what has been said by the opposition parties is concerned, they are claiming or trying to make it seem like every company, every worker, in Ontario is going to organize into a union and they're going to force your company to close down. That approach in itself is one that has been one of fearmongering.
That's not what this piece of legislation is for. This piece of legislation is not one that's going to make every worker in Ontario want to run out and join a union. The option of joining a union is still going to be in the hands of people who, whether or not they want to, will make their own choice.
When I was going through your presentation, it presumes that once a person makes a choice whether or not to sign a card, he's going to all of a sudden be enlightened and say, "Hey, I made a mistake." Yet that may not be the case. People do sign cards of their own free will. They're not being coerced into doing it, and it presumes that unions are using strong-arm tactics to sign people up. Again, I look at the adversarial approach, and a lot of your presentation is very good, but you still take the position that people are going to, click, the light goes on, "I made a mistake of signing that card," or you presume that they're being coerced into it.
You come to the point of investment being driven out, yet we have seen examples of investment coming into the country, such as the places I've mentioned in my own community, and we can go to the big auto makers, we can go to Crayola, we can go to the ones that have been mentioned that are investing. That is not to say there hasn't been any lost investment -- there has -- but is it dire straits? Is it that bad that we are going to close every company in Ontario, that every worker is going to organize in Ontario and that everyone is going to be devastated by this piece of legislation?
Mr Kerry: I certainly hope you're not presuming that I or any of my colleagues are making that sort of contention. We don't presume that all companies are going to close down. We don't presume that all employees are going to want to belong to unions or not belong to unions. We don't presume either that employees who sign cards in large numbers then change their minds. We don't assume that at all.
1520
But picking up on the last point, if it is a fair statement that people who sign cards don't change their minds, then why is it necessary to put in Bill 40 the provision that they are not permitted to change their minds? That's all I was saying. Bill 40 removes from individuals the right to change their minds. Why is that sort of provision necessary? I don't know.
We also would not contend that nobody is going to invest in the province. This province has many advantages, but we certainly view Bill 40 as a significant disadvantage and it becomes more of a disadvantage the further away you get from it. I did refer to groups in Asia, Britain, the United States and Europe who have all expressed very negative views about their perception of organizational life under legislation of this kind. Whether you agree or disagree with their perception, perception is reality and they will make their decisions based upon that perception. I don't know if that answers your question, but it's an attempt.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly am looking forward to getting the analysis of the bill. I know of the work of the coalition in the previous months.
I was listening closely to the question that was posed by Mr Fletcher. One of the things at the very top of the question spoke about his surprise and amazement that some business groups are coming before this committee in a conciliatory fashion, and where was this earlier on. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the provisions of the bill, but I think it's an important point that must be brought forward.
As the question carried on, it went into other areas, but I think it's important that you share with the committee, with the government members, the efforts that have been made by the More Jobs Coalition to establish some sort of tripartite committee made up of labour, business and government to deal with this issue. This has not been done just today, but rather this is a request, I believe, that's been made for many months. I hope the government members will listen intently to what the position of a very important association has been.
Mr Kerry: I didn't think Mr Fletcher was actually referring to us, but just in case he may have gotten us mixed up with somebody else, I can tell you that we asked for -- let me just back up one step. We have taken, throughout the piece, a very deliberate line of trying to be moderate and trying to entice true dialogue over the various chapters of the Labour Relations Act.
We've had a great many meetings and we have always attempted to make constructive comments. We began to ask, approximately last September, that the government convene some sort of panel of knowledgeable labour relations practitioners who could sit down and really study what was being proposed at that time, to see if some way couldn't be worked out where we could have good legislation that would work to the benefit of everybody.
We started doing that, as I said -- it's pushing on for a year ago now approximately -- without any real result. In February, I think we produced the most extensive analysis on what were then the labour relations proposals and asked the government to enter into a dialogue over that analysis with, I would say, almost no result. It really is a bum rap to say that there is something sudden about groups appearing and putting forward their points in a moderate way and asking for some way of coming to a meeting of the minds on this.
This has been going on for a long time. The problem is that the government has not seen fit to do it. As a result, what we have has turned into a sort of dialogue of the deaf. We now have one party that feels it's won and it's just going to keep its wins, and the devil take the hindmost. It's very unfortunate, but that seems to be the position we're in.
At the end of today, right now, we have Bill 40, which we believe is going to have seriously detrimental effects on the labour relations system in the province, on the so-called objective of partnership and, I think inevitably, on the economy in general.
To pick up one other point Mr Fletcher made, if I might, there are people investing. There was an investment announced yesterday and I'll just use that as an example. It was $660 million, or something of that sort, by Ford Motor. That's the second Ford investment I've noticed. But when you really take a look, what Ford has said is, "We're prepared to invest sufficient funds to maintain what we've already got, but we are not announcing investments of new money," which we desperately need in Ontario to expand the economy and to set us on a proper base for growth and reasonable prosperity in the future. It's a status quo situation. I think it's a little bit like the baseball pitcher who said, "If you're not moving forward, you're moving backwards," and we're not moving forward.
Mr Tilson: I too will be looking forward to your analysis or the analysis you've commissioned of the bill. I would like you to make some comments, if you are able to, on the subject of the part-time employee, in other words, the bargaining unit structure. As I understand it now, with this bill, if the two groups, the full-time employee and the part-time employee, are in a company and an application for certification is made, as long as the required percentage is obtained, albeit, say, by the full-time employee, the part-time employee will also be certified in that same unit, even though he or she doesn't wish to be certified.
Mr Kerry: That's a possibility.
Mr Tilson: That's what I understand is a fact. Of course, it's wonderful for the union management because it means more union fees. The part-time employees really aren't interested in pension plans or long-term security. They're not interested in a whole slew of benefit packages the full-time employee might wish, yet they're forced to join this union even though they, as a group, don't want it. I don't know whether you've had an opportunity to study this or to predict what that might mean. My question to you is, for a business that hires full-time or part-time employees, will that have an effect on the hiring of part-time employees, or indeed will part-time employees wish to join when they realize this is one more tax they're going to have to pay, namely, the union fees?
Mr Kerry: I don't know about the attitudes of the part-time people on hiring. I would expect that certainly some employers will take a very hard look at their hiring practices and the way the work is designed and make some adjustments according to what seems best to that business.
I expect that; I don't know for certain that will happen, but I would expect so, for the simple reason that I think any competent labour relations person would tell you that from the perspective of the two groups of people, the interests of the two groups in collective bargaining are not the same. That is the main reason those kinds of groups have tended to be looked at separately, because together you do not have a community of interests for collective bargaining purposes. As a result, the whole collective bargaining process becomes that much more difficult and the issues between the two groups are quite different.
1530
Mr Turnbull: Mr Kerry, just briefly, the government has called into question the veracity of the Ernst and Young study which suggested that the result of implementation of this law would cost 295,000 jobs and just under $9 billion. You made a comment that perception is reality. I wonder if you could just expand on that and the veracity of these numbers.
Mr Kerry: I don't know about the veracity of the numbers. That's not a study with which we have had anything to do. I think I can say for certain that Bill 40 in law is not going to create any jobs. Our group has sent to the Premier material on at least 20 companies that have written to talk about the negative employment effects on their business if this becomes law. So I have to assume that somewhere between one and 295,000 there is probably a number for job loss.
The Chair: You've made a very insightful presentation this afternoon, Mr Kerry. We want to thank you and the More Jobs Coalition for the preparation of your submissions, for attending here today and for your participation in this process. We trust you'll be monitoring the work of this committee and the progress of the bill. If you're interested, you'll keep in touch.
INTERCEDE
The Chair: The next participant is a group called Intercede, the Toronto Organization for Domestic Workers' Rights. Perhaps those people speaking on behalf of Intercede would come forward and seat themselves at a microphone. Tell us your names please, your titles or positions if any, and try to save the second half of the half-hour for questions and dialogue.
Ms Fely Villasin: I'm Fely Villasin and I'm the coordinator of Intercede, otherwise known as the Toronto Organization for Domestic Workers' Rights. I am here with officers and members of our organization. Pura Valasco is the current president of Intercede. Irma Charles is currently working as a domestic worker and is a member of our organization. Laxmi Rao continues also to be a member of our organization and is looking for work other than domestic work.
We're going to have short presentations. We are quite nervous, because we don't do this every day.
The Chair: We're nervous too. Does it help any to know that?
Ms Villasin: What we would like to do is to answer your questions. I've asked my friends to just talk from the heart and to say why we need to have the right to have a union. We will start with Pura Valasco and we will see if Irma and Laxmi have something to say.
Ms Pura Valasco: Thank you very much for inviting Intercede, the Toronto Organization for Domestic Workers' Rights. I was a domestic worker for two years and I'm now the president of Intercede.
First, our organization would like to thank this committee for inviting us. Also, we would like to thank the provincial government for considering domestic domestic workers to be included in the right to form a union. The reform to the Ontario Labour Relations Act has been long overdue.
The present exclusion of domestic workers from the act cannot be justified. Domestic work is very important labour. It should be recognized as important labour because we take care of your babies, and we take care of your elderly and disabled. The place of work, the houses where we work, should be considered as workplaces wherein employment standards should be implemented and respected.
Based on my experience as a domestic worker, my only bargaining power when I was exploited and abused by my employer -- one of the most prominent families in Ontario, in Toronto -- was to leave the workplace. That was the only bargaining power I had, to leave the workplace and finish my working relationship with my employer. The reality in the domestic field is that domestic workers are at the mercy of their employers. We have the notion that what we do is not something that could be negotiated at the table. The relationship between an employer and a domestic worker is based on the good faith of the employer who can give us the place to work, the place to live.
It's time for your country to recognize the work that we do because we've been exploited for so many years. The exploitation goes on. At the moment, the federal government has trapped us in a very precarious situation of requiring us to live in with our employers and no employment standard has been respected. As of this point, only two domestic workers were able to win their campaign for the recognition of their long working hours. In the case of one of our members, Deepa, she was able to get back the long-overdue compensation she was supposed to get from her employer.
I would not make my presentation so long because I have to give you Irma Charles. I just would like to say to this committee that it is long-overdue recognition of domestic work as an important labour sector in this country.
Ms Irma Charles: My name is Irma Charles. I'm a member of the domestic workers. I think it is right for us to have a union because every place has a union whether you're working in a factory or somewhere else. We need a union because we don't have any rights. When Intercede goes to intercede, it cannot negotiate with the employer and say to him, "Look, the employee says so and the employer says that." They cannot do that. If we have a union, the union can negotiate for us. I think it is time for us to have a union. I think that is all I have to say.
Ms Laxmi Rao: My name is Laxmi Rao. I am a member of Intercede. Thanks for the invitation for a presentation. I have worked in domestic work from 1987 to 1991 but I have not been paid wages from my employers for four years, and I'd like to have a union for the domestic workers. I did not get even my vacation pay or sick pay. Even though I was alone in this country, when I left my employer's place I went to a shelter and they gave me a telephone number for Intercede and legal aid. I went to another employer, but he has paid me only $400 per month and now I am working at the factory as a helper.
1540
Ms Villasin: I would just like to say that we consider taking out from the OLRA the exemption for domestic workers to organize as really only a first step. It's a symbolic step; it will not do much for us. We will have to fight for certain mechanisms. There have to be certain mechanisms in place for the right to organize if it is ever approved as part of this bill. We would still have a way to go in order to be able to organize domestic workers who work in isolation and who face employers one to one in the workplace.
In the first place, I think the OLRA provides for the workplace to have more than one employee. It's a technicality already that even if we have the right to organize domestic workers into a union, we will still have to take that out of the act; for example, the consideration that you have to have more than one employee.
We have ideas on how we will be able to organize as a union, but even if it has come this late, we still appreciate the fact that for the first time domestic workers will be considered to be workers like others and have the right to organize as other workers have.
Thank you. We're ready for your questions.
Mr Offer: Thank you for the presentation. My question was actually going to be on the very last point you brought forward. I don't know if you yourself or some of the ministry officials could possibly help. It's my understanding that the vast majority of workplaces would be with one employee. It is also my understanding that the minimum number of employees, before they could be unionized, is two.
I am very much concerned about and aware of the issues, but under the provisions of the bill it would be my understanding and hope that maybe the ministry officials, if not yourself, could help us as to how your issue is addressed when the very large number of employees are only one in the workplace home, whereas the minimum number required is two.
As I ask that question, I apologize for adding on this next part. I would like to obtain from you your thoughts as to whether maybe more emphasis should be made, with the Employment Standards Act and the enforcement provisions under the act and the branch, in order to deal with the very real and important matters you've brought forward today.
Ms Villasin: I did bring copies of our response to the proposed reforms and I will request that all of you have those copies. I have them with me. I did not want to read them here. We do have some ideas about how we can transition into a bargaining group, and we have addressed the fact that we have to bargain as a sector and not as one employee with an employer.
That is the reason why, as far as we are concerned, all we want out of this round is that the right to organize be given to domestic workers. I think that in this round, though, the bill has to consider this question of one employee per workplace for domestic workers, so we will supply you with the ideas that we have initially.
These are by no means complete ideas, but as an organization we have talked about this. We've met about this, and one of the things the domestic workers are much in favour of is the ability of their own organization to be able to negotiate better conditions and also to represent them in employer-employee disputes.
Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I could just pursue that a bit further, please. I am not clear. Who would form part of the bargaining unit that you see that would be of assistance to you?
Ms Villasin: On our side or on the employers' side?
Mr McGuinty: On your side.
Ms Villasin: What we think we should be able to have is a central registry. Right now Intercede actually is almost a quasi-union, but we don't have the right to bargain for the domestic workers. We don't have the right to enter a dispute on their behalf and negotiate with their employers. What we need to be able to do perhaps is to have a mandated registry that would be able to have a list of the domestic workers who are employed at any one time.
A central body like that would be able to make contact with the workers and be able to give them their rights. That body could perhaps negotiate or have life insurance or health insurance for everyone, something that is just individually taken by domestic workers. This is how we would like to proceed, but in terms of what the bill has for us right now, it's really only a first step.
Mr Tilson: I think that's my problem as well, understanding how you expect to become part of a union organization, specifically when the matter is personal between a domestic and an individual home.
I don't know what happens if there are problems. Does the organization picket the home, when the home next door may be perfectly upstanding and treat the domestic worker properly? I have trouble understanding specifically how, in the traditional employer-employee relationship as far as a union is concerned, you would fit into that, because the domestic worker is a special type of occupation. It's a very personalized occupation. I guess I, like my friends, am having difficulty understanding specifically how you would fit into that type of framework.
Ms Valasco: Can I answer the question? This is precisely part of the presentation I made. The relationship between an employer and an employee is no longer a private matter. It's business. The thing is that the employers take advantage of the situation. Since the workplace is in their homes, they think it's a private matter, but in reality it is a business relationship between an employee and an employer. I get paid for the services I render, and an employer pays me for what I render.
I think it's very important for the government to recognize that it's important that it not only should give us in legislation the right to form a union but it should provide a mechanism for us to get organized. In terms of if we have the central registry, and through the central registry we will have the opportunity to be able to reach out to other workers and inform them about their employment rights and immigration policies relevant to their work, and by having us directly contact the employees we would be able to educate the workers on how to negotiate with employers.
I feel, based on my experience as a domestic worker, that I need someone to speak for me, because the reality is that the relationship between my employer and myself is not equal. The playing field is not equal. The workplace is his place, so I cannot assert my rights. It was difficult for me to assert to a very rich person that I am a worker and that I deserve the same rights as any other worker.
1550
Mr Tilson: One of the committee members suggested that perhaps an inquiry could be made on tightening up certain provisions of the Employment Standards Act; in other words, if you're being treated improperly or unfairly there is legislation in place that might deal with that. Have you any thoughts on that?
Ms Valasco: There is the Employment Standards Act but it's not respected because nobody is keeping track of what is going on inside a house because it's a private place. Whereas if we have a union, then the union can act as -- I don't want to use the word "watchdog" -- our protector in looking into what's going on inside a workplace. By recognizing too that domestic work is labour, then you recognize that the house is a workplace. That's the first thing that should be recognized: that the house is a workplace.
Mr Tilson: So you are suggesting that the union would be able to go into an individual's house.
Ms Villasin: What we are suggesting is that in the way we are organized now, especially women workers, the traditional structures may not necessarily apply in all their forms. This is the reason why, for example, one of the things we would like to be able to do is actually to be able to suggest how it is that we can bargain broadly as a sector. Perhaps we could have a council of employers bargaining with the sector of domestic workers.
The point is that domestic work, like garment home work, does not follow traditional workplaces the way we have known them and therefore the way we will be organizing will have to also change, will have to be non-traditional in that sense. I can assure you that if this bill is approved, we'll have to go farther than just this. But we have to begin here and it's really just a first step.
Mr Tilson: It gets back to my initial question. I understand your problem and I believe you when you say there are problems. As I have some knowledge of the union structure -- I don't profess to be an expert on it but I have some knowledge of it -- the question I have is simply understanding how the union will be able to legally help you in the special circumstances that you're in. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Research would like some clarification. Are you suggesting that a model which might be suitable would be one similar to the hiring hall model of bricklayers, carpenters or seafarers?
Ms Villasin: We are looking into that, actually.
The Chair: Are you suggesting that is perhaps a model which could represent as a trade union the interests of domestic workers?
Ms Villasin: Yes.
Ms Murdock: Actually, I may assist research on this, because that leads into my question.
It's nice to see an all-women presentation. It is because so many women are in the workforce now, particularly in the part-time positions, that it becomes really important to look at their plight within the labour market.
In terms of domestic work, I have a couple of questions based on some of the things that were presented today. I'm glad to see that two stories were told, because I think that's really important; it gives us a greater understanding. In terms of domestic workers, I'd like the distinction to be cleared up as to whether that means what we in general society know as nannies, or whether it's what we generally know as housekeepers, and what the distinction is.
In terms of a model to be used, as has been suggested by the Chair in terms of a hiring hall, or what you have already said in terms of broad-based bargaining, would that require mandatory registration on the parts of the domestic worker and then application by the householder to the registry? Is that what you're thinking of? And would training then be required for the domestic worker? How far is that going to go? I realize that this is a first step in Bill 40, but it is also going to involve a lot of thinking along that line to go any further, as you suggest.
Ms Villasin: In terms of mandatory registration, we have looked at that. Right now what would work is the fact that all employers of domestic workers are actually required to register with Revenue Canada. They are all registered with the federal government because the offer of employment is done through Canada employment centres. So that is one way we can at least be able to perhaps negotiate that the registration of employers, of foreign domestic workers especially, can be available to, let us say, a central registry.
Ms Murdock: Registration of employers or employees?
Ms Villasin: Employers. Employers are registered to get an employee. Therefore, we would hope that we could make it mandatory that whenever a domestic worker is hired, her name is available to, for example, a central registry.
We know that there are questions of privacy that come up, but the point is that they have to register already anyway. They register with Revenue Canada as employers. They also register with the immigration department. So we think we could perhaps try negotiating to have a list of domestic workers hired and be able to have access to them -- access meaning that they can be called. They can be introduced, for example, to a central registry. They can be informed that there is such a thing as a central registry and that they can be part of that.
Ms Murdock: It's a little difficult. I'm trying to figure out -- that has confused me more actually than the original. I was thinking along the lines that the domestic workers themselves would register, and then if I needed someone to work in my home, I would go there to get you.
Ms Villasin: Yes, if the model that we went by was the hiring hall model. Something to that effect was actually done by a union of domestic workers a long time ago, I think in the US somewhere, Michigan or somewhere. I can't remember. It was a hiring hall type, where employers register and domestic workers register, a sort of hiring hall.
We are not sure. We actually have a study that we are conducting now in order to be able to present a workable structure. Certainly right now, while it's true that Intercede actually gets most of the domestic workers who work in the Metro area -- we have a membership of 2,500 -- this is only on the basis of our outreach and word of mouth. The membership is voluntary, of course. I don't think we would have such a drastic departure from that, but we would certainly wish to be able not just to depend on word of mouth and that kind of thing. If we have a union, it's got to be an organization that can access workers.
1600
Ms Murdock: Just for clarification, what is your definition of a domestic worker?
Ms Villasin: Domestic workers include nannies, housekeepers and now someone who works in the home to take care of children, the elderly and the disabled.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Valasco, Ms Villasin, Ms Charles and Ms Rao, for coming here and speaking on behalf of Intercede. You've made a very unique presentation. It's been a very human and visceral one, one that all of us appreciate your taking the energy and time to do. We're appreciative of you coming here this afternoon and we're grateful to you.
The transcript of your presentation, by way of Hansard, is available to you. Just let the clerk know and that office will make sure you get as many copies of it as you want. We trust that you'll be keeping in touch with the committee as it considers this bill and with various MPPs who represent you in the Legislature. You're welcome to stay, as is any member of the public. These are public hearings and we'll be here in Toronto till Thursday and again next week till Thursday. You're welcome any time to drop in and observe the process. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF CANADA
The Chair: The next participant is the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada, three people participating in the presentation. Come forward and seat yourselves in front of a microphone. Let us know who you are and titles, if any. You have a presentation that's going to be distributed to the members of the committee and it will be made an exhibit. Please give us the second half of the half-hour for questions and commentary.
Mr Joe McCabe: My name is Joe McCabe. I'm the national representative with the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada. With me are a worker by the name of Prakash Persaud and a former worker of one of the shops we tried to organize, approximately seven years ago.
I will be giving a shortened version of the presentation that's been given to you now. That's approximately 16 pages long. The oral version is much shorter, but there will be reference points in it so you can follow along with it.
On behalf of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada, we are pleased to respond to the government's OLRA legislation. Our union, through the OFL, endorsed the position of the labour representative to the labour law reform committee. Many of the suggested reforms appear in the ministry's legislation; many do not. We wish to first frame the discussion so that both the legislation and our suggestions are considered in the light of various opinions.
In any modern economic context, unions are essential for two reasons. First, even within the existing economic framework, unions democratize at least a little the economic decision-making process in our society. They make a process which would otherwise be completely secretive and totally undemocratic a little more open and democratic.
Second, unions are one of the most direct mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth because they put pressure for the wealth created by workers to be distributed in a more equitable fashion than would be the case if corporations were left strictly on their own to allocate compensation and benefits.
Both of these impacts of unionization -- redistribution of wealth and power -- are healthy ones for a broader community beyond the immediate workplace. Societies which have more even distribution of wealth and power have lower rates of crime, more equality for women, healthier children, lower unemployment, healthier workplaces, higher productivity per worker and a higher general standard of living than societies with greater concentration of wealth.
Also, contrary to corporate mythology about unionization lowering productivity, recent studies done in the US, including ones comparing productivity in plants with only strong unions versus ones with a union and an employee involvement program, have found productivity highest in those plants with strong unions and no employee involvement program. Interestingly, plants with no unions scored lowest in productivity. This is true even when plants owned by the same corporation are matched for wages, products and technology used.
With every advance in the position of average working people in Ontario, be it through the prohibition of child labour or the establishment of a public health care system, a course of protest has risen from the ranks of the wealthy and the corporations about how such reforms would drive investment out of Ontario and result in job loss. We are therefore not surprised to hear the shrieks of outrage that greet the government's introduction of the OLRA reforms.
We must never forget that not being unionized carries a high price for workers. Had the Westray miners been unionized, it is very likely that the dangerous conditions that led to the deaths of 26 workers in May would not have been permitted to persist.
We are heartened by the government's recent calls for partnership and cooperation between business and unions, providing that partnership is understood as a transfer of power from those who have too much of it, the corporations, to those who have too little, the workers and the communities.
Given all of the above, we believe the government should do everything in its power to ensure that as many working people as possible belong to unions.
In this oral presentation we will discuss only some of our key concerns in order to allow time for questions. UE's more complete response is contained in the written version of our presentation.
The purpose clause: We strongly recommend that the government amend the legislation to include as an objective the advancement of increased worker participation and control of decision-making in the workplace. Workers are still not equal partners in the workplace, let alone do they have the quota of control which corresponds to either the numbers or contribution to the work process. Inclusion of a clause which specifically acknowledges this as a legitimate objective of the OLRA would be useful and fair.
Examination of labour relations with three typical employers points to the urgent need for the OLRA reforms. The use of scabs in industrial conflicts at the Pre-Fab-Vitafoam plant is an example. This is one of the plants that we have. When UE members went on strike at the Pre-Fab-Vitafoam plant in 1979 and again in 1985, strikebreakers were brought in. The company transferred production to its other plant. People were fired and some were arrested for picket line incidents. In the end, the contract was not a good one and the workers there, with an average base rate of only $8.50 an hour, were recently on strike again. The company again used scabs.
Although we are disappointed the legislation proposed does not entirely rule out the use of scabs, since it allows the production to be transferred to another plant where scabs may well be used, we do welcome the restrictions on the use of scabs which are contained in this proposal.
We have also had strikes broken through the use of scabs at the following locations: TIE Communications in Downsview in 1984; Wilkinson plant in Parkdale in Toronto in 1979; Poly-Bottle in Rexdale in 1979. In most cases the workers on strike were women. Details of these things are provided in our full context presentation.
1610
Other incidents at Pre-Fab demonstrate the need for protection of workers from discipline during strikes. During the 1985 strike at Pre-Fab a worker was fired between the time UE signed the memorandum of agreement and the ratification vote. UE requested arbitration, but was told that we had no access to arbitration because the collective agreement was not in effect at the time of the firing.
UE then filed for a request for remedy with the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the grounds of unfair labour practice, stating that the employee had been terminated for union activities. The OLRB found that although the dismissal was unfair, the termination could not be proven to have been for union activities and that since there was no legislation covering unjust dismissals during a strike, the OLRB could not offer any remedy. The worker lost his job.
A similar incident occurred during the TIE Communications strike in Downsview in 1984 when an employee active on the picket line was terminated for having allegedly falsified information on the application form two to three years previously.
Effectively, the decision of the employer to time a dismissal or discipline of an employee during a strike must always be understood for what it is, an attempt to intimidate other workers. Otherwise, the employer would either have raised the matter before collective bargaining began or waited until the strike was settled. Since no work is being performed by the employee during the strike, the employer cannot credibly argue that the discipline relates to work performances during the strike, or that failure to dismiss or discipline immediately will impede the proper functioning of the work process.
Therefore, we support the government's amendment to provide protection from unjust dismissal or discipline during a strike or lockout. However, we strongly recommend that this be enforced by a ban on all disciplines and dismissals during such disputes without prior permission from the OLRB.
In addition to the above problems at Pre-Fab, we have also faced the refusal of that company to allow benefits to be continued, even when the union is willing and prepared to pay the entire cost of maintaining the benefits. Legislation continuing benefit coverage at the union's expense during a strike is welcome.
Most employers already make such arrangements. When they do not, the consequences can be tragic. The spouse of one of our members died during or shortly after a strike at the Fedders plant in Orangeville in 1990. We were not able to secure equivalent life insurance to cover the workers for the period of the strike; therefore, this member received little of the compensation which would normally have gone to her after the death of her spouse.
As well, discontinuation of benefits may leave employees vulnerable to insurance company demands that certain medical criteria be met before reinstatement of insurance.
Organizing certification of the Sylvania case: The two brothers beside me are both from Sylvania.
In our experience, anti-union petitions are always orchestrated by management. Petitions have profound chilling effects upon the organization drive since in the process of collecting signatures for the petitions, individual employees are easily intimidated and become fearful of management's backlash against their wishes to join a union.
The government's decision to disallow petitions after a union applies for certification is long overdue and a welcome step. However, we would have preferred to see an outright ban on the practice since as the discussion paper indicated, the vast majority are found to be orchestrated by management and they delay and thwart the exercise of the employees' democratic right to organize a union and bargain collectively.
In 1984, UE signed up 66 workers of a workforce of approximately 100 at the GTE Sylvania plant in Etobicoke and applied for automatic certification in January 1985. The company circulated a petition. To enable them to gather names, GTE Sylvania even staged a power failure in the factory one day claiming that a hydro transformer had blown. In the dark, the company stool-pigeons went around to the workers and called them one by one into the back office where, by flashlight, each worker was asked to sign a petition. Using such tactics, the company succeeded in getting 36 signatures, which nearly cost us the bid for automatic certification.
We checked with the local hydro authorities and were told that no transformer had blown. However, when five of the petition signers later revoked their signatures, the OLRB granted certification. Although the certification bid was not lost, bargaining for a decent first contract was very difficult. GTE Sylvania made a bid to decertify the union after the first contract was signed. The board found that the decertification petition failed to get enough signatures after several of the signers withdrew their signatures.
As indicated by the above, petitions never reflect the uncoerced will of the employees.
We have had concrete experiences of the impact of petitions in several other plants: Labelmaster in Georgetown, Barrie Plumbing and Electrical Supplies Co Ltd, Modular Controls in Hamilton and H. J. Langan in Malton in 1987. In all cases but the Sylvania one, the atmosphere of intimidation created by counterpetitions led to the loss of a certification bid despite the fact that the majority of the workers had decided to join a union.
We have had other experiences with Sylvania which also point to the need for legislation to protect workers from unjust dismissal during organizing drives. When we organized the GTE Sylvania plant in Rexdale, employees were fired. We applied for automatic certification in September of 1984 with 19 of 25 workers signed up as members. The company claimed that certain names were on the list that it did not consider to be employees.
The matter dragged on from September 1984 to January 1986 before going to a vote. During that period, on July 12, 1985, the chief union organizer was fired. In the atmosphere that prevailed after the firing, the employees became very scared. The vote then was split 14 to 14; therefore, our certification bid was lost. The other organizer was fired after the vote.
We have had similar experiences of the chilling effect of discipline and dismissals at Aztec Steel Manufacturing in Mississauga in 1980 and at Westinghouse in Perth after the company moved its switchgear production out of Hamilton to evade unionization of its employees.
UE has had several other very bitter experiences with companies using their powers of dismissal or discipline to terrorize workers during an organizing drive. The chilling effect when any employee, particularly a union organizer, is dismissed for whatever alleged or real reason during an organizing drive is so dramatic that very frequently the certification vote will be lost in shops where as many as 80% of the workers have signed union cards only a week before.
In our experiences, employers who have determined to prevent their employees from unionizing will always try to dismiss at least some employees during the organizing drive, confident that even if the employer is later found by the OLRB to have been at fault, the dismissals will have sufficiently terrorized the remaining employees that the certification vote may well be lost.
Having a more expedited procedure of OLRB examinations after the fact of dismissal or discipline will not inhibit this. Only an absolute prohibition on dismissals or discipline without prior leave to the OLRB during an organizing drive or decertification bid, with strong penalties for infringement, will inhibit employers from this anti-union practice.
The Westinghouse case and successor rights: The OLRA amendments do not deal adequately with the right of a union to continue to represent the workers when production is relocated elsewhere in Ontario. For example, in 1979 Westinghouse relocated its switchgear operations from its Hamilton plant, where the workers were represented by UE, to four different Ontario locations -- Mount Forest, Alliston, Perth and Mississauga -- in an effort to avoid having unionized employees.
The OLRB agreed with UE that Westinghouse had engaged in unfair labour practices, since its relocation was clearly motivated by anti-union animus, and a number of remedies were ordered. Unfortunately the OLRB decision came eight months after the UE complained. Since the company president had admitted that the relocation was motivated by a wish to evade unionization, it was very difficult to succeed in our unionization efforts at the other plants. Workers were scared that unionizing would lead to yet another closure.
In Perth we succeeded in a certification bid, only to face a decertification bid by Westinghouse, a bid which we lost after the company fired the organizer just before the decertification vote. We are to this day still trying to organize the Alliston plant. Only Mount Forest remains unionized. The relocation resulted in a net loss of jobs in Ontario and lower wages and poor working conditions for the remaining Westinghouse workers.
1620
Adjustment programs: Given the magnitude of the job losses in Ontario, we are disappointed that the OLRA amendments do not provide for compulsory adjustment programs and closure packages to be obligatory to collective agreements. Underlying the amendments dealing with this issue is the erroneous assumption that labour and management have similar interests. "You are in the same boat, you and business share the same interests, so row together," labour is admonished. While it may be true that in some instances labour and management are in the same boat, unfortunately they own the boat and they control the steering while we do all the rowing.
At no point in the process of collective bargaining is this more apparent than when a plant layoff or closure is announced. Generally, the company intends to leave town with as little expense as possible consistent with its wishes to avoid bad publicity if its sales are dependent on public goodwill. The employees on the other hand are left in a state of shock, scrambling for whatever scraps of a closure package they can negotiate from such a weak bargaining position. Often they receive little better than the legal minimum. Instead, the company should be obliged to include such issues in the collective agreement.
Whenever the employer plans significant changes which might affect the working conditions or job security of employees, ie, technological changes, corporate reorganization, contracting out, plant closures, layoffs etc, employees have a right to full disclosure of the relevant corporate information, advance notice and the right to negotiate an actual change themselves in order to minimize the impact on the employees.
As countless employees caught in plant closures and layoffs have said, the time to negotiate a closure package is the day the plant opens, not when a closure is already announced. Strong closure packages will not prevent unproductive plants from being closed but they will inhibit companies from closing productive, profitable facilities merely to maximize profit at another location.
In the best of all possible worlds, working people, since they form the majority of people involved in any workplace, would be in firm control of all the major economic and social decisions in their workplace. A government which recognized that would then take steps to move beyond the voluntarist framework in which labour relations in Ontario currently function to institute unionization of all workers. Just as we do not allow municipalities to be run by a small group of self-appointed, unelected persons, so we would insist that the base of our economy, the workplace, be run by democratically elected persons.
However, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. In view of that, we welcome the significant reforms offered by the Ministry of Labour, although they do not go far enough to achieve what is achievable even in the current economic and political context.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Tilson.
Mr Tilson: I should tell you that I represent the community where Fedders in Orangeville is located which you have spoken of. I should also tell you that the plant, as you know, closed and a considerable number of people in my community lost their jobs.
Many of those same people approached my office and were most disappointed in how the union handled the whole matter. In fact one of the questions that was continually asked of me, specifically with the new labour legislation that's been proposed, is, "Why can't we make it as easy to get rid of a union that might be incompetent as it is to certify it?" That was a question that was put to me by a number of employees who were most disappointed in how their union handled that matter.
My question to you is on the subject of fairness, and specifically on the subject of replacement workers who, as I understand it, with the exception of emergency positions, are banned. In the same way that the employer cannot hire employee replacements, would it be just as fair to not allow the employee to find another job while that strike is taking place? Would that be as fair a proposal?
Mr McCabe: I don't quite understand what you're saying.
Mr Tilson: The fact of the matter is that employees are now entitled to go out and work while a strike is on. They are entitled to work anywhere as long as they meet the requirement to participate in the strike, but notwithstanding that, they can go out and get any other job they wish. The question is, if an employer is not allowed to retain replacement workers, should the employee of that firm be allowed to go out and work elsewhere during that strike?
Mr McCabe: That would be the employees' decision. I can't answer for the employees. That is their decision.
Mr Tilson: That's my point. We are talking about a fair bargaining process. Much of your speech was spent on the unfairness of the system. I'm sure you could paint me stories. That's precisely why I referred you to the other half of the Fedders story. Those employees were not happy with a union and wanted to get rid of it.
Mr McCabe: That may be your opinion, or maybe a couple of individuals may have been dissatisfied with a certain aspect of it.
Mr Tilson: I'm only telling you the numbers of people who came to my office and told me that, sir.
Mr McCabe: Then you should have directed them to us and we would have seen what their displeasure would have been. But obviously you didn't feel that, just that we should be taking part in that.
Mr Tilson: I will tell you that they had a difficult time.
Mr McCabe: They should have approached us and informed us what the problems were and we would have tried to help those people to the best of our ability. Unfortunately they didn't approach us and there is nothing I can do about the situation presently.
Mr Tilson: I guess the facts speak for themselves, but I would like you to comment on the subject of fairness. If we're talking about a good relationship between an employer and an employee and the fairness of bargaining, is there any reason why there shouldn't also be a ban on employees going out and working in other jobs during a labour dispute?
Mr McCabe: That is up to the employee, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr Tilson: What is your position?
Mr McCabe: We'll defer on that.
Mr Tilson: You don't have one? There is as well a second question that has to do with the fact that the new legislation indicates that bargaining unit employees will now be required to participate in a strike. It's been pointed out that this removes the right of an individual to make a personal decision and continue working, which in some cases is supported by religious beliefs. That legislation does away with those individual rights and all bargaining units will be required to participate in a strike. Do you and your organization have any opinion on that specific position?
Mr McCabe: Are you saying if a person for religious reasons does not feel he or she should participate in a strike?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Mr McCabe: We're a very democratic society. If the person does not want to participate in the strike, then he doesn't have to come down to the strike lines. It's as simple as that.
Mr Wood: I just want to start off by saying that one of the reasons why this legislation, Bill 40, is being brought forward is to try to reduce some of the conflicts and confrontations in labour-management relations so that things are going to go a little smoother, as well as the fact that there have been no amendments for close to 20 years. The workforce is changing. There's more women, there's more new Canadians in the workforce and things of this kind.
But I also want to cover a question on the use of replacement workers. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but there is a monument on Highway 11, which is an extension of Yonge Street up through northern Ontario, where rifles were brought out, and when the shooting stopped three people were dead and 8 people ended up in hospital. The hurt and the hard feelings and that go on for years and years.
I just wonder, in your presentation you mentioned that there had been a lot of replacement workers used in your organizing campaigns and things of this kind during strikes. What do you see in the communities or in the workforce after everything has settled? Do the hard feelings, the hurt and the pain continue on for years?
1630
Mr McCabe: I think that once a worker has had that put on to him by an employer, a worker feels more like a number. He doesn't feel like a person any more. Workers have pride in their work and most of the workers try to express that in how they perform their work. It is their democratic right to withdraw their services, and that's what they do when they withdraw their services during a strike.
When the employer then uses replacement workers to take away that man's livelihood, it leaves a bad taste in the worker's mouth, more than anything else. It not only leaves a bad taste in the worker's mouth; it leaves a bad taste in the worker's family's mouth. The worker's family starts to hate as well. It's a spinoff effect that goes on not only to his family but to his relatives and so on, because they can see the hardship that it's causing that loved one. So it continues to snowball. It's a snowball effect that affects the entire region and his friends as well, at that point. So it's a spin-off effect from everything.
Mr McGuinty: Mr McCabe, when you recounted those various examples of unfair labour practices, you left us with the distinct impression that employers are inherently bad. I am sure you would agree that there are other examples you could recount of employers acting fairly and properly in the course of a union effort to organize. If we begin with the premise that most people associated with unions have an interest in fairness and fair play, and with the same premise applying to employers, why could we not develop a system whereby we put all of this union organization activity above the table, where we allow reasonable access to employees and where the employer as well is allowed to make his or her pitch and then we have a free vote by secret ballot? Why couldn't we do that?
Mr McCabe: Are you telling me that you are going to allow us on the premises to give our pitch to the employees? I'd welcome it if we were allowed to get on the premises to give our pitch to the employees, because we have nothing to fear by telling the employees the truth. But the problem is we don't have that option of getting on the premises to give our pitch to the employees now, for the workers to hear the truth of what's going on and not just the one-sided version they get on a consistent basis by a management barrage on them day after day once management finds out that there is an organizing drive going on. We don't have access to the workers like the management does, and we would love access to them.
Mr McGuinty: So you'd be open to this idea of a secret ballot if you had reasonable access to the employees?
Mr McCabe: We would be open to an idea of getting access to employees and the employee having the right to make a decision of his own.
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Stand up in front of you: It's not a secret ballot right now.
Mr McCabe: I believe the question I'm answering is over here.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for Mr Harris to ask a question? No. Mr McCabe, Mr Sheperd, Mr Persaud, I want to thank you for appearing here today on behalf of the United Electrical Workers. Your union has a long and significant history in this country, on this continent, and we appreciate your interest in this legislation and your insightful input into the process today.
I trust you will keep in touch. You and others are welcome to come any day that the committee is sitting here in Toronto or elsewhere. These are public, open hearings and we welcome the public presence.
HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The next participant is the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario. Come forward, seat yourselves in front of a microphone, tell us your names and your titles and try to give us the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for some discussion and dialogue, which sometimes becomes quite lively and animated.
Mr Brian Smeenk: I have a list of our attendees today, and a brief as well as an executive summary.
The Chair: You're going to have to sit at a mike to be recorded and so the television audience can hear you.
Ms Frances Randle: My name is Frances Randle and I'm president of the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario.
HRPAO currently has over 6,000 members representing the human resources profession across Ontario. Our stated mission is to exercise a positive influence on our society through the advocacy of enlightened human resource management practices, legislation and government policy, and to espouse the concept of the intrinsic dignity and worth of the individual and the principle of fairness and equity in the workplace.
As part of our association's ongoing efforts to live our mission, our government affairs committee has submitted a brief in response to the NDP government's recently introduced Bill 40 dealing with Labour Relations Act reform.
HRPAO agrees with the government's stated objective of creating strategic partnerships between business and labour and enhancing cooperation. We are convinced, however, that this cannot be accomplished through the current confrontational, rushed approach to labour policy changes. We can only build a cooperative model of labour relations through a cooperative consensus-building approach to policy development. We have not seen that up to now.
We note that the government is allowing only five weeks in the middle of summer for committee hearings on this bill, which will probably be the most important piece of legislation the Rae government passes during its term. Labour-management relations are too important, we believe, to be handled in such a slam-dunk fashion. Through our government affairs committee, we are participating in the debate by expressing the opinions and concerns of our 6,000-plus members who work with these issues every day.
As our brief contends, the NDP's proposed overhaul of the Labour Relations Act is seriously flawed and it's anticipated to have profound effects on our workplaces and the economy in Ontario.
Bill 40 restricts employees' right to oppose union certification and infringes on the freedom of workers to choose whether to work or strike at their normal jobs. The bill also infringes on the representational rights of part-time workers.
To answer any questions you may have regarding the association's brief, joining me today are Brian Smeenk, chair of a task force on labour law reforms, HRPAO; Chris Featherstone, executive director, HRPAO; Paul Statler, registrar, HRPAO; Carrie Yetman, communications officer, HRPAO; Sharon Anderson, a member of the task force on labour law reforms; Ross Finlay, member, and president, Technical Service Council, which is a non-profit organization currently consisting of over 160 major corporations in Ontario alone.
With that, I will turn the mike over to Brian to review with you the main points of the brief.
Mr Smeenk: What I propose to do in the time we have this afternoon is to review briefly with you the criteria we used, which we think are objective criteria, to assess Bill 40, and which we would urge upon this committee in assessing Bill 40 as well. Second, I'll review the elements of Bill 40 with which we agree. It may surprise you, but there are some elements of Bill 40 with which we do agree. Third, I'd like to highlight a few of the reasons, with examples, of some of the serious flaws that we see in Bill 40.
In terms of the method of analysis that we used, in order to try to stay away from some of the emotionalism which sometimes characterizes the debate on this legislation, we developed a set of objective criteria in order to analyse the bill. We boiled these criteria down to seven questions, which we have set out at page 5 of our main brief, the main document.
First of all we asked, does the specific proposal respect civil liberties and basic democratic principles such as freedom of choice? Second, will the proposal enhance labour peace in Ontario? Third, will the proposal improve the ability of employers, employees and unions to respond to change in the workplace? Fourth, will the proposal enhance the ability of the parties in the workplace to resolve issues themselves, problem-solving rather than using third-party intervention? Fifth, is the proposal feasible, is it workable, or as Bob White would say, is it doable? Sixth, would the proposal increase the size and cost of government? Seventh, could the issue more effectively be dealt with in other legislation or has it already been dealt with in other legislation?
These are the criteria we arrived at.
1640
If one agrees that these are sensible criteria, then one would also agree, we think, that if a proposal doesn't fulfil one of these criteria, it doesn't constitute a win-win proposition. In labour relations, in our professional experience in the human resources field, that is what you need to have in order to have successful labour policy or successful labour relations. You need to have solutions which constitute win-win solutions for everybody.
What are some of the things about Bill 40 which we support and which fulfil these criteria? We've set them out in point form at pages 39 and 40 of the main document. They can be lumped into three groups.
First of all, we agree with the government's stated goal, as my colleague Ms Randle has said, of improving labour-management cooperation in Ontario. Accordingly, we agree with those elements of the purpose clause which speak of encouraging cooperative approaches between employers and unions in adapting to changes in the economy and promoting productivity, and those aspects of the purpose clause which talk about things like providing effective methods of dispute resolution and fair methods of dispute resolution. So that's the first group of proposals we agree with.
Second, we agree with those proposals which make mechanical improvements to make the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the arbitration system work more effectively. Anything which can make the adjudication processes more effective, but still fair, should be done.
Third, we support the creation of the proposed work organization and partnership development service. These kinds of positive win-win proposals or initiatives are welcome, and we submit this kind of thing should be the focus of labour policy reform.
On the other hand, we've concluded that unfortunately the vast majority of the proposals in Bill 40 fail to meet the criteria we established, those seven objective criteria I listed for you. Our findings are summarized in the executive summary. I hope all of the committee members received a copy of the executive/membership summary of HRPAO's position on Bill 40.
On the front page you have some of the key findings, followed in the following pages with some of the specific examples with fact scenarios of situations which will not fulfil --
Ms Randle: There should have been two of these documents. I think most of you are looking at the wrong one. It's not the comparison but it's the executive/membership summary. Was that not distributed?
Mr Smeenk: It's actually white.
Ms Randle: The white copy.
Mr Smeenk: Our first conclusion, as you can see on the front page, is that Bill 40 involves massive infringements on the rights and freedoms of Ontario workers, or to put it another way, unions' powers and rights are being increased at the expense of the rights of Ontario's workers. We've provided a number of scenarios in the executive summary and throughout the brief which we think are highly plausible under Bill 40 which explain why this is so.
The first one, which you see on the second page of the executive summary, deals with the representational rights of part-time workers, which we suggest to you are being infringed in this bill. Under the current law, part-time workers have the right to separate representation in separate bargaining units, and this is important because the interests of part-time workers are often quite distinct and often in conflict with those of full-time workers. They're in conflict over things like hours of work and wages versus benefits and the whole collective bargaining regime.
Under Bill 40, a union could submerge the part-time group's interests under the weight of the full-time majority. If the full-time employees make up the majority, the union could certify the entire group, even if none of the part-time employees was in support of the union.
In the first scenario in our executive summary we've used an example where you have 50 employees; 30 full-time, 20 part-time. If 28 of the full-time employees join the union, and none of the part-time employees, the part-time employees would still be represented by the union, even though they were unanimously opposed. We think that's wrong.
Furthermore, part-time employees' interests could be overridden after certification. The union could organize the two bargaining units separately and then, later on, ask the labour board to combine them if they represent both units with the same employer. They could do that even if the part-time employees were adamantly opposed. We don't think that Bill 40 advances the interests of part-time workers at all.
The second area where Bill 40 infringes workers' rights is in removing the freedom of choice regarding strikes. Currently employees have the freedom of choice as to whether to strike when the union leadership calls a strike. This is an essential right which workers have to protect their own interests. It's an individual right to decide whether to strike or work. If, as sometimes happens, employees feel that their union leaders are out of touch, are acting unreasonably, or if they feel that they simply cannot afford to strike or they simply don't support the union's position on philosophical grounds, they can vote with their feet and stay at or return to work.
Even if that right is not often exercised, and we know it's not, the existence of that right is a powerful safeguard to ensure that the union does what the employees want, not what some union bosses in Washington or somewhere else want. They have the freedom to work if they choose to, whether that's for economic or philosophical reasons.
This fundamental freedom of choice would be removed under this bill as long as the union at some point in time had a strike vote and got a 60% majority. But under that voting procedure there's no minimum quorum, there's no requirement that the employer's last offer be put to a vote, there are no rules regarding how long before the strike the vote takes place -- it could be months before the strike deadline or the culmination of bargaining -- there's no time limit on how long the union would maintain the right to force the employees to stay out on strike without holding a fresh vote and there's no requirement that the union exercise this power reasonably.
What Bill 40 is doing is removing this very basic democratic freedom to choose whether to work or to strike and removing a key safeguard which employees now have for the protection of their own rights. The unions are gaining a tremendous amount of power -- really unbridled power -- and the workers are losing their rights.
1650
A third way that workers' rights are being infringed upon is in the area of freedom of choice regarding unionization. In our submission, that's being done in a number of ways: first of all, the purpose clause, whereby one of the purposes is to facilitate the ability of employees to be represented by unions.
Nothing is said in the proposed purpose clause regarding the protection of freedom of choice regarding the facilitation or the right to remain non-union, so the bill builds in an explicit bias which the labour board will be required to implement. The overriding concern in our submission, in a free and democratic society, should be the protection of workers' free and democratic choice, the right of self-determination.
The other way the workers' rights of self-determination are being infringed upon is through the certification procedures. We're taking away, in Bill 40, the right to revoke their membership once the union has applied to the labour board. We're taking away their right to oppose by way of petition and we're taking away the small safeguard of the $1 minimum payment. These proposals collectively remove any remaining safeguards to ensure that the true wishes of the employees will be known.
Your political parties all have membership fees. I believe in fact that the government party's membership fee is the highest among the three. I suggest that you ask yourself, would you be prepared to have no membership fees in your parties so that all you needed to join was a signed membership card? Would you, moreover, not only do away with membership fees but make party membership irrevocable for a certain period of time, perhaps for the duration of the vote of a leadership campaign? Would you agree in your party to decide anything based simply on unpaid membership cards that certain candidates or groups submit? I suspect you wouldn't run your party that way. None of you would, yet that is exactly what Bill 40 is suggesting in union certification.
Certification would be based solely on the number of cards submitted: no minimum payment, no right to revoke after the application, no right to change one's mind, no way of knowing whether people knew what they signed and no way of knowing what they were told or what promises or inducements were made. This is simply not a reliable process. It's not fair to employees or employers.
Bill 40 really says, it seems to us: "We don't care about democratic choice. We don't care about due process or ensuring that the true wishes of the employees are known. We just want to make it easier for unions to be certified." We ask you, if you would not run those standards and apply them to your own parties, why would you apply them to the workers of Ontario?
The second major point we make in our brief is that Bill 40 is likely to result in more strikes and more labour strife in Ontario. Why do we say that? First of all, if I could use an analogy, saying that this legislation will create labour peace is sort of like Canada's peacekeepers going into a conflict and giving more ammunition to one of the sides -- not only more weapons, but bigger and better weapons -- and then saying, "Okay, now we want you folks to get along," and when the other side protests, saying: "Stop complaining. Try to be more constructive. Your complaining is irrational and it's getting in the way of lasting peace."
You cannot create conditions for peace by giving one of the disputing parties more weapons and better weapons to use against the other party in the next battle. One shouldn't be surprised if the other party finds that to be an unacceptable solution to peacekeeping and one shouldn't be surprised if the other party then questions the neutrality of the purported peacekeeper.
Moreover, since this replacement worker so-called proposal is patterned after the Quebec legislation, we found it instructive to compare Ontario's and Quebec's strike records. As you can see on the front page of our executive summary, in the last six years Quebec has had more than double the number of workers involved in strikes than Ontario. Since 1976, when the Quebec legislation was introduced, it has accounted for 50% more of Canada's striking employees than Ontario. These statistics are in more detail, I should add, in appendix B of our main brief. Those statistics exist even though Quebec's population is of course much smaller than Ontario's.
In short, ladies and gentlemen, Ontario's strike record is much better than Quebec's. Theirs is not a system which we think Ontario should emulate.
Finally, we note that if Bill 40 accomplishes the objective of increasing union membership in Ontario, one can reasonably expect that there will be a commensurate increase in strike activity. Any way you look at it, Bill 40 will not enhance labour peace.
In conclusion, this bill, taken together, in our submission, is the most far-reaching labour legislation in North America in the last 40 years. It goes further than anything the NDP government did in British Columbia or the Péquiste government did in Quebec. It requires more, in our submission, as Ms Randle said at the outset, than five weeks of committee hearings during the summer vacation.
One cannot build cooperation in the workplace, which in our profession is what our members are all about, or on an Ontario-wide level between labour and management through a confrontational, hurried-up method of legislative policymaking. Ontario badly needs teamwork, but this is not the way to accomplish it.
We suggest instead a tripartite approach to consensus building involving government, labour and management, not unlike what the federal government did with the Woods task force some 20 years ago. They did it successfully. Ontario needs to build a consensus regarding labour-management relations. We ask this government to help to build it, not to avoid it. Those are our comments.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Huget, one question.
Mr Huget: Thank you for a very interesting presentation. I certainly will read your full brief in detail. I haven't had the opportunity to do that.
I have spent a few minutes looking at the executive summary and I must say that the scenarios you raise in all seven instances certainly don't reflect any experience I've had in real life. Perhaps you have more information on these specific issues than I do, but it certainly hasn't been my experience.
The other thing I find interesting in all seven of the scenarios is the light in which workers in workers' organizations are portrayed. They are portrayed in all seven scenarios exactly the same, as being some kind of a subversive, coercive group of people whose agenda is certainly not to enhance productivity. I don't believe that is the case either.
The purpose of the government's legislation is indeed to enhance cooperation and we feel it will do that. I assume the companies that you work for or represent have both union and non-union employees. I assume also that there are some cooperative relationships with those groups now and I guess I would like your views on what specific parts of this legislation would destroy those cooperative relationships you have now with your union and non-union workers. I'd like you to be specific, please.
Mr Smeenk: The list is too long to give you a short answer to that, Mr Huget. We list them in the brief. The proposals which present the greatest concern are the restrictions on the rights of employees to work during a strike and the various proposals which increase third-party intervention rather than work to decrease third-party intervention. I'm thinking there of things like first-contract arbitration on demand, increasing the arbitration process, creating more situations in which parties will go to the labour relations board rather than solve problems themselves. Those kinds of proposals are the kinds of proposals which we submit will not enhance cooperation but rather will get in the way of cooperation.
1700
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think it's really at the very end of your submission where you have advocated the establishment of a tripartite committee. It would seem to me that when one advocates that, as you have, you're also indicating that you're not ruling out that change is necessary with respect to labour relations, but rather that the approach to how that is to be effected has got to be different than the approach the government has used to date.
On that basis, has that position been made to the government earlier on than this presentation, and if so, has there been a response by the government as to that course of action?
Mr Smeenk: Yes, those submissions have been made repeatedly by us to the government, and no, there's never been any response. We made those submissions at the very beginning of the process, and we've attached to the brief some of the correspondence between our president and Premier Rae and Minister Mackenzie when the Burkett committee just got under way. We repeated our call for a tripartite body during the discussion paper phase and again, subsequent to that, in a letter to Premier Rae.
Mr Tilson: Thank you for your presentation. It was very thought provoking, and I hope Mr Mackenzie will take time to read it. I too will be spending some time in reading your report in more detail.
I only have one comment to make, because I agree with almost all of what you say. The only question I raise is that which you talked about, the purpose clause, and that you appear to be in favour of it. I take a different approach because I believe what the government should have been doing is to set up a clearer set of rules for certification, for forming a union: a better set of rules or a clearer set of rules, a fairer set of rules.
Instead, when you read section 5 of the bill, the NDP government is saying that the purpose of the bill is to encourage the process of collective bargaining, and of course that purpose will be taken into consideration by the Ontario Labour Relations Board when it exercises those certain discretionary matters.
It is quite a major change, and I say -- I would like your comments on this -- that the real purpose of this bill is that employees ought to be represented by trade unions, that they must be represented by trade unions, that the trade unions are the only ones that can solve their problems. It is in the interests of organized labour that this entire bill has been put forward, which makes it easier to organize and all the other matters that you have expressed your concern with. That's my interpretation of the purpose clause, which differs slightly from yours -- a little bit more extreme perhaps.
Mr Smeenk: Thank you for your question. I hope I haven't misled you in our comments on the purpose clause. We did not mean to leave the impression that we agreed with the purpose clause in general; rather, what we were saying is there were certain elements in the purpose clause which we could support, and those elements were the promotion of harmonious labour relations, the extension of cooperative approaches between employers and trade unions in adapting to change and enhancing productivity, and effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution. Those elements we can support.
We are quite critical of the other aspects of the purpose clause such as you alluded to, and also the clause that talks about facilitating the right of employees to join rather than talking about protection of freedom of choice.
The Chair: Mr Smeenk, Ms Randle, Mr Finlay and Ms Featherstone, we want to thank you for appearing here today on behalf of the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario. You've made an important contribution. The brief you've provided is a well organized one which I'm sure all members of the committee will read carefully. We thank you very much for taking the time out of your day to come here. We trust you'll be keeping in touch with some or all of the members of the committee or other MPPs, and you're welcome of course to return to observe what's happening here in the committee any time we're sitting.
Mr Smeenk: Can I just add that if the committee has any follow-up, we would certainly welcome any follow-up questions at a later date or be quite happy to provide any advice or recommendations or resources we can.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. We appreciate that. Thank you, people.
We have one small matter to deal with. Before that, though, we want to say hello to the lord mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Mr Dietsch. Hello, Mr Dietsch, good to see you here -- Mike Dietsch, of course, former MPP for St Catharines-Brock.
Mr Tilson: As indicated, the clerk has distributed the requests of organizations as to July 30. I have no idea how many that is; I suspect it's somewhere between 900 and 1,000. Maybe he can clarify that or indeed expand as to how many organizations or individuals have applied to date. One of the questions I and I'm sure other members of the committee have is, when we cover delegations -- I don't know how many we're covering today; 15 delegations, or whatever -- do we have a set of guidelines? Has the committee or the subcommittee set forward a set of guidelines as to who is to speak and who is not to speak?
The Chair: Yes, and that was as a result of a subcommittee decision. I quite frankly appreciate the assistance the clerk's office has provided in setting up these lists yesterday and today for the balance of this week and next week. You should know, however, that a fax communication went out, a memo, to all members of the committee indicating that there were some vacant slots kept vacant so that if members either of the committee or elsewhere had some groups or individuals who they felt strongly about participating, they could provide input. We're waiting for input in that regard, which you can deliver to the clerk outside of the committee.
Mr Tilson: That's very helpful. Obviously the opposition has made it quite clear that five weeks is insufficient and the government has said, "That's very fine, thank you." This list is proving, I believe, that the opposition is correct. Here's a whole page of various locals from the United Steelworkers of America. What do we tell groups that want to be heard but cannot be heard?
The Chair: There are 1,100-plus who have indicated an interest in participating in the hearings. Mr Offer, you wanted to comment?
Mr Offer: No. When you're finished with Mr Tilson, I have a further comment I'd like to make.
The Chair: I've been inviting people to contact any one or all of the three House leaders in view of the fact that it was the three House leaders who determined the amount of time the committee sits.
Mr Tilson: Oh, really.
The Chair: That's what I've been doing. That's just simply my approach to the matter. Other people may have more creative responses than mine.
Mr Offer: I would like you, as the Chair, to rule as to whether a motion is in order at this point in time where we as a committee make a formal request to the House leaders, notwithstanding the motion that has already been placed with the Legislature, that as a result of the response to the newspaper articles for submissions -- the response has been overwhelming; thousands of people wish to be heard by this committee on this bill -- we as a committee unanimously request that the House leaders extend the time this committee can sit for the purpose of hearing those people who have so requested.
The Chair: Are you making that motion?
Mr Offer: I am.
Ms Murdock: I'm not seconding it.
The Chair: There's no need for a seconder. I'm looking to see if there's any response to the fact that motion has been put on the floor.
Mr Tilson: Agreed.
Mr Turnbull: Agreed.
The Chair: No, I'm not looking for agreement. There's no need for you to ask me whether it's in order. Nobody is raising an objection and I don't find anything inherently out of order about it. So yes, the motion is on the floor. Now, can I suggest this. We've had a cancellation this evening, which means the last presentation is at 8 o'clock rather than 8:30. Do you want to debate that motion now or do you want to debate it at 8:30, which is a half-hour slot that has been opened up as a result of a cancellation?
Mr Offer: I think that's a wise suggestion. We are breaking now, and I would not be in any way concerned with the debate taking place later on this evening as opposed to now. I think it's an important matter and I hope, upon reflection, all members of the committee will recognize there has been a great deal of interest in the bill both for and against. People are taking the opportunity to submit their requests to be heard and my motion is asking this committee to request from the House leaders extra time to sit to hear those people.
The Chair: Which is what you can argue at 8:30, and you can prepare a written copy of the motion in view of the fact that the opposition parties made much ado out of the absence of a written copy of a motion made some short time ago by government members.
We are recessing then until 6:30.
The committee recessed at 1712.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1836.
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: It's 6:36 pm and we're going to resume. We ought to have resumed at 6:30, but the doors were locked and whoever was responsible for unlocking them didn't. My apologies to people who had to wait. I suppose, among other things, that confirms what so many people suspect about government.
In any event, the first participant is the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. The people involved in that organization, please come forward. Seat yourselves before mikes. Tell us your names and your position with your organization. Try to save the last 15 minutes at least of the 30-minute time slot for questions and dialogue. Gentlemen.
Dr David Surplis: My name is David Surplis, and we've met. I am president of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. The membership list is in the back of your brief here. With me is Bill O'Riordan, chair of our industry committee on labour legislation, which is operated in conjunction with the employer bargaining agency in Ontario, the Construction Employers Coordinating Council of Ontario, or CECCO.
We're grateful for this opportunity to talk directly to the committee, because it's our hope that maybe, just maybe, somebody here will realize that there is a genuine tragedy being played out in the construction industry and it is being buried in all the partisan bluster over Bill 40.
We implore you to listen to these facts as we begin to discuss the bill: As of May 1992, there were over 70,000 construction workers unemployed in Ontario. That's the whole population of the city of Guelph, roughly. As of May as well, the unemployment rate in construction was 22.2%, or double the provincial average. Private and public construction investment in Ontario has dropped from $32.8 billion in 1990 to $28.5 billion for 1992. You must all know there are almost no major projects being built in your ridings, or so few you can count them on one hand. We have lost member companies by the hundreds and many more will not last past next winter. In fact, we just heard last week that the banks have closed in on a major construction company, placing hundreds more jobs in jeopardy.
We grant that there are many reasons for the current state in our field, but there is no disputing the fact that the construction industry in Ontario is ailing terribly. Please listen to our comments on Bill 40 in the light of those facts, because what I want to tell you about the development of Bill 40 is that the thousands of men and women who provide employment, or try to provide employment, in the construction industry are profoundly worried, sceptical and insulted by the process.
We are worried, exceedingly worried, about our industry. Vacancy rates are extremely high, especially in the industrial and commercial sectors, mainly in Toronto, of course, but elsewhere as well. Until that excess inventory is taken up, which would require a real boom, it is clear that at the moment the only real job creation can be in the institutional sector. But because the provincial government has had to keep capital spending at the same level as previous years, roughly $3.9 billion, Mr Laughren would have to invest an additional $4 billion per year to get our industry back to even 7% unemployment. COCA is attempting to help the Treasurer develop innovative ways to finance projects, but until such a solution can be found, there's no way that the government can even find, never mind invest, a further $4 billion per year.
The answer to our problem, as we've said over and over, is crystal clear: For construction to have a meaningful recovery, there must be a tremendous resurgence of private investment in productive capacity.
What we want this committee, and particularly the government members, to realize is that while union leaders and NDP partisans seem more interested in shooting the messenger, COCA has maintained a single, consistent message that is based on jobs, not on politics. That message is this: When you realize the devastating unemployment and failure rates in construction, when you see that the prospects for recovery are entirely dependent upon private sector investment, you cannot escape or deny the conclusion that anything that scares away investors will doom the construction industry to many more years of high unemployment and social and economic turmoil.
As I said, we're worried, sceptical and insulted. Our scepticism centres on the brick wall known as Bill 40. From the time of the release of the Burkett report, construction has voiced concerns about the principles that underlie it on the basis of jobs, but since the release of the report and the leaked cabinet document -- you know the history -- there hasn't been a single person in the government who has sat down and discussed our fears with us.
We feel insulted because despite the fact that unemployment is bringing our industry to its knees, everything we say about our fears is twisted into accusations of political manoeuvring. The most bizarre reaction of all in fact surfaced just last Friday when a labour union leader actually connected business worries about job loss and treason. That's the kind of nonsense this bill has spawned, and the government is not only doing nothing about it, in our opinion, it is making it worse. I have, for example, two newsletters from NDP headquarters on Main Street and Gerrard which indicate that the party has a kit ready to help partisans jam our fax and telephone lines, among other things.
The minister says this legislation is designed to enhance cooperation between organized labour and management. Why then has he never arranged for us to sit down with representatives of labour to discuss anything? Why is everything being done through the media -- Ontario Federation of Labour ads, and of course, we must admit, our ads as well -- when a room at the Macdonald Block can be had for next to nothing?
As a responsible public organization, COCA has participated in every step of this legislative process. We're proud of the fact that we've been able to contribute a lot -- we think a lot of interesting data, research and so on -- which we started out compiling from our members' own considerable experience in economics and industrial relations. When that expertise fell short, we commissioned independent information from lawyers, economists, accountants and public opinion research companies. You all know about the Environics polls.
What seems to have been forgotten here is that COCA -- and we underscore this, again and again -- has no history as a politically partisan organization. Every bit of our research was undertaken because we are genuinely worried about whether the principles and particular sections of what is now Bill 40 will help or harm our industry.
One part of our research deserves a quick comment here because it focuses so much attention on our frustration. When labour's all-time wish list was made public by the Burkett report, we commissioned Ernst and Young to survey 300 chief executives of corporate bodies inside and outside Ontario to see what factors influenced their investment decisions and what effect implementing the labour wish list would have. They indicated that they would have to cut back on investment, employment and so on. But Mr Mackenzie came to us immediately and attacked our study, saying that the labour wish list would certainly not be the basis for government legislation and that we should wait to see what he was actually proposing. Well, good advice; we did that. We then commissioned Ernst and Young to do a study of the government's study paper. Of course, because it included fewer scary items than might have been anticipated, the CEOs had a reduced reaction to it, but still predicted around 295,000 jobs lost and $8.8 billion in investment.
The government and union leaders have gone to almost any lengths to discredit our study, but there's one very salient point we want to bring out, and that is this: The CEOs from outside Ontario, primarily in the United States, of course, were not told that the jurisdiction under study was Ontario, and they still said they wouldn't invest in any jurisdiction like it. In other words, they had no axe to grind. They weren't after the NDP in Ontario. They just said they wouldn't invest in any jurisdiction that looked like that.
Whether you're pro-union or anti-union, and it doesn't matter to us, if business leaders are given a choice between almost identical jurisdictions -- workforce, education etc -- they will choose the jurisdiction with less onerous and punitive labour laws. That's a fact, just a plain fact that's come out of our research.
As I said earlier, the union leader who talked of treason says our figures are unfounded, but neither he nor anyone else on the government side has disproved our figures or offered any of their own.
Let me conclude my part by reminding you once again, please, that the construction industry is in terrible shape. Thousands and thousands of your neighbours and mine are out of work, looking for work in our industry and they can't find it. But every time we raise our concerns, temperately, intemperately, quietly, publicly or in any fashion whatsoever, we are told, in the words of the NDP newsletter, to "Back off, eh." That's a pretty cute political slogan, but it is a complete insult to the men and women who try to provide jobs in the construction industry and the tens of thousands of workers with no prospect for work.
Now Mr O'Riordan will outline a few of our specific concerns about Bill 40.
Mr J. W. O'Riordan: Mr Surplis has spoken about flaws in the legislative and political process as they relate to this legislation. I would now like to direct your attention to some of the serious flaws that will be created in the labour-management relations process if Bill 40 becomes law.
I've been a regular participant in that process for over 25 years and I am presently the corporate director of industrial relations for St Mary's Cement Corp. There are two aspects of the bill I would like to comment upon. With the limited time we have, obviously I have to make very general statements, and we could speak volumes, of course, if we had the time.
There are two aspects of the bill, however, generally speaking, that we can look at. One is organizing and certification and the other is the collective bargaining process itself. Also important here is a third element, and that's what I call the quasi-judicial system represented by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which oversees the activities of both areas. The new legislation introduces a bias in each of these components towards labour and makes government a partner with labour in pursuing labour's goals. That's clearly evident.
As David Surplis has said, our industry, like many, is totally dependent upon investors. In order for those investors to have faith in the Ontario economy, they must see a balance in labour-management relations. Investors are risk-takers who provide the capital for our growth and they must be made welcome in Ontario. There is much in this bill that does not make investors feel welcome. It makes unions feel welcome instead, and as far as I know, unions don't create a lot of jobs.
Let me turn your attention to, as I call it, that quasi-judicial system, the Ontario Labour Relations Board process, driven now by a new purpose clause. The role of the board should be as a neutral referee which interprets a simple set of even-handed rules, assuring that the processes of certification and collective bargaining are administered fairly. That's really been their role in the past and should be in the future. The board should not be viewed as the proactive arm of the government, going beyond the process into the content and substance of both certification and bargaining to further the interests of organized labour.
1850
That is what Bill 40 envisions. We know that changing the neutrality of the OLRB is a primary objective of the union movement. The Ontario Federation of Labour, in its publication It's Time, tells its members that Bill 40 will "strengthen the Ontario Labour Relations Board to act on behalf of working people."
That statement shows a fundamental flaw in what the government is trying to do. The board should not be working on behalf of anyone or anything. They should be neutral and evenhanded and above all, fair. The board's only role is to make sure the parties follow the rules. Let the parties determine the content of collective bargaining, or even certification, for that matter. If I can use a metaphor, when was the last time you saw an umpire pinch-hit for one of the ball teams on the field? That's really when Joe Carter looks behind him, and when he sees an Oakland A's hat on the umpire I'm sure he gets disturbed.
Let me turn for a moment to organizing and the certification progress. Management in general has been roundly criticized for appearing to be bitterly opposed to the workers' right to organize. I'd like to dispel that myth right now. What bothers management is not the democratic right to organize but the fact that organizing, under this bill, is a one-way street. Once workers join a union, and even if they change their decision, it appears to be a lifetime membership. It is almost impossible to get out of a union, even when a worker or a collection of workers no longer feel they need or want one.
Management is not opposed to democratic organizing and certification, but it should be just as easy to get out of a union as to get into one. In other words, and this is the gist of what we are saying, the language of decertification should mirror the language of certification. So if you make any change in the certification language, make the equal and opposite language to mirror decertification. As far as organizing is concerned, no union should have more rights than any other private citizen.
For investors to see a balance, they might look for such things as a fair system under which management would have the unfettered right to speak openly to employees during an organizing drive. Now they're frightened to. They might also look for a 72-hour revocation right on signed cards, just as in our consumer legislation. I don't see any difference. They might also look for an automatic secret ballot vote on all certification applications. That's part of our democratic process. In union raiding or displacement applications, "no union" should be a choice on the ballot. All these items, of course, are missing from Bill 40.
Turning now to collective bargaining, let me give you some insight into what typically happens during the collective bargaining process, particularly at that magical eleventh hour when both parties perhaps are tired but are coming to the end. A senior mediator from the Ministry of Labour walks into the company's caucus room and says to me and my company committee that there are still several items outstanding which both parties refuse to move on. The mediator informs me that the union is prepared to take a strike and that it will be a lengthy one if these issues are not resolved. The same mediator walks across the hall to the union's committee room and tells the union that management feels strongly about the outstanding issues and is prepared to take a strike and operate the plant if the issues cannot be resolved.
It is at this time that both the company and the union normally recognize that a strike would create a lose-lose situation. Everyone would suffer and no one would win anything. Both parties start working towards a settlement without a strike, reviewing their positions and seeking compromises that balance the interests of both parties in order to get a settlement.
Let's stop now. Let's put Bill 40 into law and let's take the same scenario and see what happens. The mediator comes to the company caucus room. There are still a number of outstanding items -- the same ones. The mediator tells us the union is prepared to strike. However, the mediator now adds the comment that the union knows the company would not be in a position to operate during that strike. If the company is not willing to compromise immediately, it will be shut down. The mediator then strolls across the hall to the union caucus room and delivers the message that he has told the company what the union's position is. There is nothing the mediator can say to the union which can put pressure on it. That old comment he made originally is no longer there.
The union now views the situation as win-win. If there's a strike, they will win the demands because the company cannot afford to hold out very long without the ability to operate. Of course, if the company accedes to the union demands, there will not be a strike. Over a period of time, this imbalance leads to excessive settlements or costly strikes which permanently weaken the competitiveness of the company. Over a period of years, this can be detrimental not only to the company but to the long-range security of the employees as well. Frankly, when I talk quietly to some very good union people, away from the political scene, they agree with me.
There's an old saw in collective bargaining that says the ability and willingness to take a strike or lockout will prevent them, because of the balance of power that's implied. This bill totally destroys that balance. This conclusion, by the way, is not lost on investors who have the choice to invest in jurisdictions where there is a balance.
A comment on first contract arbitration: Investors have asked us, "Where is the incentive of the union to negotiate where the union is guaranteed an imposed settlement by an arbitrator without even the risk of a strike?" The only obligation of the union is to wait 30 days.
A final comment on this 60% vote necessary to trigger the replacement worker prohibitions: Anyone who practises labour relations and is involved in contract negotiations knows fully well that a union typically gets its strike mandate long before negotiations are finished. Sometimes the strike mandate vote is taken before formal negotiations even begin, as a show of solidarity. Well and good. The suggestion that this was a huge change in the legislation which corrects the imbalance, prevents the union leaders from hijacking the decision-making of the membership and gives legitimacy to banning employees from working during a strike is a sad joke. To be kind, I hope the government proposal comes out of ignorance rather than cynicism.
It is, therefore, my considered opinion that if Bill 40 is passed in its present form, Ontario will become a labour relations battle ground and the damage to the economy will be serious.
Of course, this government is democratically elected and is perfectly entitled to continue to tell the business community to get lost. Let us not, however, be surprised when investors take the advice literally and create jobs elsewhere, as Statistics Canada shows they have been doing; and let's not be surprised when those of us in the construction industry whose jobs and companies are being destroyed because investors are leaving Ontario get very angry at the government whose policies are driving those investors away.
We would like to see some understanding by government members that passing the most pro-union labour laws in North America is a major and distinct disincentive to investment and job creation. Whether or not you think this bill will be popular with unionists, it is out of step with labour laws in every jurisdiction that we compete with for those very jobs and for the investment.
I would like to suggest that members of this committee call witnesses from, say, the state of Michigan. Outline the provisions of Bill 40 in the best possible light, then ask those investors what they think. We understand, by the way, that a meeting just like that has already taken place and that the message from the investors was entirely negative. But don't listen to our side only. Ask the government about that meeting. Ask the investors yourselves.
We are here because we hope the members of this committee, maybe even those of you who support the government that drafted this legislation, will have the courage to find out what the impact of this legislation will be. We hope you will have the strength and the independence and the good judgement to recognize that Ontario is not an island and that we cannot create a union leader's Nirvana here without paying a huge price in the form of lost investment and jobs.
Please look at the economic impact of this bill. Commission your own study. That could be undertaken, by the way, concurrently with these hearings, and please get the facts before writing your report. Use this opportunity to start restoring Ontario's image as a good place to invest and to create jobs. Use this opportunity to tell your constituents that as their member of the Legislature, you care about protecting jobs as much as they do. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, one question.
Mr Offer: I have a very short period of time, unfortunately. However, we cannot let this go without asking questions on the potential impact of this bill.
You're aware, as we are all aware, that the government has not done any impact study and that it has said an impact study cannot be done. You and your group have been the driving force behind two studies as to what the changes to the Labour Relations Act might be. I would like to hear from you whether there there is the possibility of conducting a sector-by-sector analysis of the bill in the area of its impact, and I could not let this go without the point you made of a meeting that took place. I know you alluded to that in your presentation. I wondering if, in response to my question, you could also share with us what that meeting was.
Mr O'Riordan: This is second hand, but my understanding is that the Ministry of Labour, through the council in Detroit, asked the federal government to arrange a meeting of prominent investors in the Detroit area, which the deputy minister attended, I think, around June 8, at which time -- of course, this was shortly after the bill was promulgated -- he gave them a rundown of Bill 40 and told them what a wonderful document it was and not to be afraid. My understanding -- and of course this is second hand -- is that the investors told him he was absolutely crazy to put something like this into legislation and that it would be very negative in terms of their view of whether they want to continue to invest in Ontario.
Again, because this was a private meeting my information is second hand, but I would suggest that, because this committee is founded on the principle of investigating, you carry it further. I think we should be asking the government and the deputy minister exactly what did happen at that meeting.
1900
Mr Turnbull: First of all, I'd like to put a motion on the table that in fact the documents, the memoranda which come forth from that meeting, should be brought to this committee for consideration.
The Chair: You're perfectly entitled to make a motion. There's a motion on the floor already, though, but we can deal with that later in the evening.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Surplis, as you've alluded to, there have been tremendous amounts of energy expended by the government in attacking the study you commissioned from Ernst and Young, which suggests that 295,000 jobs would be lost to this province as a result of this legislation and approximately $8.8 billion in foregone investment.
The problem occurs in that the government suggests there would be two heroic assumptions required in building its own model. Could you tell me, from your business experience, is there any major corporation you would deal with -- one of the companies within your organization -- that would undertake major development without doing a thorough study of the economic costs of it?
Dr Surplis: Certainly not. Some things are trickier than others. Obviously, you can do market surveys and everything when you're putting up a commercial building. Those are pretty hard and dried figures. You can depend on those.
I think what you're alluding to, and certainly what the minister was alluding to, is the element -- and we grant there's an element -- of concern about the legislation expressed by the CEOs questioned under the Ernst and Young study. But we grant that while there may have been some desire on the part of one or two or who knows how many employers to have a go at the legislation and make the NDP look bad, the point is there is an element. They know they couldn't be competitive and that those answers are built on economics, not politics.
Then, if you add what I said earlier, the companies outside Ontario that weren't even told it was Ontario have no axe to grind. "This is how we invest our money, and we don't go to places that shut down companies the minute there's a strike etc."
Mr Turnbull: So there was no bias built into the study at all.
Dr Surplis: In this study -- and Ernst and Young admit it -- there was the possibility of a bias in the strength of the answers, not in the direction of the answers, in the hope of dissuading the government or embarrassing the government or whatever, but the direction of the answers was away from investing and hiring in Ontario.
Mr Turnbull: Can I infer from this -- I don't know what the answer is -- that there was probably a range of job losses and foregone investment opportunities and that the number presented in the study probably represented the average figure that you came up with?
Dr Surplis: Well, it was the amalgamation. They took 300 respondents. They said there was a 16% reduction in jobs. That was blown up to the industries they represented as a whole, and that came to 295,000.
Ms Murdock: It's good to see you again. I know you promised faithfully the last time I saw you that you were going to make sure you were going to have a new study done. You've certainly lived up to your promise. Just to refresh my memory because I can't remember, in terms of your membership, how much is unionized and how much is non-unionized?
Dr Surplis: Approximately 45% is unionized; obviously, 55% is not.
Ms Murdock: In terms of that -- and actually it hasn't been raised in the past two days; I think this is the first time in terms of the western European and Japanese experience -- first of all, they have a strong economy in comparison, despite the fact they've gone through a recession similar to ours, and also the whole social equity aspects of their legislation, and they have strong labour legislation. Obviously I'm coming from a totally different philosophy than you are, I make no bones about that, but how do you jibe that?
I am having trouble where it works, where it's shown to be working, where there aren't any difficulties or seemingly. Obviously, everything has problems, but labour and strong labour legislation doesn't seem to be the cause and I'm wondering how you jibe that with your argument.
Dr Surplis: One very quick answer, and I know Bill would like to make a comment, but Japan, Germany, Sweden and so on are countries. Ontario is not. We cannot do things here in Ontario solely unto ourselves. We have competitors who can draw away fast as anything. We're not a country. That's the major difference.
They have enormous powers in those countries whereby the unions and management and government have control over all kinds of things that
we couldn't possibly have here in Ontario because we're a province and not a federal government etc. Anyway, that to me is the fundamental distinction. They are countries and Ontario is not.
Did you want to add to that?
Mr O'Riordan: Yes, I'd like to. Again, Ms Murdock, I guess we could speak volumes on it, but if you take Germany, for instance, which is likely the strongest and likely the closest to our own cultural background, you have the Bundesbank, you have several very large unions and you have a very large government that sit down and literally the Bundesbank, which is their central bank, says, "The inflation rate this year will 1.6%. Therefore, we can give 1.43% in wages this year," and the unions for the most part say, "Yeah, we agree with that," and the government facilitates or encourages that. From that central body goes out, more or less, the pattern which the nation follows.
But if you ever tried to do that you'd have to take the Canadian Labour Congress -- and it has a lot of power over local unions I understand; pardon me, if my tongue's in my cheek -- the Bank of Canada -- and I can just imagine some of the problems it might have -- and we'd take Brian Mulroney and we'd sit them down. Can you imagine taking that pattern of Germany and imposing it on Canada and trying to spread it across the country? No.
I think the point to be made is -- we're into pop sociology here -- we are a different culture. There's a spirit of individualism in this country that is quite different from the European pattern, and for that matter the Japanese. I'm not saying the German pattern is wrong. For them it is good and it's been extremely successful. There's a lot to learn from it, but we can't take whole systems and put them over a tire like a patch.
The Chair: Gentlemen, I want to tell you on behalf of the committee that we're grateful to you, Mr Surplis, and to you, Mr O'Riordan, for coming here this evening on behalf of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. It made a valuable contribution and the work in preparing this brief and submission is acknowledged. I trust you'll be keeping in touch and monitoring the progress of the bill through this committee, and then into the Legislature. We welcome you back in further communication. Take care gentlemen.
1910
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 353
The Chair: The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353. We have 30 minutes, gentlemen. I'd like to know your names, your titles, if any. Please try to save the latter half for questions and dialogue.
Mr Joe Fashion: We'll be brief.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Fashion: My name's Joe Fashion. I am the business manager and financial secretary of Local 353 here in Toronto. This is one of my assistants, Bill Robinson. We don't intend to take very much time, but I'll read our brief, and then I'd like to answer whatever questions you've got.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have over 6,000 members in the greater Toronto area. I want to thank the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie, for giving us the opportunity of responding to the proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We are very pleased that we have a Minister of Labour who has demonstrated that he is concerned about the workers across the province and is interested in their health and safety and the collective bargaining process.
We are in favour of Bill 40 and we hope this government will take note that the same employers who are lining up to complain about the proposed changes are the same people who spent huge sums of money praising the Mulroney government and its so-called free trade deal. They are only interested in their self-interests and are not concerned about the quality of life of the citizens of Ontario. They are using the same scare tactics and propaganda that they used to promote the US trade deal.
The public was warned by big business that the US trade deal had to go through or Ontario workers would lose their jobs. We found the opposite was true. Instead of jobs, jobs and jobs, Canadians got plant closings, layoffs and welfare. The people who were lobbying for free trade were out of step then and they are out of step now.
I'd like to just cut away from my presentation and mention that the people who presented just ahead of us, COCA, the construction employers, were some of the people who were in the forefront of pushing free trade. I'm sure they presented to the committee around the country at that time exactly what they said here today.
Getting back to my presentation: They want us to believe that progressive labour legislation will somehow take away jobs from Ontario. If we take their argument further, we must be prepared to give up OHIP, the Workers' Compensation Board, health and safety legislation, public education, environmental controls and all other social safety nets that we have accepted to ensure a basic quality of life in Ontario.
Ontario needs good, progressive legislation to ensure that workers can develop their skills and improve their knowledge so we can compete in the marketplace in the future. Ontario's success depends upon greater cooperation in the workplace. This can best be achieved by unionized employees working in cooperation with management and the government. The Ontario Labour Relations Act preamble refers to this, and I want to read it to you:
"Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees."
You will note that it is in the public's interest, not just the interest of unionized members, but the public at large. This preamble was not written by the NDP government; it was written by the Conservative government of the day. They could see the advantages of the collective bargaining process and they were not accused of driving business out of the province. Quite to the contrary, business flourished in a more stable environment.
We are in favour of the proposed legislation and would like to briefly highlight some of the changes, but before we do that, we must begin by stating that we are disappointed that some issues have not been addressed. The first issue is the strengthening of subsection 1(4) of the act. The Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents 50,000 members in the Toronto area, presented a brief to the Minister of Labour asking for changes in the act to protect workers from contractors who have been successfully circumventing their contractual obligations by the use of project management. I will read from that brief:
"It is our belief that the 1(4) applications must be broadened so that contractors in the construction industry cannot abandon their contractual agreement with the building trade unions simply by reaching an accord with an owner or his agent to withhold certain contracts and/or subcontracts from the scope of work normally performed by the general contractor and subsequently have the owner engage non-union trades to perform the work. If this matter is allowed to continue, the deterioration of the collective bargaining process in Ontario will escalate to the point that the industry will be dictated to by unscrupulous merit shop contractors similar to the situation in Alberta. Merit shop is non-union."
The act should therefore be amended so that subsection 1(4) should include the requirement of an employer which acts as a contractor or manager of construction to ensure that all of its subcontracting or contracting obligations are applied to subcontractors on projects where it is the contractor or manager. The discretionary powers of the board under subsection 1(4) should be removed so that a company is automatically bound to the agreements of its related company.
The second issue which should be addressed is section 135 of the act. We find it very unfair that a contractor can get a cease-and-desist order at the labour board within 24 hours, and yet we have to wait for months or even years before our grievances are addressed. We can have a legal picket line and within hours we are summoned to the labour board for a hearing. Employers are given preferential treatment and this should not be allowed to continue.
We are disappointed that some other changes contained in the recommendations are left out of bill 40. For example, the right of
workers to refuse to cross a picket line during a strike if provisions for refusal are contained in their collective agreement; automatic certification if the union signs up a majority of the employees. Bill 40 should have contained a provision to allow unions to have a list of all the employees for the purpose of organizing. Employers often play games with the list of employees, and this causes unnecessary delays at the labour board during the certification process. We ask the government to reconsider its position on these points.
The proposed changes to the act: Organizing is very important to us because the unionized companies' employees must be able to compete on a level playing field. The proposed changes will assist union workers to organize and this will be good for a stable construction industry in Ontario.
Expedited hearings on disciplinary complaints during organizing activities: As soon as some contractors find out that the employees are trying to join a union, actions are taken against some employees. Now, with the expedited hearings and the possibility of automatic certification, these attempts to punish workers should decrease. We are sick and tired of seeing workers suffer for trying to exercise their rights under the law.
Improving collective bargaining and reducing industrial conflict: Unless someone has experienced the hardship of a strike, it is hard for them to understand the frustration and anger that is generated by the use of scabs doing the work of someone walking a picket line with no money and no job and no hope for the future. The anti-scab law will remove this thorn in the side of workers and make a small step forward towards a level playing field between workers and management.
Successor rights and obligations: The changes to the act will eliminate the possibility of workers losing their rights because a company is sold. The successor employer will take the place of the predecessor employer in any proceeding before the labour board under any act. Under the existing law, upon sale of a business, the successor employer is bound to the collective agreement of the predecessor employer. However, if the first employer and the union are in the midst of bargaining at the time of sale, then the union acquires only the right to give notice to bargain to the purchaser, and bargaining must begin anew. The new changes will put the purchaser of the business into the shoes of the predecessor employer.
In conclusion, we want to congratulate the government, and especially the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie, for trying to rectify some of the problems of the workers of Ontario. We hope the government will ignore the high-priced lobby of big business and others who would like to see workers regress to the standards in Mexico. On behalf of the members of our union, we also urge you to continue efforts to improve health and safety and the democratic rights of the workers of Ontario.
1920
Mr Tilson: I wonder if you could tell me specifically how Bill 40 will directly impact your union. What effect will it have on your specific union?
Mr Fashion: It'll help us in the organizing especially, and the protection that workers would get. When we go in to organize a company, there are all kinds of games played. Workers are fired, they're laid off, they're sent home because there's no work for them. They're threatened also. It's just unbelievable.
Then when those cases do come to the labour board, the board has to decide who's lying and who's not lying. It's an uphill battle sometimes to get that company, because once the worker has been threatened, it puts tremendous pressure on him to decide whether he wants to become a union member or whether he wants to hold his job. There are a lot of people who have to think their job has to be more important than becoming a union member.
Mr Tilson: With some exceptions, you appear generally to support the bill in its entirety. I'm wondering if you can tell me, dealing with the specific industry that you represent, how many new jobs Bill 40 will create.
Mr Fashion: Bill 40 will probably create for us hardly any jobs because, as I say, those jobs are already there. It's going to help us organize workers who are already out there and have jobs, so in our industry I don't see it creating jobs.
Mr Tilson: Do you believe it will cost any jobs?
Mr Fashion: Sorry?
Mr Tilson: Do you believe that any jobs will be taken away or that there will be any job losses?
Mr Fashion: No, I don't believe there will be job losses from Bill 40.
Mr Tilson: So you don't agree with the comments made by certain employers, the delegation that was before you, the Ernst and Young headline in the Toronto Star that it would cost 295,000 jobs?
Mr Fashion: No, I don't believe that.
Mr Tilson: Why don't you agree with that? Have you got any study?
Mr Fashion: I haven't read the study.
Mr Tilson: Have you done a study?
Mr Fashion: No, I haven't done a study. I have to be honest; I haven't done a study.
Mr Tilson: Are you just blankly saying that you don't agree with it, or what facts are you relying on to oppose that study?
Mr Fashion: The facts I'm relying on are the people I talk to. The people I talk to in Pennsylvania and Michigan can't believe the kind of money that we make up here in Ontario. The wage rates down in Pennsylvania and Michigan are $15-$16 an hour. Therefore, I think whenever there's a study done, they would be looking at what the wages would be in Ontario, and I think right off the bat that would throw the study off.
Mr Tilson: They indicate their study was a random sampling of senior executives in firms from all industries: 251 Ontario firms, 50 large North American firms headquartered outside Ontario, and it goes on and on. It seems to me quite a substantial random study. It's not the specific type of conversation, as you put it, that you've had with individuals.
Mr Bill Robinson: What would happen if you asked the workers? You're asking the fox who's guarding the chicken house to give you an answer. Can't you predict the answer of a business executive? You go to ask him a question: "Do you want a union?" Would a business executive want a union?
Go to the workers. Did you ask the workers? Did they go to the workers and say, "Do you want to be running barefoot, like in Mexico?"
Mr Tilson: No. I'm afraid you haven't read the study, sir. It had to do with the issue of loss of jobs, not whether they wanted a union.
I guess if you're going to put forward a piece of legislation as substantial as this, you must base it on some sort of facts and not just the whims of individuals. I'm simply saying this is one study, and our particular party, the Progressive Conservative Party, has been trying to encourage the government members to ask their minister to do specific studies on this subject. None has been forthcoming. There hasn't been one union that's done a study. They have the financial resources for it, but they haven't done one study.
You made substantial criticisms of the previous delegation, and I'm simply saying here's one study --
Mr Robinson: What was the study the Conservative government did on free trade? Was it accurate?
Mr Tilson: We're talking about labour legislation, not free trade.
Mr Robinson: We're talking about economics.
Mr Tilson: I'm simply saying here is one study that was done, a substantial study of a considerable number of firms, and I'm simply challenging you as leaders of the union movement: What sort of studies do you intend to do?
Mr Robinson: Did Mulroney do a study on free trade, and what were the results of it?
Mr Turnbull: Yes. We are doing more trade today, in dollars and cents, than we did before free trade.
Mr Robinson: If you believe that, I'll sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona. For sale for you, buddy.
Mr Turnbull: I don't need to buy oceanfront property. That's a fact.
Mr Tilson: Well, sir, I've listened to both of your remarks, and they seem to be rather antagonistic. The Minister of Labour said Bill 40 will improve the labour-management relations in Ontario. Now, I have listened to both of your comments, and even in our exchange, in which I've tried not be antagonistic, your comments and your attitude seem to be rather antagonistic as far as the whole issue of labour relations is concerned. My question to you is, if Bill 40 will improve labour-management relations in Ontario, how will this happen in your workforce?
Mr Fashion: I'd just like to mention that I was not antagonistic to you. My partner here probably was --
Mr Tilson: You're right.
Mr Fashion: -- but I want it on the record that I was not.
I also want to explain to you why we didn't do a study. The reason we didn't do a study is, we spend 90% of our time running after employers who are cheating and not paying health and welfare and pension money to their people and trying to organize other companies. We don't have the resources that COCA does, which probably has millions, and a $1-million budget to go out and get these. In fact, I wouldn't even know where to go to try to get a study done. But these people know where to go, and they've got the full-time people and the full-time money to put into it. We don't have that. We run at a loss. We don't have money for that resource.
Now I'm getting antagonistic. I'm sorry.
The Chair: A little bit of antagonism never hurt anybody.
Mr Ward: Joe, I'd like to thank you for the presentation. I think your presentation is based on real-life experience and what you've seen take place in the labour movement.
What I think is the general consensus from all sides is that the workplace and workforce have changed drastically since the 1970s and that there is a need for labour reform. What type of labour reform is what this committee is hearing, and we're hearing two sides. On the one side there is a perception about the initiatives in Bill 40, which are in place in one manner or another throughout Canada, either federal or provincial jurisdictions. But what we're trying to do as a government is recognize that we are facing economic challenges in the 1990s and we need greater cooperation among business, labour and government if we're going to overcome the obstacles we're facing.
We think because of the changes in the workforce and the workplace and the fact that the Ontario Labour Relations Act has not followed those changes, has not been brought into the present, let alone the future, if we don't have labour reform, we're going to suffer as an economy and as a society. Yet we're hearing comments that the initiatives in Bill 40 will drive a wedge between labour and business and that cooperation we need will not be there.
How do you answer the critics, recognizing the changes in the workplace and the workforce, recognizing that there is general consensus that some type of labour reform should take place? The critics are saying the initiatives in Bill 40 are going to drive a wedge between business and labour, and the people who more or less support the initiatives are saying it's going to develop greater cooperation. So how do you answer the critics who are saying it's not going to develop that cooperation we think we need for the future?
1930
Mr Fashion: I don't think it is going to drive a wedge. The reason I say that is, there's already cooperation out there, there's a changing workplace out there. As a matter of fact, I've been business manager of my local union for five years and I've seen a change in the workplace out there. It's got nothing to do with Bill 40, but there's already a change out there whereby labour realizes that if it doesn't get together with government and business, we're all going down the drain together.
A good example of that is what's happened here in Ontario in the last two years, where the electricians, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Ontario, came to an agreement with the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of Ontario, which is our counterpart that we negotiate with, and we came up with a no-strike resolution for this round of bargaining.
We had four strikes in the previous 10 years, and we recognized that it was going to go on and on; you're going to go on strike every two years. You know who fought that? The Council of Ontario Construction Associations. COCA fought that because it didn't want us to be bargaining this way; it wanted to force us on strike.
They sit here and talk about how they want to be partners with labour and government. They don't want to be partners. I'm telling you, labour wants to be partners, and we did become partners. We didn't have a strike this year. The electricians union didn't have a strike. I know the labourers have one at the present time, but we finished bargaining February 15, 10 weeks before our normal contract was up. The point I'm making is, there already is a change out in the workplace. Labour realizes you can't be at conflict all the time.
Mr Robinson: One point, if I could. If you listened to the man from COCA, the question was asked by the lady there, what percentage of the people you're representing are union? He said 45%. So who's he representing, the non-union sector? If the union sector goes on strike, who gets the work? The non-union sector while they're on strike. So it's in his interest to have a strike. That's why they didn't want, as Joe pointed out, to have a more cooperative approach to bargaining.
Mr Offer: In your presentation you speak about some aspects of importance that are not contained in the bill, such as the necessity for you to have a list of all employees. Could you please explain why it's necessary for you to have a list of the employees and what a list means?
Mr Fashion: Okay. A good example is, there are employers out of London that might have 100 electricians and apprentices working for them. They might be working in London, Sarnia, Windsor, Hamilton, Kitchener and Toronto. If one of my organizers finds them here in Toronto, the guy says, "Sure, I want to joint the union," and he might know four or five other people in that 100-man company. He'll give you those names and now you chase those four or five guys around, and when you find them -- they might be in Sarnia or any of those places -- maybe they know four or five.
To get the overall list, it can take a year to try and organize a 20-man company, just trying to find out who the people are, because with a lot of construction work sites, the guys are only there for two weeks, maybe three weeks. They only know the guy's first name. They don't have any idea what his last name is, where he lives. In a lot of cases it's almost impossible to come up with a list, especially in the situation I've just referred to, a 100-man company spread around the province.
As you know, when you organize in the province, it's got to be for every man in the province. You have to have a count for every person who's working in the province. If you don't get over the 50%, then you're beat, you lose, and you might have spent a year putting that together.
Mr Offer: It seems that you've thought through the list issue quite thoroughly, and you mentioned that the list contains the name and address of the employee. What do you say to those who say you have no right to that because that's a matter of private and confidential information and you shouldn't be able to have a list of employees where their addresses are indicated just because the particular worker may not wish that particular information to be given? How do you respond to that?
Mr Fashion: If I found out there was a list and 20 people on that list didn't want me to talk to them, then I guess I wouldn't go and talk to them. I'd just work on the other 80 people.
Mr Offer: The problem on that is that you already know what is personal information for individuals. I am wondering how you can reconcile your right to organize with the right of a worker to have and remain confidential where he or she may live?
Mr Fashion: I agree that's probably a problem, and I don't know how you resolve that. I want you to know that when we go out and organize, we don't put any pressure on anyone. We go in there, we try to show them what the benefits are in belonging to the union, and mostly it's pension and health and welfare, because most of the non-union people out there don't pay pension money and don't pay health and welfare money. Therefore, that's usually the big advantage we've got when we go in there to organize.
Mr Robinson: Could I respond to the question?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Robinson: What if you just gave the union that was organizing the names and not their addresses? Our problem is twofold: first, it's getting in touch with the individuals to see if they want to join the union; second, even when we have a situation where there's a company that is solely in the Toronto area and we do think we know who the employees are and we do get before the board, the companies play games with who is actually in the bargaining unit; all of a sudden people are laid off and new people are hired. So when we think we have the numbers, we go there and we don't have the numbers.
If they had to give us a list on a certain day of organizing or some sort of day of discovery, then we would know what we're working towards and be able to know, through contacts with other employees, who these individuals are and where they're working.
We can go to a hearing and find out that: "Hey, guess what, guys? They don't work for us any more, and we just hired another 30 guys." You know what construction's like: there is no seniority, they can hire you and lay you off at will, regardless of whether you've been there five or 20 years. It's not like an in-plant situation where there are basic seniority rights within the plant, and it's not like you can stand outside the plant gate and wait for the employees to come out and ask them if they want to join a union, because the sites are spread all over your jurisdiction -- and as was pointed out earlier, not over just our jurisdiction geographically but over the entire province -- and when organizing you must have a majority of the employees throughout the company, regardless of what jurisdiction you're working in.
Mr Offer: In the final analysis, the question I would like to pose to you and receive a response is, which right is greater, your right to organize or the worker's right to retain as confidential his or her address?
Mr Robinson: I tried to answer that earlier. We wouldn't necessarily need their address. If we had their names, at least we would know what we're working towards and not be faced with a situation where there are 20 employees and all of a sudden there are 10 more names on there and 10 are laid off and we don't have the numbers that we thought we had.
As to their rights, you might say what right does a bank or any other institution that the company deals with have to have their names and addresses, which they would have. Any other institution that is recognized by laws or the government would have far greater access than we would even be asking for.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Robinson and Mr Fashion, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353. We express our gratitude for your being among the over 1,100 people and organizations that have wanted to participate in these hearings since the ads were published two weeks ago. We're pleased that you had the chance to come here, and all of us, obviously, have enjoyed your comments. We thank you and your membership for taking the time and displaying the interest. We trust you'll keep in touch.
Mr Fashion: Thank you for having us.
Mr Robinson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I should also mention to the IBEW that we express our gratitude for your permitting yourselves to be rescheduled on such short notice. You made it far more convenient for the clerk.
1940
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT GROCERS
The Chair: The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, and there's a written brief that's been submitted that, like all the other briefs, becomes an exhibit. All the members have it, and of course members of the public who are interested in any of these briefs or submissions or in transcripts, by way of Hansard, are entitled to those and can obtain those free by contacting the clerk of the standing committee on resources development or any MPP's office. We encourage people to do that if they're interested.
Tell us who you are and what your status is, and try to give us the latter 15 minutes of your half-hour time frame for questions and exchanges.
Ms Carole Nap: My name is Carole Nap. I'm vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. I'm feeling a little bit at a loss here. Two grocers were to be here tonight to accompany me. Being very small, hands-on organizations, one grocer called this afternoon and has an emergency at his store and wasn't able to attend. The other grocer who was sitting with me here earlier drove in from Trenton and is quite ill but came anyway, and he's just down the hall right now and hopefully he'll rejoin me in a minute.
Mr Ward: He's kind of pale looking, is he?
Ms Nap: Yes, that's right. He drove all that way, two and a half or three hours, to be here and made the effort, so hopefully before I finish he'll have the opportunity to come back in and join me. But in the meantime I'll go ahead with the presentation.
You have before you our formal written presentation. I do not intend to read it to you. You'll be able to do that at your leisure. I would just like to point out a few of the recommendations that we have in this brief and first of all tell you a little bit about the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.
We are this year celebrating our 30th anniversary of service to our members. For your information, an independent grocer is defined as a grocery operation which is not traded publicly, which is Canadian-owned -- and if you've been in many of our stores, proud to be Canadian-owned -- privately held and operated on a day-to-day basis by either the shareholders or the members of their family; and in most cases, members of their family, that being the reason why one of my grocers wasn't able to attend today.
The members of CFIG vary from small stores of 4,500 square feet to large supermarkets of 35,000 square feet, and they provide full supermarket retail service in their areas; that is to define us as separate from convenience stores, because there are some cases with large convenience stores where people think there's a bit of an overlap.
CFIG represents over 3,500 independent retailers in Canada; approximately 40%, around 1,600, of these are in Ontario. In Ontario, independent grocers represent almost half of the retail grocery sales. Once you move out of the major cities, it's independents in primarily all the small locations in Ontario. So we are truly community-oriented, community grocery stores.
Often our employees' careers are centred in one of our family-owned stores, where they start out in the grocery store as a teenager. Perhaps they go off to other things, but wind up coming back to the grocery industry.
CFIG has had a long history of working closely with all levels of government to develop effective solutions to problems facing the industry. As independent operators of small businesses, we believe that reasonable solutions are the most beneficial to all stakeholders in the long run.
CFIG has worked on the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping with producers, processors, retailers and unions. We have also worked on the Food Industry Partners Committee, looking at market responsive pricing, in order that Ontario and Canada can be competitive in the marketplace.
At the present time with Bill 40, CFIG is concerned with the timing and the economic impact of the proposed amendments. These amendments could discourage investment, business expansion and job creation in Ontario at a time when the economy is already suffering from the effects of a recession.
We have some following comments we would like to make about the legislation. These are not all-inclusive, but are points that we feel are particularly pertinent to the independent grocer and his operation in his store.
In terms of the purpose clause, we feel it's important for employers and employees, unionized or non-unionized, to know that they will be treated fairly and impartially. As the purpose clause is now written, it is biased in favour of organization. Whether you are union or non-union, I think that most people would want to know that they would be treated impartially and on the merits of their own cases when they were brought before the board. Therefore, we're proposing that the purpose clause be written so that it will be impartial in its application.
In terms of the certification process, again we are looking at fairness, freedom of information and equity. There must be freedom of choice by the employee, and this must be assured by a secret ballot. There must also be opportunity for the employer to have a post-application appeal process and to work with his employees.
We believe that the threshold for certification should remain unchanged and we agree that the $1 membership card fee should be withdrawn.
At this point, I'd like to make a point from the last group that was here -- although we don't actually have it in here -- the comment about requiring employee lists of names and possible addresses. In terms of being able to help in the organization efforts, in the independent grocery stores, 50% to 60% of our employees are female, often single parents, often female students, often living alone not with a family, and as employers being responsible for the wellbeing of our own employees, we would probably be quite reluctant to hand over a list of names and addresses of our female employees, even if it is for the purpose of unionization.
I don't think have to bring to light some of the instances of things that have been happening in the general public and in the community in terms of assault and those other unpleasant things that are happening. I don't think that handing over lists of female employees is the proper thing to be doing. That's an aside which is not in our brief, but I just wanted to comment on that.
In terms of the consolidation of bargaining units, again we would like to point out that the board should not unilaterally decide how bargaining units should be set up and when they should be consolidated and whether or not full- and part-time bargaining units should be put together or consolidated. This should be the opportunity of the employees as they form a bargaining unit, or who are in a bargaining unit, to make that decision. It shouldn't be something that is automatically mandated by a board without hearing the facts of the individual situation.
In terms of replacement workers, as it stands now there are exemptions allowed in emergency situations where the work is necessary to protect health, social and community services, the environment and to prevent serious damage to property. I guess it's a matter of how you actually interpret that exemption.
1950
In terms of grocery stores, we feel grocery stores should be protected from significant hardship due to food spoilage. The food we have in our stores is extremely perishable. Quite often we're looking at two or three days' shelf life. A week-long strike means an entire loss of your whole fresh fruit and vegetable category. It isn't as if you could take it and move it somewhere else, because where do you put it, and you can't store it any longer.
While there is some mention of emergency services for things like refrigeration and freezers, for those of you who have been involved in working with them, I think you realize the importance of regular maintenance. It has to be preventive. You can't wait until the freezer is broken and then call someone to come in and repair it, because you've lost everything in the meantime. It would become unsafe food in order to sell to your consumers. So that regular type of maintenance needs to be maintained and there needs to be an exemption in order to do that.
One of the other points I'd like to make is that, as I've said, because we're small, independent grocers in small communities, quite often we are the only grocery store for that community. Should there be a strike in a community, how do individuals in that community then get their daily food requirements? We've seen this continual trend to daily shopping, every-other-day shopping, instead of going once a month and stocking up. If there's not some provision made in these communities for individuals to get food, I think the legislation will hurt the very people it's trying to protect, such as women, minority groups, single-parent families and children, low-income families, the elderly and people on welfare. If you think of Thessalon or Cochrane, where are they going to go to get their food, to be able to drive or have access?
We would like to see a provision in that case, where it is the sole source of food in a community, that the community residents would still have access to their daily requirements.
The other thing we think should be in the legislation from the beginning is a mechanism whereby the unions would be making the necessary payments for the benefits they expect to have continued for their employees. This should not be a stumbling block in the bargaining. It should be a matter that is set out ahead of time that for those benefits the payments would be made as they come due. It couldn't be used then as either side for bias.
In terms of access to third-party property, many of our independent grocers are part of third-party property or malls or small malls or rent the premises they're in. Currently, leases contain clauses whereby the tenant indemnifies the landlord for any damage. As the tenant would have to pay the landlord if there was any damage done, we would like to see a clause in there in terms of our small independent stores where, if there is damage done by a union during activity it has authorized, it would be liable for that damage. Again, it's just a matter of fairness.
Picketing and organizing activity on property normally open to the public should be restricted so as not to infringe on a consumer's ability to procure other services offered at the same location. Again, many of our independent grocery stores are also in small malls where there might only be two or three stores. You would have a grocery store, a hardware store and a drugstore all together in a common locality and they could be prevented from shopping in these other places.
In conclusion, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers is pleased to be able to come here and present our points to you. We are both prepared and anxious to assist in the provision of further information or participate in consultation. Again, I would like to reiterate that we think fairness and equity should be the basis of any legislation, and anyone coming before the government should be assured of impartial treatment based on their own individual circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Nap. Mr Fletcher and then Mr Wood.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I'm very glad that you came. One thing I will not do is try to intimidate you because you're from the business community or something like that does happen from time to time when different members try to intimidate people. When I look at your presentation, you say a few things about these amendments will discourage investment. Are you a member of the More Jobs Coalition or any organization such as that?
Ms Nap: No. We have attended some of the the All Business Coalition meetings and I guess I would say are probably fringe.
Mr Fletcher: Did your organization, the CFIG, do an impact study of any kind as to what the --
Ms Nap: No, we didn't.
Mr Fletcher: So you are not really sure about the "discourage investment." It's just something that occurred --
Ms Nap: No. We looked at things like the Ernst and Young study that was done and a number of other studies, but we have not done an independent study on our own.
Mr Fletcher: Do most of the organizations that are part of your group have good working relationships with their employees? I notice that you did say the union gets together, you work together. There are some union-organized stores --
Ns Nap: Yes, we do have organized stores in our membership.
Mr Fletcher: And you have a pretty good working relationship with --
Ms Nap: Yes. We think we have a very good working relationship with our unionized stores and with our non-unionized stores, because in the small community you usually know the individual's parents or you know the kids or they worked for you in high school, universities --
Mr Fletcher: Yes, a community organization almost. Do you think this legislation is going to have a detrimental effect on the employees and employers who do get along? Do you think it's going to create disharmony or friction between them, if there is already a working relationship?
Ms Nap: We think, from the broad-base perspective, that people will look at it as another piece of legislation and therefore they are going to say, "Okay, the government's doing one more thing to impede business." In terms of the individual relationships, again, it's all a matter of how it's applied and the people you are working with.
Mr Fletcher: That's true.
Ms Nap: There probably will be some instances where it will create barriers in the working relationship and there will probably be many other instances where life will go on just as usual.
Mr Fletcher: Some of those barriers are already there. Thank you very much.
Mr Wood: First of all, thank you for coming forward with your presentation. I'm sure you are aware that the changes being brought forward are about 20 years in the making. There have been very few changes made to the collective bargaining process since 1975 and the workforce has changed drastically since then. I believe we had figures at one point a few years ago: 38% of the workforce were women and now it's up to over 50%; minorities, more part-time workers as a result of a lot of the jobs we lost through free trade when that was brought in.
I'm just wondering what major things you think we should be looking at that would hurt the employees or the workers in the independent grocery stores; if there is real serious concern that you think will harm the relationship that you say in your answer to Mr Fletcher seems to be good. Is there something in here that you think will really harm the relationship between the employee and the employer?
Ms Nap: The things we see harming the relationship between the employee and the employer are those things which happen outside of their jurisdiction. That's why we dwelt on the purpose clause. It needs to be impartial so it can be applied impartially based on the circumstances that come before it. If there is any imbalance -- we're not saying that maybe it hasn't been one way and now it's moving the other -- we think the opportunity is for balance and impartiality and then there won't be the wedge to drive between employers and employees.
If that should happen in the legislation and it remains where the board can make the decision that two bargaining units are going to go together without ever having to consult with the individuals, either employees or employers who are involved, that it can be made unilaterally; or if there are purposes in there which give an imbalance to the situation -- those are the things that will drive the wedges in between. We're looking for reasonableness, impartiality and judgement.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Cleary, Mr McGuinty and Mr Offer.
2000
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I must say that I think you've addressed some critical areas and the way in which you've done it really set out the necessity for changes to the legislation and the reason for that. I certainly thank you for the time you and your association have taken. That is by way of opening comment.
I have a specific question on the issue of replacement worker. I think in your opening you said that a number of your members are small operators. It may be a family type of operation located in many of the communities in the province. Under the current legislation as proposed, if there is a strike, the owner, the employer of that grocery, would not be able to bring in, of course, any replacement workers. They would be prohibited. Keeping in mind the nature of the operation, I would like your thoughts as to whether, if it is appropriate, the owner should be able to bring in potentially members of his or her own family on a volunteer basis to address some of the issues you have brought forward.
Ms Nap: That is one of the issues we looked at too. Our interpretation of the way these amendments are set out is that family members would not be allowed to be brought in. Any type of replacement workers would not be allowed in because supervisors can also be unionized now and may only have one or two in a grocery store. In fact, if there is a strike, the only person left to come to work is the owner who cannot run the store alone or make sales on his own. Again, this is why we think there are some basic, essential people that need to be left in the grocery store to look after the equipment and the maintenance.
Maybe what we have to do is look at restricting how many cashiers or cash registries you could have. Again, if you're back to the community where you're the only source of groceries in that community-look at what happened in California when they had the riots and what happened where there were no grocery stores open for people to shop in. We don't need that in small communities. We need to be able to bring in people to move fresh produce and supply the people in the community with their daily food requirements. So we would like to have that ability within this replacement worker clause. We need that in order to survive.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much.
Mr Turnbull: Welcome, Ms Nap, as your MPP for your association. I'm pleased I was here tonight to hear your presentation.
I have a lot of questions, but unfortunately not very much time. With respect to the process by which the government developed Bill 40, could you comment first on how you feel about that process. Second, what would you feel about our suggestion that a tripartate approach would have been more appropriate whereby the members of industry workers and government get together and develop amendments to the labour law?
Ms Nap: The first part of your question regarding the process and how the revisions were brought about -- we had been invited to a couple of briefing sessions where we were told the type of amendments that were going into it. Most of the sessions -- well, most, when we're only talking two, I think -- were not interactive. They were more explaining what was going to happen in the legislation and the amendments that were going to be made.
Probably a lot of the animosity that perhaps has developed over the last few months could have been avoided if there was more interaction in the beginning and more understanding around the table. Tripartite -- make it four, make it eight, our philosophy is that all the stakeholders should be at the table and part of the discussion; that's when you get the best solution -- so not necessarily tripartate, but that as a minimum.
Mr Turnbull: With respect to picketing on third-party property: Clearly, some of your shops must be located in shopping plazas and you already alluded to the potential of liability of your shops. It seems to me that your industry is a very low-margin industry. What would be the impact of a strike which was very disruptive to a shopping plaza, both in terms of your ability to get insurance and, second, your ability to renegotiate a lease when it came up?
Ms Nap: Independent grocers have been taking the brunt of a lot of the recession at this point. Because we're usually a single-family-owned store, we don't have other stores that are doing better, or corporate stores versus independent stores, where we can slide around some of the profits and ease our way through it. When we're in a recession then we're faced with it as a crunch.
Many of our independent grocers are suffering with no profits right now, in fact running at a deficit or just hoping they're going to break even, particularly in border communities.
Mr Turnbull: The last question would be with regard to the ability for a union to wait out the 30 days and that the first contract be imposed upon the independent grocer. Given the very low margins or, as you've said, sometimes loss situations, the fact that this takes no account of your ability to bear any extra burden, what would be the impact?
Ms Nap: To be very blunt, probably in 30 days we wouldn't exist as an independent store. That would probably be our lifeline, 30 days.
Mr Turnbull: So you feel that the government, as a minimum, should direct any first contract to take into account your ability to pay?
Ms Nap: That's right.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Nap. As you might have heard, over 1,100 groups and individuals wanted to participate in these hearings and we weren't able to accommodate them all. We're pleased you were able to be here and represent the faction of the business community that the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers does.
We thank you and your membership for your participation, for taking the time, displaying the interest and presenting the brief that you did. Trusting that you'll keep in touch and if there's anything else, of course, we'd be pleased to receive further written materials. Thank you.
Ms Nap: Thank you.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL SECURITY
The Chair: The next participant, and the last one for this evening, is the American Society for Industrial Security. Speaking on behalf of the American Society for Industrial Security is Brian Patterson, chair of the legislative committee. I trust you'll introduce your colleague, Mr Patterson.
Mr Brian Patterson: Mr Wayne Renwick is president of the Toronto chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security.
The Chair: You have to repeat that at the mike.
Mr Wayne Renwick: Mr Wayne Renwick.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Your title is?
Mr Renwick: I'm chairman of the Toronto chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security.
Mr Patterson: Mr Chairman, it's a pleasure to address the legislative committee on Bill 40. Wayne's going to introduce you to the American Society for Industrial Security and you'll see that the American component relates to its place of origin. In fact, it's the largest international association of security professionals in the world.
Mr Renwick: Thank you, Mr Kormos and fellow members. The American Society for Industrial Security consists of approximately 22,000 security professionals in North America and internationally. It's the largest organization of its kind of security professionals. Members are dedicated to protecting people, property and information assets of a diverse group of private and public organizations.
ASIS, which is the short terminology, are management specialists who formulate security policy and direct security programs for banks, aerospace facilities, communications, hotels, museums etc, and countless businesses and institutions. Security administrators from the nation's leading firms distinguish the current membership roster, including organizations locally like Northern Telecom, Bramalea Ltd etc.
2010
Since its founding as a professional membership society in 1955, ASIS has continued to grow in recent years. The organization accepts about 4,000 memberships a year. It is committed to advancing professionalism in the field of security. The society's global network is organized on local, regional and international levels, Canada being one international level which has six active chapters.
You may or may not have heard of an organization -- it sounds quite familiar -- the name being the Canadian Society for Industrial Security. We have worked collaboratively with them on a number of projects.
ASIS's members are charged with initiating a supervisor in loss prevention and crime prevention programs to thwart international and internal and external offences and crimes, offences ranging from terrorism to pirating of classified documentation, industrial espionage, counterfeiting etc, and preventing and minimizing losses for such natural and man-made disasters as fires, riots, strikes and other civil disorders.
In essence, we view ourselves as somewhat of an essential service perhaps not far away from the enforcement arm more commonly referred to as the police department but on a private level.
I'm going to turn it back over to Brian for his presentation in relation to this.
Mr Patterson: It's fair to say, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, that no piece of legislation in the past 20 years has galvanized the membership of the security industry as Bill 40 has. You'll probably be aware that under the present labour act, security officers and the provision of security within institutions and environments in Ontario is exempt under section 11 and there are special considerations taken into account when dealing with security officers and the provision of their services.
Without a doubt, at any given moment in Ontario the employees we represent through our membership and members are protecting property at both private and public levels and there isn't a single Ontarian who doesn't benefit from the professional services provided by the segment of an industry that we represent.
No one has a record of fairness and cooperation with government legislation equal to the security industry. We are not only regulated by normal business practices and legislation within Ontario, but we are separately grouped in the contracted security industry under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act which is administered by the Ontario Provincial Police.
The industry has grown significantly over the last 20 years. Ontario benefits by both this growth and its previous ability to diversify for small business and small operators. There are currently over 300 separate agencies providing security services within the contracted sector and we have well in excess of 40,000 employees who work every day protecting the life and safety of all citizens in this province.
Bill 40 has had a galvanizing effect for two reasons. Labour involvement in our industry represents less than 5%. Part of that is due to the way in which security was segmented under the previous labour legislation and partially, I believe, because until quite recently we were not seen as easy to unionize or easy to certify. Some of our agencies represent as many as 2,000 employees. Some security firms have less than 15 employees.
The labour-management relationship within those agencies has worked well over the last 20 years. We have seen an increase in the wage, training and the overall delivery of service by employees throughout our industry. We have seen new segments of the industry develop that relate to the protection in areas of fire safety, the enforcement of life safety systems within given plants and the ability of our people to work closely with law enforcement throughout Ontario. We currently have three people working in the security industry for every police officer in this province, and the areas of jurisdiction our employees are involved in are substantial.
The American Society for Industrial Security is not the representative of the contracted guard agencies. We do not exclusively represent manufacturers or builders. We have members who deal on a day-to-day basis in unionized environments and in non-union environments and we have members who deal on a day-to-day basis with contracted employees who are a subset of the employees at a given facility which may or may not be unionized.
I'd like to take a minute to review the reasons for security being exempt under the previous labour act. There are a number of enforcement protections provided by our members, in a generic sense, on the manpower side. We check for drugs and alcoholism in the workplace and we ensure safety at a number of locations. We have occasions in which our employees are required to check and ensure that certain standards are maintained by all employees within a facility. It is not uncommon for the security department within a given location to be responsible for not only loss prevention from outside but loss prevention internally.
We believe it will create a difficult labour-management relationship should all security practitioners at one location be unionized and under the current legislation be grouped in with their brother members locally. That is clearly the rationale that allowed our industry to stay outside of collective bargaining to date. The labour movement up until quite recently didn't want to have security officers within its membership. We've developed to some degree an adversarial relationship with a number of security unions in this province due to the situation with strikes as they have developed.
Under the current legislation, the retroactive clause that has been suggested, that this legislation will impact as far back as July 3, is of great concern to our members across the board, not only those who provide services to our members but the members who are signing contracts currently with new agencies. There is a reasonable amount of turnover in the security industry. That's based primarily, we believe, on the provision of services by the agencies providing those services. They are currently unable to negotiate contracts that impact in the retroactive area if they are replacing an agency that is unionized.
We strongly believe that there is a conflict of interest between members of the same union enforcing regulations against one another. We see this conflict of interest as very similar to police officers internally investigating their own forces. We don't believe that's the role and function of our members and it would create a great conflict.
It does not improve the working conditions in this province as it's laid out. It will not impact on the number of jobs in the security industry. If there are in excess of 40,000 people employed in this sector right now, there will be 40,000 people employed in this sector after this bill passes. The changes are not going to be in the area of jobs; they are likely to be in the area of labour conflict. We believe it's going to be big unions looking at the 95% of our industry that is currently not unionized, moving for market share as opposed to moving for beneficial conditions and training.
We currently are regulated by the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act and would like to see that area strengthened.
We would like to see a number of areas in security looked at separately with this bill. We encourage the government to review the rationale that groups security in with other service providers. Security and life safety is a critical item that must be maintained in any location, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. How that could be similar to the provision of cleaning services or the provision of food services etc has certainly startled our members, none of whom were consulted as to this change.
We are for primarily the fairness and the delivery of fair process within the industry. We believe we do that through our members and through the delivery of our services on a day-to-day basis. There is certainly no consensus among our members that this bill, as it currently stands, will treat our industry fairly, will treat our members fairly, will benefit our employees and will benefit the employees who we protect on a day-to-day basis, and that is every employee in Ontario at every company at every opportunity in every public institution.
Mr Renwick: We certainly support the premise of the worker getting fair treatment. We support any collaborative efforts we might be able to assist in on an interdisciplinary, interministerial approach, whether it's the Solicitor General's department, ergo the OPP, registrar's department, or the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, in establishing appropriate and professional standards for the training of security officers. We would support all those efforts as well.
2020
Mr Offer: Thank you for the presentation. It's very important because it zeroes in on a specific area in the legislation and in the proposed amendments which I must say has not yet been addressed by any of the previous deputants in the depth that you have, if memory serves me correctly.
I would like to get your position, if I could, as clear as possible. Currently in the bill there is the provision that security guards can be organized. What is your position with respect to this aspect of the bill?
Mr Patterson: The bill, as it currently stands --
Mr Offer: I'm sorry to interrupt, but when we say "as it currently stands" or "in the amendments," I'd like you to be as specific as possible.
Mr Patterson: The copy of the bill we're working from is Bill 40, second session, 35th Legislature etc.
Mr Offer: Yes.
Mr Patterson: Currently, for a number of the agencies involved in the industry and a number of people who provide services, this is incredibly disruptive in how it's going to be delivered. We believe we're simply moving to another cost of labour which will be funding the growth of a number of the major unions in Ontario and that this cost is going to be passed on to us as purchasers of service and will be passed on to the clients of providers of service.
We're not sure there's going to be a net benefit. We're looking at it like a charity. If 80% of the benefit goes to the employee, we're for it; if 80% of the benefit goes to build big unions, we're not for it. Right now, it looks like it'll build big unions and not likely benefit our employees directly or provide better occupational safety on the work sites on a daily basis.
Mr Offer: You're concerned about the provision on the issue of cost. I'm wondering if your concern with this provision included is based on any extra complication it has for you in the administration of what it is you do.
Mr Renwick: It does indeed, Mr Offer. Similar to the police department, it would be inappropriate to have the police department unionized by the same union that it would perhaps be negotiating or dealing with in a management-labour struggle that might take place as a result of a contract disagreement, walkout or strike. When that takes place, as you well know in the region of Peel, the situation of the police department becomes more representative of a third party, not standing on picket lines taking one side or the other but trying to help negotiate some kind of reasonable civil order. Indeed, this is where the security industry gets thrown perhaps right back into the Stone Age of when the police departments did perform that task. Perhaps you know I can state that because I'm an ex staff sergeant from a police department in the region of Peel.
That's very problematic to our industry. To have them represented by the same union that perhaps was having union strife with the particular industry they were contracted to or were proprietary to in-house would be, from a service delivery standpoint, totally inappropriate and impossible.
Mr Patterson: To put that into a scenario that has concerned our members, ABC Security has 750 employees and they probably provide services at anywhere up to 100 separate locations in and around greater Metropolitan Toronto. If they come into the binding arbitration, shutdown, no replacement workers scenario, it's not that ABC Security is now shut down; we have 100 locations in Ontario or in the greater Toronto area which now have no life safety or support. We have residential condominium facilities that have no one watching the fire panel, responding to fire within that facility or dealing with emergencies on the site. We have public institutions like hospitals which then have no security operating on those facilities. That could occur at midnight.
A security company's head office, if you've been to one, can be 2,500 square feet, but it can have 500 employees out there at various locations. We work on third-party property and we're putting that property at risk in the event of a labour disruption. That's a great concern to our employees and to the clients who utilize these services.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, briefly; we wouldn't want Mr Tilson to think you were using his time.
Mr McGuinty: Are you telling us that you would rather not see security guards given the right to organize, to form unions, or are you concerned more with the issue of replacement workers? Are you saying allow the security guards to go ahead and form unions but you should be exempt from the provisions relating to replacement workers?
Mr Patterson: We think there're some significant issues with replacement workers, because if the employees had to continue to go to work, and allowing for binding arbitration, we're not sure that's to the benefit of the employee or employer. What we're saying is that security is a separate and essential service and that this bill threw the baby out with the bathwater. We're placing a significant number of locations at risk if we allow in a unionized environment some security companies to be shut down because they're unionized and non-unionized private companies to operate outside of the legislation. It's creating a whole new mix in the marketplace and we're wrestling with that right now. The first blush is that it's dangerous.
Mr Renwick: We're not challenging the issue of unionization; what we're challenging is the ability to be able to still perform our function based on placing the security industry under this act.
Mr Tilson: One of the charges that has been laid with respect to the unionization of security guards is the subject of conflict of interest; in other words, where all or part of a security guard's job description is to report on other employees for different reasons, which I think you've briefly alluded to, that would therefore result in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest.
I assume you've read subsection 7(3) which deals with that subject. I'd like you to turn to that and tell me what your interpretation of that subsection is.
Mr Patterson: Okay. "A bargaining unit consisting solely of guards who monitor other employees shall be deemed by the board to be a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining."
Mr Tilson: Let's deal specifically with that. Are there security guards whose jobs are solely to monitor other employees?
Mr Patterson: It would be difficult to limit the job description of a security officer to the supervision of other employees and their tasks. Our security officers are responsible for overall life safety. Activities that breach that life safety or breach rules and regulations within the facility would fall into that category. Employees stealing product from a facility is theft in the eyes of the security department and we deal with this theft, whether it's a manager, the president, owner or whomever. You would seldom find a scenario in which a security officer is solely limited to watching other employees on a daily basis.
Mr Tilson: So it's unlikely that this section would apply.
Mr Patterson: It's unlikely. It's too narrow.
Mr Renwick: If you made the definition that narrow, it would be unlikely.
Mr Tilson: The other comment I have is that it looks to me that the word "and" is between clause (a) and clause (b); in other words, not only must the trade union ask for it but the board must deem it appropriate with respect to a conflict of interest.
Mr Renwick: In all fairness, Mr Tilson, I find it problematic to argue the exact wording of legislation. What we're trying to do is speak to what it does in essence to our industry, without trying to tear the legislation apart.
Mr Tilson: I need your assistance if we're looking for specific amendments. Is this section appropriate or inappropriate? I'd like to know what your thoughts are. If you haven't had a chance to review it, perhaps at a later date you could --
Mr Renwick: Perhaps we could relate to it.
2030
Mr Patterson: We're in the process of preparing a clause-by-clause, written submission. One of the situations that occurs that would present difficulty is if an employer is unionized under the Steelworkers, for example -- and coincidentally ABC Security Ltd is unionized under the Steelworkers -- you would have Steelworkers from one bargaining unit, ABC Security Ltd, working the front gate and their brother Steelworkers working within that plant facility. We're not sure that doesn't create a conflict similar to having the security staff grouped in with all other employees.
We don't believe unionization is going to make security officers less able to perform their function or more likely to look the other way. We believe that conflict is going to be built into the system as it develops. It's an area that I don't think was looked at appropriately when security was then grouped into this act as wide open.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Patterson, you have stated that you don't believe, in the case of your industry, that it's going to lead to any new jobs or any lost jobs. But one of the other reasons the minister has stated that this bill is needed is that he has suggested that it will improve labour-management relations. I find it somewhat strange in view of the fact that you are now going to have union members responsible for policing their own members. Does that not seem to be at variance with the intent of improving labour-management relations?
Mr Patterson: We believe that is detrimental to good labour relations at any given location. We are at odds with this bill, frankly, in that if collectivization of the security industry allows for better training, better standards of delivery and the ability for the members of our industry to better deliver life safety to all citizens of Ontario, we're for it. What we see is that this is not likely to be the thrust of the unionization movement. The thrust is going to be market share, and 95% of the market share is open territory. The needs of the employment site will be last on the list.
Mr Turnbull: Could you comment on the specifics of why your industry has been specifically excluded in the past from being part of the same union?
Mr Patterson: To speak to to the security industry internationally, there isn't a jurisdiction that I as a practitioner am aware of internationally in which specific legislation to govern the security industry doesn't make it separate, for a number of reasons. Outside of Canada, that legislation primarily dictates a number of specific guidelines. Effectively, you have a large collective agreement that deals with security and the provision of that service. That's throughout Europe and in the majority of jurisdictions in which there is legislation in the United States.
The model we used to have, I believe, protected all the workers both within the industry and outside of the industry. We've got a potential for a great deal of strife that doesn't benefit the employee, doesn't benefit the management, may benefit unions in additional dues but, I don't believe, is going to make for a better working environment.
We say there'll be no change in jobs. We consider that there's probably going to be a decrease in the amount of money available at the end of the day to pay the employee. Currently, 93% to 95% of the bill that's paid in security is paid out in wage to the employees. I think we're going to get this legislation on the back of the employee, not on the back of management.
Mr Klopp: A couple of real short ones: Are you representing all the security guard associations in Ontario or Canada?
Mr Patterson: We're specifically not. One of the problems that we'd like to address to this committee is that the Association of Investigators and Guard Agencies of Ontario, which in fact does represent all of those agencies in Ontario, was not given an opportunity to speak before this committee. I think it's a terrific oversight that hopefully could be addressed. We have a far broader membership than that specifically, although some of their members are members of our association.
Mr Klopp: Okay, so you're representing one organization. Under the old act, you said approximately 5% of the security guards in Ontario are unionized now.
Mr Patterson: That's correct.
Mr Klopp: Under the present act, it was an opportunity that could be used, right? Okay. Under the proposed changes, as I understand it, if you want to be a guard -- I don't think it forces anybody to belong to anything; it's just allowing fair-minded people to have options -- you're allowed to belong to any union.
You mentioned internationally there is no such thing as this kind of legislation. International is wonderful, but are there any provinces in Canada that have the same kind of legislation we're proposing? It doesn't make the news, but that doesn't mean anything. Are there any other provinces that have this kind of new opening that is coming in this proposed legislation change?
Mr Patterson: There's been an active undertaking by the labour movement to unionize security officers across Canada. The one province that has the absolute opposite legislation to this is Quebec, and it works on essentially a tripartite agreement. The minimum standard for the provision of security services and its payment and the conditions under which those employees work are prepared annually on a cooperative basis between labour and the security industry, and it's provincially mandated. There are certainly some segments of our industry that would like to see something along those lines, because it's enforceable, because it's a provincial standard and they have a say in how it's dictated. So the opposite is there that there's a cooperative venture.
There isn't a case, I don't believe, that security officers are barred from joining unions anywhere in Canada, and the labour movement is currently attempting to unionize across the country.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Patterson and Mr Renwick. You've brought yet another perspective to this process and we thank you very much for that. I want to indicate, as you've heard us tell others, that we've received over 1,100 applications from individuals and groups to participate. Obviously not all of those people can be accommodated. All of them are welcome to submit written briefs, and you have indicated you'll be supplementing your attendance here today with a written brief.
I would indicate to those people who feel they've been erroneously overlooked to appeal any decision that was made to the clerk's office, indicating why they would be important to the process; not that anybody is unimportant, but an opportunity for those people to perhaps explain in a little more detail why their insight would be that much more significant given viva voce than merely written.
Mr Patterson: If that's an open invitation for the guard industry to speak to you, I'm sure they're going to avail themselves of it.
The Chair: I didn't say that. I said exactly what I said and nothing more.
Mr Patterson and Mr Renwick, all of us appreciate your coming and taking the time and your interest, trusting and hoping that you'll keep in touch. Take care, gentlemen.
Now we turn to Mr Offer's motion. Did you want to speak further to that motion, Mr Offer?
Mr Offer: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
The Chair: You've served a written copy. I appreciate that. Thank you. It's not mandatory but it was a nice courtesy.
Mr Offer: I'm asking whether all members have received a copy.
The Chair: It's being distributed now.
Mr Offer: It's a very brief motion that this committee formally request of the three House leaders authority to extend its hearings on Bill 40.
2040
I'm mindful of the time of day and the length we have been sitting. I think it is clear that we all recognize there is a motion of the Legislature which gives to this committee five weeks of hearings. It has been decided that three of those weeks are going to be in Toronto and two are going to be travelling. To my mind, it is clear that as a result of the publications made in the newspapers, we now have something in the area of 1,100 requests to be heard. We do not have given to us the time to hear these.
I believe the number of individuals, groups and associations that wish to be heard underlines the importance they attach to this bill. Whether they be for or against, whether they have but one particular aspect of the bill, they want us to hear their positions, concerns and feelings about this bill. The limited time we have been given severely undermines, I believe, the ability of this committee to receive a full hearing from those people who wish to be heard.
My motion asks that this committee -- and I ask members of this committee to please support this motion, because we are going to be requesting of the House leaders authority to extend hearings on this bill. We have 1,100 people who want you to vote in favour of this motion.
The Chair: Mr Wood, do you want to speak to it or are you deferring to Ms Murdock?
Mr Wood: I'm concerned, first of all, that a motion like this would come forward, because there are, I believe, over 260 people or groups that are going to be able to make presentations. The other ones are going to be able to make written presentations. I'm just surprised that Mr Offer would bring forward a motion of this kind when the three parties have agreed on the five weeks of hearings: three weeks in Toronto and two weeks on the road. This decision was made in the Legislature quite some time ago. But I'll keep my other comments to myself for now and turn it over to Ms Murdock.
The Chair: I want to indicate before anybody else speaks that the clerk advises that the current schedule accommodates 240 presentations. As I understand it, that's over the five-week period.
Mr Offer: On a point of information, Mr Chair: Is 240 just for the Toronto hearings or for the total amount?
The Chair: Five weeks of hearings accommodate --
Mr Offer: And the 1,100, just prior to Ms Murdock speaking, is basically Toronto-oriented? It may not be exclusive to Toronto, but mainly Toronto?
The Chair: The 1,100 are all the people who have communicated with the clerk's office to date. Obviously you can expect some of those people to be unavailable, but you can also expect more people to be requesting. Many of those people are clearly from the out-of-Toronto area, but a large number are clearly in Toronto. The clerk hasn't got with him right now a very specific breakdown.
Ms Murdock: I'm not going to support the motion, mostly because -- I mean, the numbers are not a surprise. Particularly having done the consultations, I can tell you that we ended up with somewhat a similar situation and ended up extending the Toronto hearings. I'm glad that we are spending three weeks here, because there were so many from this particular area.
In that respect, we discussed this very issue in subcommittee on one occasion I was present and at another subsequent subcommittee meeting afterwards. We've also discussed this in committee, plus it's been voted on in the House in terms of a resolution put forward by our House leader. Albeit a very decisive, partisan vote, still in all our caucus made it quite clear that there were 63 people who voted in favour of the proposed resolution. That's five weeks. I'm not prepared to extend it.
Mr Tilson: Ms Murdock referred to a consultation process that she went through earlier with the minister. Of course, one of the major criticisms that has been directed towards your government is that that consultation process was totally inadequate, that there were a considerable number of people who wished to be heard and that they were not able to be heard.
I'm directing my comments to the government members, who appear to be taking the position that they're not going to support this resolution. They have boasted many times as to how excellent their consultation process is. I therefore challenge you that when you have 240 applicants out of 1,100 -- and I suspect that will be climbing, as you have indicated, Mr Chair. I suspect that once we get out into the country, there will be many more applications put forward. That's approximately 25% of applications that we're hearing.
Mr Chairman, through you to Ms Murdock, you're talking about what went on in the House. Clearly the government has a timetable. There's a timetable as to how long we're going to debate in this House, how long we're going to debate it in committee and how long we're going to debate it in this committee. There is no question, I think, as referred to by one of the Liberal members in the House, that you have a timetable of four months from the date of introduction to the date of proclamation, and you're going to stick to that timetable.
I think that Mr Offer's motion is challenging you to broaden your consultation process, which has been criticized in the past, and to hear more than 25% of applicants. There has been no real substantive consultation process of both business and labour in the past, where all groups sit down and consult on this subject. There's been none of that, so that the whole consultation process, from the paper through to the introduction of the bill, through the debate, through the time restrictions that are being put forward, and the new rules that are being put forward are designed to ram this thing through as fast as possible.
I will say that if you look at today as an example, with each of these applicants there has been very little repetition that has been put forward. Sure, there's been rhetoric from different groups that may appear, but with almost all of them the specific points that they have raised -- whether you're talking about the children's aid society or security guards, all have their story to tell.
I submit to you that if you look at the list of the 1,000 or 1,100 -- and it's climbing -- that there are many more who will have their story to tell and it won't be heard. Your answer is, "Oh well, write us a letter." I say that's not enough, that we as legislators, if we're putting through a piece of legislation that on your own admission is perhaps one of the biggest pieces of legislation that your government will ever introduce, surely -- well, I know Mr Klopp is probably suggesting you're just getting warmed up, which terrifies us. I will say that to date that appears to be one of the biggest pieces of legislation that you have considered and I hope you will allow the consultation process to expand and that this will be conducted in this committee.
The Chair: I do want to indicate that the clerk has advised that the deadline that was indicated in the ads, the deadline for submissions, as having been last Thursday and that the vast majority of the applications were received prior to that deadline -- properly so -- but that since the deadline approximately 100 applications have been received, as recently as today. There's clearly been a trickling of the applications, but the most recent one of the 100 has been as of today. I tell you that on the advice I received from the clerk. Now, who else wants to speak on the issue?
Mr Tilson: We are still only hearing 25% of the applicants.
The Chair: Who else wants to speak to the issue? I'm trying to give that information to the committee, so that they have information to argue with.
Mr Tilson: Chair the meetings; don't make statements.
The Chair: Don't argue with me. Who else wants to talk to the motion?
Mr McGuinty: I'll speak to the motion, and obviously in support of it.
Just so that we maintain some perspective on this, when we're talking about 1,100 representatives, we're talking about 1,100 representatives of different groups. The people we have heard from to date have represented tens of thousands of Ontarians. It is likely that the remaining 900 groups we will not be hearing from will be representing hundreds of thousands of Ontarians. That is probably without precedent, the numbers of people who are anxious to meet with us. That number is probably without precedent in the history of this Legislature. I may be corrected on that, but I don't believe I'm mistaken.
Something else that is without precedent obviously is the nature of this legislation and the controversy that has been generated. I think the government has an obligation to ensure that it hears from all parties that wish to express a concern. If the government chooses not to do so, then that will be on its head.
2050
I think it's appropriate that we bring the motion forward, that we speak to it at this time and that the government members, who are going to carry the day in this, fully understand that if they choose to -- we're cutting out some 900 representations here -- then they have to understand they're doing that knowingly, to recognize the consequences of that, to understand the fallout effect this will have in Ontario at large.
We have enough difficulty at the present time with ensuring that our public lend us their support. They're concerned that we don't listen to them, that we're not interested in what the man or woman on the street has to say. Here we have a public forum in which the specific purpose is to hear from these people and we're saying no. We're not prepared to make an effort to extend the time beyond the five weeks that were originally allotted. It's my understanding when that alleged agreement was originally struck, the people involved in making the agreement had no idea we would be receiving requests from 1,100 presenters. Things have changed; it's time to reconsider.
The Chair: Any further debate on the matter?
Mr Huget: I'd just like to make it clear that I think the government has taken an unprecedented step in terms of consultation prior to the drafting of this legislation. Over 350 groups were heard from. Add to that another 240 in this set of hearings, and add to that the possibility for each and every group which does not appear or which did not appear at consultations to submit written proposals.
Far from being restrictive and far from being not open, I think the process, as far as I'm concerned, has been very open and very consultative. If you look at the potential for the 350 groups which were heard during consultations with the ministry and 240 now, that's two thirds of 1,100. I think that's being very fair and I think there is an opportunity for those who have not appeared at one session or another, whether it's the consultations or these hearings, to submit written briefs as well and I do not buy into the argument that there is restriction here. In fact, I do not know where there has been this level of consultation.
The Chair: Further debate?
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Offer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 5
Cleary, McGuinty, Offer, Tilson, Turnbull.
Nays -- 6
Fletcher, Huget, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Ward, Wood.
Mr Turnbull: I have a motion. The clerk has copies of my motion. It is that the Minister of Labour table all documents, briefing notes, correspondence and memoranda in his possession or the Deputy Minister of Labour's possession from a meeting between the Deputy Minister of Labour and American business representatives that took place in Detroit, Michigan, on or about June 8, 1992. The material should include any briefing material prepared in advance of the meeting, including a list of participating American companies and any summaries, comments or correspondence that were generated after the meeting took place.
The Chair: You have courteously provided copies of that motion, which have been distributed to the members of the committee. Do you want to speak to the motion?
Mr Turnbull: Yes, indeed. The government committed to open government when it was elected. The minister has strenuously rejected the impact study by Ernst and Young and has also rejected such information as the poll by Environics Research, both of them among the leading companies in their fields in Canada. Yet the minister insists there will be no impact on the province. In light of this, it seems appropriate that at least we get some sense as to what has occurred in the ministry's own inquiry in the US. That is the thrust of this inquiry for information.
The Chair: Any other debate?
Ms Murdock: Actually, not debate particularly, more just information, I think. Anticipating what this was going to be, we contacted our staff and asked them to check with the deputy, because he had discussed it yesterday when he was here, and he was asked questions both by Mr Offer and by Mrs Witmer in regard to that meeting.
I know he made a presentation. He stated that he had made a presentation to about 30 American business leaders. All we'd have, as far as we understand it, would be his presentation notes. It was not a transcribed meeting. Hansard wasn't present or that kind of thing; it wasn't that kind of situation. I don't know what other notes, correspondence or memoranda you would be referring to. I can check and see with the deputy about getting a copy of his notes, but I wouldn't imagine they'd be much different than what he presented in the committee yesterday.
Mr Turnbull: So then you would have no objection to this?
The Chair: Ms Murdock, do you want to put that question to Mr Turnbull?
Ms Murdock: What I would ask is if we could table this until I can refer it to the deputy.
Mr Tilson: Who's running the show?
Ms Murdock: I'd just like to know what occurred, what date it was. I don't even know myself.
The Chair: Mr Turnbull, do you want to respond to that? Ms Murdock is forfeiting the floor.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, indeed. Ms Murdock has suggested she doesn't know the date. It's on the motion. The deputy spoke of this meeting in our briefing the other day and we would like a more detailed view of this. This is absolutely germane to our deliberations and it is normal practice among ministries and governments to keep some sort of minuted review of important meetings, particularly with other countries. It's not an unreasonable request. We're seeking information as to the impact.
The Chair: Ms Murdock, do you want to speak further to the motion?
Ms Murdock: I'm not prepared to support this until I have time to discuss it with my minister.
The Chair: Does anybody else want to speak to the motion?
Mr Tilson: Why don't we table it until tomorrow?
Mr Huget: I refer it.
The Chair: At that, it's just shy of 9 o'clock, in any event. The committee, as a result of the subcommittee's decision, which was adopted by the committee, is limited to 9 o'clock and so that would be adjourned in any event.
When does the committee propose to have this motion spoken to? The first presentation tomorrow morning is scheduled for 10 am and perhaps people can think about that and decide when they want to debate this motion further tomorrow. In any event, we're going to adjourn shortly.
I want to thank the committee members for their cooperation today. I want to especially thank the staff people: the Hansard people, who have put in extra hours; the translation people, who have been very patient with us, especially when there's been some antagonistic bantering, which has tried their patience and skills; and the legislative broadcast people, who have been patient and tolerant and helpful. Thank you, people.
We're adjourning until tomorrow morning, 10 am, when the public is invited and this will be televised one more time.
The committee adjourned at 2059.