THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
THUNDER BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LAKEHEAD AND DISTRICT COUNCIL
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION
HOSPITALITY, COMMERCIAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 73
DRYDEN AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA -- CANADA, LOCAL 2693
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO STEELWORKERS AREA COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Monday 17 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Thunder Bay and District Labour Council
Don Hutsul, president
Rob Caron, union organizer
Glen Chochia, chair, political action committee
Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce
Jack Mallon, first vice-president
John Erickson, board member
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Lakehead and District Council
Barry Chezick, president
Howard Matthews, CUPE national representative
Jules Tupker, president, CUPE local 87
Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd
John S. Taylor, employee relations analyst
Canadian Paperworkers Union
André Foucault, national representative
Thunder Bay and District Hospitality Association
Don Johnson, member
Hospitality, Commercial and Service Employees Union, Local 73
Don Campbell, president
Tom Rees, international organizer for Canada, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union
Ralph Ortleib, member, United Food and Commercial Workers
Unity, Lakehead University
Shirley Richter, member, Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), Local 181
Norma Gibson, member, OPEIU, Local 181
Cheryl Balacko, member, OPEIU, Local 181
John Griffith, president, Lakehead University faculty association
Mary Garbutt, member, OPEIU, Local 181
Birbal Singh, vice-president, Lakehead University faculty association
Dryden and District Labour Council
Alma Wall, president
Mary Aitken, vice-president
International Woodworkers of America--Canada, Local 2693
Wilf McIntyre, president
Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group
Steve Mantis, treasurer
Northwestern Ontario Steelworkers Area Council
Francis Bell, president
Rob Smith, financial secretary
Tom Jameus, president, local 4464
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:
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Conway
*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull
*McLeod, Lyn, (Fort William L) for Mr McGuinty
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Jordan
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Wark-Martyn, Shelley, (Port Arthur ND)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
527
The committee met at 1330 in the Valhalla Inn, Thunder Bay.
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.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 1:30 and we're going to begin our series here in Thunder Bay, public hearings regarding Bill 40. Each participant has 30 minutes. I'm asking those people to please try to keep the last half of their half-hour for discussions between them and members of the committee. I want to invite people to come up to the front, everybody, including spectators, to pour themselves a coffee.
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The first participant is the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council. Please come forward, seat yourselves in front of a microphone, tell us your names, your titles, if any, and tell us what you will; once again, trying to keep the last 15 minutes available for exchanges. If there are any written submissions, they've been distributed to the members of the committee and will form part of the record by virtue of becoming an exhibit. Go ahead, please.
Mr Don Hutsul: On behalf of the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council, we are pleased to be able to make this presentation and written submission to the standing committee on resources development. With me are Mike Poleck, Glen Chochia and Rob Caron.
We are here today to respond to Bill 40, the government's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act. This act and the proposed amendments are most important to our members and to our council. Our daily experience in representing and defending working people provides us with particular insight as to the merits of the key proposals Bill 40 speaks to.
The Thunder Bay and District Labour Council will try to give the members of the committee as balanced a view as possible as to what we support in the amendments, why we support it and where in our opinion the proposals are either incomplete or as yet inadequate.
Many business executives are complaining that the proposed changes are too radical, go too far, disrupt the status quo. The fact is, though, that they only appear to be radical. This reflects how badly out of date the law is. When we analyse these proposed changes, we see that they are in fact remarkably moderate.
The purpose of the labour law is to set rules. Management and labour have been living together in the workplace at least since the Industrial Revolution. Before the introduction of labour laws, industrial relations were chaotic. It was a system based on anarchy.
Without a set of rules to go by, any confrontations were decided on the basis of strength. Sometimes the workers would win and expand their collective rights at work. Sometimes the employers would win and expand their rights of ownership at work. Either way, it soon became apparent that the energy spent on confrontation was not being spent on the production of goods and paycheques.
Laws were passed to regulate the rights and the responsibilities of employers and the rights and responsibilities of workers. Confrontations still occurred, but they were regulated confrontations.
One of the basic principles on which the rules are based is that individuals have the right to make choices. Workers can choose to join and be represented by a union.
This morning at 9 o'clock, on the newscast of a local radio station, the news media did a survey. The question posed to the public this morning was, should people be allowed to unionize? The response was 66% in favour; yes, they should be allowed to unionize.
This is the type of freedom upon which our society is based and for which members of our society have fought and died: the right of individuals to freely choose for themselves how they will act; the right of individuals to gather together and act as a group to collectively improve the conditions of each individual.
In theory, the current Labour Relations Act recognizes the right of workers to participate in collective bargaining. In reality, these are just words on paper. In practice, the current act is one of the most restrictive in Canada. Many individuals cannot even choose to participate. The decision is made for them by the current act. They can't.
Changing this is a matter of simple justice. Basic democratic rights that are available to most workers should not be denied to any workers. Part-time workers now make up a significant part of the workforce. Yet current Ontario Labour Relations Board laws deny them the right to choose a union. When they are certified, they become the object of intensive and expensive arguments about the bargaining unit to which they are allowed to belong.
The right to organize into the union of one's choice is a basic freedom. Freedom of choice does not end there. Once workers have been given the freedom to make one choice, others become available. They can choose the level of their wages. They can choose the conditions of their work. They can choose to become full partners in society.
Ninety-five per cent of all collective agreements in Ontario are settled peacefully. There is no strike. The union and management, working together, come to mutually agreeable terms. Only 5% of collective agreement negotiations end in a strike. In most of these cases, replacement workers are not hired. If the employer feels the need to continue production, he does so on a limited basis, using supervisory employees. The proposed amendments to the act will allow them to continue doing this.
The only employers that will be affected by the proposed changes are the very small minority who make a deliberate decision to be confrontational. The trouble that is caused by this small group of employers, however, is far out of proportion to their numbers. Disputes in which replacement workers are hired tend to be the most prolonged, the most visible and the most disruptive to affected communities.
Statistics show that replacement workers are most likely to be used in circumstances involving relatively unskilled and economically insecure workers. They are often women, visible minorities and other disadvantaged workers. They are often newly organized and trying to secure their first contract.
Legislation similar to this has had a positive effect in Quebec since it was passed in 1978. The Ministry of Labour reports from that province indicate a substantial decline in the number, length and hostility of labour disputes.
It is against the law for an employer to fire a worker because of participation in a union organizing campaign. Many employers do it anyway.
I'd like to introduce you to Rob Caron, who has some personal experiences in an organizing drive.
Mr Rob Caron: Last winter I looked into organizing a workplace. It was a commercial cleaner. I found that because of loopholes in the system, unionizing, even after discounting the hassles of getting people together to sign cards, those loopholes in the system made a union powerless.
On February 19, I was told by my supervisor that the client contracted to the company I was working for said that if union talk continued, the contract would be cancelled. My supervisor was told to fire all the people who were talking about unionizing. He managed to stall them for a couple of days. Two days later, on February 21, I received notice of layoff. Also, the day before I was laid off, I was talking to my supervisor and he told me of another contract that was terminated under the same circumstances. It was a commercial cleaning firm that was dismissed because of union talk.
Employers in this sector don't have to be fair. There are enough people out there who realize that sometimes this is the only work they're going to get, and many are resigned to that fact. Therefore, there's a very high turnover in this service sector.
I will give the floor back to Mr Hutsul.
Mr Hutsul: They know it takes an average of six months before an illegally discharged employee is reinstated by the labour board. In that time, the rest of the workforce will have been intimidated. The organizing drive will have been seriously damaged.
This time delay gives unscrupulous employers an opportunity to interfere with their employees' legal right to freely choose a union. When workers see their friends penalized without effective recourse, they are less likely to support an organizing campaign.
The proposed changes to the act will require the labour board to start hearing these unfair dismissal charges within a week or two and schedule hearings on consecutive days until completion. The decision would have to be issued promptly.
Employers may not use coercion, intimidation or undue influence to interfere with the employees' right to organize, nor, obviously, should they be able to take reprisals against those who exercise their own right.
Ladies and gentleman, let me tell you about two women who recently discussed the feasibility, the possibility, of getting a union in their workplace, during their lunch hour. The following day they were both fired. Fortunately, one of those women remortgaged her home, went to banks and other financial institutions so she could at least start up a small business of her own. Not all the fired workers who try to organize are so fortunate.
Union members contribute to society. They do not take; they give. They are the silent, unseen volunteers who make our communities healthier and happier place for ourselves and our families.
1340
Throughout this debate on changes to the labour laws, we should keep our focus on one central fact. Unions are not a social luxury. They can't be made available to people in times of economic prosperity and taken away during recessions. They are a social necessity. They are an essential piece of our community fabric. In good times and in bad times, they provide a service to all society.
In my presentation, if you look at the pink document in the back of it, there is an article that was published by the local press on Labour Day. I'll read part of it:
"It would be nice to say that labour organizations are no longer necessary because of the benevolence of various business owners and government. That is not the case. We all live a little bit better because of the labour movement. We salute the labour movement on a day and we say thank you for all they've done."
If you notice the little square box -- it's in black print, bold -- it says, "We owe much to the labour movement for the lifestyle we now enjoy today."
I must remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that this newspaper is also a member of our local chamber of commerce.
Improving collective bargaining and reducing industrial conflict: The use of scabs or replacement workers: This is the most controversial section of the proposed amendments. The use of scabs and possible prohibitions against the practice have been the subject of considerable debate since the introduction of anti-scab legislation in Quebec. Now the government's proposals move significantly in the direction of the Quebec legislation.
Such restrictions will only apply during a lawful strike or lockout. This must be authorized by a strike vote in which "at least 60% of those voting authorized the strike."
The passing of these amendments should eliminate the emotionally charged and hostile picket line confrontations of the past. Again, I'd like to refer you to the back of my presentation, the papers in blue and goldenrod, where this Thunder Bay and District Labour Council, along with various other unions, has for years requested anti-scab legislation, not only to the present government but the governments prior to it. Basically, for over 40 years we've been asking for these changes and we have yet to see them.
From the last document of my exhibit, even though it happened in the United States, you can see where the contractors hired non-union personnel. You can see the damage that was created: $1.3 million in damage. Ladies and gentlemen, that could very easily happen in this country. It has happened in other provinces. That's one reason we want anti-scab legislation.
Regrettably, a significant change between the Ministry of Labour's discussion paper of November 1991 and Bill 40 is that non-bargaining unit employees who normally work at a struck location will be able to perform the work of striking employees. This represents a retreat from the position advocated in the MOL's discussion paper and a setback for those of us struggling to maintain and improve the living standards of working people. Admittedly, these employees have the right to refuse such work, but even here the employer is not required to advise such employees of their rights.
In closing, I also want to bring to the attention of the members here today that recently on a local one-hour talk show, we had Mr Signoretti, executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, in a debate with a Mr Pat Gamble, who belongs to the coalition of construction associations. It's televised for one hour and viewed by thousands of people locally. At one point in time, when Mr Pat Gamble was asked, "Do you not think that labour should get some of these changes?" he sat back, looked right into the TV camera and said, "Well, I guess it is labour's turn."
The Chair: I want to remind people that there's simultaneous translation available to people. The devices are at the back of the room along with headsets, and people are invited to take advantage of those if they wish.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Don, I want to begin my question by saying that in our minds this is not a debate about the right to unionize. Surely that is a given, it has been a given for some time, and I'm actually a little bit surprised that a survey would show only 66% of the people in support of and recognizing that that right exists and should exist.
The concerns we're raising are specifically about the proposed changes in this legislation, so I'd like to focus on those and, again, take the right to unionize and the strengths of the labour union movement as a given.
Don, one of the concerns that I have, particularly in this location, is looking at our unemployment figures having gone up a full 1% in the previous month when the rest of the province is holding. I know that's a concern you share and the labour council shares: the unemployment level in this city.
If this legislation, in fact, had an impact causing more people to be out of work, would that not be a concern for the labour council?
Mr Hutsul: One of our present concerns, I guess, if I can direct the question more or less along the line of the Economic Development Corp, which has a mandate basically to acquire business from Hong Kong. I've seen three businesses from Hong Kong set up here. I've seen those three businesses also disappear, move on to another province. I guess once they suck this province dry of funding, provincially and probably federally, they go to another province and pursue the same avenue. This is probably one of the reasons why we have a 1% increase in unemployment locally.
Mrs McLeod: Again coming back to this legislation particularly, one of the concerns we keep raising is, what effect will it have on jobs across the province? That has to be a concern for all of us. I wonder whether or not the government has provided any evidence in your mind that this will not cause a job loss.
A number of studies have been done that suggest the legislation could cause significant loss of jobs across the province. I know the government does not believe that to be the case, but do you feel there has been evidence given that it will not cause that job loss, and do you know of a reason why those kinds of studies would not have been done so that perhaps some of the potential loss of jobs could be offset?
Mr Hutsul: I don't know why studies would not be done, but if we look locally, we do have a major employer who pays very comparable wages and benefits to the employees. They are non-unionized. That place has not closed up. That place will not close up. They will stay. The employees there are quite happy with the wages and benefits they get. Therefore there's no reason for them to unionize.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'll continue. Thank you for your presentation. I would like to talk about a particular aspect of the presentation found on page 3. You say on page 3, "Basic democratic rights that are available to most workers should not be denied to any workers." I think we would all agree with that. Then you go on to say that "Part-time workers now make up a significant part of the workforce." I think we would all agree with that.
I'd like to get your comments on this. Under the legislation dealing with the issue of part-time and full-time workers who are in separate units, if there is a situation in which, for instance, there are 100 workers of whom 55 are full-time and 45 are part-time and there is a vote, and all of the full-time say yes, we want to be combined with the part-time, and none of the part-time wish to be combined with the full-time, then under the legislation those men and women who form the part-time unit and do not wish to be combined with the full-time unit, are combined.
I would like to get your thought as to whether that is, in your opinion, continuing or taking away from the basic democratic right that all workers should have, which I agree with.
Mr Hutsul: I guess a basic democratic right is a privilege to have in this country. If we look at the freedom of choice to vote your opposition or a concurrence to any item of concern, I guess I'd like to make reference to our House of Commons where I suppose everybody has a choice to make there if you have a free vote. I haven't seen it happen there yet, and it's classified as a democratic right.
1350
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Jackson, if you want to leave Mr Tilson some time, please feel free.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Mr Tilson will start.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Just listening to your comments on replacement workers and your comments throughout your paper, specifically page 4, I believe, suggests that the banning of replacement workers during a strike would help to make labour relations less confrontational. Isn't the whole concept of a strike confrontational? When you have a strike, that's confrontational.
Mr Hutsul: It's a civilized form of confrontation.
Mr Tilson: Are you serious?
Mr Hutsul: I suppose if you hire replacement workers to run trucks through the picket line with total disregard for human life and limb, you are going to have confrontation instigated, naturally, by replacement workers. We've seen it across Canada; we've seen it in this province.
Mr Tilson: What I'm looking at is the whole concept of fairness, of whether one side is right and one side is wrong. Generally both sides are right and both sides are wrong in many of the situations.
If there is a strike, depending on the type of industry, the purpose of the strike, of course, is to inflict some sort of economic harm on that specific industry. In many cases, in many industries, if those industries can't continue they'll have to close down. In many of those industries they'll never survive, they'll never get back on their feet again, depending on how long the strike is, unless there's a complete capitulation to the union's demands.
Your comments -- and the Premier has made similar comments -- are that the purpose of this provision to ban replacement workers is to make the whole system less confrontational. I suggest to you that the whole system is in an adversarial position, it's a very fine balance, and the union and the business must work together to make the whole system work or we won't have any jobs. If you put too much of a balance in favour of the business or if you put too much of a balance in favour of the union, the whole system will collapse. The allegation that's been made is that the balance has been tipped too much in favour of the union. Many businesses that have come to this committee have simply said they won't be able to survive. The newspaper business is a typical example; they'll just have to close down. Either they'll have to close down or there'll have to be a complete capitulation.
I'd like you to comment on that system. How are we going to make a fair system where there's an equal balance between the two groups when you have an amendment such as this?
Mr Hutsul: In any strike or lockout, both sides in that dispute stand to lose. The worker stands to lose; to some degree, the employer stands to lose. Employers are dictated to by a board of directors; in some cases a smaller company by the president, local or owner.
When the workers feel the pinch, they re-evaluate the last proposals, a vote is taken and they go back to work. We didn't succeed this time. Hopefully, at the next contract proposals we will bring forward some of these existing proposals we couldn't get this time. Hopefully, next time we can get it.
On the other end of the spectrum, when an employer locks out his employees, you can bet your boots that he's going to keep them out as long as he can, whether it's six months, seven months or eight months, especially if there's a downsizing in the economy, the sales have gone and there's nobody to buy his product. I've seen it happen. We've all seen it happen in this province, in northwestern Ontario, where the employer has locked out the employees for over six months.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Thank you for your presentation. I want to touch a bit on the issue of balance and fairness in following up on Mr Tilson's question. I think it's fair to say that opponents of this legislation have said from the outset that any changes to the Labour Relations Act and any modernization to the act is going to shift a very delicate balance, in an act they consider to be balanced now between workers and employers. As far as the government is concerned, I think we are changing the act here in terms of 15 years of it not being changed, changes that are necessary for a changing workforce and workplace and a sincere attempt to reduce picket line violence and confrontation.
Still, there are the allegations from people who oppose changes to this act that it'll do a number of things, all of them negative. It will discourage investment, even though there are countries in this world that have very strong union participation, very strong labour participation, and they're enjoying some of the best economic times they've ever experienced. There's also the allegation, and it's a continuous one, that this will shift the balance. There is a balanced system now. It's not broke; don't fix it.
I guess what I'd like from you is your view of the act. Do you feel that the act is currently a balance between workers and employers?
Mr Hutsul: Even with the introduction of some of this legislation, there is no balance of power to the organized or labour. There never has been a balance of power to the workers of Ontario. We don't expect, nor do we want, the balance of power in this province. It would be asinine to think we want that power.
Mr Huget: Is the current act unfair, in your view, and if it is, what parts of the act are unfair?
Mr Hutsul: Basically the current act needs updating. Historically we've requested updating for a number of years and gotten very little. I guess maybe Glen Chochia could expand on some of the parts of the act.
Mr Glen Chochia: Yes. If I might just refer back to one of the questions that came from the right side of the room earlier, one part of the act that needs to be looked at and was looked at is full-time and part-time bargaining units. It's really some kind of a historical fragment from almost antiquity that we have this notion that there's some kind of a distinction in interests between full-time and part-time workers. The reality is that full-time and part-time workers have a lot in common, and if there's a vote and they decide that they want to have one bargaining unit, they should have that right.
The premise that underlaid the question earlier was that full-time workers will all vote or may all vote in favour of amalgamating bargaining units and part-time workers will not. That's a hypothetical, really, that has no basis in truth. The reality is that most full-time will vote in favour and most part-time will vote in favour. Some will, some won't, and it'll be a mixture. That's one area where working people I think can expect some good changes. The distinction between full- and part-time workers is one area where there's going to be a lot of improvement.
Another area, first-contract situations: One of the things working people can look forward to, if they decide to unionize, is in first-contract situations not having to go through prolonged labour stoppages, labour disputes. There's going to be an automatic right to first-contract arbitration if you've been in a legal lockout or a legal strike situation for 30 days. Either the employer or the workers in the union can request that. That just adds an air of civility to what really in the past has been -- we've seen some very, very bitter disputes in first-contract situations that quite frankly scare the hell out of working people when they sit down and even begin to think about forming a union.
The whole thrust of this has to be freedom of choice. If you want a union, great; form a union and have the freedom and make it voluntary. But the way it is right now, it's terrifying, especially in these economic times, to even think about joining a union.
The Chair: Thank you, and thank you to Glen Chochia, Don Hutsul, Rob Caron and Mike Poleck for being here and speaking on behalf of the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council. We appreciate your taking the time out of your schedules to participate in this process. You've made a valuable contribution. I trust you'll be keeping in touch. Take care.
1400
THUNDER BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, if the people appearing on behalf of that organization would come forward, seat themselves, tell us what their names are and their titles, if any, proceed with their submissions and try to save the last 15 minutes of their half-hour for exchanges. Go ahead, please.
Mr Jack Mallon: Good afternoon. I'd like to introduce our volunteer team from the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, and I want to welcome all you people to Thunder Bay. It's always good to see visitors. I have with me Garth O'Neill, Kim Randell, John Erickson, Lorne Fuman and our executive director, Rebecca Johnson. John, who is a fellow director of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, will be spearheading this presentation, of which I think you have copies in front of you.
I want to say a few things. We have, as small business in the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, 900 business members. We're very proud of that. We find that 80% of our members have less than 10 employees, and therefore they're looking with a whole lot of curiosity as to what the impact of this is. I think that's one of the biggest challenges we have, the unknown of this labour reform.
I think that if labour reform -- I'm talking personally now -- has not been looked at for 15 years, that's a shame. I think it's one of those kinds of things that have to be ongoing, but unfortunately it seems to be coming quite quickly, and that has got to be a concern.
I'll pass it over to John Erickson, who will give our presentation.
Mr John Erickson: About eight months ago we were here in this same hotel when the Minister of Labour came to Thunder Bay and made his announcement about the bill that was going to be proposed in the Ontario Legislature. As you recall, what he said that bill would do would be to create or bring in a new era of harmony and cooperation between labour and management.
The minister was kind enough to meet with us at that time; I believe it was on January 6. We were the first business presentation during his consultation process. He made certain assurances to us that anything we wished to say which was meaningful, he would listen to, and that he'd be back to us in due course.
Unfortunately, when we look at what has happened since then, one or two things have become very apparent. Rather than a new era of harmony and cooperation between the partners who are directly affected by this legislation, we have, in our respectful opinion, a confrontation in this province between business and the government at the very time when the economy of the province is in need of a rescue mission.
What about the promise the minister made to us that the government would listen carefully to our proposals?
Within a matter of weeks following our presentation in January, information started to appear in the press from the minister and other ministers of the crown. You've heard them all. Businesses which dared to oppose the amendments to the legislation were scaremongers. Businesses which dared to express their views with respect to how this legislation would affect them were accused of using scare tactics. In the local media, Mr Hutsul and others accused us of passing around misinformation with respect to the effect we saw from this legislation.
In our view, the chamber of commerce has always been consistent in its position with respect to the proposed amendments. In order to understand our position, you have to start with some of the comments Jack made with respect to the typical chamber member.
Nearly 80% of our members are owner-managers of a business which employs 10 people or less. We're the very businesses Mr Jackson was talking about. The vast majority of our members are in the retail and service sector. They are non-union and have invested their life savings in their businesses. Most of our members feel that they already are overregulated by various government programs such as the health tax, pay equity, proposed employment equity legislation, workers' compensation, employment standards and so on.
Superimposed on all of this is the economic reality of Ontario today. The economy is clearly in recession. Thunder Bay is in effect a border town and our retail and service sector is being buffeted by the effects of out-shopping. Those in the retail and service sector have found that credit availability has deteriorated by virtue of bank policies -- their lines of credit are being pinched back -- and we find that the profit margins of our members in the retail and service sector have all but disappeared.
In our view, this whole issue boils down to business confidence. We know what that means in business. Does the retail and service sector have enough confidence in the economy in Ontario today to spend that extra dollar to buy new equipment, to create new jobs? These are the people who run small business. These are the people who can help get the economy going.
In our submission to Minister Mackenzie in January of this year, we made the following points which we continue to believe are valid:
Most importantly -- we want to underline this -- we said that it was not inappropriate for the minister to spearhead reform to the Labour Relations Act. We have never said otherwise. Anyone who has had the opportunity to be part of the collective bargaining process, especially in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, would support that. We could speak for hours on the need for reform in that area. We did say, however, that it was the wrong policy at the wrong time, given the current economic recession in Ontario.
We told the minister, and we continue to tell the government, that as far as our member business people are concerned, the issue is an issue of business confidence. In that regard, we told the minister, and we tell you here today, that harmony and trust are issues that are earned through mutual understanding and you cannot by fiat dictate them to the business community.
The policy of this government has been seen and continues to be seen by our members as intrusive in terms of management decisions. It was our considered opinion at that time that because of the lack of confidence our members had in this type of legislation, they would be affected in their business decisions. We said then and we say today that any legislation which may have an economic impact on the bottom line should at least have an economic impact study from the government before it proposes to move forward.
Most importantly, we said that there should be more time available to us to move forward together and have a real consultation process, where business would have some real input.
We continue today to be concerned about the tinkering with what we describe as the power relationship between labour and management, because, respectfully, in our view this legislation is aimed clearly at the retail and service sector which comprises nearly 80% of our membership. We are concerned that this legislation erodes the rights of workers. It certainly erodes proprietary interests of third-party property owners. We are concerned that the minister's legislation creates an economic mismatch in terms of the effect that replacement worker provisions would have with respect to our small business members.
We have surveyed our members extensively and they have told us the following:
When they were asked what effect Bill 40 would have on their future investment plans, a number of responses came forward. I'll read some of them to you. We sent out a general mailing to our membership approximately one week ago. Fairly, I can tell you some people said there would be no impact and some said they didn't know anything about the legislation, but here's what most of them said. For example:
"Our investment in this environment will become more risky, and thus less economically favourable. We will reduce our investments." Another said, "We will immediately halt our expansion plans." Another said: "Future viability is our concern. Again, in any situation where labour can shut your business down with absolutely no fear of losing their jobs, business will be reluctant to invest." Another said he or she would not expand, only to be held hostage. Another said, "We will take our investments out of the province or country."
Our members, ladies and gentlemen, do not understand why their employees should not be entitled to a secret ballot prior to certification in all situations. Our members do not understand why there cannot continue to be a right to petition during the organizing period or at least a so-called cooling-off period. Our members do not understand why certification is being made easier by a reduction in the percentages necessary to hold a vote. They do not understand why first-contract negotiations will, in all likelihood, end up with recourse to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. They are of the view -- and I underline this -- that they will be literally forced to dance to the union's tune during contract negotiations or be forced to close during a strike.
1410
This issue, for the small business man, is economic survival. The small businessman and businesswoman cannot afford to close down for any extended length of time. They're very concerned about that issue. They do not understand why organizing and picketing will now be allowed in malls and shopping centres, due to the mischief which they feel this will create.
When you cut through all this, it gets down to an issue of perception. We could stay here and debate the particular parts of Bill 40 ad nauseam. If business perceives that the bill is wrong, then it's bad legislation as far as business is concerned. What they would like to have is a consultation process where they can be made to feel comfortable with the amendments as they come forward from government.
Our concerns are that our chamber members will not invest their dollars in this community, which means they won't create the jobs that are necessary in the city of Thunder Bay. At a time when government and business should work together, this government, respectfully, appears to have alienated business. Rather than the era of goodwill and harmony, we now have a confrontation between government and business that we haven't seen for years in the province of Ontario.
It's fair to ask what should be done. We say the bill should be pulled back for better consultation and input from business. We have never said it is not appropriate for the government to propose reform. We say there should be a truly meaningful process that deals with the important issues between labour and business. We are absolutely convinced that this province cannot go forward without partnership between management and labour. We have to find a way to do it.
We say to this government, please stop tinkering with economic power positions and playing social engineer. Please listen to the voice of business, which really wants to be a partner in a truly meaningful way.
Mr Jackson: Thank you for the presentation from your group. I come from Hamilton; it's a labour town. If Stelco goes on strike, Stelco can stockpile a whole lot of steel and move it to an outside location, and all the workers are happy because they get tons of overtime up to and including that time when they go on strike. But it strikes me that there are certain commodities that this is not good for. We've heard from the newspaper industry that news is instantaneous and it's stale; you can't stockpile news, and there are certain foods.
The last time I was in Thunder Bay -- or my second previous time -- there was a strike on with the grain handlers. Have you had any analysis of how this legislation would overlay the economic activities of this community to determine just exactly how the changes in this legislation might, for example, hold up the grain elevators, hold up any number of activities where the commodity is not stockpiled but in fact has broader implications because work has to stop for a whole lot of people when one small group decides work should stop?
Mr Erickson: I can tell you, Mr Jackson, we don't have any analysis and one of the difficulties in dealing with that issue is that we have federal jurisdiction on the waterfront with respect to grain workers. However, if I can use the word "analysis," certainly our members -- and that's who we listen to -- are of the view that if they are incapable of employing replacement workers, the economic downside to that position for them may be terminal. That has been said to us over and over again. I think it's fairly easy to flesh out the situation where the bargaining committee for the union and the employer are sitting at the table. The employer absolutely knows there's virtually no way he can take a strike.
Mr Jackson: Very quickly, because Mr Tilson has a question, don't you think it's a rather naïve view to expect -- in principle any government listens, but in specifics -- that this government will listen to the concerns of business when in fact we know there has been some tradeoff with the Sunday shopping legislation, which I was in town for last doing public hearings. I know there's considerable support.
The betrayal of retail workers represents a plus to a large number of people in the business sector, but it represents a negative to a lot of retail workers. My family's all in retail, so I know how strongly they'll feel about it: that it is a rather overt betrayal of retail workers and this legislation will somehow undo that damage and it's an unstoppable event.
Mr Erickson: We don't come here with any strong, positive view that we're going to make a difference to what this government wants to do. I can tell you that candidly.
Mr Tilson: Your comment about the lack of studies by the government -- when this bill was introduced there were actually members on the government side who were weeping, they were so enthralled with this legislation, because there's no question this is one of the biggest pieces of legislation being put forward by this government.
When I listen to the remarks you've made about your members as to what's going to happen to them or what they feel is going to happen to them, when you hear the statistics of at least one study that's been done by Ernst and Young that talks about $8 million in lack of investment, I believe -- sorry, $8 billion, almost $9 billion in lack of investment and almost 300,000 lost jobs -- in your discussions with the government representatives, do you believe the changes are really trying to solve a problem, or is it more political? Is it trying to appease the union leaders as opposed to assisting the general worker?
Mr Erickson: I can answer that in this way: We don't understand, quite frankly, why the government refused to conduct its own economic impact studies. We would have thought that would have been an initial first step, and a welcome one from business, so that the case can be made.
Our members, in the initial return from our mailout that went out last week, are talking about delaying hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of investment. It's not so much the fact that everything's wrong with the proposed amendments. As I said earlier, there's a perception out there that these are going to be damaging to investment and to the business community. Once that perception takes hold, it's just like politics. Those kinds of perceptions affect investment decisions. That's well under way and regrettably I'm not sure it can be turned around right now.
That's why we say move the bill back a bit, let's have a better consultation process. If there are things that are good about it, business ought to say so, but in the climate that's been created by this government, this confrontational climate, we feel the ultimate effect is going to be negative for the economy of Ontario.
1420
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I just want to take this opportunity first to clear up two pieces of misinformation. In the first one the newspaper article that I believe came out Saturday states that automatic certification is guaranteed without a vote if the union obtains membership cards from 50% plus one of the employee group. In fact that's not correct. Even though many trade unions have told us they weren't happy, that has remained at 55%, and of course that's at the request of the business community.
The second piece of misinformation that I want to clear up is that on page 6 of the document the chamber stated in its brief that it doesn't understand why organizing will now be allowed on third-party property. In fact even though some of the trade unions were most upset that this provision was not changed, at the request of the business community during the consultation period we decided that we would not permit organizing on third-party property. So the information we heard here today is simply not correct.
I want to ask the question, first of all, how many surveys were sent out by the chamber and how many responses it received back, and perhaps it could leave with the committee a little more information than what has been tabled to date. Because if we're going to try to put this in perspective, and you look at the 200,000-plus employers across the province of Ontario, what we did as a government was we went out and we talked to the 94 who had work stoppages during the entire year of 1991 and out of that 94, 19 said they would be affected in some way if they had to operate at that time under this proposed legislation. Out of that 19, only five used replacement workers.
So I think it's important that we not only hear that there are some people who aren't happy here in Thunder Bay, and some people in the business community aren't happy with what's being proposed, but I think it's important that we hear the number of respondents to the survey and we get an actual copy of the survey so we have firsthand knowledge of what was asked and not only who was asked.
Mr Erickson: Sir, I'm not sure where the misinformation came about 50% plus one, because I wasn't part of that and I'm not sure what you're referring to. The one thing I can tell you is that we didn't come here today to give you a statistical buzz. We came here to tell you what we earnestly feel our members say. The facts are, sir, that our members are afraid of this legislation. If your government would do something about that, you might get a much different response from us. Those are the facts.
Mr Ferguson: I take exception to the suggestion that we're not talking. In fact, we have made significant changes from the consultation document to now. We've backed off on 10 key areas. When you look at the number of people we have consulted with and talked to and obviously listened to over the last number of months on this proposed piece of legislation, we have consulted with more people on this proposed piece of legislation than many other governments have on their entire legislative bill.
We have heard from over 350 groups, 447 submissions. I think it's important, though, that we do know how many people responded to your survey. I mean, you are sitting here saying you're representing your particular community and I'd be vitally interested to know what was asked, how many people responded. I think that kind of information is important before we make a final determination on the bill.
Mr Erickson: Absolutely. The one thing we will assure each and every one of the members of the committee of is that once we put the final tabulation together -- the results are still coming in -- we'd be happy to make it available to each one of you. Absolutely. The only reason we did it was to try to gain some impression from our members as to the kinds of things that concern them.
Again, I wish to underline something: We don't necessarily say that all those members' concerns are entirely valid. These are feelings businessmen have. Please let me get back to that point. These feelings affect business investment decisions. We think there's a way to put reform forward under the Labour Relations Act; we just don't think it's been done correctly to this point. We would be happy to be involved in that process.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on to Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: I would just like to make a further local comment on the question Mr Jackson raised before deferring to a question from my colleague. Mr Jackson, in asking about the local impact of the legislation, raised grain handling, but one of our major employers here is the pulp and paper industry. We'll be hearing from them later in the afternoon.
I think it's a reality people know. The pulp and paper industry is unionized on the surface of it. This legislation might not seem to have a direct impact on them, but I think everybody knows that the pulp and paper industries in this community and elsewhere in the north are literally hanging on a thread and a hope and a prayer that the economy is going to start to improve.
If this legislation has the effect on retail and tourism sectors that the chamber has described, the domino effect on the pulp and paper industry would be absolutely devastating, and that has to be a concern for this community. It's that domino effect that's one of the aspects of concern we're trying to draw out in these hearings.
Thanks, Mr Chairman. I'll defer to my colleague.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I noted in the first part of your presentation that you're concerned about being branded as scaremongers or as using scare tactics because you had some concerns with the legislation. I think you should be aware that as we're now starting our third week of hearings, we have heard concerns about the legislation not just from the so-called business community but indeed from groups and associations such as the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, school boards, municipalities and municipal hydro services. The concerns that we are hearing on different aspects of the legislation are not just from the business community but from a broad variety of people who are very concerned.
My question deals with that part of your submission that talks about the private property. It's important to indicate that I noted Mr Ferguson's comment that it doesn't apply to organizing; I disagree with that. There is no question that subsection 11.1(2) of the legislation clearly indicates that there is a right of access with respect to organization, and subsection 11.1(3) talks about a right of access with respect to picketing, so it does have the impact that was indicated. I think he was referring to a newspaper article.
We have asked questions on what is, for want of better words, picketing on private property; this does not apply just to the malls. That's what the press releases want one to believe, but it has a much broader application. For instance, large department stores nowadays license out aspects of the department store either to a cafeteria, to a travel agency, to a photo operation, to hair salons; I think we all know what we're talking about. The wording of this legislation would allow picketing and organizing within the department store in front of a cafeteria if that were the subject of the organizing drive.
As you've brought out the aspect of small business and business, what is the impact that this would have in terms of the retail sector?
Mr Erickson: Perhaps I can respond to one or two things you said, Mr Offer. I suppose there may be a valid difference of opinion between Mr Ferguson and me, but I'm reading the draft bill that I have, and it says, "Employees and representatives of a trade union have the right to be present on premises described in subsection (1)." That refers to premises where the public normally has access. If I'm incorrect in that, I apologize. If you have a different interpretation, you're one of the first people I've met that does.
In any event, Mr Offer, we can only go on the feelings our particular members have. They are concerned that within the example you used, an apartment building within a shopping mall, or perhaps some other type of building we haven't directed our attention to, that two things will happen. First, innocent businesses which may be part of that mall, which may be part of that apartment building, will be affected. The element of mischief which can be created by allowing picketing at entrances and exits, in our view, is something that has to be carefully looked at.
Again, their impressions are that with the replacement worker provisions and the right to go on to what used to be third-party private property, the effect will be to shut them down. That's how they see it, purely and simply. They don't feel they have the economic clout of Canadian Pacific to stockpile their type of services or the goods they produce. They survive from day to day. Every day they lose with respect to revenues that go into their coffers to help them employ people and to provide the service that they do provide to the community is something they can't recover from. They don't have shareholders out there infusing capital. Their life savings are in these particular businesses and they see this as something that has loaded the economic gun in favour of unions, totally and simply.
The Chair: Thank you to the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce for coming here this afternoon and presenting its views. We appreciate your interest and trust you'll be keeping in touch with members of the committee or other members of the Legislative Assembly.
1430
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LAKEHEAD AND DISTRICT COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Lakehead area office. Please come forward, seat yourselves and tell us your names and titles. Then we can proceed with your submission.
Mr Barry Chezick: My name is Barry Chezick. I'm the president of the Lakehead and District Council.
Mr Howard Matthews: My name is Howard Matthews. I'm a national representative of CUPE. I think you've all been provided with a copy of our brief, which we're going to go through. On the bottom right-hand side of the front page you'll see our names. Mr Tupker is president of the largest CUPE local in this region, the city of Thunder Bay employees, mainly. Mr Chezick is president of the Lakehead and District Council of CUPE, and as I said, I'm a national representative.
We wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to address this important legislative bill. We're here representing the 4,000 CUPE members in northwestern Ontario. The Lakehead and District Council is a subdivision of the Ontario division of CUPE, which has 165,000 members, and that in turn is a division of CUPE national, which has over 400,000 members.
We have a few global comments we wish to make to the committee and then we have some examples from our area regarding why these changes are necessary and in some instances, in our submission, don't go far enough.
The union's place in a democratic society, which is essentially what we're talking about here: Anyone who truly believes in democracy understands both the right of unions to exist and the need for unions, especially in a modern, industrial society. This statement seems almost trite today. However, it's only half a century ago that these principles were embodied in the laws of the province, in the Labour Relations Act.
These democratic principles gained acceptance only after more than a century of struggle and sacrifice by working people in this country and around the world. They evolved out of a recognition that an individual worker is no match for wealthy capitalists or large corporations. Labour relations laws brought an end to the unacceptable exploitation of workers. They're a fundamental cornerstone of the social contract in Canada, as well as any other democratic country in the world.
If you look at the social contract that makes all of the different groups in a society willing and accepting participants in that society -- that's the way we view a social contract -- that's what we're really talking about when we talk about the Labour Relations Act.
The existing Labour Relations Act states the following: "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...." That's from the preamble of the act.
It's the basic right of every employee in Canada, and in any free democratic society in the western world, to belong to a union and participate in collective bargaining. Nowhere in the Labour Relations Act does it state:
"Of course the employer shall have the right to use every means at his disposal, both legal and illegal, to prevent employees from exercising their right to belong to a union. This shall include threats to move to Mexico, to shut down the plant, firing union activists, fragmenting the membership by keeping part-time and full-time in separate bargaining units, forcing an unwanted strike and then using scabs in order to bust the union," -- and we've seen examples of that -- "contracting out work for the purpose of undermining the union or simply organizing their operations in such a way as to make union organizing impossible."
That's a phenomenon that has occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s and is really one of the key things that gives rise to the need for changes to the Labour Relations Act.
Again, the foregoing sounds trite, because anyone who claims to believe in democracy would not support any of these actions. It is here stated because these are exactly the kind of employer "rights" -- we say "rights" in quotation marks -- that the business lobby is aiming to protect with its vicious campaign to discredit this bill. The fundamental premise underlying the business campaign is that they do not accept the right of employees to be organized and to belong to a union. It's undemocratic in the extreme.
One of the complaints we've heard over and over is that this will make it easier for employees to be organized. Now, if you look at that statement, implicit in it is that in some places now it's harder for some employees to organize. What kinds of things make it harder? Those are the kinds of things we listed in our mock section that's not included in the act. If it is possible to make it easier for some employees to unionize, why shouldn't that be done if that's their democratic right?
Does anyone seriously believe that department store workers or bank workers or fast-food restaurant employees are not organized because they do not want to be organized? They're not organized because their employers have used every device, both legal and illegal, to deny them their democratic rights. These are the employers the business lobby seeks to protect.
Mr Erickson, whom I met for the first time last week and liked, quite frankly, suggested that a big part of the problem here is perceptions within his constituency, perceptions of businesses around the community. Who's responsible for those perceptions? Since the very first day that these labour law changes were discussed by an NDP government in this province there has been an absolutely vicious misinformation campaign carried on by a big business lobby in this province. What that lobby is aiming to protect, in our view, is the bad employers, not the good employers like the pulp and paper industries in northwestern Ontario.
Is the business lobby position in the interests of business, we ask? Unions have only had broad acceptance since the Second World War. Coincidentally, this period of time has been far and away the most productive period in our history. This is no accident. The fact that workers have had decent incomes has meant money to purchase goods and services. Decent incomes mean markets right here at home. Even Henry Ford understood the benefits of paying your workers enough so that they're able to afford to purchase the goods or services they produce. We wonder how many fast-food restaurant workers can afford to take their families to the restaurant they work at.
The primary industries in northwestern Ontario are heavily unionized. Business, and especially small business, has prospered here because of the fair wages that unions have negotiated for their members.
When we negotiate a wage increase for our membership, the direct result is an increase in business, and therefore profits for businesses in our community -- again, especially small businesses. When our members don't get a fair wage increase, the first place they cut back on spending is in optional purchases, the kind of spending cutback that hurts small business. Ironically, two of the sectors hardest hit are the fast-food and retail sectors, both of which are viciously opposing this legislation.
1440
Why does this occur? The ideal for each business in our economic structure is to have low costs and the highest prices possible. The more purchasing power there is in the community, in other words the better everybody else pays their employees, the better it will be for your business. Individual businesses can't control what everyone else is doing, however, so they end up focusing on what they themselves can control, which means costs. When every business, and the government for that matter, focuses on cost the result is less purchasing power. Less purchasing power means fewer sales for business and less revenue for government. This results in even more focus on costs, and the spiral is complete. This is exactly the kind of spiral that right-wing economics, the kind of economics preached by the same business lobby, have pushed us into at the present time. If purchasing power is insufficient, then productive capacity is underutilized. This is the scenario for recession-depression.
The whole focus of all the comments from the federal government for the last eight years, and the business community for that matter, has been exclusively on controlling costs. What's emerging, and the key cause of recessions or depressions, is a drain on purchasing power in the community. When there's not enough purchasing power to match productive capacity, then we end up with companies producing at 60% and 50% and downwards it goes, and the less production there is the more focus there is on costs. As we state here, the 1930s proved that this kind of economics doesn't work and that ultimately it is not in either business's or workers' interests. Unions didn't cause the Great Depression and were in fact a part of the cure for it.
Mr Erickson mentioned labour-management cooperation. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the business community about the need for labour-management cooperation and sometimes I don't think we can be blamed for being a bit sceptical about what the reasoning for that is, because business and management are always a lot more interested in cooperation when we're in a recession than they are when we're in boom times; and you have to pardon our scepticism. That's unfortunate. As a union, we believe that good labour-management cooperation throughout our industry and government enterprises, motivated for the right reasons, is a tremendous asset to the economy.
Unions, however, have every right to be suspicious of business's motivation in seeking cooperation when we look at the business lobby's vicious and vindictive reaction to this bill. Again, the fundamental premise of the business lobby's position is that it doesn't even accept the right of employees to have a union.
As experienced trade unionists, we know that the best managers not only accept the union but also believe in the need for unions. They understand the benefits for morale and therefore productivity when employees are represented by unions: problems are brought to the surface and dealt with rather than being left stewing under the surface. Again, if you cut underneath the rhetoric in the business lobby position, you'll see that it's premised on the belief that unions are bad for business, bad for a company, bad for an operation. That's a premise that hasn't been accepted for the last 50 years in our society and ought not to be accepted or even considered in deliberations on changes to this act.
It's only the bad managers who don't like unions. These are the ones who like to rule by fear and brand anyone who raises a problem as a troublemaker. They are quite simply incompetent dictators who do nothing but harm to production. We're not suggesting that everyone in the business community who opposes this bill is motivated in this way, but we do believe that the ones who don't like unions haven't been exposed to them and therefore don't understand them.
Again, public policy in every province in the country recognizes that it's in the public interest to further harmonious relations by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. Has the business lobby ever accepted these principles, even though they've been the law of the province for over 50 years? What has the business lobby ever done to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining? Their position on these whole labour law changes is equivalent to somebody coming before the pay equity consultations and questioning the right of women to vote. That's the underlying premise in some of the thinking that we've heard from the business community.
Collective bargaining is a responsible process 99.9% of the time. In our experience, it is more likely the employer's fault than the union's when it fails. This is an important principle for a lot of business people. There's some kind of perception of union people all having horns and being raving lunatics and their purpose for existing being to destroy business. The reality couldn't be further from that perception.
Employees, and therefore unions, want to see their employers succeed, just as much as the employer does. It's so obviously true that it shouldn't have to be stated. I'm a union representative in the public sector, but I know that my colleagues who represent workers in the private sector, whatever company their members are at, want to see that company do well.
As a negotiator, I go to the bargaining table and I don't want to see a bad balance sheet; I want to see a good balance sheet. That's the kind of thing that responsible trade unionists preach to their membership. This committee should challenge the business lobby to name one single business in this area, or anywhere else in the province for that matter, that has failed because of the union. Their objections are not premised on fact but on empty rhetoric and by playing on irrational, hypothetical fears.
The conduct of the business lobby has been unacceptable and irresponsible in a democratic society, and again this brings me back to Mr Erickson's point. I agree with him: There's absolute paranoia running among the small business community in this town and elsewhere in the province. Who's responsible for that? It's not me, it's not this committee and it's not the government. It's the people from Mr Erickson's own constituency.
This province has been heavily unionized since the Second World War. This has resulted in a high standard of living for both workers and businesses alike. It is one of the reasons that Ontario has been the most prosperous province. For the business lobby to now be spouting that this bill will destroy the economy and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs is an outright lie. I've seen nonsense predictions by some business groups of 500,000 jobs being destroyed if you pass this bill.
To propagate this lie for the narrow, self-defined interests of a few anti-union types of employers is outrageous. To expend millions of dollars for this purpose, to the point where the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling, is unacceptable conduct in a democratic society.
What is pathetic is that the business lobby would rather commit economic suicide for its constituency than accept a few reasonable changes put forward in this bill by -- horrors -- an NDP government. Every business person in this province ought to seriously question whether this lobby is acting responsibly on his or her behalf.
None of you should accept blame from Mr Erickson for the perceptions generated by the business lobby. I think it's been irresponsible, but he ought to be taking to task the people who are responsible for generating those perceptions.
Many of the business people whom we know in this community are thoughtful, fairminded, pragmatic and given to constructive and commonsense criticism, not empty ideological rhetoric and fearmongering. There has been no commonsense or constructive criticism from the business lobby.
Surely any thoughtful person has to accept that the labour relations climate has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Our Labour Relations Act is substantially behind the other provinces and behind the times.
The next section deals with women's rights and part-time work. I see Lyn McLeod is here. I want to make a point. There's been a lot of discussion on this issue, but this is fundamentally a rights issue for part-time employees. Many of the sections in this act deal with conveying rights to segments of our society.
We give you a copy of the press release and the recommendations, on the last pages of your document, of a royal commission that issued its report in 1985. If you look at appendix A, it's the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Part-time Work. This was a federal government royal commission that was constituted under a Liberal government in the early 1980s. They issued their report, and the report was issued during the tenure of Mulroney's first federal government.
The report is available from Labour Canada. It's a 216-page report, and I would urge the clerk of the committee to obtain a copy for every member of this committee, because it's worthwhile reading.
If you look at the highlights of the report, on the first page you'll see that men generally enter the part-time workforce at two stages in their lives: when they're still in school and just before retirement. Women, on the other hand, typically engage in part-time work during those periods as well as during the prime working age of their lives. In addition, at the bottom of that page, 72% of part-time workers are women. In contrast, only 35% of all full-time workers are women.
1450
Then if you look at the second-last page of the document, it says, "Summary of Major Recommendations" of that commission. Under the first recommendation, it says:
"Labour standards legislation, at both federal and provincial levels, should be amended to ensure that all part-time workers, whether regularly scheduled, seasonal or `on-call,' receive equal pay for work of equal value, are eligible for the same rights and protections as full-time workers, and are allowed to participate in pension and fringe benefit plans."
It recommends that, if you look at the whole report, on a prorated basis.
A lot of the, I guess, animosity in this debate has been almost reflex, that anything the NDP says should be rejected. One of the things the government is saying in this bill is exactly recommended by the results of a Liberal-appointed commission which gave its findings out in 1985, seven long years ago, that these changes ought to be done.
The last point I want to make on part-time work before I turn it over to my colleague is that this is the only jurisdiction in the country that allows the employer to determine that part-time workers -- it allows the union as well to determine it, but it allows the employer to dictate that they won't be allowed to be in the same union.
Fair employers don't do this, reasonable ones don't do it. The employers who do that do it because, one, they want to weaken the union and, two, they can get away with not paying fair wages and benefits to part-time workers. That kind of unfairness is what is being addressed in pay equity legislation and employment equity legislation, and it ought to be addressed in the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act. I'm going to pass it over to Brother Tupker.
Mr Jules Tupker: The certification process: If a group of non-unionized workers want to join a union of their choice, the current process makes it so difficult that thousands of workers remain victimized and live in fear of reprisals. There should be a process where the union can request an accurate, up-to-date list of employees' names and addresses. If the majority of those employees want to have a union, it should be their right. They should not have to live in fear of the employer finding out that they want a union.
To give you an example, a group of women workers in Fort Frances recently signed union cards. The wage increase they had been promised for 1991 all of a sudden was not available. Why? Because they signed union cards. Audrey was one of those who signed a card to belong to a union, but the employer has changed her job duties so as to make her exempt from the union under the present Ontario Labour Relations Act. She is now regarded as middle management. Why should middle management be exempt from joining a union of its choice?
This employer in Fort Frances had a current union agreement with another group of employees but refused to include these women in that contract, so now a first contract has to be negotiated, which could take up to a year, another year of living in fear.
We want to change the act so that if a union requests a recently unionized group to be included in a current collective agreement, the employer should not have the right to refuse that request.
Negotiating the first contract: We also want to change the act so that no employee suffers financial hardship during first-contract negotiations. Make it law that the negotiating committee is paid its wages.
Over time the needs of some unionized employees change, and an example is the health unit employees here in Thunder Bay. They want to form two separate bargaining locals. The employees involved agreed that this is in the best interests of the employees. The union involved agreed with separating this one bargaining group into two separate bargaining groups, but the employer has to agree to this change for it to happen under the current act. It may be 100 years from now before the health unit inspectors of Thunder Bay can have their needs addressed and have their own bargaining unit if the law is not changed.
The grievance arbitration process: In the grievance process we feel that if either party requests the assistance of a grievance settlement officer, the request should be granted. Some employers force all grievances to arbitration in the hope of financially breaking the union. The arbitration process is too expensive for small unions to use and waiting six months or longer for an arbitrator's award is unfair to all persons involved. We have waited that long for some arbitration responses. It's very frustrating to sit there and wait for those answers.
Use of replacements workers: Mr Chezick and I have worked full-time for the city of Thunder Bay for approximately 20 years each. We have been out on strike during this period for one time only. The thing that remains fresh in our minds is the violence that took place at the strike locations when the employer used BFI to replace our sanitation workers. This action resulted in citizens and union members being arrested. It was magnified by the massive use of law enforcement. This was the only location where there was property damage: one location only, and that was where the people were brought in to do our work and there was confrontation at that area.
BFI took advantage of teenagers by employing them to cross legal picket lines to do our work. This was putting young people in a potentially dangerous situation, which was not acceptable or responsible behaviour, in our opinion. Again, young people trying to find work are put in a position where they're put in confrontational situations with full-grown men and women who are quite angry and not prepared to take these actions lightly.
I remember the employer made work available for some of our members if they would cross the lines. This resulted in hard feelings between coworkers. These feelings still exist and only made the atmosphere at the workplace an anti-productive place to work in after the strike.
The government must place restrictions on the use of replacement workers so that labour disputes can be dealt with by both parties in a meaningful and effective manner while reducing bitter and violent confrontations. Quebec legislation has proven itself and Ontario is long overdue to learn from its example.
I'd like to point out that the changes being offered in the act still do not protect our public sector workers because the act does allow contracting out of work by employers. It's quite possible that the city of Thunder of Bay could contract out some of the work if we went on strike, so the act does not go far enough, as far as we're concerned, to protect our members.
Employee's right to go out on a legal strike: Why are some workers not allowed the right to strike? A janitor and a typist in a hospital are classed as essential services and are not allowed the right to strike without the fear of going to jail. If a doctor has the right to work to rule or strike, why can't an RNA have the same right? It just doesn't make sense.
When an employer violates a section of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, if found guilty, he receives a substantial fine. If an employer violates a section of a collective agreement or a section of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, he finds it amusing and laughs it off: "There's no problem. Don't worry about it."
I'll now turn it over to Brother Chezick.
Mr Chezick: Notice of general employee and employer rights: We feel it is essential for the posting of notices regarding people's rights under the Ontario Labour Relations Act at the workplace, which will ensure that more information is communicated to the employees.
I work at the Canada Games Complex, a large sporting facility in town. There is a great number of part-time workers employed in positions such as lifeguards, headguards, aquatic staff, front-desk staff, registration staff, administration staff, CPR and first-aid instructors, and more. Most of these people are in high school, college or university. They are working to put themselves through school or at least assist in sharing the costs with their parents.
At the complex, I work in one of the five unionized jobs. These young adults come to me with many workplace concerns once they find out the position I hold in the local union. They want to know things like: How can we join the union so that we can receive the same treatments as full-time staff? Why do I get scheduled to work between 25 and 34 hours a week and still am not considered to be a full-time employee? Why does the employer pay for full-time staff to recertify in courses such as first aid and CPR and they have to bear the cost plus lose wages while in the course? Why are we made to feel like second-class employees? The list of questions goes on and on.
I've tried to answer these questions in as unbiased a way as possible, telling them about the process to join a trade union, the delays that can occur, the difficulties organizers may run into, the hardships you may have trying to get a first contract and the avenues available to the employer to make it difficult to be able to back this choice. I tell them about the card-signing process used by the organizers versus the petition method used by the employer.
The conversations always lead to more questions: Why do labour unions exist? What do they offer the employee? Why does the employer make it so difficult for a person to make a decision to join or not to join the union of his or her choice? Why do people get treated so badly when all they are trying to do is exercise their legal rights?
1500
I always end up frustrated because I can give them no guarantees and I know in my heart that the injustice they face in their workplace could be solved with a collective agreement. They end up confused. They hoped that if they went to school and received an education, this would ensure employment opportunities and freedom of choice in the workplace. They thought laws were designed to help people, not slow down the democratic process. We are embarrassed that young adults entering the workforce for the first time end up being shocked by reality.
The reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act must be made in this area so that tomorrow's graduates will know and understand the rights they have in the democratic society they work in. They need to know that no matter what decisions they make, the law will protect them from unjust treatment so they can perform productively in the workplace.
Security guards -- choice of trade union: The corporation of Thunder Bay has removed positions of unionized night watchmen from some locations and replaced them with private security guards. There is no reason why this group of employees should not have the choice of which trade union they wish to belong to. We are aware of one employer in Ontario that includes the security guards in a CUPE bargaining unit even though the law restricts it from doing so. The present Ontario Labour Relations Act suggests that there is a conflict of interest that would make it impossible for security guards to perform their duties if they did not belong to a guards-only union.
By examples cited, it proves to me that this conflict does not exist. It also can get completely out of hand when the employer starts considering parking lot attendants at one of our local hospitals to be restricted because they are considered security guards. Since this is the only restriction of its kind in Canada, we think it is time the government remove it and give the group of individuals the freedom of choice to join a union they wish.
Conclusion: The current Ontario Labour Relations Act would have been a good document in 1910, but this is 1992 and the act must receive substantial changes to protect the working people in Ontario. We respectfully request that you listen to those of us who have to live with these problems and make these substantial changes.
The act has not been significantly amended by the Legislature of Ontario since 1973. As you are aware, the economy of Ontario has undergone many fundamental changes in this period of time. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to those truly aware of this current labour relations picture that Ontario's current labour legislation requires amendment to adapt to the present --
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Excuse me, sir, are you close to the conclusion of your presentation?
Mr Chezick: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: We have exceeded the time that's allocated for your presentation.
Mr Chezick: I just have one more page.
The Vice-Chair: Pardon me, sir?
Mr Chezick: I just have the completion of this page.
The Ontario government must proceed with these necessary amendments, even in the face of the loud but groundless opposition of the business lobby and much of the media that have been using scare tactics to attempt to sway public perception of the intent and effect of the government's discussion paper.
Careful analysis of the government's discussion paper reveals that each of the proposed changes presently exists in the legislation of at least one other province or in the Canada Labour Code. The proposals in the discussion paper are designed to update the labour relations legal framework in Ontario to better reflect the current situations faced by the workers and the employers in Ontario.
The impact of the union on productivity and competitiveness are well documented and clearly show that unionized workplaces are more productive and effective than are non-union workplaces. People work better when they know their rights are contractually protected and when they know their employer is being held accountable for his or her actions. Amendments to the Labour Relations Act would be a tangible demonstration of true commitment to equity, fairness and economic renewal for the working people of Ontario.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We've slightly exceeded the time frame allowed for your presentation, so unfortunately there will be no questions allowed. I would like to thank your organization and each and every one of you for coming down this afternoon and playing an important part in the process.
Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, can I just have one minute to correct the record on something I said earlier?
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Ferguson. We are already proceeding slightly late.
Mr Ferguson: Can I have an opportunity at the end of the day?
The Vice-Chair: You certainly can.
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the purpose of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. I think the committee would like about 15 minutes of your half-hour presentation for questions and answers, and if that works into your schedule, that would be great. Proceed any time.
Mr John Taylor: Before I make my formal presentation, I should mention that I'm not intimidated by the numbers of people on that side of the table versus the numbers on this side of the table.
My name is John Taylor. I'm the employee relations analyst at Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I'd like first of all to extend my appreciation for the opportunity to address this consultation committee.
Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd is one of Canada's largest integrated forest products companies, manufacturing newsprint, groundwood specialities, pulp and white paper. Canadian Pacific is Canadian-owned and was created on January 1, 1989, through the amalgamation of the operations of Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd of Thunder Bay and CIP Inc of Montreal.
In Ontario, our primary manufacturing operations are located in Thunder Bay and Dryden, supported by wood harvesting operations throughout northwestern Ontario. We employ approximately 4,000 people in this region, and historically our markets have been primarily in the United States.
As you are aware, our industry is experiencing severe difficulties brought on by a global marketplace which is highly competitive, a prolonged economic recession which has resulted in a severe decline in product usage and the high value of the Canadian dollar.
It is a well-known fact that the vast majority of our employees belong to unions. As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Act is an integral part of our business and we are affected by its provisions one way or the other in our relationships with those workers.
With this brief introduction as background, I'm going to make the following comments on the proposed amendments. I point out they're generally made to those issues which more or less directly apply to our own situation.
We'd like to speak first of all to the purpose clause. We subscribe to the notion that industrial peace and improved efficiency is vital to our operations and to the economic wellbeing of our province. We are concerned that to replace the present statement of principle, with which we have all agreed, with very specific purpose clause objectives may well inhibit or even prohibit the board from making the right decisions at the right time.
We do agree that employee participation and cooperation between the workers and management is necessary in the workplace, but we disagree with the concept that you can orchestrate this or further harmonize it through legislation. This is not a game that can be decided wholly by rules and regulations.
1510
In our opinion, the board would be forced to tip the scales towards unions in order to "facilitate" or "encourage" the process of collective bargaining; in fact, obtain those improved terms and conditions of employment which they have failed to achieve in past collective bargaining.
Where, we ask, is the quid pro quo? Who will interpret "improved"? What will those benchmarks be? No other jurisdiction has similar provisions and this proposal would truly underline our concern that the board would no longer be an impartial body existent for the purpose of "furthering harmonious relationships between employers and employees" in the public interest. You will recognize those words, and we believe the present preamble to the act can be appropriately interpreted by the board to attain the objectives we all seek.
We will speak briefly on the right to organize. We recognize the right of any group of employees to freely organize and participate in collective bargaining. The limitations of that right for any specific group of employees must be carefully considered.
The present law permitting guards to form a bargaining unit and to belong to a union which exclusively represents such guards is based on practical reality. Allowing security guards to belong to a trade union which also represents other employees at the same place of business, even as a separate bargaining unit, would simply jeopardize their effectiveness with the inherent conflict of interest presented to them. We believe that the current restriction is important, is appropriate and should remain unchanged.
With respect to bargaining unit structures, in today's competitive global marketplace we believe that employees must share a common interest in ensuring long-term economic gains. This is often overshadowed by political and internal priorities set by individual unions, leading to fragmented workplaces where it is difficult to improve efficiency through employee participation and negotiation.
The proposed amendments giving the board power to consolidate bargaining units therefore has some merit. However, consideration to do so must be based on a recognized need for stabilizing the collective bargaining process and reducing the potential for serious labour relations difficulties at the employer's place of business.
We would not support, however, the combining of bargaining units in geographically separate places of work. We believe this would be inappropriate and would not stand that test of common interest.
Replacement workers: These proposals have already given rise to unprecedented argument and rather than foster greater understanding of the need for constructive dialogue, have served instead in many cases to widen the gap.
Limitations on the number of employees who can perform struck work, prohibiting striking employees from voluntarily returning to work and allowing non-striking employees to refuse to cross the picket lines are proposals which will likely increase the chance of confrontation on the picket line when a strike occurs.
The government's own discussion paper confirms that most collective agreements are reached without recourse to strike or lockout. More often than not, when strikes do occur, employers in Ontario do not attempt to maintain production in any event. That option to operate, however, must be available to employers. In many cases today, it may be the difference between survival and disaster for everyone. Neither should an employee's right to work be jeopardized.
There is absolutely no evidence that anti-replacement provisions can or will reduce the incidence of strikes. There is a fundamental issue here that shifts the risk factor when we are involved in the collective bargaining process, and rather than foster good-faith bargaining, it may in fact lead to an imbalance of power which would threaten the integrity of both parties at the most inopportune time.
Grievance arbitration proposals: Generally, we support many of the proposed reforms regarding the labour arbitration process. We believe both parties, labour and management, have recognized certain frustrations with the present system, and we subscribe to those suggestions which will result in an effective method to promptly resolve disputes arising out of the collective agreement.
We do, however, have concern with the provision allowing arbitrators to address employment-related legislation in the grievance procedure. We do not believe this is appropriate, and those problems should be addressed only by the Human Rights Commission or the employment standards branch of the ministry; otherwise, the possibility of duplication is almost assured.
Adjustment and change in the workplace -- a very quick comment. Many of the proposals related to coordination of collective bargaining information and preventive mediation services already exist in similar form in our collective agreements. We submit that this should be the focus of the government's efforts rather than making proposals which are perceived to be counterproductive and which will not enhance our ability to compete in the marketplace. We must work towards processes which will foster cooperative and timely labour-management responses to economic change and adjustment.
In conclusion, existing legislation which impacts on the way we do business in Ontario is comprehensive. While change is inevitable, widespread, fundamental restructuring is seriously jeopardizing our ability to manage our business and is resulting in further erosion of our competitiveness.
Employers are already faced with major legislative initiatives arising from this government's agenda, including the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, the Pay Equity Amendment Act and the recently released Employment Equity Act. We are simply being inundated.
Grave concern -- you've heard this often -- has been expressed by the business community that many of the proposed changes in the Labour Relations Act are not in the best interests of the province or its citizens. The changes are perceived as being one-sided and restrictive in nature, and the warning has been made that because of that perception, those who invest and who have a choice of where that investment takes place will look closely at the cost of doing business and at the restrictive practices that make managing a business more difficult in Ontario. This is not the way to attract the business investment which is necessary to achieve productivity and quality improvements required to ensure our competitiveness.
It is apparent that the government is now fully committed and determined to enact Bill 40. The haste in which it is acting and the proposals as they are presently formed have done nothing but polarize large segments of business and labour at a time when we are in the midst of the biggest economic challenge that most of us in the province have faced in our lifetime.
In order not to further aggravate the situation, we firmly suggest slowing down the process. Where there is agreement in principle on proposed amendments -- and there is evidence of this fact clearly being stated at these hearings -- by all means, move ahead. Conversely, those proposals which have raised serious concerns and have been perceived to be more sympathetic to one party or the other should be delayed until strategies can be developed to provide some measure of understanding and consensus between the parties. We can ill afford business and labour sitting in opposite corners accusing each other of being totally insensitive to their particular interests.
This concludes my remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
1520
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Five minutes per caucus. Mr Offer?
Mrs McLeod: We are debating who gets to use the five minutes first.
I appreciate the fact that you've done a detailed analysis of the impact of the legislation, specifically in your workplace. You were looking at the possible merit in combining bargaining units. You weren't suggesting that bargaining units under different unions could be combined? It would just be different locals of a single union under one trade union?
Mr Taylor: No, we have not, certainly, looked at it from that point of view. One of the problems, and it's certainly evident in our own operations, is that with different unions representing different groups of employees -- and I recognize that they have their own internal priorities and their own philosophies -- it makes it very difficult for us to sit down with all of them at one time and come up with some consensus on how we might better do things. That is one concern we do have.
On the other hand, I certainly would not suggest that union locals of different unions should shake hands and all join in one. I certainly would not suggest that.
Mrs McLeod: I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the details of the legislation clause by clause, but where there is provision for a combination of bargaining units, there's also provision that the labour relations board would have the power, essentially, to amend a particular clause of any one of the collective bargaining agreements currently in place. Have you had a chance to look at the potential implications of that?
Mr Taylor: The only comment I have is that certainly, based on the comment I had earlier, the perception is that many of the proposals here in Bill 40 are certainly either very similar to or based on proposals which unions have been after for many years and which they have not been successful in attaining, perhaps. And here it is; it's being handed to them.
I ask the question, having been involved in collective bargaining: "Where is the `you get this and we get that'?" I always thought that's what collective bargaining was. I know lots of times I'm not so sure that's the case. I've heard the statement, "The unions collect and we bargain," but --
Mr Offer: Thank you. Perhaps I could carry on with that line of questioning and relate it to the purpose clause. You've brought out an interesting point. In the wording of the purpose clause, you've zeroed in on the phrase "improving their terms and conditions of employment." That now is part of the purpose clause.
I have heard that because it is part of the purpose clause it would really run afoul of the legislation, if this were in place, for an employer in bargaining with the union to use the example that times are difficult and that we're going to have to cut back in certain areas. That would be a contravention of the purpose clause, which uses the word "improve." I am wondering if that's your reading of the impact of that and, if so, what suggestions you might have.
Mr Taylor: Well, certainly that is the way I read the proposal. "Improved" to me is only one way, and that can only be up. Again, we ask the question, "What would benchmarks be in order for the board" -- the board would have to determine that under the way the legislation is written. It would be very dangerous, in our estimation.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
Mr Tilson: I asked a question earlier of, I think, the first delegation with respect to keeping that fine balance, the fairness between two groups -- specifically the replacement worker issue.
Another section -- I think it's section 32 of the bill -- essentially says that if an employee brings a complaint of coercion or threat against the employer, the employer is guilty until the employer proves himself or herself innocent. That's one section I'd like you to comment on.
The other section in simply the whole issue of the replacement worker -- in other words, the anti-scab legislation. Simply, there can be no replacement worker during a strike. The effect of that, as we have been told by industry, is that the industry has several choices: One, it can completely cave in to the union demands; two, it can close down and, in many cases, that could be for ever; three, and more important, it could, depending on the industry, simply leave the province and go to another province or the United States. That concern has been expressed at these hearings and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Mr Taylor: I can only speak for our own plant. From a historical point of view, in a strike situation we certainly are unable to operate and we have a hard enough time with enough non-union people to even maintain the integrity of the facility. So I can't really comment on that.
What we're saying is -- and that's the real crux of this whole problem -- the perception is that those people who perhaps would want to continue operating under the proposed legislation, of course, could not. I would suggest as perhaps a reasonable alternative that you can't hire people, but at least the people who were there have that choice. I certainly don't condone and I wouldn't suggest for a minute that in the event of a foreseeable strike in our operation we would go out and hire 1,500 people just so that we could operate the plant and continue when the bargaining unit did go on strike. That would certainly be unreasonable and impossible.
So we haven't looked at it from that point of view. We simply believe that people should have the choices and certainly owners of businesses should have that choice as well. The fine line between labour on the one side and the owner or manager on the other side, at the very time that those decisions must be made -- and I'm talking about that very special time at negotiations where you get to that point where somebody has to make a decision. What I am saying is that the way the proposal is written it will take that away and the owner or the manager will not have the same options as he had prior to the proposal.
There is some measure of evenness even though on many cases it was never exercised; at least the perception was there that we're on equal ground. "You can strike, I can lock you out, so let's effect a settlement here before we hurt each other." I think that's the important thing; not, "If you don't do this, I'm going to do that."
Mr Tilson: That's assuming you have a reasonable adversary.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much, Mr Taylor, for coming forward with your presentation. You're probably aware I had a career of 29 years at Spruce Falls in Kapuskasing and that's now under employee ownership. They have that mill and they have mills in Quebec. I believe you have mills in Ontario and in Quebec as well.
Mr Taylor: Yes, we do.
Mr Wood: On the legislation in Quebec, concerning your mills there, as compared to Ontario, what difference have you noticed? Any major differences in the different legislation in Quebec as far as replacement workers are concerned and things of this kind?
Mr Taylor: Personally, I don't have any experience in trying to identify any differences. It seems when the strike has been on, they've been on strike and so have we. That's all. I don't think it's made much difference.
Mr Wood: Are you aware that the major employers in Quebec have dropped their challenge to Quebec legislation?
Mr Taylor: Yes, I am.
Mr Wood: They feel it's something they can live with that is not going to be detrimental to their --
Mr Taylor: Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that the record in Quebec is certainly not as good as it was previously. I'm not talking about our industry; I'm talking in general. As I say, Mr Wood, in our industry it's usually all or none.
1530
Mr Wood: From my own personal experience, I know it takes a cooperative working relationship between the employees and the employer if the company is to be a good employer and make a profit at the end. The price war that's going on has driven prices down by as much as 40% or 44% in some areas. Do you believe you have to have good, strong working relationships between employers and employees in order to survive?
Mr Taylor: There's no question of that fact.
Mr Wood: You belong to the chamber of commerce, I believe.
Mr Taylor: Yes.
Mr Wood: Although the chamber is not completely in agreement with the amendments, it made the comment earlier that it's shameful or disgraceful that the amendments being brought forward weren't brought forward earlier; they shouldn't have been left for 15 years. Do you have any comments on that aspect of it?
Mr Taylor: I'm glad you asked that question. I made the point in my presentation that there are things we certainly concur with. I have no objection to going ahead with some things that both parties agree help to answer the questions. This whole exercise has proven the point generally that perhaps we have forgotten about what the intent is and all we've done is created this imbalance.
Each party is sitting on the opposite side of the room and I'm a little bit tired of hearing about unreasonable employers and victimized employees. I could certainly find many examples where the same could apply to the other side, but that isn't what we're here for. We're here to find ways we can work better together and be competitive, because if we're not, this committee won't have any more reason to have meetings because there won't be any industry in this province.
Mr Wood: Briefly, on page 7, under "Adjustment and Change in the Workplace," you've pointed out that many of the proposals related to coordination of collective bargaining are already in place because you have basically a 100% unionized workforce, with the exception of management groups and some others. Thank you very much for coming forward with your presentation.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, sir. I'd like to thank Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd for taking the time to be with us this afternoon.
CANADIAN PAPERWORKERS UNION
The Vice-Chair: The next presenters are from the Canadian Paperworkers Union. Please take the opportunity to introduce yourselves and then proceed with your presentation. Try to leave about half of your half-hour for questions and answers; the committee would really appreciate it.
Mr André Foucault: Initially, I'd like to convey to you Mr Holder's regrets -- he's our national president -- for his not being able to be here today. He was slated to appear, but a serious family crisis has come about. You'll recall that last Monday two young women were victims of a shotgun shoot-out; one died and one is in critical condition in hospital. Mr Holder's niece is the one who is in hospital. He sends his regrets and has asked me to appear to represent our union on his behalf.
I'd like to introduce the people who accompany me here today: John Currie, a national representative with the Canadian Paperworkers Union, Ralph Fesser, the president of our Local 257, and Warren Mazurski, the vice-president of our Local 39, both of which are in Thunder Bay.
First, on behalf of our national president, I would like to thank the standing committee on resources development for having us appear to present the views of the Canadian Paperworkers Union on Bill 40, the Ontario government's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
The Canadian Paperworkers Union represents some 21,000 workers in Ontario who are employed in the forest products industry, dealing with pulp, paper, lumber and paper-converting operations, the latter of which includes commercial envelopes, greeting cards, school and office supplies, corrugated products, folding cartons as well as bindery establishments. We also represent some workers in non-related sectors such as distribution and cosmetics.
Many local unions have delegated representatives today to be here in support of our union's position. They come from as far away west as Fort Frances and as far east as Sturgeon Falls, Iroquois Falls and Kapuskasing.
The changes to existing labour legislation proposed in the bill are of the utmost importance to our union, to the workers we represent and to the unorganized workers who will join our ranks in the future.
As an overall assessment, I believe that the government of Ontario is to be commended for updating and improving the province's labour legislation. A number of areas are being brought into line with the more progressive practices in force in other provinces, and as a result the lives of working people throughout the province will be improved.
Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon surrounding the debate over the amendments to labour legislation in Ontario proposed by the government is the hysterical response from some parts of the business community. It is astounding that legislation that already exists in other parts of Canada, in other provinces, without having caused any upheaval, should receive such a reaction among so many elements in business.
Of course, it is primarily the most regressive members of the business community who have reacted in this way, those whose counterparts in earlier years could have been counted upon to oppose all progressive social legislation such as restrictions on child labour, the right to vote for women, the Canada pension plan and any and all legislation beneficial to workers and their organizations.
It is ironic that such feverish opposition arises in the midst of calls by business for workers to cooperate with them to meet the competitive challenge. The knee-jerk, anti-worker reaction to labour law reform in this province certainly does not lend credibility to these calls. Cooperation can only come when each party recognizes the legitimacy of the concerns of the other, something which seems to be sadly lacking.
I shall turn to some of the specifics of the proposed legislation. Bill 40 will bring many welcome changes in the area of organizing. Security guards, among others, will at last be eligible for union membership, and workers involved in an organizing drive will be better protected than in the past from employers who wish to prevent workers from exercising their right of association.
Unfortunately the proposed amendments retain 55% as the level of membership support required before automatic certification can be granted by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Sadly, this will prevent many workers from joining a union despite the desire of the majority to do so. I strongly urge the government to reconsider this aspect of the bill.
Other measures, such as restrictions on petitions and the lowering of the percentage of membership needed for a representation vote, will assist workers in defending their interests collectively.
In the area of first-contract arbitration, important improvements to existing legislation have been made. Currently there is only one avenue for obtaining first-agreement arbitration under Ontario legislation. An application may be made to the board following the announcement by the minister that it is not considered advisable to appoint a conciliation board or following the release of the report of a conciliation board that was established.
The labour relations board is then able to settle a first agreement in cases where it has been established that the employer refuses to recognize the bargaining authority of the union, where one party has failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement or any other reason the board considers relevant. The requirement to fulfil these conditions leaves the process open to legal wrangling, extensive delays and expensive appearances before the board.
This is an area of the existing act that required changes. The amendments proposed in Bill 40 do add a second method of obtaining first-agreement arbitration in an attempt to avoid the problems of the current procedure.
Under the new proposal, either party may request arbitration if an agreement has not been reached, provided 30 days have elapsed since the day the parties were in a legal strike or lockout position. This is certainly an improvement in that it eliminates the delays and high costs of litigation to establish eligibility for first-contract arbitration.
While the amendments do constitute a real improvement, CPU believes the 30-day provision remains very onerous for workers. Newly unionized workers must risk at least 30 days of economic hardship simply to apply for first-agreement arbitration. The Ministry of Labour has indicated the 30-day period is necessary as a deterrent to prevent "either party seeking to avoid the requirement to bargain." In our experience, problems arise when employers do not wish to bargain, hoping to break the newly formed union in its initial stages.
The 30-day period simply provides anti-union employers with a way to punish the new union members. Animosities established early in the bargaining relationship can take years to dissipate. CPU believes the government should do away with the 30-day period and allow first-agreement arbitration upon application by the union.
1540
Strikes and the use of scab labour: The decision to go on strike and suffer economic deprivation is a difficult one to make. Workers do it as a last resort when all else has failed to bring about a fair settlement in a dispute with their employer.
Not surprisingly, strikes are quite rare. More than 95% of collective agreements are reached without a strike. Still, the strike does remain a necessary bargaining tool, the ultimate means for workers to pressure their employer.
When scabs are used, however, the effect of the strike is largely blunted. No longer is the deprivation experienced by strikers matched by deprivation on the part of the employer. Few things are more infuriating for striking workers then watching scabs take over their jobs. Not only is the effectiveness of their means of last resort much reduced, but the scabs are actually benefiting from the strikers' misfortune.
When the use of scabs is widespread, typically the case in the United States, the strike becomes a weapon in the arsenal of the employer. Anti-worker companies push workers to strike by refusing legitimate bargaining proposals and then permanently replace strikers by scabs. Most of the original workers never recover their old jobs.
This has happened more than once in the paper industry in the US and has weakened workers enormously there. Communities have been torn apart, families split, and violence has erupted repeatedly. When a similar law was established in our neighbouring province, Quebec, the corporate community's reaction was much like the one we are experiencing in Ontario.
Ayant déjà travaillé dans cette province, je peux vous assurer que cette attitude a beaucoup changé. L'opposition patronale à cette loi a diminué considérablement parce qu'on reconnaît que les différends artificiels ou frivoles de la part de certains employeurs intransigeants ne sont pas aussi fréquents.
The recognition that anti-scab legislation has contributed to levelling the playing field to the benefit of workers, business and government alike is now being acknowledged by prominent members of the corporate boards.
Since the use of scabs during a strike is unfair to workers because it renders our ultimate recourse harmless and creates very long-lasting tensions and bad feelings, both between the employer and workers and within the community, this anti-worker practice should not be allowed in Ontario. It is a major concern of ours that the US experience not be repeated here.
The government's proposals under sections 73.1 and 73.2 do move to restrict an employer's ability to have bargaining unit work performed during a strike. Strikebreaking by bargaining unit members is prohibited. An employer can no longer hire replacement workers to perform the work of strikers after notice to bargain or bargaining begins. Neither can an employer transfer workers, supervisors or others from another location to the struck location.
These amendments should eliminate the picket line confrontations of the past. Unfortunately, Bill 40 does not go nearly far enough to ensure a semblance of balance between the deprivations suffered by striking workers and those experienced by employers.
Employers are still able to shift bargaining unit work to another geographic location. They are allowed to contract out bargaining unit work. Supervisors and all other non-bargaining unit employees who normally work at a struck location are permitted to perform the work of striking employees. While it is true the non-bargaining unit workers have the right to refuse such work, the employer is under no obligation to inform them that they have this right.
In the view of CPU, these omissions constitute a serious flaw in the proposed amendments. The economic imbalance in favour of employers will not be redressed and strikes will last longer than need be.
The CPU is pleased to see the amendments requiring employers to continue paying employment benefits when a strike or lockout begins, subject to the union's tendering sufficient funds to continue them. The cancellation of benefits has constituted a serious worry for many workers in the past, and this amendment prohibits unscrupulous employers from making such threats.
I would now like to comment on section 7(1) of this bill, which deals with the consolidation of bargaining units of the same trade union in the same workplace. Because of its history in this province, which goes back some 80 years, our union has two local unions in many operations, almost all of which are found in mills.
After reviewing this section of the bill and after intense consultation with legal counsel on this matter, we find that this portion of the bill cannot cause the locals of our union to be merged, but rather two or more bargaining units of the same local in the same establishment.
This interpretation is clear to us because of the decades of jurisprudence at the Ontario Labour Relations Board which define trade unions as those entities where bargaining rights are jointly held by the national and local, which hold the bargaining rights for the unit in question. Pursuant to this long-standing jurisprudence, we are secure in our belief that, at a minimum, the words "trade union" apply to our locals.
Having said this, however, we ask the committee to note that should any amendment be brought forward to modify the meaning of this section, to have it assume a broader application or that a broader interpretation is juxtaposed to it, the Canadian Paperworkers Union would stand in clear and immediate opposition to such a change. It would then be our strong position that an OLRB-supervised vote be conducted in each bargaining unit to determine the will of the members of each unit respectively, to favour consolidation.
Both results would have to be positive to allow consolidation. This would follow the provisions of our constitution. The committee must recognize the high stakes involved in such consolidations, reaching into pay scales, seniority and the constructive autonomy which goes back some 80 years.
In conclusion, CPU believes the government is to be commended for Bill 40, which constitutes a modest attempt to improve the lives of working people of Ontario. We urge that speedy passage be given to this bill.
The self-serving outrage of the most backward elements of the corporate sector should not influence the debate. These are the same voices that would have us march straight back into the 19th century with health care for the rich, crushing poverty for the aged, total arbitrary power for employers and an unorganized, demoralized workforce.
CPU has a different vision, one in which workers exercise their rights to free association and to representation by their own organization, their union. Only through unionization do workers gain access to due process and protection from injustice and paternalism on the part of their employer. Through their union, workers are able to pressure governments to enact the progressive legislation that sets us apart from a heartless, dog-eat-dog world. The unions in this country have played a major positive role in all the progressive legislation we take for granted today such as unemployment insurance, equality for women, medicare and old age pensions.
Currently, it has become fashionable to talk of cooperation between workers and employers to improve the running of the workplace. CPU has indicated a willingness more than once to discuss the problems and legitimate concerns of management and to assist in improving the efficient running of our employers' operations. But there are conditions: Employers must be prepared to discuss our legitimate concerns as well. To do this, they must first recognize the legitimacy of workers' organizations themselves, the unions. This is only fair. It is consistent with the practice of our society of allowing all parties full representation.
While we believe that many of our employers do recognize the legitimacy of our concerns, sadly, this cannot be said for all employers in this province, not by a long shot. The debate over labour law reform in this province has demonstrated that many in the business world do not believe workers should enjoy the same freedom to associate that investors and corporations do.
In our view, the future should include workers, their intelligence, their skills, their opinions. Should the opposing business view, the one that wishes to exclude us, ultimately win out, we fear our province will lose much, both in the economic and social spheres.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Jackson, three minutes.
Mr Jackson: I might ask about your last reference. I didn't notice it in the text, when you were talking about the consolidation of unions. Did you deviate from your regular text?
Mr Foucault: I did on a couple of occasions; that was one of them.
Mr Jackson: Can you share with the committee your legal counsel so that we might be in a position to contact them? The ministry lawyers seem to disagree or are rather unclear about your reference. I share that lack of clarity. Who might we talk to within your organization who gave you that opinion that the section would not work in the fashion in which we suspect it might work?
Mr Foucault: If the ministry staff want to contact me, I'd be glad to provide the name of the firm.
1550
Mr Jackson: What is the name of your solicitor, or did you have a written interpretation from your legal counsel?
Mr Foucault: It's a verbal interpretation after many hours of study and consultation. It's also based on a clear understanding of where the labour relations board has its jurisprudence, Mr Jackson. There's no question that the words "trade union," in the jurisprudence of the board, jurisprudence having been around for so long, have the equivalent value of law unless it's changed by law, provide that interpretation.
Mr Jackson: I'm not a lawyer and I didn't want to debate the point; I'm seeking information. You brought new information which is generally helpful to the committee, but it may appear that it doesn't concur with the ministry's thinking. When push comes to shove, when we open a bill and we change legislation, we're very much relying on the government's, or in this effect, the Ministry of Labour's legal interpretation.
If I may then move to a fuller understanding of what you shared with the committee, am I then to believe the interpretation that if the consolidation clause would cause the smaller bargaining unit to merge with the larger unit or be facilitated -- do I understand you correctly that your organization, the Canadian Paperworkers Union, would not support that clause?
Mr Foucault: That's correct. If somehow there was an amendment brought to this bill, as we understand it to be now, to provide for a broader application than just merging bargaining units with the same local, to the point where local unions of the same union could be merged in the same workplace, we would be directly opposed to that. There's too much at stake; too much has been built, in the last 80 years, around that current structure. Basically, it defies, in our view, the very right of employees to have control over their own mechanisms.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, very briefly, then, if I might through you, I made a note with legislative counsel, and perhaps it is understood that it might examine the points you've raised and could, at some point, report back to the committee. I found the information helpful, but I'd certainly like to have it corroborated by the ministry lawyers.
The Chair: The staff have noted that request.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you very much for your presentation, André. First of all, I'd like to actually compliment your union on the things you have done with Spruce Falls, for example. I think what you've done there is to prove that the unions and the workers can work together to improve working conditions, not only by saving that corporation but also in the process of modernizing it. I think that's a real accomplishment. I think it proves that labour is certainly interested, and very much so, in the economy and in the community.
The question that was going around here for quite some time, especially with the people representing the corporations and businesses, was the imbalance, the fear of labour getting too much of a balance going in its direction. The question I would have to ask you at this present time -- that I'd like to ask the others, I guess -- is, how do you feel the balance is now? I'd like to ask you, obviously, some people think the workers, with this change of legislation, are going to have too much power. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Mr Foucault: I certainly can. First of all, thank you very much for your compliments on our involvement with the Spruce Falls project. I will pass on those comments to our leadership. I'm sure they will be well received.
In respect to the balance of power, the balance of rights in the labour-management field, first of all, I think I previously shared this view with the committee. In terms of when you look at the balance, you can't look at union versus management; you have to look at worker versus shareholder. That's where the balance is.
While workers are relying totally on their incomes to put bread on the table and to lodge themselves and their families, the shareholders, just by the mere fact that they were able to invest in that business, obviously have a more independent relationship with their investment than the workers have with their employment.
The balance is really one we have to look at in that way. If we do, then I think it becomes obvious that it's a clear imbalance. Even with these changes adopted as they are or even improved as we seek them, there's still imbalance, because the worker still has to sacrifice substantially to exercise that right while the shareholder basically remains unaffected until the time comes when the shares drop and dividends stop coming, and it takes a lot longer time for that to be felt.
Mrs McLeod: I'm going to be somewhat general rather than specific to the concerns of Paperworkers, so I'd like to ask two specific questions, if I may. The first is whether or not you could comment on specific benefits to Ontario members of the Canadian Paperworkers Union that you see this legislation bringing, and secondly, perhaps you could comment on whether you have any concerns at all about the potential job loss in the retail sector, for example, or the tourism sector, on what that might mean in terms of job loss within the pulp and paper sector as a domino effect.
Mr Foucault: Okay; you've got two questions. I'm not sure I understand the second; let me tackle the first. Specifically with the Canadian Paperworkers Union, we see this bill as facilitating organization, giving workers in the province an easier access to union representation where they so wish it.
Mrs McLeod: Could you just specifically comment on whether that has been a problem for the Canadian Paperworkers in Ontario, and therefore how the legislation helps that?
Mr Foucault: It certainly has. We share the same experience as all unions in that regard. We're part of the universal experience. We also have been through the first-contract legislation process as it now stands, and I assure you that the worst-case scenario did develop where workers were forced to strike for a first contract, and only once the process was in place were we able to apply for access to first-contract arbitration.
We went through protracted hearings before the labour relations board: extremely costly and time-consuming. All this time, while we were arguing in the ministry's labour relations board in Toronto, people in Englehart were freezing on the picket lines and doing without income.
There's no reason to take that long, in our view, so surely we value the improvements being brought by means of this bill and would see them improved further by just simply eliminating the 30 days and saying "upon application." We'd all rather make a homemade deal between the parties. There's a lot of pressure on both parties to do that, but if it fails, then we should have access to the recourse of the first-contract arbitration.
The anti-strikebreaking legislation, we favour. We had some serious problems in the mid-1980s with respect to that, and we've had also, in this community, in the early and mid-1970s some very difficult times with respect to picket line confrontations. We do not wish that to be there. It places everybody in a very, very difficult position -- our members, the law enforcement people and everything -- and it doesn't have to be there. Employers have to understand that there is a balance which has to be present in our relationships, and that includes during a strike. Those are examples.
Mrs McLeod: One of the issues of concern, obviously, in a community which is so dependent for jobs on the pulp and paper industry, is whether or not there's a domino effect of this legislation. If it doesn't have a lot of impact directly on either the industry or workers in the industry, it may have an effect of job loss down the line if it has a negative effect on the retail sector which uses the pulp and paper products. I wondered if you had any concerns about that job loss issue down the line.
Mr Foucault: We don't consider it a factor. Basically, a lot of the legislation which is before us today is legislation which exists in other parts of Canada. Some of it exists right across Canada, and other ones exist in as few as one jurisdiction, but the experience doesn't bear that kind of catastrophe out.
It saddens me to watch people present to you who like to create fearful scenarios. We have to be prudent, of course, as the committee is being and as we are, because we're all involved in the high stakes of the future. But to sound these alarms, in our view falsely, is not to provide a service to the debate.
We look overseas, in jurisdictions like Germany and France, where workers receive automatically, from year one, four weeks vacation with pay. They're on maternity or paternity leave with full salary for extended periods of time. When their plants close down, the approach over there is to buy the job back from the employee, the job being recognized as a property of the employee. There's all kinds of legislation which encourages, and if necessary forces employers to deal with their unions and workforce in certain ways. Yet somehow the European Community manages to compete. In fact, I dare say they out-compete us.
Compare that to North American competitors, for example, to go across the boarder, to use the most advantaged experience of, say, Texas, where the minimum wage is $1 an hour; where unions are in a right-to-work situation, where they're fragmented by the ability of employees not to recognize the will of the majority; where, if you're on maternity leave, you're lucky not to be declared disloyal to the employer and fired, never mind come back to a job that pays roughly the same; where vacation is two weeks per year for as long as you work there, as long as you live; and where you don't even have to give notice of a plant closure, never mind buying the job back from the employee, and somehow they're having trouble competing with Europeans.
I suggest that this is crying the blues. We expect the corporate leaders of this country to stand up, take on the responsibility as management, look inwardly at the quality of the leadership provided to industry and quit moaning. Let's get on with the business of this country.
The Chair: I want to thank André Foucault, Warren Mazurski, Ralph Fesser and John Currie for appearing here today on behalf of the Canadian Paperworkers Union. We're grateful to you for your interest and your participation.
Mr Foucault: Thank you, members of the committee, Mr Chairman, for your attention.
1600
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Thunder Bay and District Hospitality Association, if the spokespeople for the Thunder Bay and District Hospitality Association would come forward, take a seat, tell us their names and their titles, if any. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Don Johnson: Good afternoon. My name is Don Johnson. I'm with the Thunder Bay and District Hospitality Association. I'm not a board member or anything. I was asked about three hours ago to read this speech. I'm not completely informed on this, so I guess I will read what I've got here. Not all of it pertains to me, but here we go.
Our presentation today is on behalf of the Thunder Bay and District Hospitality Association, Zone 25 of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. We've been asked to speak on behalf of our members about our industry's concerns with the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The hospitality and tourism industry in northwestern Ontario has been, like all other industries, very hard hit by the continuing recession. The current state of the industry in our region is abysmal, with some businesses hanging on to solvency by the skin of their teeth. The profit margins of most operations do not leave any room for flexibility, and therefore any amendment to the Labour Relations Act that has the potential to decrease the slim margin will be fought hard and long in meetings such as this and, eventually, through the electoral vote.
The main emphasis and concerns of our members are to the following clauses: replacement workers and access to third-party property for picketing. I would like to start by talking about the first issue, the clause concerning replacement workers.
Most of the major hotels in Thunder Bay are in fact unionized. Also, most, if not all, rely on unionized labour for nearly all the deliveries of the product they sell. Our industry is service based. Guests come to our place of business and we sell our products and services to them onsite, whether it be a bedroom, a meal, a beverage or a place for them to do business in like this room for this meeting.
All these products and services have a shelf life limited to today; that is, we can only sell this room today; we cannot sell it tomorrow for today. If this passes and at any time and for any reason the unionized employees of this hotel are on strike, meetings such as this would not happen. We are not a manufacturing plant that can move its production line to another location. The business would go to another hotel or hall where there was no labour disruption. Therefore, we not only lose the sale but these doors would be closed and locked because of Bill 40.
It will only allow this and any other hotel to function with its existing non-union employees, but only if they want to cross the picket lines. This hotel employs almost 250 local people; approximately 25 are not unionized. As you can envision, this hotel cannot operate with only 25 people.
A lot of our members are small family businesses. They would find it next to impossible to continue to operate their hotels or restaurants under those conditions. Therefore this government, through this amendment to the act, is telling us that we do not have the right at all times to operate our businesses. Now you will tell me that the purpose of the clause is to speed up the negotiating procedure. Pray tell me, which side has the advantageous bargaining position? Certainly not the owners or the management. Therefore, what you will see, unfortunately, is the unions using this clause to force their terms and conditions unconditionally. Is this democracy?
Our second concern is the clause concerning access to third-party property for the purpose of picketing. Some of our members have their work locations in shopping malls. Under the new legislation, trade unions will have the right to organize picket lines on third-party property, which includes shopping malls and other areas that are accessible to the general public.
The act says that they can only picket at the entrances and exits of the location that is on strike. What if that is in the centre of a food court in a shopping mall? In that case, will it violate the right to enjoyment of private property of other shops and businesses located in the immediate vicinity? Also, who will monitor this to ensure that the new laws are not broken, the police? We all know that most people will avoid any area that has a picket line, especially one which also has a police presence.
Therefore, there will be loss of business and undue hardship for those businesses which are located in the immediate vicinity. Who will compensate them? Will they have the right to obtain legal restraining orders to halt picketing? Can they sue the union for loss of business caused by the lawful picketing in another shop or restaurant?
Please don't get me wrong. We are not anti-union. Most contracts work effectively for all sides. For many years, organizations have successfully negotiated contracts that have been beneficial to all parties.
If changes are needed to the Labour Relations Act to make it fairer and more equitable, then why not listen to the concerns of industry and react positively to them, to make the employers a partner in the process instead of an adversary?
We do not need legislation to hold back growth in the economy; we need incentives to help all of us recover from this recession, to create more jobs and to ensure that we all have a well-educated workforce that is competitive in the world marketplace.
Thank you for giving our association the opportunity to address our concerns. Obviously, this wasn't written by me. I'm doing the best I can. I agree with some of it, not with all of it; it wouldn't matter.
I have one thing that was brought to my attention. I'm not even really sure if it's in the act. It is the right to converse or give the management position to staff without union intervention. I understand that if your staff is negotiating you cannot, as management, go in front of them and relate your views and concerns to them unless it has already been looked over by the union, and they'll tell you what you can say and what you cannot say.
To me, running a family operation, that would be a hindrance because I think that as the owner and operator, working side by side with these people, my views put forward to them would either help them decide as to my point of view or help them to decide towards the union's point of view.
As for being able to stay open, in my own operation, if my employees went on strike I would close that day. No sense in having hardships. I have to work with them the next day. Plus most of my customers are all unionized and wouldn't cross that picket line anyway. So my hands would be tied and mainly I'd like to keep a friendly relationship with them due to the fact that I do work with them side by side.
That is my presentation offered to you by the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, which I received three hours ago.
1610
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Johnson. Ms Murdock.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm Mr Ward.
The Chair: I know you're Mr Ward.
Mr Ward: You called me Ms Murdock.
The Chair: I called Ms Murdock Ms Murdock.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): No, him first, me second.
The Chair: Had I thought you had indicated that you were going to question this gentleman, I would have called you Mr Ward.
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I realize that you're in a little bit of a difficult position, just being notified three hours ago, I guess, to come down and give the presentation.
Just a couple of quick questions: I'm not sure how much time I have. As far as the association is concerned, how would you classify the relationship between the employees and the employers within the Thunder Bay area? Good, bad --
Mr Johnson: On the whole I think they're very good. There are a few, but not very many, that --
Mr Ward: Overall, good.
Mr Johnson: Who knows? Management problem, employee problem, who knows?
Mr Ward: In your opinion, and I'm not sure if you know everything that's in Bill 40, why do you think that relationship would change? Probably it wouldn't in my opinion.
Mr Johnson: What I made an assumption of was that if I were not able to confer with my own staff at will -- if I called a staff meeting and said, "This is my presentation," I feel that it shouldn't be rewritten for me or I should not be told what I could say or what I couldn't say.
Mr Ward: You can do that. You can have staff meetings. "Here's the direction we're taking in my facility."
Mr Johnson: I have no problem, then. I have staff that have been working for me for 15 and 20 years.
Mr Ward: I guess your employees currently aren't unionized.
Mr Johnson: Yes, they are.
Mr Ward: They are, and you have staff meetings and --
Mr Johnson: Yes, we do.
Mr Ward: That's not going to change.
Mr Johnson: No.
Mr Ward: In the association's presentation there were some concerns. I'm assuming they aren't opposed to some changes that are suggested that are already in existence across Canada; that is, security guards, petition restrictions and full- and part-time consolidation that are in there all across Canada. I'm assuming your association isn't opposed to those. You mentioned some other concerns. I guess you really can't speak for the association.
Mr Johnson: Primarily I think the association should have had someone on the immediate executive to be here and present for it. Speaking for them, I could probably assume their anxiety as to those that are not unionized, probably the anxiety of the ma-and-pa-run companies with the fear of being unionized. A lot of them operate on a day-to-day basis and are a borderline thing, largely due to the recession. Right now is a hard time for this industry due to the cost of gas, the cost of our product --
Mr Ward: I recognize they're tough times for a lot of people.
Mr Johnson: Right.
Mr Ward: Just one last question: Your employees are unionized. I don't know how many years they've been unionized but things have worked as far as you're concerned?
Mr Johnson: Things have worked for me under the conditions that they are now, due to the close relationship we have working side by side and understanding their anxieties. Working side by side you hear them every day, so you know where they're coming from and where they're headed. Somewhere along the line you meet halfway.
Ms Murdock: Thank you very much, Mr Johnson, for coming in. I know what it's like. My brother owns a bar in Windsor, so I know what it's like when you have to leave your workplace to come and do something like this. It's much appreciated.
In your situation -- which is unionized -- in your staff meetings, how much participation do your employees have in terms of the kinds of things that are done at work? I guess what I'm asking you is what kind of management style you have or think you have.
Mr Johnson: Fairly open. They know where the business is coming from. They know who our clientele is. They know our price code as to other establishments. They know our costs. They know we do pay more than most other establishments, but we're surviving.
Ms Murdock: So in other words, they have a fair amount of input in terms of how you operate your business.
Mr Johnson: Yes. I ask them continually for ideas on how to keep us in a busy mode. When we're down, everybody's down; tips are down, everything is down.
Ms Murdock: Well, I slung beer for three and a half years to put myself through law school, so I know exactly what that's like. The point that I'm making is that within the union structure -- I know there's a lot of fear. You can sense that just with what some of the business community have been saying, that there is a lot of fear of unions. What I'm hearing from you is that within the union structure you're still able not only to make a profit but you can work well with your staff and that if you trust their judgements on things, the business can still operate and be lucrative. Would that be correct?
Mr Johnson: That's fairly correct. The only problem my staff has is around the negotiating time when an outside party comes in who does their negotiating. It changes from time to time and their structure changes. So they have a problem as to whom to believe, except for when they come down to reality and say: "Well, we know. We work here. We're not about to rape the business. We're about to stay in jobs. We know what they're doing down the street. We know what they're doing in the next town." So they're not completely stupid. A lot of them are, as yourself, putting themselves through school, and they don't have blindfolds on. They have a mind of their own.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Thank you for your presentation. We've heard a great deal of concern from small businesses about the proposed amendments to the act and indeed the present act itself, considering that it was designed probably for very large industries and businesses. I wonder if your association feels, as do some groups which operate what we might deem essential services by municipalities and hydro commissions etc, whether there should be a different set of rules or a different working relationship designed for the smaller businesses and businesses like your own in the hospitality industry. Do you have any views on that?
Mr Johnson: I think the different set of rules would have to be formulated between the two groups, management and union.
Mr Eddy: Exactly.
1620
Mr Johnson: Because of the actual size of the business we're not -- the larger hotels that are employing 250 people, they're in the larger flow of business, but in the smaller ones that are employing 20 and under, the actual owner-operator's job is running the business, not sitting in an office making up rules and regulations for everybody or doing bookwork.
My actual job is being out there with the customers and with my staff and picking up a tray, waiting on tables, bartending, cleaning up garbage, sweeping the parking lot, things that you can't afford to hire out. That's the job you've always done, that's your job that keeps you alive.
Mr Eddy: I think you've made a good point about negotiating between employer and employee, because we think that's what should happen with amendments to the act itself, that they should be negotiated between representatives of employers, representatives of employees and government.
Mr Jackson: Don, I remember you from the Sunday shopping presentations and, if memory serves me correctly, you have travelled a fair distance to be here today on short notice.
Mr Johnson: I didn't come from Duluth this time; I came from work.
Mr Jackson: Yes, but you must be prevailed upon quite extensively because, as I recall from our last public hearings, you were filling in for somebody as well on that presentation. Thank you very much. I've enjoyed this presentation and recall your presentation on Sunday shopping as well. It's good to see you again. No questions, but thank you for coming.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Johnson. We appreciate you coming here on behalf of the Thunder Bay District Hospitality Association. You've presented their views effectively, and we appreciate that.
Mr Johnson: Thank you.
The Chair: The next participant is the Hospitality, Commercial and Service Employees Union, Local 73. While they are seating themselves, Mr Ferguson.
Mr Ferguson: Two things. I made a mistake earlier today that I just want to clarify, Mr Chair. I said that individuals could not organize on third-party property; in fact, they can. However, when you read the brief by the chamber of commerce, it's talking about people closing their individual businesses, and I thought that statement, number 7, referred to individual businesses. One would not be able to organize on an individual business's property but one would be able to organize in a mall, just to clear that up.
The second thing was that I shot some numbers through very quickly, and I just want to clarify. I used 94 work stoppages; I said 19 would have been affected by this proposed legislation in all sectors. In fact, the five that I referred to should've been applied to the manufacturing sector only. Only five manufacturing firms would have been affected. In fact, 37 of the firms did use onsite managers, which this legislation would also prevent.
HOSPITALITY, COMMERCIAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 73
The Chair: Hospitality, Commercial and Service Employees Union, Local 73, welcome. Tell us your names, your titles, if any, and carry on with your submissions.
Mr Don Campbell: My name is Don Campbell, president of the Hospitality, Commercial and Service Employees Union, Local 73, which is a local union chartered by the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. Mr Tom Rees is the international representative of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union. Mr Ralph Ortleib is with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and we asked him take part in this with us because it's an industry that his union and ours share throughout the province of Ontario.
Before I start into the presentation I'd just like to clarify a point that was made earlier on by the chamber of commerce. They stated that labour had accused them of feeding misinformation. I want to make it very clear that we never suggested, accused or alleged; we said outright that they are and have been a perpetual fountain of misinformation. Having said that, I'll get on with the presentation.
In opening we wish to emphasize to the committee our full and complete support of the Ontario Federation of Labour's position on the proposals contained in Bill 40. Nevertheless, there are certain areas of needed reform which relate directly to our members and others employed in the hospitality and foodservice industry. We will attempt through this submission to explain some of the problems confronting our union in relation to some issues that are not covered by the proposals set forth in Bill 40.
We recognize, from media reports and other presentations made before this committee, that there appears to be a great deal of employer opposition to the proposed reforms set out in Bill 40. We strongly urge the government to bite the bullet and push full speed ahead to complete the passage of this legislation. Ontario workers have waited far too long for these changes. We wish the committee well in its deliberations and ask that you act as speedily as possible to allow the government to bring the workers of Ontario what they have for so long been denied.
Improving collective bargaining and reducing industrial conflict, a piece of legislation that is very close to all trade unions: We've all been on the picket line and suffered immense hardships because of the use of scabs. We strongly believe the proposals relating to the so-called anti-scab legislation will assist in bringing about a more level playing field at the collective bargaining table within the hotel and restaurant industry. The legislation should bring about a better awareness of the problems facing both employers and trade union members and hopefully lay the groundwork for a more cooperative approach to the collective bargaining process.
Fundamental to reaching new goals in Ontario's industrial relations field is the recognition of trade unions as legitimate partners in the process, together with management.
Mr Rees will now continue.
Mr Tom Rees: Deduction and remittance of union dues: Although this issue is not contained in Bill 40, we would ask the committee to give serious consideration to our proposals in this area with a view to adding changes to Bill 40 to alleviate what we consider a grievous problem with the existing legislation under section 43 of the act.
It has been our experience in Ontario that far too many employers in our industry fail to remit dues to the union on a regular basis as required under the terms of their collective agreements. For small local unions in particular, when employers hold up dues remittances for several months the very financial survival of the local union is often at stake.
In one of our local unions we have 52 establishments where we represent a total of 500 members -- in many instances 10 or fewer members per establishment. When an employer is delinquent in remittance of dues for three or four months and often more, it becomes a losing cause on the local union's part to proceed to arbitration for recovery of dues owing. None the less, it is an action that must be taken.
On at least one occasion the arbitrator stated in his award that no union should have to go to arbitration to recover delinquent dues remittances from an employer. Although sympathetic to our local union's problem, the arbitrator's fees must still be paid, in many cases amounting to more than the dues recovered. The labour board has consistently stated that it is not a dues-collection agency and has refused to intervene.
1630
The board tells us that arbitration is the proper recourse for collecting and remitting dues. On the other side of the coin, the arbitrators tell us no union should have to resort to arbitration for such purpose. We need a remedy immediately.
An employer with whom we have had contractual relations on several occasions deliberately held up union dues remittances whenever he felt hard done by the union and particularly at contract renewal time if he felt that a strike or lockout would result. In effect, this particular employer was able to force the local union into some untenable situations since he was able to completely cut off the total funding of the union's day-to-day operations, at times for a couple of months or more. None the less, this present board does not see such action as an unfair practice under section 64 of the act.
We respectfully propose that Bill 40 be amended to provide that failure by an employer to remit dues forthwith is in violation of section 43 of the act and an unfair practice under section 64 of the act. We have no problems with employers deducting dues in accordance with section 43 of the act. The major problem is prying the dues out of the employers after they have made the deductions. This abuse should not be allowed to continue any further.
We had one instance this past week of an employer sending several months of back dues -- a cheque for $5,000. The bank called last week to say it had bounced and the employer bounced with it -- it went belly up. This is the kind of thing a small local union is paralysed with.
We wish to express our thanks to the chairperson and members of this standing committee for giving us the opportunity of appearing here before you. If there are any questions, we will do our utmost to provide answers to same.
Before ending with a thank you, I'd like to digress to our previous speaker who was representing, he said, some 150-odd employers -- and I don't mean odd employers -- in our industry throughout the area. He was trying to persuade this committee that these employers should not be saddled with the anti-scab legislation as we know it. In fact, of those 150-odd people, approximately eight of them are unionized and would be possibly affected by anti-scab legislation. He happens to be one of them. Maybe misery loves company; we don't know.
I would like to advise this committee that only last January, when we appeared before the Honourable Robert Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour, one of the members of his group joined us -- and who happens to be an employer in one of the larger hotels in the city of Thunder Bay -- in a joint presentation to Robert Mackenzie's committee suggesting and proposing that the legislation that is now contained in Bill 40 be made law in the province, that he and others could live with it and that the whole operation would be one of cooperatively working together and not the confrontation we have had, particularly in our industry in most cases in the past.
Thank you very much. I think Ralph Ortleib has a few words he'd like to add.
Mr Ralph Ortleib: I fall in with the first part of the presentation here, that generally we accept the changes in the Labour Relations Act. We think they're good. We think they're long overdue. It's taken a long time for changes to come. We have concern about the rhetoric that's going on, about the fear, about the yelling and screaming coming from the other side about what we're going to do to jobs and thousands of people and how hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be lost.
We don't believe that. We don't believe it for a minute, and we just think we should get down to discussing the issues in the proposed changes to the act and not the fear and the stories that are being told.
We support the Ontario Federation of Labour generally in its approach and at some time in the future we'll be making our own presentation on behalf of our own union in relation to the changes we agree with and those we don't think go far enough.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You may or may not aware that the very issue you've spoken about, dealing with the collection and remission of dues, was brought forward to the committee, I believe last week, in Toronto. I certainly do appreciate this, because for me it was an issue I was not familiar with, and if I can, in the short while allowed to us, I'd like to just make certain that we are running along the same track on this matter.
After that submission last week, I went and took a look at the Labour Relations Act to see exactly what it is, and I see that in section 44 of the act -- we're not talking about Bill 40 but of the act -- there is almost a duty to collect and remit. But I think you're saying that though the employers are collecting, they're not remitting them to the unions.
If that happens, the procedure that is available to you is by arbitration. At the end of an arbitration hearing, the ruling would most likely be that the money should be repaid. That was sort of a question. Could we get that on record? I think it's important.
Mr Rees: Yes. I think one of the big problems we have is that of course many of our units are very small units. Local 280, I believe, appeared before the committee in Toronto, and theirs is an excellent example of what is known as the bartenders' local. We have many instances of small units within our union in the province.
Mr Offer: But my question is, the arbitrator can say there is $3,000 due and owing, basically, to be remitted, and make an order to that effect.
Mr Rees: Exactly. But the problem is this: If an employer with 10, 15 or eight employees runs up dues for five or six months and doesn't remit them to the union, to take a case to grievance and to arbitration, which is where you have to go with it, costs the union itself several thousand dollars. For a union that is fighting tooth and nail to exist and to properly represent its people, to have a representative available to them, it's extremely difficult to have a bill, say, for $1,000 in unpaid dues and have to pay $3,000 in arbitration fees to collect $1,000 of dues that were not paid by the employer.
Mr Offer: I understand. What's the difference then when one goes by the unfair practice route?
Mr Rees: We are hopeful that if Bill 40 were amended to make sure that an employer -- this way, an employer, as we stated in the other part too, is able to influence things within the union. We talked in our brief of one employer who used this on many occasions. When we would get to a point where we were unable to reach agreement in negotiations, it was the same old business of dues would suddenly stop coming in, particularly where we had one employer with some 60-odd locations in the province. I'm talking about restaurants.
1640
Mr Offer: And the end result --
Mr Rees: The end result is that the --
Mr Offer: -- is that the money would still be paid.
Mr Rees: You had one local union that was dependent on one employer. He was able, by holding up your dues for two months, to almost render the union harmless. He was hoping that the union wouldn't be able to pay its business agents, wouldn't be able to pay its bills etc, would not be able to conduct a strike, and all kinds of things happen like this.
Mr Offer: But putting all that aside, which I believe is extremely valid, at the end of the day by going through a section 65, I guess, an unfair practice --
Mr Rees: Yes.
Mr Offer: -- the order would still be made but you wouldn't be subject to an arbitration fee.
Mr Rees: That's right. Not only could the order be made, but the order could be enforced through the Supreme Court.
Mr Offer: Okay.
Mr Rees: That is extremely important to us.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. It's an important point.
Mr Tilson: Speaking generally with respect to the hospitality industry, or the hotel industry, when groups from out of province, the United States or other provinces, are seeking to come to this or any other area and they're booking ahead for long periods of time, whether it be for conventions or it could be someone planning a wedding, it could be all kinds of things, in which some event is being planned some time off, and the hotel or lodge offers reduced rates or a better service, my question to you is, will this bill cause problems in competition with non-union hotels or non-union lodges in offering that service?
I'm thinking specifically of the section where you won't be allowed to have replacement workers under certain circumstances if there is a strike, or a union has given notice to bargain and the employer is only allowed to use employees of a non-bargaining unit at the time that notice was given. In other words, if someone dies or quits after that notice is given, the employer isn't allowed to replace that worker during that period of time.
My question to you is, in those two situations, will that perhaps make people think twice about coming to a unionized hotel or a unionized lodge as opposed to one where that situation doesn't exist?
Mr Rees: In answer to you, we believe, and of course I think the members of this committee know full well, that the people whom we represent and the people we go out to organize are the poor of this province.
Mr Tilson: I'm sorry. sir?
Mr Rees: They are the poor of this province, at the bottom of the economic ladder, the minimum wage area. There has been advantage taken of that poverty level within our industry and people being fearful. Certainly, I have found through the years that I've been organizing that the fear among the poorer workers, of organizing and loss of jobs, is much greater than if you're out organizing engineers or specialty people or people with higher educational standards.
The fear of the loss of that minimum wage job is tremendous. We have a lot of damned good employers, but there are unscrupulous buggers too -- pardon me -- who play on that fear and have no qualms about telling people, "You join the union, you're out," loud and clear.
I hear people talking about votes. I've seen the votes where the president of a corporation is standing in the only hallway leading to the ballot box, where he's saying to the employees: "Don't forget what I've told you. If you don't vote the right way, the place is closed next week." I've been there. These things, in reality, happen to us, and people vote against the union often because of those pressures, especially in a small town, in a place like Hawkesbury I'm talking about, where 145 jobs were at stake, and they chose to keep their jobs because of the fear.
We have this same thing in our industry where you have the opposition of the union and the non-union. Certainly the non-union, minimum-wage employer makes it very difficult for those employers who are organized into trade unions, in this province and in others, because it is not a level playing field for them.
It also prohibits the people in our industry who desperately need to get a bigger, a little better slice of the pie.
Mr Tilson: I think that's the sad part of it.
Mr Rees: I'm trying to come up to answer your question, if you wouldn't mind, because I think it's an important issue you've put forward.
Our people only want that little bit bigger slice of the pie. You go to Toronto to a convention or you go to Montreal or what have you, or to Ottawa, you pay through the nose for that hotel room, as most of you know. Our people are still getting what is not much more than minimum wage rates, often depending on the tips granted to them by you, the client.
It's in our interest -- and we believe this is what the government is intending to try and bring about, instead of the confrontational approach that we've had and which I think labour relations has aimed at in the past in the province -- to bring about a more cooperative approach. It's in our interest to get those conventions.
It's in our interest for our people to work to bring in as many tourists as we can into this province and see they're happy and see they come back. We don't want a confrontation. We want to be able to sit down and get a fair slice of what's there, and we're willing and ready to work with the employers; always have been.
We have been thwarted. We believe that this legislation for the first time will give the workers -- the immigrants, many of whom and the majority of whom compose our membership in this province -- the opportunity to organize, to be able to have a voice and maybe get rid of the problem you're talking about, of the non-union as opposed to the union.
Mr Tilson: I quite agree. The sad part of it is that the people you are speaking of are the people who are being hurt the most. But there's no question in the tourist industry that people in the United States, people outside of this province are trying to go to a specific area and be guaranteed that they're going to get a service, that they're going to be getting a specific rate, but that guarantee won't exist any more because it'll be physically impossible for a hotel or a lodge to provide that guarantee with those two specific provisions that I gave you. It'll be impossible for them to give that guarantee.
Mr Rees: Absolutely. Conventions generally are four or five years ahead, many of them.
Mr Tilson: That's what I'm speaking of, sir.
Mr Rees: Everything is taken into consideration. Believe me, the happy hotel worker or restaurant worker is the one who's working and getting hours. We want to see people in there. We do our best.
All we're saying is this: We can work together with our employers. We believe that the legislation, as we said, is going to bring about a more level playing field and it'll help and assist in bringing our industry, both employers and unions representing the employees in the industry, to the table on a more even basis. Hopefully it'll be better for everybody.
1650
Mr Campbell: If I can carry that answer just a little bit further: in terms of a struck workplace -- I believe that was part of your question -- a place that is on strike and they have reservations and what have you.
Mr Tilson: My question has to do with if you're trying to seek a convention or if you're trying to seek a group rate or something along that line, the guarantee that's been given in the past for a specific rate or a specific level of service can no longer be given. That was my question.
Mr Campbell: If the service was interrupted by something, such as a strike or a labour dispute, which is part of the Bill 40 proposals, the way we see it, that would push the two sides together and force the two sides to negotiate, instead of a confrontational situation.
Mr Tilson: I quite agree, if you reach that point. I'm talking about the people who were making the applications six years ago or five years ago. Would they pick this particular location or would they pick another state or another province where that situation doesn't exist, where they want to be guaranteed a rate and they want to be guaranteed a level of service? That is my question.
Mr Rees: I can give you a simple answer. Although I'm out of Windsor originally, I live in Quebec right now. We have the same situation, no different in Quebec than it is in any other province: Four years ahead, you book and you get the rate you book for.
Mr Ward: Part of the intent of Bill 40 is to broaden the opportunity for employees, if they so wish, to collectively decide to have a trade union represent them. We as a government believe there are obstacles in the way of that choice. In your vast experience -- and I'm talking to all three of you now -- as far as organizing, what obstacles have you faced in your attempts to have employees follow through on their wishes to be represented by a trade union?
Mr Rees: I think that first and foremost are the instant threats we get as soon as we begin an organizing drive anyway, whether it be in a restaurant or whether it be in a hotel or other food establishment. We immediately get repercussions against those persons who are the -- what shall we say? -- inside organizers or who are talking up the union and those who are actively engaged, as employees, in organizing.
There are immediate repercussions to them of getting shifted from job to job. If you're in the kitchen you find yourself on the lousy shifts or on the dishwasher and doing the dirty work. If you're a waitress or a server you find that you're stuck in the worst part of the restaurant and you don't get the best tippers, or the others get the best tables and you don't get them. These things are done to people, and outright threats of, "No ifs, ands or buts; if you bring the union in here, we close the place."
We have an example now, I think, of one large major hotel in Toronto. We organized it some year and three months or more ago and applied to the labour board for certification. The employer came up with a list of employees that was absolutely unbelievable in numbers. It was a huge list that just didn't exist; we knew it.
Until just a couple of weeks ago, and with all due respect to any lawyers who are around, it became a lawyers' haven before the labour board, going through this list for 15 months. It's a large hotel near the airport in Toronto. Lord knows when it's going to be settled or if a vote is going to be held or whether we're going to be certified. It's disgraceful that people should have to wait that long.
As a matter of fact, the employer representative has died during the process. He's no longer with us. He wasn't a bad guy, but he's no longer with us.
It's dreadful that things like that should be allowed to happen, and some of the things -- I mentioned earlier a vote we had in Hawkesbury at one time. That was a dreadful campaign where all kinds of threats were made, employer-sponsored petitions were put out there, and when all else failed, the president of the company stood there and told people -- I went to the office that was conducting the vote at the time, and I said: "This is disgraceful. I just found out the president of the company is standing at the end of the hallway. Everybody has to pass him, and he's telling them, `Don't forget, if you vote for the union, I'm closing the place.'" In a place like Hawkesbury.
And other things, when we talk about anti-scab, it's part of the organizing, I'd say, in some regards. I recall having called a strike against a rather well known employer in the province which also operated in the province of Quebec. The women were scared; it was their first time on a picket line.
The employer put huge ads in the paper saying: "We're going to do this, that and the other thing. We're bringing in people from other provinces, management and non-union personnel, to staff the operations."
The first evening -- and the girls were alone on a picket line in Ottawa -- a car drives up, and inside are four of the so-called security that the employer had hired. This is after a long, tough organizing drive, and here we are in a strike situation, and something like 18 months had passed by. The women were standing there, not used to picketing; they'd never picketed in their lives before. The windows were rolled down, and a shotgun came out of one side of the front window and a pistol out of the back window, and they were told in not very nice language by these security people to f$m# off the picket line and stay away if they wanted to live.
This is an employer with a damned good reputation and a damned good name. We had these people arrested by the Ottawa police. The next morning a lawyer comes from the corporation headquarters in Montreal with a contract that he had with this so-called security agency that is a well-known group of ex-wrestlers, ex -- let me say it right -- cons out of the federal penitentiary, and I faced them many times, both in this province and in Quebec. When I hear about anti-scab legislation and what it's going to do, believe me, I saw those things happening. The employer comes into the police station. His lawyer hands a contract and says: "There was an error made. Here is the agreement. It was written in `unarmed.' They're allowed to be armed in Quebec, and it was written into the contract `unarmed,' and somebody made a mistake."
Now, a union guy points a gun at somebody, and he's going to do time. He's going to do time, and you're going to read about it in every newspaper in the country. It never even got a line, never got a line.
Mr Ward: What about the use of petitions?
Mr Rees: Oh God, the bane of our existence. In our industry, inevitable, absolutely, everywhere we go to organize, it's exceptionally rare where we're not faced with a petition of sorts, and always employer-sponsored, always.
There are some lawyers of course who have made a practice of it and made a bloody good living of it over the years, being behind them, and many of us know them well. One of them happens to be a good friend of mine, although he happens to be Irish. I won't use any names, but he just moved from his law firm, because I think he thinks his days of petitions are over. He's gone to another area away from labour relations, thank God, because I'm sure he knows that the use by employers of petitions will end once and for all.
I would say that 99.9% of the times I've been faced with petitions they have been employer-sponsored. It's always very difficult to get the proof. It's the old adage of the iceberg: Nine tenths are under the water. It's always hard to prove, and not just hard to prove, it delays and delays certification and bargaining rights. It gives the employer opportunities to work on people and drag people down, especially people who have been fired during the organizing campaign. Those who are active in the union are out sometimes for eight, 10, 12, 13 months before a settlement is reached, and of course all the damage has been done.
That's why we call it a more level playing field. It will give people -- the people at the bottom of the heap need it the most. It will give a good opportunity for the workers who need organization the most to be able to reach out and grab it and run with it, and hopefully we'll have a better province and a better labour relations situation because of it. I'm sure of that.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Don Campbell and Tom Rees, we appreciate you appearing today on behalf of the Hospitality, Commercial and Service Employees Union, Local 73, and we thank you for letting Ralph Ortleib from UFCW, United Food and Commercial Workers, share your submission with you. You've made a valuable contribution and we appreciate you taking the time to be here. We appreciate your interest and we trust you'll keep in touch. Take care, people.
We are recessing till 6:30 this evening.
The committee recessed at 1702.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
UNITY, LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY
The Chair: We're ready to resume. The first participants are from Lakehead University. Please tell us your names and titles and carry on with your submission.
Ms Shirley Richter: My name is Shirley Richter. I'm a clerk at Lakehead University.
Ms Norma Gibson: I'm Norma Gibson, vice-president of the Office and Professional Employees International Union at Lakehead University, and I work on the switchboard.
Ms Cheryl Balacko: I'm Cheryl Balacko. I work at Lakehead University in the bookstore as a book-order supervisor.
Mr John Griffith: My name is John Griffith. I'm president of the faculty association at Lakehead University.
Ms Mary Garbutt: My name is Mary Garbutt. I'm a member of OPEIU at Lakehead University and I work in the library.
Mr Birbal Singh: My name is Birbal Singh and I am vice-president of the Lakehead University Faculty Association.
Mr Griffith: This brief was initiated at a meeting of Unity, which is an organization consisting of all unions at Lakehead University. A list of the seven unions is in the brief.
The details of the brief were prepared by the members of OPEIU Local 81 and by the faculty association. Because of holidays and so on, the other unions didn't take an active role in preparing this.
We're going to comment tonight on those sections of Bill 40 which appear most relevant to our situation in the university community.
The first comments are stimulated by the document entitled Highlights: Labour Relations Act Reform. In reading that and looking at the changes that have taken place, we think it appears that most of the changes to the original proposals favour the employer and have been made as a result of pressure from the business community.
Apparently no changes have been made that would strengthen the avowed purpose of the amendments: firstly, to ensure that all employees who so wish have the same access to collective bargaining and the right to be represented by the union of their choice -- in particular, we look at the section on supervisors, where they are left in limbo as they don't have a right to representation; and secondly, to recognize the profound changes that have occurred in the workforce, that there are far more women, far more part-time jobs and far more ethnic diversity and that there are far fewer skilled and semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing and far more unskilled, part-time jobs in the service industry.
You may wonder why some business people are so opposed to improving the status and working conditions of their lower-paid workers, particularly when the minimum wage is in fact well below the poverty level. We wonder if the business community is happier with Bill 40 in its present form than it was with the original proposals. In fact we don't think so because it appears that some business people would only be completely satisfied if there were no unions, no minimum wage requirements and if employees could be treated in whatever manner the employer wished.
We find it difficult to take seriously the objections of a group which is spending large amounts of money on billboards across the province, equating the democratic right to join a union with the dictatorial communism of Lenin. Perhaps these funds could have been put to better use attempting to become more competitive and productive, as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce press release in June 1992 said. One wonders what comments the chamber of commerce would have made regarding the role of the Polish trade union Solidarity in the re-establishment of democratic rights in the overthrow of communism in Poland.
If we look at some of the particulars of Bill 40 in its original form and in its amended form, the first one that caught our eye was the section that was dropped, the proposal that would have allowed supervisors to organize. While we acknowledge there is some difficulty in defining the category of supervisors, it should be recognized that many low-level managerial personnel have no final decision-making powers.
If we take the university, legally the decision-making power is the board of governors. Even the president of the university "recommends" to the board. So the actual division between who makes the decisions and the recommendations is there, even though there is a large group of employees at Lakehead who are excluded from being unionized.
If we think of this group of low-level managerial personnel, how are they going to improve their working conditions? At Lakehead, they get a settlement after all the other unions have settled. They haven't got a settlement yet because the OPEIU is still bargaining. From July 1 there is a backlog in wages and in improving conditions for this group, which will only come to pass if the board can get away with giving OPEIU a small amount of money to let some money be available for the group of non-unionized. The term I've heard for the type of bargaining of this group of supervisors is "binding supplication." They go on their bended knees and they only get what the employer deigns to give them.
If it's imperative that labour and management increasingly work together to meet the challenge of international competitiveness and the unprecedented pressure for change in the workplace, if workers are increasingly being involved in improving business practices and in joint decision-making, then why should these groups, which have been working together with respect to the transition funds which the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is looking at now -- the unionized groups and non-unionized and management work together -- why should these groups that have been working to improve the practices be divided with respect to equal access to collective bargaining?
Maintaining the exclusion of supervisors is surely inconsistent with the avowed purpose of the act that all employees have the right to organize if they wish. It is suggested that such an exclusion may well be found contrary to the guarantee of equal benefit before the law in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is surely a violation of section 2 of the charter, which guarantees the freedom of association as a fundamental Canadian freedom.
Even though it's difficult to obtain precise information, at Lakehead University there are approximately 150 full-time employees who are not represented by a union, many of whom fall into this intermediate supervisory category.
Ms Garbutt: One of these categories is our security guards at Lakehead University. They are presently required to join the Canadian Guards Association in order to avoid any conflict of interest. At Lakehead University there is no conflict of interest. The guards do not monitor employees, as in some cases; they are there to provide a safe work environment.
We have discovered that the CGA is very weak and considering dissolution. To strengthen their ability to bargain and receive fair practices and deals, guards should have the right to join the union of their choice or join a union already at the workplace, as at Lakehead University.
Mr Griffith: When we come to the access to lists of employees for organizing, the proposed amendments to the original Bill 40 have dropped the requirement that the union see the list, and this seems unfair. How do we know the list hasn't been padded? The only people who apparently see the list are the employer and the Ontario Labour Relations Board. If the union doesn't see the list, we've no idea of who in fact is on there.
We know that, in addition to the 550 unionized employees and 150 full-time, non-unionized, there are between 600 and 800 part-time employees. The number fluctuates. For instance, during registration they hire more part-time people. Unfortunately the government has decided not to proceed with an amendment requiring the employer to provide unions with lists of employees. If we had those lists, we could have had the opportunity to legitimately organize, or try to organize, among these 600 part-time employees.
1840
Ms Balacko: In general, part-time employees receive lower wages coupled with no benefits and no job security. Many of them are women and many are immigrants. These are the very people the government claimed it wished to protect with its amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
Unless a union actually knows who is employed and how to get in touch with the employees, it's difficult, if not impossible, to organize them. We would ask the government to reconsider its decision not to proceed with an amendment in this area so that part-time workers do have the opportunity to join a union and receive its support and its protection if they so wish.
Mr Griffith: At Lakehead University there are approximately 300 part-time faculty. They teach in the evenings and come to campus once or twice a week. They teach in widely separated locations across campus, as well as in numerous locations across northwestern Ontario. If there's somebody in Red Lake, how on earth do the people who are full-time workers get to know who in fact is teaching? These part-timers never meet as a group. The union doesn't know who they are; they don't know their own peers; they may or may not meet the qualifications required by the collective agreement for faculty members. If we were to attempt to organize this group, we wouldn't even be able to check the accuracy of the list the employer filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Ms Gibson: OPEIU supports the amendment in Bill 40 which enables the board to combine full- and part-time employees in a single unit. If this clause were accompanied by a requirement on the part of the employer to provide us with a list of employees, the 300 part-time support staff at Lakehead University would have equal access to the right to join a union of their choice.
Unions are forced to monitor work areas in order to determine the presence of part-time employees who meet the criteria set out in the contract. The onus is then on the union to approach management with the names.
OPEIU is now in the process of picking up 11 part-time employees who have been employed at Lakehead University for over a year doing bargaining unit work but without access to adequate benefits and the protection of the contract. This action was started 14 months ago and is not yet finalized.
The combination of part-time with full-time employees in a single bargaining unit will strengthen the existing unit rather than create another weak one.
Ms Balacko: During a recent organizing campaign, a union member at Lakehead University was harassed during his coffee break. He was in the cafeteria. His union, unfortunately or fortunately, was organizing the members of the cafeteria staff. At the time in question, he was actually sitting and having his coffee, but was accused of organizing at the time.
Ms Gibson: From time to time, union members have been cautioned about conducting union business on campus when in fact they've been on their lunch break and their conversations have been social exchange.
Ms Garbutt: We have found that one of the affiliates of the OPEIU experienced difficulty during a recent strike because their work site was located in a shopping mall and they were prevented from picketing adjacent to their work location. By their having to picket the mall at its entrances, other businesses were affected and shoppers refused to cross picket lines. When this organization was allowed to picket at its work site, it made a very big difference in the mall.
In regard to the expediting of hearings, we believe this is a step forward in the board's ability to deter employers from committing unfair labour practices.
Mr Griffith: We strongly support the government's decision to prohibit the use of replacement workers. We believe that if replacement workers were allowed, the employer could continue his operation, which reduces the incentive to bargain in good faith.
We also believe this amendment will have the desired result of reducing violence on the picket lines. In fact we point out that if an employer attempts to bring strikebreaking replacement workers across picket lines, it is the taxpayer of Ontario who pays for the protection of those workers who cross the picket line in terms of police and other people who have to be there.
The restriction on replacement workers needs to be strengthened. We regret that other non-bargaining-unit and supervisory employees will continue to be allowed to perform struck work.
Ms Richter: During a strike by the service employees at Lakehead University, the office employees of OPEIU were asked to perform duties of the striking union, such as emptying waste baskets and putting out garbage. Although the employee has the right to refuse this work, this fact is not made known, and some employees are easily intimidated.
We also regret the government's decision to drop the proposal that employees be allowed to negotiate the right to refuse to cross the picket line of employees in a different bargaining unit. This decision will help employers to ignore the legitimate requests of small and weaker bargaining units, such as those of support staff who are mainly women. It also has the potential of increasing conflict between groups of employees during and after a strike.
Ms Balacko: Now we're going to deal with successor rights. The importance of this issue became apparent when cafeteria services at Lakehead University were transferred to a new employer. The union was not recognized by the new employer, and an employee with 22 years of service, who had actually worked for this company originally, was let go. This person suffered a very traumatic stress-related breakdown and has since passed away and so cannot be here to speak for herself.
We are very pleased that the new legislation will ensure that a successor employer will be bound by any and all terms already negotiated, particularly in regard to cafeteria staff.
Mr Griffith: Various organizations have made comments about the relationship between Bill 40 and the economic viability of the province, but I remind these people that unions are formed to protect workers from exploitation. If all employees were given considerate and fair treatment and were treated as partners in a business enterprise, then there would be no need for trade unions. Surely it's possible for both business and unions to work together to improve efficiency, to increase productivity and to combine fair and legitimate profits with fair and humane working conditions.
The chamber is worried that Bill 40 will affect an employer's ability to negotiate effectively and to operate during a strike. What about the employees' ability to negotiate effectively and to avoid a strike? It's surely unfair that during a strike, which occurs when the collective bargaining process breaks down, one side must survive on strike pay while the other continues in business.
We strongly believe that our main weapon in today's global economy is the quality of our products and services. These can only be improved when workers feel they are being fairly treated. A strong union movement has hardly hindered the economic development of West Germany and the European Community. Trade unions surely agree that business should view Ontario as a place where investment is encouraged and where it has an opportunity to grow. We're very pleased that General Motors has already demonstrated its belief that these conditions exist. However, while business growth is to be encouraged, it is surely also critical that Ontario be viewed as a place where growth in business is accompanied by fair and equitable treatment of employees as equal partners in the process.
We urge the government not to make any further concessions to the business lobby, but to proceed with Bill 40 as quickly as possible. We thank the committee for this opportunity to present our concerns to you.
Mr Tilson: I'd like to have you elaborate somewhat on the bargaining units for part-time employees. I'd like you to tell me a little bit more about why those two units should not be treated separately, other than of course increasing the coffers of the union, because the part-time employee and the full-time employee obviously can have quite different interests.
Part-time employees may not wish to have the pension issues. They're in there to make funds. They're not interested in the type of security perhaps that the full-time employee wishes. They may not even wish to join the union. Yet under this proposed legislation, if a vote is taken and the percentage of the vote is received from the full-time group, the part-time employees would be forced to join whether they want to or whether they do not want to.
Ms Gibson: At Lakehead University, the majority of part-time people do come to us asking us to do something to get them into the union. This has been proven. We already have people part-time. We have sections of the contract that cover those people and they do have benefits. They do get the working wage that anybody else does. If they were not part of the union, they would not.
1850
Mr Tilson: I'm not challenging the right for the part-time employee to become a member of the union. I believe they should have that right. What I'm saying is that the interests of the part-time employee and the full-time employee in many cases can be quite different and that those rights should be respected and that one group can be forced to join another group even though those interests are quite variable. My question is not whether they should be entitled to unionize, but why in the world they should be forced to join the same group when their interests are quite different.
Mr Singh: I think you are trying to look at exceptional situations in trying to generalize that. Trying to divide two groups sharply on this basis is not fully justifiable because many of the part-timers are there on a part-time basis because of either circumstances or of lack of availability of full-time work. You are making an assumption that all the part-timers are there purely by choice.
Mr Tilson: Most jurisdictions throughout North America separate the two groups. Why should Ontario be different than all other jurisdictions?
Mr Singh: Somebody has to take the lead. Let me tell you here, maybe giving a lecture as a teacher, that of all the forces acting on mankind, change is the most beneficial and most cruel, but somebody has to take the lead in that change, especially when the change comes so dramatically. It is true that the many groups feel uncertain about the outcome. Those who are going to be affected are worried. Even those who are not affected get worried.
Mr Tilson: You say that notwithstanding the fact that the two groups can have quite different interests?
Mr Singh: No, I don't agree that the two groups have quite different interests. Some of the people in two groups may have different interests.
Mr Tilson: I give the example of the pension benefits. The part-time employee may not have the desire to have a strong pension plan that the full-time employee has. They're not in it to receive a pension or other such benefits. They're in it to make money, money that's quite different than the full-time employee.
Mr Singh: In that situation, it will not be difficult for the unions to come out with proposals for flexible benefit schemes.
Mr Tilson: But that isn't what the act says. That isn't what the bill's saying.
Mr Singh: No, but we are bringing in different alternatives.
Mr Jackson: I had a couple of quick questions about the arbitration process. I've been involved with labour bargaining in the educational sector and this committee has heard presentations from the regular school boards which fall within the separate legislation or outside of the labour act, whereas you're a combination of unionized workers who are partially covered by provincial legislation, but all of you are covered by the labour act. Is that not correct?
How do you feel about the expanded role of the arbitrator where, for example, you have straight seniority -- last hired, first fired -- for dismissal, for reductions? In this economic environment there's contraction unfortunately in virtually every one of your bargaining affiliates. How do you feel about an arbitrator having expanded power to get into areas like program protection, to override certain management decisions or certain decisions that the union might support but the arbitrator might change?
In the educational field it works against the labour unions. It doesn't work for them because of the unique nature of collective bargaining for education. How do you feel about or are you aware of the expanded powers that the arbitrator might be granted in this circumstance?
Mr Singh: I'm not aware about the total details, but still I object to your taking a sharp division between the interest of the union and the interest of management. We are looking at the interest of the province and the interest of the country together.
Mr Jackson: You can object all you want. That wasn't my point. Perhaps you should listen more carefully to my question. I'm still trying to get an answer to the notion of, you have six or seven different bargaining affiliates and you interrelate on one job site but you don't interrelate in the way an arbitrator would deal with you because there's a world of difference between academia and program protection and those persons who might be assigned to the janitorial or the CUPE union.
That's the nature of my concern, and education is unique in that regard. School boards have already told us that there are serious problems here, because some are within the Education Act and some are under the labour act. But community colleges, as I understand it, are all under the one act.
Ms Garbutt: That's right. At the university we're all under the one act. It's not the Education Act, it's the labour act, and we have no problem with the arbitrational part of the changes and things that are -- you'll note there are things in our brief that we did not speak on. What we tried to do was deal with problems we have at the university. We didn't dwell on arbitration cases because we have a tendency not to have that problem, very thankfully, so we really can't go into a lot of detail in some of those areas.
Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedules to be here this evening. First of all, I just want to reference that the chart that has been published clearly indicates, and I'd like research to confirm this, that full- and part-time workers in every other jurisdiction in Canada have the right to single-unit representation if they so decide. Can we just have that question clarified as soon as possible?
The Chair: That's noted.
Mr Jackson: As I understand it, so does Ontario. What we're saying is that it would be easier access. Isn't that your point?
Mr Ferguson: On the brief that's just been presented, I think the people who have taken the opportunity to speak clearly recognize that we're trying to bring the Labour Relations Act out of the 1970s and into the 1990s and recognize of course that there is a changing workplace out there.
In one of your comments in the brief, on page 1 -- and I'm glad to see that you recognize this, because it's certainly not getting universal recognition, that's for sure -- you state that it appears that all of the changes to the original proposals favour the employer. I want to tell you that I'm glad to see you recognize that there have been some changes. In fact you should know there have been 23 changes in total, 10 I would classify as major and 13 minor.
Despite those changes from the original consultation process that took place with the minister when he went around the province and spoke to well over 300 groups and individuals, do you think this act is still going to be able to serve the interests of the workers in this particular community as well as the business sector in this community?
Mr Singh: No. A couple of days ago some women's group did bring out points that though the act is trying to improve the working conditions of women, it really is not going far enough. I believe there are other groups to articulate their cases. We are basically talking about the university and related unions in the university.
But bringing it back to your point of going from the 1970s to the 1990s, it's very interesting that in just this month's Harvard Business Review, one of the well-known conservative gurus in this area, Kevin Phillips, has agreed that the Anglo-American model of the 1980s with less government and no government activism has failed and the Franco-German model of increased government activism and long-term strategic thinking has outperformed Anglo-American models. So thanks for pointing out the difference between the 1970s and the 1990s.
1900
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to deal with the issue of part-time and full-time employees very briefly, because the issue, when you cut through everything, is not whether part-time workers should or should not unionize -- they have that right -- nor whether they should combine, because that's there. The issue, when you cut through all of it, is whether before part-time workers are combined with full-time workers there should be a majority of both part-time workers and full-time workers who want that, and if the majority want that, then let it be. Do you believe in that?
Mr Singh: Once again, just to give you the viewpoint of the university -- that's what we are representing -- about the kind of part-time employees we have, for example, we have over 300 sessional lecturers. Most of them are working part-time hoping to get into full-time positions. They will be glad to have all the benefits we have and glad to join us if they are allowed to do so.
Mr Griffith: I'd certainly say yes to your question.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much. Unfortunately the legislation does not allow that to happen, and that is the concern that we have brought forward almost from day one: Let the majority of the workers rule. Let them decide. This legislation does not allow that to happen.
My next question deals with the issue of organizing. I don't know if I'll have the time to bring in the issue of lists, but with respect to organizing, you've brought forward difficulties of organizing and some of the things that have happened in an organizing drive.
Since the beginning of these hearings, people have come forward, not only with difficulties in organizing, and they've provided information such as here. But others have said: "Well, let's deal with the issue. Let's give to the workers, the men and women, wherever they're located, the right to make that decision in a free, unfettered and secret way. Let there be a time when they are informed as to what organizing means to them, let them be informed of the issues, and let them, after that time, cast their vote, yes or no, in a secret ballot." My question to you is, do you agree with that?
Ms Balacko: I think I'd like to speak on that. I think in some ways a secret ballot is fine, but if you give people too much time then you also have the influence from the other side where people are intimidated, and in those positions a lot of people are intimidated. They are women, they are immigrants, some do not speak English or don't speak English well enough. They don't always have the opportunity to make that choice freely.
Mr Offer: Do I have some time left? Thank you very much. My question to you again is -- and remember we have in this legislation some very severe penalities to an employer right now that if there is coercion, there will be unionization, there will be a certification issue, under Bill 40. So there is a very severe penalty which I think would meet the concerns which you've just raised and which are very valid in my point.
The second point is, let's take a look at that time period. Let's not make it unduly long or short, but let's give to the workers, to the men and women wherever they're located, what it means, and let them then cast the vote free, secret and then let the majority rule.
My question to you is, do you agree with that?
Ms Garbutt: In my experience, when organizing drives are going on, I think all the sides, everything is presented to whomever you're organizing. I think they are given time, but we have found that if things go on too long, a union has gone in and has organized, has everyone behind it, but if things aren't done quickly, they change because they are being influenced by outside forces. It's usually the employer who is influencing them.
There have been cases, and I'm sure you've heard many of them, where people have been fired for organizing, and all sorts of different things. I really think the time limits are there and they should stay there. It doesn't help either side in an organizing drive when problems come up and things aren't settled. So I really think it should be the way it is.
Mr Tilson: The question was, do you believe in the secret vote?
The Chair: Well, no. The question is that we're well into the next group's time. I'm going to thank you people very much for being here this evening, Unity, which speaks for the Canadian Guards Association, Local 102; Canadian Union of Educational Workers, Local 5; Operating Engineers International Union, Local 865; Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 81; Service Employees International Union, Local 268, and Lakehead University Faculty Association, Units 1 and 2. Thank you very much. Your comments are appreciated by all of the committee and we appreciate your taking the time to be here this evening and to express your views. You've performed a valuable role.
DRYDEN AND DISTRICT LABOUR
COUNCIL
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA -- CANADA, LOCAL 2693
The Chair: The next participants are going to be jointly the Dryden and District Labour Council and the International Woodworkers of America -- Canada, Local 2693.
Go ahead. There are two submissions. You decide which order you're going to do these in. We've got your written briefs. They're going to form part of the record, they're exhibits. Go ahead. Tell us who you are first and whatever titles you might have, your names and titles, and then go ahead with your comments.
Ms Alma Wall: Good evening. I am Alma Wall, president of the Dryden and District Labour Council. With me are Mary Aitken, vice-president of the Dryden local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and Wilf McIntyre, president of Local 2693, IWA -- Canada.
For more than a year now we have been subjected to one of the most hysterical anti-union, anti-labour campaigns the likes of which we have not seen in decades. It is now time to get things back in perspective. The proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are not about unions. The amendments are about people. The amendments are about women in the workforce, they are about immigrants, they are about single-parent, single-income families. They are about a changing workplace and a changing workforce.
The workplace and the workforce have changed dramatically since the Ontario Labour Relations Act was last amended. The proposed amendments represent a good beginning to recognizing and addressing these changes.
The workforce is shifting to the public sector and the service sector. There is also a dramatic shift to part-time workers. Many of these workers represent single-parent, single-income families. The current legislation does not allow many of these workers to be represented by a union. These workers need and want the opportunity to take advantage of the same rights and benefits their co-workers are entitled to under a union contract.
Even in a small community such as Dryden we see many workplaces shifting to a part-time workforce. Unfortunately none of these workers are able to get part-time mortgages, part-time car payments or part-time rent. In most instances, as part-time workers, these people are not entitled to any benefits such as dental and medical coverage. Many of these workers are not entitled to sick leave benefits. If these workers miss work due to illness this represents a total loss of earnings for that period. A part-time worker cannot afford the loss of a day's pay. If the illness is ongoing, the worker is likely to find on recovery that he or she has been replaced and there is no longer work available. This is adding insult to injury.
These workers need some very basic rights to maintain a standard of living and retain some dignity. For a single-parent, single-income family, the ability to join a union and negotiate some form of benefits would be a welcome change and go a long way to maintaining or improving their standard of living.
Many workers recognize the benefits of being a part of a unionized workplace but are afraid of employer reprisals. Although it is not legal to discharge a worker for union activity, the dismissal of a key worker in an organizing campaign can stop an organizing drive in its tracks. This tactic is often employed for just such a purpose. Even if the organizing drive is successful, it can still take months to process a grievance and have the discharged worker reinstated. The likelihood of this tactic being employed seems to be directly proportional to the need for a union in the workplace.
For many years, the Dryden and District Labour Council has lobbied for replacement worker legislation. Much of the violence seen on picket lines can be attributed to the use of replacement workers. Over 90% of contracts are settled without strike action. The decision to take strike action is not an easy decision and it is not taken lightly.
Strike action is a very negative action. Workers involved in a strike action are under extreme stress; they have no income and no idea of how long they will be on strike. When replacement workers are brought into the workplace, it only serves to prolong the strike action and increase tensions. Replacement workers are not used to provide necessary services; they are used to intimidate strikers. The use of replacement workers only serves to create more barriers and hinder the collective bargaining process.
During the past weeks, I have had the opportunity to follow some of the hearings. I have heard much talk of a level playing field. This seems to be the catchphrase these days. We have seen what the level playing field has done for us in the Canada-US free trade agreement; we are going to see what the level playing field does for us in the North American free trade agreement.
I respectfully submit that this is not a field, this is not a game and I'm not playing. This legislation deals with issues which affect the daily lives of many workers in this province. Do not belittle its importance by referring to it as a playing field. Wilf.
1910
Mr Wilf McIntyre: Thanks, Alma. On behalf of IWA -- Canada, we are pleased to be able to make this presentation to the standing committee on resources development. I would also extend my thanks to the Dryden and District Labour Council and Sister Wall for sharing some of their allotted time.
In northern Ontario, Locals 2693 and 2995, IWA -- Canada, represent over 7,500 members who are primarily employed in the woods operations of pulp and paper mills, sawmills, plywood and flakeboard plants in northern Ontario. We stretch basically from the Manitoba border down into Sudbury and North Bay with our two locals. We have represented workers in these operations since the early 1920s as the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, which was then affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. In 1988, we, along with the International Woodworkers of America, separated from our respective internationals and merged to become IWA -- Canada. We now represent over 50,000 members in the woods industry of Canada.
Present labour legislation gives a great number of opportunities for confrontation. There are a great number of areas where confrontation can be dragged out. There are those who have a vested interest in opposing reform. The opposition to reform is insisting that the confrontational positions continue. This is evidenced by the almost panicky press releases by the lawyers screaming against the new legislation because they know that the present system is lining their pockets.
I just want to bring to your attention that last week our papers were full of lawyers' comments on how bad this legislation is going to be for them to make money. IWA -- Canada experienced one very recent example of this. We have noticed that the government did not make any changes to section 40 -- employer request for a vote on last offer -- where there isn't a provision on who has the right to vote. The employer got bamboozled into some 60 days of hearings against IWA, thinking he was going to make his fortune by filing a lawsuit against us. After some $350,000 in legal fees, IWA and the company managed to come to an agreement because the company finally realized who the real winners of this jackpot were. This is why we feel that these changes have not gone far enough.
Looking back through the records in our office the other day, we found that all of the changes and many others were proposed back in 1961 and 1963 by this union, and I'll give you a little history of why some of it was proposed as we go along. We believe that this is how far outdated the present labour laws actually are.
Our union has, over the past 50 to 60 years, negotiated thousands of collective agreements with very few strikes, and most of these were the result of demands from the company to try and destroy the union. When this happens, you can rest assured that the company has put a plan together to bring in scab workers to start confrontation.
In 1963, we had three members shot to death and eight others wounded at Reesor Siding between Kapuskasing and Hearst. We have a monument that was put up there in 1965, I believe, and these are pictures of it. If some of you ever drive up that north highway, you'll see it up there. It's taken 30 years to finally get a government to recognize that it should be a historical monument. Finally, this government has taken upon itself that it will put a recognition in there and it will be looked after by the government as our history in Canada, which we have never been able to get recognized by any other government in this province.
I believe someone paid a $100 fine for a small charge that had been laid, and that charge was non-capital murder. That's what the scabs paid for shooting people. The union was fined for various charges and $27,600 was paid out by the union in that strike in 1963, and we didn't kill anybody.
The Boise Cascade strike in 1968: In the United States this company is proud to be known as the biggest union-busting company in forestry. They have a very good record of it; they love doing it. If you take a look at the logging industry in the United States, it has destroyed every union in existence that it has bargained with. I personally spent two years on this picket line. We were harassed by 300 security guards and 200 Ontario Provincial Police. It cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $5 million to protect this union-busting company. The Department of Employment and Immigration advertised across Canada for scabs for Boise and paid for their fares to Kenora and Fort Frances to take our jobs.
This company was successful in destroying families and causing many marriage breakups, pitting father against son and brother against brother on picket lines. These communities will have hard feelings for generations to come. I know this from personal experience. I can tell you it was a long situation there for those two years we were on the picket line. We went through very difficult times.
Prior to the first month we were on the picket lines, the company had BSed the workers into a great safety program and took all our pictures and made sure it had them all on file. A month after we were on the picket line, they took them all down -- this came out in the courts after -- to the police station and picked out the people they wanted arrested and taken off the picket lines. We had some 300 charges laid against people to get them off the picket lines. We couldn't get into the courts to have them heard until about six months after we were on the picket line. At that point, out of 300 bloody charges, there were six people who were found guilty.
Two years after the strike, 1982, they sure as heck made it difficult for people around that community in Kenora and Fort Frances to get jobs with the contractors delivering any type of wood or products into the mills. I, for one, left the community and went out to Alberta in 1982. Lo and behold, I was on the street one day when Forsyth and Elinic, two of the OPP officers who harassed for years down there, made an arrest in Alberta and brought me back not only to my home in Kenora but here to Thunder Bay to lay 28 charges and threaten me that if I didn't concede and give them the information they felt was needed because of the pressure that was on the government at the time to find somebody guilty of some of the things that had been done behind the lines of the police and the security guards, I was going to spend 25 years in jail for every charge. And the harassment went on.
By the way, they dropped me off here in Thunder Bay out on Arthur Street and let me go back to Alberta on my own. Thirty days later I had to report back here to face the charges and they withdrew them all. How do you like that? Total harassment. That's what goes on with companies like Boise Cascade.
There are other examples, but time is limited here. We could spend probably all day talking about some of the situations. We've had some very recent ones, one down in Hearst with the Malette sawmill strike there that was a very difficult situation again, where scabs were charged with dangerous driving and you name it through picket lines.
We feel that the legislation which is in front of us is not going to solve our present problems because the companies will still be able to contract work out and purchase fibre from other sources.
1920
We feel it is a must to remove the loopholes or it will not work. We know that only a small percentage of companies try to bust unions, but we believe the government should not allow this to happen at all in this province. We do not understand why there is such an outcry against this piece of legislation. The present situation only protects a few union-busting companies.
First-contract arbitration: Organizing is very difficult in the logging industry because of workers being transient. Anti-union employers will move the workers constantly in a 600- to 700-mile radius in northern Ontario.
When we are successful in being certified, the real battle begins: to get a collective agreement. We have experienced up to 19 months of negotiations and 35 to 40 days of meetings before managing to reach a collective agreement. They hire lawyers to deliberately stall negotiations, hoping that workers will turn on the union and decertify. In this particular case, we had a standing meeting every Sunday to keep the workers together. That was the only way we could keep it going because they were trying to bust that bargaining unit up. It was a big company in this area, and was not one to let a union in to protect and bargain for their workers. They were determined that they were not going to let it get in there. But we finally did, with the great determination between the workers and ourselves.
We feel that the 30-day period should be deleted and replaced by "upon application by the union it should be granted."
Provision dealing with timber limit holders: As we are the only union which represents workers in logging operations in forestry, we feel that one of the most important changes that we request would be a provision similar to what appears in the Quebec labour code dealing with the timber limit holders.
Attached to this memo is a copy of some portions of the Quebec labour code. Section 2 provides that the timber limit holder shall be deemed to be the employer of the employees. There is a definition of "logging operations" and a definition of "logging operator." If you look at all the portions we have underlined, you will note how we could have eliminated all the confrontations of the past and those of the present or future in the Ontario logging industry.
In talking to some people in Quebec, it is the understanding that the philosophy the Quebec government adopted was that as the timber limits are in fact owned by the province, by the people, then the person who gets those timber limits should be responsible, from a labour relations point of view, for all of those who are engaged in the logging operations.
We would request that the identical type of wording be used in the definitions section of the Labour Relations Act and the insertion of a similar section in the Labour Relations Act, with the deletion of the words "except those engaged in highway transportation."
To reach a position which is equal, we are embarking into a new era of international economic competition with the North American free trade agreement. The government had talked about a "level playing field." In Ontario we are well below that level. Previous provincial governments had ignored the legitimate interests of workers and the benefits that workers justly need and deserve. We are hoping that in time we can achieve the level that other provinces have granted to their workers to give them the protection they need. We believe Ontario should be doing the same. These amendments are one small step to get us to that level playing field.
Again, we urge that this bill be passed as soon as possible. Thank you.
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for coming out tonight and giving your two presentations, which I personally found very informative. I have just a couple of questions.
First of all, I'd like to focus on the secret ballot aspect of labour relations. We're hearing, basically, proponents in favour of Bill 40 -- groups and presentations support the initiative, although some say it may not go far enough. The critics are saying it goes too far. But I'm finding that when the critics give presentations, they are making a suggestion on the aspect of a secret ballot during an organizing drive.
I think the concerns that have been expressed about a secret ballot by the proponents of Bill 40 are that employers and their management representatives would use tactics or intimidation and coercion, subtle or hidden or very overt, but still use them to sway their employees to vote against a union representing them. There have been suggestions that we can perhaps eliminate that intimidation.
The questions I have for the three of you are: Currently under the act, during an organizing drive, if you achieve 55% of the employees signing a union card, in essence we're counting that as their vote. If you have between 40% and 55%, there is a secret ballot vote. The critics of Bill 40 are saying, "We should have a secret ballot vote for the whole, no matter what percentage you have."
The question I have is: If we adopted a secret ballot approach in the real world, do you feel that intimidation and coercion and pressure tactics by an employer can be eliminated, especially as employer and management representatives have a captive employee audience for at least eight hours a day?
Mr McIntyre: I think the present system, with the 55%, is necessary to stay where it is. I just went through organizing a small sawmill down near Sudbury. Exactly what you're talking about happened. We ended up having to go to a vote, because we were working towards 55% when the company started to harass the workers, and of course all signing of the cards just about came to an end. I think we had about 53%, so we ended up with a vote.
I can tell you that those workers were totally harassed in that plant, because we ended up losing the vote. We knew that sawmill was ready to be organized because of the conditions and what was going on in there. I can assure you that the very same sawmill will probably be organized when this company doesn't come through with the promises it made; the workers will turn around and try to reorganize again. We went through it in many instances. The employer has total control of that workforce during the working day. They get their stoolies planted in there and they start the threats to the workers and it destroys the vote.
I went into that plant because of the section 8 we had filed. There was an agreement that we would have an opportunity to address the workers. Their workers were continually frightened all the time we were in there. I believe the 55% that is there presently should stay. There's no question in my mind about that.
Mr Ward: You're suggesting that, in your opinion, 55% signing a union card is in reality the vote.
Mr McIntyre: I don't think it's enough. It should be 50% plus one. That's what I would say. That's what our submission was back in January, and I still believe that because of the harassment the workers go through in the workplace.
Mr Ward: Recognizing that the workplace and workforce have changed, as I believe the representative from Dryden and District Labour Council suggested -- and I don't think anyone will argue that it has since the 1970s -- part of the initiative of Bill 40 is to allow or streamline the process so that if employees feel, for whatever reason, compelled collectively to say, "We want a trade union to represent us," we're hearing from proponents of Bill 40 that there are still obstacles in the way.
One that is constantly mentioned is the use of petitions. I'm not sure if you have any experience in organizing, but I was wondering if you could relate some, if you have any, on how petitions and how they are currently under the act creates a real obstacle for the majority of employees who wish to be represented by a trade union.
1930
Mr McIntyre: Again, in this plant I just talked about, a petition was tried there. The pressure is on the workers that if they don't sign that petition whether they want to or not, they're going to be fired.
The problem with the petitions is that all it does is make the pension plans for these legal firms get bigger and bigger. My experience has been that I've never seen one petition get through the board, at least with our organization. The majority of them are eventually thrown out, because they're usually started by the employer, and it's usually proven that way.
Petitions are pressure on the workers, because if they don't sign it, then the individual who's taken that petition around runs back to the boss and tells him that so-and-so didn't sign it. We've experienced that; we had to file a section 89 in this very last drive. We managed to get the worker back to work, but that's what happens. The employer fires the employee because he knows damn well he's supporting the union.
Nine times out of 10 we win the 89s, but I can tell you it's very costly for a union to take these battles all the time to the labour relations board. My understanding is that the board was originally set up for workers to solve problems, but it's become a nightmare with legal technicalities that come on stream, and this is one of the very ones. These petitions become a legal bunch of crap for these lawyers to fill their pockets.
Mr Ferguson: I think that's important for us to hear as well, because that's something we haven't heard in the past, how lucrative the labour relations field is for the entire legal community.
When I read your presentation and hear what you have to say, particularly the limitations you have to work against -- such as moving workers around because of the transient nature, the 35 to 40 days of meetings before managing to reach a collective agreement, the legal community working obviously on the company's behalf deliberately stalling negotiations, and having to meet every Sunday, hopefully not in the bush, in order to keep it together -- when I read these buttons that say "The Struggle Continues," it's not just jingoism. Clearly in your view it is a heck of a struggle to pull it off, pull it together and keep it together.
I want to turn to a more important matter, and that's the worker replacement provision. As you know, what's being proposed here is similar to what's been in existence in the province of Quebec since 1978. Based on your Quebec affiliates' experience, I would like to know from you first hand how that provision has worked in that province, because despite the doom and gloom I'm hearing from some -- not all -- in the business community, I look at Quebec, where it's been since 1978, and obviously Quebec hasn't come to a grinding halt. I would really like to know what your experience has been with the affiliates.
Mr McIntyre: The experience in Quebec is that it has worked well or I'm sure the Bourassa government would have pulled it out, and we haven't seen the Liberal government pull it out; it's still there. In fact, they've done amendments to it since it was first put in in 1983.
I put it in my brief. It's only certain companies that want to break unions, and why are we protecting those companies? I think this legislation is a must.
It's worked well in Quebec, to my understanding. In the earlier years, prior to 1983, there were some very dirty and terrible strikes and real confrontations in Quebec. People were getting killed and everything else, similar to what I've explained we've experienced in northern Ontario as bushworkers. It's only certain companies. We negotiate with all the big companies in northern Ontario, but there's only the odd one that wants to put up the fight, like Boise Cascade and Malette Lumber.
Domtar, for instance -- we went through a sawmill strike there -- deliberately moved lumber from White River down to Sault Ste Marie and parked it in a parking lot in the Sault just to have our people uprise to try to stop it from going out. We ended up with six charges there, people now with criminal records against them only because of the irritation of the company -- not wanting to do anything: They had no sale for that lumber whatsoever, but they made that move to get the workers upset, knowing damn well they would try to stop that lumber from going out. That's the situation that arises.
We really feel in northern Ontario, with the experiences we've had, that this legislation has to go through. I think it's going to be better for everybody. I don't see where the average collective agreement is going to go through that process, because that's not the way we negotiate. I think we have a very good relationship with the companies we deal with, so it's only those ones that want to take on the unions and bust us and kick the hell out of the workers.
Mr Offer: I have a series of questions. I thank you for your presentation. I note, Mr McIntyre, in your presentation, on page 2, you touched on the issue of vote on last offer. Would you support an amendment to this legislation that in all cases just prior to a strike the employees be given full information as to what has happened in the negotiating, what the union has asked for, what the employer has countered with and all the issues on the table and supporting an amendment which would say there would be no strike until a vote on last offer was taken and carried by the employees of the union?
Mr McIntyre: As the processes go on through the negotiations, of course you get into conciliation, and when a conciliation officer gives a "no board" report, you're going to be into a legal strike position within that 16-day period. We normally never take a strike vote until we're starting to go into mediation. Usually we try to get a mediation officer to get into negotiations. Even at that point, if substantial moves have been made we always take it back to the workers.
The thing I have a problem with on the last contract offer and what I would support is that there should be some rules on who votes. This situation we went through -- and this was not a new employer; we had had this agreement for around 30 years with this company. The employer that was there had bought it out about three or four years prior to that, but when we went to take the vote -- we had no problems with the vote, but he was sitting there with a lawyer, and they piled on a bunch of names for voting, people who hadn't worked for that company for over two years, who were our members working over at Great Lakes Forest Products. We said, "Those people are not employees of the company and we don't feel they have a right to vote." We finally got hold of the deputy minister and found out that the rules and regulations were in the minister's head and he will make the decision.
This particular company was trying to contract out jobs from one of our other companies we had agreements with. We approached him to see if those workers would have a right to vote. He said, "Send the names down." We sent the names down to Toronto and when the officer came up to take the vote, he brought all the names with him, let everybody vote, everybody; some 100 people voted. We knew what was going to happen. Of course we were going to win to be on the picket line -- there was no question about it -- and we did. We had asked for that ballot box to be closed and segregate the ballots until we had some hearings to find out who had the right to vote. The officer said: "There will not be a closed ballot box. I have orders from the minister to count the ballots." So he counted the ballots, and of course we had won it about 80 to 14, whatever the heck it was. We were back on the picket line.
That's why I'm saying I can support something that sets out the rules of voting, similar to what we have on a certification vote. At least see who the employees are. We went through 30-some days of hearings over that case on that particular situation, and the board found there were eight eligible voters in the vote -- how do you like that? -- afterwards, after the vote had been taken. That's the problem we have.
1940
Mr Offer: By supplementary, we have here an opportunity to change the legislation and improve the legislation. The opportunity is that before a strike is taken, the last offer is put on the table for the employees to say yes or no to. I recognize the concerns of past experiences. We have an opportunity now to deal with those issues, to make certain that the problems which you have experienced in the past do not happen in the future. The issue is whether you favour as a general rule, in principle, employees having the right to say yes or no to a final offer before going on strike.
Mr McIntyre: I don't think that's proper or needed, because the employees already have that right. Our members have the right. If they call for a vote on anything, they have that right. Under the present legislation, the employer has the right to call for that vote if he wishes to.
All I'm saying is, set up rules of who has the right to vote. I think that's all that's needed. I can live with the legislation that's there. Just put some simple rules in about who may vote. Take a look at the employer's payroll and pick out who is on the payroll. That's all I request of it. I don't think we have to have legislation saying there's going to be a vote on it, because that is quite normal, it's done with most unions I know of. So I can't support what you're saying, but I can support rules for who should vote.
Mrs McLeod: By extension, using your example of only eight workers actually being involved in a vote, do you think it would make some sense to have a requirement that any vote, whether for certification or a strike action, require 50% of the entire workforce in that bargaining unit?
Mr McIntyre: Can you tell me that again?
Mrs McLeod: I was picking up on your example.
Mr McIntyre: Can you close that door there? I'm having a hard time hearing.
Mrs McLeod: I was picking up on your example. In the interest of making sure that every worker has fair, democratic representation, do you think that one of the rule changes might be that for any vote, whether we're talking certification of a union or strike votes, the vote require 50% of the entire workforce, or in the case of a bargaining unit, the entire bargaining unit.
Mr McIntyre: Well, 50 plus one, that's what we always use.
Mrs McLeod: Of the entire workforce.
Mr McIntyre: Of the bargaining unit. Under the present legislation, all employees of that company have a right to vote. That's my understanding of the act right now. For instance, if the company called for a vote on the last offer, all of the employees have the right to vote.
The problem is that with the company I'm talking about, he had a bunch of owner-operators on the limits, and under the act, independent contractors are not employees of that company. That's another one we could get into an argument about, because we went through many days of hearings trying to bring independent contractors under that collective agreement. The present legislation does not allow it. That's what happened in this one. When we went through the hearings, the independent contractors were not allowed to vote under the act. That's what happened with that situation. They found then that there were eight people who were actually on the payroll of the company.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, before placing another question, maybe I should ask you as a point of order whether the ground rules for the evening have changed. Are we now doing full-hour presentations?
The Chair: No, what's happened is that the group that had been scheduled for 7:30 indicated it was not going to appear, and we were accommodating these people. If people don't have a full time allotment of questions, God bless, but if they do, go ahead and ask.
Mrs McLeod: So I do have time for another question.
The Chair: You'd better believe it, Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: In fairness to the Dryden labour council having come some distance to make its presentation, I'd like to go back to its brief.
Your brief focuses primarily on part-time workers and your concern for the ability of part-time workers to organize. Certainly I think we'd concur around the table that part-time workers should indeed have the right to organize, as in fact the majority of them do now.
But one of the concerns we've been raising regarding the changes in this legislation is whether or not the right of part-time workers to decide which bargaining unit they want to be part of has actually been taken away, that the full-time bargaining unit can by a vote require that the part-time bargaining unit become part of the full-time bargaining unit. It doesn't take a majority vote from the part-time workers themselves to determine whether or not they'll have to become part of the full-time bargaining unit.
I wonder if in your concern for the rights of part-time workers, that would also be a concern you would have, that there might be times when part-time workers have a different community of interests from full-time workers and should by majority be able to decide what bargaining unit they want to be part of.
Ms Wall: I would expect that the part-time workers will be able to make that decision. In the majority of cases, part-time workers are the majority of people in the workplace.
Mrs McLeod: Even where they're a minority, should they be allowed to decide by 50% plus one which bargaining unit they should be a part of?
Ms Wall: Any time that I have seen a bargaining unit with part-time workers in it, they have made their decision quite freely and quite willingly to join the existing bargaining unit. They usually work very well together. I don't foresee it being any sort of problem whatsoever.
Mrs McLeod: I agree with you. I believe that people do exercise their votes responsibly and thoughtfully, so it wouldn't be a risk to the part-time workers to in fact allow a majority of the part-time workers to determine which bargaining unit they want to be a part of.
Ms Wall: I don't think so, no. In my bargaining unit we do have part-time workers and they actually approached us and asked to become part of our bargaining unit. That was their choice. Our bargaining unit has always worked very hard to ensure that the part-time worker has been considered fairly. The part-time workers have always felt that they have been considered fairly. I don't foresee it being a problem at all.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, because we think it does become a problem with the legislation, in that it changes something which is now functioning quite well.
Mr Tilson: Continuing on with the part-time worker issue, the concern we all have is that with this legislation conceivably the full-time worker could force the part-time worker to become part of the same bargaining unit, even though the part-time worker may not wish to become part of that unit. I quite agree, if everybody's one big happy family, but there are many situations where they do have separate interests and quite different interests. The question we're trying to put to you is, is it fair that one group, namely, the full-time workers, can literally force the part-time workers to join a particular unit when the part-time workers may not wish to join that union?
Ms Wall: I'm going to pass this one over to Mary to answer.
Ms Mary Aitken: With my union, the part-timers are with the full-timers. They weren't always; they used to be a separate bargaining unit. We are now all one. We are in the process of bringing the part-timers up to our standard of benefits. The part-timers have always said that they don't get the benefits, so they actually appreciate coming in, being part of one bargaining unit.
Also, in the majority of cases, part-timers don't want to be part-time; they want to be full-time. They took the part-time because that was the only job they could get. I know of a lot of women in Dryden who have two or three part-time jobs because they couldn't get a full-time job. They've had to take as many part-time jobs as they could. It's also a misconception as to what determines what part-time is. To me, five hours a week is not even part-time, but that's what some of them classify it as.
Mr Tilson: I don't think we're denying the fact that part-time workers have the right to join a union which is made up of full-time workers; that's not the issue. The issue is, should they be forced to join simply because of a vote that's taken by the full-time workers? In your particular union, that may be the case, but this law that is now being put forward by this government says that if there's a vote taken by a combined group of full-time and part-time workers and the full-time workers pass the day, their vote carries notwithstanding the position of the part-time workers who may not wish to join the union. The part-time workers will be forced under this law to join that union. That is the question: Should they be forced to join a union they don't want to join?
Ms Aitken: But they're not in a union they don't want to join, they're in a different bargaining unit, right? They're already in the union.
1950
Mr Tilson: No. I'm talking about a group of people who want to certify. The votes of the interests of the part-time worker and the full-time worker could be quite different, whether it's seniority or whether it's pension rights or whether it's the fact that they simply don't want to pay union dues. They may, as you say, have a whole series of part-time jobs and they don't have the slightest interest in gaining seniority or having pension benefits. All they want to do is to have a series of part-time work. There are all kinds of people who don't want to have full-time work; they want part-time work and they don't want to pay all those benefits.
I'm simply saying, if they want it, if they want to join, I think we all agree, they should have that right. The question we are putting to you is, should they be forced to join?
Ms Aitken: Can you tell me of a unit that's got full-time unionized and part-time who aren't?
Mr Tilson: There are all kinds of jurisdictions across North America, as I understand it, where they make an effort to distinguish the two groups, that they are not being forced to join.
But I would like to get into another area and that has to do with the issue of certification. This law, Bill 40, is designed to make it much easier to certify. I would like you to comment on whether you would concur that there should be amendments to make it equally as easy to decertify.
Mr McIntyre: Right now, the present legislation does allow you to decertify and the --
Mr Tilson: I'm afraid not, sir. I can tell you, in my own riding there is a group where there was a strike and the workers came to my office because they felt the union bungled the job. They said, "How do we get rid of this union?" They found it very difficult to get rid of this union.
Mr McIntyre: There's an open period that comes 60 days prior to any collective agreement opening and that group has a right to leave that union at that time and that's an open period that's there. They can either go with another union or they can decertify.
Mr Tilson: Would you agree to any amendments or would you concur as to any amendments that might be put forward to make it just as easy to decertify as it is to certify?
Mr McIntyre: I think the present legislation for decertifying or transferring over to another union is adequate. I don't really think there need to be any further changes. I think if a membership is that dissatisfied, they are going to leave and they'll leave in that open period.
Mr Tilson: Let's just talk about that, sir. Let's talk about the fact that now the petition process will be gone by this legislation. There is no process that if workers wish to change their minds as a result of a certification process, after they have become more informed about the process with the legal rights they have or the lack of legal rights -- they have now lost their legal rights in many respects, they can't change their minds.
The petition process will be gone and that is why I'm asking you a question as to whether you would concur. You may not agree with the petition process and you may be legitimate. Your position may or may not be correct on that, but would you concur in another type of process that might make it easier for employees to change their minds as to the whole certification process or simply to make it much easier for them to get rid of an incompetent union?
Mr McIntyre: Like I said, there is that open period. If they get certified and the collective agreement is put into place, if it's more than a three-year collective agreement under the present legislation, at the three-year period that 60-day open window is there and that group of workers has the right to decertify at that time or transfer to another union. That is there.
I think you need probably two or three years for the workers to be able to understand how the union functions. After all, most of the time, when you get into a workplace where there isn't a union, the workers there probably do not understand and they take the two or three years to get to know what the union's all about and to get to know they're the people who make the decisions.
It's not somebody like me who services people; it's the membership that makes those decisions. They have the right, at that open period, to be able to leave.
Mr Tilson: Mr Jackson has one question, but I'd like to get back to the whole question of the initial certification process. Sir, if you buy a refrigerator, you can change your mind. You've signed a contract and you can change your mind within a specified period of time. There are consumer laws that protect you from changing your mind if you buy something, because you may not have understood what you were getting into. You may not have understood the payments. You may not have understood a whole slew of things. With the labour legislation that's now being put forward, there is no way to protect employees from changing their minds. They're stuck with that union.
Mr McIntyre: I can go back to where the petitions have not served any useful purpose, and 99% of them have been thrown out. The present 55% has been there for years. So I really don't see why there have to be any changes, because it has been working. It's been working quite successfully.
Mr Tilson: Sir, there's now no protection to the employees to change their minds -- none. The employees lost their rights.
Mr McIntyre: Like I said, your refrigerator is a hypothetical question. The thing I see is that the present 55% has been there and it's been working well. The petitions have been a situation where 99% of them are thrown out when they get to certain --
Mr Tilson: But, sir, now the employees will have no rights.
Mr McIntyre: Oh, yes, they do. They have that right when that 60-day period opens up, when that collective agreement is there.
Mr Tilson: Mr Jackson has some questions.
Mr Jackson: Mr McIntyre, certainly after your telling us your personal story, one gets a clear sense of how deeply devoted you are to the labour movement. I respect that. However, I was listening carefully to your presentation. You expressed some concerns about the great boondoggle for the legal community, whether you're a labour lawyer or you're a management lawyer. But we have heard testimony that the demands on the labour relations staff in this province are going to be monumental.
I think that implicit in my colleague's question might be, would you not, on balance, rather see the activities of the Ministry of Labour focused on the certification process than the long, arduous and expensive process of decertification? By putting it in that context, I'm trying to respect where you're coming from in the labour movement. But we're struggling with the notion of not just simply the legislation in this period of restraint, but just what kinds of resources we're going to have and what will be the fallout.
I couch it in that context. I'm trying to sense more your concern about a process which, once it's taken to the Ministry of Labour, is fraught with difficulties. Certainly decertification will continue to be that kind of process in this province.
Mr McIntyre: If the employees make that application to decertify, again it's in the board's hands if it'll come in and take a vote of that decertification. I really don't see where lawyers have to be involved at all. I can give you an experience I've just gone through; in fact it was on my desk this afternoon.
We had a bargaining unit that got downsized because of technological changes. It wasn't a big unit; it was five people at one time and it got down to one. This individual was approached by the company to come on staff. He came over to us and said: "You know, I'd like to get rid of the union, because look at all the good benefits I'm going to get by going on staff. So I'd like to decertify."
I can tell you that the application is on my desk today. I waived the hearings on it because if that's this individual's choice, then let him go. I don't want to stand and fight for somebody who doesn't want to belong of my union.
Mr Jackson: Finally, I ask this: Earlier, you talked about harassment and you were gave us the example of a Quebec experience you had. You said the ultimate result was a failed vote and that you had hoped it would turn around because the company had ultimately lied. I'm rather confused. Are they harassing these employees or are they lying to these employees? Are they being harassed with more pay, are they being harassed with better working conditions or are they being lied to? I'm sorry I had to put a fine point on it, but I was following your line of thinking. You recall your presentation? Do they harass them or do they lie to them? I'm trying to understand which it is. It's hard to be both.
2000
Mr McIntyre: Well, they do both.
Mr Jackson: Harass me with a raise. I'd like to hear that once in a while.
Mr McIntyre: They do both. First of all, they lie to the employees, because they promise them all the good things they should have had all along as far as benefits and what have you are concerned, but once the union doesn't get in, none of the benefits happen. The other part of it is that there is harassment, because they're threatened that if they go ahead and bring the union in, certain things are going to happen, or they're fired or what have you. Those are the two things that happen during an organizing drive.
One of the big companies here that has been fighting unions for years probably cuts about 800,000 cords of wood. I'm not going to mention any names because I'm sure local people know who I'm talking about. But that individual promised the world to these employees. We went through three years of hearings, fighting over independent contractors, ending up losing the hearings.
Two months later, when the employees found that all those promises never happened, we signed up 95% of the cards and were able to certify into that group then. That's exactly what happens: Nine times out of 10, the employer does not follow up. If I were an employer, I sure as hell would make working conditions better, because I believe that if working conditions are good in a workplace, the union doesn't come in.
We had a MacMillan Bloedel plant here in this city for 13 years -- it had about 150 to 160 employees -- that was never certified by a union. I can tell you we tried, the CPU tried and another union tried and were never able to get in there, because those workers were satisfied with the conditions they had because they had good benefits and a good working relationship with that company. I always say that the only time a union comes into a workplace is when the employer is mistreating the workers. That's when it happens.
The Chair: At that, sir, we say thank you to Alma Wall and Mary Aitken, appearing on behalf of the Dryden and District Labour Council, and to you, Wilf McIntyre, appearing on behalf of International Woodworkers of America -- Canada, Local 2693. We thank you for your participation here and for your interest. You've obviously provoked a great deal of response from members of the committee. You've made a valuable contribution. Take care.
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP
The Chair: The next participant is the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group, if those people would please seat themselves at a microphone. Make yourselves comfortable, feel at home. Tell us your names, your status, if any, or titles with the group, and proceed to tell us what you will.
Mr Steve Mantis: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm glad to see you could make it up to Thunder Bay. Sometimes we get left out, being so far away from Toronto. I appreciate the effort.
My name is Steve Mantis, and I'm the treasurer of the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. George Caissie is the president of the organization.
We're an organization that started in 1984 in response to legislation that was at that time, pending an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act, Bill 101. Our membership is around 330. We are an organization of injured workers, a voluntary organization with no staff, made up primarily of injured workers and their family members or supporters.
Our main activity is in the area of public education and reform of the system, both through law reform and through policy reform. We offer a newsletter that goes out every two months letting people know about current happenings in the Workers' Compensation Board as well as health-related issues. Six times a year as well we offer public information sessions, which are free of charge, to the public to come and learn more about workers' compensation and related issues. Our belief is that as people become more educated, they're able to make better decisions and therefore lead a better life.
The reason I'm here today is that actually I got a little upset. I have the opportunity to travel to Toronto on a fairly regular basis, and walking down Bay Street, I saw this big billboard talking about how many jobs are going to be lost in Ontario because of -- what was it? -- Buffalo Bob's folly or something, which is what we're looking at today, the labour relations. I'm going: "Wait a second. What's going on here?"
We look around and ask: "What makes a system work well? What makes a team work well?" It's when people are pulling together, and it seems to me that in order to work together, you have to have a system that allows people to participate. That's basically the idea around unions and organizing.
It was interesting when I heard the fellow from the chamber of commerce this morning. He said that business develops attitudes maybe not because they know the facts, but it's feelings, and those feelings help determine whether they're willing to invest or not. It seems kind of strange when that same business community is what's creating the mistrust and hysteria that then influences their fellow business people to say, "Jeez, I guess we're going the wrong way with this labour law, because there's hysteria out there."
What if we think about it for a second, rather than trying to portray our vested interests?
I think what we really need to do is build a vision for the future, a vision that includes all of us, and the only way we can include all of us is by having structures that allow people to choose representatives to sit down together at a table and talk about the issues that affect us.
One way we've done that is that we have a government, and you all are elected through a process similar to that. The process of workers joining together to be able to choose their representatives is very much the same process. When people say, "We don't want that to happen," I really question where they're coming from. I believe in democracy, and I sure hope you do too.
I get a little cynical sometimes. It seems that what it comes down to is that people don't want to share power, they don't want to share their control. It's not only employers, it's something that happens right across our society, but in the context today, that's who we're talking about: We're talking about a group of people who own the factory, own the business, and don't want to share that power with other people.
I think in our society today we're recognizing that that's not fair. Look at the situation in a marriage. It used to be that the man said, "This is the way we're going to spend our money," or whatever the decision, and that's the way it was. Now as a society we've decided that's not right. These are equal partners. They both get to have a say in what goes on. That's what I hope you as our government will begin to show some leadership on, in saying, "Let's find a way to share this power."
We as injured workers have seen this from firsthand experience. We're the people who get hurt, who oftentimes are out of work, and we're at the low end of the scale. We've lost our power. The way we've been able to overcome that is by joining together, by organizing ourselves and saying: "This system doesn't work for us. We want something different."
2010
Our goals as injured workers revolve around empowerment of injured workers to gain control over our own lives. We want to go back to work. Through the process of organizing ourselves and putting out our concerns, the government has begun to listen a little bit. Now there is a greater acceptance that we should start looking after injured workers, we should start seeing if we can't get them back to work. The funny thing about it all is that saves employers money. So in this one example we see that empowerment by listening to the people who are most affected by the process that's taking place can result in improvement and, on the part of employers, in actually saving money, increasing profits. I've got nothing against that as long as we also gain through that.
But we've experienced very limited success in this area. It seems it's because people don't want to share that power, don't want to share that control they have, whether it's the bureaucrat on the front line who sees that he or she has something over you because he or she controls your paycheque or whether it's people at the top of the administration of an organization.
We have a proposal in to the Workers' Compensation Board and a number of organizations to set up a system to assist injured workers to gain control over their lives, to get back to work, something that's actually going to save the system money. But people don't want to sponsor something like that because it's giving up something: It's giving up their power to make the decisions, to run the show. That's a really shortsighted view. What we've got to gain here is something that can benefit all of us.
Power-sharing can work. By including people in the decision-making, by giving workers more power in the decision-making process, it's funny: They get more productive. In occupational health and safety, which is the area in our workplaces that has achieved a greater percentage of this power-sharing than other parts, studies have shown that where you have good committees that are joint health and safety committees with representation equally from both parts, not only is it a safer workplace but productivity increases. You share that decision-making and people benefit, both sides benefit.
We look at the European experience, which has been brought up here a couple of times today, where in a number of countries they have systems that are based on equal sharing between workers and employers. Now I'd like anyone to show me how Germany is suffering economically because of this process. They are on the top of the heap.
In terms of injured workers, we're saying what we want to happen is we want the accidents to stop. We want better treatment of injured workers. We want more people to return to work. You follow these systems, once again both sides benefit. We look at a model, once again like Germany, that actually does this, that puts the benefit of the workers at the very top. What do we see? We see the system costs a little bit more than half of what it costs here in Ontario. They've put a lot more people back to work and they have a lot fewer accidents. It is a system of codetermination, with equal participation of workers and employers.
We turn to another example, our management consultants. One of the trendy ones in the last 10 years is Tom Peters's In Search of Excellence. I went to a seminar -- I believe it was in the same room here -- a couple of years ago on In Search of Excellence. What did they talk about? They talked about giving the staff more control. They talked about allowing the people in the front line to make decisions and giving them authority to make those decisions and supporting them once they made those decisions. I think that's the basis of what we're talking about here today.
I think that the one section in the new amendment here of Bill 40, section 44.1, talks about consultation on workplace issues where within the life of a collective agreement consultation should take place on issues that affect both parties.
While we look at new pieces of legislation and practices that are coming up, we need to be able to have a structure to be able to have that consultation. One example is employment equity. In employment equity, we see that the workers are to be consulted in the development of an employment equity plan. Well, which workers? In a unionized shop, you've got a structure where you can elect your representatives and then you can hold them accountable. When the election comes up you can make sure they don't get back in. But in a place where there is no union, how are those people selected and how are they held accountable?
The same with current trends in workers' compensation. We're seeing now that one of our goals has to be re-employment. How does that happen? That happens best when the parties at the workplace, both the workers and the employers, work together to make that happen. How do you do that? Which workers do you include in that process to ensure this person gets back to work? Once again, we need a structure to be able to make those choices in order to facilitate this process.
I think actually we need to go beyond what's happening in Bill 40. I think we need to look at ways that we can include workers in some of these decision-making processes who aren't members of unions. I think we need to look at different models, whether it's broad-based bargaining or whether it's work councils like they have in Europe that are elected by the workers, because it's only through including people, by allowing them some power, by allowing them to participate through a right of participation, that we're going to move forward in Ontario and build a better society here. I think that's our challenge. Thank you very much.
2020
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer, Mrs McLeod, Mr Eddy.
Mrs McLeod: Maybe just as a leadoff question, I really think we have to come back to the fact that the right to organize, the right to join a union, is not at issue in this legislation. Nobody's proposing that the entire Labour Relations Act be repealed and the right to unionize with it, so it's a question of the impact of these particular changes. I think everybody around the table would agree with you, both those who are supportive of these legislative changes or those who are concerned about them, that what we really need is a higher degree of cooperation, that we need less confrontation, that we need more joint effort.
You've talked about alternative models. One of the regrets some of us have, including some of the advisers in labour law -- or adviser, singular -- the government has consulted, is that he has said that there are not enough alternatives for a dispute mechanism included in this particular legislation and that, as a result of it, there's not likely to be a lot of progress in terms of non-confrontational resolution of disputes. So I think much of what you said we would strongly agree with.
I wonder if you feel if there is a reason, given that, why it wouldn't be appropriate to take these major changes, and in the name of the plea you've made for consultation -- and I know how strongly you believe in that -- have even the Premier's committee on business and labour that was set up to look at labour relations look at how this legislation could be strengthened so that it would serve the purposes you've described.
Mr Mantis: Well, I'd be interested to know how you speak to the people who are taking out those ads on the billboards, because that's who doesn't seem to be getting the message. That doesn't seem to me to be cooperation. That seems to me to be confrontation. That's it really. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. What's the big problem here?
Mrs McLeod: Again coming back to the question -- and I think Mr Offer has another question, so I won't prolong it -- I guess the question is the one you've raised, which is, what is lost by having the kind of consultation which you've described in trying to offset some of the sheer frustrations of a sense of not being listened to that I know you've felt yourself in the past in what you've tried to do for injured workers and have succeeded largely in. Maybe it's that kind of non-listening, non-consulting environment we need to get past on both sides in this.
Mr Mantis: Indeed I think we do need to be listening more, by all means.
Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. I'm very interested in your views on democracy and cooperation, two things I've been interested in and tried to further during my working years.
One of the members of the committee said earlier today that anyone who speaks against the bill is against any changes or modernization in the present Labour Relations Act, and that's quite incorrect, because many of us are very interested and in fact want to see changes and realize the need for changes. But when we talk about democracy, we believe in the democratic rights of the worker to join a union, but to decide not to join a union or have an association, and indeed to change one's mind from not having a union to wanting one and vice versa. I'm very strong on that.
In the matter of cooperation, what's your opinion on negotiating changes to the Labour Relations Act? In other words, we feel a committee perhaps, and to have representatives of employer groups, employee groups and government sit down and come forth with the proposed changes, rather than going through the process we have, which is very incomplete because a lot of people don't get the opportunity even to appear before us. Do you have a view on that?
Mr Mantis: I have to frame it in my own experience and that really has very much to do with workers' compensation. A task force just released its report on the level of service delivery and rehabilitation at the Workers' Compensation Board. This was a task force made up of representatives of workers and employers. I believe there were 42 people from across the province who participated. So it was two sides, rather than the three sides as you were laying out.
What we saw was a report that was very well done with an amazing amount of agreement. It seemed to me that by these two parties working together on a specific issue, they were able to agree on probably 80% of what each individual side wanted to see in that report. So I think a process like that can work.
Mr Jackson: Mr Mantis, I listened to your presentation carefully. I want to focus in on your reference to democracy, whether we believe in it, and what groups don't want to share power or control. Perhaps it's because I've participated in certification processes with the Ontario Labour Relations Board on several occasions and I've always had a lot of respect for private ballots. In a sense, they take all the pressures out of the process and people can just quietly go in and register under supervision their ballots and they are counted and supervised.
I want you to respond on how you feel about the rights of individuals to cast ballots of their choice, informed ballots. Certainly the amendments in this legislation will allow for a more informed environment. You raised the issue of democracy and choices. But would you not agree that the private ballot in matters with respect to certification just takes any pressures from the union or the pressures from the management to an individual?
Mr Mantis: I'd be hard-pressed to respond with a yes or no, because there's a whole lot more to decision-making than whether the ballots are private or not. How the process takes place, what level of education there is and what opportunity there is for debate and discussion are all factors that have to go into designing a system that's going to work for all parties. So I don't think I could answer it so simply with a yes or no on a secret ballot.
Mr Jackson: You talked about balance. People are talking about the rhetoric of joint this and joint that, of management sitting down with labour. It has just recently come to my attention, for example, that the industrial training advisory committees that operate throughout Ontario have certain federal and provincial support. They have balanced representation of labour and management in terms of developing proper training mechanisms. Yet recently the government announced that all or any groups would be considered to provide the funding for the Jobs Ontario program but specifically said that these advisory councils could not act in that capacity.
Although you use the billboard in this example, and you've used the word "unreasonableness" and so on, there are some questions out there as to whether or not there is a sincere commitment when opportunities such as job-training dollars, which is what you're here in part to talk to us about tonight, when a strong working vehicle with labour and management is completely bypassed in favour of groups that have solitary representation.
Were you aware of this? As a spokesperson for injured workers and for the differently abled in our community, how do you feel about that approach? Is it going to be a truly balanced approach or is it part of the rhetoric we're hearing from both sides?
2030
Mr Mantis: I'm not familiar with the example you're bringing up. We have been active in stating our case that as injured workers and as people with disabilities we want to have a say in the process of training. It's an integral process to us to achieve productive employment that's going to be long-term employment, and we're very interested in having a role to play in that process. But in terms of the actual example, I'm sorry I don't know about it.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, do you want to give Mr Jackson some of your time?
Mr Hayes: Not really, no. Some other time.
Mr Jackson: I'll yield to the senior statesman.
Mr Hayes: Thank you, Mr Mantis. I'm very pleased to hear some of your comments, especially about your vision and the vision of injured workers about working together. I think that is what this legislation is really intended to do.
I'm going to talk from experience, because I was health and safety representative for 16 years. I do know that it has been proved that if you can clean up or make things healthier and safer in a workplace, things can become more productive and improve quality and also profits. It has been proven. I could cite several cases, but I'm going to let some other people say a few things here.
As you were saying, one of the important things we have to do is stop the accidents, get people healthy and back to work, and also have them treated in a decent manner. I think all those things are very important, and I believe that if all employers felt the same way, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this type of legislation because it might not be necessary.
I know that a lot of people have the fear that whenever you change legislation or bring in legislation that's going to assist workers, there are always those scare tactics out there: "We're going to close and we're going to move out of this country," and all these kinds of things. We went through these kinds of statements and arguments when we talked about health and safety, Bill 70 and Bill 136, wasn't it? I and the union I was with argued very much that who knows better than the person on the job as to what we should do with that job and how that job should be done?
When I first got into health and safety -- and I don't want to go on here too long, Mr Chair -- I remember the first time the government inspector came into my workplace. He informed me: "This is not the union's inspection. This is not the company's inspection. This is my inspection." At that time, they used to just walk right by the union office and turn their head the other way so they wouldn't have to look at the chairperson in the office. I took steps at that time and said, "Fine, you don't need me, but I'll go out and I'll have to do things my way." It was almost intimidating.
But things have changed now where we have organized workplaces, where there are joint health and safety committees. One of the examples is the ergonomic committee. I was responsible for putting together some of those programs with Ford Motor Co and CAW. I don't know of any places that have an ergonomics committee, for example, that are not organized. Your presentation made me think about that because those are the kinds of things that we talk about: fitting jobs to the people and not trying to change the people to fit the jobs. I think that's very important.
I don't want to go on a long time, but do you feel that these changes to the act, Bill 40, are going to address some of those problems. Could you elaborate and tell us how? Because you were looking at ways of including workers and of course educating workers. You certainly have a better workforce in terms of quality and in other ways if you have an educated workforce and people working together for the benefit --
The Chair: They really do want to answer that, Mr Hayes. Please let them.
Mr Hayes: Yeah, let them go.
Mrs McLeod: Is that answerable?
Mr Mantis: Yes. I think the example of your own experience shows that allowing that process to happen, in fact making sure it happens, is going to benefit both.
I was very pleased. I spoke at the health and safety conference for the papermakers' association here. I think they are the first safety association that has gone fully bipartite, workers and employers running the association. I was ready for all the normal controversy between the workers and the employers, but they all said: "Hey, we get along great here. Our accidents are cut down. This is working good." As in the example I used, health and safety is one of the first areas where we've seen that equal partnership working together. I think it can really work well for the benefit of both sides.
Mr Hayes: I have no further questions.
The Chair: I want to thank both of you kindly, Steve Mantis and George Caissie, for appearing this evening on behalf of Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Group. You have brought a novel perspective to these hearings, and the whole committee very much appreciates your being here. I trust you will keep in touch with committee members and with other MPPs and make sure they continue to know your views about this and other important legislation.
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO STEELWORKERS AREA COUNCIL
The Chair: I should remind people, while the representatives of the United Steelworkers of America seat themselves, that transcripts of your submission or indeed any other group's submission are available, by way of Hansard, through your MPP's office by contacting your MPP or by writing to the clerk of the standing committee on resources development at Queen's Park. Those of course are free of charge.
People, please tell us your names and your titles and proceed with your submissions.
Mr Francis Bell: Good evening, Mr Chair. My name is Francis Bell, and with me are Rob Smith and Tom Jameus. We'd like to thank you for coming to Thunder Bay. As usual, the Steelworkers are left to finish off the evening. We hope to provide you with some interesting ideas and solutions.
I'd like to tell you first that the Steelworkers area council, better known as the Northwestern Ontario Steelworkers Area Council, extends as far as the Manitoba border to the west and as far east as the Manitouwadge turnoff. In reality, what it means for our people is that they have 1,000 kilometres to travel from the farthest-east local union to the farthest west. If you put that in perspective for southern Ontario, where most of you come from, I guess you'd be travelling two or three times to get to where we are in the north.
I'd also like to tell you that the area council has a predominant proportion of members coming from the mining industry but we do represent people in all sorts of sectors. Those include municipal employees, the bus travel sector, restaurant employees, the electrical wholesaling industry, the steel fabrication industry, the shipbuilding and general repair industry, and we even represent another union's servicing staff. I think it tells you that we are well versed in what's happening in labour relations across this province, especially across the northwest.
You may wonder what makes up the Steelworkers in northwestern Ontario. Our members are women, they're natives, they're immigrants, they're injured workers, they're men -- they're everybody. If you look at our membership, you'd say we would be the average right across the northwest.
2040
You may wonder, who is Francis Bell? To give you a bit of background, I've had the privilege of being an organizer, of servicing local unions, of negotiating contracts and being a licensed security guard. I sit here tonight probably in a different position than most people, because I've represented management at negotiations and represented unions at negotiations and I've headed up both sides of the table, so I can probably talk to you with a pretty balanced perspective, and I hope you will listen.
We're here tonight because we believe the economy in Ontario has been devastated. We're here because we think the free trade deal and the GST have hurt this economy, but most important, we're here because we think the Labour Relations Act has to show equality, that being between business and labour. If you think they're equal now, I hate to tell you, but I think you're in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. We think changes are needed in Ontario and we think, most important, that workers have to be empowered. They have to have the right to say things. They have to improve Ontario. Business isn't going to do it alone.
Today we're going to try to focus on three areas. The first is now known as section 46, expedited arbitration or single arbitrator, whatever term you wish to use. Second, we're going to talk about security guards and, third and most important, we're going to talk about joining unions.
The original intent about section 46 was that it was going to be expedited arbitration. I can tell you right now that labour lawyers and those who don't represent us but who represent the chamber of commerce, who were here this afternoon, all four of them, have had a practice of destroying what section 46 was about.
Section 46 was to get a grievance heard in an expeditious manner. It doesn't happen now. What happens is that you have your hearing in 21 days, but you have your first day of hearing and after that you're stuck with trying to get a law firm agreeing to dates. If you wonder why we are so emphatic about it, we have grievances that have been in the hearing process for over two years, grievances that are worth over $3 million to memberships.
Why are they there? They're there because what they're hoping is that by the time the decision is made, that mine will be shut down and the employer won't have to pay out that money. They're there because labour lawyers -- I don't call them labour lawyers, by the way. I call them management lawyers, because they don't represent labour, they represent management.
I put it to all of you on this committee that if changes aren't made to section 46, you're going to see workers get more and more upset with the government and with the opposition parties. My question to you and to the members of this committee is quite simple: Will you assist aggrieved workers or will you not? I want to take this time to say this very emphatically to you: The choice is yours for now, and I do mean for now.
Security guards: There's been lots of talk over the last couple of weeks about security guards. Who do they represent? Who should represent them? Should they have the right to join a union?
From my experience as a uniformed security guard at one time, if you said the word "union," you were told, "There's the door." "Union" was not a nice word to say, because you were supposed to protect people and property, but actually it's in reverse: "Protect the property before you protect the people."
Who protects them? Who protects that security guard who's earning minimum wage, who's being told: "Protect that property. That's your job, and if you don't do it, you're fired." They're being told they're just like police officers. I can tell you they aren't like police officers, and police officers don't believe they're like police officers. Security guards are high-paid -- and I don't mean the guard. I mean the guard's employer is well paid. The security guard himself is not well paid, but they're expected to carry the load. Again, it's the worker out there in the workforce who has to do the job.
I want to tell you that I was serving as a Steelworkers union representative when we lost our legal right to represent security guards to the court challenges. I also want to tell you -- and I've never had this experience in my years of being involved in the labour movement -- that I had security guards phoning me up at night saying to me, "Francis, I know you can't talk to us and tell us what we can do, but if I told you something in a theory-based idea, would you kindly give me what a theory-based answer would be?" What they wanted was some help. Could I give them the help as a representative? No, I could not. The court had ruled that section 12 forbids us.
There's been a suggestion in Bill 40 that section 12 be removed. I hope all of you, and I say all of you, will in fact agree that section 12 should be removed. Security guards have the right to be organized, and it's a right that has been long overdue to them, and they have the right to be organized in a union of their choice.
This committee should clearly understand that security guards are workers who must have the opportunity to (1) join a union of their choice, (2) bargain for their working conditions, and, most important, (3) be treated with respect. Security guards are considered second-class citizens and they're considered add-ons to a company, and I think that is wrong. Brother Smith will talk to you about joining unions and the 50% plus one versus 55%.
Mr Rob Smith: Good evening. My background in steel is that I represent my members at the shipyard where I work. As well as doing that, I specialized and have gone into the teaching of health and safety, compensation and some other angles. From my angle and from what we've seen, what I'm here to tell you today is very simply that if you have people who wish to join a union, all that we feel is necessary is 50% plus one.
We have here in this country a democratic system whereby we go ahead and elect politicians with less than 50% of the popular vote. Today we have a Prime Minister whom we certainly didn't vote for. We think it's eminently feasible that for automatic certification, if the simple majority is there, the simple majority rules. That's the way it's played in this participatory democracy we have, and that's the way we'd like to see it in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
On the issue of intimidation and strikebreaking, I wish we could say that we don't know of countless examples where, when an organizing drive is on, employers have gone ahead, by means fair and foul, and tried to intimidate workers in order to prevent a union from coming in and being organized and then certified.
We basically feel that the entire thing here is education. The education out there about unions, we feel in the main, is that unions are perceived as big, powerful and vicious. The media smear that has gone on in this country on big unions, in this province particularly, is that we're always considered to be big and powerful and we don't represent simple working people. That's just not the case.
The intimidation that we feel starts basically in our society in school. I went to school and never once, beyond talking about what a trade union was, were there any examples of how the trade union movement went ahead and became organized and fostered the standard of living that we have today, the way we work, live and other things. We've made a substantial gain in the prosperity of this country and this province and we would like to see recognition coming to us when we do simple things, like when we participate through the Steelworkers' humanity fund or through the United Way, and not just have you hear about us in strike situations and how they're vicious.
2050
It's with this mindset that comes about, "Oh, good grief, you're talking about a union," that we say to you that a union only becomes necessary when a workplace and the people who work in it have gone ahead. They have been intimidated in some way, in some form, and they finally say: "Enough is enough. We have the legal recourse and we want some sort of protection." It only comes about because somebody has been abusing the basic rights that we have as humanity. Like they said, we're not going to take it any more, and one of the avenues is forming a union so that collectively the wishes of the employees are brought to bear.
We tell you that all the falderal we've heard in this campaign, during this consultation process, is that we want to be part of it, but we want it to be fair. We have ideas just like everybody else and we'd like to be heard about them.
On the issue of strikebreaking and whatever, we basically feel that if you give us a fair shake and give us some reasonable opportunity to come to a bargaining table with reasonable means of negotiation, if you don't go ahead and threaten our job security with strikebreakers, you'll see that collective bargaining can work.
I'd just like to talk a little bit about petitions. Petitions are the employer's last-ditch attempt to remain union-free. Some of you committee members may not agree to acknowledge that petitions against unions occur, because it's the wish of the employer; it's not the wish, most times, of the people who work within the workplace.
I'd now like to turn this over and go from being a general topic on petitions to a specific topic of where we've actually been. With that, I'd like to introduce Tom Jameus from Schreiber, Ontario. Thank you.
Mr Tom Jameus: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I see we're running a little late here, so I'll be very brief.
I strongly support the changes to the act equalizing the terminal date and the application date. In all three of the organizing drives that are on our property, in between the time of the application date and the terminal date, which was a week later, the company, in all three instances, managed to have a petition run on the property through one or more workers, which put us into a situation where we had between 60 and 70 cards signed in each one of the organizing drives. These cards showed, we thought, the desire of the people in the bargaining unit who wanted a union. Unfortunately, the petition backed by the company in all three instances destroyed that and put us into a long-drawn-out battle before the OLRB that cost a lot of money.
In the brief, you will see that on page 15 there is an example of estimated costs for the company petitioner. This is a very conservative estimate, as far as I'm concerned. The total is $12,700. I don't know of anybody within my bargaining unit who has $12,700 that he wants to spend on getting a union away from this property. There is no doubt about that.
The original petitioner in the first union drive was a gentleman I got to know very well. After the drive was over and we lost that particular organizing drive in a vote, two weeks later that individual quit and went to Pickle Lake, and there he organized a union in that mine.
Through the process, we found out from the individual that he brought the lawyer's bill directly to the personnel manager and gave it to him. Because of the lack of time, I'm not going to get all excited about the other things.
There are a number of things, though, that I would like to point out. When you have a termination date and a petition takes over, you not only create animosity among the workers through the ensuing time it takes to certify the union or get into a vote position or wherever you're going to end up; it also creates all kinds of turmoil on the property.
It creates all kinds of angers and resentments and it makes it very difficult, within the workplace, to do your work in a comfortable sort of atmosphere. It creates that antagonistic and confrontational behaviour that an MPP -- I believe it was shortly before last Christmas that I was watching a presentation on television by one of our MPPs who said, "We have to stop our confrontational way we do business." I believe the changes we discussed today in labour law will do a lot to affect that, gentlemen.
Mr Bell: Mr Chairman, thank you for hearing us. Most important, I hope you'll take the time, with your committee members, to go through the brief. If we sat down and read it to you today, you'd be looking at 25 to 30 minutes, obviously a bit too long, but I believe that if you go through the brief, you'll find some very interesting answers to some of the questions you've all been asking. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, but I think the committee has some questions of you.
Mr Tilson: I have two questions. The first question has to do with the section in the new bill that prohibits an employer from doing a number of things you have spoken of, coercion, threatening, discriminating, intimidating. The difficulty I have with the final subsection of that particular section of the bill is that the burden of proof is on the employer to prove that he didn't do anything that was contrary to this bill. I find that difficult because, of all the other laws we have from our basic common-law system, where allegations are made, the person who is making the allegation must prove that allegation. Would you comment on that?
Mr Bell: Yes. To be very succinct, if you're involved in labour relations, you'll find out the burden of proof and presenting a case where somebody has not been paid properly or anything else is on the trade union. The onus rests with the trade union. I don't think there's any problem in saying the onus rests with the employer to prove that he hasn't done something he's been accused of. He knows what the allegations are, and if you look at the court system, the same thing happens. Though technically the onus is on the crown to prove the case, the reality is that if you're not going to be found guilty, you have to prove in fact that you didn't do what you're being charged for.
Mr Tilson: So much for our common-law principles.
The second question I'd like to ask you is that I believe business and unions have one thing in common: they want us to have a successful economy. We look at the unemployment, we look at the bankruptcies, we look at businesses that are leaving to go to the United States, and they may be caused by a whole slew of things. They may be caused as you've indicated: GST, free trade, the usual rhetoric we hear over here.
Whatever it is, and I'm sure it may be a number of reasons, the fact of the matter is that we're having people coming to these hearings, all kinds of different people from inside and outside the province, investors, who are saying that this bill is going to create a bad climate, that people will not want to invest in Ontario. It may be a number of other reasons, these other reasons these people are talking about, but one of the reasons they all agree on is this bill, that it's going to make the commodity of labour very difficult to compete with with respect to other jurisdictions.
Whether you agree with that or whether you don't agree with it -- and I suspect, having heard your presentation, you will disagree with that -- having heard that, how do we stop that? How do unions and management stop that perception, which is that once it's entrenched it will be here for years, it'll be here for decades?
Mr Bell: I think, sir, you stop it by the politicians stopping it. I've watched the debate over the last two weeks. I've watched the Ontario Legislature, room 150 or 151, whatever it was, and all I've heard from one side has been: "This is terrible. It's going to destroy the economy. It's going to destroy the world." But the reality is, you as politicians have to take the lead, and unless you can come out and prove extensively that it's going to do something, then you shouldn't be saying it.
2100
I've listened to small business and I've met with small business. They've told me: "Well, that's what we were told by the chamber of commerce. That's what we were told by the Conservative MPP." The reality is that you have to talk about things in a positive manner, and it starts at Queen's Park.
I can tell you, from anybody watching what goes on in Queen's Park lately, that they don't see any cooperation. If the politicians can't create cooperation, there's no way you're going to see business and management create cooperation.
But there has been cooperation. I sat on the task force that Steve talked about earlier, and I can tell you that when we sat down with individual members, we produced what I think is one of the finest reports that's been done on the compensation board, and I hope you take the time to read it. It shows that working together we can do things.
Mr Tilson: Would you then agree that perhaps there should be an impact study done that would show that these allegations of tremendous job losses and the billions of dollars in investment that is being suggested will be lost will not take place? Would you agree that perhaps the onus is on the government to show investors from within and without the province of Ontario that this bill will not create the problems that are being suggested, and in fact will do quite the contrary, that it will create jobs? Do you not feel there's an onus on the government to do some sort of impact studies -- not some sort, a very specific impact study -- that will show that these fears are not well founded?
Mr Bell: The onus is on the people making the statements. I know when we've asked for health and safety changes, they've happened because we've proved our case, and I think the onus is on those people who are doing the scaremongering.
The Chair: And it's time to go to Mr Wood.
Mr Wood: Just to follow up on a question that Mr Tilson had, there have been no major changes, or no changes whatsoever, since 1975 as far as the OLRA was concerned. He's mentioned the impact study and the amount of job loss. Well, we've got to go back to 1988 to when the free trade agreement was pushed down everybody's throat, I guess, and a lot of part-time workers were put into place. More and more people had to go on part-time work because there was no full-time as a result of the major changes that the Conservative Party pushed for, and I guess their cousins in Ontario as well. We've seen all the job losses on that.
I'm just wondering if you feel that this Bill 40 goes far enough or if there are any specific changes you think we should strengthen up on, or is it something you can live with?
Mr Smith: I'd like to field that, if I may. Basically what anybody will learn through the collective bargaining process, once they've sat down and been through it, is that you always go in with everything that you want and you have high hopes of getting it. But that's just not the reality of it. We're human beings and we all know there has got to be give and take in it for a system to survive. That's what democracy is all about.
So of course we're not going to get everything that we want. Of course business is not going to get everything that it wants. Of course the opposition is not going to have everything changed that it wants to have changed. It's a process of give and take. We think that what we have here, we can sell and we can live with. For right now, this is what we can take, we can use, we can swallow and we can make work.
The other point I'd like to bring up is that we've heard, with the introduction of every major bill in this province, whenever a new, major piece of legislation came in, the same type of tactics. For example, when Bill 70 was proclaimed in 1978, we heard so much about the fact that you can't give these powers to workers. "They're going to run amok in the workplace. They're going to take the right to refuse and they're going to turn it and take every bad feeling they ever had about their employer and use that to gang up on them." If you take a look at the statistics, that hasn't happened.
We hear the same thing about certification training. We know that when certification training comes through and people are trained, they will be responsible, and the responsibility will lie both with the workers and the management people in their workplace. We can work together, we've proved it, and unions are the best vehicle for proving that collectively we can get together and make something work.
In closing, if you empower workers, if you give them a chance to have a say and a process in the decision-making in their workplace, you will have a successful business where both the business owner will make a profit and your workers will take pride in saying, "We helped in that process."
Mr Wood: Just briefly, I take it from the presentation and the arguments you brought forward that there is no justification whatsoever from the chamber of commerce or any opposition MPPs of the scare tactics that are used, and that workers are going to be treated more fairly with Bill 40 than they were under the previous legislation.
Mr Smith: Yes.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I have some very short questions. The first deals with a response made to Mr Tilson's question on the issue of the impact statement. I believe the response was that the onus is on the people making the statements to conduct such an analysis. How do you respond to those same individuals who have said, "That's exactly what we've done," and now they want the government to respond to that type of concern?
Mr Bell: I think if you look at it carefully, from what I've seen of those studies, they aren't well done. They are done in such a manner that they get the results that are wanted. It's an attempt to use the process to slow up the legislation. Right now, I want to tell you, we think the process has been too long on this. I've never seen a bill with so much discussion in my life. Ms McLeod can remember me, Steve Mantis and other people sitting across from her when we dealt with compensation and health and safety. I'll tell you, we didn't have three or four kicks at the cat. This has been one of the longest processes that I've seen.
Mr Jackson: They're learning on the job.
Mr Bell: The result has been that everybody has allowed the rhetoric to get too high. The reality is this bill should've been through last year; it shouldn't be dealt with now.
Mr Offer: I have a couple more questions. One part of the legislation that has been brought forward as a concern is that during a certification, if there is an allegation of an unfair practice, intimidation or coercion by the employer, basically once that's proven, the organizing drive is successful and they become certified. From your experience, is that a penalty that would be effective in reducing coercion? The government certainly has indicated that it is.
Mr Jameus: I'd like to answer that question for you. What we find the situation to be is that we don't really find out about the coercion till it's all over, till the individual is gone. So the way to stop the coercion is to have the terminal date the same as the application date.
Mr Offer: I'd like to carry on with that because it's a very important aspect. Basically the bill states that if during an organizing drive the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained, the board can certify. All I would like to get from you -- it has nothing to do with petitions or anything of this nature -- has to do with coercion and potential intimidation taking place during an organizing drive. I'd like to hear from you, as people who have been involved in these areas, whether this is, in your opinion, sufficient to curtail that type of activity.
Mr Bell: As far as we're concerned, the bill doesn't go far enough. I think the stress that is put on workers by the decisions made by some management -- I don't want to say all management, I'm saying some management -- shows that the people who were involved in making that coercion have in fact done it purposely. I really think that what should happen is that there should be charges laid against the employer and against any legal counsel who's involved in it.
I have a real problem when I hear stories, Mr Offer, after a place has been organized and it comes out that the counsel who was hired for the petitioners was in fact not hired by the petitioners but was hired by the company, and we're told: "Go and talk to the petitioners. They'll take care of your problem." You may look at me kind of funny or want to turn your head away, but the reality is that it does happen. I think lawyers are supposed to be upholding the law and I have a real problem when they're involved in that type of action.
The Chair: I want to thank you people, Tom Jameus, Rob Smith and Francis Bell, speaking on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America. You've made, as have the other participants today, an important contribution to the process. We're grateful to you for taking the time to be here.
We tell you and the others who have expressed interest -- and that's evidenced by the fact that people have been sitting as observers throughout the day in significant numbers -- that the committee has enjoyed its reception here in Thunder Bay. Those who have travelled to Thunder Bay we wish a safe trip home. I want to thank the members of the committee for their cooperation today, and of course the staff, who set up and accommodated us in Thunder Bay, for its hospitality.
Mr Ferguson wanted to say something.
Mr Ferguson: Two things, Mr Chair: First of all, I think it would be proper and fitting that we recognize the federal member, Iain Angus, who has been with us for the entire day and has listened intently to every presenter who has appeared before the committee. I think he's doing an excellent job as usual on behalf of his constituents.
Second, I think it would be important that we compare other economies to our own economy and the rules that apply there to the rules that apply here. I've been told today that the country of Mexico, last week's winner in the lotto trade draw, has a law that prohibits the use of replacement workers. I was wondering if we could --
The Chair: You've just made the legislative researcher's day. She needed the workload, but I'm sure they'll do it with vigour.
Did anybody have anything to add?
Ms Murdock: I do.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: I'll just be brief. I would add that today, one of the groups, the council of CUPE, suggested that we get copies of the Labour Canada part-time work in Canada commission.
The Chair: It's under way. Legislative research started doing that hours ago.
Ms Murdock: Last, but not least, what are the arrangements for tomorrow morning?
The Chair: We can discuss that after the committee adjourns.
Thank you, people. Thank you very much for being here this evening. Take care.
The committee adjourned at 2113.