NORTH BAY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
NORTH BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
SAULT STE MARIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ALGOMA MANITOULIN AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 6500
CONTENTS
Monday 24 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce
Jeff Rogerson, chairman, public affairs committee
Barry Spilchuk, president
North Bay and District Labour Council
Art Campbell, president
Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce
Liisa Peer, president
David Cameletti, member
Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council
Bob Richards, president
Elaine Della-Mattia, staff representative, Communications Workers of America, Local 746
Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce
Alan Arkilander, president
Sudbury and District Labour Council
Barry Tooley, president
Barry Fraser, staff representative, Canadian Labour Council
Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council
Norman J. Garvie, president
Barry Fraser, staff representative, Canadian Labour Council
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Ron Moreau, national representative
Falconbridge Ltd
Richard Laine, director, human resources and public affairs, Sudbury operations
John Pappone, manager, employee relations, Kidd Creek division
John Keenan, vice-president, human resources
United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500
David R. Campbell, president
Inco Ltd, Ontario division
Don Sheehan, manager, employee relations, Sudbury operations
Dr Jose A. Blanco, vice-president, human resources and administration
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:
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Conway
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Wood
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Huget
*Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Jordan
*Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville / S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Turnbull
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel: Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1330 in the Northbury Hotel, Sudbury.
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.
NORTH BAY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Good afternoon. We're ready to resume. Our apologies for being a few minutes late. I want to remind people once again that there's coffee and perhaps other beverages and some repast at the side table. Please make yourselves at home. It's there so that you can feel comfortable.
The first participants are from the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce, if they'd please come forward and have a seat in front of a microphone. Their written brief has been distributed. It forms part of the record. I want to remind people that French-language translation services are available. It's a simple matter of obtaining one of the little receivers with the ear sets. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for exchanges and dialogue. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Jeff Rogerson: My name is Jeff Rogerson, representing the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce. With me is Barry Spilchuk, president of the North Bay Chamber of Commerce. We would like, first of all, to thank this committee for the opportunity to appear before you today and speak concerning Bill 40 and the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The North Bay Chamber of Commerce is a member organization of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. We represent over 800 local businesses employing more than 9,000 people in the North Bay and surrounding area.
In our view, labour legislation must encourage fairness and strive to maintain a balance between labour and management to be both effective and workable.
Can we hold on for a second? We'd like to wait till all you guys are ready.
The Chair: You've got a half-hour. People are doing a number of things. Go ahead, please. You can wait if you want or you can continue with the submission.
Mr Rogerson: The proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, in our view, do not maintain any sense of balance and, as a result, the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce is adamantly opposed to Bill 40.
In a market-driven economy, the strength of the economy is directly proportional to the level of investment it is able to attract. In Ontario, we have enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world because of a high level of investment by entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. All studies conducted pertaining to the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act clearly demonstrate it will have a detrimental effect on the amount of investment Ontario will be capable of attracting. Consequently the standard of living for all residents of our province is at risk.
We've all heard the horror stories about how much investment will leave the province or how much potential investment will not materialize as a result of this legislation. Some studies have indicated that billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Unfortunately the only certainty is that investment and jobs will be lost; how much investment and how many jobs will only be answered after the legislation have been enacted, and then it will be too late.
Currently in Ontario, approximately one third of the workforce has a collective agreement in place, while more than 60% are non-unionized. What the government appears to be saying with this legislation is that 60% of the businesses in this province are not operating to their full potential because they do not have a collective agreement in place. Of course this is totally absurd. Ontario has been the economic backbone of this country prior to today.
The premise of this legislation and the discussion by the government states that amending the act as proposed will cause higher wages, but in turn will also cause Ontario to become more competitive in the global arena. It does not take an MBA to realize that this cannot be the case. Competitiveness stems from two sources: strategic competitive advantage derived from a unique product, service or methodology, or simply price.
If every business in Ontario has a competitive advantage because of a distinctive product or service, then the effects of Bill 40 will be minimal. However, we all know this is not the case. Most businesses in Ontario must compete solely on a price advantage basis, and this will become even more prominent given the North American free trade agreement, yet this government has declared that wages must escalate.
The only way companies can remain competitive and pay higher wages, as this government wishes to see happen, would be to reduce the size of their workforce either through downsizing or increased automation. Given this harsh reality, in short time we are confident that Bill 40 will do more harm than good to those it was actually intended to help.
Who will suffer the most from this legislation? The small business person. As the small business person has created the majority of the employment in this province over the past 10 years, organized and unorganized labour will suffer as well.
Why? It's quite simple. Because suddenly the small business person who has mortgaged his or her home and risked all to start an enterprise will probably have second thoughts on the whole prospect, given the fact that if he can offer employment, he runs the risk of losing all control over his enterprise in binding arbitration.
Specifically, what is the North Bay Chamber of Commerce opposed to in this act?
There are a number of things. We do not feel there should be a ban on replacement workers during a time of labour unrest. We feel that this erodes the potential for bargaining, as business will have no option but to agree to the demands of labour or shut down altogether.
Workers in a struck bargaining unit should continue to have the right to cross a picket line should they desire. This amendment erodes every free citizen's democratic right to choice.
We do not feel that striking employees should have the right of access to third-party property for picketing purposes. This overrides the Trespass to Property Act, which requires the owner's permission to remain at a location.
We feel that the current organizing methods are workable and acceptable to business and labour and, to maintain a fair balance, should not be altered. It is against basic democratic principle that the right to petition has been eliminated. What incentive is there for a union to bargain in good faith when negotiating a first contract, knowing full well that it only has to wait 30 days to have the contract arbitrated? Union officials can bargain less seriously knowing that a settlement will be imposed and employers will have no recourse.
1340
Finally, we must address the impact we believe this will have on social programs. Already the province's treasury is empty, so how can we afford the additional strain to the social systems that this act will most definitely cause?
With Ontario's unemployment rate at its highest level in years, why are we even contemplating any legislation that could have a detrimental effect on putting people back to work? Instead we have to encourage investment and employment.
Who is this legislation actually intended to serve? Employers' rights are reduced through the terms of the act. Employees' rights are reduced, as they lose their democratic right to choice. In our view, this leaves only one component, unions themselves.
In closing, we must ask why this government feels changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are required. Up to now, the economy of Ontario has been the envy of most other jurisdictions. Investors have had confidence in the potential of the province and been willing to provide the funding that has fuelled expansion and jobs. Entrepreneurs have been willing to take huge risks that have generated thousands of good-paying jobs for hardworking Ontarians.
So we ask you to please abandon this legislation. Do not offer to trade the stability and wellbeing of an entire province for a theory that has proven unworkable in other provinces and that common sense dictates will be too expensive to manage before it is too late.
Mr Barry Spilchuk: In addition to that, I would like to just recite a tiny little speech that I've been giving around the province. I'm a management consultant and I do a lot of work between businesses and people inside the business who aren't getting along with each other. That's what this legislation is fostering. Basically the speech is this: "Them versus us" has got to stop. End of speech.
What we're doing, even in today's setup -- take a look at the agenda for today: business first, labour second; business first, labour second. That's not good. That's just further fostering "them versus us." We get to go first; they get to slam us. It should be mixed up, because this whole legislation is.
There are a lot of green buttons walking the room that say about labour reform, "It's Time." It's time, no question about it, but not this way. Not legislated. No way.
Was it you, Ms Murdock, who was on the radio yesterday?
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Yes.
Mr Spilchuk: We heard your radio show, and a lot of positive comments were coming out of the radio show, but I think it was you yourself who said that only 4% is a problem right now. Only 4%. So we're going through these hearings. This is the second time you people have been here; the second time that we've had to shut down our businesses to come here and make a presentation; the second time we've had to pack up everything and move down the highway and do this thing; the second time you guys have had to come here and do your little song and dance.
This is not good. We're in times now when we should be taking all this creativity -- we have a lot of talent. Look around this table. Look behind me. There's a lot of talent and there's a lot of potential in this room, yet what's happening? We're sitting here arguing over "My way's better than your way." This is ridiculous.
The way we've got right now is not perfect and it could use a little adjustment. What you're doing is just throwing it all away and starting from scratch. It just doesn't seem to make sense. Let's fix what's wrong, not just throw everything out and throw the baby out with the bath water.
Labour's going to be real happy when this is all over, but you're going to have business people holding their hands up and asking, "What's the point?" It's all about confidence.
Another part of the speech we give is that there would be no such thing as labour without business. But I always like to add on to that there would be no such thing as business without labour. The two of us have to go like this. For the longest time now we've being like this, and that's ridiculous. We have to start going like this.
Take a look at the companies that are shutting down. Typically, provincially we tend to blame the federal people. We always try to lay blame on everybody else. Everybody's blaming free trade; everybody's blaming GST. Well, free trade and GST are a reality, and I don't care how powerful we are provincially, we're not going to change that. We can't change that. These are the new rules of the game. Let's work within the context of the rules and let's change these rules to foster positive cooperation between business and labour. We have to do this together.
Even in North Bay, we're trying to take those steps. The North Bay and District Labour Council, your next presenter coming up, came to us about a month and a half ago and said, "Would you be interested in cohosting Labour Day with us?" After a lot of discussion, yes, we decided to do it in conjunction with the city of North Bay, the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce and the North Bay and District Labour Council. The mayor, the president of the chamber of commerce and the president of the North Bay and District Labour Council are going to lead the parade on Labour Day.
This "them versus us" stuff has to stop, and it has to start right in this room, and by that I mean don't make us go first and then get to slam us and our arguments three different times during the day. That's just plain silly; it's just not fair. Everybody should have a chance to refute everybody else's argument. Everybody else should listen to what the other person has to say.
If you're going to pass this legislation as it is, when are you going to start legislating teamwork, cooperation and harmony? You can't do it, just as this legislation is not going to do what it's intended to do.
Again, it's all about confidence. If business people don't have the confidence to take the risk to open up a new business, there will be no labour and vice versa. You're seeing a lot of businesses open today from former labour people because their plants have been shut down. When your back's against the wall you get real creative. All of a sudden the plants are shut down, "Maybe I'll open up a new business," and all of a sudden the people who used to be active unionists are starting to realize, "Wow, I own a business now." Even they're saying, "Whoa, this legislation is scary."
I'm saying, take what we have, fix it a little bit, fix what needs to be fixed, but not this. This is far-reaching and going far beyond what we need to do.
I just want to say again, in closing, before your questions to us, that there would be no labour without business -- and we agree and we've discussed it -- and there would be no business without labour. Please reconsider this legislation. Make it work but don't make us sit here and suffer for it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer and Mr Brown, four minutes, please.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I want to pick up on the last point you made with respect to the legislation itself and how it seems to be polarizing groups at a time when we can least afford it in this new era of competition.
At the end of your presentation you said, "Please abandon this legislation." Although we've heard that from others, I think you should be aware that this committee is operating under a particular time allocation motion by the government. We're going to have five weeks of hearing and a certain amount of time for clause-by-clause, and this bill in form is going to be law probably before Thanksgiving.
Mr Spilchuk: It doesn't have to be.
Mr Offer: Although you say it doesn't have to be, the unfortunate thing from this side is that we're dealing with a motion and I think we should be hearing from an awful lot more people and taking a look at a whole variety of ways to deal with legislation of this kind. But the government has passed a motion as to how long we're going to be sitting, how long we're going to debate and when this thing is going to be law.
In fairness, I think the abandoning of the legislation is probably not in the cards. What would you suggest be done with the areas of concern that you have brought forward here?
Mr Rogerson: I think it's quite simple. Honestly, I have to disagree with you, given, granted, the democratic process we live with in this province and given the fact that this bill has already had its first reading and now you're in the process of gaining public consultation. However, given that and given the process of public consultation, we still have to call for the total abandonment of this bill. I'm sorry but, regardless, it's not fair for you to sit there and say to us, "Given the fact that it's already been given first reading, the cards are in place."
What you're basically saying is it's a done deal -- isn't that what you're saying? -- to which my response is, then why are we here? Is this just an effort in futility? Are we just wasting our time? Are we just doing a window dressing exercise here or are you people really concerned about what we have to say? What we have to say is that this is a bad bill and we would like it scrapped.
Mr Offer: I understand what you're saying and I certainly do sympathize and agree with you. I think there should be more time. I just want to tell you that the bill has already gone through second reading and I want you to know the rules that have been imposed on us by them, that is, five weeks of hearing, eight days of clause-by-clause, two days of committee of the whole, two days of third reading debate, pass into law. That's a motion that was passed.
We stood against that motion, we voted against it, but I certainly do appreciate the concerns you brought. They are valid concerns felt right throughout the province, and it's clear that people are coming before this committee and saying: "This isn't a bill about whether one is in favour or against unions. That's not what this bill's about. It's about the freedom to choose."
I thank you very much for coming before this committee and helping us.
1350
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have been interested the last while in trying to determine how we decide whether labour legislation is in fact good legislation, where the signposts are, because I'm a politician; I don't claim to know everything about everything. In fact we've got to listen to what folks have to say and balance out their views.
But objectively there's got to be a way that we can determine from statistics. For example, are Ontario workers the best paid, or how do we rate in terms of Ontario's workforce being paid? Are the number of days involved in strikes an indication? There's got to be a variety of signposts.
I agree with my colleague Mr Offer that this is going to be passed and that's life and there's not a whole lot I can do about it, no matter what I try. What I want to know is, three years out from here, how can I tell whether this was the right thing to do or not?
Mr Spilchuk: Three years from now?
Mr Brown: I suspect two or three years is going to be a reasonable time frame to decide whether the legislation was in fact good legislation or bad.
Mr Spilchuk: When you listen to the people who've written their supposedly unbiased reports, and we read our unbiased reports, as labour reads its unbiased reports, our contention is, why put this in? You know, if it's going to take two or three years to find out that the province is going to go south instead of north, we're in trouble. Is my time up?
The Chair: Go ahead. Complete your response.
Mr Spilchuk: I've got no mike. There we go.
We're going to be in trouble. Studies have shown that two to three years down the road, based on the existing legislation, business will not come back here or even start here.
The Chair: Carry on. If the mike ain't picking you up, the highly talented person behind me is reading you on to the record.
Mr Spilchuk: Why put this in if we know it's going to hurt? Your comment near the end there was saying, "Oh, we think unions are bad." We don't think unions are bad; we think this legislation is bad. Okay? This is silly.
We're sitting here as small business people, every one of us, saying, "We don't want to do this because of this, this, this," as Jeff outlined in the report. We know that this is going to hurt. Studies by independent consultants have shown that this is going to hurt. Okay? Why do it? You don't have to do something because it hurts, it's going to make you feel better in the long run. I don't think so, no. Why are we going through this whole charade of this today if indeed it is going to be passed in five weeks? This is a waste of all the talent in this room. This is a waste of all the energy in this room. If the NDP is going to pass this legislation, it should have passed it a couple of months ago and we could have stopped wasting all this time.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I think it's a fair statement to say that the workplace and the workforce have changed dramatically since the 1970s, the last time the Ontario Labour Relations Act was updated in any significant manner, which is part of the reason why we feel it's important to bring the act into the 1990s, and indeed the 21st century.
The question I have for you two gentlemen representing the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce is, you mentioned your concerns pertaining to Bill 40, but there are some suggested legislative initiatives specifically dealing with security guards and giving them the right to select the union of their choice, dealing with restricting petitions during an organizing drive and allowing full-time and part-time bargaining units to be consolidated into one.
These three initiatives are in every other jurisdiction throughout Canada and seem to be working. Is it the opinion of the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce that those three initiatives in every place else in Canada are suitable, or at least are not of a concern to the chamber of commerce? The reason I asked that is, I'm trying to find that common ground the gentleman mentioned.
Mr Rogerson: You'll notice that those weren't three of our specific concerns. Our concerns were more broad-reaching. We weren't that necessarily concerned with one segment, security guards. Our concern is that what is happening here is that the democratic process in the workplace is being eroded. People in a democratic society should have choice. What you're doing is removing that choice.
If a person is a member of a union and a plant goes on strike, that person automatically loses his authority to cross that picket line. Even though he himself may disagree with the situation, he may have to work. He may have no choice; just economics may dictate that person has to work. What you people are saying is, "Unfortunately, given this labour legislation, we are no longer in a democratic jurisdiction, given your particular situation, and as a result you have no choice."
One of the other areas where we've run into great contention is that employers can no longer use replacement workers during a time of labour unrest. We understand that the premise your government has put on that particular clause is that it will encourage safety on the picket line. That's absolutely absurd.
Your member sitting next to you, Ms Murdock, actually stated yesterday that of all the labour disagreements in the province, only 4% actually ever get into a strike situation. That means 96% are resolved peacefully and satisfactorily without any labour disruptions. To me, that means there really isn't a problem. Why are we putting so much effort in dealing with a non-problem?
She also stated that the reason this was being put in place was to encourage safety on the picket lines. We already have laws in place that encourage safety on the picket line. If someone is being abused or assaulted on the picket lines, that is why we have laws dealing with assaults. Why aren't they being imposed?
Mr Ward: I'm pleased to see, as far as those three specifics that I mentioned are concerned, that we apparently have some common ground we can work with. I have a follow-up question. I'm not sure how much time I have left.
You mentioned choice and democracy as far as employees are concerned. Just so I'm clear, for my own benefit, is it the opinion of the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce that if the majority of employees of a certain workplace make the conscious decision, for whatever reason, that they feel it necessary to have a trade union represent them -- they make that choice -- obstacles should be removed from the existing act, because we're hearing there are obstacles, that impede that choice from taking place?
Mr Spilchuk: I don't see any reason why that would be a problem. If workers, as they do now, have the right to organize, what's the problem? We have no contention with that. That's not the problem here. The problem here is the legislation that's in place, the way it is right now, is just going to scare people away. It's scaring us and we live here. It's damned scary to look at this thing and say, "Wow, look at all we have to do."
There's one famous department store in the United States; its employee handbook is one page. It says, "In all cases, use your best judgement." That's it, nothing else. You look at most other businesses and their employee handbook is this thick. And you know why? It's to cover the 2% of the people who make all the problems. Look at any union handbook. It's all this stuff in there to discourage and take care of, "What if there's a problem?" and it's this thick. This is silly.
We urge you to use your best judgement. This legislation as it stands, using your best judgement, I think deep down inside your hearts you know it's not right the way it is. You wouldn't have the entire business community up in arms over this. Again, all we're doing is fostering "them versus us." One of the gentlemen over here -- I think it was Mr Brown -- said, "Them over there and us over here," in his presentation. That's what's happening, and this is silly. The businesses that are still in business in Ontario today, bless their souls; my goodness, congratulations to all of them. Take a look at most of them that are prospering. It's because the owners of the business and the people who work in the business are saying, "How can we make this better?" I firmly believe you don't have to be sick to get better. Ontario's doing not too bad; we're a little bit sick right now, but we could be doing a whole lot better. It's the companies that ask, "How can we do this better?" every day; they're listening to their employees.
1400
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on to accommodate Mr Villeneuve, briefly, please.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Our party totally agrees with the presentation by the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce and I would like to allow the government time for one or two more questions to make sure they get the message.
The Chair: I'm going to thank Mr Villeneuve for his comment and I want to thank the North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce for coming here this afternoon and participating in this process. It was important that you did that. We thank you, gentlemen, and the chamber of commerce of North Bay. We wish you a safe trip back home.
NORTH BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the North Bay and District Labour Council, if those people will please come forward and have a seat in front of the microphones. Their written material has already been distributed and will form a part of the record and be made an exhibit. Please, sir, tell us your name, your title, if any, and carry on with your submission. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges.
Mr Art Campbell: Art Campbell, president of the North Bay and District Labour Council. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the labour council and would like to thank the honourable members of the Ontario Legislature resources development committee for the opportunity to speak this afternoon.
I have to agree on a few things my colleague just said, especially on a Labour Day event where the three parties are getting together. Labour did make the first step, and I still contend that a journey of a thousand miles always begins with the first step. When business and labour can get together, why not? We don't have to be at each other's throats all the time, but there are times when we are opposed to one another, and that's going to carry on throughout the ages. I'll give you some examples as I go through the brief on some of the topics my colleagues just touched on.
On behalf of the North Bay and District Labour Council, I am pleased for the opportunity to express our views on Bill 40, the government's proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. These proposed amendments are something we in the labour force have fought long and hard for. Workers' rights and the lobbying on behalf of labour to obtain those rights have been a struggle, to say the least.
Workers join unions to better their lives, to maintain a standard of living and to have a voice. They want to take pride in the workplace and feel as if they belong. No union wants to put a business out of business. After all, it's our livelihood.
I can give you a good example of that. I've been on strike now for three years in North Bay. That's a travesty, and if these labour laws had been in effect, I think something would have been done a long time ago to correct my situation. It's time now; the wheels have been put into motion. We've come a long way, but I still contend that we have a long way to go.
For far too long now, those who oppose Bill 40 have believed it is okay for their people to intertwine resources as shareholders to improve and benefit their wellbeing and security. For some time now, we have heard this sector of people say it is our government that is trying to dissuade foreign investment from locating in Ontario, while in fact they are at the heart and soul of it all. They've been opposing everything for generations, from day one, from the child labour laws right down to today's hearings. They are even opposed to these hearings, how we're running the hearings.
In Ontario, there are many employers who treat their employees fairly and with respect, giving them a feeling of belonging. But unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that many employers do not treat their employees fairly or with respect. This reflects in our Ministry of Labour and our human rights board. Many workers have been cheated out of holiday benefits, disciplined and let go without just cause.
For an example, again in 1989, a worker in my workplace was given three days off for no reason at all. Another worker was forced to work an overtime shift, and our collective agreement said if you work an overtime shift a meal will be provided. No meal was provided and no money in lieu of was provided.
It's these types of employers who oppose the labour amendments. They were opposed to labour amendments throughout the ages, for example: the Factory Act of 1884; abandoning the use of child labour; the reductions in the work week from 60 hours to 54 hours to 48 hours and to our present 40-hour work week; health and safety acts; Canada pension; pay equity and now Bill 40. The list goes on and on. Employers have taken strong stands on wage controls, UIC cutbacks, free trade and pension takebacks, all the while letting the most needy labour to gain fairness and equity in the workplace, with nothing but opposition from these employers.
Another amendment I would like to speak on is the right to organize, and organizing and certification. It should be every worker's right to be able to be organized if he or she so wishes, with no harassment or intimidation from employers. This is not the case.
Another example is in the retail sector. In my home town, North Bay, where the workers are trying to form a union, they are intimidated, harassed, given every dirty job in the place to do, with undue hardships placed upon those workers until they give up the idea that they want to form a union. If worse comes to worst, some of these employees are also fired. They have all kinds of pressures applied to them. They are intimidated.
I believe employers should supply an intended organizer with a list of all employees' names and addresses. I don't believe it's an infringement of confidentiality. After all, when there is an election, every eligible voter has his or her name placed on just about every pole on every street corner.
By removing the $1 fee, it is not making it easier for workers to organize and certify but simply makes a statement that they don't have to buy into a union, but rather exercise their right and put it to a vote.
On the amendment of replacement workers, it's time our government moved in the direction of the Quebec anti-scab legislation. No worker or union, as I said before, wants to force the employer out of business. This is ludicrous. After all, it's their livelihood at stake. I can tell you, when you go on strike and a strike has gone on as long as mine, three years, a lot of things happen to the working people. We've lost our homes, we've lost our cars, our marriages have split up. I've got brothers in the hospital due to stress from the duration of the strike; triple heart bypasses. Another brother's had a stroke, and just as recently as two weeks ago I had to sit with a brother from 10:30 at night until 5:30 in the morning who wanted to shoot himself because of the stress that's been placed on him over the duration of this strike. A lot of hardships are put on the working people, so nobody can tell me that we want to do this deliberately to put a business out of business.
It avoids many violent altercations on the picket line. A colleague before said there are laws that take care of this. I can tell you, after standing on a picket line for three years, that those laws aren't being enforced. We've had people come in and try to run us over on the road, and when we phoned the local police, well, we've got to be able to describe the guy in detail, what he's wearing down to his underwear, I believe, tell how fast he's going and what's written on the side of his truck; never mind trying to get out of the way so the guy doesn't run you over.
It doesn't tip the scales in favour of the workers. What it does is ensure that both parties come to ratification of an agreement sooner, noting these restrictions would only apply during a lawful strike or lockout.
I believe we have come a long way with this amendment to labour reform, but also contend we still have a long way to go. I believe when a strike or a lockout reaches three months -- three months is a long time; a lot of things can happen to a person in three months; a lot of people claiming bankruptcy; if you're going to lose your stuff, you lose it right off the bat, your car, your home -- compulsory arbitration should be added to the labour reform amendments. Things shouldn't be put at a standstill until one party or the other decides on people's futures.
In conclusion, once again I commend the government of Ontario for its amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act and wholeheartedly support these amendments in general, but would contend we still have a long way to go.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): May I call you Brother Campbell?
Mr Campbell: Yes, please.
Ms Haeck: Thank you. Having spent 15 years in CUPE, I have a feeling I can do that. Can I just ask quickly where your strike location is, what company it is?
Mr Campbell: North Bay, called Nordfibre. It's a fibreboard plant.
Ms Haeck: In light of the fact that most strikes are ended amicably in a fairly short period, do you feel that the kind of legislation we're proposing as a government would see dispute resolution speeded up and coming to a solution a whole lot more quickly and more amicably? Would that be something your work site, your coworkers, would feel positively about?
Mr Campbell: Yes, it is. Like I said before, it's ridiculous to have somebody stay on strike for this amount of time.
Ms Haeck: Has there been violence on your strike?
Mr Campbell: No, it's been peaceable, but it's because the employer hasn't tried to bring in scab labourers. He was told if he did, there would be trouble on the line. As a result, the particular company has been shut down completely for three years. Now, he's done everything in his power to make us walk off the line. Like I said, we've been there three years. We started with 80 employees and we're down to 63 now. One brother, 58 years old, died two weeks ago. Like I said, the hardships are enormous on our picket line, with brothers in the hospital due to stress, strokes, heart attacks, and just two weeks ago, the brother wanting to shoot himself over the pressures from the strike.
Ms Haeck: Thank you. I'll yield to one of my colleagues, if I may.
1410
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): In my family, my father's side was born just south of North Bay in Powassan and migrated to the great northern city of North Bay. They've lived there all their lives. In speaking to them, they are actually quite pleased that this legislation is coming through. They are working people like yourselves who have certainly benefited from the availability of the collective agreements.
The previous presenter talked about the fact that if the legislation is passed and workplaces become further unionized, there's going to be an erosion of the social services we have in place now. It's my view that it's been as a result of unionization that we have had the good level of social services and the kinds of benefits that unions advocate for. Could you give me your opinion on that?
Mr Campbell: Yes. The speaker before me said that 60% of non-union workplaces don't reach full potential because they're not unionized. Let me give you a good example of what happens in a non-unionized shop, and I'm sure everybody's well aware of this: the Westray mine in Nova Scotia where 26 miners lost their lives. If there had been a union in place there, I can tell you right now that those 26 miners would still be alive today.
Mr Owens: If you look at a workplace like the Northgate Mall, for instance, what percentage of the workers there would be women?
Mr Campbell: Just about everybody.
Mr Owens: What would be the average wage of those women?
Mr Campbell: It depends on their length of service. My wife works part-time in the retail sector and she's been there six years now. I think she's making $7 an hour.
Mr Owens: How would you see this legislation benefiting people like your wife and the other women she works with in Northgate?
Mr Campbell: It would better their standard of living. That's what it's all about. It's not about dollars and cents; it's about a better standard of living for the working people. Working people need and ought to have that standard of living.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): We have some statistics that out of 94 strikes, I believe, there was no violence in 60, 29 had minor incidents and five had major. Of the 34 where there was violence, 25 took place in plants that were operated during a work stoppage. If this legislation that would ban replacement workers were in place today, do you feel it would make a significant difference in violence on the picket lines?
Mr Campbell: In the first place, the altercations that happened would not have taken place because there would be no incident to cause it. The workers are frustrated enough by being treated unfairly. Like the first speaker said, it's not all employers and it's not all unions; it's some. If it's 4%, then 4% is too much. When it comes to violence on the picket line, never mind dollars and cents; if we lose a life, 4% is too much.
Mr Ward: The previous presenters mentioned the need for cooperation between labour, business and government, that we should all be marching down the same road if we're going to overcome the economic challenges we're facing. I agree with that philosophy. You've been president of the labour council in North Bay for how long?
Mr Campbell: Two years.
Mr Ward: And you've lived in North Bay for how long?
Mr Campbell: Fifteen years.
Mr Ward: Do you sense that there is greater cooperation today in 1992 than there has been in the past? Are we beginning to understand that the adversarial approach isn't going to work and that in fact we do have to learn to cooperate with each other?
Mr Campbell: If and when we can, we should. I agree with that also. Like I said, we took the first step in this year's Labour Day event by asking the city and the chamber to be involved with us. A feeling of trust has to come from somewhere and somebody has to make the first step. This is what we thought: If we could get along on this day, then let's do it, by all means. The day is for the working people, businesses, whatever, to come out and enjoy themselves. We're just going to leave it at that. That's what the day is for. Yes, if we can get together, let's get together.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to get something clear in my mind. You say you've been in a strike position now for three years, there haven't been any replacement workers used and the company is no longer there.
Mr Campbell: The company is still there. It's not operating.
Mr Offer: How long has the company not been operating?
Mr Campbell: Since the day we went on strike.
Mr Offer: I have some questions as to whether the company will start up or not at the end of this stoppage, but that may be for after the presentation, unless you want to help me out on that. Obviously people here are hearing that you've been on strike, striking a company that has not been in operation for a number of years, which this legislation would not change one way or the other.
Mr Campbell: It just goes to show you how much hardship the union has put on the employer. We hadn't had a raise in that workplace since 1987, and the employer wants us to go back to what we were making in 1987, $11 an hour at that time for myself. We haven't had a raise since then, and he wants me to work for 60% of $11 an hour, which would automatically put me below minimum wage. No benefits, no right to recall, no seniority in the workplace. It's those initiatives that forced the walkout at our place. It's not because we wanted to go out. Like I said, it's crazy for an individual to put his employer out of business. It was orchestrated so that was the only avenue available to us and we had to take it.
Mr Offer: You'll know that I'll have some questions about this, because what we're talking about here is a strike in front of a company that has not been in existence. I understand the bargaining that has been going on, but this legislation obviously would not help one whit.
Mr Campbell: It won't help our strike, but it'll help something in the future. These amendments to the labour law will make sure this doesn't happen to workers in the future.
Mr Offer: If I have a few moments, let's talk about that. You used your wife as an example; you said she was in the retail sector. In response to a question, you indicated a certain number of dollars per hour; I think you used $7. Where in the bill would an individual such as your wife be helped?
Mr Campbell: By being treated fairly and with respect in the workplace.
1420
Mr Offer: I'm asking for some help in this area because we're hearing a variety of comments on the legislation, and for the life of me -- let me be very frank -- I cannot see in this legislation where an employee in your wife's position would be helped one bit. There are other pieces of legislation, the Employment Standards Act and a whole variety of things I could actually point to, but I'm wondering if you would share with the committee how this legislation would be of some help to your wife, where that $7 would be $12.
Mr Campbell: It comes under the right to organize. When people wanted to organize and had discussions in the store, some people were threatened that they were going to lose their jobs. Other employees were given every demeaning job in the workplace and undue pressure, intimidation and harassment were placed upon them. This would cease, and that's where it would help those employees.
Mr Offer: I have another question that leads from that very response. During our hearings, and we're now entering our fourth week, we have heard from a number of people that if an employee wants to unionize, if that be his or her wish, great. Let the employees cast their votes, yes or no, in a free vote, fully informed and free from any coercion, and if there is coercion or intimidation, let the employer -- or the union, in fact -- suffer a penalty. I'm wondering, again thinking of your wife's situation, whether you would be in favour of a free vote of employees in a workplace, that if the majority of them wished to be unionized, so be it.
Mr Campbell: Like I stated in my brief, it should be every worker's right to organize if she wishes to do so by a free vote.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
Mr Brown: Just so I can be clear, a free vote --
Mr Campbell: Where they are not intimidated.
Mr Brown: -- I assume would be a secret ballot vote.
Mr Campbell: It doesn't have to be a secret ballot vote. If you go in and you sign cards, then you know right off the bat who wants to and who doesn't want to. There shouldn't be anything hidden about it and people shouldn't be made to think, "There's something going on here if I have to have a secret ballot." If you sign cards and more people are in favour of it, then let's have a vote on it, and if they so choose, majority rules.
Mr Brown: So what you're looking for is a lower threshold for signing cards to force a vote.
Mr Campbell: All we're looking for is to get rid of the intimidation process and leave it up the individuals whether they want to or don't want to.
Mr Brown: That's what I would like to see, to remove coercion from both sides, because we've heard a number of presentations that there has been some intrusion on the rights of employees by their employer. The question we've been pursuing is the secret ballot vote, because we're politicians; that's how we're elected and that's how society in Canada and indeed in Great Britain, the mother of our system, has decided things are decided, that the best way to ensure no coercion is the secret ballot. As a politician who is elected that way, it seems to make eminent sense. Do you have a problem with the secret ballot, with a rather low threshold to trigger it, so that there isn't the opportunity for coercion?
Mr Campbell: I agree that coercion should be eliminated on both sides. If an individual is going in to organize, people have to sign cards. There's no intimidation. If a person wants to sign a card, he signs a card; if he doesn't want to, he doesn't. Whether it be a secret ballot or not, as long as coercion on both parts is eliminated, then the individual exercises his rights and votes whatever way he likes.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Your answer seems somewhat a paradox. You don't want coercion or intimidation. It seems that the perfect way to eliminate those would be through secret ballot. Then the employer may not coerce, nor would those who would like to form a union. You see, this is my fundamental difficulty with this portion of the legislation. We want to have people vote their mind. What better method is there than the secret ballot?
Mr Campbell: Why should we hide the fact, if people have already signed cards and if they're in favour of it?
Mr Stockwell: I guess the problem I have is that you are assuming there's no coercion or intimidation on the union side and it's all on the ownership side.
Mr Campbell: I'm not saying it's on either side; I'm saying we should eliminate it whatever side it's on.
Mr Stockwell: But this is the paradox. You're suggesting that by signing a card there is absolutely no intimidation or coercion to sign that card.
Mr Campbell: No, we removed that $1 fee. At one time you charged the workers a --
Mr Stockwell: I don't think a dollar has anything to do with what I'm asking you.
Mr Campbell: But then they're exercising their right; they're voting with their conscience rather than buying into it. They don't have to feel that they're buying into it or they have to do anything into it.
Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, you've missed my question. My question isn't about the buck. My question is: There could be coercion on the union side; there could be coercion on the management or ownership side. By signing a card, there could be some intimidation involved. By forcing them not to sign a card, on management side there could be some intimidation involved. Would it not make sense to you to remove all coercion, to remove all intimidation, that by secret ballot that person can vote without any fear of reprisal from either side?
Mr Campbell: In the first place, I don't know how you would get anybody to go in and vote without knowing that they first wanted to belong to a union.
Mr Stockwell: You trip the system by the number of cards, the percentage, and then the vote would take place. It doesn't seem that complicated to me.
Mr Campbell: I don't believe it is a complicated issue. To get to the bare facts, it comes down to the individual. Whatever way they want to exercise their right to vote, it's not for me to say that they should have a secret ballot or they shouldn't, but rather the individual. If they so choose, so be it.
Mr Stockwell: But I'm asking you your opinion.
Mr Campbell: I can't speak for those individuals. What I'm saying is that you would ask those people, and whatever they wanted, that's the way we would do it.
Mr Stockwell: So you ask the people who've signed the cards whether or not it should be a secret ballot?
Mr Campbell: If they agree, majority rules; we would go with the majority. You ask people the question and give them the choice, as long as the choice is there and it's their choice to make and no pressures from anybody else. It's your choice if you want to go this way or your choice if you want to go that way. I'm not telling you how to do it; you make up your mind and tell me how you want to proceed.
Mr Stockwell: In the end, it's rather puzzling for me to understand why anyone in a democratic country would be opposed to a secret ballot; puzzling indeed.
The Chair: Ms Haeck, very briefly, please.
Ms Haeck: Mr Campbell, have you ever been involved in a union organization drive where in fact a vote took place?
Mr Campbell: Yes.
Ms Haeck: It may allay Mr Stockwell's fear to know that where there is any question about the intention of workers, in your and my experience, the vote is in fact held as a secret ballot, is it not?
Mr Campbell: Yes.
The Chair: Mr Campbell, I want to tell you on behalf of the committee that we thank you and the North Bay and District Labour Council for your attendance here and your participation. You represent a significant constituency and we're grateful for your interest and your eagerness to come and speak to this committee. We express our gratitude, and have a safe trip back home.
Mr Campbell: Thanks a lot.
The Chair: Take care.
1430
SAULT STE MARIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce. Those people will please come and have a seat. We've got your written submissions; they form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. As you've been able to note, as often as not it's the exchanges and dialogue that take place that are an extremely valuable component; try to save the second half of the half-hour for that.
I also would note that the legislative research service research officers have filed their research concerning data on strike replacement workers and the use of violence, dated August 21, 1992. If people in the audience want a copy of that, get hold of the clerk or his assistant, Mr David Augustyn, from Port Robinson Road in Thorold, who will provide you with a copy of that. Go ahead, people from the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce.
Mrs Liisa Peer: Hi there. My name's Liisa Peer and I'm the president of the chamber of commerce, and this is Mr David Cameletti. He is one of our volunteers and a member of our organization. He has been a big help in terms of research into this bill.
It's unfortunate that the honourable minister could not be here today. The last time we spoke, he was in Sault Ste Marie in February, and it would really have been nice to have spoken to him again. Just a comment.
The Chair: Well, you get to speak to us.
Mrs Peer: That's right, and I met you in Sault Ste Marie, remember? We brought you up. The chamber of commerce brought Peter Kormos up to the Sault.
The Chair: I hope you're not disappointed. I hope you weren't disappointed then.
Mrs Peer: No, not at all.
The Chair: It makes the Premier nervous, though.
Mrs Peer: Members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to present a brief today on behalf of over 650 members of the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber of commerce is the leading business organization in Sault Ste Marie. It is a non-profit association of business and professional people and other people who share some of their viewpoints. Its primary purpose is to promote the economic prosperity and the social and civic interests of the community.
The community of Sault Ste Marie has in recent years been experiencing the woes of recession: strikes, cross-border shopping, record unemployment and record bankruptcies. In this increasingly global economy, we, the chamber of commerce of Sault Ste Marie, ask the government of Ontario to answer how the proposed legislation benefits a sluggish economy. Most important, how does the legislation create jobs?
The Ontario Labour Relations Act as it exists now is equal to or better than any other labour legislation in North America. There's no evidence that major reforms are needed at this time or that they're desired by the people of Ontario. We've asked the government on numerous occasions to offer us some sort of statistical data or surveys to show that the people of this province want and need these changes.
Sault Ste Marie businesses and businesses across the province are trying to survive through the worst economic conditions in decades. They are attempting to become more competitive and productive as a result of global market pressures. The new legislation negatively affects the ability of business to survive and create jobs.
The amendments represent a dramatic shift in labour legislation, a response to pressures from the union movement, to the detriment of business and individual employees. The changes will not create a single job or generate one dollar for the economy. The OLRA amendments are the wrong approach at the wrong time.
The Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce requests the government to reconsider this legislation. Practically and psychologically, the legislation damages business confidence, discouraging investors and drives business out of the province.
There was an Ernst and Young impact study done in February and we presented this at that time, but I don't think the statistics have changed and I do believe they have to be reiterated one more time. Let's do it again.
Ernst and Young surveyed 251 Ontario firms in mining, forestry, manufacturing, construction, transportation, finance, insurance, real estate and trade, as well as 50 large North American firms outside Ontario, primarily in manufacturing. There would be 495,000 Ontario jobs lost as a result of this proposed legislation. How can we lose one more job in this province? There would be $8.8 billion of investments lost over a five-year period. Even assuming the government doesn't get in power the next time and somebody else gets in government, my goodness, we would still be changing this legislation; we'd still be living with the effects of it five years from now.
Of the firms surveyed, 85% expect the proposed changes would weaken their ability to compete from an Ontario location. Of the Ontario firms surveyed, 73% expect the adoption of the proposed labour legislation would result in a loss of some or all of the jobs they currently provide in Ontario. Over 84% of the firms surveyed expect the proposed changes would reduce their planned investment in the province over the next five years. Respondents generally rate Ontario labour costs as higher than those of competitors outside the province and believe unionization is harmful to their competitiveness.
The chamber believes the legislation will have the opposite effect to what the government has indicated it wishes to accomplish. Your goals and objectives are good ones. We are not arguing with those goals and objectives. However, we are arguing with the fact that these goals and objectives will not be met by the way you're trying to push this legislation through.
Rather than fostering cooperation between the workplace parties, the proposals will create unrest, litigation and generally confrontational attitudes. I would cite the fact that Quebec, which you say has a successful labour relations record over the past 15 years, has had more strikes, more litigation and more costs incurred on both the union's part and on the part of business, so how can you say they've been successful? How can you say more strikes is being successful? More strikes is not successful. That's what we're trying to eliminate.
We don't want those kinds of things happening in our workplace. We want to negotiate our agreements. We want to be able to come to a compromise, and that's what we're asking you, the committee, to do with business. If you're asking business to compromise and be able to negotiate agreements with their workers, why can't you, the government, compromise and work with us as business people? We drive this economy.
This gentleman in the back -- I'm making an impassioned plea here. We were going to be a little bit more down to the line but I felt so impassioned by this gentleman's comments before us, saying "the working people." We are working people. Business people are working people too. I make a lot less money than most unionized people do in this province and I'm a business person. My husband makes less; he's a management person. He makes $15,000 less than the man he supervises in a unionized environment. Who's to say that unionized workers are getting a raw deal?
I can get a little upset about this, as you can see. Anyway, we're going to highlight a few of our concerns with the specifics on the issue here, number one being the prohibition on use of replacement workers during a strike. The chamber wishes to point out that this aspect of the proposed labour legislation amendments raises the greatest concerns for us because this amendment clearly places businesses at a disadvantage. Non-bargaining-unit employees and managers are not required to perform the work of striking or locked-out employees if they do not consent to do so. This makes it extremely difficult for an employer to continue bargaining-unit work during a strike if the remaining employees are unionized but not on strike. Such employees can simply decline to do bargaining-unit work. This piece of legislation holds business hostage to the whim and will of labour unions.
Second, the union is not required to satisfy itself that it has maintained the support of a majority of the workers throughout the course of the entire strike. By way of illustration, a strike vote may be conducted when negotiations between management and the union are particularly intense and feelings of the workers are particularly hostile against the employer. After the strike is called, however, there is no requirement that a subsequent vote be held to ensure majority support for the strike, even though most of the employees may not want to remain on strike. Moreover, during the course of bargaining, the union has a significant advantage in the bargaining process because it does not have to consider the possibility that the employer will go out and hire other employees or transfer in other employees.
Small business -- what drives this province is small business, I would like to reinforce here -- is particularly vulnerable to this type of provision. Employers with small workforces may under present legislation be able to carry on with the help of family members or other replacement workers from outside in order to ensure that the business carries on. However, the prohibition of bringing in any outside workers effectively means that a business subject to a strike will be paralysed. The chamber wishes to draw the attention of the members of the committee to the fact that many businesses are vulnerable to the loss of markets if they are unable to meet their customers' demands.
Another distressing aspect of the legislation represents the complete loss of choice for employees who are on strike. This shows a substantial slant by the legislation in favour of trade unions and away from individuals. Individuals will no longer be able to exercise their freedom of choice and cross the picket line.
Imposition of terms of agreement by labour board or boards of arbitration: This is our second bone of contention. Under current legislation, as you know, the power of an outside party to impose terms of settlement upon a party, except in first-contract situations, is non-existent. The labour board only becomes involved in first-contract situations where certain preconditions exist. Basically the labour board has to be satisfied that the employer is refusing to recognize the bargaining authority of the trade union, is taking an uncompromising position without reasonable justification or is not making reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement.
Bill 40 now provides for outside intervention by the labour board in certain situations where there is a breach of duty to bargain in good faith. Currently, if an employer is found to be bargaining in bad faith, the labour board orders it to cease and desist from such behaviour. Under Bill 40, an employer in bargaining now faces the risk of a complaint before the labour board by the union and the possibility that the board may impose certain terms on it. An employer taking a strong position in bargaining is particularly susceptible to such a union tactic.
The chamber wishes to underline its concerns that this added power will have the effect of rendering many collective bargaining negotiations into mere formalities and that unions will attempt to have their negotiations settled before the labour board instead of in the negotiating room where these should be resolved.
1440
Access to third-party property: A number of our members are extremely distressed about the fact that the third-party property most likely to be affected by this amendment will be shopping malls where many people can be located. Allowing access to third-party property for the purpose of organizing and picketing will have unfortunate consequences for the public, for the other surrounding businesses that don't have anything to do with the labour dispute, and certainly will discourage shoppers from entering that particular mall if they feel they have to be involved in a labour dispute of any sort.
We also are concerned with the erosion of the freedom of choice for individuals over unionization and also the changes to the security guard portion of the current legislation, where they're required to be represented in a separate bargaining unit. We feel they should still be allowed to do that. It certainly compromises the security of the situation if you have to ask a security guard to be there during a strike and these are his fellow brothers and sisters on the line. It's certainly not fair. It's not fair to management, it's not fair to the security guards and it's not fair to the public that requires security in these particular situations.
We're also against the lower threshold for certification -- again, if labour is into the democratic process, then why isn't 50% good enough? Why does it have to be 40%? I thought a majority was 50%. My math could be wrong -- and, again, automatic certification, erosion of collective agreement negotiations and, last but not least, the purpose clause.
I'm a little bit concerned when the primary purpose of the Ministry of Labour or the board of labour is to encourage, enhance or facilitate the organizing of collective bargaining. I thought this particular board was supposed to be an independent adjudicator. I thought they were supposed to sit there and weigh both sides of the situation and figure out, "How can we bring these two parties together?" But in this situation, as I see it coming up, it won't be so. It will be a commandment from above. The unions will get what they want. Where do negotiations, where do compromises, where does cooperation come in?
I ask you if you have any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Peer. Mr Martin, five minutes, please.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Good afternoon. It's nice to see you again, Liisa and David.
Mrs Peer: We've been seeing a lot of one another.
Mr Martin: That's right.
Mrs Peer: We've been lunching together.
Mr Martin: I commend you for coming forward in your usual straightforward manner and laying it out for us without pulling any punches. I think we in Sault Ste Marie have become somewhat known for not being afraid to state our opinion where we feel it's important.
However, in the last year or so we in Sault Ste Marie have become known for something else I think is of certainly equal importance if not greater importance, and that is the fact that the United Steelworkers of America got together with its management team to save that company and save the jobs of thousands of people in our community and basically the economy of our community.
In light of some of the general comments you made, Liisa, I just want to ask one question and then perhaps another one. The fact that this legislation is the wrong legislation at the wrong time: In light of the difficult economy that we're in and some of the things that are coming at us, particularly, as you indicated, in Sault Ste Marie with the cross-border shopping and all of that, I would think it behooves us to build partnerships where we can and in ways we can.
In my experience over the last two years, our government has certainly in more ways than one bent over backwards to try to help the business community of Sault Ste Marie. There isn't anything that I've gone to the government for on behalf of our community -- and most of it was business-oriented -- that we didn't get by way of investment in our community: the infrastructure and making sure that people had money in their pockets to spend to keep businesses going during this difficult time.
Don't you think that now the major partner in the restructuring of Algoma Steel -- and I suggest to you, it being that Sault Ste Marie is a union town in the economy of our community, they're asking for some things they feel are important so that they might come to the table with some degree of confidence that their voice will be heard in the same way as business is; that giving them that voice and that consideration, which is what we think we have here -- and certainly affirmed by the unions themselves -- in this package of legislation, will in fact not only save jobs but in the long run, as Algoma Steel and other companies learn to cooperate with their workers in ever more creative ways, create jobs and help our economy recover? Isn't this the right time?
Mrs Peer: I don't think it's the right time, because what people require for jobs, for people to invest dollars in a particular community or a particular province is confidence, as the gentleman from the North Bay Chamber of Commerce was saying. They need confidence in the fact that this province will be surviving and will be continuing and that there is a feeling of partnership between government and business. Business does not feel that and therefore, if there's no confidence on the part of entrepreneurs to invest their dollars, then how can there be jobs created?
Jobs are created when industry and business are successful, when one guy or one woman with a single idea has this thing: "Okay, I can make this widget, and this widget is going to be sold across the world." He or she starts with this one idea and it goes from there and they have to add people. Those extra jobs will be created when this guy says: "Okay, I can make widgets in this town. I can make tons of widgets in this province."
That's how a strong economy, a confident economy, one that is let to be a free market economy, will be a healthy one. One that's not interfered with by government will be a healthy one, and therefore jobs will be created.
How we're going to benefit women in the workplace, how we're going to benefit people in the workplace, period, is with a healthy economy, not through legislation, not through government putting its hand into things that it shouldn't be in. It's from their letting business be business and to have ideas and to be entrepreneurial. That's how we can create jobs, not with a piece of legislation that dictates to business, saying, "This is what you have to do." No, it doesn't work.
Mr Martin: I suggest to you, Liisa, that if government had in fact let business be business, you'd have a far different Algoma Steel today than you have, because business took some leadership, listened to the United Steelworkers of America, recognized the intelligence and the experience and the knowledge that was there, put it together with the resource that was available through the already existent management and the vested interests in that company. In partnership, the union, business and government, we now have a restructured company in Algoma Steel that will take us confidently into the next century.
Mrs Peer: David has a comment on that.
Mr David Cameletti: Tony, no one questions the value of working between union and employer. We have to realize, though, that in large part what led to the current relationship between the unions and the Steelworkers was a bitter, adversarial, four-month strike.
Mr Martin: I'd suggest to you that it wasn't the strike. I'd suggest to you it was the economy, and it was Dofasco making a decision that the union said no to.
Mr Cameletti: There were a number of factors. I had clients during that particular strike when we had fights in the courts because of what was happening on the picket line and that type of thing. I'd suggest that the adversarial part played a large role.
Mrs Peer: The other comment I'd like to make too is the fact that we're talking about Algoma Steel, a large company, whereas the majority of businesses in Sault Ste Marie and the majority of businesses in this province are small business. They're non-unionized. We do different kinds of things to foster cooperation between business and the workplace.
For example, I'm in the retail business. We have 15 employees. We work on a different kind of premise. We keep all of our books wide open. We ask our employees about input in terms of what we should be purchasing for resale. We ask them what we should be buying in terms of our infrastructure and our technology and what we're going to invest in. We also have a bonus-sharing program where when we prosper, they prosper. What an amazing concept.
1450
Why can't this be taken a little bit further into the unionized workplace? Why has it been that unions have been so dead against a bonus- or profit-sharing program? When businesses are suffering, I don't think they have to continue to come to these very costly labour agreements, but when things are really good, they should be giving things back to their employees. There are a lot of innovative employers and business people out there who agree with this.
Business people want to have happy employees. They want to have productive employees, number one. Number two, how do you have productive employees? If they're happy, if they're paid well, if they're compensated properly for the job they're doing and they can share in the profitability of the company. That's what we do as a business. I don't think we can have only instances of unionized settlements here. Why does all labour in the province have to be unionized in the first place? My people are very happy at my company. I could bring 15 people up here who could say that under no duress.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Peer. Mr Offer and Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Being the only northern MPP here on the opposition side --
Mr Owens: We're working on that too.
Mr Brown: I know you are.
First, I'd like to thank you for coming to Sudbury to make this presentation. I point out that I've been a part of two previous bills dealing with the Labour ministry and this particular one chose not to go to Sault Ste Marie, although the two previous major bills chose to go there. This bill will see more submissions not made verbally than any other bill ever debated in this province.
I would like to tell you also that this bill was presented to the Legislature on the same day as rule changes, to make sure this would be on the choo-choo train and finished in record time, beating any other bill relating to labour relations by at least eight months in terms of the time it took to get passed.
Having said that, I want to pick up on the Algoma Steel situation, because it's one that we are all very interested in. I think it's important to recognize that we are all in favour of the worker capitalism proposals that are in place at Algoma Steel today and believe that employees should be able to take advantage of buying into their companies.
I'm surprised, however, that the Ontario Federation of Labour opposes such things, and that makes me a little bit leery. We're happy that Algoma's now back and operating and we hope it will be successful, because now the taxpayers of Ontario also have a large stake in the success of that company. As northerners, I think we all appreciate that. Broadly speaking, do you see the balance?
I have asked various presenters for the signposts. Why do we need this legislation, and once it's through, how do we know that it's working? What signposts are there for somebody who's a generalist and who's objectively looking at the statistics? What is there so that three years from now I can say, "Yes, there are less strikes perhaps. Our workers are better off"? What signposts would the chamber suggest are relevant in terms of assessing whether this worked?
Mr Cameletti: Mr Brown, you may look at the percentage of the non-agricultural workforce in Ontario that is unionized. Currently, a recent article in the Toronto Star said it was holding at approximately 38%. That's for the sectors regulated by the Ontario government. If you compared that to most jurisdictions in the United States, where approximately 18% of the non-agricultural workforce is unionized, you could see that the present legislation in Ontario has certainly allowed the unionized workforce to get a significant hold of Ontario workplaces.
We suggest you may want to look at the percentage of non-agricultural employees who are unionized. That's one way in which you can measure how far along. Then you juxtapose that with the average wage for employees in Ontario, the standard of living, and you can measure that by the Statistics Canada basket of goods, cost of housing, inflation rate. You measure that against what the wage increases are and then you can perhaps see if it's gone up or down. Lastly, you can look at the unemployment rate, whether it's gone up or gone down.
Mrs Peer: Probably the investment dollars as well.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much for being here. I represent a border community, as you hail from. The border community that I represent is out in southeastern Ontario where we border both New York state and the province of Quebec.
We've had a number of businesses come from Quebec to Ontario because of more severe labour laws in Quebec. I understand that there are some businesses in northern Ontario looking to the US or to Manitoba. Is this your experience?
Mrs Peer: As a business person, a retail person, and president of the chamber of commerce, I've certainly talked to a number of people who are looking at investment opportunities on the Michigan side, because that's where everybody wants to shop. That's where all the unionized people want to be shopping and getting their lower dollars, over there, and all their lower gas dollars are being spent over across the river. Why should business people not be setting up shop over there where the cost of doing business is a lot less? Certainly that is the case.
There's going to be this huge Wal-Mart, 140,000 square feet of Wal-Mart being built across the river just posed at Sault Ste Marie. They're going at it strong, and Canadians are thinking about going into that mall. It's a survival tactic.
Mr Villeneuve: Is Manitoba also attracting them? I know from the province of Quebec, any possible or potential moves to Ontario are on hold until such time as they see what will happen with Bill 40. I do know that in Quebec there have been as many strikes as, if not more than, in Ontario, and there tends to be more violence. Is this your experience? I noticed you touched on it. Have you done some surveys here?
Mrs Peer: Yes. I think David can take that on in terms of there having been more strikes in Quebec than there have been here.
Mr Cameletti: Yes, Mr Villeneuve, our statistics show that in the last 12 years the province has had more strikes than Ontario, involving double the number of employees. Quebec has also had 20% higher person-days lost, even though its workforce is 20% lower. Between 1978 and 1982, capital expenditures in Quebec rose 26%, while in Ontario they rose 50% during the same period. Employment in Quebec during that time frame rose 4%, while in Ontario it rose 8.9%. I can go on.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. I think that says it all.
Mr Stockwell: I suppose one of the questions I'd like to ask you and get your reaction to is that one of probably the most gutless things that I think this government has done is --
Mr Ward: One of them?
Mr Stockwell: One of them. This one ranks up there, though. One of the most gutless things that they've done would be to introduce this legislation, pooh-pooh any studies that anyone has done, from the Ernst and Young study and so forth, and consult and study practically everything. If it moved, they studied it. They consulted. They did any number of things, except that on one of the most major pieces of legislation that has come forward during their tenure, they've chosen to do absolutely none, zero, zip, not a minute of public study, private study, any study at all, and if anyone puts forward a study, they pooh-pooh it.
I guess I'd like your reaction. Why would a government that's bringing forward this kind of legislation -- I have my own feelings -- pull such a gutless stunt as to not at least measure the effect of the legislation on the people of Ontario?
Mrs Peer: You're putting me in a hard situation here, because what I would like to say personally is a little bit different than what I should be saying publicly, but here goes anyway.
Mr Martin: Why change now?
Mrs Peer: Why change now? I feel this particular government has some dues to pay in terms of the people who have supported it in this province since its inception, and I feel it has to pay some political dues to the union movement in this province. I believe that the union movement has been suffering because the majority of jobs that have been lost in this province have been unionized jobs, and therefore they're looking for more membership dues. What better way out than to try to get to a different part of the economy such as the service sector and the retail sector to try to get new members?
Therefore, having to pay political dues to the union movement, this is what's going through in passing this bill. Again, I just say, looking for some compromise here, looking for some negotiations, if you're looking for an answer for what we can do between now and then, if this bill's going to pass, let's not just talk here; let's actually do something. Let's get some stuff on paper; let's try to come to some negotiated agreement, not a dictated agreement.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to thank the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce and you, Mr Cameletti, and you, Ms Peer. You have spoken on behalf of your membership articulately and creatively, and we appreciate your coming here this afternoon. We're most grateful to you. Have a safe, comfortable trip back home. Take care.
Mrs Peer: We'll be here for a while. We'll be watching.
The Chair: You're welcome to stay and watch.
1500
SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council. Please seat yourselves. We've got your written submission. Tell us your names, your titles, if any, and then carry on with your submission. You note how valuable the exchanges and questions are. Please try to save time. Go ahead, people; time is fleeting.
Mr Bob Richards: Good afternoon. My name is Bob Richards. I'm president of the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity make this presentation on behalf of the labour movement in the Sault Ste Marie area. After I make a few comments, I will introduce my copresenter who will share with your her recent experiences on the picket line.
Before I get started here, though, there are a couple of things I'm not going to let go by. One statement was made by, I believe, Mr Brown about the OFL and Algoma Steel. I'm an employee of Algoma Steel. OFL has never made any statement against employee ownership of Algoma Steel. I don't know where you got this information, but it's misinformation. As a matter of fact, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour told me quite some time ago that he supported this and he's just confirmed with me a couple of minutes ago that he definitely supported the employee ownership. Another thing that disturbs me is again the chamber of commerce and the labour council disagree on many items and that's unfortunate.
I'd like to begin by stating that it is time for labour law reform in this province. The present Ontario Labour Relations Act reflects the needs of a primarily male workforce employed in large manufacturing plants. Today the composition of that workforce has changed considerably and there are greater numbers of vulnerable employees including women, part-time workers and minority groups who work in the growing service, retail and financial sectors of the economy. These workers are entitled to the protection and the benefits that unions can provide. The proposed amendments will remove many legal and practical obstacles that impede a modern workforce from exercising its right to bargain collectively.
OLRA reform will ensure that workers can freely exercise their right to join and be represented by a union without intimidation and threats from the employer. Access to third-party property for organizing purposes and quick hearings to determine whether an employee was illegally disciplined or discharged during an organizing campaign will assist and protect workers who wish to join a union. Automatic access to first-agreement arbitration 30 days after a legal strike lockout date will eliminate lengthy labour disputes immediately following certification.
Anti-scab legislation will facilitate serious negotiations and provide for a more harmonious relationship between the parties. The ban on replacement workers in Quebec enforced since 1978 has been successful in reducing picket line violence and has played a part in improving labour management relations in that province. We have, however, serious concern with the provisions to allow non-bargaining unit employees who normally work at that struck location to perform the work of the striking employees. The legislation gives those employees the right to refuse such work, but non-unionized employees who exercise that right will probably find themselves either descending the corporate ladder or even dismissed from the company for some other reason. Also missing in the new legislation is the right for other bargaining-unit employees to refuse to cross a picket line at their places of employment.
Another area where we disagree with the chamber: Access to third-party property, such as inside shopping malls, for peaceful picketing at entrances and exits of the store involved in the labour dispute, will benefit other merchants in that mall. The present system of picketing mall entrances reduces the number of shoppers in that mall as many people will not cross the picket lines at the street.
On September 6, 1990, the people of Ontario democratically elected an NDP government. Almost immediately after the election, big business and multinational corporations began their smear campaign against the government. To fight the OLRA reform and discredit the government, they formed lobby groups like the All Business Coalition, the More Jobs Coalition, Project Economic Growth and the National Citizens' Coalition. Led by Liberals and Conservatives, they've hired high-priced consultants and American advertising agencies. With the media on their side, these business coalitions are using every weapon they've got to attack Bob Rae and the New Democratic Party.
These business coalitions are spending millions of dollars fighting the OLRA reform. They don't want their employees to have the ability to join a union. They want to deprive their employees of the same privileges that many of their customers enjoy. They would rather spend their energy and resources fighting labour law reform instead of investing that same energy and resources in the workforce. We must remember that these are many of the same corporations that supported the free trade agreement and the GST.
Throughout history, business has stood steadfastly in the way of progress. For years, union members have fought for better laws and social programs for everybody including child labour laws, women's right to revolt, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, pay equity, universal health care and even government-run pension plans. Even though the business community opposed these demands every step of the way, the needs of a modern and progressive society became a reality.
The big business élite and the multinational corporations will stop at nothing to regain control of Ontario for themselves. The small business owners in this community and across the province should work with organized labour to protect the interests of the people of the province instead of taking their directions from these anti-union coalitions.
If the chamber of commerce and the big business interests are truly concerned about the hostile environment that they say is being created in Ontario by OLRA reform, why don't they just back off on their campaign to discredit the NDP and work with the government that was democratically elected by the people of Ontario.
The Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council supports the government of Ontario and labour law reform. It's time for government, business and labour to work together to facilitate economic recovery in this province.
Now I would like to introduce to you Elaine Della-Mattia. Elaine is a member of the Communication Workers of America, Local 746 and an employee of the only daily newspaper in Sault Ste Marie.
Ms Elaine Della-Mattia: Good afternoon. Like Bob said, I'm representing the Communication Workers of America, Local 746. We are 65 employees of the Sault Star who work in the editorial, advertising, circulation and composing room departments. We make up most facets of the newspaper.
I was a reporter with the Sault Star until I was locked out by management of the profitable Southam-owned newspaper nine weeks ago. That was on Friday, June 19, at about 3 pm when the bargaining committee called a meeting to update us on the lack of progress after two days of negotiations. Then-publisher E. Paul Wilson gave us five minutes to leave the building before he said he would call police and have us removed and/or charged with trespassing. Union executives took that to mean we were being locked out.
Just two weeks earlier, during another meeting, Mr Wilson, who retired July 31, attempted to intimidate the unionized workers by calling police during our meeting and threatening to have us charged with trespassing for holding the meeting on private property. What he failed to understand was that we were in a legal strike position and had been working without a contract for nine months. The meeting was justified.
1510
On June 19, we picketed the Sault Star offices for about three hours. Mr Wilson had said the paper would continue being produced by management, inside workers and part-time staff. He said scabs would not be brought in for the first week of the labour dispute. However, that following Monday scabs began crossing our picket lines and that led the union to believe that this action had been planned all along. These scabs are from other Southam-based newspapers, including Calgary, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford, Ottawa, Kingston, Kitchener, Owen Sound, North Bay and Windsor. Several local citizens have also been hired through job postings at the Canada Employment Centre office in Sault Ste Marie.
Management and inside workers at the Sault Star can produce the paper with the facets of modern technology and without the use of scabs for a short period of time. The Sault Star is the only daily newspaper in the city, so it finds itself without other daily newspaper competition.
Nine weeks is a long time to be on a picket line. The only reason we are still on that picket line is because scabs are doing our jobs. Without these replacement workers, the Sault Star would have settled this dispute nine weeks ago, before any of us ended up on a picket line. Why? Because the newspaper would not have been put out on time without a lot of extra hours put in by inside workers.
The company has spent at least $500,000 on the publication and its replacement workers. They've rented a fleet of about a dozen cars from Avis rental; they're being housed at the Holiday Inn; bonuses and incentives are being offered to advertising staff; they've hired around-the-clock security at both the Sault Star offices and at the hotel and they're providing the scabs with three meals a day. That's not to mention a $1,600 booze cruise that they took in Sault, Michigan, last Thursday night.
Our local mayor, Joe Fratesi, has said publicly on radio that he is appalled that the Sault Star has replaced local staff with scabs. In support of us the mayor cancelled his home subscription to the paper until the labour dispute is over. Sault Ste Marie is a labour town. Even when Algoma Steel employees went on strike, they were not replaced by scabs.
Russ Mills, president of the Southam Newspaper Group, says that newspapers are a perishable product and that replacement workers are saving our jobs. He also said that there's been no problem with scabs crossing our picket lines. I'm here to tell you that's not true.
There's been friction on the picket line since day one when the scabs began to filter in from across the country. Having them do our jobs is preventing the company I work for from negotiating a fair contract with its employees. So far, no cars have been overturned on our picket line, but tempers are increasing every day. The company has hired security, which bolted through our picket line that same Friday afternoon, equipped with video cameras, two-way radios and timers. There's been one union employee who has been charged by police after an incident where a scab taunted him and used extreme profane and insulting language. Police have said they believe the scabs go in and out of the company property more than necessary just to taunt and provoke the picketers.
Meanwhile, the company is wasting taxpayers dollars by constantly calling police when picketers urge the scabs to go home or hold cars up for a few seconds longer than the agreed three-minute time limit. There have been days when police have had to show up at the picket line for these petty disturbances four and fives times. I'm sure their services can better be used elsewhere in our community.
As I speak right now, the bargaining team is meeting with the company after both parties have been called back to the table with a mediator. But I'm not sure if the company is interested in bargaining in good faith because they have no incentive to settle this dispute. The paper is still being produced by these scabs.
Last week, the paper's editor, Doug Millroy, carried a column about the proposed labour reform legislation that was self-serving, partly because his son, who was a member of our bargaining unit, crossed the picket line. The column clearly shows his panic if the bill is passed. The editorials in the newspaper, especially those printed just before the labour dispute began, have shown the same thing. They criticize the bill, saying the NDP should not take sides in labour disputes; the government does not understand business and will send more Ontario businesses to the United States.
Southam's new chief executive officer, Bill Ardell, has said he intends taking a hard line against unions, and although the Sault Star is a profitable paper and the only daily newspaper in Sault Ste Marie, he's sticking true to his word.
Before Southam bought the paper 18 years ago, it was locally owned by the Curran family. Most of what we have in our contract is because of the generosity of that family, not the large Southam corporation.
In the 51 years of having a union at the Sault Star, this is the first full-scale labour dispute. There's one photographer who marked his 40th anniversary with the company on our picket line. Many of the employees have been at their jobs for over 20 years.
We are out on the street with a company-instituted dispute. Southam is seeking concessions from unionized workers. These include the removal of the consumer price index, layoffs of full-time employees before part-timers and demanding that printers give up their job jurisdiction, but it refuses to negotiate the same deal as Southam agreed to elsewhere. The company is also refusing to increase advertising commission rates.
Union members have been offered a pay increase of 2%. Meanwhile, non-unionized staff received a 4% increase in pay in January. Advertising rates have increased 6% this year, but advertising sales staff are still making commissions based on the price of an ad in 1972, 20 years ago.
The Communication Workers of America, Local 746, feels Bill 40 is long overdue. Replacement workers have created extreme tension in what was once a decent place to work and scabs have shown that there's no incentive for the company to settle this dispute as long as work is being done by others. Something must be done to prevent businesses from using scab labour, and that something must be done now.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of questions in the time allocated. I believe it really comes from the presentation of Mr Richards.
You spoke about those who are opposed to the bill. There is no question that there are individuals from the so-called private or business sector who are opposed to the bill in some aspects, but I think you should be aware that groups such as the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, school boards, local municipalities and local hydro services have also come before the committee and shared concerns about the legislation and what it means to them and the impact it will have on them. Just by way of comment, I get concerned when people are trying to polarize the issue as business being against and labour being in favour, because we've heard concerns from different unions about some aspects of the bill, and I don't think that really does characterize the widespread concern about aspects of the bill that we are hearing.
You have indicated that the access to third-party property will benefit merchants in the mall. I read that paragraph closely, and I'll be frank. I haven't heard one person who has said that he or she is going to be benefited by this. I think the reason they're saying that is that the legislation to picket and organize on private property is much broader than the mall setting. It would allow picketing and organizing within department stores. It provides no protection for a business in a mall that is not subject to the picketing or organizing. I wonder, because that is the reading of the legislation, what your reaction is to that.
1520
Mr Richards: For instance, a large store in a mall, a department store or a grocery store, is involved in a labour dispute and this organization has a number of employees. If those employees put picket lines up at each street entrance to the mall, I'm sure a number of people will not enter that mall whatsoever. That means they won't be able to shop at any of the stores in that mall. If the picketing is set up right in front of that particular store, people will be free to shop in all the other stores in that mall and they just won't enter that particular place of business. I think that will benefit the other owners in that mall.
Mr Offer: Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't say that. I can give you an example. For instance, a department store licenses out certain areas within it -- a cafeteria, a photo mart, a travel agency. This bill would allow picketing and organizing within the department store, in front of whatever part of the department store is going to be picketed or organized. I don't know that this is of any benefit to those who are involved in the area that isn't part of the picketing or organizing.
My second question has to do with this part of your presentation: "OLRA reform will ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to join and be represented by a union without intimidation and threats from the employer." I think I know where you're coming from in the legislation when you say that. From listening to others who have come before the committee, I have some concerns as to whether that is actually made out in the legislation. I think it could be made out if workers were given the opportunity to freely vote in a secret way, fully informed and free from coercion from either side. I guess my question is, would you support that: secret ballot, free from coercion, fully informed?
The Chair: Give him time to answer.
Mr Richards: Back to the first point you commented on: entrances and exits to malls. My understanding is that picketing could be at the exit and the entrance to the particular store. I see some heads shaking, so I'll look further into it, and hope that's proper information you're giving me.
Your question about the vote: The concern I have there is that the employer is the person who hires, fires and disciplines. The union does not do that. The union does not intimidate people to sign a card. It's there: If you don't sign it, fine; the union can't fire you from your job. I've never seen any place yet where a union was firing employees because they tried to organize, but I have heard of several cases where companies have disciplined, dismissed and caused a lot of hardship because employees tried to organize.
Mr Stockwell: I can't believe you're that naïve to think there couldn't be some intimidation.
Mr Richards: Is that a question or is that a comment?
Mr Stockwell: That's a question.
The Chair: You may respond if you wish.
Mr Richards: Like I said before, the union cannot discipline the worker.
Mr Stockwell: Is this your brief? Did you write this?
Mr Richards: I certainly did.
Mr Stockwell: I go down to the fifth paragraph: "To fight the OLRA reform and discredit the government, they've formed lobby groups like the All Business Coalition, the More Jobs Coalition, Project Economic Growth and the National Citizens' Coalition. Led by Liberals and Conservatives, they've hired high-priced consultants and American advertising agencies." Gee, where did you discover that?
Mr Richards: I have a lot of information.
Mr Stockwell: Clandestine, I would think.
Mr Richards: I have the names of the people who belong to these coalitions, but I decided not to include them in the brief.
Mr Stockwell: Sort of clandestine cabals being around, and they've offered you this secret information that the Liberals and Conservatives organized these and in fact led this charge by the private sector.
Mr Richards: It's quite simple. Who supports whom here? Big business has always been supported by these parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, and it's never going to change.
Mr Stockwell: I see. So, naturally, through that you've made the quantum leap to assume that all these association coalitions are endorsed and supported, led, by Liberals and Conservatives and that they've used high-priced consultants and American advertising agencies. It couldn't possibly be that the people in the business community don't like the legislation. It's a clandestine plot.
Mr Richards: Do you dispute the statements I've made?
Mr Stockwell: Vehemently, sir.
Next we move down to the third paragraph from the end. This is another one for the record books: "The big business élite and the multinational corporations will stop at nothing to regain control of Ontario for themselves." This clandestine plot thickens. "The small business owners in this community and across the province should work with organized labour to protect the interests of the people of the province instead of taking direction from these anti-union coalitions."
Did it cross your mind at any point upon writing this that maybe, just maybe, small business people have their own minds and think this isn't a very good piece of legislation, rather than taking their direction from the big multinational capitalist pig dogs?
Mr Richards: Those are your words, not mine.
Mr Stockwell: The question stands. Did you think maybe the small business community might think this isn't very good legislation?
Mr Richards: There are a lot of small business people who, once they understand the legislation, realize that it's not going to affect them and it's not going to hurt them.
Mr Stockwell: That wasn't the question. There's a lot of business out there, small, medium and large, that doesn't like it. You're suggesting that their thinking is slanted that way because of multinational corporations who "will stop at nothing to regain control of Ontario for themselves." Don't you think there are some businesses out there who honestly believe this isn't good legislation and who have the right to voice that without being charged by you as being lapdogs for multinationals?
Mr Richards: A lot of businesses are following direction. Once they find out exactly what's in this bill, they realize it's not affecting them and they change.
Mr Martin: My comment and question are more for Elaine. You lay out for us a classic example, I think, of why we need scab legislation in this province, why we need protection from replacement of workers. Particularly where you have a chain operation, which boils down to a franchise, most of the economic opportunity afforded a community in which such a chain exists is usually through the employers; you collect a wage and spend it in the stores and shops of the community you live in, own houses, pay taxes and all that kind of thing. To keep you on the picket line for as long as you have been is not only harmful to you but harmful in many significant ways to the community in which you and I both live.
It's interesting as well to note that usually as a strike goes on blame is laid at the feet of the union as opposed to the business enterprise. In light of the comments made by the previous presenters from the Sault chamber of commerce, where we were told to let business be business, which I guess assumes that business will always make the right decisions and do the proper thing, and that, by inference, unions won't, that they'll always be trying to grab a little more and be somehow destructive to the business where they work; in light of that and in light of the desperate situation that Sault Ste Marie finds itself in re the impact of cross-border shopping on our economy, would you read into the record so that all of us can hear the statement made by Linda Richardson on August 21, 1992, so that we and the chamber can all understand how committed this company actually is to Sault Ste Marie, Canada?
Ms Della-Mattia: Sure, Mr Martin. This was a press release that we released to the rest of the media on August 21 after we found out that there were a couple of things going on with the scabs that we were not too pleased about.
1530
The press release is titled "Hundreds of Local Dollars Leave the Sault."
"The Southam-owned Sault Star has exported its business to the Michigan Sault, treating its out-of-town `volunteer' sales staff and managers to an American booze cruise.
"Thursday evening, the scabs and some local managers chartered a $1,600 (US) dinner cruise from a Sault, Michigan, tour boat company. During this self-congratulatory evening they dined on stuffed chicken breast and sirloin beef.
"Earlier that day the Sault Star's operations manager, Ray Dunn, was spotted at the Soo Co-op IGA in Michigan with a Southam security guard, filling a shopping cart with liquor and beer for the night.
"`Considering that the Sault Star's bread and butter is business on the Canadian side of the river, this doesn't show a lot of respect for the community,' said Linda Richardson, president of Local 746 of the Communications Workers of America.
"Unionized workers at the newspaper have been locked out for nine weeks. Mediated talks are scheduled to resume Monday.
"The expensive cruise -- which pumped hundreds into the Michigan Sault economy -- gives Canadian Sault retailers an indication of where the Sault Star's loyalties lie.
"Scabs who came to Sault Ste Marie to replace local sales staff obviously are not here to look after the interests of the paper's customers."
We've seen them across the river in Sault, Michigan several times, dining there, attending bars there, going to the casino there. I've never seen them in a Canadian bar or a Canadian restaurant, except the hotel they are staying at, the Holiday Inn, while they've been here the nine weeks. And they brag about going across and spending their money there -- they brag about it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Interjection.
The Chair: No, we've got to move on. I suppose whether you'll ever see them in an Ontario casino depends upon what this government does about that.
Ms Della-Mattia: That's right.
The Chair: I want to thank the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council for being here this afternoon: Bob Richards as president, speaking on behalf of the labour council membership, and Elaine Della-Mattia for her eloquent comments and insights. We're grateful to both of you for an important contribution to this process.
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. Those people will please come forward, have a seat and tell us their names. The written material is being distributed. Please commence with your submissions so we have time for exchange.
Mr Alan Arkilander: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I think the last time we might have discussed things was during the no-fault insurance debacle.
The Chair: I was right then, still am, but that may well be the subject matter of another committee hearing, unless the government has enough wisdom to abandon that foolish legislation. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Arkilander: My name is Alan Arkilander. I'm president of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. At this time we welcome the opportunity to participate in this process where the committee is going across the province, hopefully to have a second look at the proposed amendments. Broad-based consultation is important to the process of developing an effective approach to labour reform in the province of Ontario. It's very important that this committee and the Ontario government not only hear but listen to what is being addressed by all parties. The idea is to listen and to absorb what is being addressed.
The Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce is now in its 97th year of leading and serving the Sudbury area business community. It represents over 900 businesses throughout the district of Sudbury, or, if you wish, employers. Our membership encompasses not only the multinational corporation but also the small entrepreneur, but primarily we represent small business in this area. In excess of 76% of our membership is made up of firms with 10 and fewer employees.
It's important to stress from the beginning that the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the principles of the collective bargaining process. Business, at least in this area, is not anti-union; it is not anti-worker. It can't afford to be, when these are the very partners that business depends upon to be productive, competitive and successful.
Business is pro-economic growth, pro-competitiveness, and we're in favour of a healthy and viable economy for Ontario. But in order for business to be successful, to be productive and competitive and to continue to be able to provide jobs for its employees, business must feel confident that the game is being played on a level playing field and that the scales are not being tipped to its disadvantage.
It goes without saying that the province is now in the midst of a very severe recession, job losses are at an all-time high, corporate profits and investor confidence are at all-time lows. The Premier himself, I understand, earlier this year stated publicly that we will have a long road ahead of us before our economic horizon brightens. At this time, suggesting major revisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Act -- that is, during a time of economic crisis -- brings to mind a vision of someone rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic just before it sank. Rather, we'd suggest that when the water is coming into the ship at this time faster than you can bail, the most important thing to do is to fix the hole.
Having said this, it can only stand to reason that businesses' first priority is, and must continue to be, to concentrate on staying in business. Make no mistake: Jobs and investment are at stake at this time. Comprehensive economic impact surveys conducted by the business community suggest that if these labour reforms were implemented in their present form they would cost over half a million jobs and more than $8 billion in investment would be lost.
We've already seen some hesitancy in investing in Ontario during the Premier's trip to Japan this spring. I think the suggestion was that there are very few lawyers over there and a lot of engineers, and perhaps that's what we should do in Ontario, but being a lawyer, I'm not totally in favour of that.
This government's proposed labour law changes take us in the opposite direction. To force the business community to redirect its focus towards costly, time-consuming and disruptive programs and policies will certainly help to destroy the very partner the government is relying on to stimulate the province's economic recovery. It is the chamber's position that introducing such sweeping, one-sided proposals at this time is economic madness.
Locally, we have had reactions from some of our companies, one in particular being a larger, successful, independent company employing approximately 30 workers. The company's president has indicated that he's withholding in excess of $5 million in investment at this time, and should this legislation be enacted in its present form, his feeling is that the company will be forced to close its doors.
This government has not listened to the various studies the business community has conducted to explore the impact of this legislation on the provincial economy. More important, I believe the government has refused to conduct a study of its own or, if it has, it has not released it. Given the enormous stakes, this is inexcusable and, we feel, totally irresponsible.
Government supporters of this proposed legislation used the province of Quebec as the perfect example of where this type of legislation exists and works. On the contrary, statistics indicate that in the period between 1970 and 1977 there were 60 more strikes in Ontario than in Quebec. Once the legislation was passed in Quebec, after 1978 until the present or until 1991, there have been 652 more strikes in Quebec than in Ontario.
We are not suggesting that change to Ontario's labour legislation is not needed, but the current proposals are not the answer. What business and government need to do is consult with each other, to go through a process of working together to see what the solution is. This means breaking through barriers of hostility and mutual distrust between government, labour and business, and having all the stakeholders listen to and understand the needs of all parties in an effort to reach common ground. At this time, significantly altering the balance of labour relations in the province is counterproductive to fostering economic cooperation between government, labour and business, and that also is dangerous to the economic health of this province.
Now is not the time to create tension, disharmony and acrimony between economic partners. Now is the time to put the interests of Ontario first.
The Acting Chair (Mr Brad Ward): Thank you for your presentation. There is some time for questions. We'll go to the PCs first, Mr Stockwell and Mr Villeneuve. No questions? Then I'll turn it over to Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: Congratulations. I know it's your new position. At the consultations, Jeanne Warwick was here last January and February, and the minister and I sat and listened to the chamber's presentation at that time, so I know you stepped into a job where right off the bat you had to make this presentation. So it's good to see you and I'm sure we'll meet again.
Mr Arkilander: Actually, I stepped in on the synthetics plant proposal first, but this is about the fourth attempt we've made.
Ms Murdock: Something that had to come to Sudbury, right?
Just on that point, after many of the points that were raised by the chamber in February when you were here -- I'll say "you," meaning the chamber -- in arriving at these amendments and the 32 amendments that exist in Bill 40, we changed 22 different areas, 10 of which came predominantly from business and were in significant areas.
I can specifically relate to the section that was a real bone of contention during the consultations in terms of supervisors being allowed to organize, which was in a discussion paper. Their exclusion has been maintained in the amendments. That's just one example of the changes that were made, many at the behest of business.
I guess I'm having some problems in understanding why, during these hearings, business is saying that this government in particular has not listened to anything business has been saying. No government at all with any kind of sense -- I believe that I personally have sense and I know that my colleagues do -- would put in any legislation with the intent of running investment out of this province. I don't understand, basically, where you're coming from, so maybe you can explain.
Mr Arkilander: One of the major concerns is the question of replacement workers, and I'm sympathetic to the people from Sault Ste Marie who have a problem in dealing with that. But for instance, there was a strike at the Sudbury Star a few years ago. During that time they lost a good portion of their readership and it's taken them a long time to get that readership back, and certainly that was the effect of the strike at that time and certainly that was probably one of the factors that helped them attend at the bargaining table with their employees and reach a solution that still holds today.
I'm not certain as to the particular situation in Sault Ste Marie, but certainly any strike doesn't help that business nor the employees. So one of the big issues that is still not dealt with is the question of replacement workers; that is, allowing a company where the employees are on strike to hire other people to take their place, hopefully only for an interim, but at least allowing the company to continue in business.
1540
In Quebec this system has been in place since 1978, I believe, and generally the perception is that when they do have a strike there, and they usually have some dandies, the businesses at time close up and they go away for a while and then when things settle down, they'll come back and open their doors again, so you have this sort of a tick-tack-toe game being played across the border from Quebec to the States.
I was at a meeting with the Minister of Labour, I remember he mentioned that, "Well, you know, this has been the way it is in Quebec for a long time," and somebody in the audience answered, "Well, who wants to live in Quebec?" The system we have in Ontario might be cumbersome at times but it does work in the long run, and just at this time it's important for the perception of what is happening to be dealt with.
I was out west in Calgary and the papers there were gleeful about the changes that are coming to the labour law in Ontario because it's not going to be like that out there. So the indications I had from the papers I read out there were that business is open in Alberta but it's closed in Ontario. The perception is very important and perhaps maybe the government isn't explaining how the changes will benefit business. In terms of replacement workers, certainly in Ontario it doesn't benefit.
Ms Murdock: You see, again, it's difficult for me because Stats Canada has put out its stats for last year and out of $45 billion invested in Canada, Ontario is still getting 40%, over 40% of the investment dollars, $24 billion to be exact. I'm sitting here saying, "Yes, investment is down everywhere in the world," that's pretty evident when you look at Britain's headlines and everywhere else, and yet we are still getting the major proportion of investment out of the entire country.
In terms of the perception that is out there beyond the Ontario borders, much of that certainly has not been fostered by the government of the day but rather has been more of a self-fulfilling prophecy by the business community in terms of full ads taken out in the New York Times etc. So I have some difficulty in understanding why a company like Crayola, which operates a business in Illinois and in Brantford, Ontario, decided to choose Brantford to put out four million packages of crayons this year instead of its Illinois plant if Ontario is indeed not the place to invest. So I have difficulty understanding exactly on what premise you're basing your argument.
The Acting Chair: Not to correct Ms Murdock, but just to clarify, it was KeepRite that made the decision to close up a plant in Red Bud, Illinois, and expand production in Brantford.
Ms Murdock: Of which Crayola is part.
The Acting Chair: Crayola was in Peterborough. That is where they decided to expand production.
Ms Murdock: In any case, it doesn't take away from the question I've asked.
Mr Arkilander: I'm not certain what the question is you asked. All I know is that the issue of replacement workers is one that apparently people in the business community don't appreciate. They feel that this is going to in effect force them to close their doors when there's a strike, that that's what will happen. I gather the rationalization is that this will help cure violence on the picket lines. Well, you and I both went to law school and probably took labour law --
Ms Murdock: I certainly did.
Mr Arkilander: -- all thinking we'd become labour lawyers. I remember it's clear that picketing is to be for information purposes only. Unfortunately, people do get carried away and they do shoot at helicopters and things like that, but you can't control those odd bad apples and here the legislation is being changed to control those few bad apples.
Ms Murdock: We in Sudbury have actually been pretty good over the years. I mean, I was here for the 1958 strike, the 1978 strike. I was on the receiving end of it in terms of it ending just before Christmas and not having Christmas presents that year for my family, being in the striking workers' section. In all honesty, Inco and Falconbridge both have not used replacement workers, it hasn't been their tradition, and over the years, as a consequence of that, though they still have their differences, no doubt, They have learned how to work very well together and I think the city of Sudbury is benefiting from that. It does show that it can work when people communicate.
If you look at the stats, and I can provide them for you in terms of the Quebec question, it does have more but of a shorter duration. Ontario's also are of shorter duration. It does make people go back and talk, rather than having you out there picketing longer. It does make you communicate and negotiate, which is the whole point of the collective bargaining process.
Mr Arkilander: May I just point out that we're not against the collective bargaining process.
Ms Murdock: I know, but when you're allowed to replace workers, it lengthens strikes, and it's been shown that it does. Violence aside, it lengthens the whole process and negotiating basically stops when workers are on the picket line, and that's what we're trying to prevent or at least alleviate -- of the 4% it affects, because the Labour Relations Act, as you know, only covers 30% of the workplaces in the province.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hayes, I believe you have a question, briefly.
Mr Arkilander: I just wanted to reply briefly. You made a very important point that Inco and Falconbridge and the workers have learned to live under the present legislation and work together. So why change it? It's working here.
Ms Murdock: There are a lot of workers who don't have access to it, that's why.
Mr Hayes: Mr Arkilander, several presentations made from other chambers of commerce talked about workers having the choice, for example, to stay in the workplace or to go back into the workplace when there was a legal strike, having that choice to do that. If you agree with that, would you then agree that if after a ratification -- let's say the ratification vote to return to work was fairly close, say, 55% to 45%. Do you feel that those workers who did not want to go back, weren't happy with their gains, should have the right to stay out on strike?
Mr Arkilander: What you're talking about is that the odd time some of the workers will dispute what their union does. Is this what you're getting at? That they'll go against the wishes of their bargaining committee and the majority of the workers and work?
Mr Hayes: There is a legal strike and it's been voted to go out on strike, okay? We've heard presentations saying that the workers who don't want to go on strike should have the right, even though they're the minority in numbers, to cross the picket line or stay on the job or not to go on strike. If that were reversed, that 55% voted in favour of going back and 45% said no, do you think those 45% should have their choice not to go back on the job?
Mr Arkilander: I'm not certain of the positions of the other chambers, and I haven't even discussed that with my executive committee, but personally, we live in a democracy and 51% rules.
Mr Hayes: By the way, since Quebec put the legislation in in 1978, there have been 30% fewer hours lost due to strikes in that province.
1550
Mr Brown: Good to see you. I guess all of us in Ontario are very worried about the economy. I mean, that's not a news flash. We've lost somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 jobs in the last 18 months. The unemployment rate is at 11%; the actual unemployment rate, if you take people who have just stopped looking, is probably closer to 13% or maybe even 14%. Things are pretty difficult out there for the people the members of this committee are trying to represent. That's not news, but it does set the context within which we are considering this legislation.
What bothers me a little is not that labour reform did not need to happen; I think everything can always be made better, and I think you would agree with that. What I'm disturbed about is that there are 32 substantive measures in this bill, 32 changes of some importance, and if you look at that, the score is 32 for organized labour, employers zero. This is the first piece of labour legislation that could ever have that said about it, that all the changes are in one direction.
It would appear to an objective observer that there is a balance in this province, if you look at our average wage rates, our standard of living etc, all the signposts an economist might look at. I wonder if you see in totality a score of 32 to zero, looking at it as something any objective observer might think is balanced. Will it make labour relations in this province better for the people I represent, the people out there who are trying to earn a living?
Mr Arkilander: With the businesses that are members and the people we talk to, certainly the perception is that this will seriously imbalance the present state of affairs in Ontario. If it does, then it will be difficult to encourage businesses to set up here or to expand. I guess the idea is that they'll learn to live with it, but this will be a very difficult process, with time needed to learn to live with this. We're just hopeful that the government will take another look at it through this committee and realize there are some problems with it that are not being dealt with even through the 22 other amendments to the amendments.
Mr Brown: During these economic times, the Ministry of Labour's statistics are telling us that 70% of the jobs lost have been in the union sector, and projections for the next few months -- well, they're not projections: The Ministry of Labour knows that a substantial number of the jobs lost in the near future, in the next couple of months, will also be in the union sector. Those are good jobs; nobody wants those jobs lost. I'm just wondering if, coming from a community that has a strong -- I'm not quite sure how to say it, but has a strong --
Mr Arkilander: Image of labour?
Mr Brown: -- image of labour relations, a labour town: If there is one, it's got to be Sudbury. I just wonder if you see, in Sudbury, more people working or fewer people working.
Mr Arkilander: If I could predict that, I don't think I'd be a lawyer; I'd be something else. I was reading about how well some people can do if they know all the statistics and background.
In the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce most of our members employ under 10 people. A lot of them are retailers and what not, and unions are not involved in their business, and they seem to feel this will make it easier for their employees to get together to organize, to form a union. Generally, these small business people are very independent and don't like to have somebody else there to tell them what they should do in their business. The fear is that this is what is going to happen.
The big companies here are resource-based and will continue to survive and adapt to the situation. As Ms Murdock has indicated, right now the union and, in this case, the multinational corporation seem to realize that labour strife is not conducive to long-term business and profit-making. But with the small businesses, the fear is that this will make life more difficult for them to continue with their businesses.
Mr Brown: The question isn't really whether it's easier to organize. It should be, do the people in the workplace have an opportunity to organize free of coercion, intimidation etc? Obviously, we all have to be concerned about that. We want to make sure that anybody who wishes to associate has the ability to do that. Therefore, I take it your membership would be in favour of secret ballots for people wishing to organize so that they may have the opportunity to express, free from coercion, in the privacy of a secret ballot, the ability to organize.
Mr Arkilander: The chamber certainly doesn't object to a secret ballot in making these decisions.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly did think it talked to a very important area.
As we have gone through our hearings, there are those who come before the committee and say, "This legislation, if passed -- when passed -- is going to cost jobs," and they may refer to the Ernst and Young study or some other comment. We hear from the government side that it's not going to cost any jobs. I think it's clear that we have some very strong concerns that this is going to have an effect on jobs, it's going to have an effect on investment and it's going to have an effect on job creation.
The question I have for you is, what would you suggest to this committee in the area of that type of investigation? What is it that we should be asking the government members and the ministry to look into to decide this type of question?
Mr Arkilander: As I understand the process, business leaders were consulted at the start of the whole thing and then gradually it reached the point where they realized that no matter what they said, what is going to happen is going to happen. Certainly this goes against the grain when here in Sudbury we've been trying to encourage business, labour and government to work together to make Sudbury a better community to live in, a better business environment. From what we've been told, the people they consulted with weren't really consulted. They were just told that this is the way it's going to be.
As to how to make things better, certainly in the type of business I am in, I'm not involved with labour disputes that often because we're not unionized. We've got 28 staff. I presume we may be facing something like that also, and then we'll have to deal with that if it occurs. It's just that when studies are done to show that billions of dollars in investment may be lost because of this change in legislation, I think it's going to be a contributing factor. We have to deal with North American free trade now. We're trying to deal with free trade with the United States of America -- at least their view of what free trade is -- and this is going to be a factor that I'm sure will affect the economy.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Villeneuve, briefly, please.
Mr Villeneuve: I will be short, Mr Chair. Thanks for your presentation. I notice that over three quarters of the people who belong to your chamber employ 10 or fewer people.
Mr Arkilander: Yes.
1600
Mr Villeneuve: The person who was just previously in the chair that you now occupy, from the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council, said it was his opinion that it would not affect small business. This seems to be quite contrary to where you're coming from. With more than three quarters of your membership being 10 or fewer employees, what is their major concern, in your opinion, with Bill 40?
Mr Arkilander: The major concern is that their employees will organize and it'll be easier for them to organize and become a union. It's become more attractive for the union to turn its direction away from the larger companies to smaller companies to look for new members. As indicated, due to the recession and other factors a number of the larger corporations have lost workers. They've pared down. As a result, the unions have lost members. Someone has to pay the freight. I guess they're going to expand their horizon. That's the concern of small business.
Mr Villeneuve: So that's basically in direct opposition to what we heard from the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council, that indeed when small employers had Bill 40 explained they no longer had concerns. It's your experience that there is serious concern.
Mr Arkilander: There are still serious concerns, yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Arkilander, for being here on behalf of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. You've played an important role in this process and we're grateful to you and the chamber for participating. It's good to see you again.
Mr Arkilander: We've missed you on Channel 7 lately.
The Chair: You never can tell what the future will hold in store. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Sudbury and District Labour Council. Written submissions are being distributed. Members of the committee are going to read those submissions. The participants can either read them in total or highlight them, as they wish. But please try to leave time for questions and exchanges, which you can see are very valuable. I remind other people who have come that there's coffee and some sandwiches at the side. Please make yourselves at home. They're here to make you feel comfortable. Go ahead, gentlemen.
Mr Barry Tooley: I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I can assure all members of the committee that the businesses in this community do quite well from the unionized workers in this particular town.
We have chosen to deal in a general way with the proposed changes and will leave specific examples of problems to others who have actual case records of grievances. Our affiliates often seek the support of the labour council in attempting to solve problems created by the present Labour Relations Act, which is outdated and must be amended to deal with the realities of our changing society.
The purpose clause: Our council supports the inclusion of the purpose clause as it clarifies for adjudicators the basis of the labour act's intentions. We would like to see it strengthened so that the trade union movement is promoted as a vital part of our community and is a vital component in building a fairer society. We support the government's intentions but believe nice words are often ignored by unfair employers and therefore feel the need for improvement.
The right to organize: The importance of this section cannot be over-emphasized. We have seen our affiliates spend small fortunes in legal fees and other costs in their efforts to represent workers. This money does not come from profits on investments, but from union dues of members who know the benefits of association.
The right to organize domestics, security guards, professionals and agricultural workers is long overdue. We believe all workers have a right to be organized. Employers all have a right to belong to an organization that they support, and so should workers. We know from experience that all the wording in the act now means very little to an employer who wants to prevent his workers from belonging to or forming a union. We want to stress that when we talk of an anti-union employer we are not including all employers, only those who are unfair to their employees.
We have concerns on how some of these new workers can be organized when in many cases only one employee is in the workplace. You can't say on the one hand that you can join a union and then deny that right by making use of another section of the act. Subsection 6(1) of the act must be amended to facilitate the right to be represented by a union or it will mean nothing to many workers. Many of our organizations have given voluntary recognition to the union where only one employee is working and negotiated and signed an agreement, so it is workable.
Organizing and certification: This amendment, section 92.2, allows a union to file a complaint for unfair labour practice and have hearings commence within 15 days. The point we want to stress here is that in an organizing campaign, anti-union employers don't care if down the road they have to take an employee back. By firing employees, the employer is threatening the rest of the workers not to join the union or they will be dealt a similar fate. It simply is not good enough for the employer to reinstate the worker.
Another problem is the tremendous legal fees that have to be paid by the union out of union dues that should not have been necessary in the first place. We know many of our affiliates cannot afford the legal costs. The employer should have to get leave of the board before terminating a worker whenever workers are deciding to join a union.
We support access to third-party property and ask that the employer non-production areas be accessible to union organizers.
We are also in agreement with the deletion of the $1 fee when proving membership, as this has often been used by anti-union employers to delay labour board certification proceedings.
The support required for union certification should be a simple majority. It is the way our governments and others are elected and it should be the same for certification. Anti-union employers often put out threats that they will close the company before allowing the workers to be represented by a union. This kind of action prevents workers from expressing their intentions and instils a fear over the workplace. The act being amended to 40% for a vote to be taken is proof that in many cases workers are intimidated by the anti-union employer.
We want the government to make a recommendation that will provide the union with the same list the employer provides to the board on certification applications. It remains a cloak-and-dagger type of operation when only certain parties have the information on the numbers of employees for certification.
We completely agree with the elimination of petitions. Anti-union employers have used this section of the act again and again to try and stop the workers from choosing a union, and again the legal costs have been staggering. We support the elimination of petitions and revocation, as we believe they are always sponsored by the anti-union employer to defeat the employees from having a union to represent them.
We certainly support the change dealing with unfair labour practice. It proves the need is there to stop the anti-union employer from threatening or using scare tactics, thereby preventing the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained. Workers have a right to decide for themselves if they want a union to represent their interests, and we know that a large number of anti-union employers will go to great lengths to keep the workers from forming a union.
Structure and configuration of bargaining units: We support the amendments to subsections 6(2.1) and 6(2.2) dealing with a single unit for full- and part-time workers. This change is necessary because of the massive numbers of part-time workers who need representation. The reality is that for many workers, all they can find is part-time employment as employers vigorously pursue cost-cutting measures.
We generally support the right of consolidation of bargaining units, so long as it is done in consultation and with the approval of the affected trade union. Where the board is directed not to combine bargaining units because of geographic locations, it needs further dialogue so that everyone is clear and large amounts of legal costs and time will be unnecessary for all parties.
First-agreement arbitration: We can see merit in establishing a first agreement through the arbitration process, especially if no progress on a new agreement is being made. It would be far better if this could be accomplished in a non-adversarial manner so as to give each party a chance to work problems out. In the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Act makes it mandatory for a newly certified employer to immediately be bound by the current provincial agreement. This accomplishes in that industry a first agreement without the need for a strike or lockout. We respectfully suggest that something along this sort of arrangement will help build a better understanding of labour relations between the parties.
1610
Improving collective bargaining and reducing conflict: We oppose the use of scab labour under any conditions. The use of scab labour during any labour dispute leaves scars in the industry that are never forgotten. Workers have been killed in this province and elsewhere because employers and governments have allowed the use of scab labour. It would be far better to have a means of resolving a dispute than to resort to the use of scab labour.
The procedures for life-threatening situations and protection of property can be agreed upon prior to a strike-lockout situation by the respective parties. Unions are responsible organizations and have no desire to cause harm to individuals or damage to property.
Anti-union employers, on the other hand, often bring in scabs to provoke union members and have even hired goons to infiltrate union ranks to foster violence. Employers also have been known to favour one union over another, settling the agreement with one group of employees and then forcing the other employees out on to the street. This kind of situation does not foster labour relations and breeds resentment.
We support the protocol of returning to work after a labour dispute which is contained in section 75. We agree that the employer must continue benefits for employees, provided the union tenders payment. However, where the union does not have the finances to pay, employees should be allowed to keep up their benefits directly.
Our council would like government to address the concerns our members have concerning a lockout or strike and pickets that are set up at the location of the employees' work site. At the very least, it should be in the act that all workers have the right not to cross a legal picket line or to handle struck work. This would alleviate the problem when one group of workers is forced to cross a picket line under the threat of huge fines and possibly a jail sentence.
The grievance arbitration process: We agree with the procedure that will offer to streamline the process of having problems resolved expeditiously. Section 124 of the act already gives some workers a prompt procedure for the settlement of grievances. In general, we support the jurisdiction and procedure amendments. They offer a more comprehensive mediation process than is presently in the act.
Preservation of bargaining rights: We agree with the successor rights on the sale of a business. However, we also believe that if a business relocates, the employer must offer the employees employment at the new location, and the agreement and all other conditions of employment must be adhered to.
We support the recommendations on the "federal to provincial sale" of a business covered by the Canada Labour Code giving successor rights. The contracting in and contract tendering in the contract service sector, in extending successor rights to certain workers, is definitely an improvement. Too often when workers are organized in these sectors they are cast adrift as soon as their employer's contract is put out to tender again. We think the same applies to those workers who are being excluded. An employer who contracts out work, and then those employees are organized or subsequently organized, should not be able to get around unionization simply by retendering to a different, non-union contract services employer.
Adjustment and change in the workplace: The government's intentions in this area are admirable, but as we have stated before, the anti-union employers will use the fact that it is not a requirement but voluntary. The massive job losses in Ontario show that we require stronger language and legislation to assist those workers who are displaced through no fault of their own. We support the position of the Ontario Federation of Labour and ask that the government put some teeth into this section of the act.
In conclusion, our government has opened the Ontario Labour Relations Act and made significant amendments to try to help workers. They have been the subject of ridicule by opposition groups almost to the point of hysteria for attempting to make changes that will improve labour relations in our province. In another province, the Liberal government passed a law that all new construction work must be union, which was recommended by a committee that the Prime Minister served on. The point here is that we see much of the hostility by anti-union employers as just NDP-bashing, and it is totally unproductive in our search for solutions to help working people.
Our council believes that the intent of the legislation is in the best interests of Ontario and calls on all fairminded workers and employers to support these changes. We respectfully ask that the government review the recommendations we have made to further improve the act.
We support fully the Ontario Federation of Labour position on broader-based bargaining as a method to encourage and protect workers in the small workplace and service sectors and request that it be included in the study for other workers. Although it is not part of your mandate, we also want to advise the committee that we support in principle the further amendments to the act outlined in Bill 80.
On behalf of the Sudbury and District Labour Council, we thank the resources development committee and will attempt to answer any questions you may want to ask. Before I open for questions, I'd like to introduce my colleague, who is Barry Fraser, a staff rep from the CLC.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Murdock, four minutes please.
Ms Murdock: Thank you very much for coming. I want to introduce a subject that's been talked about mostly by the opposition parties, the secret ballot vote. I guess under the existing legislation, subsection 7(2) right now requires what they call a representation vote, but it's basically a secret ballot vote, for anything under 55% of cards signed and over 45% presently.
What we're suggesting in the amendments is that that 45% be lowered to 40% so that there would be an automatic vote required if the cards you signed up fell between 40% and 55%. I'm asking your opinion on how you feel about the reduction from 45% to 40%, but also too how you think that would satisfy the business community's request to have a secret ballot vote in terms of unionization.
Mr Tooley: We're not in favour of a secret ballot vote simply because when a strike vote is called and the workers agree to take that position, the union is the bargaining agent. We think it's an insult to workers everywhere that they be required to have a revote on any issue. The unions are quite capable of negotiating and bargaining for those employees. We're not in favour of that.
Interjection.
Mr Tooley: I'm sorry; I misunderstood the question.
Ms Murdock: You're talking certification and I'm talking secret ballot votes, but that's okay. Either one of you can answer.
Mr Barry Fraser: I think your question is, do we agree with the reduction? I think we covered that in our brief. We agree that the percentage be lowered, because in order to get a vote the facts are that workers are intimidated in almost every organizing effort that's ever been conducted anywhere in this province. In answer to your question, if a union can show that it has signed cards of around 40%, we think it's entitled to a vote. In fact even less; in the construction industry it's 35%.
Ms Murdock: I gather that in your organizing efforts you've had secret ballot votes for under 55% of the cards signed.
Mr Fraser: Yes.
Ms Murdock: Have they been counted on the same day they were voted upon? What has your experience been on that?
Mr Fraser: I'm going back a few years, but my recollection is that when they set the terminal date there was too much time for influence by the employer on who voted and so on. There have been examples, certainly in the skilled trades area, where people were allowed to be on the ballot who were in fact not even duly registered tradespeople in the industry, and when we complained to the board about that it just simply made the argument that it was another jurisdiction of government. I think your government is covering that in your changes by making sure that all legislative things are taken into consideration with decisions.
1620
Ms Murdock: On page 6 of your presentation, Barry, under first-agreement arbitration, just for clarification purposes, are you suggesting province-wide bargaining for all first contracts in all industries across all sectors?
Mr Fraser: No. I just cited that as one example where the previous Conservative government, I believe in 1977-78, recognized that when a small employer was organized in the construction industry, something had to be done to bring him into line with the provincial agreement, or it could have been a regional agreement, rather than having a hodgepodge of agreements in the industry. I'm saying in that area, where you have other small employers who only have maybe one employee and so on and so forth, the only way they could probably get fair representation is by saying, "In this industry, this is going to be the standard."
Ms Murdock: Like domestics.
Mr Fraser: Yes, like domestics and so on.
Mr Offer: I have a couple of questions that revolve around your experience in organizing and that aspect of your submission. In your opinion, is there ever a situation where, in an organizing drive, an employer can express his or her opinion without its being viewed as intimidating or coercive on the part of the employee?
Mr Fraser: The answer to that is no.
Mr Offer: Thank you. Is there ever, in your experience as an organizer, a situation where not just the employer but maybe the organizers might be thought of as intimidating or coercive to the employees that they wish to organize?
Mr Fraser: The answer to that is no.
Mr Offer: Thank you. I have a concern, because the Labour Relations Act now does permit the employer to express opinions in an organizing drive. I have a concern that you, who have made such a very important submission and have a great deal of experience, feel there is never an occasion when an employer can express an opinion in an organizing drive, which is now allowed under the Labour Relations Act, without it being viewed as coercive or intimidating.
Second, I have a concern, and I just share it with you, that the protections that are afforded to the workers -- and I'm thinking now from the aspect of the workers, the men and women -- there is no real protection for them in an organizing drive if there is some activity being taken on the part of the union that might be viewed as coercive or intimidating.
Do you think the legislation should be changed, first, to deny an employer any right to express an opinion in an organizing drive, and second, to amend the legislation so there's a penalty not only on the employer who is intimidating or coercive to the employee but also on the union?
Mr Tooley: I would think that a union would have very little to gain by trying to intimidate employees during an organizing drive. However, I can see the benefits of the employer -- and we see that all the time -- trying to take petitions around and going through long ways to circumvent the organization of any union drive. Certainly we would support the change that would prevent the employer from trying to coerce the organizing drive once those workers have expressed an interest in belonging to a union.
Mr Offer: I guess my concern was that if there's an organizing drive, I want to make sure the legislation protects the men and women who are being organized, from whatever source. The way I see it now, they're being protected in some fashion against any action by the employer, but not on the other side of an organizing drive, and I just have some concerns that way. But thank you for your thoughts.
Mr Villeneuve: Gentlemen, thank you for being with us. I notice on page 6 that you want the OLRA to make it mandatory for newly certified employers to immediately be bound by the current provincial agreement.
Mr Tooley: That is the law.
Mr Villeneuve: Yes, and you strongly support this. Have you had occasion to speak to the 75% or more of the businesses represented by the chamber that was in the chair immediately prior to your taking over? The fact that they're very concerned because they employ 10 or less people and that indeed the likelihood of these first contracts coming to their shop in the rather immediate future -- have you had opportunities to discuss this with some of these smaller businesses?
Mr Tooley: There seems to be a real hysteria from the business community that, once workers become unionized, you're going to be paying them all $30 an hour. That's a real fallacy. We have many contracts or many unions that are affiliated to the labour council and those workers are unionized. They're in the $8- to $9-an-hour range, which is a long way from the -- if you use the extreme example the chamber would have you look at, we certainly wouldn't agree with that. There are many, like I said, who are in that $8 to $9 range, and they've been unionized a long time.
Mr Villeneuve: You say on page 2, "The right to organize domestics, security guards, professionals and agriculture workers is long overdue." Would you like to see agriculture workers be under the umbrella of Bill 40 as it now stands, or would you be looking for special legislation for them?
Mr Tooley: I would certainly like to see them have the same opportunity as the rest of the workers in the province. I think they should be afforded every opportunity to have the rights and benefits of being unionized.
Mr Villeneuve: Are you aware of the agriculture task force on labour reform?
Mr Tooley: Yes, I am.
Mr Villeneuve: Do you agree with that, or would you like to see it under Bill 40 without that?
Mr Tooley: I suppose there have to be some special considerations taken, and I still think I would like to have seen it underneath Bill 40.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you.
Mr Stockwell: Just a quick question: A membership is on strike. I assume you oppose anyone who is on strike from going out and getting another job during that period of time.
Mr Fraser: Who are you asking that?
Mr Stockwell: It doesn't matter.
Mr Fraser: Do you want to answer?
Mr Tooley: Why would I oppose that?
Mr Stockwell: I'm asking you, though, are you opposed to that?
Mr Tooley: Certainly not. If there's a job out there, why not?
Mr Stockwell: But you're opposed to the person who owns the plant or the manufacturing operation hiring people to operate so he may continue to pay his bills and so on and so forth.
Mr Tooley: I think there's a little bit of a difference between a worker looking for employment and a scab coming in to take his job. We have found that for every $10-an-hour job, there's a worker willing to come in and take that job for $8. Then I suppose there would be one who would be willing to come in for $6, and I think you could go right down the scale until you're at the very bottom.
Mr Stockwell: That may be true, but explain to me the difference.
Mr Fraser: It is a question of economics. Some labour organizations that are large and financially sound can afford to give their members something to offset for groceries and stuff when they're on strike or in a lockout situation.
But in either a lockout or a strike situation, that area where the dispute has taken place is on hold, and that's what puts the pressure on to reach an agreement. If the employer is allowed to continue his operations freely, then he'll just simply smash the union. So where we have no objection to our members going out to find other employment, we also have no objections to the employer going out and finding other employment, but that place that's struck stays shut down.
Mr Stockwell: Last question: The people who in fact own it -- say, it's a small business and so on -- and they go on strike, don't you feel that by not allowing it to operate, you're just forcing a business to capitulate?
Mr Fraser: No. I'm glad you asked that question, because I want to point out to the other opposition members: Show me a trade union anywhere in this country, in fact anywhere in this world, that wants to put the very person or employer it's working for out of business. It just simply is not so. What they want is economic justice from that employer, and we have massive amounts of agreements to show that, through unionization, we have brought some standard of living to most of the citizenry in this province and country, including the employers in the non-union area.
Mr Stockwell: But doesn't that person have the right to disagree with you?
Mr Fraser: Absolutely.
1630
Mr Stockwell: Doesn't that person who owns the business have the right to say, "Gee, I don't agree with you"? Don't they have the right in a democracy to say, "No, I don't agree with you and if you want to go on strike, go on strike, but I'm going to continue operating because if I don't, I'm going to close down"? Isn't that a democratic process?
Mr Fraser: No, that's not a democratic process.
Mr Stockwell: It's not?
Mr Fraser: No, it's not.
Mr Stockwell: And unions don't intimidate, of course. Only owners and management do etc. It seems like you're looking at this through rose-coloured glasses.
Mr Fraser: That previous question was asked before. Based on my experience as an organizer, I have never, ever signed up employees or had a secret vote or done anything where the employer didn't fight like hell to smash the union. That's based on my experience.
I would like nothing better than the kind of proposals that are in this legislation that suggest the parties get together and we do away with that intimidation. In my experience, I've never had a situation.
The Chair: Thank you to the Sudbury and District Labour Council, Barry Tooley as president and Barry Fraser as a rep from the Canadian Labour Congress. We appreciate your coming here this afternoon. We're in your home town and we've found the opportunity to hear your views a valuable part of this process. Thank you, people. Take care.
Mr Fraser: Thank you for bringing the nice weather with you.
The Chair: That I will take credit for, if I'm allowed. We'll share that with the whole committee.
ALGOMA MANITOULIN AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council. Please have a seat and tell us your names and titles, if any. A written brief has been distributed that forms part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. All of the members are going to read that carefully.
Mr Norman J. Garvie: Mr Chairman, my name is Norm Garvie. I'm the president of the Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council. The gentleman beside me you already know, Mr Barry Fraser.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present this brief in response to the government's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on behalf of the Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council.
In regard to the purpose clause, it is the opinion of this council that it is in the best interests of Ontario to facilitate the rights of employees, if they so choose, to select a union of their choice, join and be represented by a certified trade union and to participate in its activities. We believe it is imperative that this purpose clause become an integral part of the act and that it be worded as strongly and clearly as possible so that adjudicators will be mandated to make decisions consistent with the act. Only in this way will Ontarians be able to develop a democratic society as equal citizens.
The right to organize: Extending the right to organize to a number of groups that are currently excluded by provincial legislation is a definite small step in the right direction. I would like to remind you that presently in Ontario there are security guards and supervisors who, because they are under federal jurisdiction, have joined unions of their choosing. There have been no conflicts of interest because they operate and bargain for contracts as separate bargaining units.
In regard to organizing and certification, workers in Ontario must be protected from those employers who react to an attempt by a union to organize their workforce by making an example of one or more of their employees who they believe to be active in a union's organizing drive. You would be hard pressed to find anyone active in the union movement who does not have personal knowledge of some poor soul who found himself or herself out on the street with no source of income and, in many cases, blackballed simply because he or she wanted to be treated fairly.
We feel that the $1 membership fee was never a real issue as far as signing up potential union members was concerned. The only real purpose of the membership fee was to supply employers with an opportunity to delay and frustrate a certification application.
Here in Ontario we live in a democratic society where the wishes of the majority decide who will hold political office federally, provincially and in municipal governments. In many cases the winner does not obtain more than 50% of the vote, but he or she does receive the most number of votes of all those vying for those positions. Labour's desire to have the majority vote prevail during a certification process would hardly seem out of line with the basic concepts of any democratic society.
This labour council believes that petitions, many of which are orchestrated by employers, should be eliminated completely. They are used to cause a substantial delay in the certification process, prolong litigation and damage newly created and often fragile bargaining relationships. If workers wish to decertify, it can be done by applying to the board in the months just prior to termination of their collective agreement. We therefore request that the government take the necessary further step and completely eliminate petitions and revocations.
This labour council agrees with the amendments to section 6 of the act, which directs the board to find that a single union of full-time and part-time employees "shall be deemed by the board to be a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining." These amendments will not only address the low rate of unionization among women and visible minorities, who represent the majority of part-time workers; they will also assist in creating bargaining units strong enough to act on behalf of its membership instead of small, fractured, ineffective organizations.
The issue of consolidation of bargaining units is of particular concern to this council. The proposed language is at best permissive and vague. Statements such as "cause serious labour relations problems" or "different methods of operation or production" could be debated until an eternity has passed, with no resolution as to their meanings. The whole section on the combining of bargaining units must be rewritten to provide greater clarity and focus.
There are improvements in the language on first-agreement arbitration, but unfortunately not enough has been done. This labour council endorses the position of the Ontario Federation of Labour that access to first-contract arbitration should be granted upon application by the trade union. The Ministry of Labour's argument that a 30-day period was a necessary deterrent "for either party seeking to avoid the requirement to bargain" is based upon the assumption that it is in the interests of both parties to reach a settlement. What better union-busting opportunity would the management of a newly organized company have than to stall negotiations on a first contract and perhaps even orchestrate the union into a strike position?
In the area of anti-scab labour, Ontario is finally, after 14 years, following Quebec's lead and moving closer to the 21st century. The evidence is clear that in Quebec there has been a decline in picket line violence and hostility. The Quebec Ministry of Labour reports that there has been a decline in both the number and length of disputes, in part accountable to the legislation.
Regrettably, the proposed amendments fall short by allowing non-bargaining-unit employees to perform the work of striking employees. 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. As long as employers can relocate, contract out or use non-bargaining-unit employees along with supervisors to do bargaining unit work, the duration of strikes will not be appreciably shortened. The Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council is resolutely opposed to these serious omissions in the amendments.
This council is in full support of the new statutory provisions concerning a back-to-work protocol. The employer being obligated to reinstate will have a positive impact on those few lengthy strikes where employees and their union have little bargaining power left.
The government has failed to provide a new and more precise definition of what constitutes a strike. Any withdrawal of services by a worker is deemed to be a strike, while a lockout only consists of those reductions in services by employers that are intended to compel workers to accept different conditions of employment. The two provisions are far from being equal. This council does not consider it to be in the public interest that this inequity continue. Other jurisdictions across Canada have moved to loosen the current statutory restrictions on strikes during the term of a collective agreement, and we urge this government to do likewise.
Grievance arbitration process: The proposed time limits to be applied to the arbitration mechanism are long overdue. The system currently in place creates long, frustrating delays not understood by most grievors, and these often result in misunderstandings between unions and their membership.
The proposed amendments expand the role and jurisprudence of an arbitrator to include the many other sources of legislation which can affect the outcome of an arbitration. This labour council recognizes the need to consider all of these factors, but we cannot stress strongly enough our opinion in regard to what we consider to be the motherhood right of all unions. That right is seniority. We believe that in any employment situation that results in the downsizing of a workforce, providing an employee can perform the work or be trained to perform the work that is available, the senior employee must be maintained.
The language in regard to successor rights in the sale of a business whereby the successor employer will be bound by any and all terms already negotiated will ensure that bargaining rights and obligations are not delayed or avoided. The concern of this labour council is that there has been no inclusion of provisions in regard to the sale of assets in the sale of a business. What protection is there for employees where an employer sells off only a portion of the business or where employees are engaged in similar work at the same premises where the vendor of the assets conducted its business?
The amendments also fail to provide adequate protection to employees in circumstances of plant relocation. A union's bargaining rights and the rights of the employees should not expire because an employer decides, for whatever reason, to relocate to a new location in Ontario.
The labour movement applauds the inclusion of successor rights to the sale of business between federal and provincial jurisdictions.
1640
Adjustments and changes in the workplace: There are some limited steps forward in this area, but on the whole the amendments on plant closures and adjustments do not meet the needs of the employees, particularly those confronted with layoff. The proposed amendments require the employer, in the case of plant closure or en masse layoff, to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to negotiate an adjustment plan. The adjustment plan itself is permissive, not obligatory. If an adjustment plan is concluded, the amendments do not mandate what must be included in the plan but merely suggest what may be included and do not even insist that an adjustment plan be concluded. The parties are only required to intend to reach an agreement and to make every reasonable effort to that end.
The government of Ontario is to be commended both for initiating a full consultation process enabling all views to be heard and for proposing significant amendments on labour law reform. Bill 40 represents a far-reaching and progressive package of provisions which will help working people in Ontario maintain and advance their standard of living and quality of life.
At the same time, we have tried to point out a number of these areas where the government proposals are in our view either incomplete, such as the remaining space for petitions, or seriously inadequate, such as the gaping loopholes in the anti-scab legislation.
The current act, with its separate plant-by-plant or office-by-office organization structure negotiations and distinct collective agreements, was designed in the 1930s for large manufacturing enterprises. It was not designed for small workplaces or for the service sector, where approximately seven out of 10 Ontarians are currently employed. These employees are overwhelmingly unrepresented by a union, have significantly lower levels of compensation than unionized employees and their job security is often highly tenuous.
Broader-based bargaining structures, by which we basically mean structures of worker and employer representation for purposes of collective bargaining beyond the level of the workplace -- that is, on a sectorial or regional level -- hold out the potential of extending unionization to those most vulnerable in the economy. It is for purposes of enabling two thirds of the workforce, particularly those in small workplaces and the service sector, to exercise their democratic right to organize in order to improve their economic circumstances and life chances that the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council support a full-scale study into broader-based bargaining.
We therefore ask again that the government consider our request. A major credible study into the applicability and viability of broader-based bargaining structures for the growing number of employees in the small workplace and service sectors could well complement the study already initiated by the Ministry of Labour on bargaining structures for domestics and home workers in the garment industry.
In conclusion, we would like to take this opportunity to thank the resources development committee for taking the time to hear our views. We trust our concerns will receive serious consideration in the final writing of this legislation, which is so very important to our members and the people of Ontario as a whole.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Brown, from Algoma.
Mr Brown: Manitoulin. Thank you for taking the time to come all the way to Sudbury and presenting such a comprehensive view of the bill. I was interested in particular, going through your submission, in the section dealing with part-time employees and full-time employees amalgamating into one union and the fact that it appears the labour board would have the right to order that.
My concern is that often, I'm told, part-time workers and full-time workers do have different views of what they want out of the collective bargaining system. For example, full-time employees often have far more interest in pensions and benefits than part-time workers. Often the part-time worker is in many instances more concerned with straight wages because perhaps the spouse has the benefits or whatever. We're told that often there are differences in what the objectives might be between a part-time unit and a full-time unit and the amalgamation may put one or the other at a disadvantage. I'm just interested in your comments on that, given that we would like to see the individuals gain what they want out of collective bargaining as much as possible.
Mr Garvie: What is your question?
Mr Brown: My question is, do you think that's a problem? Do you see a difference between part-time and full-time workers in what they may want from the collective bargaining system?
Mr Garvie: Basically I think all workers want the same thing. Number one, they want to get what they consider to be a proper living wage. They want to have security in their job, whether it be for a part-time or a full-time. Some people choose to work part-time. Others work part-time because that's the only way they can work. I know of several people who work in three or four different locations, all on a part-time basis, because those are the only jobs they can get in today's economy. But the fact remains that all they're looking for is security and a decent wage.
Mr Brown: I guess my concern just comes from the fact that I was on the hearings last week and I've heard this expressed by workers, that they had some difficulty that they may lose in this combination of full-time and part-time. You can see the example that in some labour forces part-timers are the preponderant part of a workforce and they may then be not particularly interested in benefits, pensions etc, whereas full-time workers may see that as their priority rather than wages. In the bargaining, one may be at a disadvantage if they're combined contrary to the will of the unit. You don't see a problem there?
Mr Garvie: No, sir, I do not.
Mr Brown: You think that everybody would be happy.
Mr Garvie: The bargaining process takes care of it. The majority of the membership rules. Hopefully the union itself will have enough intelligence to realize what the needs of the membership are, whether it be for the part-time or for the full-time.
Mr Brown: My problem is, though, at least the way we read the legislation, in order for the amalgamation to take place, you don't need 50% plus one in each of the two bargaining units that are there, the full-time and the part-time, to have the combination. So it's conceivable that one of the units would want to combine, the other would not want to combine, yet they would end up being combined. Do you see that as a problem? No?
Mr Garvie: No. Maybe my wick isn't touching the oil here, but I'm not really hearing a question from you, sir.
Mr Owens: I'd like to pursue Mr Brown's line of questioning, although taking a different tack. I think the phrase Mr Brown was struggling to find was "community of interest." It's my view that the full- and part-time workers generally have the same community of interest in that, and Mr Brown seems to be reflecting on back in the old days when part-time workers tended to be students who were working summer jobs. In that case the scenario may be all right.
In my previous life, prior to my election, I was president of CUPE Local 2001 at Toronto General Hospital and was involved in organizing the part-time workers into the local. We struggled valiantly but unsuccessfully to have the part-time workers included in the full-time bargaining unit. We felt it would be a saving of public dollars in terms of negotiations to bargain for both groups at the same time.
I'm just wondering if you could expand a little bit in terms of your comments of the like-minded interests of full- and part-time workers.
Mr Fraser: The question of the community of interest is, as was said, the same for both part-time and full-time. Often part-timers are excluded from benefits, when they need them just as much as the full-time employees, and often employers, for reasons of cutbacks or competition or whatever, are putting people on part-time who don't want to be.
My view on the two of them being combined in one bargaining unit is that the organization that represents them brings them into a meeting and they discuss all of these problems. We have in all kinds of agreements different conditions for different workers, but it's all worked out.
First of all, the union sets its process, then it meets with the employer and then in the end there's a collective vote taken whether or not to accept the agreement. So I don't see it as a problem. I think it's actually on the plus side.
Mr Ward: We've been listening to a number of presenters, both for and against Bill 40. The critics of Bill 40 -- some, not all -- have suggested that implementing the amendments tilts the perceived power, I guess, in favour of trade unions over business interests, and they're suggesting that under the existing act there is a balance of power in existence today.
From your experience -- and I understand from both of you it's quite lengthy in the labour movement -- do you have the same perception that there is a balance of power in existence today under the current act, and what is your view of how this so-called power will be affected by Bill 40?
Mr Garvie: I've been hearing a lot of people over the course of the day talk about the low percentage of the people where there are people organized, the low percentage of people where there are problems, and I've heard some employers sit here and talk about how good they are. We will have to be the first to recognize that where you have a supergood employer, somebody who gives you everything you want and bottle-feeds you and hands you these supergood bonuses every year, I don't care how much a union is going to offer you, you are not going to go in there and organize that place, because you have no need for a union. There's nothing mandatory or obligatory here on all labour to join unions.
Mr Owens: Like Magna?
Mr Garvie: Yes. There are several big businesses and small businesses that have no need to be unionized.
One of the learned gentlemen on this side was saying: "Are you now going to mandate in regard to anti-scab laws? Because a very small percentage of people create violence on the picket line, are you now going to put in laws that say that because 1% of the people on a picket line cause violence, you're going to stop having employers getting in to perform the work while the other people are on the picket line?" I would suggest to him that less than 1% of the people in Canada are murderers, but there are still laws about murderers.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council. Mr Garvie, president of the council, you've spoken effectively on behalf of your membership. We appreciate your filling in at the last minute in view of the cancellation that had taken place. We're grateful to you.
Mr Fraser: Just on the light side, unless it's to the opposition, I understand the New Democratic Party staff are organized and they're the government.
Mr Stockwell: Some would say they are disorganized.
Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have just been presented with a presentation submission made by Mr Rick Briggs, who is the president of the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Local 598, of the Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. I think it's an important presentation.
The Chair: Is it pertinent, Mr Offer?
Mr Offer: Well, I think it's an important presentation. They haven't been able to get on the hearing, but I believe and would hope that these presentations would be submitted around and form part of our record.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. I'm not going to go so far as to infer that was an endorsement of the recommendations made by Mine Mill.
Mr Offer: It was important.
The Chair: They appreciate your support of their interest in this legislation, and this will form part of the record, as you know.
It's a problem that has plagued this committee. There have been in excess of 1,200 individuals and groups who have wanted to make presentations. Notwithstanding the time the committee is sitting, five weeks of hearings, and most of those days from 10 am until 9 pm, not all of those people have been able to be accommodated, which is why the committee provides for written submissions.
The members of this committee will read this submission, it will become an exhibit and part of this record, and the members of the committee will take into consideration the contents of this submission when they do the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I am sure Mr Offer will remind them of that in the event nobody else does.
Thank you, Mr Offer. Are there any other matters for the committee?
Mr Stockwell: No, I agree to hear the last deputation. I agree that it should be heard.
The Chair: You just heard them, sir.
Mr Stockwell: I guess I was too late.
The Chair: We are recessed until 6:30.
The committee recessed at 1655.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
The Chair: It's 6:30. We're going to resume. The first participant this evening is CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Sir, please tell us your name and title if any and proceed to tell us what you will. Try to save at least the second 15 minutes for exchanges. Go ahead.
Mr Ron Moreau: My name is Ron Moreau. I am national representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and I'm the coordinator for Ontario municipal employees' groups, working out of the regional office in Toronto. I'm a pinch-hitter today for the two representatives in the city of Sault Ste Marie who are the guests of the Ministry of Labour, I believe, two grievance settlement officers who are insisting upon resolving problems today. Unfortunately, as a pinch-hitter I haven't had an opportunity to prepare a draft of my comments, so I hope you will be able to manage. I'll try to go at a speed that is a reasonable one.
I'm going to try to avoid touching some of the points that have been covered by other speakers today. I'm sure you get tired of hearing some of this stuff, but I don't think any of us get tired of telling you about our views. I'm no different from anyone else.
I have heard, both in the hearings that are taking place here today and in other forums, that one of the problems with the amendments being proposed in Bill 40 is that this is not the appropriate time. I suggest to you that I am inclined, from time to time, to agree with that. Perhaps 10 years ago would have been the appropriate time. However, as these things go, sometimes we have to wait for improvements. I suggest to you that in general Bill 40 provides certain improvements that the labour movement can be satisfied with. However, I suspect that in some areas many of us feel there are shortcomings.
It seems to me that the gist of the legislation is to provide trade unionists and the people they represent with some degree of empowerment that they have not heretofore had. I think one of the problems that we face, and that I've heard in these hearings and in previous hearings, is that there is still a strong sense among employers throughout the province of Ontario, and probably across Canada, that unions are an inconvenience they have to deal with but would rather not.
I suggest to you that there are examples around the world, particularly in western Europe, that indicate that where the trade union movement and the workers represented by the trade union movement are considered to be equal partners in the economy, the relationships that are established through that sort of acceptance are such that there are substantially fewer strikes. There would be less need for discussion about strikes and their implications and about the use of replacement workers, as some people euphemistically call them, because there would be more harmony in the acceptance of trade unions and their memberships as partners in the global economy of the country.
I want to speak briefly about the right to organize and the fact that it has been extended to some people and, unfortunately, not to others. Clearly there are examples under federal legislation which indicate that the concern that has been expressed by employers with respect to the organizing of security guards is unfounded. We have examples not far down the highway -- in Elliot Lake, for example -- where the security guards have been organized for many years in the uranium mining industry, or where it was, at least. There were no conflicts of interest demonstrated there.
With regard to hunters, trappers and domestics, one wonders, I suppose. It's great that they are going to be given the same sort of respect and dignity that other workers have been demanding, but I don't know, in terms of practicalities, whether that is going to provide much of a victory. But certainly to extend to those people the same rights is a step in the right direction.
I noticed that the legislation, if I'm not mistaken, falls short with respect to the issue of supervisors. We heard this morning the president of the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce, whose husband, I believe, is a supervisor at St Marys Paper, indicate that her husband receives $15,000 a year less than the people he supervises. I suggest to this committee and to the president of that chamber of commerce that she ought to be here arguing in favour of further changes to Bill 40 to provide that supervisors have the opportunities that other workers have in the province of Ontario. Those of us from Sault Ste Marie know the frustrations that the supervisory staff at Algoma Steel lived through for many years after many abortive attempts to form associations. We all know how they were, many of them, summarily let go when times got tough. I've spoken with many of these people whom I worked with, and the frustration, even though they are long gone, is still with them.
I want to speak just briefly to section 92.2 with respect to unfair labour practices and the expedited hearing. The union had argued, and I think certain recommendations were, that the hearing should take place within seven days. I understand that the amendments will allow one to take place within 15 days. I and the union think that is a move in the right direction.
A number of years ago I organized a hospital in northern Ontario, in Hornepayne. About twice a week I had to call the operator of that hospital and advise that he was, through his activities on the premises of the hospital, in violation of the Labour Relations Act as it currently exists. It was an ongoing battle.
Fortunately, sometimes when employers take that sort of stance they're the biggest help an organizer can get. The numbers grew as the intimidation expanded, but there are a lot of hard feelings there even today. I would suggest that a lot of the difficulties we encountered in organizing that hospital could have been eliminated rather rapidly if this legislation had been in place at that particular point in time.
An area of particular concern to the Canadian Union of Public Employees is access to third-party property. I'm sure you all are aware of what's happening in the hospital industry, and that's just one example, where what is likely to take place over the next few years is the emphasis on hospitalization will lessen and we will see more and more people receiving interim health care in community clinics. The hospital workers will tell you that's bad and we have to stop it. I'm not sure it's totally bad and I'm certainly not sure that we can stop it.
One of the things we're going to have to do is go where our current members have had to go to work in the same field of endeavour -- that is, the community-based health clinics, many of which are going to be established and are currently being established in shopping malls and other such locations.
It is crucial to the wellbeing of existing CUPE members who will find themselves working for other employers in the not-too-distant future to have access. It's clear that there are difficulties with the legislation, it seems to me. I don't know what "undue disruption" means and I'm certain that some employer will argue anything from soup to nuts, but we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Clearly there are some improvements for us in terms of protecting the rights of existing members in future employment.
I was interested to note that while I think it had been initially proposed that the numbers with respect to automatic certification should not be much lower than 50%, they've returned to 55%. I even take issue with numbers below 50% on automatic certification, quite frankly, although many of my colleagues do not. I would take similar issue with numbers such as 55%.
It seems to me that the members I'm sitting in front of could have been elected with 50% plus one, that federal members would have been elected similarly and that mayors and councillors in municipalities are potentially elected with 50% plus one, but potential trade unionists somehow or another have to be elected with 55%. I will, however, say that the change in terms of getting a certification vote, from the present 45% to 40%, is a major improvement.
I don't know how many of you sitting on this committee have been involved in organizing drives, but I'm familiar with one drive in particular that has been undertaken, I think, three times in the city of Toronto, and that's the clerical staff at the Toronto General Hospital. I want you to know we can't find them most of the time, let alone organize them. Reducing these numbers would certainly be helpful in terms of getting a vote that would be of advantage to the union.
That also speaks to the issue of lists and access to that information. I think it is unfortunate and unreasonable that the trade union seeking to organize should not be provided with the same information that the employer has and that the board would ultimately be entitled to and working with during the certification process.
1840
I'm of course happy that some change has been made with respect to the issue of petitions, but the trade union I represent clearly would prefer that petitions be removed entirely from the process.
I've been recently involved in an organizing drive at the Markham-Stouffville Hospital. The terminal date for that organizing drive expired last week. It was reported to me by the organizers in the early part of the drive that there had been a meeting held in the maintenance department of the hospital wherein there was a discussion undertaken about the apparent organizing drive at that hospital.
Interestingly enough, within a matter of days of that meeting there was a petition being bandied about the hospital for signatures, and there was every indication that it was inspired by the management people in the department in question. Whether that mattered or whether there were sufficient signatures on that thing, at this point I do not know; my understanding is that they were getting people to sign who were not being organized, so it probably is a moot point.
But the point is this: They're often inspired by management people who seek to disrupt the process, who seek to ensure that the union doesn't get a foothold and that the members do not get the opportunity to be properly represented, as is suggested in the earlier provisions of the legislation.
I want to talk to you a little bit about the 55% required to combine bargaining units. Those of us who have been organizing for some time shake our heads from time to time about the positions taken by employers with respect to the number of bargaining units they would like to negotiate with.
A few years ago, I organized a hospital, again the hospital in Hornepayne. At the time, there were 43 employees who were affected by the organizing drive. The employer suggested it wanted six bargaining units: service full-time, service part-time; clerical full-time, clerical part-time; paramedical and laboratory. With 43 employees, 417 kilometres north of Sault Ste Marie, this hospital wanted to have six separate rounds of bargaining. I suggest to you this hospital only wanted to frustrate the process of certification. In the end, we in fact wound up with two bargaining units that bargained together on one single committee because it makes sense.
In the case of the Toronto Hospital corporation, where we have a multitude of bargaining units both at Toronto General and Toronto Western, while they were certified that way, we're all sitting in the same room, all attempting to come to the same sorts of agreements because it makes sense and because it works in the best interests of both parties.
I want to speak to the issue of first-agreement arbitration as well. I've had some experience with that in the federal sector. It seems to me that the labour relations people develop is a learning experience, and policing and administering a labour agreement can be a wonderful classroom for both sides. However, the mindset of many employers is: "We don't want the union. The union is an inconvenience. The union is a miserable contrivance that is here to make things unpleasant for us, and we're not prepared to bargain in good faith and we're going to do everything we can go to frustrate the process."
In the case of the former Huron Broadcasting Co in Sault Ste Marie, which has now sold its assets to numerous and sundry other people, there was a bitter strike. The employees of Huron Broadcasting ultimately, I think, were the first in Canada to avail themselves of first-contract arbitration. I serviced that unit for many years afterwards, and we developed, as a result of having an agreement in place and the responsibility of maintaining it, a working relationship that exists even until today with all the various and sundry employers who now own parts of that operation.
It seems to me that we ought not to have the kinds of strikes we've had in the history of this province for first agreements. The mechanisms that are in place, even the proposed mechanisms, may not be satisfactory, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
I want to close so that we have an opportunity to chat a bit. I'll close on the issue of the use of replacement workers. We all know those people are scabs, and I'm sure I don't have to pull out the dictionary and read what it says in that dictionary or any dictionary with respect to the description of a scab.
The right to strike, I suggest to you, is an essential element to good labour relations. I want to give you some examples because, while I'm responsible for the Ontario Municipal Employees' Coordinating Committee at CUPE, I'm currently working exclusively in the hospital industry. In the hospital industry, as you are well aware, workers don't have the right to strike; they have interest arbitration. Interest arbitration has produced some rather nice awards from time to time, but they're very long in coming.
But let me tell you what's happening in the hospital industry because of it. Workers don't have to make tough decisions and bosses don't have to make tough decisions, because there ain't going to be a strike: Some third party is going to make a decision, ultimately, in the end.
Unfortunately, the problem with that is that it spreads. It spreads to the labour relations field. It spreads to the day-to-day resolution of problems and grievances, and these hospitals have hundreds upon hundreds of cases that go to or go very close to arbitration every year. Why? Because nobody will make decisions, because they don't have to make decisions.
If you have the right to strike, you've got to make some pretty tough decisions. I've had two strikes since I've been at CUPE and I've had one or two before I came there. Those decisions were not taken lightly. Strikes are very miserable, difficult things for all involved and should be kept as short as possible. One way to do that is to ensure that people can't come in and scab the jobs of striking workers.
I want to speak also to the issue of using other employees to replace. It has been said here before that strikes don't get nasty until there are scabs involved, and that's been my observation as well. I think it's a despicable possibility to use other workers with whom we must go back and work side by side in the future, because you'll lose a whole lot more productivity over the years to the animosity that creates than you would lose to a lengthy strike.
It seems to me and it seems to our union that the general premise of this legislation is to do what enlightened employers are attempting to do on their own now, and that is to see that the members of the trade union become equal partners in that endeavour. It doesn't mean we won't have disagreements. It doesn't mean there won't be some adversarial activity from time to time, but it does mean that we can, wherever possible, wherever practical, work together and provide for relationships that are productive rather than counterproductive.
I commend the government for this move. Someone suggested earlier today that it is gutless. I suggest to you that to bring forth this legislation at this time took a great deal of intestinal fortitude. It may not be popular with a lot of people. I won't wait or try to skirt the question that's going to be asked me. Is it possible that some employers don't like the legislation? You bet your butt it is. There are all kinds of employers out there -- not all employers but all kinds of them -- who feel it's appropriate to make profits on the backs of workers, and if workers are empowered and have the right to sell their labour at reasonable prices, they can't do that. Clearly, if we're empowering workers, as so many other organizations in society are already empowered, then there are going to be fewer enlightened people who are opposed to the legislation. So be it. The vast majority of Ontario's workers, if they have the chance to read and understand the legislation, will understand that it is in their best interests that the government of the day pass it.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr Stockwell: I'll be brief. The difficulty I have with the comments you made, sir, is that it would seem to me that if you can't operate your business when you're being struck, you unquestionably have shorter strikes -- I don't doubt that for a moment -- simply because the operator, whoever that may be, will after a brief period of time be forced to capitulate. Is that a healthy process for ownership-management?
Mr Moreau: I don't see it as capitulation, although people might use that particular term. We've watched our first ministers in a negotiating process over the past few weeks. One might say they capitulated. I think they probably acted in the best interests of all Canadians. At the bargaining table, yes, pressures are brought to bear. That's how resolutions are undertaken. And yes, the union is forced by the length of a strike to capitulate, if you will, and I think employers are forced to capitulate. The reality is, they're forced to strike an agreement that is a reasonable and sensible one for the most part.
1850
Mr Stockwell: But fundamentally, if that operation can no longer operate, can no longer produce, it can no longer create revenue. They have no alternative but to capitulate in the end if they're going to stay in business. Your argument, as I see it, is that it will shorten the strikes, will create a better environment. The only reason it will do so is because you're forcing owners-operators-managers to capitulate during a strike process or close down, because they're not allowed to operate.
Mr Moreau: I think we're forcing employers to suffer the same sort of inconveniences we ourselves are. I mean, I heard the situation at Algoma this morning described as a strike. How soon people forget the true nature of the circumstances. I suggest to you it was a lockout. There's every indication there was a lockout. Does that change the complexion? Does that change the suffering of the worker or the suffering of the company? I suggest not.
Mr Stockwell: Then why don't you change the legislation to allow non-operation only when it's a lockout rather than a strike?
Mr Moreau: I haven't drafted the legislation, and I suggest to you that if that is your proposal for amendment, you should make it. I suppose you already have, if that's your feeling.
Mr Stockwell: So I'll get your support then.
Mr Moreau: You take it that I support what?
Mr Stockwell: I assume, with your previous comments, I would get your support. If it's a lockout, you can't operate; if it's a strike, you're allowed to operate.
Mr Moreau: No, I wouldn't suggest that for one moment.
Mr Stockwell: Secondly, with respect to gutless, I just want to clarify. I didn't call the government gutless. I have on a number of other occasions, but I didn't happen to call them gutless with respect to this piece of legislation. The gutless part -- and I'd like you to respond -- is the fact that they haven't done any study, there's been no report, there's been no wide-ranging investigation into the effects this legislation will have on the workforce, whether it will be diminished etc. There have been some private studies done. They've all shown that there will be job losses. The government has said it doesn't buy into the studies that were done. They've been challenged on a number of occasions, for weeks upon weeks upon weeks, and they offered some muddled, hare-brained response.
Don't you think it's important, if we're going to enter into this kind of legislation during this kind of economic period, that we should have a good understanding about whether this kind of legislation will cost jobs in Ontario today? If not, why not?
Mr Moreau: To answer "if not, why not" first, it seems to me that the legislation simply provides a sector of society with a reasonable opportunity to organize and do the kinds of things in terms of the sale of its labour as the corporate entities do in terms of the sale of their product. I don't understand how it's possible that the corporate entity can see that as somehow or another being subversive.
Mr Stockwell: I never said that.
Mr Moreau: On the issue of studies, there's an old saying that's pretty simple: Liars can figure and figures can lie. If I know the outcome I want, I can certainly produce a study that will provide that kind of information and backup, and I suggest both sides could do that if they wished to so do.
However, I suggest to you that you, your party and the other political parties, including the government, are fully aware and have been for a long while about the need to overhaul the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We have a long history relating to first-contract difficulties, strikes that have been violent, and examples of employers who simply will not settle under any circumstances. I believe you heard earlier today about a strike in North Bay that's been going on for three years. I suggest to you that is counterproductive, that is harmful in terms of the atmosphere in the province and in terms of the wellbeing of society in general.
I have heard suggestions, at these hearings and elsewhere, that there will be an impact. I hear the figures, but I don't understand the data, and no one has explained them at any of these hearings. I suppose it's difficult to do that. I suggest to you that there has not been a mass exodus of capital out of Quebec. There are a number of reasons there might be, quite apart from the issue of whether or not there have been changes in the labour relations act there, yet it still has not happened, and I suggest to you it isn't going to happen here.
I think the problem many people have is that they sell the Ontario workforce short. We have a very well-educated, capable workforce in this province. We have an infrastructure which is second to none. We have the potential to be the economic engine of the entire region, not just Canada.
Mr Owens: Mr Moreau, I share your frustrations around some of the issues of Toronto Hospital Corp, having been involved in at least two and a half of those three organizing drives of the clerical workers. Your last comment, in my view, is extremely important, that people tend to sell workers short in terms of their knowledge and their willingness to negotiate good collective agreements, good for both parties. It serves neither party any purpose to have a business close down.
My question to you is, in terms of the agreements in the locals that you've handled that have been able to strike, how long did it take after the local was in a legal position to strike before the strike actually took place? Was strike the first weapon of choice or was it in fact the last weapon of choice?
Mr Moreau: In the case of one strike, the issue had been on the bargaining table for 18 years and was not a matter of money. It was a matter of treatment and principle. Of course, that's an agreement that had been in place for quite a long while and the strike took place only after many months and long after the potential date on which the strike could have taken place.
I think it's traditional in the public sector, perhaps for a variety of reasons, that we often go beyond the expiration date of a labour agreement, unlike some of the industrial unions. This case was one of those examples where we went well beyond in order to try to get resolution, but were unable to do so.
In the other example in which I was directly involved, it was a strike of a similar nature. It had to do with an unfairness in terms of the application of a benefit package which discriminated against women and it had been an issue that had been on the bargaining table in at least four preceding rounds of bargaining and could not be resolved.
Mr Offer: I have a couple of questions with respect to your presentation, certainly in the area of organizing and hopefully, if we have some time, in the private property area of a third party.
The first thing is -- I've asked this question before -- is there, in your opinion, any time when an employer in an organizing drive could express an opinion without it being viewed by the employee as somehow intimidating in some fashion or another?
Mr Moreau: It's an interesting question. We advise, as we get into organizing campaigns -- at least I do and my colleagues do -- of the responsibilities of those people who will be signing cards with respect to where they sign them, under what circumstances and particularly the issue of intimidation, that there's to be none of that. We can't afford to have any question raised.
I have seen examples of interventions by employers which were less than intimidating, a recent one at Markham-Stouffville, where the employer simply outlined the rights of workers and, by implication, simply tried to make the point that workers would lose their individual rights if the union were certified. How intimidating that was, I'm not sure; perhaps not as intimidating as the activities we saw where people in Hornepayne, for example, were being threatened with loss of their jobs in the event the union came in.
Mr Offer: I guess my question is, on the example you've just proffered, where an employer gives his or her opinion as to how the rights of the individual will be changed, do you view that as one that is intimidating?
Mr Moreau: Yes, I do.
1900
Mr Offer: Thank you. I have a question with respect to organizing drives again. There are substantial penalties in the legislation if an employer engages in an unfair labour practice, intimidation, in an organizing drive. Basically, automatic certification will result. Do you believe that there is ever an occasion in an organizing drive where a union is engaged in such an activity where the same result may occur in so far as the individual employee is involved?
Mr Moreau: I would be saying that I do not believe in human nature if I said to you that couldn't happen. We make every effort, and I'm sure employers do, because I've dealt with some very enlightened employers during organizing drives. I think those employers make every effort not to intimidate, and I think the trade unions in Ontario make every effort not to intimidate, but that's not to say that someone on behalf of either party could not make an error of some sort.
The Chair: Thank you and the Canadian Union of Public Employees for your interest and participation in this process. You've made a valuable contribution and we are grateful to you.
FALCONBRIDGE LTD
The Chair: The next participant is Falconbridge. Please come forward, have a seat and tell us your names and titles if any. We've got your written submissions. They'll be made an exhibit and will form part of the record. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges.
I remind people of course that there's French-language translation available. The receivers and earphones are available at the front of the hall. There's coffee here, so you can make yourselves at home and comfortable. Go ahead, please.
Mr Richard Laine: My name is Richard Laine. I'm the director of human resources and public affairs for Falconbridge Ltd here in the Sudbury operations.
Mr John Pappone: My name is John Pappone. I'm manager of employee relations, Falconbridge, Kidd Creek division, Timmins, Ontario.
Mr John Keenan: I'm John Keenan, vice-president of human resources for Falconbridge Ltd. I'm headquartered in Toronto.
Mr Chairman and members of the committee, we welcome this opportunity to present to you our views on Bill 40. Falconbridge employs over 5,000 men and women in Ontario, and in 1991 we had a total payroll, excluding benefit costs, of $279 million. We contributed $65 million in taxes to the three levels of government.
Bill 40 is a lengthy piece of legislation. Because of the time constraints we intend to address only a few sections. We'll discuss their impact on our business and employees and address what we believe to be their negative effect on the maintenance of a positive labour relations climate.
However, in order to put our concerns into the appropriate economic perspective, we wish first to present an overview of the mining industry's importance to this province. The annual value of minerals produced in Ontario is more than $5 billion, and 85% of that is exported. The industry employs 30,000 people directly and provides over 170,000 jobs indirectly. Over 90% of our expenditures are made in Canada, and mining is a major contributor to the wealth of this province.
But our industry is in decline. Exploration expenditures are decreasing, from $218 million three years ago to only $124 million last year in Ontario, yet on average it takes 10 years of exploration, over 25,000 claims, 500 of which are drilled, and only one results in the development of a new mine. The average exploration cost to bring in a new mine in Ontario is $100 million. In Sudbury we will have spent $250 million over a four-year period to bring our Craig mine into production.
The point we want to make here is that Ontario has no monopoly on minerals. The rapid decline of Sudbury from being the source of over 75% of the world's nickel to supplying less than 15% is pretty clear evidence of that. Given that exploration investment is international, we question why the government would introduce labour legislation which will create a hostile investment climate.
Ultimately the government of this province and employers in the province such as ourselves have the same goals: strong competitive industries and committed and prosperous employees. We do not believe this legislation will support these goals. In fact, we fear it will be a real disincentive to companies in making investment decisions, the long-term result of which will be reduced generation of wealth in the province from an industry which pays the highest average wages in the country.
Bill 40 will also affect existing businesses such as ours. Falconbridge operates six mines and two plants in the Sudbury area, and these operations are fully integrated even though they are spread over 70 kilometres. The 1,500 production and maintenance employees are represented by the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Local 598, and the 360 office, technical and clerical workers by the United Steelworkers, Local 6855.
Section 32 of Bill 40 presents a serious problem for our company in two ways. In the first place, some of its provisions will unfairly restrict multiplant operations such as ours during any strike, even more so than the restrictions that the bill places on single plant employers. Second, by those restrictions on the ability to resist strike action, the bill will work to the long-term economic disadvantage of employees, companies and communities.
In the event of a strike at our operations it would be virtually impossible to adequately maintain necessary services, including services to local communities such as water to the residents of the local town of Falconbridge, unless we could transfer non-striking employees -- that is dealt with under paragraph 73.1(6)1 -- and unless we could use employees transferred after bargaining notice was given. Again, the section is quoted in the paper. We transfer employees frequently between the eight plants in our company, and the history of bargaining with our company is that it usually lasts from four to six months, so numerous transfers are going on during that period of time.
Another unreasonable restriction proposed in Bill 40 is the prohibition of the use of an employee, hired after the day that bargaining notice was given, to do the work of another non-striking employee if that latter employee is replacing a striker. The result of that could mean that an engineer hired several months before any strike commenced, in the early stages of bargaining, could not, in the event of a strike, cover off for a maintenance foreman if that foreman in turn was replacing a striking hoistman. Heaven knows how that can, as the government would have us believe, help us to manage and maintain our mines and properties and protect the jobs of strikers when they return.
The bill purports to provide some safeguards to enable employees to protect the integrity of their operations and property, but these safeguards are so restrictive as to either create confusion or to develop situations in which the strained labour-management relationship occasioned by a strike will be further aggravated. One example of potential confusion arises over whether paragraph 73.1(6)4 would allow the use of a nursing agency to provide health and safety services to non-striking employees.
The language of the bill is so complex that it will be so open to interpretation that the heated atmosphere in a strike situation can't help but be further inflamed by the argument that will go on over this complex and restrictive clause.
Examples of how relationships will become subject to rapid deterioration include the option which will have to be given to non-striking employees to refuse to replace strikers. I ask you to imagine the pressure situation which will face such employees in a community where many of their neighbours or family members may be on strike.
A further example arises from the complex process which will be required to get cooperation from the striking union in order to meet crucial plant maintenance, safety or environmental requirements. Such amendments in these areas as are proposed in the bill reflect an unfortunate lack of understanding of the realities of plant operations and the dynamics of relationships during a strike situation.
Unhappily, these section 32 amendments also reflect a failure to recognize that the success of the collective bargaining system -- which, as governments continually remind us and which those of us who are in the business know, result in many strike-free settlements, well over 90% of all cases -- arises from the current economic balance of the right to strike versus the right to continue to operate. To destroy that balance on the pretext that it favours employers and frequently results in violent confrontation is deliberately misleading.
1910
Our system, operating as it has for some 50 years, has brought great prosperity to unionized workers in this country. Violent confrontation is rare, and where it has occasionally occurred, it has been the result of a combination of several ingredients, including inadequate policing, insensitive operating practices, ignorance of the law, mob psychology and staged demonstrations.
Violence happens as often where no strike replacements have been employed as where they have, and on too many occasions, it is fostered by the belief held by some individuals that a picket line is not for the purpose of information but exists to deny the legal right of access. Here at the Sudbury operations, we are represented by two unions and contract termination dates are not the same. Therefore, if one is on strike, the other is obligated to report to work.
Section 8 of the bill, the amendments which deal with the certification process, will, we believe, create serious and long-lasting impediments to the development of a stable labour-management relationship in the province. These amendments clearly subordinate the principles of freedom of choice and the rights of the majority to a perceived need to increase union membership and representation.
Falconbridge operates a major mining and metallurgical operation in Timmins, where for 25 years employees have exercised their right not to be represented by a union. This operation has been and continues to be an excellent example of productivity and quality. Employee relations have been a model for many other companies, and our safety record is the best in our industry.
Bill 40 will significantly affect the ability of our Timmins employees to freely express their wishes in any future union organization drive. The limitations on the right of employees to express their opposition to representation unless such expression occurs before an application for certification is filed, a date which only the applicant union can know, is clearly designed to thwart free expression of choice.
Much has been said publicly and at these hearings about the purported unfair tactics of some employers to undermine the right of employees to union representation. Such tactics as intimidation, interference or employer-sponsored petitions cannot and should not be condoned. However, they are all subject to labour relations board jurisdiction, and if the board processes are not effective, that is the problem to be addressed.
It is not appropriate for the government to sacrifice democratic rights and freedom of choice at our operations through amendments which will essentially eliminate the right of dissent and give the board the power to arbitrarily certify a union if it concludes that some inappropriate action or injudicious remark constituted a barrier to determining the true wishes of employees. In our view, the likelihood of the board making such determinations in the future will be greatly increased by the amended purpose clause, section 2.1 of the amendments.
The difficulties which the government finds itself in with regard to establishing a speedy and effective process for certification, with minimal opportunity for interference or coercion either by employer or union would quickly be resolved if a supervised, secret ballot were to be held in every case within five days of the filing of an application for certification supported by 40% of employees.
We suggest that the date of the filing would commence a freeze on further solicitation or propaganda either from employer or union. Ballots contested for reasons of eligibility could be segregated, and only opened and eligibility determined if a clear majority for or against representation was not found. By such a process, the true expression of employee wishes would be identified and the climate of bitterness and mistrust which the present system engenders, and which the amendments will increase, would be eliminated.
The strength of the collective bargaining process and its contribution to the steady extension of workers' rights and economic wellbeing has developed from the balancing of the economic interest between employees who can withhold their labour and employers who can find alternative means of production. The amendments to subsection 41(1) of the act, as set out in the bill in section 19, totally undermine this process by removing the economic imperative to reach a settlement which allows employees to prosper and employers to grow.
If the bill proceeds as it is now written, there will be no reason to bargain a realistic first agreement. What would be the point? One would bargain to an impasse on every issue, wait for the minister's no-board report and sit for another 30 days.
There would be little to be gained by either side in striking or locking out, because after 30 days it would be back to work as usual. Thereafter an arbitrator would determine what costs and costly practices the employer should shoulder, regardless of economic reality or what wages and conditions an employee should obtain, again without reference to the investment needs and growth potential of the business. In other words, the public service model of compulsory arbitration which has played a part in us becoming the most indebted nation in the world will now be extended to the private sector. The current provisions of the act at least require some evidence of improper conduct. There is no justification to go beyond that.
We at Falconbridge have followed the debate on these amendments with great concern over the past year and a half. We made submissions to the minister in the consultation process here and in Timmins, but that process has been very one-sided. The arguments of the supporters of the legislation speak to the notion that creating the kind of imbalance in industrial relations which this bill will produce will result in increased stability. Surely the opposition of employers, the media and public opinion, as well as the antipathy of investors, contradict that myth.
This province has a very high degree of union representation, higher than most, if not all, jurisdictions in North America and many within the European Community. This has resulted from our current law, which has allowed employees to make conscious and informed choices. The result has been that over one third have chosen union representation.
The current law has encouraged local choice, and the local union structure in this province is the foundation of the provincial and national labour bodies which play important roles in public policy formulation.
Falconbridge operates in Europe, and we find it interesting to note how in those countries with greater percentage union membership than in Canada the local union role is far less significant and has far less impact on local decisions than is the case in this country.
We at Falconbridge have an effective partnership with our employees, and in Sudbury with their unions also. It is a partnership based on a shared appreciation of global competition, the need to produce quality products at competitive costs and the need to generate investment capital to create future jobs and wealth.
Many other employers and their employees in Ontario share a similar appreciation of the challenges that face us. This is not a result of the level of unionization but of an appreciation that the balance of economic leverage under the current legislation does not, in most cases, allow one party to exercise power to the detriment of the other.
Bill 40, which will significantly tilt that economic leverage in favour of the trade union movement, will gradually erode our competitiveness and economic strength.
We thank you for allowing us to present our views on this critical issue.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Haeck, four minutes per caucus.
Ms Haeck: Thank you for your presentation. It's going to provide some interesting conversation for us all.
Mr Kormos and I are representatives from the Niagara Peninsula, and in the summer of 1990 we had a rather heated strike at Quebec and Ontario Paper where there were strikebreakers brought in. I think personally, from having watched how that all proceeded, it definitely lengthened the strike by many months.
It's my understanding that your offices here in Sudbury have suffered a strike recently. Is that not true?
Mr Keenan: We had a two-week strike in June. Two weeks?
Mr Laine: Ten days.
Ms Haeck: Was that production employees or was it office?
Mr Keenan: That was the United Steelworkers office, clerical and technical union.
1920
Ms Haeck: In your presentation, on page 1 you indicate that you see Bill 40 having a "negative effect on the maintenance of a positive labour relations climate," and on page 4 you refer to the fact that, "Violent confrontation, where it has occasionally occurred, has been the result of a combination of several ingredients including inadequate policing, insensitive operating practices," etc.
I understand the police were brought in in some large numbers to deal with that particular strike. I wonder if you would agree with me that such actions on the part of an employer can in fact have a rather negative effect on long-term labour relations.
Mr Laine: Richard Laine, Sudbury operations. I was the chief negotiator and chief spokesman for Falconbridge during the office, clerical and technical negotiations this year.
The OCT union, to give you a little bit of history leading up to the day the police arrived, voted on the collective agreement on a Friday. We chose to hold the operations down, allowing the other unionized employees to come to work if they chose. Basically we were prepared to take the place down to avoid any kind of confrontation. We held it down. You may not be aware that we operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The vote was at approximately 5 pm on a Friday, so we were in what you would call semiproduction mode the rest of Friday, Saturday and Sunday. By Monday, we were seeking to resume operations.
The picket lines were very heavy and were completely obstructing access to the gates, not only for the other unionized employees but for equipment and materials that had to pass through. We called the police to observe the situation, and that was the circumstance. We do not make decisions as employers as to what action the police need take. That's their decision.
Ms Haeck: Having been in a lockout position myself, as the president of CUPE Local 2220 of the St Catharines public library, we were locked out for a couple of weeks back in the fall of 1977 and we never saw a policeman at all.
Mr Laine: This was not a lockout.
Ms Haeck: I understand, but these things, according to some semantics thrown around, sort of get thrown into the same hopper and all come down to the same thing. I guess personally, at least in my view, these things do have some long-term negative impact on relations. I'm happy to hear from you that it was a short strike, only two weeks long, and hopefully things were resolved well.
Mr Laine: Things have been resolved. I might remind you, as John has mentioned, that we have two unions operating at Falconbridge: The first is the office, clerical and technical, whose situation we just discussed, and the second is the 1,500-man unit of the Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. These people were not on strike and they do have an obligation to report to work. Had we shut the plant down and continued to hold the plant down throughout the duration of the OCT strike, they would not have had any employment and presumably no paycheques to go along with that. There was a large majority of employees who in fact had a great deal to lose in this situation.
The Chair: Mr Ward, did you still want to ask a question?
Mr Ward: Just briefly. We received a brief from the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Local 598, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary in 1993 -- quite an achievement. However, they've come out in support of labour reform. As you mention in your brief, they represent 1,500 production and maintenance employees of Falconbridge. Why do you think they support labour reform?
Mr Keenan: I guess it should be pretty obvious: It tilts the balance. I think, as a committee, you only have to look back to that seminal work in labour relations, the report of the Woods task force, the royal commission on labour relations in Canada in 1968, and remember the words of the eminent Professor Woods, the dean of industrial relations at McGill University, that the strength of the Canadian labour relations collective bargaining system rests upon the balance of strengths between the trade union and the employer in that the trade union employee can withdraw his labour and can offer his labour while on strike to another employer.
Of course that's what happens, as we all know. Strikes are to a large extent financed by employees who picket and receive strike pay, and employees who find alternate employment and are able to earn income during the strike.
That's on the one side of the balance. On the other side of the balance is the right of the employer to operate his facilities, and it's that balance of economic strength which occasions the result that collective agreements become settled. The tension of everybody losing a bit is enough to concentrate the mind wonderfully on getting the strike settled.
What the bill proposes is that one side will lose everything and the other side won't lose. That's going to concentrate the mind awfully quickly on: "Do we want to keep making investment decisions about staying in this province or reinvesting in this province if we cannot stay in business, if we are going to be continually faced with the possibility of a strike in which the winner is already picked out? Because he can strike us and his members can go and get alternate work if they wish, but we've got to stay closed down." You just have to look back to Dean Woods's work in that regard to know that's what made the strength of the system. That's why we have a prosperous union movement. That's why we have a prosperous country, because the system has worked well. To change that balance, I think, is a recipe for disaster.
Mr Brown: I was interested in your comments regarding your operations here in Sudbury, where you have, I believe, six mines and two plants. I think this committee has heard on a number of occasions from municipal electric utilities and other utilities that have a similar difficulty to yours, that being: How do we define the workplace? How do we define who has transferred from where? How do we maintain those services to the people we represent in terms of the electric utility? How do we keep the power on, so to speak? In your case, I presume you have a problem with supplying water. Do you also supply electricity to any of the area? I know Inco does.
Mr Laine: We don't supply power directly but the primary transmission line into the town of Falconbridge does go through our property, so we have been doing a lot of maintenance work on that, yes.
Mr Brown: I'm just pointing out that the difficulty you're raising here is not a difficulty that just relates directly to industrial activities but also to the municipal utilities sector, and probably others that we haven't thought of.
I think it's also important for the committee members to realize that even when not in production, mines require a substantial amount of ongoing maintenance to keep the mine afloat, so to speak.
I think Mr Offer has something.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that or do you want to have Mr Offer --
Mr Keenan: I agree with what Mr Brown said. Mines require an enormous amount -- and of course smelter furnaces have to be kept warm, or heated, I guess you'd say. You're certainly right on. This represents a major problem for us, because are those eight plants eight different places of operation? If so, we're in real trouble.
Mr Stockwell: I will express some concern with respect to the comments from the government side. I think this is a well documented and researched report. Whether you agree or disagree with it, it certainly begs some questions. It's disappointing that the best questions it begs from the government side are how come you had to call the police for a 10-day strike in June, and how come the Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers supports it.
Mr Hayes: You should ask your questions and let us ask ours.
Mr Stockwell: I would just like to comment, Mr Chair. Those are the best two questions they come up with. I think it's rather telling about the legislation itself. As I understood it, this is a free and fair committee and one could speak without being interrupted, so I'll continue.
What is the investment fallout with respect to passing this legislation? You spoke to it very briefly, I noticed, in one of your answers. I'd like to hear you expand on what the investment fallout is for you, investment back into Ontario and maybe in the province basically as a whole.
Mr Keenan: I don't think we can quantify it, Mr Stockwell. An earlier speaker, when I was here, talked about the fact that investment didn't flee from Quebec because of the anti-scab legislation. Well, quite clearly you can't measure those things. A few plants did move out of Quebec. I know one very well: Menasco. But in fact, the question is, how many people made the conscious decision not to invest? You just have to look at the economy of Quebec to figure out that quite clearly, with the levels of unemployment and the levels of investment in Quebec, something's causing it. Whether some of it is the fallout from their legislation, I don't know. I can't answer that. But obviously, if we're looking for minerals to mine and other companies are looking for minerals to mine, they're all over the world. Why would we expend a lot of time and attention and energy and money looking in a hostile investment environment when there are much better ones? I'm sure every other company feels that way. I don't know how you quantify it; it's just common sense.
1930
Mr Stockwell: I have expressed my concerns earlier with respect to the fact that this government chose not to do any sort of study. The previous person I asked the question of suggested that liars can figure and figures can lie, so it's academic, we wouldn't get any studies and you can get any consultant to say anything you want. I challenge the government to get any consultant to say anything it wants. I don't believe it because I don't think a consultant worth his salt would write anything that tells me this would not cost jobs.
The point I'd like to put to you is very categorical. With the decision this government is taking, what kind of study do you think the government should carry out to measure the impact of either job loss or potential job loss on not just your sector but all the sectors across the board? If Ernst and Young is right and we're going to lose 290,000 jobs, that is a frightening number. I'd just like to hear what your comments are with respect to the studies, the consultants' reports or any kind of broad-ranging review to measure the impact of this legislation.
Mr Keenan: I haven't read the complete studies. I've read the synopsis of a couple of them. That was the one that was done for the construction association, I believe, yes. Frankly, I think that the government itself should have asked a reputable, independent economic agency to do such a study to satisfy itself. I think the economic tools are there, the statistical measuring tools are there, and the process for conducting such a study I think is fairly well understood. You're going to get a range -- worst-case, best-case scenarios -- but I certainly think that in justice to the future economic health of the province and employment in the province the government should have done that.
The Chair: I want to thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here this evening, speaking on behalf of Falconbridge. You've played an important part in this process and we're grateful to you for having the interest in this legislation and for taking the time to be here with us this evening. Take care.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 6500
The Chair: The next participant is the United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500. Please come forward and have a seat. We need your name and a title, if any. Tell us what you will. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for exchanges.
Mr David Campbell: My name is Dave Campbell. I'm the president of Local 6500, United Steelworkers of America, and I represent 5,300 unit workers at Inco Ltd here in Sudbury.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation towards such a delicate topic. If I look into the past, I can recall another time in this province's labour history when such an uproar took place. That event surrounded a piece of labour legislation that was at first called Bill 139, subsequently Bill 70 and, as we heard today, Bill 208 etc. That's the bill that gives the worker the right to refuse unsafe work.
I was a fledgling trade unionist at that time. I can remember the business community taking out radio and television ads. Governments were told that there'd be a mass exodus of jobs out of Ontario because no, you can't trust them to make these decisions. After all, unions would organize work stoppages and close the province down. At least, that's what business stated. The results were just the opposite. Workplace accidents went down, fatalities were reduced and you could keep a record of such refusals in a very small ledger. I personally don't know of one organized labour stoppage under this act.
Apply the same logic to a fair Labour Relations Act and I'm sure the results would be the same. I'll go one step further and say that the current Labour Relations Act creates the adversarial atmosphere that discourages industry from entering this province. The five-year labour dispute at Shaw-Almex in Parry Sound was a direct result of replacement workers and the shabby labour laws currently in force in this province.
I'll take just two seconds on that labour dispute. This strike was not about wages; it was not about the right to organize. It was a woman who ran the company that penalized its workers on Monday if she didn't see them in church on Sunday. There are employers in this province like that and therefore labour legislation is needed to stop such things.
Organizing drives are tainted with threats, discharges, lengthy hearings and bitter resolves that are carried over for years. These become news items that are broadcast throughout the world and depict a war zone for industry in the province of Ontario.
"Why are these confrontations so bitter?" we ask. I say it's because of our current labour laws that allow them to be that way. If this government weakens the current proposed legislation, then it will in fact be discouraging industry from entering this province. That's a switch, isn't it?
If business and labour are forced to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement from an equal playing field, then everyone wins. I might go on to say "everyone except the lawyers," who may find an expedited, simplistic, quick process detrimental to their method of securing a lucrative fee schedule. Bear in mind that they have minimum fees set by their association, a group of people working together to get a better deal. My God, I'd say that sounds a lot like a labour union.
I just put this question before you, and I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but sometimes I flare off in these things. I wonder what the legal profession would do if this government introduced legislation that allowed a person the right to scab out-of-province legal assistance at half the rate, and put in that legislation the right to disbar that lawyer with no income for the year or two it takes the labour board to rule on the case. Let them go work at McDonald's or apply for unemployment insurance. That sounds pretty stupid, and I would agree it's very stupid, yet many in this province and even some on this panel may feel quite comfortable suggesting that it's okay to subject the Ontario worker to this abuse. I'm not suggesting all companies and corporations do that, but, my friends, there's enough on record out there to show that it in fact happens.
Workers will not bite the hand that feeds them. Show me an industry that's in trouble and I'll show you a collective agreement with concessions in it. Show me an industry that treats its workers fairly, and I'll show you an industry that will still be operating in the province of Ontario a decade from now, and quite possibly one without a union.
I was taken by surprise at the last hearings held here in Sudbury when Dr Jose Blanco, an Inco vice-president, made a presentation -- and it showed up in the local media -- that the proposed Labour Relations Act changes would be too confining and lead people to believe Inco couldn't live with them, similar to what was just stated by Falconbridge. As I understand it, the connotation was that they'd even look to move elsewhere if such legislation was passed.
I take offence at this because this is from a company that accepts the world's praise for its joint union and company environmental committee; this from a company that proudly proclaims its internal labour relations; this from a company that is currently developing a new quality improvement approach to doing business, one that requires equal commitment from the company, from the union and from the workers. I'm told by these same people that the Steelworkers are an asset to its members, yet for some reason they don't want you people to know that.
The western world frowns on countries that refuse to recognize the trade union movement. Poland was denounced when it made its unions illegal. The right to form a union is recognized as one of the first stepping-stones to a free and democratic society.
1940
With all this, many politicians, and even more business leaders, lobby at great expense to stand behind the right to form a union -- as long as the laws are slanted against that possibility. That, my friend, is wrong. Make it equal, make it fair, and if it is in fact a right or privilege to organize, then it is not only proper for you to support the fair playing field; it is your duty to support these changes.
Some industries are slowly recognizing the potential of working with their labour counterparts. In fact, if industry fails, the labour unions have as much to lose as do the corporate boards; in fact, we sometimes have more. Industry can move to Mexico; we can't. Progressive industry is finding a new and exciting future by including its workers in the decision-making within the corporate structure. A cumulative effort with its employees and their labour unions are proving to be a lucrative venture for the upper management people who have vision and the ability to recognize the mistakes of the past.
I have deliberately left out some specific horror stories surrounding the current labour laws, as I'm sure you've heard and will hear all you care to listen to. I will, however, make a statement. Labour will not leave this province high and dry on its way to Mexico. Ontario workers will not sell out this wonderful place to live, nor will they in any way attempt to sabotage the industry that provides them their employment. Anyone who fears these changes has obviously not clearly understood the ramifications of not changing this act.
On one hand, business calls on government and labour to recognize the need to modify the way we do business. We hear it all the time: Lee Iacocca's on television crying about it. A new world economic order is forcing a change in the way North Americans perform in the global economy. Industry needs highly skilled, highly trained workers who are more in tune with the economic pitfalls associated with turning a profit in today's working world.
During the 1950s and 1960s, a person could obtain employment if he had a certain body weight, a straight spine and a clean medical history. Today the criteria have changed: Grade 12 or equivalent, preferred on-the-job experience, combined with the ability to continue to grasp and learn on-the-job skills throughout his or her working life, have become the norm.
Why would industry want such a learned person to be without representation? Why does industry look to the productivity generated by the German workers, yet fail to recognize the jointness of the venture in how they got there? Ontario workers are the best in the world, but not under a dictatorship. If legislation creates a fair playing field, then both industry and labour will be forced to generate a healthy working environment. If industry is allowed to run low-wage, underskilled sweatshops, then it will in fact drag the economy of this province downward.
This legislation is not just for labour; it is for the survival of industry in this province. Industry cries: "Leave us alone. We know best how to run our business." If that's the case, why are we in the mess we're in? This predicament started long before this government was elected and most certainly long before this legislation was tabled.
If you are speaking for the people of Ontario as a whole, then you have no choice but to establish an equal playing field. Legislation forced me to wear a seatbelt whether I wanted to or not. The development of a strong, viable link between industry and its workers may require similar involvement.
I thank you for taking the time and giving me the opportunity to make this presentation. I would like to add a couple of things that aren't in the document.
We, representing 5,300 workers at Inco -- at one time we had 18,000 -- negotiated our last two collective agreements without the need of conciliation or mediation. We did so because we are unlike other industries in the province that can bring in what we call scab labour: replacement workers.
Replacement workers are a fallacy for the mining industry. Dealing with hot metal, you couldn't run out and hire 3,000 people to come in and replace our people: Somebody would get killed. Replacement workers are not the answer for the mining industry. The reason we negotiated the collective agreement was because the withdrawal of our services was as detrimental to the company as their withdrawal and closing the plant was detrimental to us.
I suggest that anybody who's afraid of an equal playing field should look to Europe. I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Geneva. I was one of two labour representatives, along with two government and two business representatives, at a world mining conference talking about the rest of the world. If you went to a Swede or a German or a Finn and suggested the archaic labour laws that are in this province to date, they would laugh at you and they would run their governments out of the country.
It has proven to be best when the laws confront the worker and industry to work together to a common goal. Those philosophies are being taken up in Ontario and across North America. If you do something to jeopardize that, you will be slitting the throats not just of labour but all business in Ontario. You should look at it in that light -- I don't think anyone has really done that -- because it works in other places. The test is other countries that have as high a standard of living as ours and in some cases somewhat higher.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Brown, Mr Offer, five minutes per caucus, please.
Mr Offer: I have a question based on the last two sentences of your presentation. Can you can explain those to me? I don't understand them, and I'm just wondering if you can help me out.
Mr Campbell: "The development of a strong, viable link between industry and its workers"?
Mr Offer: The seatbelt analogy and things like that.
Mr Campbell: There are companies in North America that have seen the need and are sending their upper management, along with workers, to develop systems that make the company more responsible, more profitable, more competitive in the global economy. Laws that are going to deny the representation of workers in this field -- workers are becoming more learned, more skilled, more trained, and with that, you can't expect someone who has acquired all of those skills to sit back and allow a situation to occur within the company without representation, because of one or two or a portion of that industry.
If you create an equal playing field that allows the worker representation, then that worker is not going to sabotage these companies, they're not going to close them down, they're not going to rip the guts out of them and have the industry collapse, only to be on the unemployment rolls, which are 13.5%, I understand, in Sudbury. Maybe when these strikers who are out on strike and go get all these other jobs -- maybe when they leave them, they'll give one of them to my 20-year-old at home, because he can't find work.
Mr Offer: On page 7, in the area of organizing, you say, "Make it equal, make it fair," and then you go on for couple of other lines. If you've been here during the day, you've heard some discussion that, in an organizing drive, we should give to employees the right to a secret ballot where, first, they are informed as to the drive going on and what it means to them, second, it is a short period of time and, third, they are then able to cast their votes, yes or no, as they see fit.
Everyone dickers a bit about the percentage. What would you say to an amendment to this legislation that would allow a secret, free, fully informed vote, but that the trigger point would not be 40% -- because there are a lot of problems that I think happen because of that -- but would be something less, something in the area of 20%? If 20% of the employees in any workforce say, "Yes, we think we might want to look at this issue of unionization," then it triggers a free, secret, informed vote. Would you be in favour of that?
Mr Campbell: I answer your question guardedly. I'll answer it in this fashion: The interesting way that a vote occurs is after the employee signs on the dotted line. That's a vote to be able to vote. There's been argument and I've heard from business people throughout the community that the labour unions would be just rushing into the workplace and organizing all of these groups. Labour unions don't go into workplaces unless they're asked.
Mr Offer: But it's not a vote to vote. If there's over 55%, a person may have signed it thinking it's a vote to vote, but in fact he finds out it's something else. That's why it triggers something lower, so that there isn't this --
Mr Campbell: If that's the case and you also want to put in the amendment that the trade union movement can walk into any company it wants without being invited and say, "We want to have a vote," then maybe your situation would warrant, but that isn't the situation. Trade unions are formed when workers request representation, and they proceed through the avenues to find a union that's in their -- I hate to use the word "jurisdiction," but the UFCW has food stores, the Steelworkers have mines etc.
The ramifications of what you're saying are interesting, but no one is suggesting the concept change that a group of employees request a union to come in and test the waters to see if a vote is required; the testing is still that little signed document, on the line. That's where everybody gets in trouble now, because when you sign on the line, three years later when you've been forced out of industry and try to get a hearing with the labour board and it doesn't happen -- my scenario about lawyers was explicitly put in that context to cover such an event. I don't think the issue here is what you're presenting. The fact is, can a group of workers, without fear of being chastised, request the establishment of a union within their workplace?
1950
Mr Villeneuve: I have a couple of short questions. Thank you for being here, Mr Campbell. I gather you've been able to settle the last two contracts without mediation and with some bargaining. Worst scenario: If indeed you were forced to go to arbitration, what would your feeling be about that?
Mr Campbell: To go to arbitration?
Mr Villeneuve: I gather the Steelworkers are some of the better-paid people in the area?
Mr Campbell: We're paid a fair wage for what we do, yes. We signed a collective agreement without a strike.
Mr Villeneuve: What do you feel going to arbitration would do to you if indeed it were forced on you?
Mr Campbell: I don't like the arbitration process. With the arbitration process, you're leaving the hands of 5,000 in the feeling of one. We have arbitration set up within our collective agreement. Arbitrators have been known to say: "It's your turn to win; I'll give you this one. I'll give the union the one thereafter." I have a lot of mistrust of the arbitration process.
Mr Villeneuve: I didn't have the opportunity of asking the representatives from Falconbridge here ahead of you, but they seem to be of the same opinion as you are. There is a great deal of apprehension when it comes to binding arbitration. I come from an area that's very economically depressed, such as this area is, and arbitration brought firefighters a 13.25% retroactive increase; the city of Cornwall is just wondering how it will be able to handle it.
Mr Campbell: I'm going to set you back a notch. As a trade unionist, the day has come and it has happened and it may happen again that a 13.5% increase might be detrimental to the workers. It may very well be the union stating that there are avenues of pension incentives to reduce the workforce and improvement in benefits rather than wages. I'm not suggesting that's going to be a bargaining position, but it is. To go to an arbitrator who might say, "Here, you got 20%," and say: "Hell, we weren't looking for 20%. We were looking for security to see that we have a job here 20 years from now."
Mr Villeneuve: It's refreshing to hear that.
Mr Campbell: Listen to labour throughout the province; you'll hear it quite a bit.
Mr Villeneuve: We heard a lot. Yes, we have. Thank you.
Mr Ward: Mr Campbell, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I think you're a fine spokesperson for Local 6500 of the Steelworkers, being president. We've had some discussion centred on the aspect of a secret ballot vote for certification. The critics of the idea of a secret ballot explained to us that it's very difficult to eliminate intimidation that could occur from an employer: putting a pro-union employee into a dirty job, firings, discipline, that it's very difficult to eliminate intimidation totally. Do you feel it's possible?
Mr Campbell: Totally? We're dealing with human beings, and I can't answer that. I like your idea of a vote on all these issues. Do you think you could get us one on the GST and the free trade agreement? I guess what I'm trying to say that we are all human beings and we run our particular shows in those fashions, and sometimes we make mistakes. Even trade unionists do, honest to God; not many, but once in a while.
What I'm suggesting is that if you put the playing field so that it's plain and simple and charismatic, there it is. "Don't candybutt around it. Here's what it takes, it takes this percentage and that's all that you're going to do. Now then, get off and negotiate your collective agreements. We're not going to let you ship your stuff off to Mexico and the United States and all the rest of the things that go with it."
I have great difficulty hearing the complaints. I have a lot of friends in this community. I sit on hospital boards. I am good friends with the president of the chamber of commerce. The lady is an impeccable person. I enjoy her. We argue about this constantly. But what bothers me the most is that they lead people to believe that we're going to have an exodus of people and business from this province. Hell, look around. They were long gone before you guys ever thought of this. I go through southern Ontario and it's amazing the factories that are closed and the shops that are going to. The labour legislation? Hell, the NDP getting elected was a fallacy two years before half of them closed.
Mr Ward: If I could focus on the issue of the replacement worker restrictions, when you look at Inco, if Local 6500 makes the decision to go on strike and withhold its labour, the membership, Inco shuts down. There's no use of replacement workers.
Mr Campbell: I think because of the nature of the industry.
Mr Ward: The critics of the replacement worker restrictions say that it will put too much power in the hands of the employees, that they'll all want to walk out on strike and make outrageous demands and force employers to capitulate to their demands. Yet you've had that power at Inco since its inception. Inco's still here. Local 6500 is still here. Without giving away any trade secrets, how do you approach bargaining? What factors play into your membership to stake out your bargaining position?
Mr Campbell: Without any trade secrets, I wish the entire industry and labour throughout the province would sit and open the books and find out where the industry you're negotiating with is. If there's reason for a fair and equitable collective agreement with 13 per cent increases in it, then by all means it should be provided.
But if you're in the position, which we all may be in very shortly, in which the industry is going to maybe falter in a world depression, not just a North American one, then the collective agreement should be negotiated on the basis of the ability of the employer to pay. There's not a union nor a group of employees that I know of or you can tell me of today that would go negotiate a $3-an-hour, across-the-board wage increase if they knew on Friday the plant would close and they'd all be out of work.
To suggest those things is utterly ludicrous and ridiculous. I suggest to you that Inco, after our eight-and-a-half-month strike in 1978, which was the most bitter, disheartening event that a group of workers and a company could go through, saw the light, that this didn't work, and sat down and opened the books. Now there are some people on your panel who don't want business to open its books to its employees, so you have to force it. There are businesses that feel that the employees don't have the smarts to really want the wellbeing of the company they work for, so you have to force it.
Ms Murdock: Thank you very much for coming, David. I appreciate it. As always, you did well. One of the things that is rarely mentioned by very many of the groups, either labour or management, is the involvement of themselves within the community. I know the Steelworkers in particular in this riding have been very active in terms of community things. I think everybody's seeing each other as a separate entity that has no other relationship to the rest of the community. I think it's important and I'd like you tell us what the Steelworkers have done.
Mr Campbell: What we've done?
Ms Murdock: What you're doing.
Mr Campbell: You gave me only a half-hour.
Ms Murdock: No, you don't even have that long. You have about a minute.
Mr Campbell: The cancer treatment centre in Sudbury probably is one thing we're very proud of. It probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the Ron MacDonalds and the John Gagnons. We're going to apply that same scenario of fighting you for the ethanol plant that we want to make damn sure that you don't turn down. We need that.
On record, we sit on the hospital boards. Their council doesn't make moves without including us and having us speak and make our presentations. I'm sure Dr Blanco, who is going to come up here when I'm finished, will have some arguments to the contrary, and tomorrow we will get into those discussions on the telephone. That's just the way we do business and that's fine, but there isn't a major event that takes place in this community that the Steelworkers aren't involved with, whether that be the establishment of a French college, whether that be the enlargement of Laurentian University or whether it be sitting on the board of Cambrian College.
We participate in all walks, and it's got to the point where this city doesn't make a move without us, not because they're afraid of us but because of the professionalism that accompanies our being on those boards and working with business. Slowly, slowly, maybe by the time I drop dead, the majority of business people in this town actually are very happy that some of us are around, unlike those who are putting up these billboards that just would make one sick.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Campbell, for being here this evening on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500. You've obviously provoked a whole lot of interest and response from the members of the committee. You've made a valuable contribution. You speak for a significant constituency here, and we're grateful to you and to your membership for your participation in this process. Take care.
Mr Campbell: Thank you.
2000
INCO LTD, ONTARIO DIVISION
The Chair: The next participant is Inco, Ontario division. People, place seat yourselves at a microphone and tell us your names and your titles, if any. We've got your written submission. We've got the submission made in January 1992. We've also got the executive summary, which is wonderfully concise and would permit a great deal of discussion which, as you can see, is oftentimes the more valuable part of this process because everybody is going to read the full submission. Go ahead, gentlemen.
Mr Don Sheehan: I'm Don Sheehan, manager of employee relations in our Sudbury operations.
Dr Jose Blanco: I'm Jose Blanco. I am the vice-president of human resources and administration in the Ontario division.
First of all, I thank you for inviting us to address your committee. We did, as my colleague Dave Campbell indicated, make a submission in January. I appeared before the Minister of Labour to present our case. The transition from the proposal to the tabled legislation indicates that some of the issues that we raised were addressed; however, a whole host of new issues has also come forward.
We have based our submission, as our summary indicates, on the premise that the present government will pass amendments to the Labour Relations Act which intend to shift the balance of power towards unions.
After I listened to Dave Campbell, I thought it would be appropriate to indicate that he explained in very eloquent terms and over an extended period of time the significance of what he called a level playing field, which he twice indicated we had been working with. The comments, the suggestions and the recommendations that we are putting forward, we put forward in a positive spirit. We want to be constructive, and those are directed at maintaining a practical and workable balance of power, a level field, between management and labour.
We want to reduce the potential increased confrontation between companies and unions. Again, it is important to remember, in the same context, that we are a mature industry, that we are anchored by our mines and smelters and that a move to Mexico is certainly not in the cards for us.
We are interested in reducing the potential damage to companies' competitive positions. We want to reduce the negative repercussions that can arise from actions taken by a labour board that has been granted very large powers. As well, we want to preserve something that you've heard over the last half-hour and that has much to do with the democratic system of collective bargaining that we have arrived at over the last, I guess, three contracts; it will be 12 years.
Inco has carried out a close reading of the tabled amendments. We have delved at length into the practical and the legal workings of the proposals, and we are distressed. We're distressed about the possibility that the amendments now before the House may be passed in their present form and they may tilt what has already been described as the level playing field.
We believe that our submission provides concrete suggestions for improving the workability and the acceptability of the act. We recommend a number of changes to the legislation. The details and the reasons for those changes are contained in our submission. I propose to give you a brief summary of highlights and reserve the time for discussion.
We believe that the purpose of "improvement" should be deleted from the purpose clause. Collective bargaining will be put at risk by creating a legally enforceable presumption that negotiation means improvement in terms and conditions of employment. That need not be the case.
The principles of workplace cooperation and participation, which are the cornerstone of our, we hope, very long term survival in this region, should be encouraged by the Ministry of Labour, but we do not believe that they can be legislated.
The purpose clause, in modified form, should be placed in the preamble to the act and should not be broadly enforceable as a provision.
In terms of replacement workers, the act should clearly provide that an employer can use both outside contractors and persons at its other facilities to perform bargaining unit work during a strike at locations away from the struck operation. The act should not provide that management and employees can refuse to perform bargaining unit work during a strike, and the use of striking employees as replacement workers, if requested by the union, should be changed to permissive from mandatory.
As you will see from the submission, we have various locals of the United Steelworkers, in Port Colborne, in Shebandowan, the largest one, Local 6500; we have the OCT, office, clerical and technical, which is a recently formed union, and Inco -- not the Ontario division, distinct from that one -- has CMS, Continuous Mining Systems.
In combining bargaining units, we believe that the act should allow combination of bargaining units at the same geographic location only in cases where there is a common employer, the work is the same and the employees have the same community of interest. The act should allow combination of bargaining units in separate geographic locations only in cases where there is a common employer, the work is the same, the employees have the same community of interest, the different locations are in the same municipal region for technical reasons, and the board is satisfied that there are no economic or competitive reasons why the parties would not have bargained the same collective agreement at both locations.
We have normally dealt with both 6200, Port Colborne, and 6500, our local union in Sudbury. They do have the same employer but different areas and different requirements. We believe that to not recognize that would interfere with the proper functioning of the cooperative spirit we believe is essential.
The act should allow combination of bargaining units only if a majority of employees in each unit have signified approval by way of secret ballot.
In terms of security guards, the act should define security guards as persons who protect the property of an employer and should provide that the same union cannot represent both security guards and other employees working at the same location.
We have also proposed changes to the sections of the legislation dealing with picketing and the reinstatement of workers following a strike. The details of our reasoning are discussed in our submission.
We believe that this submission provides concrete suggestions for improving the workability and acceptability of the revised act. Now we will welcome your questions.
2010
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation. I think you make some very apropos suggestions here. Whether the government sees fit --
During a strike, legal or otherwise, should the plant be able to continue with outside workers? Could you comment on that, please?
Dr Blanco: I have not understood the first part of your statement. Consequently I would be very careful before I answer. Would you mind restating it?
Mr Villeneuve: If indeed we have a situation where there is a lockout of employees at the plant, it was suggested then that the plant not be allowed to proceed with operation with outside workers. But if it was a strike, legal or otherwise, then the plant should be allowed to continue with outside workers.
Dr Blanco: I should reply to that with some caution. The specific issue we have focused on is our own. We believe we are representative of large industries, well-established and mature industries, not very mobile. If our production workers were not available, it is not in the cards that we would be operating. I believe that was stated earlier by David Campbell. There is the associated risk with operating either mining or smelting without the appropriate skills. It is a question, therefore, that I cannot see applying to us.
Mr Villeneuve: So in your case you're saying you feel the playing field is quite level now and Bill 40, because of the particular danger within your operation, will slant it very much towards the union. Do I hear you right?
Dr Blanco: Yes. I believe the playing field is essentially level now and we would like to protect it the way it is or minimize the risk of changing it in ways that might provide us all with negative results.
Mr Villeneuve: Because certainly not anyone off the street can go and operate at the Inco plant. I can appreciate that. Thank you for your suggestions; they're quite good.
Mr Hayes: Thank you, Dr Blanco, for your presentation. I notice in your submission, on page 26 you say, "The legislation should not take away the existing fundamental right of a member of a striking bargaining unit to refuse to engage in the strike and come to work." Then you say we should "remove the provision giving non-striking employees the right to refuse to do bargaining unit work during a strike."
We've heard this from other groups, especially the chambers of commerce, that workers should have the choice to stay on the job or go in to work, not participate in the picket line or strike; that they should have the choice to do that during a legal strike. Obviously you agree with that or you wouldn't have it in your presentation.
I have a question. After a vote is taken to accept an agreement, and if it is a very close vote, where it's 55% in favour and 45% opposed, it's very close, and there are a lot of questions, a lot of unhappy workers, do you feel those same workers in the lower number should have the right to choose to stay out on strike?
Dr Blanco: I believe that right should not be removed. I believe the situation should be acted upon on its own merits. But with respect to page 26, the recommendation we make has to do with the non-striking employees, not employees who may have been on strike.
Mr Hayes: You're saying that if there's a strike, those employees didn't go out with the rest of the people in their bargaining unit.
Dr Blanco: For example, if the production workers decided to go on strike, we still have to sustain the downturn of the operation; we have to close the system.
Mr Hayes: Do you feel this legislation would change that? To my knowledge, it wouldn't. You have those in a lot of collective agreements now.
Dr Blanco: There is in fact a statement that would suggest to us, could be interpreted, as precisely removing that right. Perhaps we have misread the particulars, but we express the concern because that's the way we interpreted it.
Mr Hayes: That would come under the part where someone's health and safety would be in danger, I believe, and it would allow that to happen.
Dr Blanco: It is on page 25 in the fourth paragraph. It has to do with the legal definition of the word "person." Perhaps our interpretation is not quite complete, but we have reason to be concerned that it could be so.
Ms Murdock: That certainly is not the intent of that section. In fact, in your operation in particular -- each operation in each industry sector is different, we realize. But as was pointed out before, I think by Falconbridge, the smelter operation obviously can't get cold. It's a very dangerous situation, so you'd be able to get exempted under section 73.2. I think it's that section; this is relying on memory, but I think under that section. We'll check that and I'll make sure you find out, Dr Blanco. I want to thank you.
Anyway, my question is on the summary, the first part on replacement workers, and also on number 4, security guards. First just a clarification on the first part under replacement workers, and depending on your answer, it will determine what my question is. When I read, "an employer can use both outside contractors and persons at its other facilities to perform bargaining unit work during a strike at locations away from the struck operation," I'm reading that as outside contractors and persons who work at another site outside during a strike.
Dr Blanco: Right.
Ms Murdock: Then I interpreted it correctly. Right now Bill 40 does not prevent that from happening, so that is done; it's not one of your problems.
Dr Blanco: You mean as it is worded right now?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Dr Blanco: I would have to go to the details within the submission, but the reason we have worded these issues as we have is because they raise concerns with us that we thought we should share with you.
Ms Murdock: Actually, the reverse or the corollary of that very point has been raised by the labour side, that they don't like that aspect of being able to use outside contractors or move your work to another location and use people on another site. We'll doublecheck that.
The other thing is on security guards. I don't know if you're aware that in every other jurisdiction and in every province of Canada, federally as well, security guards are allowed to join a union of their choice, not restricted to security guards alone. I believe in one of the eastern provinces, if an employer feels there is a conflict of interest he can appeal to the board and there's an expedited process to determine whether or not there is a conflict. But in all other jurisdictions that exists, so I'm just wondering why it is that you see a real problem there.
2020
Dr Blanco: There are a couple of reasons. One of them is a redefinition. There is a shift in the definition of "security guard" in the act from "a person who protects the property of the employer" to one who "monitors" other employees. As I understand it, the legislation does not recognize monitoring other employees as automatically giving rise to a conflict of interest; therefore, there would be potentially a significant question should the particular circumstances get us into that position. So it matters that those definitions be as clear as possible.
Remember, from the beginning we have stated that what we want to do is make sure we minimize the opportunity for things to go wrong. We believe we have a level playing field that we have worked very hard at developing jointly with the Steelworkers. Our collective bargaining agreements represent the outcome of detailed discussions, they are basically democratic and reasonable, and we are concerned. In fact, when we look at it in the overall scope, we are distressed that the field could be tilted.
The Acting Chair: Ms Murdock, one short question.
Ms Murdock: I just wanted to give you the opportunity to tell all the things you've done in this community too, as has been presented by both Dave Campbell and yourself, Dr Blanco. Inco has been extremely important in this city. I remember well the days of Mayor Joe Fabbro, when Inco was the only job in town, basically. Things have changed, but your presence is still quite high and your involvement in the community is also very important. I know you and Steel work together on a lot of different things.
Dr Blanco: We do, as a matter of fact.
Ms Murdock: I mean other than work.
Dr Blanco: Yes, not only at work but outside. We do serve the community in many ways and we are present, much as they are, everywhere. I think it's fair to say we are a significant contributor to the fabric of this community, jointly with the Steelworkers.
Ms Murdock: I just hope the price of nickel goes up.
Dr Blanco: So do we.
Ms Murdock: Then the definition of "ore" will change accordingly. Thank you.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. As I've been listening to the questions and answers, I've also been going through your more in-depth brief. I want to congratulate you, because it highlights some of the concerns you have, but not only that, it doesn't stop there: It provides us with some concrete, positive suggestions as to how those concerns may be addressed. So I want to thank you for that.
I'm running all over the place with this, because there are so many questions to ask and such a time to do so.
I want to talk to you about the purpose clause. We haven't really discussed that too often in the committee today, but I think it's a very important aspect of the legislation. When I first got involved here, somebody said to me that the worst thing you can do in any legislation is read provisions singularly, that they all have to be combined with one another to get their true impact. That was very good advice given to me at a very early point in time.
I want to talk to you about that part of the purpose clause which I find, for myself, very unsettling. It's unsettling to me because I think it flies in the face of collective bargaining. That's my opinion, and we might be debating that later on in the day; I have no doubt we will.
This purpose clause flies in the face of good collective bargaining between union and management, that is, that part which says one of the purposes of the act is for "improving" terms and conditions of employment. Of course, that takes out of the fray the realities of the day, where there may be same cases -- and we just heard that in the past presentation. I think the gentleman said we should be listening to some other labour representatives saying: "Wait, we can't ask for that amount of money. There have been changes in the workforce, there have been changes in areas." However, I don't know that they can do that now, because they're going to be mandated that every agreement is going to have to somehow encompass improving terms and conditions. I'm wondering if you can share with us your thoughts as to what that means to your company.
Dr Blanco: I think you have expressed it better than I could have. The notion that a settlement can only be arrived at if there is an improvement is not one we feel comfortable with. First of all, it is very difficult to define "improvement." It would be almost impossible to come to agreement as to what it means. The balance should be on the basis of the reality within which both groups have to settle. The relevant factors have to be defined very specifically in terms of the specific circumstances. To do otherwise, to create the presumption that it is possible or inevitable to arrive at improvement, would merely open, I believe, like yourself, a door to non-settlement, great difficulty and a large misunderstanding.
We're very concerned about having that as part of the act, not necessarily the complete preamble but specifics of that preamble, particularly because it is included in the act, not a preamble to the act. We need the right environment for a collective bargaining agreement to succeed.
Mr Offer: I think I just have time for a few more questions.
Interjection.
Mr Offer: A question. I heard the Chair.
I think there was some discussion between you and Ms Murdock, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, in the area of replacement workers. I may have just not heard it correctly, but I think one of the areas you were talking about was the process in the replacement worker provision for exemption in order to be able to hire other individuals, if that be the case. I'm wondering if you can expand upon that.
I'm sorry for the question I asked. I know it was rambling, and that's being charitable for me.
Dr Blanco: The question is appropriate.
Mr Offer: But I'll tell you why, because there is, of course, that provision where there's the permitted use of specified replacement workers. One of the concerns I have had, if not from day one certainly from day two, is that there's no process in this legislation as to how it kicks in. There is absolutely no process as to request and time-limited framework for response, and I think this has to really be sharpened up. It just doesn't provide any process. In fact, I must say I think we've heard that same concern from CUPE also.
Dr Blanco: On a fundamental basis, we of course would oppose any legislation that has the effect of unduly restricting the right of a company to operate beyond the current provisions, but we have taken a look at the legislation from the point of view of how it would affect us. We have taken the pragmatic approach that if we can explain to you what it would do to a well-established union and company in the middle of Ontario after many years, perhaps our arguments would be more relevant than if we attempted to provide you with a very general case. I know it still leaves you with some problems, but let me quote from our first presentation with regard to replacement workers:
"It is important that there be no doubt about Inco's position with respect to operating during a strike. In the event of a strike by members of Local 6500 of the United Steelworkers, the company will, as in the past, stop normal operations."
Consequently the requirement for a complex definition for us in those very specific terms does not appear; however, from the point of view of legal principle, we have concerns.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to both of you for appearing here on behalf of Inco and contributing to this process. Your participation has been welcome and is obviously an important part of this committee's work, so we are grateful to you and to Inco as a company. Thank you, sir.
The next participant is the Porcupine and District Labour Council, which may be delayed by a few minutes. Is there any committee business, any issues by committee members? We'll recess until 20 minutes to 9.
The committee recessed at 2032.
2040
The Chair: It's 8:40. The Porcupine and District Labour Council was scheduled to make a presentation at 8:30. There's no indication that they're here. The clerk has looked for them, and he's not received any word that they'd be coming.
I want to say thank you to the committee members for their cooperation during the course of today, and of course to the staff people who help make this committee work as well as it does. On my left is Avrum Fenson, who's one of the two research officers assigned to us. On my extreme right is Pat Girouard, who works with Hansard. To her left is David Augustyn from Thorold, more specifically Port Robinson Road. He's a student at the University of Waterloo doing his co-op with the Clerk's office. Todd Decker is the clerk of the committee, and the interpreters are Sylvie Soth, Daphne Beauroy and Delia Roy Ibarra. The people who work in the electronics are Dimitrios Petselis and John Palmer, and Miss Peggy Mongean has single-handedly provided us with coffee and serviced us here on behalf of the Northbury Hotel. I say to all of you, thank you. Thank you, Ms Murdock, and extend our appreciation to Sudbury for its hospitality, and thank you to those people who expressed an interest in the committee and its process and who remained throughout the day to watch the committee doing its work.
Subject to anybody raising any issues, we are adjourned till tomorrow afternoon in Ottawa. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 2042.