CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 503
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
OTTAWA CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION
OTTAWA-CARLETON HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
BELLEVILLE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TRENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CONCRETE PRECASTERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 26 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Canadian Guards Association
Stuart Deans, president
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 503
David J. Jewitt, counsel
Foster Griezic
Nepean Chamber of Commerce
Buck Arnold, executive director
Robert Allan, board member
Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton
Jim Zamprelli, executive director
Ottawa Construction Association
Stephen Sulpher, executive director
Dan Greco, director of labour relations
Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' Association
Robert Sanscartier, president-elect
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Jim Reid, special representative
Women's Place
Patricia Petrala, past-president and board member
Sheela Biman, volunteer; coordinator, Multicultural Council of Professional Women
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
Barry Baily, eastern regional director, UFCW local 175
Tim Catherwood, special assistant to the Canadian director
Quinte Labour Council
Doug Sword, president
Barbara Dolan, vice-president, Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada, Local 30
Rick Rose, president and chairperson, CAW Canada, Local 1530
Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce
Brad Aulthouse, president
Deryk McGrath, member
Trenton Chamber of Commerce
Paul Tripp, member
Unemployment Help Centre
Theresa Houston, director
Bruce Campbell, assistant to the director
Vince Maloney
Concrete Precasters Association of Ontario
Glenn Caverly, general manager
Jeff Bradfield, vice-president and general manager, Anchor Concrete Products Ltd
Brian Best, president, Planes Precast Concrete Ltd
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:
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Conway
*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L) for Mr Conway
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Wood
*Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mr Jordan
*Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr Jordan
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Îles ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North / -Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 in the Ottawa Hilton, Ottawa.
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.
CANADIAN GUARDS ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 o'clock and we're going to begin. The first participant is the Canadian Guards Association. Sir, you've got written submissions that have been distributed that will form part of the record. Please tell us your name and your title and go ahead with what you want to say. Please try to leave the last half of the half-hour for exchanges and questions.
Mr Stuart Deans: My name is Stuart Deans. I'm president of the independent union, Canadian Guards Association, which represents exclusively security guards in Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Sudbury. Our union today recognizes the urgency for labour law reform, and we commend this government for its foresight and wisdom in bringing labour relations into the 1990s through Bill 40. I will address my comments squarely on the issue of security guards, as this committee has heard from and will continue to hear from more eloquent speakers than I in regard to the remaining content of Bill 40.
The amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act contained in Bill 40 clearly focus on the issue of conflict of interest while carefully considering the needs and desires of the tens of thousands of security guards in Ontario.
It does not surprise me that there are organizations and perhaps even another guards-only union which have appeared or will appear before this committee condemning the repeal of section 12. As you have already repeatedly heard, section 12 is unique as a statutory prohibition for guards in Canada. It would be impossible for the Canadian Guards Association to go into any other jurisdiction in Canada and seek to represent non-guards. Should the Canadian Guards Association wish to participate more fully in the labour movement of Canada or wish to enlarge its membership and diversify in its representation of workers in this country, it is restricted by a provincial statute. There is no question that section 12 is extraterritorial in intent, and one can only assume that the lawmakers of the day did not fully appreciate, understand or have all the facts relevant to the security guard industry before them.
Section 12 continues today to offend the security guards of this province. When security guards in Ottawa need only look across the river into Quebec to see the substantial differences in wages, benefits and working conditions that organized guards with the United Steelworkers of America are receiving, it becomes glaringly obvious that the need for change is immense.
Security guards in Ontario are among the working poor. Earning usually minimum wage with little or no benefits at all and working long hours in sometimes desperate working conditions just to make ends meet, it is of little comfort to guards to hear that various organizations, unions and political parties purport to know what is good for guards, and that by maintaining the status quo these groups are protecting guards from a conflict of interest. The fact of the matter is, security guards are quite capable of making informed decisions regarding their respective employment relationships, and the state need not protect them.
Section 12 has an established history of preventing security guards from participating actively in the labour movement and achieving their common goals of improving wages, benefits and working conditions and establishing decent levels of standards and training. It is long overdue that security guards in this province receive those same rights and privileges enjoyed elsewhere in Canada. It's time to restore the dignity and personal integrity which this statute has deprived them of for decades.
In March 1963, just six days before I was born, the then president of the Canadian Guards Association wrote the Minister of Labour complaining about the effect of legislative prohibitions placed on security guards. I'll read certain portions of the letter, which is contained in the draft. It was to the Honourable H. L. Rowntree, Minister of Labour:
"Dear Sir:
"It is my considered opinion that article 9" -- now section 12 -- "of the Ontario Labour Relations Act restricts and discriminates against security guards, while other articles of the act fail to properly provide protection and equitable treatment of them by employers...."
Then on the next page: "I wish to draw your attention to the unfortunate situation now confronting guards who, in the employ of Barnes Investigation Bureau Ltd, and providing protection to the plant and installations of Regent Refineries Ltd, are now faced by unemployment. It seems Regent Refineries Ltd cancelled its contract with Barnes Investigation Bureau Ltd, only because the guards had organized. It is lamentable that the Ontario Labour Relations Act does not protect these men under these conditions....
"It would seem that employers such as Regent Refineries, the Barnes Investigation Bureau and the Pinkerton protection agency are exploiting weaknesses in the Ontario Labour Relations Act to further their own ends at the expense of lawfully organized workers and in defiance of the purpose of the Ontario Department of Labour.
"If I may diverge for a moment to refresh your memory, certification was granted to the guards employed by Barnes and working at Regent on March 8, 1963. On March 11, 1963, these guards were notified by Regent that `they were finished by the weekend.' On March 17, 1963, the Pinkerton agency began supplying the guards at Regent....
"We at the Canadian Guards Association are sure that you, Mr Minister, will be of sympathetic interest in this situation. If you wish further information, I will be pleased to supply same....
"Yours truly,
"Gordon Simpson, President
"The Canadian Guards Association"
Again in the early 1970s section 12 was the subject of debate in the Legislature, and the NDP MPP for Windsor West, Mr Hugh Peacock, was quoted as saying in response to Bill 167, an Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act:
"The fact is that one essential thing he is denying to such a union, which will have to exist on its own, without benefit of support by any other class of employees except guards, is the research facilities of a central labour organization.
"The second thing he is denying them is representation on such matters as workmen's compensation and unemployment insurance, because it is just not possible, I suggest to the minister, for a union based on such a narrow membership structure as security guards, who are notoriously underpaid, to provide for themselves all the various kinds of services that central labour bodies now provide for their smaller affiliates.
"And his proposition that plant guards somehow have a particular responsibility to their employer, above and beyond what other employees have to their employers in a normal industrial establishment, just does not wash. It certainly is not a responsibility that extends beyond the employer-employee relationship to this act, but that is what the minister is saying. He is saying that the responsibilities of a security guard, in carrying out his assignments as an employee, are much greater, and because they are much greater, they are therefore going to be nailed down by the wording of this clause.
"I say to the minister that the responsibility of such an employee as a security guard is no more and no less than it is in any other class of employees. If he does not fulfil his assignment to the satisfaction of his employer, his employer then has reasonable cause to dismiss him or take other disciplinary measures. There should be no other way of treating a security guard distinctly from the kind of employer-employee relationship that exists between any other group of employees."
By the mid-1980s, my union had resigned itself to toiling at arm's length from the labour movement, completely alone and legislatively ostracized. With the assistance of the Canadian Labour Congress and in particular the USWA, the Canadian Guards Association rekindled its passion to overcome the statutory prohibitions of section 12 with the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As you have already heard from the director of District 6, USWA, Mr Henry Hynd, a lengthy constitutional challenge to section 12 before the Ontario Labour Relations Board was unsuccessful, and applications for certification affecting some 5,000 security guards were outright dismissed.
Despite the labour board's decision, the resolve of security guards to join the union of their choice remains unfettered. As much as lawyers, academics and courts relish the opportunity to study, interpret and argue technical points of law such as section 12, it is incumbent on politicians to ensure that antiquated pieces of legislation like section 12 go the way of the dinosaurs where, as a practical matter, there is no substantive reasoning for maintaining the status quo.
A security guard employed to protect persons and property of an employer has a definite role to play in the core operations of that employer, but clearly a guard would not blatantly disregard his or her duties in consideration of his or her fraternal relationship to any other employees. To suggest anything of the sort is overtly irresponsible and without foundation. The very nature of a security guard's job cannot be said to magically import a substantive conflict of interest requiring the legislative redress afforded by section 12. If this in fact were the case, then surely many, if not all, other jurisdictions in Canada would have adopted a like or similar approach to security guards in their respective statutes.
Mr Hugh Peacock, OLRB member, in his dissent on our constitutional challenge, I think sums up the plight of security guards very well:
"Section 12 is not a neutral provision. Its purpose is not just to deny certification to certain trade unions -- so-called mixed unions -- which is a regulatory function, but to render futile the desire of workers who are guards to associate themselves with other workers for their economic wellbeing and broad democratic and social goals.
"It is a purposive, direct infringement, a direct breach of section 2(d) of the charter. Its purpose is not to deny certification. That is the regulatory sanction of the section. Its purpose is to prevent association, whether by membership affiliation or integration, of associations of guards with associations of other employees. Section 12 aims to keep guards apart from other workers; not just in separate bargaining units, a consideration clearly related to collective bargaining, but in all aspects of occupational and extra workplace associations that trade unions engage in -- municipal, provincial, national, international, sectoral -- wherever organizations which include other kinds of workers meet."
This government has clearly spent considerable time evaluating the impact of section 12 from all avenues and has without question introduced legislation which answers the concerns of everyone, especially in regard to the question of conflict of interest.
It is my fervent belief that these amendments will facilitate a greater understanding of workers' issues and serve as as an instrument for greater tolerance between guards and other workers. The honouring of respective collective agreements during labour disputes involving only one bargaining unit or several is not a novel concept. During a labour dispute or strike where guards are in a separate bargaining unit, since it was established that there was a potential conflict of interest, it seems completely reasonable that guards will continue to perform their duties or risk being disciplined accordingly.
1010
In closing, there currently exists no real choice for security guards in the province of Ontario for strong trade union representation. The Canadian Guards Association attempted to provide its membership with improved service through its relationship with the United Steelworkers of America. The Canadian Guards Association arrived at this decision simply because it could not reach a size to properly service its own members. It is vastly too expensive for us to obtain the services of professionals in the industry of labour relations, especially lawyers.
A decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in 1988 surrounding the service contract between the Canadian Guards Association and the Steelworkers found the two organizations to be affiliated under section 12, either directly or indirectly, and as a result the Canadian Guards Association was in jeopardy of not being able to represent its existing membership, nor could it continue on any organizing of security guards.
The Canadian Guards Association has a group of security guards in Sudbury who are employed by Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. This, as of today, is a group of 125 guards who have not seen a renewal of their collective agreement since 1987. The reason for this was that after the decision of the board in 1988, when it was time to renew the collective agreement, Pinkerton's of Canada refused to bargain with the Canadian Guards Association and, in support of its position, quoted section 12.
Although we were successful in negotiating with employers of the other CGA bargaining units, Pinkerton's was not as cooperative and maintained its position under section 12. There are 125 employees in Sudbury who are anxiously awaiting labour law reform. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer, five and a half minutes, please.
There's French-language translation taking place, and the little receivers and the phones are available on your right.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you very much, Mr Deans, for this submission. I have a few questions. The first is: As you've probably indicated in your presentation, others have come before us; unions that have been representative of security guards have stated the other side of the case, saying that there is an inherent conflict of interest and that the section 12 now within the legislation should not be changed. In fairness, they said they support all the other provisions under the bill, but not that.
I am wondering, firstly, whether you can help us out in coming to grips with this clear difference of opinion between unions that are representing security guards.
My second question: Section 12 of the Labour Relations Act speaks to a guard protecting the property of an employer. Bill 40 speaks to a guard basically looking at the protection, against employees, of an employer -- to me there's a significant difference in the job characterization -- and whether you see this as a difficulty, whether this is something that has been changed. Is there a difference between a guard who protects property and a guard who is really there to monitor employees?
Mr Deans: First, in response to your second question: The fundamental nature of a security guard's role is the protection of persons and property. The amendments to the act, as I understand them, address the issue of monitoring other employees. That is a function which is working to address the conflict of interest in a particular work setting. The common element for security guards in all cases is going to be the protection of property. I think what the act is now trying to do is to address the situation of the monitoring of other employees and where that may give rise to a conflict of interest. The act, then, I think, is affording proper redress in those circumstances by allowing the board to place that group in a separate bargaining unit.
United Plant Guard Workers of America's position and the position of the Canadian Guards Association, I think, are more directly related to the long-term outlook of that union. That union has in the past and continues today to take a position very different from ours. Ours has been a position that's been ongoing for the last 30 years, as you've seen in my document. The Canadian Guards Association has always been of the view that these are restrictive prohibitions that should not exist. I can't explain why the United Plant Guard Workers of America would take a position contrary, other than I feel that it's for their own self-serving interests.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much, Mr Deans. I think Mr Offer has certainly made mention of the fact that we've heard some conflicting opinion as to whether or not section 12 should be altered.
I guess I'd like you to tell me briefly, because there certainly has been a tremendous amount of concern expressed by employers who have appeared before us about the potential conflict of interest if you were to be in the same bargaining unit as the employees: How do you see that not being a problem?
Mr Deans: I wouldn't say it's not going to be a problem. I do think that the way the amendments are proposed -- that is, to allow the parties to make representations with respect to a conflict of interest in an application for certification before the board -- the board will then be in a position to be able to determine that there may arise a conflict of interest. In those circumstances the board would be empowered to place that group of employees, who are clearly monitoring other employees of a common employer, in a separate bargaining unit.
I think what is at issue here really is the choice of bargaining agent. That's the real, substantive issue before the committee. The choice for security guards for strong trade union representation, I think, should be maintained. I think the guards should have the ability to choose their trade union to represent them. They have an employee-employer relationship that I think the act or the amendments to the act are addressing quite properly in the monitoring of other employees. If the board determines that they ought to be placed in a separate bargaining unit, then the board will be empowered to do that.
Mrs Witmer: So what bargaining agent would the Canadian Guards Association like to represent it?
Mr Deans: The direction that the Canadian Guards Association has made in terms of direct representation has been towards the United Steelworkers of America, but that is a choice that cannot be made until the amendments to the act are passed or not passed. But I can say that historically in the last five years we have developed a long-standing relationship with the Steelworkers and that is the direction in which we are heading.
The ultimate choice of bargaining agent representation for our locals is vested through a constitution with the locals. They will ultimately choose their own bargaining agent. They may elect to remain the Canadian Guards Association; they may elect to join any other union; they may elect to join the Steelworkers.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd just like to ask one question. If you were both represented by the same bargaining agent in a particular employee-employer situation and there was a strike -- security guards are basically on the opposite end than the employer -- do you think the employer would be stretching it to say that he was concerned about whether or not his property was being properly secured?
Mr Deans: I think he would be, simply because as a practical matter security guards are employed to do a very specific function. Clearly, the management of a company that employs both has, through its own collective agreements, the right to discipline employees.
1020
Mr Sterling: We in politics are continually concerned about putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. Isn't that sort of what you're suggesting?
Mr Deans: I don't understand how that analogy can be made, the fox in charge of the hen-house. An employee has a particular responsibility and a particular loyalty to his employer, no different than an office unit and a production unit.
Mr Sterling: But those loyalties break down during the period of a strike, as you know. There are very hard feelings in some cases.
Mr Deans: Perhaps that may be. That's a relationship that gets developed or not developed depending on the particular situation or particular strike. When an office unit goes on strike and the production workers have their own collective agreement, they must honour their collective agreement and they must report to work or they will suffer the same disciplinary measures. Security guards will be going out and they will be doing the same role.
In that situation where they are in separate bargaining units, they would have to report to work. They would have to perform their duties the same as they would do in any other circumstance. Failing that, they're risking their own economic wellbeing, their own ability to pay their mortgage and their car payments etc.
Mr Sterling: Yes, but that argument can be made for any worker within a strike situation. If the legislation goes that way, would you support the inclusion of the right of the employer to have replacement workers for the purposes of securing the property of the employer? In other words, if this government decides you can't have replacement workers -- let's assume that's passed -- would you support the inclusion of a clause which would allow replacement workers for the securing of the property of the employer during a strike if the employer chose to do so, if the security guards were part of the same bargaining unit?
Mr Deans: If I understand your question correctly, the guards would be covered by the same collective agreement as the striking workers. Is this what you're suggesting?
Mr Sterling: Yes.
Mr Deans: And they would be on strike with the rest. This government has put forth anti-scab legislation, which I feel is appropriate. If guards were included in that unit, then I would feel that the act as it would read should apply no differently. I find it offensive that legislation would somehow segregate or treat differently security guards.
Mr Sterling: You are being treated differently.
Mr Deans: Pardon me?
Mr Sterling: There is recognition in this legislation that you are different.
Mr Deans: Correct. I think in those terms the proposed amendments properly and squarely address that issue. They address it in terms of an ability for the board to separate and not to allow that circumstance to occur by having guards placed in separate bargaining units. I don't think the fraternal relationship between the same bargaining agent is going to import some form of blatant disregard for the employee's primary responsibility to his or her family -- that is, to maintain his or her employment relationship and be able to bring home a paycheque.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much, Mr Deans, for an excellent presentation that you've brought forward. I notice that on the second-last page you said it's your fervent belief that this legislation will bring a better understanding between workers' issues and "serve as an instrument for greater tolerance between guards and other workers." It's an interesting quotation that you've brought forward.
One of the questions I wanted to ask you was, are you aware that in some of the other provinces guards can belong to the union of their choice?
Mr Deans: I am aware that this is the only province in Canada that has a restricted provision. There's no question about that.
Mr Wood: Ontario is the only province.
Mr Deans: That's right.
Mr Wood: In the city of Ottawa, where we are right now, I'm just wondering what knowledge you might have about the federally employed guards and how the system works. Perhaps you can just bring me up to date a little bit on how that works with federally employed guards.
Mr Deans: Federally employed guards are quite capable of being represented by any trade union. The Canada Labour Code does not allow for a distinction to be made. They can be placed in the same bargaining unit with other workers; they can be placed in separate bargaining units. The fact is that guards in the federal sector in Ottawa here, where there's a substantive number of federal buildings etc -- that work is doled out, in many areas, to corps commissionaires, to contract agencies and, in a lot of cases, to security guards who are employed directly by the federal government.
In that situation, in particular the museums here in Ottawa, the guards are represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and they are covered by the Public Service Alliance of Canada collective agreement, which covers not only guards but the rest of the workers under that collective agreement as well.
Mr Wood: I find it interesting that your union has been trying very hard, going back 30 years, to get the attention of the governments and this is the first time that people have listened to the concerns have recommended action, with Bill 40 being brought forward.
We've had some discussion over the four weeks we've been in hearings on the balance of power and the level playing field the workers have compared to the employers' rights. The legislation is really designed for domestic security guards, part-timers, women in low-level service jobs. In your opinion, would this group of people which this legislation is intended to give a voice to conspire to put their employers out of business just by having the right to join a union?
Mr Deans: Definitely not. With people working in the low-wage sectors, people working in the service industry, there certainly would be no conspiring to put anybody out of work. The service industry is a growing, fast-paced industry with a high level of turnover.
What the workers are looking for, I believe, is no different from what workers were looking for 30 or 40 years ago, and that is the right to be represented, the right to collective bargaining, the right to have some established standards, to have a collective agreement put in place to help them in their own work lives and in terms of their social lives to be able to plan ahead in order to make major purchases or whatever. They are looking for the representation, and this is the first time this group of workers has really been well looked after.
Mr Wood: The question of replacement workers has been raised. I'm going to be brief, because I know Mr Bisson has a question. I personally go back about the same number of years your union has been trying to get legislation of this kind brought in. In my case, it involves death on the picket line as a result of replacement workers in my riding. I'm pleased to see you've brought this; it relates incidents that have happened to me personally and to some of the workers in my riding over the last 30 years, so thank you very much.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to roll both of my questions into one, because I know there's not a lot of time. I'm interested in the line of questioning Mr Sterling raised. There's somewhat an assumption, because I've heard this argument before, that somehow if security guards are organized, are they in a conflict position when it comes to responsibility to the employer?
To give a bit of background, in one of my former jobs I worked for the gold mines up in Timmins. Security guards as such obviously were not organized, but what we called gatepeople were, who for all practical purposes were security guards. I know of many people who were caught, people from within our own bargaining units. I say that with a little levity, but my sense is that employees take their responsibility seriously.
When somebody raises that concern, how does that make you feel? You're a professional person, and the sense is you're a security guard, I take it?
1030
Mr Deans: I find it offensive that somehow guards will conduct themselves differently given a labour dispute. People working in the guard industry are people who are there by choice, people who are working in the law enforcement field and understand clearly what their jobs and responsibilities are in that capacity. Joining a union to represent their working issues is not going to change the people in the industry. It's not going to make them change their loyalty with respect to their trade union brothers and sisters. They're still employed to do a job and they're going to continue to do that job.
I think my statement that Mr Wood was addressing was that it will help on picket lines. It's going to help, when guards become more active in the labour movement, to truly understand what the concerns of the workers are and vice versa. The workers are going to then understand what the roles and responsibilities of the security guards are going to be. Given a labour dispute, on a picket line there's going to be much more tolerance, given what the security guards' role and functions are, between the workers and the guards. That's going to go two ways.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr Deans, for appearing here today on behalf of the Canadian Guards Association and speaking to this very important issue, about which there has been some significant concern by any number of groups. You've obviously provoked the interest of the members of the committee. We are grateful to you.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 503
The Chair: The next participant is CUPE Local 503. Sir, please come forward. Tell us your name and your title, if any, and then tell us what you will, trying to save at least the last half of the half-hour for conversation and questions.
Mr David Jewitt: My name is David Jewitt and I am a counsel to CUPE Local 503. I wish to thank the committee for allowing CUPE 503 to be present and make a submission here this morning at 10:30. The reason we sought a special slot, as it were, to make the submission is because of the uniqueness of CUPE 503's position in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Some of the issues you're examining in terms of these recommendations, this particular local and this region have experience with. I'm not certain that the committee would be familiar with this. I thought it would be of assistance and the local thought it would be of assistance that our experience be put forward so that you can see that some of these recommendations are not as much of a concern as you might otherwise think.
Second, in terms of the submission I'll be making, there are a few comments. I'll tell you a little about myself. I'm a labour lawyer of some 12 years' experience, so I'll be touching on a few areas that, in my submission, are really important areas that the proposed legislation is looking at. This is not going to be from a technical standpoint, but more from the standpoint of the level playing field you've been talking about. I will address some comments on that broader issue as I go through. I will not be touching on many issues but will just focus on the ones that I think are of particular relevance to the local and to the committee.
First, with respect to the proposed changes to the right to organize and the issue of managerial and supervisors being contained in a bargaining unit or professionals being put into a bargaining unit, CUPE Local 503 was recognized in 1945, I believe, by the city of Ottawa as the bargaining agent, and it has had a healthy bargaining relationship with the city since that time.
In the early 1970s, an issue much like the one you're dealing with here arose across the province about supervisors. The solution was much like the solution being proposed. A separate local was carved out, and that local represents only supervisors.
Third, another local was this time created. It wasn't carved out of CUPE national, but rather was formed from the people themselves, and that was dealing with just the professionals. That institute is called the Civic Institute of Professional Personnel.
That same structure of these three distinct groups has been maintained with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's workforce as well. It has worked extremely well, and we indicate that because you've heard a lot, no doubt, about the competitiveness of unions and the difficulty with managing people who are in the same unit; those kinds of concerns. In fact, the unions themselves have their own process by which they agree when a person should be in one unit or another and what his duties are. The units themselves have a community of interest, and the professionals are quite happy to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment along a broad-based group, at the same time preserving their individual professional status as they see it.
In effect, what we're trying to submit in summary with respect to that point is that it works. You can look to this region, where there are some 8,000 employees divided into that configuration, and there has not been significant, if any, labour unrest or difficulties in working that kind of mechanism.
I might add, going to another aspect of the legislation, dealing with first-contract arbitration, that the proposed changes in effect -- and it's argued -- guarantee that right after 30 days.
This particular local has not had a strike in either the city or the region ever. The reason it has not is that it has voluntarily agreed to go by way of process of binding arbitration. There have been different debates at different times about whether that is a good mechanism in all circumstances, but what we can indicate is that in terms of industrial peace it has worked extremely well: The parties resolve their issues and there are usually very few issues left outstanding after collective bargaining, through the process of binding arbitration.
Again, this is not the preferred route for all employers or all unions, but as an enlightened approach that can be used at times to avoid the continual adversarial aspect and the negative consequence of a strike, I can indicate on behalf of CUPE 503 that it can work, and it can also promote the industrial harmony that is so essential.
At this point I'd like to look quickly at the issue of petitions. The comment I would direct to the committee is one that comes out of 12 years of dealing with this and dealing with other labour lawyers. In the privacy of our own living rooms, as it were, I think we could probably say that the percentage of petitions that are legitimately voluntary under the old system is extremely low. By that, we mean you may not be able to establish, given the rules of evidence, that there has been some influence on the petitioners to bring the petition, but at the same time, those of us who are in the trenches know something has gone on, and we could find this out later.
I can't say this in front of the board, nor can anyone else, but I can indicate to you that this whole area is not just an issue of level playing field and power; it's an issue of resources and taxes. More certification proceedings are held up through the time spent on testing the voluntariness of a petition filed after the certification application, I would say, than is spent in actually dealing with other issues in the certification itself.
In that regard, CUPE Local 503 applauds the recommendations that say petitions after the application date will not be considered and that if a member is going to withdraw his support, then the logical time is prior to the employer becoming fully aware that the petition is there.
That then leads me into the issue of the membership fee adjustments. These are smaller points, but there may be some debate on these. You should be aware as a committee that the resources that go into determining whether there has been one non-pay allegation can consume any number of days of hearing in front of the board.
1040
As one example, a case I was involved in involving 800 employees dragged on for over two and a half years; two unions were involved. A vote was finally taken, which is what the point of the legislation is; it says, let's get to the democratic part of this. We had a vote. That vote was not going to be counted until two days later, after we dealt with another two days of issue about one card; somebody allegedly had not paid his $1.
I indicate that only because the legislation and the proposed amendments are obviously designed so that the wishes of the individual workers can be arrived at and can be determined. What this committee may not be aware of is how much time and resources are wasted and spent in dealing with issues that are far too technical of that nature.
There are all sorts of legal reasons why those things happen, but you're not here to deal with those; you're here to change those. On behalf of CUPE 503, we applaud that change to make it simpler. Generally, the more simple or direct approach is going to achieve the objectives you are looking to achieve, rather than make matters more complicated, because then people like myself only make money out of arguing about the technicalities. Frankly, there's lots of work out there; we don't have to get involved in that kind of technical approach.
The next area, and this is again unique to Ottawa-Carleton, deals with access to third party's property. Let's call it the shopping mall recommendations. You've heard about the Eaton's strike; you know about the Eaton's strike. In Ottawa we had a very anomalous situation. The Eaton's in the Rideau Centre happened, by happenstance, to be built on what was a former right of way between Rideau Street and Laurier Avenue. The whole mall is built over that right of way, which is protected under the conveyancing procedures. The picketers were allowed to walk throughout the mall as long as they didn't transgress some invisible line, that no shopper ever knew existed, on this right of way. So in Ottawa they were completely free to picket, to leaflet, deliver information to the shoppers who were going to Eaton's along that right of way.
In Bayshore, you have another Eaton's store, you have another mall. The shopper goes to one or the other. They don't know in 1992 what the right of way is or isn't. There is no right of way. So at the same time you have that labour dispute in effect, you have one store just by happenstance having people picket in front of it; you have another one where the law at that time would say: "You cannot be there. You have to go out on the sidewalk, out by the property."
I'm certain the committee is also familiar that the same issue arose in Toronto dealing with the right to picket there, and there the issue was that you could go as far as the subway station.
So you have three completely different views as to where people can leaflet or demonstrate or distribute information or picket, all dealing with the same labour dispute. Again, we applaud and support the recommendations that suggest that those kinds of idiosyncrasies and anachronisms ought to be removed in 1992, where shopping malls are viewed as the public village square by most of our citizens.
I'm just going to touch on this next area. This is perhaps a bit more personal, but it's based on the experience that comes from dealing with employees. It deals with the level playing field. The area of recommendation I'm addressing deals with the changes to the unfair labour practices, to the automatic certification provisions and the questions that say: Is this going to reverse the balance of power? Is there a balance of power now?
I submit to you, you have to try and tell an employee what protections are under the act when you come in, in the middle of an organizing campaign. You try to tell him, "Don't worry, if you're fired or discriminated against, the act says you can be reinstated." But when you say to that person, "But the hearing won't take place for another three months or four months, and in any event you still have to go through the board to do that," that employee is terrified. There are very few employees who are working at the level of position you are looking at who are going to be organized. I'm not saying just entry-level positions or lower-wage positions, but don't forget that a lot of these people do not have the sophistication or the experience to determine what that means. They need a quick recourse to the board so that the action speaks, because the employer is always there and they always have to go back.
Everyone here understands that there are issues of power no matter what field we're in: Politics deals with power, employer-employee relationships deal with power, and in that situation the employer has the power. No matter what we say or do here, they go back into that workforce and they have to deal with that. There are many numbers of ways we are never going to be able to even come close to addressing that, but the reforms that are put forward are a balanced and measured proposal, in our submission, to address some of those issues.
There are other comments. The issue of replacement workers is one we haven't had experience with here in Ottawa; I think those are political issues. You've heard the issue, and I believe you're probably well saturated with the debate on that point by now. I say nothing except that CUPE Local 503 certainly supports the recommendations that are being put forward at this time.
Flipping now to something that is less contentious, this is the grievance arbitration process. Again, I submit the recommendations ought to be applauded. The grievance arbitration route is the civilized way to resolve your dispute. Once you've got your contract, it's the way the worker and management sort out the differences that are going to occur in the relationship.
The experience here with CUPE Local 503 is that they have been very creative in how they've done that. They've also appointed mediator arbitrators, such as are being recommended, and it's worked very well. We have a panel system we've created ourselves. The workers appreciate that there's an avenue, a mechanism they can be heard in, and it'll get there quickly and they'll get it resolved.
Those are the highlights of what I would like to touch on with the committee. In conclusion, I would like to say something. I don't know how often the committee's heard it, but I'd like to applaud the government for the reforms it's proposed and the committee for the diligence with which it's looking at them and hearing the concerns of constituents throughout Ontario. From a practitioner's point of view, I can say this very easily and openly and candidly to you: These reforms are not altering a playing field; they are well overdue, they are measured and they are balanced, and the government and this committee, in terms of the concern with which you're looking at them, ought to be applauded. CUPE Local 503 does do that and thanks you for the time and also for the attention you put to those matters. By all means, let's get on with the work so that all of us can deal with this in a more balanced way in the future. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Witmer, three and a half minutes, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Jewitt. Although you compliment this committee for hearing people in this province, I hope the government is not only hearing people but is also prepared to take the differing viewpoints into consideration. If not, we've certainly wasted a tremendous amount of time and taxpayer money. It's great to listen, but if we're truly consulting, let's incorporate all the viewpoints.
It's obvious that you're happy with Bill 40. I would mention to you that although perhaps you are pleased, it's become increasingly clear that this bill is going to have some disastrous effects on people in the restaurant and tourism industry. Although it might work well for people such as yourself, certainly there are some very dire consequences for those individuals who are not yet unionized.
1050
However, I'd like to deal with your mention of the democratic process, and you talked about the petition. As the PC critic, I have been recommending that if we're truly going to have a certification process that is free of harassment or coercion from any source -- and we have heard throughout the hearings that both employers and union leaders do engage in those activities -- we should have an opportunity to fully inform all employees of what it means to join a union, what are the rights, what are the downsides, what are the consequences of going out on a strike; and once we've fully informed employees of what it truly means to join a union, to have a secret ballot vote. If we're really talking about democracy, we feel the most appropriate way for an employee to express his or her desire is through a secret ballot vote. I'd like to hear your opinion.
Mr Jewitt: It brings up a comment I made earlier that you've got to talk to an employee who is in the middle of an organizing campaign and tell him what his protections are. You then gauge the fear in his face, no matter what it is you tell them. I would suggest that if you were talking about everybody who was on a level playing field to start with, in terms of sophistication, education and otherwise, then you could talk about something that says, "Here, read this," for those who can read, "and now please submit your vote." You're not dealing with that in the workplace.
Mrs Witmer: But why can you not do that? If we're going to change the process and really empower employees and give them all the information necessary, why can that not happen and then a secret ballot vote determine their true wishes?
Mr Jewitt: It may have something to do with the power that exists in the employer-employee relationship right now, in the sense that it is a paternalistic approach. The employee is totally dependent on the employer for his livelihood. That means that for the employee to stand up and do something he knows the employer doesn't want him to do, it takes someone who is quite confident in his ability to survive on his own, and these people don't have that. They need a collective approach to say, "What are our rights?"
I think as well there's an issue here that is very seldom spoken of but I think has got to be addressed: As much as we talk about a simple, theoretical, intellectual approach to these things, life doesn't go without conflict, life doesn't go without some adversarial approach. In the power situation between an employer and an employee there is an element of it, and an employee has to be able to draw a line and say: "This is as far as I'm going. I need now to assert my right." The way that right is asserted, for that individual's dignity in this province, is through unionization and through collective bargaining.
Mrs Witmer: And not through a secret ballot vote.
Mr Jewitt: It's not voting for the Tories or for the Liberals, you know.
Mrs Witmer: No, it's empowering people to vote for themselves and make their own decisions.
Mr Jewitt: But they are doing it in a way that knows there's somebody else of equal power to balance out the power the employer has. The employer has the power of their economic livelihood and can dismiss them. Without the union, they can dismiss them and say, "You're gone, and all we do is end up paying you a bit of severance." That's the power the employer has. The union can come in and say, "We can redress that power," and that's the way the legislation is drafted. That's the way it's balanced. In my submission, what the proposed reforms do is help address that concern in the critical time when an organizing campaign is there.
I'll give you an example. Recently, there was a large grocery store where I was involved in the organizing campaign. Employers don't do this very often in 1992 -- they're much more sophisticated -- but they fired the chief organizer. They fired the organizer and they fired one of the first people who signed the card. Immediately, all of a sudden employees in the store were going around on their own and approaching people, saying, "Are you interested in a union or aren't you interested in a union?" That campaign stopped dead after that firing. Up until that point, maybe 60 people had signed. It was a bargaining unit of 200. Despite demonstrated efforts over two weeks, people who were formerly opening their doors were closing their doors.
You can't convince me for a minute -- in fact, the lawyer on the employer's side wasn't convinced for a minute either -- that was completely voluntary on the part of the other employees. It was employer-supported. That was the nature of the fear that went through that employee group, just like that. That's what you're dealing with. You talked about a free vote and you're talking about employers still being able to make the same indication. You're not going to have a free vote.
Mr Sterling: I find your defence of not having a secret vote very specious. You must be a good labour lawyer if you can carry those kinds of arguments.
A question I have for you: You're very supportive of the shopping mall right to picket on private property. Would you be in favour of an amendment to the act which would allow adjacent shop owners to sue the union or give them a right of action against the union for economic loss during a strike?
Mr Jewitt: A legal strike?
Mr Sterling: Yes.
Mr Jewitt: No. If they have a legal right to strike, what are you going to sue them for? If it's an illegal strike --
Mr Sterling: The adjacent owner, who has nothing to do with the dispute.
Mr Jewitt: But it's a legal strike.
Mr Sterling: Yes, but they're causing him economic loss on private property.
Mr Jewitt: I suppose it may be the sacrifice we all pay to have free and democratic choices of people to join a union, in that case. If that person happens to be affected by it -- I may be affected by a Conservative government, but I can't necessarily say --
Mr Sterling: You can vote against it.
Mr Jewitt: I can vote against it, that's right.
Mr Sterling: But the poor shop owner sitting next to the other shop owner doesn't get any chance to vote. He has nothing to do with it.
Mr Jewitt: Maybe I don't understand your example. What I'm saying is that if it's a legal strike, if our law allows the worker to strike, then how can you argue for somebody to have a right of damages when they're exercising a lawful right? That's the answer I would give you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Hayes, you've been so patient.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr Chair. That's my nature.
The Chair: And that's a virtue.
Mr Hayes: Mr Jewitt, I'd like to compliment you on your presentation, and also your local, for how you have proven that you can sit down and negotiate, that it doesn't always have to be a strike if both sides can find some mutual ground.
Anyhow, there's something I want to find out. There seems to be so much emphasis from opposition dealing with the secret ballot vote. I'd like you to give us examples of some the length of time it has sometimes taken, how long it takes to even get to the vote and how long the vote takes, and how much money, maybe, it has cost the employers and employees or unions.
Mr Jewitt: A local example is the original organization drive with respect to the taxi drivers in Ottawa. That one was a heyday, if you wanted to get into technical objections about all sorts of things. Employee lists would be involved in that. That one took at least two years to get from the certification side of it to the point of a vote. It could have gone on longer if we hadn't reached a point where there was some relationship where we could actually agree on the constituency to vote. It was a very confusing issue. I'm aware of a case in Hamilton -- I'm dealing with taxis again -- that took five years.
As to costs, I think everybody here would have a sense of what a lawyer would charge per day for hearings, and you're looking at days and days of hearings, plus the board resources on that. In the other case I referred to earlier, where the whole two and a half years of struggle came down to a day-and-a-half argument on a $1 non-pay allegation, my estimate would be that you're talking $50,000 to $75,000 to each party in legal costs -- never mind the resources of the board -- for at least two and a half to three weeks' worth of hearings spread out over those two and a half to three years.
There are in the current legislation -- not intentionally, because it was a long time ago it was drafted -- significant gaps that allow those kind of delays to occur and those kinds of objections to take an unwarranted amount of time. I hope that answers your question.
Mr Hayes: Yes, it does. Do you feel that these amendments to Bill 40 will help in maybe clarifying some situations, where it will help to streamline things and take some of the loopholes out so there aren't games played, on either side?
Mr Jewitt: I do indeed. To get back to an earlier comment, I think there's been a lot of time and a lot of thought into doing that; I'm aware that the proposals now on the table are not the initial proposals, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe they focused on the right areas, where there are those procedural problems and procedural delays, and that they will indeed expedite that and eliminate the games on either side, for sure.
1100
Lawyers are lawyers. You're going to have people making arguments no matter what happens, but what you've done is to remove the biggest abuses that are confronting the parties right now. There's one issue, and I don't know if it's been said: The delay of any of these proceedings always hurts the union more than the employer, any certification. You delay that for six months, and the individuals who have signed up, who want that union, immediately have lost that credibility, that sense they had that there was a way to redress it; they say nothing's going to change. The more you can put that in a quicker forum, then the more you're going to have people's rights more properly determined.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It's good to see you again, David. I want to pursue this issue of the secret ballot. You must understand that most of us, and I think the average person on the street, have come to recognize that the hallmark of any association, institution, organization or nation which purports to be democratic is a secret ballot. We've grown up believing that, but when we raise this issue with representatives of labour they have told us time and time again that we are essentially naïve and that we are unrealistic to expect that it would be possible to hold a secret ballot within the context of the organization of a union.
I want you to consider a couple of things. First of all, section 9.2 in Bill 40 would provide a pretty powerful sanction against employers using unfair means -- coercing, intimidating, threatening employees -- when there's an organization effort ongoing. It says essentially that if it could be shown to the board that employees -- which would mean to me all it would take would be two -- have been intimidated, then snap, just like that, you've got your certification. Pretty powerful. I want you to consider that.
Under the existing legislation there was an additional requirement which we don't have now, that the representatives acting on behalf of the union would also have to show that there was an adequate level of support. That's been taken away.
One other thing too: Bill 80 -- you may be familiar with that -- has been introduced and it provides that if a union wishes to proceed with disaffiliation, there has to be a secret ballot held. So the ministry has recognized the validity of a secret ballot within the context of unions, to some extent.
I'm wondering, why can't we take it a bit further? If we can't right now, what processes, what mechanisms do we have to put in place so that ultimately we can have a secret ballot?
Just one further thing: Yesterday Daryl Bean said he'd be prepared to consider having a secret ballot, that if we had 20% of the workforce prepared to support, that would trigger an automatic secret ballot.
Mr Jewitt: First of all, you already have secret ballot. It's nothing new. The only change you are making is to when you require a vote and when you don't. That's point one.
Point two may help with this whole notion of a secret ballot. I'll give you an example of another case I was just involved in: Decertification of a bargaining unit of 20, 20 people in a small town, and you have a ballot to determine whether they want to decertify. I don't know how you can ever determine if the employer in that organization, who's grown up with these employees, who may be in the bargaining unit, has not said something to one of them like, "If this goes our way, you get the promotion." You tell me how you're going to determine that in a proceeding when you've got 20 to 25 people. That's another context in which you have a real difficulty in saying that everything has to be determined by secret ballot, that a secret ballot is the grail that will resolve all our problems. It won't, because you're always going to have those kinds of situations.
To get to the point you raised about removing the requirement for support, the example I gave you about the shop steward being fired is under the old legislation, and there's still that issue. In all the things you talk about in terms of the automatic certification, the board's always had that power under former section 8. They exercise it and they've set out the rules as to when they do it. It's not necessarily easy: You have to demonstrate that the conduct is such that there's been a freeze or a chill on the campaign so that you can't freely campaign any more. So your secret ballot isn't going to do you any good then, because they've taken such action that there's no way of determining what the free wishes are.
The second criterion was adequate level of support. That was fixed by the board as being, I don't know, 20%, 15%; it wasn't a fixed number. I think removing that is a great idea, because in the last case I told you about, we had 60 or so people and, as I indicated, the employees started going crazy; half those people then said, bingo: "I want to resign. I don't want to be part of this any more." We were down to 30 out of 200. We may not have had, under the vague criteria the board had, that second criterion, but I give credit to the employer in that case. They realized there was no question they had overstepped the mark, and we settled the whole thing. That's what should happen. It doesn't always happen. If you remove that second criterion, it will happen. That's all I can say about those points.
The Chair: We want to say thank you to you, Mr Jewitt, for appearing on behalf of CUPE, Local 503, addressing these issues and making a valuable contribution to this process. The committee is grateful to you.
Mr Jewitt: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee.
FOSTER GRIEZIC
The Chair: The next participant is Foster Griezic from Carleton University. Please, sir, have a seat. We've got your written submissions. Please go ahead.
Mr Foster Griezic: I want to express my thanks to the committee for bringing the lovely weather from Toronto to Ottawa. My brief is extremely brief, and basically what I'd like to do is simply to talk about its contents in relation to Bill 40. I'm not going to read the brief, because I've been told I only have 15 minutes approximately.
I'd like to concentrate on a number of aspects of the bill, its implications, the attitude of business towards the bill and the situation in Quebec, spending considerable time on the situation in Quebec, Bills 45 and 17, simply because the business community has been told by the Conseil du patronat du Québec to fight the bill, yet in contradiction, I'll demonstrate quite clearly that by their own words they have admitted that the situation in Quebec in relation to the collective bargaining process has improved in the past decade. Then I want to talk about the actual attitude of the government in the context of replacement workers and the democratic process.
As I perceive it, it looks to me as if there might be collusion between the government and business in this Bill 40, the arrangements that have been made so far. Business is pressuring and has been pressuring the government to back off, and the government has in fact done that. That's unfortunate. The government has also contended that it is talking about justice and fairness for workers in relation to business. In fact, they've sidestepped the democracy and equality that they claim to be offering. The result confines workers to the semantics of equality without substance, and they become the continued victims of business and government rhetoric in the battle against business plutocracy, and the scales weigh solidly in favour of business still.
1110
Part of the problem may be because of business attitudes towards unions, and that I think is based on an ignorance of unions, how unions function and how in fact they are democratic. There is no question that there are flaws in the union organizations, but they are far more democratic than our political parties or our government, and I think that should be well understood.
There may be, however, on the part of business a real fear of unionization, because during a depression -- and that's what we're in -- unions are in fact increasing numerically, and that poses a threat, I'd suggest, to the business community. They will fight and are fighting against Bill 40 and the right to unionize, the right to stop scab labour, and they are using their tried and true tactics of doom and gloom, of scare, virtually anything that will stop the government from in fact introducing the kind of legislation it should provide.
The paranoia -- and it is paranoia -- on the part of business has to be taken into account. They seem to be perfectly content to move into the 21st century with 18th-century ideological baggage, and that I think is unfortunate, because we are in a situation where, socioeconomically, Ontario and Canada have to be prepared to make changes to improve the situation, and these individuals seem to be more content to restrain the possibilities for expansion and growth. They use a lot of myths and half-truths. They take a cavalier outline towards unionization, and really too towards workers, be they in unions or outside of unions.
It has to be remembered that the economic malaise which confronts Ontario now is not the result of unions but in fact the interaction between the business community and the Conservative and Liberal governments that preceded the NDP. None the less, they do accuse unions and workers of making excessive demands for better wages and benefits, of making costs higher, being responsible for strike violence and so on, and suggest that by introducing Bill 40 it will simply make the situation worse. Yet that's far from the truth.
It's been documented quite clearly and publicly that the workers' wage increases, from 3% to 0%, pale in comparison with those of the CEOs and midmanagement, which range from 12% to 19%. One then has to ask the question, who in fact is responsible for the situation? As well -- a bit of hyperbole here -- to suggest that unions have some sort of role in the flourishing mergers and monopolies that have been created in the past decade simply borders on the ludicrous.
Labour costs, as the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping pointed out, have not added to the price of consumer product costs in Canada. Why do they make the accusation?
Business says that unions are too powerful and that the anti-scab legislation will simply worsen the situation. Russell Mills of the Southam Group suggests ominously that limiting access to replacement workers during a lockout or strike could mark the end of newspapers. Seventeen years ago when the Montreal Star folded after a strike, a hue and cry arose from the business sector contending that the strike and the demands of the union were responsible for its demise. A royal commission headed by Senator Keith Davey, no friend of labour, found that mismanagement was in fact responsible. Each case, I think, has to be investigated and analysed on its merit.
Business wails that Bill 40 could translate into approximately 295,000 jobs lost. One could ask whether the moon is proverbially filled with green cheese. I think ordinary workers have to be sceptical about such statements. The study providing those figures was Ernst and Young, certainly not a disinterested player in this whole debate. The Ontario section of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce holds the proposals to make changes -- not the actual changes but just the proposals, the theoretical aspect -- as being a major contributing factor to the high unemployment rate. Where these individuals have been living in the past decade is absolutely unbelievable.
The ultra-right-wing More Jobs Coalition, a euphemism for union-busting while posturing for the right to work, claims the labour adjustments are being made for union leaders at the expense of employers and individuals. When union leaders failed to be individuals is a mystery, I would suggest.
The contention of its chairman, Dale Kerry, may not be so outlandish as it seems, since it parrots the biased poll conducted by Environics Research, another right-wing mouthpiece, which prefaces its poll with a leading question to help distort the results. Even the uninitiated are aware that such activity will in fact skew those results. All, however, seems to be fair in love, war and retaining the right to exploit.
Such contentions, however, repeat the myth that union members are like sheep. Union leaders are all too conscious that such is not the case. One has only to ask Bob White, Grace Hartman, Daryl Bean, Darrell Tingley, Jack Munro or Jean-Claude Parrot. In fact, it's difficult to lead these individuals, and there are instances, going back to the beginning, of workers protesting. There are just scores of instances where the ordinary worker has repudiated the leadership. It was remarked repeatedly that workers can think, that they are not like sheep and that they can make decisions. People have to work within that context. However, the accusations demonstrate, I would suggest, business attitudes towards workers, unionized or not, in a most glaring fashion.
The More Jobs Coalition is magnified by the Human Resources Professional Association, which suggests that workers' rights are to be sacrificed by Bill 40. The only rights that seem to be really in question here are the rights of those individuals who want to act as scabs and break unions.
Others have suggested that the bill will frighten away investment dollars. If available, that money was already moving out of the province prior to the NDP coming into power, and it's also well known that investment doesn't in fact provide jobs. It depends on the kind of investment that's made.
1120
The business community also questions whether picket line violence would be reduced. This isn't surprising, because business and government utilize the violence as a means of intervening in strikes. It provides them with a perfect excuse. The media hinge their presentation on strike violence on the picket line. Indeed, it's suggested that concentrating on this is good journalism. It ignores that strikes are not gone into frivolously; they are tough decisions. A lot of people are affected, livelihoods. One only has to speak to strikers as they go through the process of a strike to understand that situation.
Workers are also held to be the initiators of strikes, yet it's demonstrated quite conclusively that the violence begins with the introduction of police, who are there to protect property and scab workers.
Business myopia rejects looking at Bills 45 and 17 in the province of Quebec, and I think that's unfortunate. The provinces are clearly different; none the less, useful comparisons can and should be made. The bills provide, in Quebec, greater ease in unionizing, a process to access injunctions for both unions and management, the former to end management's illegal use of replacement workers and the latter to limit picketing. Fines can be assessed.
Curious bedfellows in this opposition were the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, one of the radical unions in Quebec; I selected it to talk about specifically because it was a union that was opposed to the proposed changes. Ghislain Dufour, the president of the conseil, advised the business community to act against it, yet that conseil accepted the legislation, and in its Bulletin sur les relations du travail admitted in May 1990, "During the last decade...labour relations have improved in Quebec."
A further elaboration was made in its subsequent issue of February 1991. They've won the right to challenge the legislation, but they virtually have exhausted all the judicial arguments that can be presented in court. So it looks as if they are simply going to live with it. The CSN, while having reservations, believes it has worked effectively not just for workers but for management, the public and the government.
Another supporter is Richard Le Hir, Quebec vice-president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, who has admitted publicly that they could live and are living with the legislation.
There's no question that the number of strikes has declined quite substantially in the province of Quebec. The duration of strikes is generally shorter, the amount of violence on the picket lines has dropped, the cost of the strikes has diminished and fewer police are needed. Some Quebec unionists believe there's been a corresponding loss of identification of the police with the employer, government and property. As Madeleine Parent, a respected and long-time negotiator in both Ontario and Quebec comments, "It has at least civilized the process." Now, part of the reason may be because of the movement towards equality. I think that is an important element in this whole discussion.
The Ontario government seems to be gesturing towards the Quebec situation, but I repeat that it seems to be little more than a gesture. There are a number of shortfalls in that proposal.
Locked-out or striking workers don't have access to an injunction to stop management having others do the locked-out work, nor is there the threat of fines to keep business honest, and the move towards equality between the two is minimized. Management, however, still has access to injunctions.
The location of picketing -- it's unfortunate that Mr Sterling has left.
Mr Sterling: I'm here.
Mr Griezic: Good, because I'd suggest that in fact the situation in the malls is to the disadvantage of the unionists. For instance, you can have the place of employment within a mall. By this legislation, picketing at the exit and entrance of the mall is permitted, but it's not permitted where it should be permitted, at the actual door of that corporation, company or whatever where the people are on strike. Otherwise, how effective is the picketing going to be? Surely those locked out, and not just strikers, should have the right to demonstrate to the public at large who they are striking against. In this regard, Mr Sterling is right: Maybe the private individuals who are there might complain, but they shouldn't impinge upon the right of the strikers to express their position in this conflict.
There is another element too. There's no inclusion, no suggestion of secondary picketing, and yet it's been demonstrated that secondary picketing can speed up the conclusion of a lockout or a strike, as evidenced in the province of BC in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Should that not be the objective of the government and business, if they're serious, to get the workers back to the job and the wheels of production moving for everyone so that all will benefit?
Then we deal with the whole question of the terms "justice," "fair, balanced labour legislation," "democracy" and so on. Yet these concepts, which seem to be foreign to business mentality, fall short in practice in the bill. What sort of "justice" or "democracy" exists when workers have to have 60% support before a strike can be called? What happened to the concept of 50% plus one? Is that not democracy? What does the term "majority" mean? Or is it simply a perverted sense of democracy that applies solely to workers and unions?
Governments, as is well known, be they federal or provincial, are elected and govern with far less than 50% of the popular vote. They argue that improvements have been made in providing for a certification vote, as the percentage has been dropped from 45% to 40%. In Quebec it's 35%, something close to what governments get to attain power. The percentage remains a risk for workers, but why not attempt to provide greater justice and break away from the paternalism and fear practised by business against unionization?
The proposal to include a vote permitting replacement workers is a contradiction. On the one hand you've suggested that workers have the right to ensure that replacement workers don't go in to do their jobs. Then you're turning around and saying to them, "Well, out of the goodness of your heart, why don't you take a vote on the thing?" If you want to break the sympathy of the workers who are on strike, why not provide a mechanism to weaken the resolve of those workers? If you're going to give them the right, let them keep the right; don't make it a half-assed attempt to undermine their position.
1130
There are all sorts of interesting possibilities that are created in this regard. If you're going to ask that of the workers, why not apply the same thing to business? Have them in fact consult their investors. Take a vote. Make them vote 60% in favour of a lockout. That's only fair, or does fairness not matter?
Then you have the situation of letting management do the jobs of the locked-out or striking workers. Does that mean that management is only going to be paid the same as the workers who've been locked out, or does it mean when those workers come back they've already bargained for the same salaries management received for doing that work, or does in fact the concept of work for equal value not have any meaning? I say that tongue in cheek, clearly, but none the less it's something that has to be considered.
I listened to Mr Jewitt, and I was glad he raised the delay process, because any delays you put in are clearly in favour of business. The delays are there and they shouldn't be. Historically the situation favours business when you delay. Why continue that kind of inequality?
There is as well the whole question of the individuals -- the women, the minorities -- who are talked about. I must admit being pleased that Judith McCormack has been appointed to the chair, because she's a woman. There's nothing else in that legislation that indicates moving towards any sort of egalitarianism for including women or the minorities in positions on the board. You may be considering other legislation, but I suggest it should be in here as well -- no question of it -- and it's not.
I say that simply because it's been cited repeatedly, and everybody knows, how more and more women and minorities are moving into the workforce. They have to be accommodated; they haven't been, and I think they should.
There's a host of other points that could be raised, because basically what you've done is to exclude a lot of workers who should be included. Business doesn't realize that we're talking about a small percentage of the working population here. They ignore too the fact that less than 4% of the collective bargaining processes break down. That's really quite an impressive figure when you consider it.
In sum, Bill 40, with its limitations, is an attempt to civilize the collective bargaining process through the anti-scab section, but it doesn't go far enough at all. The Quebec situation has worked effectively for 14 years. The NDP government's legislation doesn't go as far as it should to make it equally effective and efficient and less costly, and I think the government should be prepared to consider that situation.
The balance of power still resides with big business. There's no question that the criticisms of business to date are really quite ludicrous, totally lacking in substance. I don't mean to be demeaning in any sense, but it just isn't there. They talk about globalization, and what they're really talking about is imperialism. They talk about competitiveness, and what they're really talking about is very cheap labour, child labour, in the Far East. When they talk about efficiency they're talking about environmentally irrelevant situations, because they're concerned about productivity at any cost.
Workers in and out of unions merit better protection and greater equality, and they really do have only unions to provide that. Hopefully the government will not back down, as it has done.
I apologize, I went over by seven minutes.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor. Ms Murdock, one minute please.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Thank you very much for coming today and speaking to us. Actually, just a quick comment, and then you can briefly tell me what you think. There's a story about Henry Ford when he did his first manufacturing line of cars. His business friends were very perturbed with him because he was paying his workers significantly more than the going rate of the day. They said: "What are you doing that for? You're making it really difficult for us, because now we're going to have to pay our workers the same." He said he wanted, first of all, to develop a very large group of skilled workers who would produce the cars and a large number of them so that people would be able to buy them. Second, he wanted his own people to have enough money to buy the car off the line. He was a very enlightened employer, for his day, in terms of his attitude about money.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Daigeler.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): You make a statement on page 2 that business sees Bill 40 as a threat to its unabashed right to continue exploiting labour. I must say that I find this statement rather unqualified and unusual in its strength for an academic. I am wondering what evidence you have to say that business is currently exploiting labour in Ontario.
Mr Griezic: You can point to a number of examples of how business is exploiting labour in Canada, and in Ontario specifically. There are two areas specifically; hopefully, the Chairman won't cut me off. One area is the introduction of part-time labour. Part-time labour is a bonus to businesses because they basically don't have to provide benefits to their workers.
Mr Daigeler: A lot of people like part-time work.
Mr Griezic: That is such a fallacious argument. When you talk to people who are doing the job, they don't have one part-time job; they have many. My students right now have been out on the streets for weeks and months, some of them for years. These are qualified kids who have MA degrees and who virtually have to prostitute themselves -- and I use that term specifically -- to get contracts with the government. They can't go directly to the government; they have to go through a hiring agency which then takes part of the funds from their actual income. If you don't call that exploiting, I don't know what the term means, and I suggest you look in a dictionary to see. That's one example.
The second area is women, a lot of whom fall into that realm of being part-time workers, but it's not just them, because it includes many others as well. Why is it that the individuals who are hardest hit by this depression right now are the individuals in the age groupings from 18 to 40?
Mr Sterling: I have a comment. It's amazing how two people from the same institution can have such differing views; you coming from the department of Canadian labour history, of course, and I coming as a graduate of the impractical school of engineering from Carleton. I just want to say that I take great offence at your attack on the integrity of business and its motives.
Mr Griezic: I take that, really, as a compliment.
The Chair: Professor Griezic, Canadian labour history and coordinator of labour studies at Carleton University, we thank you for your interest in this matter, for taking the time to prepare this submission and to share it with the committee. You've made an important contribution, and the committee is grateful to you.
Mr Griezic: Thank you very much. I hope the committee and the government will look closely at the Quebec situation to find out what in fact the situation is there and how it functions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Take care.
1140
NEPEAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Our next participant is the Nepean Chamber of Commerce, if those people would please come forward and have a seat in front of the microphones. Tell us your names, your titles, if any, and proceed with your submissions. You're going to have all the time allotted to you. Please try to save at least the second half of the 30 minutes for exchanges. As you have been able to note, they are oftentimes a very productive part of the process.
Mr Buck Arnold: Ladies and gentlemen, the Nepean Chamber of Commerce is very happy to be before you. My name is Buck Arnold. I'm the executive director of the chamber. I'm joined by Robert Allan, who is a director with our chamber and has worked with us on this Labour Relations Act for some time now. I will just go forward and read chapter and verse as distributed to you.
The Nepean Chamber of Commerce is gravely concerned that the government of Ontario is proceeding with the OLRA reforms substantially unchanged in areas of most concern to us at the white paper stage. Our concerns continue to be centred on the lack of economic investigation and the gross reduction in the personal rights and freedoms of both workers and employers in Ontario. It is our belief that the playing field is already tipped heavily in favour of unions under existing legislation and that the proposed reforms will propel this province into economic chaos as the most pro-union jurisdiction in North America.
When we addressed the Minister of Labour on this issue in January of this year, we expressed our concern that the government had not commissioned an independent economic impact study regarding the proposed amendments. We advised the minister of the results of a private, independent study conducted by Ernst and Young for the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. The results, then and now, are staggering and bear repeating.
An estimated 295,000 jobs will be lost in this province. This means that 295,000 workers will cease contributing tax dollars to the province and be placed on social assistance through UIC etc. That is bad business, and it's bad news for the taxpaying public. Revenues are going down and expenses are going up.
The study also indicated that $8.8 billion of investment would be lost over five years.
I'll depart from the script for just one second. The previous speaker alluded to the fact that typically you can't categorize all investment as jobs. I would virtually tend to disagree with that. I can't think of many kinds of investment that don't result in jobs.
Of the 251 firms surveyed, 85% indicated that their ability to compete would be weakened if they remained in an Ontario location, and 84% said they would reduce their own investment plans within the province over the next five years.
Adding insult to injury, the minister informed cabinet that implementation of the OLRA changes would cost $8.3 million over three years -- once again, bad business: revenues going down and expenses going up.
With all the sober financial advice the ministry was made privy to, we are at a loss to understand why we are before you today, faced with draft legislation which stubbornly ignores the economic realities put forward eight months earlier. No government, including this one, is elected to stop listening to the people who pay the freight, and it's not elected to stop listening to expert advice when it is made available to it. We have appeared before you once before on this subject and you have not listened. We are before you again. Hopefully, your minds are not closed and this time you are seriously listening.
Since the original round of "consultative hearings," the strength of the informed opposition to the draft legislation has grown immensely.
First, the leaders of both opposition parties have declared publicly that as a first order of business they will reverse this legislation when either of them becomes the next Premier of this province.
Second, in a particularly astute analysis of the draft legislation, the city of Nepean passed a resolution condemning the legislation as "unbalanced" and calling for the ministry to "introduce a balanced reform of the Labour Relations Act that will also recognize the concerns of the business community, not just the concerns of the labour community."
Third, the fire chief of the city of Nepean has written his concerns regarding the city's continued ability to provide emergency services in the face of "the ridiculous terms being recommended." He states again, "It is only a matter of time before the lack of ability of the local taxpayer to pay for services impacts on the quality of emergency lifesaving services within our local municipalities." We see this statement as being equally applicable to police, ambulance and emergency health care services.
Fourth, we have the unanimous support of our 400-plus members in opposing this legislation, and that support now extends well beyond the membership itself. We have received three dozen notifications of support for our position regarding Bill 40, and most interesting is the fact that the support comes from an extremely wide cross-section of the community. It is not totally confined to the private sector, and encompasses both large and small employers.
We have heard from individual operators and administrators with more than 1,000 employees. We have heard from the service sector, the hospitality industry, commercial retailers, engineering and accounting professionals, municipal and unionized federal civil servants, parts suppliers and manufacturers, financial, engineering and management consulting concerns, general contractors and realty holding firms, the board of education, transportation divisions and high-tech firms, retirees and even a church administrator, so the support for our position is rather widespread.
The opposition to Bill 40 is obviously spreading across the province; support from the smallest of companies to very large concerns, within the private sector and beyond into the public sector as well. In the face of all this broad-spectrum concern, why is the government persisting in its obstinate, uncompromising approach to this legislation?
The aberration most appalling to the Nepean Chamber of Commerce and to the diverse community of chamber support is the unparalleled wholesale assault on the rights and freedoms of every worker and every employer in Ontario.
The worker's basic right to belong to a union or not to belong and to financially support a union or not support it remains conspicuously absent.
The rights of workers to change their minds regarding unionization is totally eliminated with the cessation of the petition process. The rights of workers to continue to work through a work stoppage is totally eliminated, regardless of their own particular financial circumstances.
The rights of third-party property owners to deny entry and access to disruptive union organizers is totally eliminated. The rights of third-party property owners to deny entry and access to disruptive picketing strikers is totally eliminated.
The rights of employers to hire replacement workers during a work stoppage is totally eliminated, even though the striking employees are free to seek alternative employment during that period. The rights of employers to suspend or discharge an offending employee is effectively eliminated with the new reinstatement powers granted to the labour relations board.
The rights of employees to seek decertification of union bargaining rights is unfairly and unreasonably confined to the last two months of the collective agreement only.
The rights of replacement contractors to compete to service buildings is totally eliminated in that he or she is bound by the previous contractor's collective agreement, its bargaining process and any labour proceeding involving it.
The rights of third-party property owners to seek a court injunction restricting union activities is severely compromised because jurisdiction over many such activities is given to the labour relations board.
The right of our elected MPPs to have full and meaningful dialogue on Bill 40 was also totally eliminated when the government invoked closure during second reading and limited debate to just one day. The removal of the rights from workers, from employers and from innocent third-party property owners in no way resembles democracy as we know it. We can only assume that this is some variety of New Democratic process. We do know, however, that it is blatantly wrong.
1150
The Chair: Thank you. Ms O'Neill or Mr Offer or Mr McGuinty or Mr Daigeler.
Mr Daigeler: Welcome, Buck. It's nice to see you down here. Daryl Bean, in his presentation yesterday to the committee, said that the opposition to Bill 40 is coming from what he termed "Ontario's corporate community." For the benefit of the committee and the members who are not from the Ottawa area, could you tell us a little about whether you consider the members of your chamber of commerce to be members of Ontario's corporate community, or could you tell us what kind of business the average member of your chamber operates and under what conditions he or she operates that business?
Mr Arnold: Yes. I would explain that our 400-plus membership consists of approximately 80% of companies with fewer than 10 employees, so one through nine. Just under 60% of those are companies with fewer than five employees, so one through four. This is not what I think the union sector would be pointing to as a large corporate situation.
Whether they're prepared to paint everybody with one brush or not, the problems being faced by the majority of our membership, being in the very small company mode, are the problems of the day, the last two years of economic downturn. They communicate to us their reaction to this reform as being absolutely devastating, not one which they will easily come out of. There's talk of downsizing pretty much at all levels, regardless of size of company. I've just heard that scattered around totally. Am I answering the question to your satisfaction?
Mr Daigeler: Yes, very much so, because my point yesterday to Mr Bean was that the opposition to this particular project is certainly not coming just from what one traditionally terms the big corporations, mostly national or international, but that the ordinary, hardworking small business person in our community is very concerned about the impact of this particular law. So I just want to indicate that there are a lot of small business people out there -- and I think you mostly represent them -- who have some very strong views on this matter and who, on the other hand, provide a lot of employment to a lot of people.
Mr Arnold: Absolutely. I would just add one point: The companies we're alluding to, these one-employee through five-employee types of situations, are generally the ones who have the least buffer to the last two years of economic downturn; they are somewhat on the ropes as it is and are very susceptible to unfavourable legislation such as this.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Mr Arnold, I have a follow-up to that. Could you tell us what concerns people like the general contractors or the board of education would have? Very briefly, because I know our critic wants to have a question with you as well.
Mr Arnold: I don't know how to answer you succinctly, but certainly any time a situation arises where a person who owns a company is uncertain of his ability to control the situation, he becomes compromised in the ability to make promises his company can fulfil when dealing with other people and indeed becomes less competitive for that very fact.
The board of education situation was in response to our advertising campaign. The administrator claimed that there were 1,000 employees involved under her particular jurisdiction and that, in her words, "It would be chaos."
I thought it was interesting to receive responses from the public sector. I really had not anticipated such. We did, as I said, get a letter from the fire chief as well, from that particular board of education and from several engineers in the federal public service who are indeed union members over their own protestations.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I have one question, but certainly there is a statement that you made -- as a member of the Liberal Party here, we have always indicated that we are going to be working very closely on this bill with a variety of concerned individuals, children's aid societies, school boards and local hydro services, which have very grave concerns with this legislation. We're working very closely with them in the area of amendment to the legislation to address their concerns. What our position will be following that will really be as a response to the government's listening to those very deep concerns by a variety of people, not just the business community, but others. So I wanted to get that clearly on the record.
My question to you, though, deals with the issue of the employees' rights to organize. This is a bill which I believe should --
The Chair: Ms Witmer, are you content to let Mr Offer have some of your time?
Mrs Witmer: No.
The Chair: Quickly, please, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: We have two competing principles: the principle of free vote, as found in Bill 80, and that principle which is not found in Bill 40. What we have is clearly a democracy of convenience by the government. My question to you is your position on a free vote by workers as to whether they wish or wish not to be unionized.
Mr Arnold: I would like to comment on that. In the first place, the threshold for unionization, I believe, is being reduced to 40% from 45%. I have no problem with that. If it's 35%, I don't care, as long as there's an election process of voting, a democratic process, somewhere in there. But I wish it would be extended to all facets. This legislation lacks that democratic continuity. It's just not there.
The Chair: Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: I'm going to let Mr Sterling go first.
Mr Sterling: I'm going to be rather brief. The Nepean Chamber of Commerce used to be associated with the Kanata one, which I represent, but has now decided that Kanata is strong enough to go on its own. I appreciate your coming here and taking the time to put the brief together.
On a point of clarification, I think Mr Offer was saying, and he can correct me in my time if he so chooses, that in number one, where you say, "The leaders of both opposition parties have declared publicly that, as a first order of business, they will reverse this legislation when either of them becomes the next Premier of the province," Mike Harris, the Progressive Conservative government, has clearly said that. I do not believe Lyn McLeod has said that at this juncture.
Mr Hayes: She doesn't seem to be as optimistic.
Mr Sterling: So the Liberal Party has not said that, and you should understand that at this time. The Liberal members are agreeing with that.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): You're on your own on this one, Norm.
Mr Sterling: Yes, that's right, we're leading.
With regard to the special nature of a lot of the businesses both in Nepean and Kanata, we have what I would describe as some of the best employers of Canada. We have Bell Northern, we have the Mitels, we have Gandalf. We have a whole host of businesses which export, in some cases, 80%, 85% or 90% of their product. They're really making money for Canada and Ontario. They are prime, prime businesses. How does this legislation affect them in terms of their competitiveness in the world market?
Mr Arnold: I'm going to let Bob take this.
Mr Robert Allan: If I may answer that, I think there are two things that you have to pay considerable attention to. First of all, is your competitiveness within Canada; ie, how competitive can these companies remain in the world environment, producing in Ontario? It's our submission that with this type of legislation and the inherent costs that are oft-times produced through unionization, they will become less competitive, less able to compete in the world environment.
Tied in with that and possibly even more important is, what type of industry are we going to have in this province in the future? We've all seen, to our chagrin I think, over the past decade just how mobile investment is, just how mobile capital is. The likelihood of attracting new investment in this province, I believe, will be substantially reduced by this type of legislation being put into place.
1200
I'm just sort of going on with this. One of the arguments that was made by the previous speaker, and it's been made in a number of publications, is that this legislation will increase the likelihood of serious bargaining, with the potential for less picket line violence. This is only true if you accept the proposition that giving one of two parties to a potential fistfight a gun will have a beneficial effect. This legislation is equivalent in many respects to giving unions a gun that it puts to the head of employers.
The reaction of employers of course will vary, depending upon their own circumstances. If they can move elsewhere, it's likely that they will do so. If they can invest or expand their operations elsewhere, they will do so. I don't think that can be overemphasized when you're looking at this type of legislation. You have to go beyond trying to say that there are difficulties between employers and employees and we'd like to address those. You have to go and look to say what will happen in the future if you try to deal with these specific problems now.
The other thing I would like to add is, when we're making comparisons with other provinces or other jurisdictions which have legislation that incorporates in whole or in part some of these changes, you have to make sure that those analogies or comparisons are valid. When you're looking at Quebec, for example, you're talking about a province which has in many respects a substantially different culture than we have in Ontario. Whether positive or negative is irrelevant; the fact is that it is different and that you must be careful when drawing analogies to a different culture.
Secondly, their economic base is substantially different from Ontario's. Ontario is a manufacturing province, and that makes it particularly susceptible to capital leaving the province. Quebec has been more of a resource-based province, which means employers simply can't leave the province, because they can't take the resource with them. If you want to make comparisons between provinces, you have to be really careful when you're making that analysis, because they're not always valid.
Mrs Witmer: After almost four weeks of hearings, I'm rather saddened and dismayed to see the polarization that has developed around the issue of Bill 40. We see that there are two sides and they're very far apart, and unfortunately, I think it's the process that the government has used to develop the outline of Bill 40 that has created the problem.
When I met with a representative of the British Columbia government last week, it was apparent that the process they're using is certainly one which is not creating the same type of conflict. There seems to be some attempt to bring all the players together in a tripartite process of consultation and arrive at consensus in making changes to the legislation. I would indicate to you, certainly the PC party, in making changes, when we talk about repealing Bill 40, that's the manner that we believe would be necessary to make changes. There needs to be consensus and there needs to be a bringing together of all the partners when you do make changes.
Having said that, we have heard repeatedly, and I get many calls and letters in my office, from individuals and companies who are looking at moving their operation to the United States or elsewhere, or downsizing their company. It's become obvious that we are losing jobs, and unfortunately, at this time we can't afford the loss of any more jobs. We're also not seeing any new investment coming into the province, because of fear. Are you aware of anyone within your chamber who has decided not to enlarge his facility or to move elsewhere or of investment not coming in?
Mr Arnold: The best I can respond to you is that I've had many people talk about downsizing or at best holding the line. I know of one company that talked of moving. I'm sure it would be of no consequence that it was about a company with six or eight people and maybe therefore could be pooh-poohed, but it's still a company gone. That has not materialized. Nevertheless, that concern is deep in the mind of that business owner, and those jobs -- the people may remain there, but they won't be part of his payroll.
Mr Allan: If I could add to that, I'm a lawyer in a small practice dealing particularly with small businesses, although some of them are somewhat larger. I can say -- although of course I can't say who, for obvious reasons -- that I have had a number of inquiries from specific businesses on how they can move all or part of their operations out of Ontario.
I've seen a number or at least a couple of possible businesses I would like to have seen in this province that have told me they will not be starting their business here; they will be moving south of the border. I can't say that it's exclusively because of this act, but this act and other acts like it have caused them to say: "We don't see a future here. We see a future elsewhere."
Mr Huget: I'll be very brief, and Mr Ward has a couple of questions.
The Chair: Are you suggesting that he's not going to be quite so brief?
Mr Huget: He may not be.
I will pick up on Ms Witmer's comments. She states that she's disappointed by the polarization that's become obvious. I think that's a fair comment. Everyone is disappointed by it, and I'm certainly not surprised by it.
In terms of your presentation, you refer in very strong terms specifically to the government not listening to you, and I think you should be aware, if you're not aware, that there were 22 changes made in the legislation prior to consultation with business and 10 of them were in significant, major areas of the legislation, as a result of discussions with all groups, including business groups.
My problem, sir, is one with process. Yesterday we heard from the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce. In their presentation they have about 16, I believe, inaccurate statements in their position in terms of parts of the bill they suggest are either included and they are not, or parts of the bill that were altered and they suggest were not. There were changes made and Gloucester's position was there were no changes made.
My problem with the process, sir, is not pointed at you or your chamber. It's just that I would have hoped that in taking a very strong position on legislation that is indeed important to the members you represent, there would have been every effort paid to accuracy when you're trying to get opinion from your 400 members, and indeed the 65,000 members of the chamber of commerce in Ontario.
The second point I would like to make, and I'll defer to Mr Ward, is that if in this country and in this province the method of the day is to move to the lowest common denominator in terms of business costs, whether that's labour costs in particular, if that's the route everyone is going to go, I would suggest to you that's not going to be a successful solution to the province in terms of its workers or its businesses. I don't think to move to the lowest common denominator is going to be in anyone's best interests.
But if one suggests that business is going to move to other countries south of the border, perhaps we should move to, in some cases, the lowest common denominator. In Mexico, sir, they have anti-replacement worker legislation, and perhaps that's one of the lowest common denominators we could move to.
I'll defer to Mr Ward.
The Chair: Do you people want to respond to that?
Mr Arnold: Perhaps I would, particularly with the 22 significant changes. Actually, I have a bulletin here from Mike Harris.
Mr Huget: Mr Harris didn't draft the bill.
Mr Arnold: I tend to agree with his comment as opposed to what's put forward. We don't see anything substantially different. Our major objections -- you can talk around us technically, "We did this, we massaged that." The thrust of that bill hasn't changed one bit.
Mr Huget: So in short you're opposed to the bill, period.
Mr Arnold: I'm sorry?
Interjection.
1210
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): When you mentioned investment, I read an article in the Ottawa Citizen, a fine newspaper in its own right. It centred around retail and what's happening in the retail sector. Out of that article I've managed to gather some facts that I'd like to present to you.
There are a number of chains: Business Depot, which I believe opens tomorrow on Merivale Road, plans to open 36 stores over the next three years in Ontario, including a second one in Ottawa; Winners is opening tomorrow and it plans 15 more stores in Ontario, one in the Ottawa area; Talbots plans to open next spring, and Price Club in fact is opening in your community in the spring. Investment, confidence.
When you look at the manufacturing sector, we had a presentation yesterday by the Canadian director of operations for Gates Canada, who confirmed in conversation with me that they have invested $4 million in plants in my community of Brantford to develop a world market for the products that are being produced in those plants. They have such confidence in their workforce and the skill level of the Ontario workers that they are investing an additional $8 million in those plants over the next few years to further develop the capabilities and productivity of the Gates Canada operations in Brantford. Confidence.
This flies in the face of the doom and gloom that is being presented by some, not all, critics of Bill 40. I can refer to other investment strategies.
The Chair: But you want these people to respond to you, don't you, Mr Ward?
Mr Ward: Yes, and that's why I'm going to stop and not mention those other investments.
Mr Allan: I think the short answer is simply that there will always be exceptions to the rule. No matter what you put in place, people will do things differently. When people look at Ontario, they do look at more than just simply the labour legislation; they look at things such as our skill sets, abilities, particular plants etc.
All we're saying is that the thrust of this will be a factor that will be taken into consideration not to invest and not to expand. It may not be the only factor, and that is the reason why you will have people who will do some expansion. However, from our own experience and from the people we deal with, we find the general thrust is that this has a very negative effect and that, "Unless there's a real good reason for staying here or investing, we're not going to do it."
With respect to the comments on the retail sector, that's very similar to what I mentioned about Quebec and being a resource sector. Unless everybody who lives in Ontario moves out of the province, we will have to buy things in the province; stores will still have to be in the province. As long as all stores are subject to the same types of employment legislation and as long as they're all being put under the same constraints, they're all going to have to live with it. They can't move out, and they can't move across the border and open up a store because they won't attract the people in Ottawa, cross-border shopping excluded, because people just can't go down to Toronto to pick up a bag of milk every time. So that type of thing will not change.
The industries that will be hit the most are the manufacturing industries. You alluded to Gates having a worldwide mandate in Brantford. That's exactly the type of industry we want to attract in this province, but having a worldwide mandate means they could locate that plant anywhere. They're only going to do it in Ontario if they've got a really good reason, because they've got a lot of reasons why they won't be investing in this province.
Mr Ward: Do I have more time?
The Chair: No. I thought you were going to try to sneak something in, Mr Ward. Failing that, we'll move to Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Just to put this in a bit of perspective, all members who are sitting on this committee, be it opposition members or government members, come to these positions wanting to represent their communities, and we do that genuinely from whatever perspective we're at.
The problem I have was touched on a little bit by Mr Huget, but let me put it in a bit of a different perspective. I want you to answer me a question.
I, like most other members, both opposition and government members, was strongly lobbied on a couple of occasions last winter on the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The position I took was that I said basically what I would do if I was contacted, and this is what I told my staff, "If we get a letter on the OLRA that people are against it, if I get a phone call on it where people are against it, I want you to flag that to me and I want to call them back, because I really want to put my finger on what the problem is." If there's really something out there that's so blatantly unfair, I want to be aware of it because I have to represent a number of people in my community, not all of whom are pro-union.
I would say that in about 90% of cases where I've either phoned those people, small businesses, large companies employing some 1,000 people, or I've gone and visited with them on this particular issue, what comes up time and time again is, "I really don't understand this bill but this is what my association is telling me to say."
That disturbs me a bit. I understand, I was a lobbyist from the other side, I did the same things and I understand the responsibility of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the chamber. They're there to advocate for their members. I've got no problem with that, but when I sat down with large employers, some of which have already unionized, I'd say, "How is this legislation going to affect you?" "It really isn't, because I'm already organized. I don't use replacement workers." When I talked to small business people, the comment that I was always getting was, "This is what my association is telling me to tell you."
In a number of cases, some small business people -- I wouldn't say lots, but I've had about four or five of them in my riding -- got mad and sent me a copy of what they got from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that mouthed the words we hear at these presentations.
I just want you to respond to that because if we can sit down and have an open discussion and say X, Y and Z, we could work from that basis, but when the oppression that --
The Chair: Thank you. Perhaps these people can respond.
Mr Arnold: I would like to say that the facts we talk from are facts. The Ernst and Young study is factual.
Mr Bisson: But your members don't agree.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mrs O'Neill: Who said that?
Mr Arnold: The fact is, we have been critical of the government --
Mr Sterling: Who said that?
Mr Arnold: I'll just talk over. Is that what you're suggesting I do?
The Chair: Yes, sir, because the mike will pick you up.
Mr Arnold: Fine, I'll do that.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr Arnold: It is imperative that a decision of this scope and magnitude be balanced with the proper academic financial information as to the impact on this province. That has not been done other than by the private sector. If the ministry has any difficulty with those figures, it's up to the ministry to commission its own study, and we have welcomed that, we have asked for it. It's not forthcoming. We therefore have to take the opinion that the Ernst and Young study bears fruit, that it's real, and there's nobody denying that.
With all due respect, if you have three or four small business people in your particular riding who are hearing from us and are confused, believe me, they have every right in the world to be confused. We at the chamber level are confused. The legislation is spaghetti, it's very much a tangled mess.
I refer you all to read -- at some point you'll have the opportunity, if you have not -- the city of Nepean's submission. The analysis done by the people at city hall, Nepean, was exceptionally well done. They point to the failings. We need hard information.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to thank both of you gentlemen for appearing here today on behalf of the Nepean Chamber of Commerce. You've made a valuable contribution to the process of the committee and the committee is grateful to you. We trust that you'll be keeping in touch.
Mr Arnold: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Very briefly, I was delivered a letter today, dated Tuesday, August 25, 1992. It reads:
"I do not have time to sit here for a day and a half. I am trying to start a small business. I have tried three times to get a copy of Bill 40 and Bill 79 at the Ontario information centre. On Friday last, I asked how many copies they order at a time. The answer was 25. I really think you, the government, do not want we, the public, to know. These bills and others are going to scare investment in business away, possibly long after your short term in office. I am mad as hell. Respectfully yours, John L. Jamieson, JLJ Construction," and then there's the little corporate seal on the bottom.
I am asking the clerk to please ensure that Mr Jamieson gets copies of Bill 40 and Bill 79 promptly. I'm not about to confirm or refute the allegation of Mr Jamieson that the Ontario information centre was unable or unwilling to provide him with those, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Any other matters? Fine. We're recessed until 1:30.
The committee recessed at 1220.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1332.
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
The Chair: Good afternoon. It's 1:30. Our first participant is the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton. Are those people here? Sure they are. Will they please be seated in front of a mike, tell us your names, your status or title with the planning council, and go ahead. I remind people that there's coffee on the side, and that there's French-language translation taking place, with little receivers and earphones available on your right.
Mr Jim Zamprelli: I'm here representing the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton. I'm Jim Zamprelli, the executive director. We are presenting a copy of our brief to you in English. We are a bilingual organization and we will have a French version in the very near future which we will submit as well.
The SPC of Ottawa-Carleton, founded in 1928 -- so we've been around for some 60 years -- is a private, non-profit organization directed by a voluntary board which is elected from our membership of individuals in social and human service agencies in our region, all of whom share our mission and values. The council receives the greater portion of its funding from the United Way of Ottawa-Carleton and the regional government, with funding as well from the province and other levels of government for specific projects and activities.
We play a coordinating role in the development of social service in our region. We conduct research into questions relevant to social needs and social services and, perhaps more important, we inform our membership and the public at large on issues affecting their social and economic wellbeing. We advocate for improvements in the quality of social services and for public policy which contributes to the quality of life in our communities. That's really the reason we are here today, to look at changes in policies which we feel affect the social and economic wellbeing of our region, as well as workers in our province.
We welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to respond to Bill 40. Our interest in this bill stems from our concerns for those who are the working poor, those unemployed or not yet employed, and those members of designated groups or equity groups, such as ethnic and visible minorities, who may be discriminated against or have a higher propensity, let's say, to be discriminated against in employment and in the workplace. All these groups are the key constituencies for whom we do our research, with whom we do our research and with whom we advocate for improvements in our social and economic environment.
While we recognize that these proposed amendments will not solve all the problems faced by these groups of workers or potential workers, it is our belief that collective bargaining is one way for employees to improve their incomes, as evidenced by the 15% to 25% wage gap between unionized and unorganized workers. In addition to possible gains in wages and working conditions, unionized workers have a grievance procedure, thus ensuring a greater measure of fairness in the workplace.
When we look at our realities of today for the worker and what's happening in the workplace, it must be remembered that current labour laws were, by and large, designed for the large industrial establishments of the past. Today most of these large workplaces in both the private and public sectors are covered by collective agreements. However, many workers are now employed in small workplaces and therefore could be said to be more vulnerable to difficulties in exercising their legal right to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. They face a greater risk of employer interference with these rights than did workers in larger establishments.
While more of the newly created jobs are in small workplaces, these small businesses are often branches of powerful multinational companies operating in many countries with stronger technological change and plant closure legislation than in this jurisdiction.
Communities suffer when wages are low and workers cannot buy houses, shop in stores or afford to use other community business services. In fact, many members of the working poor also need some measure of social assistance from their communities in order to support their families. This is not because they don't work hard enough but because, simply, they don't earn enough.
Laws governing industrial relations in Ontario have not been revised in a major way for many years, and we therefore welcome this thrust by the government. We are particularly encouraged to see Bill 40's emphasis on the encouragement of labour-management cooperation, as we believe the more cooperation between the two in the workplace, the more productive the enterprise will be and therefore the larger the pie to be shared between those who help produce it.
We certainly as well compliment the government in its attempt to enact these amendments to reduce conflict and confrontation in the workplace.
We expect to be submitting a more detailed analysis of the specific amendments at a later date through the work of our volunteers. I must also relate that this brief is the work of our volunteers, and when we get to a more detailed analysis, that as well will involve the vast number of volunteers we have associated with the council.
In terms of what we're presenting today, we would particularly like to make a number of comments relative to amendments we feel are of interest to us and of interest to our constituencies.
The issue of inclusion of domestic and professional workers: While we recognize this will not solve all the problems of domestic workers, it would give them the opportunity to organize if they so wish. Professional workers should also be free to unionize and bargain collectively. Therefore, we certainly support that initiative.
Allowing for the consolidation of bargaining units and combining of full- and part-time units: Because many of the new jobs are in fact part-time, it would be important to have them in the same bargaining units, as is the case in many other jurisdictions in Canada. We see that particular initiative as supportive and positive in recognizing the commonality of interests we feel does exist, whether one is a part-time worker or one is a full-time worker, especially since many of the designated equity groups tend to be part-time workers.
Disciplinary action during an organizing campaign: When a group of employees is trying to form a union, there are often charges that an employee has been disciplined or fired for union activity. The system of redress before the Ontario Labour Relations Board often took a long time, thus contributing to the intimidation and discouragement of employees in exercising their right to organize in the first place. The amendments proposed would expedite the hearing process by setting time limits on the board and the parties to the dispute. We therefore see this as a very positive initiative.
The certification process: Once a group of employees has decided it wants to belong to a union of its choice, it would be unfair to have barriers to the process. The signing of the membership card is the recognized form of that decision, and therefore we support the removal of the requirement that a $1 fee be paid in addition.
Once the application for certification has been made, Ontario remains the only jurisdiction in Canada that allows employees to file a petition to oppose the application. Historically, these applications were usually rejected by the OLRB, but only after long and often costly proceedings before the board. These types of petitions were usually found to have been influenced by the employer or his/her representative. We are glad therefore to see this provision will be eliminated.
1340
Employees who change their minds before the application for certification is made will still have the right to resign from the union or sign a petition.
First-agreement arbitration: Once a union is certified as the bargaining agent, it's often been difficult to reach the first agreement which would establish the ongoing relationship in the workplace. Several jurisdictions, including Ontario, provided for the imposition of a first contract where the parties were unable to reach agreements and one or the other party was proven before the OLRB to have resorted to unreasonable bargaining tactics, undue delays or other factors.
In Manitoba, for example, the first-contract imposition does not depend on proving either party acted badly or in bad faith, but only that 30 days have elapsed and the parties are unlikely to reach an agreement without the aid of a third party or an arbitrator. Critics of this provision were fearful that the parties would not bargain but would in effect wait for the imposition. We feel this will not be the case. In fact, this initiative would act as a spur to the parties to reach an agreement themselves, which is the best way for parties to develop a sense of ownership in the establishment of their newly negotiated relationship.
Use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout is limited to non-bargaining-unit employees of the employer. Historically, some of the bitterest strikes or lockouts have taken place when the employer attempted to have others do the work of the struck or locked-out employees. Until relatively recently, employers could hire professional strikebreakers. This option was forbidden by most jurisdictions in the 1970s. Later in the 1970s Quebec became the first jurisdiction to forbid the hiring of replacement workers because of the violence that had erupted in too many of its industrial conflicts when workers saw their jobs being taken away by so-called scabs while they were on a legal strike.
It is important to realize that in 1991, 96% of collective agreements, covering 85% of all employees, were in effect settled peacefully, ie, without work stoppage, and in those few cases where a peaceful settlement was not the case, it is important that the community does not become polarized and deeply divided and antagonistic where replacement workers are allowed. We commend the government for its reasonable proposals on this very sensitive issue.
The issue of essential services: In making exceptions to the above, in many cases for essential services, it is hoped that unions and employers will work out essential services agreements between themselves, as has been done, for instance, in the Manitoba health care system. This negotiation on essential services agreements should be done as a pre-emptive move long before there is any possibility of a work stoppage so that it is done at a time when other important economic items are not at issue.
Contracting: In the contracted-in work, when a contract is tendered with a new service provider, there has been little protection for existing employees. This cycle can continue year after year.
Because of the fluctuating nature of employment in the contract-services sector, we support the combined set of amendments to the OLRA and the Employment Standards Act which make provisions protecting existing collective agreements, bargaining rights, wages and benefits with the new employer.
Conclusion: We feel that labour legislation which dictates what's happening in labour relations is one tool in a free, democratic society to enable working people to share in the goods and services they help in a great way to produce. We believe these proposed reforms will go a considerable way to assisting employees who freely choose to exercise their right to take out membership in a union and therefore enter a collective bargaining relationship with their employer.
We believe the measures will also particularly assist members of designated equity groups who often are the most vulnerable in the workplace and in our society. In fact, the social planning council is working on a review of the proposed employment equity legislation, Bill 79, which would further provide equal opportunity to these affected or designated groups. We would hope, therefore, that amendments to the OLRA and Bill 79 on employment equity will complement each other in this regard.
The Chair: Five minutes per caucus, please.
Mr Sterling: Thank you very much for coming, and I congratulate your volunteers who might have put this together.
I'm very much concerned as well about the working poor and the people who are at the bottom of the totem-pole, and would like to see us endeavour to help all those people. But let me throw three facts at you: Number one is that 3% of the population of Ontario makes $85,000 or more, so there aren't a lot of rich people around. Corporate profits are at an all-time low. They're probably at somewhere around 2%, 3% or 4%, whereas in the early 1960s they were double that. Our governments are broke; they're operating at tremendous deficits.
There's a total pie of money here. There's a total amount of money for the workers of Ontario to receive. As we strengthen the hand of those who already have, we take from the weaker. That has always been my opinion. In other words, there's a total pie here. Those receiving $85,000 or more are a small slice of that. There are profits which are necessary in order to attract investment, and they're already too low in order to attract that investment. Our governments are broke. They're spending a lot more than they're collecting, so there isn't any more money there. Union wages etc are, if you want to call them, middle class. I call them high class now because I don't think there is a high class; everybody is middle class. If you strengthen the hand of those who are earning, let's say, in the $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 range, who do you think is going to take the brunt of the increase the other members of our society get? That's my concern with regard to strengthening the hands of unions in this province.
Mr Zamprelli: Our position would be that it's strengthening the hands of workers; it's not necessarily those who have. You say, "Strengthening the hands who already have." Well, our opinion is that there are many workers in the workplace who don't have and who need this kind of increased protection in order to get their fair share.
Mr Sterling: Where does the fair share come from? Somebody has to lose in this equation. When you say this person is going to get more, who's going to get less?
Mr Zamprelli: I guess that's based on the assumption you're saying, with unionized and collective agreements, that it's a question of getting more. Certainly other issues that are part of collective agreements that are not necessarily in terms of wages but in terms of protection in the workplace and other benefit-type issues, go beyond strict remuneration.
Mr Sterling: Sure, there are other issues, but the principal issue and principal concern that you should have and I have are to raise the standard of living for those who are on the lowest end of the ladder.
Mr Zamprelli: Exactly. That's why we're saying that when we look at these amendments, we see them specifically affecting those who are more vulnerable and who therefore would have the greatest tendency not to, as you say, already have, and therefore need this intervention in order to protect their rights and earn a decent standard of living.
The Chair: We've got to move on.
1350
Ms Murdock: Thank you for taking the time out of your day to come.
Just one quick point and then a question. On the essential services, page 4 of your presentation states, "This negotiation on essential services agreements should be done long before there is any possibility of a work stoppage." I'm sure you're aware that under subsection 73.2(15), that's exactly the intent of the legislation, and that there is no procedure or time frame set in there specifically so it doesn't have to be done when tempers are frayed and that kind of thing.
The question I want to go to is on page 3, in regard to the petitions, where we are the only jurisdiction in Canada that, even with these amendments, will still allow them up to the date of application. Would you want to see petitions completely eliminated? If so, why?
Mr Zamprelli: I wish I had some of my volunteers right here to answer that question. In all honesty, I would prefer to take that question back under advisement. When we look at doing a more intensive brief, we can treat that issue.
Ms Murdock: And stop taking notes, yes. Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: Any other members? Mr Offer, go ahead. You've a whole lot of time.
Mr Offer: I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation. I think it touches on a variety of areas that we in the committee have been concerned with, certainly with respect to this bill. I guess there's no one on this committee who is not well aware of the important work that your council has done in this region for many years.
I have a question, and I must say it is a concern to me. It deals with the domestics. Yes, Bill 40 does allow domestics; it takes away the exclusion. But the vast majority, almost all, are hired singly by one employer. This bill does not reduce the bargaining unit from what it is now -- two -- to one. It is clear in my mind that this bill does nothing at all for the domestic workers in this province in any way, shape or form.
Secondly, we heard a very important presentation from the home workers in Toronto. In fairness, though they came in support of the legislation it was clear that the legislation really didn't do anything for them because of the fact that there was a need for broader-based bargaining, which is not permitted in the legislation. So we are left with the clear position, from those involved in the area, that Bill 40 does not help domestic workers in this province; Bill 40 does not help the home workers in this province. I'd like to get your comment on that.
Before doing so, I'd also like to ask a question about the part-time workers, because I truly do very much agree with your conclusion of the free, democratic society. Bill 40, I believe, takes away rights of part-time workers because a part-time working unit can be taken over by a full-time working unit even if no part-time worker wishes that to happen. I'm wondering if you share that concern. Certainly we've been expressing that concern from day one as a very serious omission from this legislation.
Mr Zamprelli: That's what I thought. In terms of the part-time and full-time, if there wasn't full agreement in both sections, they could be treated separately.
Mr Offer: No. In fact there does not have to be a majority of part-time workers and a majority of full-time workers necessary before it's consolidated. If there are enough full-time workers who want to be consolidated with part-time workers, that will happen under this legislation, even if the part-time workers don't want it. I think it's a serious difficulty with the legislation, and I know you've dealt with these types of issues for many years.
Mr Zamprelli: In terms of part-time, again, is there is commonality of interest? We would agree that, more times than not, there is a commonality of interest and that making the dichotomy is a false one, especially when we see growth in part-time work where part-time work is gaining more and more momentum in terms of being a very pervasive workplace option -- at no choice to some; people have to take part-time work, and therefore we feel combining part-time and full-time would give greater strength to the collective voice.
Mr Offer: I understand. I guess my question is, though there will be members on this committee that will debate this and everything, shouldn't that decision, in your opinion, rest with the part-time workers?
Mr Zamprelli: I'd have to look back again at the material. I thought there was some provision whereby they wouldn't be swept in, but if that is the case, that's another item I think our volunteers should look at and reconsider in more depth.
Mrs O'Neill: Please do that.
Mr Offer: I don't know if anybody else has any questions. I'd certainly like to thank you for those responses, because they are concerns which have gravely bothered us from day one as to the serious omissions in Bill 40.
The Chair: Mr Daigeler, briefly, please.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for your presentation. The social planning council, and I think it was referred to already earlier, usually does some very good studies and what I consider relatively balanced. I think you obviously have a certain bias. Nevertheless, generally the reports you send to us on a regular basis I think are very much appreciated.
With this presentation, though, I do see that you are very clearly looking only at one side of the story. I guess you feel as a social planning council you have to take the position to do everything you can in the way you perceive it to support what you consider, for lack of a better term, the underprivileged.
I don't see any effort -- and I thought perhaps from a research body, which you are, there would be at least a little bit of effort -- to look at the side that we hear, at least sort of half of the presentations we've had over the last two days, from the business community and from the business community of the Ottawa-Carleton area. I would say that for you as a research council, there should be some effort as well to see what their concerns are and how they possibly could be harmonized with the concern you express in here. I'm just wondering. From your mandate as a research council, how do you react to this criticism?
Mr Zamprelli: As I said, certainly our key constituents and our members are either disadvantaged people or those who advocate and are representing disadvantaged people. Therefore, our major concern would be in that area.
Certainly historically the council has had members from the business community as part of its board of directors. Of late, for a variety of reasons that hasn't been the case, but we as a community would welcome more participation by the business community, board of trade, etc. We've had some board of trade members in the past, for instance.
In order for us to develop as balanced a position as possible -- I agree, we do as a goal want to develop balanced positions -- in this case, we feel that we had to say what we felt had to be said vis-à-vis those who are more vulnerable in the workplace, and that's who we felt our major concern was in terms of making this brief.
The Chair: Mr Sterling, Ms Murdock left some of her time. I've had that surplus of time shared equally between you and the Liberals.
Mr Sterling: That's fine. I don't have any more questions.
The Chair: I want to thank you, sir, for appearing on behalf of the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton. Mr Zamprelli, you've made a significant contribution to this process and the committee's grateful to you.
Mr Zamprelli: Thank you very much.
1400
OTTAWA CONSTRUCTION
ASSOCIATION
OTTAWA-CARLETON HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Ottawa Construction Association. Would the people representing that association please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names, titles, and proceed with your submissions. I want to remind people that there is coffee over here on the side so that persons visiting us here can feel comfortable and at home. I remind people as well that there is French-language translation service. The receivers and earphones are available at the desk to your right and the excellent translation staff are eager to assist. Go ahead, please.
Mr Stephen Sulpher: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Steve Sulpher. I'm the executive director of the Ottawa Construction Association. With me are Dan Greco, who is the director of labour relations for the association, and Robert Sanscartier, who is the incoming president of the Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' Association. Our associations represent approximately 1,400 construction and construction-related companies in the Ottawa region. Our membership within the OCA is divided about 50-50 union and non-unionized contractors. In the home builders, it runs roughly 20% union, 80% non-union.
We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. We have participated in the hearings held earlier this year and are here today because our members are deeply concerned about the effects Bill 40 will have on the economy of the province and their businesses.
When we were before the previous committee on this issue, we raised three prime reasons for our opposition to this bill: There is no demonstrated need for reform at this time; reform, as proposed, will have a negative impact on the province, and there has been no true consultative process.
Our position remains unchanged; however, today we will focus our attention on the impact of the legislation on the province's economy and on the consultative process.
You have no doubt heard many comments in your travels regarding the disastrous state of the construction industry in this province during the past couple of years. The Ottawa region is no different from other parts of the province. The Ottawa construction industry has gone from a high in 1988 of $1.2 billion in volume to $927 million in 1991, a 25% decrease in investment during the past three years. This drop in activity has naturally brought with it high unemployment rates for the local construction trades. Most trades in our region are currently experiencing unemployment in the 30% to 40% range.
All of the information available indicates that the passing of this bill will only have a worsening effect on investment in the province and, as a result, increased job loss in our industry. We are aware that the government and labour have criticized the results of these studies as being biased in their presentation and results. It is claimed that all that these studies have accomplished is to distort the impact of the proposed legislation and scare investors away from the province.
From the beginning of the procedures to introduce this bill, the construction industry has been concerned about its impact on the investment opportunities in the province. This concern prompted these studies to be conducted in order to indicate to the government and the public what impact these proposals might have on the province. If anyone is concerned about the method or results of these studies, it would be a logical step for them to conduct their own studies to provide evidence to the contrary. Without any other source of information, we must accept the data at hand as being at least an indication of what may happen.
There is a saying that you should only believe half of what you hear. Even if we were to discount the results of the latest Ernst and Young study by 50%, we can still expect job losses in the 150,000 range if this legislation is introduced in its current form.
The government and labour have stated that the economic impact of this legislation will be negligible. We are only asking that you prove it before you proceed. Provide us with some tangible evidence that what you are telling us has some basis in fact and has been provided to you by an independent source.
The object of any union is pretty basic. It is to improve the working conditions and protect the jobs of its membership. The protection of jobs is not limited to current employment, but includes creating conditions which will increase employment opportunities. The role of the government is to create a climate which will encourage investment, thereby ensuring improved employment opportunity. Any union or government which would support any program that has studies demonstrating a negative impact on job creation has failed its constituents miserably.
If the current studies are not acceptable, we urge this committee to conduct research of its own on the impact of this legislation. Any recommendation you make to the minister must be based on the facts at hand. If you are concerned about any of those facts, it is imperative that you seek out any evidence to the contrary or which may confirm the statements made by any group before you. It is our feeling that it is for this reason that the government does not want to conduct its own studies. It knows, and is afraid, that the information provided by the Council of Ontario Construction Associations is true. They cannot with any conscience, and should not, move this legislation forward in its present form.
At an earlier hearing, with the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, Mr Klopp stated that he always goes by what someone is trying to sell him, and then he goes with facts and just the facts, never on perception only. Well, we have placed our facts on the table. To date, government and labour have been relating their perceptions of what impact this bill will have on investment. Mr Klopp, we applaud your approach to decision-making and encourage you to get all the facts.
When introducing this bill, the minister claimed this reform is necessary to enhance cooperation between, and provide a level playing field for, labour and management. If you review the process to date, it should be evident that the bill has already failed in its intentions. The only thing this bill has accomplished to date is to completely divide labour and management. I am sure you have determined that much so far in your hearings. If the bill proceeds, it will only continue to further divide labour and management. The reason the bill has failed to date is because the process used in the introduction of this reform has been terribly flawed.
At our last meeting on this issue, we suggested that the government consider the approach used by the construction industry for the past many years when seeking amendments to the Labour Relations Act; that is, a tripartite group which works together to formulate a package of amendments acceptable to both labour and management. Once this package is resolved, the introduction and passage of the legislation is quick and supported by all parties. It is a win-win-win situation. This process has worked many times in the past for the construction industry and is certainly workable in this instance. Surely, a delay for due process cannot be harmful to the government or labour's agenda as far as labour reforms are concerned.
In closing, I strongly urge you to base your recommendations on the facts. Do not discard the data our industry has provided unless you have meaningful evidence to the contrary. To get that evidence, we strongly urge you to conduct your own studies. If you do not find information to the contrary or you do not conduct a study, we urge you to have the courage and leadership to recommend to the minister that this legislation must be reconsidered and a true consultative process be used to determine what type of legislative reform would genuinely provide harmonious labour-management relations and a level playing field.
I now turn it to Dan Greco for comments on the bill itself.
Mr Dan Greco: I'll address one fairly simple fact and, in doing so, address a couple of items that are contained in the bill.
The simple fact I'm referring to is that there are workers in this province who prefer not to be members of a trade union. This simple fact has obviously been overlooked, given the content of Bill 40.
The best example of this is found in the proposed amendments to the certification process. Of particular concern is the elimination of petitions or any other evidence that an employee has changed his mind about his support for a trade union after the union has filed its application for certification. This item, I believe, was referred to earlier in one of Mr Offer's questions.
Not only does this bring into question the accuracy of the membership evidence upon which the board must base its decision of whether or not to certify the union but, more important, it will have a significant impact on employer free speech and a significant impact on the individual employee's ability to make a well-informed and reasoned decision.
In this same vein, the elimination of the provision which currently requires employees to pay an initiation fee of at least $1 prior to becoming a member of a trade union further impacts on the likelihood of the employee pausing to reflect on the seriousness of his decision to join a trade union. The importance of this initiation fee requirement becomes particularly magnified in light of the elimination of employee petitions just noted.
The combination of these two proposed changes alone moves the emphasis away from employees making well-informed decisions and expressing their wishes to facilitating trade union certification regardless of the employees' true wishes.
1410
A fair system would allow the employee the time required to gather the information on which to make his decision and enable the employee to change his mind, if need be, once adequately informed. A fair system would also require a secret ballot vote on all certification applications so that the employees' true wishes are expressed. The rights of individual workers should not be overlooked in favour of the rights of trade unions.
The same comments apply logically to decertification applications. The provisions for decertification should mirror the provisions for certification. Once again, the rights of individual employees must prevail. Although we are familiar with a few instances in our industry locally where termination declarations have been issued by the board, the number pales in comparison to the situations where employees have been unable to follow through on the procedures required to express their wish to no longer be represented by a trade union.
We truly do not have, in the words of the Premier, "a level playing field." Trade unions are sitting on the elevated side of the field and everything we see in Bill 40 indicates that the bubble on the proverbial playing field level will continue to move in the same direction.
To be assured of this we need look no further than the proposed purpose clause. Of particular concern is the first component, which provides that the act should be interpreted to facilitate the rights of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice. This statement goes beyond the existing preamble to the act, and in being included in the body of the act can be expected to influence the board's jurisprudence in areas such as union organizing.
Consequently, the bill not only aims at guaranteeing that employers will not be on a level playing field with trade unions, it also will create an environment where individuals are not on a level playing field with unions.
Do we really want an environment where the rights of unions prevail over the rights of individuals? Believe it or not, there are some individuals in this province who choose, and wish to remain able to choose, not to be members of a trade union.
Those are my comments, and I'll turn it over to Mr Sanscartier.
Mr Robert Sanscartier: Good afternoon, everyone. As my colleague mentioned in his opening remarks, my name is Bob Sanscartier and I come before you as the incoming president of the Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' Association.
This association is comprised of nearly 400 member firms employing over 10,000 people. Within our membership, we have builders, developers, trade contractors, suppliers and associates, and by "associates," I mean lawyers, bankers, engineers, salespeople, and the list goes on.
These people depend on a healthy housing industry. Let me tell you that we have suffered greatly during the last recession or even during this recession, and we are tremendously worried that if these new labour laws now being proposed by the NDP government are allowed to be legislated, it will be another major setback to an economic recovery in Ontario. It will be yet another example of legislation by the present government that will destroy jobs, and worst of all, will destroy future job creation.
I must admit to you that it is an insult to my intelligence to listen to this government blame all federal government policies for being the culprits for job losses in Ontario. Are you so naïve to think that your record deficits, your employment equity legislation, your blind eye to the onerous problems occurring at the Workers' Compensation Board and this new labour legislation do not have an impact on the livelihood of so many who depend on your good judgement as their elected officials to provide them with an environment that will provide them prosperity and opportunities for themselves and for their children?
I came here today not to cite statistics from several reports produced by well-reputed firms such as the accounting firm of Ernst and Young and the legal firm of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, because based on the previous hearings, you have had the arrogance to turn a deaf ear to these reports that prove that by passing these labour laws, some 295,000 jobs will be lost.
No, I did not come to cite statistics or excerpts from reports, but to try to reason with you, to try to bring you back to your senses. I would like to ask this government: Who do you think you are? Do you seriously believe that you are the ones who create the wealth needed to support our much-needed social programs? Let me remind you, you don't. As you seem to have forgotten, given the proper economic climate the private sector will invest and, by investing in the Ontario economy, will in turn create jobs and taxpayers to support those much-cherished programs.
Do not think for an instant that we do not know that your stubbornness in forcing these labour laws through is only your way of paying back your debt to the union leaders who helped you win the last election.
If this government and the union heads have the wellbeing of the average worker so much at heart, I ask myself, why would they want to have such a confrontational piece of legislation? Could it be that these labour leaders are so intent on justifying their $150,000-plus salaries that they have lost sight of the real reason for their being in those positions of power? Have they forgotten that their role is to provide work for their members, not to eliminate it?
In closing, all I have to say is that if you enforce these amendments to the Labour Relations Act, you will have succeeded in damaging the prosperity of the Ontario people, and you will also have succeeded in endangering the prosperity of our future generations, not to mention the survival of our social programs. So I implore you, please start doing what you have been elected to do, which is to represent the best interests of the people of Ontario, not the union bosses.
Mr Ward: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. You referred to the Ernst and Young opinion poll that was commissioned by your parent organization or by the business community in general. I don't know if you can recall, but during the free trade debate, the federal government commissioned a task force to look at the impact of free trade on the labour market in Canada. Mr de Grandpré, who was chairman of Bell Canada Enterprises at the time, was the chairman of that task force, and a very comprehensive report was developed called Adjusting to Win. What's important is the conclusion of that report, that because of the various intangibles that occur in the marketplace it's next to impossible to decide beforehand the effect of free trade on job loss. As a result, he said, you could never statistically analyse the impact of free trade and compare it to job loss. This was a federal task force.
It's my understanding that the Ministry of Labour commissioned Noah Meltz of the University of Toronto, and basically Mr Meltz advised the Ministry of Labour that the same thing would occur with labour reform: There are far too many intangibles involved in investment decisions for anyone to statistically analyse the impact. You would take infrastructure, training, labour relations in general, a number of areas that really impact investment decisions. We can provide that information to you, because obviously you don't have that from Mr Meltz.
As to investment, when you look around the Ottawa area, and very specifically the retail sector, Business Depot is opening up a store tomorrow and planning 36 stores over the next three years, including a second one in the Ottawa area; Winners is also opening up a store and plans 15 more, including one in the Ottawa area; Talbots plans to open one next spring; and Price Club plans to open one in Nepean next spring as well. What's interesting is that all these stores or chains -- and they're American-owned -- have the confidence in the Ontario market to have these expansion plans over the next few years. This is American investment.
When I look at my own community, we have Gates Rubber, and the Canadian director for the operation in Brantford was here and advised this committee, in discussion with me, that it invested $4 million into the operation in Brantford and is planning to invest $8 million to make the Brantford plants product developers for the world market. Again, this is an American-owned company out of Denver.
When you look at this -- I'm not going to say labour reform is the cause of this investment, nor would I say labour reform is the cause when a plant closes in Brantford. We have had some but it's been due to corporate restructuring, to receiverships due to the economy; there's always a number of variables. It's very difficult for anyone to say that this specific legislation is going to cause one thing or another when there are so many intangibles involved in decision-making.
1420
Gentlemen, if the employees of your specific companies -- I don't know if you are union or non-union or how big you are -- but if the majority of the employees wanted to make the decision, for whatever reason, to have a trade union represent them, would you agree? We've heard time and time again from various presenters that the obstacles that are currently in place under the existing act -- because there are some -- should be removed, because the majority of your employees of your specific companies make the conscious decision that "We need a trade union to represent us," for whatever reason.
Mr Sanscartier: Maybe I can speak. I am a non-union electrical contractor by trade and I've often asked myself the question, what would I do if my people decided that they needed to be protected under a collective agreement? Would I be able to work within that concept? I don't think I've ever found the answer. But I've been in business for 20 years, and I assume that for the last 10 years the unions have been trying to syndicate my business. The final decision rests with my workers, to whom I have great loyalty, because they share the same loyalty to me.
But that's not really what scares me with these labour laws. These labour laws scare me because, will I be able to provide the job security they need to support their families? You talked a lot about jobs that are being created. How about talking about the investors who are shying away from the Ontario economy because they're scared? If you have $100 million to invest, you analyse what your costs of doing business are before you invest your $100 million. You'll look at government policies: Are they confrontational or are they easy to work with? I cited some examples: We're trying to work with workers' compensation; that's a nightmare, you know. For anyone trying to invest in this province, that, along with these labour laws, has an impact on his or her decision. I'd like to be able to speak to you in five years or in 10 years. Have we forgotten when Quebec imposed its labour laws, that are very similar to these? They had more labour disruptions than any jurisdiction in Canada when they imposed them and they had that for 10 years.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms O'Neill, please.
Mr Sulpher: I'd like to respond to Mr Ward's question.
The Chair: Okay, if you want to prevent Ms O'Neill from asking one, because we're down to five minutes left for the balance of the questions and answers.
Mr Sulpher: I'll give a quick answer.
The Chair: All right. We're in your hands.
Mr Sulpher: My answer to the question of whether it's a majority is that yes, we would support legislation that would allow that majority to certify and become unionized. In fact, in the construction industry, I don't have the exact number but I would I would think that at least 85% of certification applications are successful. But I would also like to ask Mr Ward, in the event that a unionized company wants to terminate those rights, and of those employees the majority wants to get out, should there not be equal legislation that will make it as easy for them to terminate their relationship with the union?
The Chair: All right. That brief answer was like some of the brief questions that get asked. Go ahead, Ms O'Neill.
Mrs O'Neill: Gentlemen, the Ottawa Construction Association has presented briefs in my presence before, and I want to say that you always present succinctly. You always seem to focus the presentation and you seem to pick out key aspects of legislation that's proposed. I think you see that even in the meeting here there is a confrontational approach, and legislation lives by that. All of us in the Liberal caucus on this committee had lunch with a Sparks Street businessman today. He spoke exactly as you are speaking, although he's in a different industry in this city.
I feel that the tripartite group you mentioned is very much tried in other jurisdictions. It hasn't even been looked at by the present piece of legislation, and I think there's something really wrong about that.
The impact studies you asked for: I'm sorry, I don't accept the NDP members' excuses for not having impact studies. We have impact studies on all kinds of things. Whether it be education, health issues or labour issues, they are possible. They may not always be foolproof, but at least they give you some indications.
You've used phrases -- and they're not just phrases; they're reality -- that there have been major setbacks, because we knew and we hoped that in 1992 the housing starts would increase much more than they have in Ottawa-Carleton. I wonder if you could just try to be as specific as you have been in other questions about how this bill has affected those housing starts.
Mr Sanscartier: I think by creating uncertainty along with other pieces of legislation; people aren't sure whether they'll have a job tomorrow. You're right to say that we were expecting a faster recovery from this recession. The housing market hasn't picked up quite as we would have expected -- a far cry from it -- and a lot of our members are worried about this coming winter and whether they'll still be in business. It's very delicate.
Mr Sterling: I'd like to use a bit of my time to ask the parliamentary assistant whether the government has undertaken any feasibility studies.
The Chair: You can do that after the presentation.
Mr Sterling: Okay, good.
We had a presentation this morning by an association representing security officers. Construction sites are dangerous places. Presumably, they're going to have the right to strike after this legislation is finished and it's not going to be possible to hire replacement workers. How are you going to ensure the safety of the public if this takes place? Is it going to be possible?
Mr Sulpher: It's going to be more difficult. I don't know how; perhaps shut the job down until the settlement with the security guards is reached and they can come back to work, putting who knows how many people out of work until another group in another industry decides to come to an agreement.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Ottawa Construction Association for its participation in this process here in Ontario. You've played an important role and we're grateful to you for your contribution. Take care, gentlemen.
The next group is the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, if they would come forward and have a seat. While they're doing that, Mr Sterling, if you wanted to put a question to either research or the government, go ahead.
1430
Mr Sterling: When this group is here, and as a fairly new member of this committee, I'd just like to ask the parliamentary assistant: Has the government undertaken or is it presently undertaking any studies as to the impact of this legislation on the economy, on jobs, etc, and is it going to produce any before this legislation is called for third reading?
The Chair: Do you want to answer that now or do you want to commit yourself to answering it during the course of the day or tomorrow?
Ms Murdock: The study that we have done -- we commissioned Noah Meltz, the doctor at the university, to do something at the beginning. Basically, the thumbnail summary of his report is that there are so many variables that this legislation alone -- you can't make that, nor do you know how many people will opt to organize when Bill 40 becomes law. So that's the study that has been done.
In terms of looking at that, we have been trying to see other jurisdictions and see if there's been an impact there as to the effect of replacement worker legislation, for instance, and that kind of thing, but --
Mr Sterling: Can we see the results, then?
Ms Murdock: Of the Meltz study?
Mr Sterling: No, the other study you were talking about.
Ms Murdock: It's ongoing, and I don't know whether it's even been completed or compiled, but I can certainly find out from the ministry staff where we're at on it.
Mrs O'Neill: Mr Chairman, have we had the other study tabled for committee?
Ms Murdock: The Meltz?
Mrs O'Neill: I think it would be useful.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Parliamentary Assistant.
Ms Murdock: I can supply a copy and we can get copies made.
The Chair: Thank you.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
The Chair: Now to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Please tell us your names and your titles, if any, and make your submissions as you wish. Please try to leave the last 15 minutes for questions and exchanges.
Mr Jim Reid: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Reid. I'm a special representative with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. On my left is Henry Albert, president of local lodge 412 of the Ottawa-Cornwall area. His local represents 150 workers in that area. On my right is Peter Villeneuve, president of IM Local 1542 in the Boeing area in Arnprior, representing 600 members of Boeing. Unfortunately, our vice-president, Mr Bourgeois, was not able to be here today, so I'm making the presentation for him.
We welcome the opportunity to present our views on Bill 40, amending the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act, to the resources development committee of the Ontario Legislature.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has represented Ontario workers for more than 100 years. We have 18,000 members in Ontario in a wide range of manufacturing and service sectors.
We believe that the proposed changes to Ontario's laws governing the workplace are important and progressive. While they still lack some of the elements we desire, we believe the proposals will have a positive and necessary impact on labour relations in this province.
We're shocked by the hysterical and hypocritical response of much of the business community in Ontario to this legislation. The workers of this province have been tarred with the label "special interest," yet those using this label are the representatives and members of associations, federations and alliances that certainly are as much a special interest, if not more so.
Unions represent workers -- not just the members of our organizations, but all workers. Whenever union-sponsored changes occur that better working conditions, all workers benefit. We don't understand how business leaders who preach cooperation in the workplace can react so violently and irrationally to the very limited progressive measures proposed.
There is little that is new or radical to Canada in what Bill 40 proposes. Virtually all these measures are in place and are working effectively in other Canadian jurisdictions. We believe that the opportunity for workers to freely select their bargaining agent is a matter of fundamental fairness. The maintenance of mutual respect and dignity in labour-management relations, even during legitimate disputes and disagreements, is a key to a cooperative and well-functioning workplace. Bill 40 will allow for a higher degree of fairness and a better atmosphere in Ontario workplaces, which is of benefit to both labour and management.
We'd now like to discuss briefly the various aspects of the bill.
Organizing and first agreements: First, we believe that the right to organize and bargain collectively is fundamental. It has too long been arbitrarily denied to major segments of the workforce.
The current prohibitions on the unionization of professionals are archaic. There's never been any justification for denying domestic workers the right to unionize, and we hope that the government will move quickly ahead in extending the right to organize to agricultural workers.
The prohibition on security guards joining the same union as other workers at their workplace is unique to Ontario. There's no basis for the presumption of conflict of interest which underlies this restriction. It's not justified by any evidence, and we applaud the removal of this restriction.
The right to freely choose a union is a right which can be undermined explicitly or subtly by various means. Illegal discipline or discharge for union activity is unfair to the workers involved and has a chilling effect on legitimate organizing. Quick hearings and strict time limits for OLRA decisions, along with the authority to reinstate discharged employees pending the outcome of a hearing, will reduce the potential for unfairness in organizing campaigns.
We're disappointed that Bill 40 does not provide unions with access to employer property during organizing campaigns, but we do welcome the guarantee of legitimate access to normally public property like shopping malls and industrial parks during organizing campaigns and disputes.
In the certification process, the removal of some of the artificial barriers in current legislation will facilitate quicker and fairer decisions. This should reduce costs for both parties.
The $1 membership fee requirement has been nothing but a nuisance for some time and is nothing more than a carryover from the days when a dollar was considered folding money.
The reduction to 40% of the percentage of cards required for a representation vote will allow more workers the right to freely choose their representatives and lessen the impact of overaggressive anti-union employers.
Anti-union petitions are, almost without exception, tactics undertaken by anti-union employers to delay certification and undermine workers' freedom to choose their union. The prohibition on such petitions after an application for certification will reduce employers' opportunities for such abuse. This change brings Ontario in line with all other Canadian jurisdictions.
Legislation currently restricts the ability of the OLRA to provide automatic certification where employers have committed very serious breaches of the law. We're pleased to see this restriction removed and hope this will encourage employers to obey the law.
Among the important changes in the workplace in the last decade has been a major increase in the proportion of part-time workers. Bill 40 recognizes this in allowing the OLRA the flexibility to combine full- and part-time workforces in a single bargaining unit if the union involved makes the request. Extending this authority to the merging of bargaining units of the same employer belonging to the same union will also facilitate more sensible bargaining patterns, resulting in better workplace harmony and reduced negotiation costs.
Many employers carry their anti-union animus into bargaining for a first agreement. If the right to unionize is to have meaning, it must be connected to the right to fairly bargain a collective agreement. The current long delays in the first-contract arbitration process encourage recalcitrant employers to avoid serious bargaining, hoping to undermine new union support. We therefore believe that quick access 30 days after the strike/lockout deadline to an arbitrated agreement, without having to go through the long process of proving unreasonable tactics on the employer's part, will facilitate first-contract negotiations.
We welcome the requirement that workers be protected from unjust dismissal even before a first agreement is signed and during strikes or lockouts. The requirement that all agreements provide for protection from arbitrary employer discipline is an important recognition of this fundamental principle.
Labour disputes: Even though most collective agreements are settled without recourse to strikes or lockouts, the possibility of a strike or lockout plays a key role in collective bargaining. It is the ultimate weapon, with a significant cost to both sides. That puts pressure on both sides to bargain seriously.
The ability to hire replacement workers reduces the pressure on the employer to negotiate. It unsettles the bargaining relationship and is the main source of anger and violence in disputes. We therefore are pleased to see that Bill 40 will outlaw the use of outside replacement workers in legal strikes and lockouts. While this prohibition is not as broad as it might be, it recognizes that a strike or lockout is simply an episode in a continuing worker-employer relationship and that the best interests of all are served by reducing the potential for confrontations.
The requirement that benefit coverage be maintained during a legal strike if the union covers the costs also reduces the likelihood that long-term relationships will be destroyed by petty and vindictive employer actions.
1440
The elimination of the artificial six-month limit on employees' right to return to work will put pressure on employers to seek solutions without relying on the threat of the six-month deadline to hammer workers into submission. The principle of return to work based on seniority removes another potential impediment to many settlements.
We feel that, taken together, the changes to the provisions concerning strikes and lockouts will serve to make bargaining in Ontario more productive, reduce the number and duration of work stoppages and generally improve the labour-management atmosphere in Ontario workplaces.
Successor rights: As a union with membership in both the federal and provincial jurisdictions, we are well aware of the confusion and disruption which arise when a business is sold and moves from the federal to the provincial jurisdiction. We are therefore pleased that the OLRB will be able to apply successor rights provisions to such changes.
The contracting of services is an increasing phenomenon in the Canadian economy. When work is transferred to a contractor or between contractors, workers usually suffer. In almost every case, they are forced to take cuts in hard-won wages and benefits, if they are able to keep their jobs at all. Bill 40, therefore, is taking a major step forward in providing successor rights protection for these most vulnerable workers.
The labour relations system: Bill 40 also provides for a number of changes which will have a positive influence on the process of labour relations in this province. Providing greater authority to the OLRB to make interim orders and to impose terms and conditions when there has been a finding of bad-faith bargaining will offer the board greater flexibility in dealing with difficult situations.
The costs and the delays of the current system of grievance arbitration have been a source of complaint from all sides for many years. We hope that the fee schedules and time limits provided for in the legislation will help alleviate these problems.
Extending the authority of arbitrators to deal with all employment legislation should also serve the process by reducing debate on each arbitrator's jurisdiction. This change should, however, be accompanied by intensive training for arbitrators, who will in many cases be required to move beyond their areas of expertise.
We are pleased that the legislation is moving in the direction of recognizing employers' responsibility to justify plant closures and layoffs and, more particularly, to negotiate towards a labour adjustment plan. While we would have preferred a stronger set of obligations for employers to justify irregular layoffs and shutdowns and to pay for the costs of dislocation to communities as well as workers, we accept the requirements of Bill 40 as an important step in the right direction.
Finally, we are only mildly optimistic about the impact of the requirements in the bill to provide for regular workplace consultations and the creation of the new workplace organization and partnership development service. We do not yet see much evidence that employers are seriously interested in truly sharing with workers the direction of the workplace. Without such a commitment, labour-management discussions are not likely to be very productive.
In closing, we believe that the current amendments in Bill 40 will go a long way towards improving labour relations and the situation of workers in this province. While not revolutionary in their impact, they will contribute to a healthier and less confrontational workplace. We urge the committee to unanimously recommend that the government put this bill, as presented, into effect as soon as possible.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I take it that on the whole you do not find a great deal wrong with Bill 40. We've had, or course, many presenters who have taken essentially the same position, but we've also heard from many others who have some serious difficulties with Bill 40. What are we to make of those submissions? I cannot dismiss them all as being without any foundation or not being sincere or for some kind of ulterior motives or purposes.
Even if we set aside the concerns that business has raised regarding Bill 40, what are we to make of groups such as the children's aid society, which feels that some of the provisions in here will interfere with its obligation to care for children in the event of a strike? What are we to make of the domestics, who have told us that this really will not assist them and that they will continue to suffer some of the abuses which they traditionally have? The garment workers have expressed the same kinds of concerns, and the Municipal Electric Association told us that some of the provisions here may interfere with its ability to provide us with electricity. What are we to make of all of those concerns?
Mr Reid: The previous speaker was asked a question about his employees, and he said that he employs a certain number of people and they have not unionized in 20 years. I think the concerns that are expressed get away from the point that it's still the worker's choice. What you're speaking of is limiting the right to choose, and that's a fundamental right we have, a right to join or not to join a union. This bill doesn't force anybody to join. It still leaves that open for them.
Mr McGuinty: Let me break it down for you. In the case of municipal electric associations and the children's aid society, they're already unionized, but those unions are acquiring additional rights under Bill 40, and the concerns that have been expressed are dealing with those additional powers. So in those circumstances, we're not talking about the issue of whether or not someone has to join a union, and in the other circumstances -- domestics, garment workers -- they are not going to benefit under Bill 40. I'm just trying to ensure that you understand that this legislation, like any other piece of legislation that's ever been introduced, is not perfect.
Mr Reid: No, it doesn't go far enough.
Mr McGuinty: It doesn't go far enough as far as the garment workers are concerned, and in some cases I would argue that it goes too far.
Mr Reid: Well, I would argue differently. As for the electrical workers, I come from the Toronto area, and when CUPE locals have gone on strike in the local area for the electrical boards, they've always maintained the emergency services required. Where there's a possibility of danger to the public, I don't know of any union that will ignore that danger and not provide the emergency services to the employer during a strike or lockout. It just has to be negotiated.
Mr Offer: I don't think my question is going to come as a surprise to you, as an international. I think there are something like 14 internationals in the province. You're obviously one of them?
Mr Reid: You'd think so.
Mr Offer: You know that about three weeks after Bill 40 was introduced, a further bill, Bill 80, was also introduced by the Minister of Labour, which spoke to the issue of disaffiliation. Basically, the legislation provided for the ability of a union to disaffiliate from its international if it wished to by way of a secret ballot vote. That's already agreed to and it's embraced in principle in the legislation.
If you agree with that, I wonder whether it's right and proper to extend that right that is already in Bill 80 to all workers of this province in the area of choosing whether or not to join a union; in other words, a secret ballot vote with full protection against coercion and intimidation from whatever source.
Mr Reid: I'm not sure I understand the exact thrust of your question, but as to disaffiliation, in the current legislation there's already the opportunity at the end of whatever the term of the contract is to decertify. There have been plants that have decertified and immediately joined another union, and that's disaffiliation in a certain context.
I wasn't aware of Bill 80, but again, in a democratic society, it's the will of the majority. If they vote to do that and they do it the proper way, that's all that's necessary, isn't it? I imagine that when you go to caucus meetings, if you're in the minority, you don't come out and show up your caucus by not going along with it.
Mr Offer: I appreciate that response. So you as an international are in favour of the will of the majority in a secret ballot vote.
Mr Reid: We always have been in favour of democracy in the Machinists.
The Chair: Sometimes one's commitment to what's right and just is so strong that one can't help himself or herself.
Mrs O'Neill: You wanted that in Hansard, didn't you, Mr Chairman?
1450
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for coming forth with a very well-put-together presentation. I've listened attentively to what you've said and have a couple of brief questions. We heard a previous presenter today indicate that there is a level playing field out there already, that as a matter of fact some of the legislation might be in favour of the workers and there's not enough protection for the employers. I hope you were here when the presentation was made.
Mr Reid: Yes.
Mr Hayes: I just wondered what your reaction is to that. Do you believe there is a level playing field out there for domestics, part-time workers, people in this category, who want to belong to a union to get some protection?
Mr Reid: No, I don't think so. There are loopholes in any legislation, and where there are loopholes, you always find lawyers who are willing to try to work through them and subvert them to whichever side hires them. We're constantly working uphill in organizing campaigns against petitions, employers' letters, captive meetings, the ability to get hold of the workers; these types of things. In some cases where you have people who come from different countries, language is a problem. The fear of authority is a problem. People need jobs. They're all problems, and those certainly take away from the playing field and certainly don't make it level. If it ever was level or in favour of unions, I don't think I've ever seen that day.
Mr Wood: You have mentioned in your brief that you feel that Bill 40 does not go far enough. But do you feel you'd be able to live with Bill 40, and if in three, four or five years there are further changes required, that's something you could live with as a union?
Mr Reid: As we do in any negotiations, if we get a contract we always look to build on it. With any legislation, nothing's perfect from the outset, and I think you have to start building. This legislation that's currently in effect was last amended I don't know how many years ago, and I think it's time for some changes.
Mr Wood: In 1975. Just a brief one before I pass it over to Mr Hayes. In the case of petitions, I just want to know what your feeling is. Do you believe that petitions should be eliminated entirely, that there should be no petitions from employees or employers? We've heard a lot of presentations that 99.5% of the petitions brought forward are brought forward by employers and are proven to be so before the board. Do you believe that they should be eliminated entirely?
Mr Reid: Yes. The board overturns those types of petitions. It's a waste of time. It lengthens the process and creates a more head-banging process in negotiations, and it's not necessary. It's better to get on with the negotiation, get on with the fact of life that your employees have chosen to organize, they've chosen the union. Negotiate.
Mr Wood: The secrecy of signing up cards and members signing the cards would be enough to --
Mr Reid: Yes.
Mr Hayes: Thank you, Mr Wood, for sharing your time. The one question that keeps coming up is that there are some people who feel that if you have 55% of the workers who sign cards to join the union, you should therefore go forward and have a secret ballot vote on whether they want to join or not. Can you give us your position on that particular question?
Mr Reid: We've worked under the 55% in the current legislation; it provides for automatic certification. Again, if you go towards the secret ballot vote, at any percentage, you're tying up time, you're tying up resources on both sides. The employer doesn't need the loss of productivity while people stand around and talk; neither do we. We don't organize to put people out of business; we organize to represent the workers. We don't negotiate to put employers out of business; we negotiate to get a fair deal. Fairness is what the issue is.
Mr Bisson: That's the point I wanted to get at. Some people have said -- I've not directly heard it at these presentations, but I've heard it in discussion throughout the province -- that new unionization will lead to less productivity within the workplace. Perhaps you can respond to that, because I find that interesting. I'm not going to go any further.
Mr Reid: In a non-union environment, if the employer is pulling all sorts of shenanigans, people stand around and talk about that; they're upset and they don't know where to turn. You get more of that than if they have a grievance procedure that they get with the negotiated collective agreement. If you have a grievance procedure, you file your grievance and you get back to work. The steward takes care of the grievance. I think there's more productivity in the union environment.
The Chair: Mr Sterling.
Mr Sterling: I'm sorry, I had other things; I had to slip out just after you started your brief, but I did hear you supporting the security guards' right to join the same union. I had asked the construction people a question about security of the site if in fact security guards go on strike and you're not allowed under this legislation to hire replacement workers. How are we going to secure a construction site without hiring replacement workers and protect the public from the dangers of a construction site if this legislation passes?
Mr Reid: I believe the legislation allows the gentlemen from the construction association to stand there overnight and guard the gates. They could stay awake and do that if they wanted. That's their right under this legislation. We feel there shouldn't be any right to the work being done, and if that's necessary, they should just lock the doors and settle the strike.
Mr Sterling: But you don't lock the doors of a construction site. I mean, you have to have people around the edges to make certain kids don't get in and hurt themselves. How are they going to do that?
Mr Reid: It's provided under the act that management people can do the jobs, fulfil the function of the striking workers.
The Chair: Gentlemen, Mr Reid, Mr Villeneuve, Mr Albert, thank you very much on behalf of the committee for your participation on behalf of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. You've provided valuable input, and the committee is grateful to you.
WOMEN'S PLACE
The Chair: The next participant is Women's Place, if those people would please come forward and have a seat. Tell us your names, your titles or positions, if any. We've got your written submission, which will form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. You can either read all of your written submission or highlight it, but please try to keep the last 15 minutes for exchanges and dialogue.
Ms Patricia Petrala: My name is Patricia Petrala. I'm the past president of Women's Place, and I'm still on the board. Joining me is Sheela Biman. She's a volunteer with Women's Place, but also is the coordinator of the Multicultural Council of Professional Women.
The first sheet you have on the submission is a cover sheet that explains to you what Women's Place is. We're one of 22 women's centres. You did hear a presentation from the Thunder Bay Women's Centre earlier.
Beginning on page 2, I've clustered the remarks by topic for brevity, and will not address any statistics, labour research or policy, nor legal interpretation or process.
Communication: Frankly, the way Women's Place and many other women's groups have been drawn into offering comment on this proposed bill has not been acceptable. Timing and insensitivity to the process and expertise perceived in the grass-roots community has been entirely lacking. Women's Place was pressured by constituency staff to obtain the bill or working information and present it within four weeks. We also feel responsible to our community to remain visible and at least provide comment on what we can. We do appreciate the opportunity.
The common practice of most groups is to have a board or collective and membership discussions, with complete information and identified resource persons over a longer period of time. We want to become equally informed and able to generate constructive comment by consensus. Within a volunteer framework and logistical constraints over the holiday period, we have not been able to meet our own standards and have to rely on a few to reach many and to try to identify commonalities to present.
Business and institutions with a stable economic base, staff and other resources are better able to mobilize a squeaky-wheel media blitz and to trumpet their agenda most strategically. Women's groups and other grass-roots-based volunteer and not-for-profit organizations are consistently disadvantaged in receiving complete and understandable -- that's layperson's English -- information in preparing for briefs, to hold constructive dialogue, public and media visibility and general input.
1500
The questionable logic and imagined angst -- expressed by business and the new coalitions which are hyped by sophisticated advertising and PR firms then gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the media -- is profoundly flawed. Their backlash speaks volumes as to their insecurity, fear and unwillingness to share power and to cooperate with employees. They offer evidence of their attitudes and unwillingness to form productive partnerships with workers and to contribute more effectively to building a stable, growing and fair economy for Ontario.
This is not new information or perspective, but hear us now. Women are a part of Ontario's workforce and we are here to stay. We will not go away and we will organize. We will continue to improve our collective knowledge, power and influence on all issues, laws and processes that affect our lives daily. As melodramatic and reactionary as business and industry choose to behave, we women reject their bullying and question the motivations of these big boys and their brothers in the mainstream media.
There appears to be the usual blaming of women for family breakdowns that is being touted and resentment of working women at all levels of the labour force. Get real. Women want to be able to choose to work in or out of the home and to be paid fairly, receive benefits and negotiate at the tables as equals. Many women do not have a choice; their survival requires working outside the home.
Communication recommendation:
1. Future requests for briefs and presentations by the government should make available, with reasonable time for access and review, perhaps through constituency offices or women's centres, a timely fact sheet on the bill or the issue in clear, simple English, a list of identified resources in print or people available at no cost, plus support and guidelines regarding the process. For example, a "How To Do a Brief" fact sheet explaining the length of a brief, oral or print, how many copies, time allowed, how your group is selected and what happens should be available on request for novices. As volunteer groups recycle their teams, we try to train novices and mentors, but we look to the government for support.
2. It would be useful to have a map or chart indicating a holistic view and the interrelationship of this bill and/or other bills or issues in the future to other employment and labour legislation and how they support or counter each other. For example, collective bargaining and organizing may prove integral to implementing employment and pay equity, health and safety, negotiated benefits and so on. Women working in isolation may never have access to the complete picture of working rights, privileges or options beyond that information their boss provides, usually on minimum wage, taxes and his terms of employment.
Women's Place supports the initiative of the government of Ontario to initiate improvements to the act. We appreciate that this will be one step of many towards improving the economic situation for women in Ontario. We will pay attention to its implementation and additional improvements in the future.
The two briefs presented by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women are acknowledged and appreciated. We trust that provincial perspectives by other women's groups will complement and enhance their position. The recommendation to examine various models for achieving broad-based collective bargaining is seconded. Women do not always fit into the existing male frameworks, and unions haven't consistently proven to be gender-responsive, -supportive or -sensitive. Women are generally not endeared to unions. The call for a review of the Employment Standards Act is affirmed.
Our sister Women's Centre in Thunder Bay aptly expressed the reality it faces and we support its statements.
We would welcome an opportunity to receive a summary of your gender-focused findings for supplementary input in addition to the overall report.
Education: As the government proceeds to enact new laws, Women's Place, as a conduit for the community, would appreciate support and information to educate a broader base of women and groups.
It is unclear how our youth fit into these changes and will be educated on their rights and options as full- or part-time workers. Will there be information available to educators to build with our youth the importance of collective bargaining and its impact on them now and as they participate more fully in the future? Up-to-date labour practices and laws should be a part of basic education in our schools.
How will our new Canadians become informed of these laws and reduce any exploitation? Is there a conduit with the Department of Employment and Immigration to instruct domestics, transient labour and others on their rights and where to connect for support and information? Will changes to the unemployment insurance and training packages work for or against women's educational opportunities if they are not part of a collective bargaining unit?
Gender: As laudable as these constructive legislative improvements may begin, the entrenched systemic barriers and attitudes will require considerable effort by all partners to really bring change into the working woman's life. Beyond paper rights, we look for strengthening legislation, tools, information, support and action to ensure that women are equal partners in building Ontario's economy. We expect equitable representation on all decision-making bodies, commissions and review boards.
What means will the government provide to enable women to organize? Parachuting an outsider to mobilize a group of workers has not proven to be as effective as women getting timely information, training and tools to organize themselves. Time, money, energy and a lack of understanding often deter initiative.
Unions: The gains made for women in a union are positive, and those who are a part know their wages generally are more fair. Unions must address their real and perceived image and operational problems, from self-interest, seniority manipulation, antagonistic stances, playing one group against another, systemic patriarchal processes and so on. "Scabs" and other outmoded language needs to be recycled. There have been some concerns voiced that the choice to opt out of a union, the dues and the process is not available. Is there a vehicle for personal choice to exist in the framework of an organized workplace?
General improvements: With more and more home-based entrepreneurs, contracting out of work and other means of earning an income, women are increasingly struggling to cope. Will this legislation allow for travel agents, insurance agents, professional associations, hairdressers and other irregularities to organize for collective improvement to their working conditions and benefits? What choices can workers have if the existing unions are not suitable for their circumstances?
What safeguards will the government offer to reduce scapegoating women organizing as a business rationale to move south? The real or perceived risk to a livelihood as presented by a company may continue to deter workers from organizing and exercising their paper rights. Free trade and Mexico have chilled the vision of a strong Ontario for many.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to draw to your attention some concerns and our support.
Mr Sterling: I don't know -- maybe you could help me out or maybe the parliamentary assistant could help me out -- but is the employment equity legislation which we now have in the province of Ontario applicable to union organizations?
Ms Murdock: Employment equity legislatively, as a provincial piece of legislation, would apply everywhere.
The Chair: Every employer, is that what you're saying?
Ms Murdock: Every employer, yes.
Mr Sterling: Every employer, so it would deal with it. Okay, I just didn't know whether that was the case or not.
Ms Murdock: It hasn't gone for third reading yet. It's going, though, I'm sure.
Mr Sterling: You state in your brief on page 1 that Women's Place was pressured by constituency staff. Which constituency staff was that?
1510
Ms Petrala: Well, several of the board members live in different neighbourhoods and were known in the community to be active and vocal on women's concerns. I'm in Chiarelli's ward; Women's Place is in Ottawa Centre, Evelyn Gigantes's riding; one of the members lives out near Orleans -- I don't know who her member is -- but we do get calls from staff saying, "Are you doing something?" or "Won't you do something?"
Mr Sterling: Okay. It's just as a matter of interest.
Ms Petrala: Consistently, Women's Place is turned to present nationally, provincially, municipally on all the issues.
Mr Sterling: You've mentioned a lot of issues in here that you're concerned about. What is the issue you deem as most important for the provincial government to deal with? A lot of your brief deals with sort of the process and those kinds of things.
Ms Petrala: Part of the major problem is that women in the community on the whole, whether they are organized or not organized, are not well versed in what their rights are and how does it work. There's no simple language that says, "You have to get minimum wage plus 10% because you're in this situation," or "You get minimum wage with tips," or "You get a 6% increase after a year." They have no frame of reference. They rely entirely on whoever hires them to guide them through what they do or do not have to do. "You have to pay taxes." "Yes, you come and work in the grocery store and you have to join the union." "Why do I have to join the union? I'm only working 20 hours a week."
In some institutions people are just confronted with the whole mechanism of labour law and they don't know where to start. We're no experts, and there's no simple resource that we can find that gives the answers.
The Chair: Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I thought I was after. There are a couple of things you mention here that are really interesting. One of the things we tend to agree on, and this is just a comment going through, is the question of empowerment. I think we have to start the empowering process much earlier than actually getting into the workplace, not only on questions of workplace laws but also what your rights as an individual within the society are. Maybe you can comment on it after. I think it's quite interesting that sometimes our educational system doesn't fulfil that need to make sure that women and other people understand what their rights are.
Just one thing is that I thought it was interesting you made a recommendation in your brief that I think maybe some of us never thought about, and that's the whole question of trying to find some sort of mechanism to assist groups that are not used to the process of making presentations to committees. Now, we do have somewhat of a service that we offer; either the committee people or the Clerk's office would assist in telling you and answering some of the questions you raise. But you raise an interesting point and maybe it's something, as committee people, we should be looking at a little bit further.
My question is this: At the end of your submission you made a comment, and I'd like to get your feedback on it. You were saying in the second-last paragraph of the last page under "General Improvements," "What safeguards will the government offer to reduce scapegoating women organizing as a business rationale to move south?" I wonder if you can expand on that a bit and, if you have a chance, to comment on the others. Are you saying what I think you're saying?
Ms Petrala: I'm not sure what you think you're saying.
Mr Bisson: Some people would.
Ms Petrala: Particularly in the garment industry, where a large percentage of workers are women and some actually do work from home, now with the free trade agreement opening up, some of them fear that if they get organized and unionized, even working in isolation they're going to shut the shop and they'll be out of business entirely.
Mr Bisson: Do you think that's a real threat or is that a perceived threat on the part of women?
Ms Petrala: Again, I don't work in the industry, so I can't speak for them, but it's just something that has come up in the discussions of people who work in the industry.
Mr Bisson: So it's something your group has picked up, that people have brought.
Ms Petrala: That's correct.
Mr Bisson: Interesting.
Ms Murdock: Thank you for coming in, especially because I understand how much you seem to have been under some pressure to get this done. I appreciate your having taken the time to come in and do it.
That is actually part of the thing I wanted to ask you about. In terms of the four weeks, how much time would a group such as yours require in order to appear before any committee or a task force or whatever?
Ms Sheela Biman: I think we need at least six weeks. As far our organization is concerned, we are not presenting any because the person who was supposed to do the presentation is sick. Then I had to find another one. She got sick. So I'm cancelling a lot of presentations for the Multicultural Council of Professional Women, but I am supporting Women's Place. But if we had six weeks, at least two or four weeks more, I could have done the job myself. I wouldn't have to depend on anybody else. I am completely new in this Ottawa area and I don't know all the system here and how it works. I was in northern Ontario, very close to Sudbury, where you come from.
Ms Murdock: Yes. Would that apply to all the women's organizations you deal with at Women's Place?
Ms Petrala: Normally, because they meet once a month as a board, and if you're going to do a telephone tree or call an ad hoc working committee, set up a phone tree and call in 25 people to work on this and discuss it, the lead time to organize that is you have to give them two weeks' notice to come to a meeting, find the resource people, the space, sit down, get educated, then go home and think about it, meet again, do a draft brief, go through it and come to some consensus. We at Women's Place link with the 160-odd women's groups in Ottawa-Carleton, and then a lot of them would like to have their own voice for their own position because it's not part of our common experience, say, the African Women's Congress or something like that. We can't speak on their behalf; they have their own voice. But to get up the logistics of who will speak for themselves, who will speak collectively, six weeks minimum, and two months would be better.
Ms Biman: That's right. Six weeks to two months.
Ms Murdock: Okay, and in terms of all these women's groups that are part of your organization for information purposes and meeting purposes and resources and that kind of thing, are the preponderance of them part-timers or home workers or --
Ms Petrala: There's a mixed bag. Like I said, in Ottawa-Carleton we have about 160 women's groups, and that includes the Council of Women, Voice of Women for Peace, the Ladies' Auxiliary of Ottawa Civic Hospital, the Anglican church -- there's just a cross-section, a mix of mature women, homemakers, mothers and women, some political, some not political, some social, some personal development groups. We have support groups meeting at Women's Place, like incest survivors and things like that, that don't necessarily want to get involved in other issues; they have other priorities. So it really takes us time to mobilize and identify who wants to tackle any of these particular concerns.
Ms Murdock: And you're suggesting that the constituency offices perhaps be the mode of getting information to your organization?
Ms Petrala: It's one conduit, and it's the conduit we rely on, but certainly if you utilize women's centres throughout Ontario -- there are 22 of them -- and give us the resources to mobilize our communities, then certainly we can be more effective.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've touched on some very important areas.
Do you think it would be beneficial if there was an amendment in the legislation that if there was an organizing campaign taking place there be a notice in the workplace to the workers advising them and telling them what their rights are in that area under the Labour Relations Act?
Ms Petrala: That would be a useful tool as a start, certainly, depending on where you're organizing and the level of literacy and English skills. You'd have to pay attention to that.
Mr Offer: I take it almost as a given that there would have to be a sensitivity to the different languages and culture and all that, but that shouldn't deter the effort to provide information impartially and without any fear of intimidation or coercion.
Ms Petrala: Yes.
Mr Offer: On page 4 of your presentation, in the second paragraph you have indicated, "Parachuting an outsider to mobilize a group of workers has not proven to be as effective," and it goes on. Could you expand upon what that means?
Ms Petrala: I'm trying to recall the story. I had talked earlier with someone in the retail sector, so maybe I'll play on that. If you are in the retail sector, Betty's Boutique, and you are not aware of your rights but you're having a problem and you talk to your neighbour whom you got to know across the shopping mall and she has a similar problem where it's deciding shift work or something, she may not know where to outreach to get information, but at the same time you might have a union person walking through the mall saying: "If you're having any problems, give us a call. We can come in and help you." People are not comfortable with strangers coming into the milieu to organize them. It creates suspicion among the workers and it creates suspicion among their bosses. What's the motivation? Who brought this on? The individual who may have made a complaint that got somebody from the union to come in and talk to them may not necessarily work to the best advantage of everybody concerned.
1520
Mr McGuinty: Part of the learning experience, I guess, for all of us on the committee is to gain a better understanding of, when an organizational drive is under way, a lot of the activities seem to be subterranean. There's a lot of subterfuge. I'm wondering, could we not put it on the table? I think certainly a starter would be to hold some kind of notice which advises all the participants what their rights are. What do you think of the idea that in bringing it aboveboard, putting it on the table, at the end of the day the workers would be entitled to vote? It's by secret ballot in order to determine whether or not they would be joining a union. What do you think of that idea?
Ms Petrala: If all the information is up front and people are equally informed and comfortable with the process, and allowing for some dialogue among the people to confirm their understanding, a secret ballot wouldn't necessarily create any difficulty, I wouldn't imagine, as long as people are making an informed choice and not feeling intimidated or insecure about their choice.
Mr McGuinty: Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank you for appearing here this afternoon on behalf of Women's Place. You have provided some unique insights -- perhaps not unique; at the very least, insights not yet provided or never before provided to the committee. You've obviously captured the attention of all of the caucuses, all of the members of the committee, so we thank you. We appreciate your input. You played a valuable role in the performance of this committee. Take care.
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
The Chair: The next participant and the last one for the afternoon, long-time advocate of a common pause day, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
Please, sirs, have a seat. Tell us your names and your titles and carry on with your comments about Bill 40.
Mr Barry Baily: My name is Barry Baily. I'm the eastern regional director for the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 175, which is the largest local union in Canada, covering some 40,000 members in Ontario. My colleague next to me is going to present the main body of our presentation to you. His name is Tim Catherwood, and he is a special assistant to the Canadian director of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. We will not be going through our entire brief because other presentations are being done throughout the province by our union. We will instead be concentrating on layoff and closure only.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union is pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the standing committee on resources development to present our union's views on reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, UFCW Canada, is Canada's largest private sector union, representing some 175,000 workers in this country. UFCW members are employed in more than 20 sectors of the economy, including the retail, service, meat packing, food processing, brewing and beverage production and distribution, fishing, general merchandising, health care, shoe and leather and banking industries. UFCW represents more than 70,000 men and women in Ontario.
Our union strongly supports reform of the act and commends the government for its efforts in ensuring that the reform process continues to move forward as expeditiously as possible. The proposed reforms are essential if we are to address the fundamental changes in Ontario's economy that have occurred over the past 15 years since the act was last amended. Those 15 years have been significant in terms of a shift in Ontario's economy and changing workforce. Today's jobs and the jobs of the future are characterized by increasingly complex manufacturing and service-based positions requiring higher skill levels. Combined with an unprecedented influx of women into the labour force and an evolving job structure which is increasingly characterized by part-time jobs, it is without doubt time that Ontario's Labour Relations Act be updated and revamped to reflect today's realities.
The business community is apparently oblivious to these realities and has chosen to be anything but constructive in its response to the proposed changes. Their tack has been to launch a vitriolic, offensive campaign consisting of misinformation, fearmongering, questionable public opinion polls and more. This campaign has only served to create a negative image of Ontario's economy, not only in Canada but around the world.
The proposed legislation is neither radical nor revolutionary; it is merely attempting to provide basic rights to workers in a modern economy of a democratic society. The reforms are designed to bring the province of Ontario into step with legislation which for the most part already exists in other jurisdictions in Canada.
UFCW Canada believes that the envisaged amendments to the act will create a new labour-management relations environment wherein unions are treated as legitimate representatives of working people and are accepted as partners in the economic and social development of the province. Labour law reform can reduce much of the adversarial nature of labour-management relations and allow unions to operate more constructively and with fewer resources being used to fight for survival. In such an environment it will be possible for labour and management to work together on matters of mutual interest, including training, education, labour adjustment, sectoral issues and economic development. Unions will be able to play a more positive role in society and in building a stronger economy.
Those who oppose labour law reform argue that amendments to the act will favour unions and create an unfavourable environment for business. These assertions are incorrect, reactionary and based on a narrow view of the roles that labour and business can play and must play in order to build a modern, effective, industrialized economy. Progressive and positive steps are urgently needed to address the economic problems facing Ontario and to build a strong, lasting and broadly based economic recovery.
As we look around us, we see many other jurisdictions, notably European countries, where unions are treated as legitimate partners in society. Unions are able to function effectively in areas such as organizing, collective bargaining, training and adjustment and contribute positively to economic and social development. Virtually all citizens in these jurisdictions are free to exercise their democratic right to join a union and to participate in the development of their workplace, company and economic sector. These countries possess some of the strongest economies in the world and are able to adapt to changes effectively and smoothly, without the burden of change falling on any one group, particularly working people.
This is the kind of system that UFCW Canada wants for Ontario. We want a system where working people and the unions that represent them can play a greater and more constructive role in building the province's future. This kind of system is needed to pull our collective strength together to bring about economic recovery and to address the many other challenges we all face.
I'm now going to hand over the chair to my colleague. He'll continue from here.
Mr Tim Catherwood: As Barry said, what we would like to do in this particular presentation in this location is focus on the section on adjustment and change in the workplace. That's on page 14 of the brief that we provided you.
This is following up on the previous comments we had made in February, when we had suggested that while some positive things were happening in terms of labour adjustment, really we could be going further. That's the way we feel about Bill 40.
The amendments in Bill 40 will give unions and workers a voice when significant changes that have direct impact on workers in the workplace are initiated by large employers during a collective agreement. This will, however, be of little interest or benefit to unorganized workers or to workers in smaller workplaces with fewer than 50 persons. I should add that UFCW has an increasingly large number of small workplaces, being a largely service sector or retail sector union.
1530
In addition, while the proposals provide that the employer and trade union should make every reasonable effort to develop an adjustment plan for the layoff or closure, the amendments will not provide the essential regulatory protections needed in the case of all job loss. To us, it's critical that all layoffs and closures begin with adequate advance notice, severance, the assurance of an adjustment committee with the resources it needs, and a guarantee that the union will be able to represent and protect those members who lose their jobs.
We are concerned that instead of developing a comprehensive package that provides workers with the assistance they need and which will advance the adjustment process, the government has chosen to rely primarily on labour-management cooperation, which, while clearly desirable and the optimal approach to effective adjustment, has rarely been used. In fact, it is much more difficult to come up with a few cases where labour-management cooperation has worked than it is to list many, many cases where the employer has failed to accept responsibility and assist with adjustment. Too frequently the adjustment process has been a traumatic and difficult process for laid-off workers. UFCW Canada questions whether we can really rely on the cooperation of employers in all cases. In the absence of basic conditions and provisions, cooperation and equitable adjustment may not be possible.
UFCW Canada makes its comments with regard to adjustment issues from the basis of considerable experience. Not only have we been faced with many layoffs and closures, but UFCW Canada has also developed a national layoff and closure program, which reports to me. This program, which is the first of its kind in Canada, is designed to provide our local unions with the information and trained staff they need to deal with layoffs and closures in a timely and effective way. The UFCW Canada program deals with the full range of matters involved in a layoff or closure, including closure agreements, adjustment committees, needs assessments, unemployment insurance, training, job search, literacy and language assistance and the personal problems members may face.
UFCW Canada's program is designed so that it can be implemented through a joint effort of the employer and the local union. In fact, we recognize that the adjustment process will be much more effective if it can be done cooperatively.
Unfortunately, very few employers are prepared to work with unions and recognize the key role the union must play in making adjustment work well. The more normal pattern of layoff or closure involves last-second notice by the employer, or notice less than statutory requirement plus pay in lieu of notice, minimum severance and perhaps an offer of a limited amount of money for a job search seminar or an adjustment committee. Most employers are more interested in getting the layoff or closure over with and being rid of the situation. They leave the real problems to be addressed by the union, the government and, of course, the workers themselves.
Clearly, we wish this were not the case. In fact, our program is designed to change the pattern of adjustment. We want to prepare our local unions and give them the tools they need to deal with layoffs and closures when they occur. In addition, we are encouraging locals to negotiate provisions for advance notice, severance, adjustment committees, training, literacy courses and funding into their collective agreements. In each case of layoff or closure, we encourage locals to try to secure the cooperation of the employer. In our view, the adjustment process will only be improved and be effective when employers accept responsibility for their decisions and actions and commit to work with unions and government to ensure workers get the assistance they need. Until this is done, workers and unions will naturally and quite rightly be resistant to change.
In the Minister of Labour's proposals, reference is made to a work organization and adjustment service. UFCW Canada has no particular difficulty with the idea of such a service. Indeed, we believe that the service could provide employers and unions with valuable information and facilitate greater awareness of the issues involved in managing change and adjustment. The service could work to assist labour and management to cooperate more effectively. UFCW Canada would be willing to look seriously at participating in any advisory group formed with regard to such a service. In addition, we think there's merit in the idea of the service working closely with the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board when it's formed.
UFCW Canada's major concern with the government's proposals relate to regulation of the adjustment process. We believe the government should be dealing with the problems that are facing laid-off workers each and every day by providing the regulatory framework required for effective adjustment. In addition, it's essential that employees in workplaces with fewer than 50 workers be protected and offered the assistance they need.
We agree that it's important that labour, business and government work to prepare for and respond to changes in the workplace, sectorally and in the economy more generally. This should not, however, be used as a reason not to provide an adequate regulatory framework for adjustment. Rather, this should be a strong reason in favour of there being new rules to guide the adjustment process. These rules should outline basic minimum conditions required to make the adjustment process more effective, and we list five things that we think are basic.
The first is mandatory notice. In virtually all cases, workers should receive advance notice of layoffs or closures, whether it's a full or a partial closure. It's important that the notice be done in terms of time, not pay in lieu of; I can come back later, if you'd like, and give you examples. Notice is essential for workers, including those in small workplaces as well as large, to enable the process of adjustment to commence. It gives you the opportunity to allow people to find new jobs, to take training or literacy courses and to deal with all the other problems that arise. Optimally, a year of advance notice works the best.
The second issue is severance pay. To us, employees in virtually all workplaces, small and large, should receive a basic level of severance. Of course, as all of you probably know, the biggest problem with severance right now is that the federal government changed the rules and treated it as earnings, so it gets sort of robbed away from them, and that needs to be changed.
In terms of adjustment committees, we don't believe the formation of adjustment committees can be just left to the discretion of the employer. While we agree that committees work better if they're implemented and operate cooperatively, the reality is that many employers are not interested in committees and either refuse to participate or make next to no effort, and this cripples the committee.
Employers should be encouraged to form committees and committees should be joint efforts, where possible. But where the employer does not come on board, it must be compelled to participate in an effective manner.
In addition, it's important that the role the union can play in the adjustment committees needs to be recognized and supported. Too frequently, the employer and in fact some government people try to minimize the union's involvement, thus restricting the effectiveness of the committee on behalf of affected workers.
In terms of resources, the employer has a responsibility to support the adjustment process. After all, they made the decisions. In all cases, the employer should be required to provide funds and other resources -- things like staff, office space and equipment, time off, things it has readily at its disposal -- to support the work of the adjustment committee and other activities in areas such as job search, retraining, needs assessments, counselling and so on. Efforts in this regard need to be coordinated with government and with labour-based programs. For example, the office of labour adjustment, which has been set up, is very good, and it needs to be coordinated with that.
One thing we really like in the proposals in Bill 40 is that there is now a statutory duty to bargain a layoff or closure agreement. That's absolutely essential. You have to be able to get that kind of stuff done and get it out of the way.
In wrapping up that section, let me say that we do not accept the argument that a regulatory framework built on these five essential points would be unfair to employers. The reality is that employers must accept responsibility for their decisions and actions, and workers cannot be left unprotected and unassisted except for the efforts of their union or a few government services. Employers need to be encouraged to act responsibly and cooperatively in cases of layoff or closure, but where they fail to do so, a regulatory framework must apply to make compliance mandatory.
In conclusion of our presentation, we applaud what the government, and the Minister of Labour in particular, has done. It's a substantial reform and it's very constructive, and we believe the time has come for labour law reform.
The reform of the act, as proposed by the minister and our union, will serve to provide every person with the right to choose whether or not to join a trade union. Many of the proposals put forward by the minister and in our presentation have been demonstrated as workable, effective and fair as they've been applied in other jurisdictions in Canada. These proposals will not be onerous. Rather, the proposals represent an opportunity for Ontario to catch up with other jurisdictions and move ahead in our quest for a fairer society and a stronger economy.
Reform will go a long way towards creating the environment needed to foster greater civility in labour-management relations and more cooperation in the workplace at both the sectoral and provincial levels, and it will enhance the broader and stronger partnerships required to address the important economic and social challenges facing all Ontarians.
We believe that better and more progressive labour laws are essential if we are to have a society and an economy that can adapt effectively to change and can compete with other advanced nations. In this effort, our union is prepared to work with the government of Ontario and other groups to develop and implement equitable and workable labour legislation that will serve to benefit all the people in Ontario.
1540
Mr Hayes: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very informative. We've had some people in here who have complained about this government blaming things on the federal government and the federal economic policies. We've used things like free trade, the inflated Canadian dollar, the interest rates and the GST, and I guess the opposition figures it's really unfair for us to do that. These same people are saying that with Bill 40 we're going to lose so many hundreds of thousands of jobs, which I totally don't agree with or believe. First of all, how do these other factors affect the people you could potentially be representing?
Mr Catherwood: As a union, across the country -- and that's not just in Ontario -- I'd say we've lost 12,000 to 14,000 jobs in the last couple of years, and this can be traced back to a lot of things. Some jobs come and go in economies, and that's always been the way, but most of them can be traced to things like the overvalued Canadian dollar; that's a decision made by the federal government.
They can be traced to the free trade agreement, which changed the rules under which people had to operate. And it wasn't just change in the rules; it was the fact that we changed the rules without doing the things we said we were going to do to allow us to adjust to that change. I mean, we never got the upside adjustment programs that business needed, and you'll hear business leaders now say this to you. Indeed, in our discussions with leaders in many sectors where we represent -- because we do sit down with employers and try to talk to them about sectoral strategies to move forward -- they're now telling us that this was a very important thing that was done, a mistake. Of course, now we've got a North American free trade agreement, and we'll have to see how that works out.
There's no question of what the interest rates did. You don't have to be a genius or an economist -- I don't know that they're the same, but you don't have to be either of those to understand what interest rates did.
You can't point the finger solely at the federal government, but it came down with a whole range of policies in the 1989-91 era which combined to cause enormous problems which affected our membership in food processing, in brewing, in retail and service. Brad Ward knows well the problems that have been created for us because of cross-border shopping and the efforts where we've sat down with employers and tried to work our way out of that. So I think the federal government's policies were to blame. If we were just saying that from Ontario, maybe it would be partisan, but people in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and right across the country say it.
The Chair: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to read this in some detail, especially with respect to the adjustment proposals you have made.
I imagine a number of your members are or could be classified in the part-time sector. Under Bill 40, there is a provision, as you well know, that a full-time sector can take over a part-time unit even if the part-time unit doesn't wish to be taken over. That's permissible under Bill 40. I know you are strong advocates of majority rule and things of this nature. Would you support an amendment to the legislation that would permit the combination of a part-time, full-time unit only when there is a majority in each unit that wishes that change?
Mr Baily: I'd like to respond to that. No, we support the combination of a part-time and a full-time bargaining unit because they have a community of interest. I can give you a good example with a food store. You'll find that perhaps 50% to 60% of the unit is part-time. In organizing programs, we find we have no problem signing up cards in the full-time units. The part-time units, because of their nature, in some cases turn over so fast that they have an almost 100% turnover in a three-month period. It's very difficult to get around and see part-time.
We've got a number of cases; in fact, I can cite you a case right now in Kingston, Ontario, where we have the full-time bargaining unit signed up but we don't have the part-time, and we've been working on the part-time for the last six months. We've now had to go and sign up new cards, because the cards are only good for six months, so we're fully in favour of having a combination of the two units.
Mr Sterling: On page 17 of your brief you say, in regard to severance pay, "This severance should belong to the worker and not be confused with `earnings,' as is currently done under the federal government's unconscionable UIC regulations." Do you think that statement's fair?
Mr Catherwood: Oh, it's more than fair.
Mr Sterling: Even though the minister of Labour was fully aware of what he was doing, and the regulation was there before the severance pay legislation came here in Ontario? I asked him a question in the House. I said, "Minister, why are you handing over $27 million to the federal UIC fund by bringing in this legislation?" Why should the federal government take blame when in fact the Minister of Labour of this province knew full well what he was walking into, knew he was denying workers this money? Then you're blaming the federal government. How can you do that?
Mr Catherwood: I can do it very easily.
Mr Sterling: Why?
Mr Catherwood: Because the change was made in 1984, and I recall being at a meeting --
Mr Sterling: But the minister knew what he was doing.
Mr Catherwood: Let me finish the story. I was at a meeting on December 12, 1984, with Flora MacDonald, who was then the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We asked her about UI, and she said that no changes would be made. Eight days later she brought in a change that if you lose your job --
Mr Sterling: I know exactly what it does, and I explained it --
Mr Catherwood: I don't understand what that has to do with Bob Mackenzie.
Mr Sterling: Because he brought in his legislation after, which denies the people that severance pay when a company goes down the tubes.
Mr Catherwood: I don't know. That's a long way from 1984 to 1992.
Mr Sterling: Bob Mackenzie knew what he was walking into. He gave the federal government, the UIC, $27 million to $30 million a year because of the fact that he turned a blind eye to federal regulation under the UIC plan.
Mr Catherwood: Mr Sterling, maybe you should come with me to one of our plants when it closes and listen to me try to explain to people what this does to them.
Mr Sterling: Tell them that Bob Mackenzie didn't know what he was doing.
Mr Catherwood: But it isn't Bob Mackenzie.
The Chair: All that having been said, I say to you, gentlemen, Mr Baily and Mr Catherwood, thank you kindly for your participation in this process and for your attendance here this afternoon on behalf of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. You represent a significant constituency which has a significant interest in this legislation, and you've made a valuable contribution to the process.
Mr Catherwood: We'd like to thank the Chair for his continued support for us in all the causes that we undertake.
The Chair: I'm doing my best.
Mr Catherwood: You do indeed. To the others, we appreciated the opportunity to be here. Mr Offer, if you would like at any time to discuss with us our closure program, my staff and I would be more than happy to sit down with you. We're in Toronto, not far from you when you go back. I'll give you my card and we could do that.
Mr Offer: I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you to the committee members for their cooperation during the last two days, to the staff people for their outstanding skill and talent, to the people who participated in these hearings and to observers who came to witness these. We trust that Mr McGuinty, Mr Sterling and Ms O'Neill will express our gratitude to their constituents in Ottawa for their hospitality.
The committee recessed at 1549.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1906 in the Howard Johnson Confederation Place Hotel, Kingston.
The Chair: Good evening. My apologies to everybody here. We were supposed to start at 6:30, but the first bus that was to deliver us from Ottawa to Kingston had some problems and was changed for a second bus; that took up a little time and it meant we were late. We apologize; we know people had to wait and we regret the inconvenience. We will be dealing with every group that was scheduled to be dealt with this evening, and everybody will have their full allotment of time.
QUINTE LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The first participant is the Quinte Labour Council, if those people would please come forward, have a seat, give us their names and their titles, if any. Tell us what you will, but please try to save the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for exchanges and questions and dialogue. Please go ahead. The clerk will take care of any shortfall in numbers of written submissions available. Those of course will form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit.
Mr Doug Sword: My name is Doug Sword, and I'm currently president of the Quinte Labour Council, which includes the counties of Hastings and Prince Edward; the main cities within our jurisdiction would be the cities of Belleville and Trenton. I would ask my brother and sister union members to introduce themselves to the committee.
Ms Barbara Dolan: I'm Barbara Dolan, from the Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada, Local 30. I'm the vice-president.
Mr Rick Rose: My name is Rick Rose. I'm president and chairperson of CAW, Local 1530, Northern Telecom in Belleville.
Mr Sword: As president of the Quinte Labour Council, I approach the hearings by the standing committee on resources development with a high degree of optimism. I can only say to you that we must look on the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in a most positive manner.
On January 28 of this year, the Quinte Labour Council presented our views regarding Bill 40, the government's proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. That was upon the occasion of the appearance of the committee in Kingston, Ontario, chaired by the Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie. Following second reading in the Legislature, we are secure in the knowledge that the process is fair and gives an opportunity for many interests to present a variety of opinions regarding workers' rights to the members of the Ontario Legislature's resources development committee.
The Quinte Labour Council is comprised of affiliate local unions, some 40 in number, representing approximately 8,000 public and private sector workers, as mandated by the Canadian Labour Congress and in turn the Ontario Federation of Labour. We are in fact the largest organization, outside of the religious community, in the Quinte area. We have represented the interests of workers in the two-county area since the merger of the Trenton and District Labour Council and the Belleville and District Labour Council in May 1970. Our members are proudly productive, responsible and fully cognizant of the realities facing employers today.
We are aware, as participants for workers' rights since the late 1950s, that previous governments have enacted some reforms, but Bill 40 is seen by the Quinte Labour Council as a coming of age in labour law reform for the province of Ontario.
Undoubtedly, appearing before you today and tomorrow in Kingston will be representatives of the business community who will perhaps attempt to sow the seeds of fear that 295,000 jobs will be lost in Ontario should Bill 40 become law. Let us cite the following and leave it to the committee to judge the extent of sincerity, if any, in the concerns voiced by the business sector.
In the 1980s, the Quinte Labour Council expressed concern about the number of plant closures and what were commonly referred to, at that time, as runaway industries. As a result of the impact on our community and others in Ontario, we advocated that some of the social costs be borne by the departing industry and not remain a burden on the community at large. Notwithstanding the fact that the labour council resolution was endorsed by a city council special committee, its passage was delayed to allow the local business community an opportunity to comment.
Suffice to say, the proposed resolution was quietly put to rest by a motion to receive. In a letter to city council by the business community, it was stated: "The directors of the chamber believe that businesses operating in the province of Ontario are justified in closing plants and offices to maximize profits. Indeed, in the opinion of the directors, businesses have no alternative but to do so if they are to remain competitive in the world marketplace." In our opinion, this demonstrates a total lack of concern for one job, 1,000 jobs or perhaps, as has been voiced by the opposition parties in the Legislature, 295,000 jobs.
We would like to put into historical context, with a local perspective, the question of replacement workers, alias scabs, and their impact on industrial conflict. The council of the city attended a meeting convened by the labour council, and it was demonstrated on film that ugly picket-line confrontations can and do arise in certain collective bargaining situations. In a great majority of cases, the violence is precipitated by solicited third-party interference.
Reflecting the concerns of the Quinte Labour Council, the council of the corporation of the city of Belleville passed a resolution requesting the government of Ontario to provide that "no employer and no person acting on behalf of an employer shall use or permit the use of professional strikebreakers." Professional strikebreakers were defined in part as persons whose primary object, in the opinion of the labour relations board, is to prevent, interfere with or break up a legal strike. The resolution goes on to say that the intervention of third parties often leads to a breach of the public peace and the aggravation of the dispute. It is interesting to note that the mayor of the day thought that the police should not get involved in what are legal strikes.
We would like to quote a member of city council of the day who would not cross a picket line during a legal strike. The legal strike was at the city hall, when the city workers removed their services. He said: "I can't see hiring these temporary people during a strike. It doesn't solve anything. It makes for hard feelings and I don't want to get involved in it" -- to which we, as the labour council, say amen.
The report of the labour representatives to the labour law reform committee recognizes that the intense adversarial hostility between emerging bargaining units and the employers must become a memory of a less enlightened and business-dominated environment. The Canadian Labour Force Development Board and in turn the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board are attempting to create a climate of cooperation between labour and business in the province. Without a legal acceptance which recognizes and accepts the legitimate role of labour unions and the right of workers to organize, how can we look forward to a harmonious and productive working relationship on local boards under OTAB?
Again, we are reminded of statements made by Ted Ball, the president of PoliCorp. On May 30, 1991, to the annual general meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, he said, "If government and labour don't begin to work together to develop and implement a coherent industrial strategy for Ontario, then our future prosperity and quality of life could be destroyed." Further along, he said, "You must now become much more proactive in forging a genuine partnership with both government and labour."
It is obvious to us that both Ball and Wilson -- that's Gord Wilson, of course, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour -- who represent obviously divergent interest groups, have given Ontario's serious economic problems the attention they deserve and appear to say, "Let's do it together."
We'd also like to address the right to organize. In the past, domestics, agricultural, horticultural and professional workers have all been excluded, but in specific terms the proposed amendments should and will remove these exclusions.
Domestics: It is understood that if domestics are included in the amendments to the act, it must be recognized that these long-neglected workers are employed in separate workplaces and for separate employers, necessitating, in our view, an amendment to subsection 6(1) of the act so that individual workers can in fact be represented, as can employers, and can bargain for their own particular interests.
To digress from our presentation for a moment, I think we're all aware from reports in the Toronto newspapers of the past of some of the difficulties faced by domestic workers, the trials and difficulties they have faced working for individual employers, with regard to conditions of employment, long hours and poor pay, and the list goes on and on.
Agricultural workers: We understand that all the other Canadian provinces, with the exception of Alberta, allow, in varying degrees, agricultural workers to organize. We further understand that discussions are ongoing between the interest groups, including government. Therefore, we support initiatives bringing Ontario's workers in line with those of Canada's more enlightened provinces.
Professionals: We support the proposed amendments allowing, with sufficient support, separate bargaining units becoming part of a broader bargaining unit.
Security guards: Ontario remains the only province where security guards cannot freely choose to join a union of their choice. Where a conflict of interest appears to exist in an employer-employee relationship, such as monitoring other employees, we can foresee no difficulty if the board determines that she or he can be certified in a separate bargaining unit.
Organizing and certification: We have always been concerned that employees need access to a fast track for the resolution of complaints that employers are interfering with the attainment of collective bargaining rights, a procedure to expedite hearings seeking redress when an employee has been disciplined in any manner during organizing activities. The Quinte Labour Council sees this as a deterrent to unfair labour practices by any and all anti-union employers.
Access to third-party property: We regard the amendment allowing access to private property for the purposes of organizing as a moderate step forward which, at the same time, gives recognition to proprietorship and the legitimate concern of a business. Total access to non-productive areas, I'm sure we would agree, causes no concern when the access is to such areas as parking lots and cafeterias.
Membership fees: While eliminating the $1 membership fee will in all probability make it easier to establish membership before the board, it will also eliminate the ability of the employer to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of workers. Once a worker's card has been signed, unless there is clear evidence of unwarranted interference, such as forgery, there should be no further reason for scrutiny by the board.
I would like to address the fact that we have certain allies and alliances. In a statement dated May 1, 1986, entitled Supporting Labour Unions, the episcopal commission for social affairs, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote, "During these times of high unemployment, for example, there is a greater tendency for some employers to turn their backs on organized labour and take advantage of pools of cheap labour comprised of jobless people and the working poor." This trend is further reinforced by the disturbing phenomenon of contracting out work to non-unionized labour, increased efforts to reduce collective bargaining rights, recent court challenges to labour unions and renewed calls for the adoption of numerous anti-union legislative measures in this country.
The Quinte Labour Council has included the foregoing in our brief to illustrate the importance of Bill 40 to the workers of this province. We will demonstrate that the current legislation favours unscrupulous employers and provides an easy source of income for their legal advisers.
We want to use, as an example, what is currently occurring and has occurred in the city of Trenton. There has been a labour dispute, and to demonstrate the existing inequity, we will focus on the current labour dispute at Vagden Mills in Trenton, Ontario. Local 1764, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, went on strike on August 10.
Negotiations broke down on Friday, June 5. The key issues are respect, dignity and wages. What fine issues to hit the bricks, in common terminology, respect and dignity being two thirds of the reason for those people going out on the picket line. The following letter from Vagden, dated August 13 -- you'll note that it's only three days since the people went out on strike -- was received by the mostly female employees, which we will read into the record. I want to ask my sister if she would kindly read the letter.
1920
Ms Dolan: It's a "Dear John" letter: "On Wednesday, August 19, the labour board will be holding a secret ballot vote to give all union employees the opportunity to vote yes to the company's final offer.
"The secret ballot vote will be held at the Loyalist Room at the Trenton Ramada Inn from 10 until 12:30. The outcome of this vote will be determined by the majority of ballots cast, so you must vote if you want a say in your and Vagden's future.
"Remember, this is a secret ballot. The vote is supervised by the labour board, so neither the union nor anyone else will know how you voted. You have to vote `yes' if you want any job security with Vagden.
"Don't be blackmailed by the union's threats that can take away your seniority rights or rights to work, because the union can do no such thing. If the strike continues because you do not vote `yes,' and should Vagden close down, Vagden will close down because of the strike. Such a closure will mean no job, and because you are on strike, there will be no severance pay and no UIC. You will join the 3,000 other Trentonians looking for a job.
"During these negotiations, we have consistently told the union that we have no money for an increase this year. We even opened up our books and allowed a union accountant to verify our financial position. The union accountant agreed with us.
"Vagden pays the highest wages of any sock plant in Canada. Surely a job is better than no job. Your last take-home pay was" -- and it's been blacked out -- "and you had a benefit plan. If you continue with the strike, you will have no pay and no benefit plan.
"I enclose a copy of the company's final offer. Review it carefully. Wednesday's ballot will say, `Do you accept the employer's final offer to your trade union?' Vote `yes.'"
Mr Sword: Then, appearing in the Trentonian on Monday, August 17 -- and I have a copy here of the ad; that's some four days following the letter. The ad reads: "Vagden Mills Ltd requires production workers. Transportation arranged. Submit application in confidence to Vagden Mills Ltd, Trenton, Ontario."
What I'm saying to you is that all of the pieces were then in place: replacement workers, scabs -- they were being bused in through the picket lines -- and Toronto-based security guards -- a classic case of union-busting. It is our wish, if nothing else get passed in Bill 40, that the legislation will put an end to the behaviour of unscrupulous employers and those people who seem to hover around the whole affair like vultures, the unscrupulous lawyers who seem to profit from such things -- all of this to deny workers a modicum of respect and dignity. The Ontario Labour Relations Act must be amended, and the workers of this province, both organized and unorganized, are looking to this committee to level the playing field and eliminate the arena where only the lawyer is the winner.
There was certainly the opportunity for the employer to look to the labour movement, not to hold the wages down in that certain instance, but the opportunity was there for an employer, who manufactures socks of varying colours, sizes and styles, to go to the union movement and say: "We are manufacturing a Canadian product. Let's publicize that this product is made in Canada. Let's encourage people to buy it." Then, if people will buy a Canadian-made product, the opportunity would be there to increase the wages of the mostly female employees.
Finally, I must say the Quinte Labour Council extends our sincere thanks to the resources development committee and we trust that the concerns of workers will be reflected in the final writing of the legislation.
Further, I might add that never in my memory have I seen more opportunity presented to the workers of this province to appear before committees of a Legislature. I could list committees our labour council has appeared before with regard to the Municipal Act, the health and safety act, local training adjustment boards and so on. On behalf of the Quinte Labour Council, I would like to commend the government for providing the opportunity for the workers of Ontario to do this.
The Chair: Thank you. We have two minutes per caucus.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Mr Sword, thank you for your presentation. You made reference to a letter and talked about some 3,000 employees, or people, who are currently looking for jobs, and when you make mention that most of them are female, I imagine some of them would be spouses of the 3,000 people.
As you are the representative of a labour council, I guess my question would be, how would the workers feel after receiving such a letter in their homes -- I imagine it was sent to their homes -- to talk about with their family? I'm sure through the labour council it must have been reported on, the traumatic feelings of individuals that were brought forward.
Mr Sword: I think the result of such a letter, which they referred to as being threatening and intimidating, was to cause 15 workers to cross the picket line. One would say that was the intent of the employer. One would also suppose that the long-term intent of the employer is to go much beyond settling a strike with terms and conditions of employment less than the workers may have expected. It is my understanding, having spoken to the president of that local, that some of the terms they're going back under may be regarded, at least by myself, as a sort of punishment.
I'll give you a couple of examples. Some of the female workers had hours of employment which allowed them, as parents, to be with their children outside of working hours. Their hours of work, I have been told, have been changed, making it very, very difficult for those people to work a midnight shift and be with their children. As a consequence, the strong possibility exists that those people will have to give up their employment.
The other thing that's been given to me by the president of the local, and I have no reason to doubt what she has told me, is that she as a worker no longer has the same job to go back to, working on a machine where, through piecework, she was able to accumulate a fair weekly wage. She has now been put on a machine that will give her less productivity and, as a consequence, less weekly wage. So the people are going back under a condition of punishment.
1930
We have had decertifications in Belleville. We have just had a recent decertification where the same lawyer who is working on behalf of the employer or the employees -- one may wonder which one -- seeking decertification also across the hallway was bargaining on behalf of the employer for Vagden Mills, the one I was just talking about. He was scooting from one room where the meeting was being conducted to the other room across the hallway. He was double-dipping, I suppose, getting two stipends for one evening's work.
The Chair: We know exactly what double-dipping means, sir.
Mr Sword: We realize you realize.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I surely do appreciate the areas that you've addressed. On page 3 you've spoken about the need for business and labour to work together, and I don't think there's anybody who would disagree with you; surely not myself. The difficulty we have here is that the bill, certainly through our hearings and the process that's being used -- and you will know that the government has sort of put us in a lockstep. This bill is going to be law by Thanksgiving, the result of which has caused an increasing polarity of interests.
One of the things the business groups -- not only, but primarily the business groups -- have come to the committee and said was:
"Listen, we've done our own studies. The government hasn't done any studies as to what the bill may mean in the area of investment and the area of job creation. We think to deal with some of our concerns the government should conduct a sector-by-sector economic analysis as to what the bill means, what it's going to mean to the workers and investment in the province."
I think we would all agree, for instance, that the federal government would have to conduct some type of impact study on the NAFTA deal. I'm sure you would agree with that. If we do agree with that, isn't it right that the government should conduct -- and do you agree that the government should conduct -- some type of analysis, sector by sector, as to what these provisions will mean to job creation, to investment for the men and women of this province?
Mr Sword: While I digest what you've said, Mr Offer, it's obvious to me that you've had discussions with the business community. All we're doing is inviting the business community to have some meaningful discussions with organized labour in this province. We don't need to have discussions through a third party.
We have members on the local advisory committee under the almost defunct Canadian Jobs Strategy under the federal Tory government. We have asked the business community at various times, as represented by members of Parliament and others, to give us additional seats where we can have input and express opinions, but we've been ignored. I might say, sir, those people we've approached hold down Liberal ridings.
Our hand is extended. If you're refused any other place in this province, kindly come to Quinte riding, kindly ask the Quinte Labour Council to participate with you; I'm quite sure we will. We will have our own opinion, and we will express our opinion on behalf of working people in the province of Ontario. We won't use a survey done by the business community. I would suggest, sir, that you haven't had a job impact study done by the Liberal Party; you're accepting one done by someone else.
Mr Sterling: Quite frankly, my question was the same as Mr Offer's. We're willing to look at all kinds of studies, whether they be by business groups or labour groups, but when a government asks for a study and a reputable firm like the one that did the study for the business group, Ernst and Young, one of the most reputable consulting firms in Ontario and in Canada, does it, we assume that its reputation means more than receiving a paycheque from any one client, be it a business group or a labour group.
We have continually asked the government, "Doesn't it make sense, before you bring in a major piece of legislation, to find out what its impact is going to be on jobs and the economy of Ontario?" Do you not agree that the government, if it continues to discredit the Ernst and Young study which you are discrediting in your brief, should at least ask somebody to undertake a study as to the impact of this piece of legislation before it is passed? You don't want to lose 295,000 jobs, nor does anybody sitting in this room. If in fact they ask somebody to do that who says, "No, it's not going to lose 295,000 jobs; it's going to do something else," that's fine and dandy.
Most governments that I've been aware of over the 15 years I've been elected have always asked for impact studies with regard to legislation. We're being told no, so we think that in fact there is going to be an impact with regard to the economy. What is our suspicion, if we say, "Well, look, ask for the study, share it with the committee and share it with members of the Legislature"? Don't you agree that this should be done?
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that now?
Mr Sword: Absolutely. With regard to impact studies, Mr Sterling, I think we should broaden our minds, broaden our scope and look at other things. We should look at impact studies with the North American free trade agreement.
Mr Sterling: No, we're talking about this legislation.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Sword.
Mr Sword: You're talking about impact studies on workers in this province. Let's talk about impact studies, not on this particular piece of legislation, but on those things that will impact workers in this province. If you want me to direct myself to the same question as Mr Offer -- and I'm not quite sure whether he's the same political party -- it's my understanding that an impact study has been done by Mr Noah Meltz of the University of Toronto. Why wouldn't you accept the results of his study? He figures that it will be a more positive outcome of the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
I personally can't understand why people are so opposed to people having a collective voice in a workplace. You're like the member for Quinte, who, three or four nights ago at a public forum, seemed to ride two horses. He rode down both sides of the fence. If one were to believe the statements made, he comes out a winner on both sides, on behalf of the workers and on behalf of the employers, and he can't do it.
The Chair: Thank you. I've got to say that we've used up our time, but I want to say thank you to Barbara Dolan, Douglas Sword and Rick Rose for appearing here this evening on behalf of the Quinte Labour Council. You've made a meaningful contribution to this process and obviously you've provoked response by members of the committee. We're grateful to you for participating.
You're welcome to stay. We're going to be here tomorrow, and of course, you and any other participant are entitled to get copies of your submission by way of a Hansard transcript, or anybody else's, by writing your own MPP or the clerk of this committee. Thank you, people.
Mr Sword: Thank you.
1940
BELLEVILLE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
TRENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participants are the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce and the Trenton Chamber of Commerce. If those people would please come forward and have a seat. Their written materials are being distributed. People have got a copy of them. Please proceed with your submissions. Tell us who you are and your titles, if any.
Mr Brad Aulthouse: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to appear here. My name is Brad Aulthouse. I'm the president of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce. With me is Deryk McGrath. He's a member of the Belleville chamber. Our time is being split with the Trenton Chamber of Commerce, and representing it is Mr Paul Tripp. We'll make the first presentation, followed by the Trenton chamber, and the two are separate presentations made in the same time.
The Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce has been the representative voice of business in Belleville since 1864. Currently, membership numbers over 500 companies in all categories, including manufacturing, retail, professional, financial and service industries. Our statement of object is "to represent business and its concerns relative to the promotion and development of trade and commerce in Belleville and district."
During the January 28, 1992, presentation to the Ministry of Labour consultation by the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce, I outlined that a survey of our membership resulted in 64 of 70 respondents stating that they strongly disagreed with the proposals.
The essence of our objection related to our belief that the proposals simply build upon outdated principles of conflict, that is, big labour versus big employer. We had hoped that labour reform would involve an imaginative and forward-looking re-examination of modern employer and employee needs and desires in order to be competitive in a world economy, with participation from all members of our economy, including small business and non-unionized employees.
What we are presented with in the guise of improving labour relations, however, takes away from business autonomy and the rights of individual employees in such areas as the right to a secret vote, the right to cross a picket line, the right to petition, and broadens intervention of labour boards. In fact, the proposals seek only to strengthen the labour union movement without statistical analysis or impact studies to determine the effect on Ontario business.
Since that meeting last January, we have been actively involved in further examination of the issues related to labour reform. At our February 19, 1992, breakfast meeting we hosted Mr Ken Signoretti, executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, as our guest speaker. When questioned about the loss of competitiveness the implementation of the reforms would cause, we were surprised to hear, in his words, "Business needs to redefine what is meant by competition."
On August 20, 1992, we participated in a public panel discussion sponsored by the Quinte Labour Council, along with Hugh O'Neil, MPP, Quinte, and Gord Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. The discussion was both lively and educational. However, we were concerned to hear Mr Wilson state, "These proposals have nothing to do with job creation," and the recession in Ontario is merely a "bad attitude" in the minds of Ontario business.
In the Quinte region we have lost approximately 1,400 jobs in less than a year. Many of our members in the business community are hurting deeply. We are concerned about the ability of business to continue in today's environment. The implementation of these labour reform proposals will undoubtedly add great uncertainty to an already unstable situation. The Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce firmly believes that the time for drastic change to the playing field for Ontario business is not now. We firmly believe that there are more important issues at hand. A commitment to business revitalization will create jobs and return the Quinte area and the province of Ontario to economic health.
There's a further important issue about which I've heard nothing publicly, but was recently shocked to encounter as I prepared for this evening's meeting. That issue is the fear of intimidation. Several of our members have been extremely active in letting us know of their opposition to Bill 40 and their support of the chamber's efforts on their behalf. I thought it would be useful for this committee to hear directly the comments of a few of those members. When approached, however, they told me they feel the bill is essentially guaranteed to become law and they fear reprisals from unions for being publicly outspoken against the proposals.
I'm stating exactly what was heard by me from our members. In fact, one of those members who had previously agreed to participate called me at 2 o'clock this afternoon stating that the partners in the business felt it would be unwise to participate. He specifically stated that they have an excellent working relationship with their employees and would prefer not to attract the attention of a union.
This is a very dangerous situation. Many business owners and managers are currently frightened by existing economic uncertainty. They appear to be equally afraid of unions and, sadly, the provincial government. Our response to the question of labour relations amendments in 1992: Please, not now.
To provide the committee with direct insight into the thoughts of Quinte area business managers, Deryk McGrath of Seaway Answering Service has agreed to share his views regarding the impact on his business of the proposed changes. The views of Mr McGrath are, I believe, in large part a fair representation of those of many members of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce.
Mr Deryk McGrath: First, I want to apologize for not having enough copies. I didn't know I would be facing more than a baseball team, with all the relief pitchers, but I only brought a few and I am pinch-hitting for the poor chap who did decide, through the partners in his business, that he didn't want to come.
As stated, my name is Deryk McGrath. I moved to Ontario in 1965, from the province of Nova Scotia, to go to university, saw some great opportunities after I was through and decided to stay here. Besides working in BC for a couple of summers on the Alaska Highway, I had quite an opportunity in the 1960s to see very strong labour unions working in Hudson Hope at the W.A.C. Bennett dam and before coming to live in Belleville I did some travelling in Europe and saw some socialist governments in countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, a few other ones. As a poor boy from Nova Scotia, I saw a little bit before I decided to settle in Ontario.
In 1975, when I opened my business, I certainly didn't have any qualms about making that decision. It certainly was the place, I think, to be in the world. Many times in Europe, when you spoke English, people thought you were American. I spoke enough German to say, "Ich bin kanadisch," and all of a sudden -- it means, "I am a Canadian" -- it changed the whole atmosphere. Ontario was the place to be. It was a very dynamic place, there were a lot of things happening.
With Bill 40, one of the things I would like to state is, if I was doing the same thing, approximately 25 years later when I came to university, I don't know if I would make the same decision after I'd finished.
I wish to state that I'm not an anti-unionist, but I must say I have a very pro business viewpoint. My personal feeling is that any member of society -- and that's male, female, whatever -- should have the right to join a union and they should also have the right to go on strike. I think that's a fundamental right, as right as voting.
An employer, a business person, should also have the right to stay open during a strike. One of the things is that small business people especially borrow money from the bank. They have to pay their loans every month, they have to pay their rent, they have to pay the hydro, all of those things.
If you were prevented from bringing in revenue, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that when revenues dip below expenditures you're in trouble, except when you're the government and you can raise taxes, but not many of us have that opportunity. Being in business, we have to live within our means.
I feel that during a strike businesses have to have the opportunity to use supervisory non-bargaining unit employees and I guess strikebreakers or scabs. I certainly don't believe in professional security guards and maybe some other things, but you have to do what's required to get the job done and getting the job done is staying open when you're in an emergency-type situation.
1950
In our communications company, if our system's down by an hour or two hours, we have dual redundant systems to keep it going. We have computers that bring back error messages. I get up in the middle of the night to go out and change modules when they're down, and if we couldn't do that and get into our sites and do stuff, we may as well not be in business, and the amount of money we pay to the provincial government in the employee health tax and corporate income tax and to the federal government in CPP and UIC would be a thing of the past.
Business people who make a profit are the ones who give the money to you people and to the federal government to run the country. You don't just print money; you make it by having viable businesses. My clients pay me to take care of their communication requirements, and that's the bottom line. If I don't do it, for whatever reason, they will get somebody else to do it for them.
I'd like to give you a very good example of something that happened in Quebec. It happened around 1984; I'm not sure of the year -- 1983, 1984, 1985 -- as I only found out I had to pinch-hit at about 3 this afternoon. I called a couple of members of my professional association and they agreed that it was probably 1984, but nobody could dig into it any further.
We keep hearing a lot of statistics thrown around, and having taken a few math courses when I went to school, statistics can do a lot of things: You can change them, you can go with averages, you can go with variances, all kinds of things. You can do a lot of things, but my understanding is that in Quebec, the number of strikes since it brought in its anti-scab or anti-strikebreaking law in 1978 has increased.
In this particular situation, TAS Communications, which was the largest answering service in Canada at the time -- it's now called National Pagette and is now owned by Bell Canada; I'm sure we all know who that is -- was hit by an operator strike. Under the legislation, their supervisors were allowed to answer their administrative lines, which would be the Ontario Legislature or something like that, and the paging lines, but they were not allowed to answer their clients' lines, which would be your doctor on call; if your wife is going to have a baby, the gynaecologist, obstetrician; your electrician, if you lost your power in your house -- those types of things.
A lot of those are small business people. They rely upon a communications company, some of them 24 hours a day because they can't afford a secretary, and some of them after hours, because very few people can afford a staff 24 hours a day. That's a large number of doctors, plumbers and electricians who were prevented from responding to emergencies.
A large number of people suffered, and finally TAS Communications closed its operations in Montreal, Quebec City and Sherbrooke. It put about 250 operators out of work, cost a lot of lost jobs in that way, and countless clients had trouble running their businesses properly. People need a lot of flexibility, especially when they're running a small business, and the restrictions that are put into Bill 40 hinder that a lot.
You cannot and should not legislate an owner into binding arbitration. As I said, you can't increase revenues, as governments do with taxes, to match expenditures. You have to make a profit. People will only pay so much, and when the cost goes above a certain level they cancel the service. We can't cancel our taxes; a lot of us would cancel our school board taxes as far as the end result we're getting is concerned, but we can't. But people can cancel our service, and when the service is cancelled, these people will be left without a client base, and when you're left without a client base, then there are no jobs left to pay higher wages to.
I'm speaking as a small business person who has had a little bit of experience with unions and so on, and I believe people have a basic right to do whatever. But so do business people have a right, and I think they have as much right to run their business fairly and be fair to their employees and to their family, because there aren't many small businesses that, when they go to borrow, the banks don't take their home as collateral. If that business fails, they're out on the street without their house. I know that when union people go on strike they don't have as much money to pay their mortgages and stuff like that -- there is another side to the coin, and I can certainly see it -- but the level playing field is not level any more. Even your best fullback, if he's got to run at a 45-degree angle uphill, somebody's going to tackle him.
That's all I'd like to say. Thank you very much.
Mr Paul Tripp: My name is Paul Tripp. As announced earlier, I'm representing the Trenton Chamber of Commerce and I'm standing in for our president, Jim Coward, who has a very ill wife this evening.
A lot of our brief is addressing some of the same issues. In the interest of trying to let other people have time to speak, I will start my presentation verbally with what I consider the general economic situation, which is about halfway through our brief.
Basically, we feel government introduced this legislation at the wrong time. These proposals will only shake an already rattled business community, hurting the recovery even more. The government's legislation will only improve conditions for the already employed, even if the proposals accomplish the NDP's goals. The proposals do nothing to keep companies in Ontario. Unemployed workers will receive no help from the NDP's legislation. The bill only helps workers on strike or those who want to form a union, not people without work. A union card is not much good if you don't have a job.
The legislation will drive a wedge between business and labour. Employer groups are adamant in their opposition to these proposals, while organized labour is generally in favour of the legislation. Many companies have said that changing the Ontario Labour Relations Act could make management think twice about expanding in Ontario. Companies and unions will be battling each other at the very time they need to be working together to bring about an economic recovery.
There are other considerations. The government has not made a convincing case why this legislation is needed at this time. About 95% of all contract negotiations are settled without strike or lockout. No major studies have been done on the potential impact of the new legislation. The middle of a recession is not the time for the government to go tinkering.
The legislation does nothing for the 70% of Ontario's workforce that is not unionized. The non-unionized workforce will bear the brunt of the damage this legislation could unleash on the economy and receive none of the benefits.
The legislation will frighten existing businesses from expanding. Companies realize that with profits already at rock bottom, the spectre of increased union activity is a bad sign for their future in Ontario.
Business and labour, which should be working together to facilitate the economic renewal of this province, will now have their vital energy and attention diverted to debating this legislation while the economy of the province crumbles.
The NDP changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act will shift the balance of power in favour of the trade unions. This shift will shake investor confidence in Ontario and make our businesses uncompetitive in the new global economy.
The law will make it easier for trade unions to organize workers in non-unionized companies. It targets retail and service sector companies, industries already hurt by the recession. It will allow unions to mount organizing campaigns and to picket in malls and on other private property, drop the level of support required for a vote on union certification and prevent workers from changing their minds about joining a union.
Obviously, the desire of the government is to expand trade union membership in Ontario, and it's the only goal driving these amendments.
The new replacement worker provisions will restrict or even eliminate the ability of businesses to continue operation during a labour disruption. This means that companies operating with just-in-time methods could be closed or have to leave the province if they are unable to meet their obligations.
The first-contract arbitration amendment ensures that unions will be able to promise new members that they will not have to have a strike to reach a first contract. This will make it easier for organization and could discourage them from seriously dealing with the issues at the bargaining table.
By enlarging the remedial and enforcement powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and by giving it a pro-labour bias, these amendments will lead to an unbalanced interpretation and application of the legislation. No longer an impartial referee, the OLRB will become an advocate for labour.
Many of these provisions do not exist in other parts of Canada. For example, if these proposals become law, every province except Ontario would give employees the opportunity to change their minds after signing a card. No other province would provide for compulsory first-contract arbitration after 30 days. No other province would allow access to third-party property for organization purposes and, besides Ontario, only Quebec would prohibit the use of replacement workers during a strike.
2000
The government claims that a ban on replacement workers would reduce the number of strikes. In Quebec, where replacement workers have been banned since the late 1970s, the province continues to be plagued by a high volume of strike activity. Between 1988 and 1991, Quebec endured 531 work stoppages, while Ontario experienced 477 work stoppages.
I'll skip what Mr Palmer, the president of the chamber of commerce, says because I think it has already been presented in another brief. I will go to my final comment.
In summary, this bill should be shelved until meaningful discussions among business, labour and the Legislature are held; then the Legislature might be fair to all parties. In the rest of the world, deregulation and privatization are the norm. Only here do we try to emulate the old USSR.
The Chair: Thank you. We have time for dialogue. Mr Offer, Mr McGuinty, two and a half minutes, please.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I want you to think of what's happening on the top of this table as the things that take place within the general consciousness of what goes on in the workplace. The problem is that often underneath the table, within the context of an organizational drive, there will be, if not coercion and intimidation, often allegations and innuendo of those kinds of things going on. Based on what I've heard over the last few weeks of these hearings, I am convinced that at times some employers do in fact force and intimidate. But I'm also firmly convinced that at times those persons involved in organizing become overzealous and also coerce and intimidate.
Why can't we take what's going on underneath this table and put it on top of this table? Can we not open up the process somehow so that ultimately we end up with a secret ballot, and those prepared to join the union can vote by way of secret ballot?
Mr Tripp: I personally would have no problem with that, and I can assure you that I'm aware of some of the activities that go on under the table. Some years ago, I had the misfortune to be an acting president of a firm in northern Ontario in which we were locked in a knock-down strike with the Teamsters. Believe you me, if anybody has any doubts of what they can do, I would be the first to be able to inform you that they're pretty rough. We had the manager's wife intimidated on the phone, we had Krazy-Glue put in the locks, we had windows knocked out, we had sugared engines in the trucks and, finally, we had to have an Ontario Provincial Police escort to the Quebec border, whereupon the Sûreté du Québec took the truck to the final delivery.
We were accused of all kinds of things. They even brought in the defence department; a member of the Ontario Legislature stood up and asked the government of the day if it was supporting distributors that hired scabs. He said no, they were going after the one that had the best price. It turned out that the pressure that had been brought on the defence department happened to be from a sister-in-law of the negotiator.
I've been down that road. I've seen it all. But if you can get up on the table, secret ballot, sure.
Mr Sterling: I want to thank the group for coming in. Our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, actually goes further than what you're asking. We think this is bad legislation, and our party has said it would repeal it, given the chance, after the next election. That's not without the realm of possibility, because our polls most recently show the governing party as third party in terms of present popularity in this province.
Interjection.
Mr Sterling: It's the truth.
Interjection.
Mr Sterling: I've been elected five times, fellows.
At any rate, within this bill, I've heard business come forward and I've heard labour come forward. Labour has put forward this notion that this is a bill which is going to make labour and management work together in partnership in the future in a better way. In my view, if you have that kind of notion, you have to have something for labour in the bill and you have to have something for business in the bill. I have not heard any business group tell me of one section of this bill which improves the situation in dealing with unions as an improvement over our existing legislation.
Is there anything in the bill which, in your view, improves the situation with regard to labour and management working towards a better economy for everybody?
Mr Aulthouse: If I can answer that, when we appeared here in January as the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce we were very outspoken against the proposals, and the response of the Minister of Labour at that time was simply, "Fundamentally we differ, philosophically we differ."
We looked at things a little further and said we're certainly not going to get very far by simply saying that we disagree and giving our reasons for disagreeing. You talk about the spirit of cooperation and all of the aims we said we agree with: spirit of cooperation, reducing conflict and so on. Certainly everyone, I think, would agree that those are very good. We just don't see that there's anything in the proposals that accomplishes that.
When you talk about replacement workers and banning replacement workers so that you reduce conflict on the line, what we've said in the past is that this is giving all the bullets to one side. Was there ever a discussion that you ban picketing? That's the opposite side of the coin. Certainly that's not been said, and we don't see that the other opposite extreme would be, of course, banning replacement workers. We don't see that as viable.
What we've tried to do at this point is to look at the issue a little differently. We've spoken with Ken Signoretti, as I said, we've spoken with Gord Wilson, who participated at the request of the labour council, and we invited Ken Signoretti as well, to try to get an insight into what this is about and where can we fit in, and we certainly don't see anything. What we're looking at now is simply saying that the big concern among our members is what's going on in the economy. It's a sort of day-to-day fight to survive.
To take this issue to its most simple form, we're saying, "Not now; it's just not the time to make these kinds of changes." No one has shown that they're going to create jobs or stimulate the economy in any fashion. At its simplest, we can't even agree with it at that point, other than the aims. We think the aims are admirable but that's it.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: Thank you. I don't have much time, so just a couple of corrections on Mr Tripp's second-last page -- you don't have the pages numbered -- the provisions where "every province except Ontario would give employees the opportunity to change their minds after signing a union card."
In actual fact, it's the exact opposite. Ontario is the only one that is still going to allow petitions up to the date of application. In all other provinces and federal jurisdictions the exact opposite is the case. There are no petitions, period.
In the paragraph in regard to, "No other province would allow access to third-party property" or "would prohibit the use of replacement workers during a strike," that isn't quite -- Quebec is certainly the problem, but even Mexico, which is not renowned for its labour relations history, has a replacement worker ban. So it's interesting that in Third World countries they are thinking ahead to those kinds of situations.
I guess what I mostly want to know from your membership is that for those groups that are not organized at the present time, in most instances with the exception of part-timers and some of the exclusions under the present act, if they have not indicated in any way thus far that they intend to organize and they have made no moves in that way, how exactly and why do you see Bill 40 as changing that?
It does not mean -- I know we've heard throughout some of the hearings in the past few weeks from small business in particular fields -- that the day after this bill is passed, suddenly it's going to be organized. One presenter in Windsor actually said that, and we were sitting there and saying no, that it's still an option for the employees. I'm wondering, if they haven't demonstrated that choice yet, why you would think Bill 40 would change that.
2010
Mr McGrath: I'll try to answer that as a small business person. I think it gives you the feeling that any of your protection is taken away if you do happen to get into a situation where they want to, that you've lost all the gears to be able to pull the load.
I'll tell you about a circumstance. We had a semidisgruntled employee. We had a number of people who had unlisted phone numbers and the unlisted phone numbers were given out to a union organizer. Luckily, two of my girls had worked for that particular union before. One of them went to the police and charged them with harassing, because she had an unlisted number. The other one gave me the business agent's phone number. So I took the bull by the horns and I invited the lady and I said: "Why don't you come to our Christmas party? You have a half-hour to tell the employees. That way you're not waking people up in the middle of the day who are working the midnight shift and this and that. Let's get it totally in the open."
I had the option, I thought if they want to do that and they want to go on strike, I still have supervisory personnel who can mend my operation and I can run it. But with some of the provisions that are in there, I feel that maybe myself and my wife would be there 24 hours a day, and I have two small children, so I would be virtually held at ransom.
Mr Hayes: Mr Chair, it's not a question. I've got to make a clarification here.
The Chair: Don't do it now, because I've got to move on.
Mr Hayes: It's very important to all the people. I wouldn't want them to leave without knowing this information. It's very important.
The Chair: Just a minute. I want to say thank you to the people --
Interjection.
The Chair: I'm saying thank you to these people. You don't want to interrupt that.
I want to say thank you to Paul Tripp, appearing here and speaking on behalf of the Trenton Chamber of Commerce, to Brad Aulthouse and Deryk McGrath, both members -- in the case of Mr Aulthouse, president -- of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce. You've provided the committee with some valuable input. We appreciate you being here. We're grateful to you, all of us. Take care and have a safe trip back home, and of course you're welcome to stay.
UNEMPLOYMENT HELP CENTRE
The Chair: The next group is the Unemployment Help Centre. If they would please come forward, seat themselves. As the same time as their submissions are being distributed, the paper referred to earlier today, and questions to the parliamentary assistant, the Implications for the Economy of the Proposed Reforms of the Labour Relations Act by Noah Meltz, PhD, November 1991, is being distributed. If people who are here as observers or participants want a copy of that paper by Noah M. Meltz, PhD, let the clerk know, or just hold your hand out as he's walking past, because he's got some extra copies for you.
People from the Unemployment Help Centre, good evening, welcome. Tell us your names please, your titles, if any.
Ms Theresa Houston: My name is Theresa Houston. I'm the director of the Unemployment Help Centre for the last 16 years.
Mr Bruce Campbell: My name is Bruce Campbell. I also do some part-time work assisting Theresa at the Unemployment Help Centre. My background is primarily in labour-related cases, employment standards, workers' compensation, this kind of thing.
Mr Vince Maloney: My name is Vince Maloney, and Theresa asked me to just sit beside her for moral support. At the present time I'm an unemployed, retired person.
Ms Houston: I would like to make a few comments before I begin. I have heard more than once tonight about studies -- the gentleman is gone -- why doesn't labour do studies? Mr Chairman, we're studied to death. We don't need studies. We need changes.
I would like to quote some of the numbers. In August to September 5, the regional percentage rate for this area was 9.8%. The number of claimants on claim is 6,340; Kingston area, 9.2%. The national rate is 11.3%; the provincial rate is 11%.
I continually hear the chamber of commerce saying, "If we do this, we're going to lose jobs." We've lost them. We're not going to lose them with this. We're going to gain them. I've been 16 years, and I've watched the unemployment rate grow, treble, in those 16 years. What made it treble? Free trade was one; Bill C-21, the federal government, was another. These are the things that are making people lose their jobs.
Now I'll go on to a calmer situation. Thank you for allowing us to come here to comment on the new proposed changes. It has been many years since there were serious reviews or amendments to this specific act.
The workplace is changing at a rapid pace. Workers who have worked and survived for many years of their lives now find themselves unemployed. These workers' skills are no longer in demand. Workers must adjust to these rapid changes. It only makes sense that legislation must change to meet the needs of our workforce. If workers must change and legislation must change, I find it very difficult to comprehend why employers find it so difficult to accept these proposed legislative changes.
Recently, I attended a meeting at city hall. I believe it was sponsored by the chamber of commerce. One small businessman stood up and made a statement. He said, "Only bad employers have anything to fear from these legislative changes." I applaud this gentleman. He was dealing with reality in a changing world.
Every worker has a right to organize without fear, and it's the government's responsibility to provide good legislation to alleviate a worker's fear of reprisals.
I have no doubt the Labour Relations Act has served its purpose over the years, but with the industrial upheaval in the past 16 years, our workforce has changed drastically, and not for the good of workers and their families. We have a large pool of skilled workers who now find themselves without work. The need for their skills is gone. Their jobs are lost for ever.
I have sat behind my desk for over 16 years listening to the fears of workers, "One mention of union and you don't have a job," and listening to workers who have skills and have earned a decent wage through the efforts of their unions now saying: "I have no place in this society. My skills are of no value. I have to be retrained or work for minimum wage."
These workers have families. How can they exist on minimum wage?
The federal government's Bill C-21 emasculated the Unemployment Insurance Act, trebled our load on welfare departments, trebled our load at food banks and created a million poorer in Canada; business supported those changes. Business supported free trade. They have imported from other countries until we can scarcely buy a product made in Canada. This is what has changed the face of our industrial base. We are becoming a country not of producers but of sellers of imported goods for minimum wages.
Labour is adjusting to the changes through massive efforts for retraining for the workers and efforts to assist the workers to adjust to a changing society. Labour is assisting with all of these adjustments, but where are the efforts from business? I do not wish to labour on the lack of effort from the business sectors. There are many good employers, many going under with the workers.
But I do stress very strongly to the chamber of commerce to get your act together and assist in these industrial changes and assist in the retraining of our workforce. Failing this, you will end up with nothing. All businesses depend on the spending of the consumer. If we have no consumers, there's no business.
2020
My assistant will enlarge on the technical side of it, but my suggestions to the new proposed changes are:
1. Minimum wage should be $10 an hour, because the people who receive minimum wage cannot exist.
2. Workers should be protected against reprisals for trying to organize for their own betterment.
3. There must be no replacement workers when a legal strike is called or a lockout takes place. This will prevent any violence on picket lines. Violence is created by the busing in of desperate unemployed workers, some with promises of a permanent job. The more desperate an unemployed worker, the more violence on the picket line. This is baiting worker against worker, and it must be stopped.
4. Employers should not be allowed to continue until a contract is signed. No contract, no work.
5. Inclusion of all workers under the Labour Relations Act; it could be farm workers, service workers, domestic and otherwise, security guards, catering workers, inside and outside workers. All workers must be protected through the appropriate legislation. No worker should be left unprotected.
I applaud this government in its concern for the workers of this country. I fully support the changes proposed for the protection of workers.
To the chamber of commerce I say no, it is not the union leaders who are guiding this government; it is the workers who are fighting for their very existence. Yes, the business is consumers.
Mr Campbell: I've just got a couple of additional comments to make. There is one thing that some groups seem to have lost sight of and that's the intent of the original legislation that's been in place through consecutive governments, some of whose members are represented here. I'm sure many are already familiar with the OLRA, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, but it's just a good idea to review the preamble. I'll try and keep it short here:
"Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives" of the workers.
In other words, it's one of our stands that up until now one of our big weaknesses here has not been in the intent of the legislation, it's that employers have largely been able to circumvent the intent of the legislation. Most of the complaints we've heard here today have to do with employers who now fear that they are going to have to live up to this preamble that's been stated very clearly in very old labour legislation.
This is not a new intent. This is nothing new, no new radical departure. It has been in existence since the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of the 1930s and 1940s. Up till now, as I say, the employers have largely been able to live with the legislation because they've been able to circumvent its intentions.
People who live in fear of reprisals, this type of thing -- I'm sure we've heard enough anecdotal evidence to support that. By the way, with regard to some of the evidence about the Teamsters and what not earlier, I don't think any responsible union would come out and advocate that and say that should be permitted. I think those people should be prosecuted just as quickly and thoroughly as the employers who practise unfair labour practices.
Getting back to the legislation's coherence with existing legislation, even the most salient and most publicized aspect of the act, and that's the use of no replacement workers, I think the allowance, the tolerance, of replacement workers under existing legislation is probably more aberrant with regard to the act, because what the collective bargaining legislation has always envisioned is the use of economic sanctions by one party against the other. This is how they bring their power to bear. The employer can impose a lockout and the employees can impose a strike. This is how one side or the other does its push and pull at the table.
The only difference up till now has been that the employer has been able to circumvent the power legislation has given to the union by saying, "Nominally, you have the right to go on strike," but the employer can just undercut that power by bringing in replacement workers. This has been especially true in the low-paying sectors, the minimum wage places, where the lineup theory of labour economics really does take effect. One worker is as good as another. If you have minimum skills, you'll have a longer lineup. These aren't high-tech firms that find people hard to replace.
It's a central process. It's a central point of the collective bargaining legislation. People are allowed to use economic sanctions. One thing no legislation has ever specified as a right is to use replacement workers. By definition, they are third parties unrelated to the essential relationship between employees and employers. So I think, if anything, up till now that has been an aberration to the essential point of collective bargaining in Ontario, and not the radical change groups have put it up to be.
Another thing I'd like to bring up, and in anticipation of other objections to the new changes of existing legislation, not just the Labour Relations Act but the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act, is basically that some employers have said, "Workers have a great amount of protection as it is already," but I think especially people in the Ministry of Labour and people who deal with the Employment Standards Act know this isn't the case.
Maybe you're familiar with Mr Roy Adams. He has been an arbitrator with the labour relations board, he's sat in a number of disputes, he has extensive experience with specifically this act. This is a study he did in Relations Industrielles. This is the Canadian journal for industrial relations. He basically said that the Employment Standards Act and related legislation only helps workers whose employment bond has been broken already.
In other words, although the original intent of the legislation, under article 57, states that these procedures are supposed to be available for non-unionized people who have a problem during their ongoing labour relationship with their employer, what's happened is that roughly 90% of these cases only arise after the relationship has been severed.
In other words, the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour has only served, and I think he used the words here, he says, "the employment standards branch is primarily a collection agency." In other words, it only deals with people trying to recoup some of their losses they have incurred while in their labour relationship, collecting back pay, this type of thing.
Even at that, even where the worker has been adjudged to be in the right, there's been a hearing, all the hoops have been gone through, one out of seven workers in this province still does not collect. In other words, the act simply doesn't accomplish the things it was set out to do.
Article 57, the part of the act that protects workers from discrimination because they launched a complaint under the act, has largely been ineffective. People like ourselves who work with these people hear the same story day in, day out, "Basically, I'm coming to you, but I'm trying to decide whether to go ahead with it or not, because even though I nominally have this protection, I know my boss is going to have me fired for another reason several weeks down the road," and the part of the act that acts to protect a worker against that kind of thing is essentially undercut.
Here he goes on: "Article 57 cases are very rare. They are so rare that the branch does not even keep records of them. In response to my request for data, the branch did an informal survey of long-service officers. Between them, three cases were identified. One of these was decided in case of the employer." And supposedly this is the only legislation that workers will be left with if they are non-unionized people.
2030
The other study I came across was in the ninth annual report of the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety. This is a survey of 2,850 workplaces, and these are places for which the law has designated that they establish joint occupational health and safety committees. Their problems seem to be low levels of compliance and lack of communication. It was found that only 66% of those workplaces with 20 employees or less had established the required committees. As well, it was discovered that, of all establishments, only about 20% were in compliance with all legal requirements.
So again, this is another major piece of legislation that supposedly seeks to protect non-union people, yet its very existence is fine on paper but without any practical method of enforcement. I'm afraid workers in this province who work without a union are pretty much up the creek. For various reasons arising from economic pressures, from the coercions, informal and openly expressed, and from administrative and logistical problems, basically we're left with little effective access to the legislative protection that supposedly and ostensibly is there for their protection. Good intentions alone have not helped these people, and provide a good case for the equal footing that the new legislation provides.
I know a few people have said it before, but I think any legitimate employer has no need to fear a system that merely seeks to give everybody access to due process in labour law, which we're supposed to already exist under anyway. No place is going to become unionized unless the people of that workplace democratically choose that, "Yes, we want a union." The flip side of that is that if they choose not to have a union, nobody is going to coerce them to have a union. So I don't see why this fear even exists.
The cynical part of me suggests that it's probably a smokescreen. I think all of us recognize that people have a legitimate right to get into business for themselves, but they are also obliged, once they do that, to live up to the norms that society has imposed through its legislation. Knowing that, I think both parties would be much better off.
A lot of people have made another issue out of their desire to communicate directly to the workers. Well, in the absence of any body that's going to function to protect those workers from reprisals, I think that's pretty much an empty suggestion. There are non-union places, obviously, where people get along famously, and I think that's better for both sides. It speaks well of their intentions and what not.
But when I hear phrases like, "We want to talk directly to our workers," well, if you generally want to discern the intentions of your workers and their honest opinion about things, let it be submitted to a private vote. In fact, the collective bargaining mechanism was set up just so workers would have a proper framework within which all their problems could be addressed.
I'll finish with the comment that I think we're probably blowing some of these things out of proportion. The fact of the matter is that 95% of all collective agreements in this province are reached without a strike. They're settled peacefully, amicably and what not.
As for the comparison with Quebec, something that people have not paid much attention to is the fact that had it not been for that legislation, the enrolment in unions of so many people and the granting of certification to a lot of the public service sectors in Quebec -- that accounts for a good portion of the unionized sector in Quebec, and if we're to follow that logic, we should have seen the strike activity triple. It should have gone through the roof, given that at the same time as this legislation went through, other legislation went through giving many more people the right to strike. Yet they did not exercise it.
So if people -- I'm talking about both sides now -- are generally interested in getting along, I think we will, and this legislation will help us do just that. I encourage the government to continue the direction it's taken.
Mr Maloney: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I speak as a retired worker. I've been retired now for 10 years; I worked at Alcan for 32. I want to stress that I went to work for the company; I didn't go to die for it. My reason for saying this is that in my opinion, anyplace there is a well-run and effective union, you also have much greater safety in the workplace.
I am lucky that I have all my fingers; I worked with hazardous equipment. But we had a good, strong union and a company that recognized that union and acted responsibly. During those 32 years I was on strike twice, and neither of those times was for monetary issues; it was for working conditions.
It seems to me that one of the most important things -- which I haven't heard discussed, and I've been watching these hearings on TV at home -- is the importance of health and safety in the workplace. The number of injuries that take place are a far greater loss to companies, in my opinion, than this great fear they have that suddenly all their employees are going to start growing horns out of their heads.
I wish to suggest to you that perhaps -- we'll never know -- had they had a union in Pictou county this past spring and a very effective safety and health committee, maybe those men wouldn't have been down there and maybe that coal dust would have been cleaned up. Maybe there wouldn't have been an explosion and maybe there wouldn't have been 26 people who lost their lives there. They died for the company. People don't want to do that. They want to work for the company; they damn well don't want to die for it.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to Bruce Campbell, Theresa Houston, the director of the Unemployment Help Centre, and to Vince Maloney for their comments this evening on Bill 40. Your perspective is one that's an important one. It's the first time, I tell you, this committee has had that particular viewpoint. The committee appreciates that, is thankful and wants to express its gratitude.
Ms Houston: We will be preparing a lengthy brief on the responses to the legislation. Due to lack of time, we didn't have it done, but we'll make sure every member here gets a copy of it.
The Chair: Thank you, and one to the clerk of the resources development committee, Queen's Park.
Ms Houston: Right. He'll be first to get it.
The Chair: Thank you. God bless.
2040
CONCRETE PRECASTERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Next is the Concrete Precasters Association of Ontario. People, please tell us your names and your titles, if any. We've got your written submissions, which are well-prepared. They're brief, they're concise and they will allow plenty of time for dialogue which, as you can see, is one of the more valuable parts of the process. Go ahead, please.
Mr Glenn Caverly: I thank you for this opportunity to speak to the committee. I introduce Jeff Bradfield, vice-president and general manager of Anchor Concrete Products Ltd in Kingston, and Brian Best, president of Planes Precast Concrete Ltd in Prescott and Kingston. My name is Glenn Caverly. I'm the manager of the Concrete Precasters Association of Ontario.
CPA is a non-profit association which represents about 32 member companies in Ontario who manufacture a common product line. Our mandate is to provide unity, communication, product development and to provide a common voice to express the concerns of our industry.
Typically, most of the precast concrete manufacturers we represent would be considered small businesses. Most of them are family businesses, and it is common to see two generations of the family working together. Personally, I have visited most of these companies in my capacity as manager of the association and have never seen abusive situations or employees being cheated out of statutory benefits. This is not tolerated today, and there is civil legislation in place to protect these concerns. Typically, the staff and employees are working together as a cooperative and close-knit team.
Our industry has some very serious concerns, which we wish to bring to your attention, about the amendments to the Labour Relations Act as proposed in Bill 40. Why does the government assume that all employees want to be unionized? Many employees in our industry have previously worked in a union shop, prefer to be non-union and advise that they will not work in a union atmosphere.
I would like to point out that we feel the timing of these proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act is most inappropriate. The owners and management of the businesses that will be affected by this legislation are coping with the worst recession since the 1930s. Many of them are fighting for survival of their business, with failures, closures and bankruptcies being at an all-time high. How can this government justify making these changes at this time to cause the businessman to divert his time and effort away from the critical and fragile matters of keeping his business solvent? With over 550,000 people out of work in Ontario, we do not want to contribute further to this problem.
We recommend that this legislation should be shelved for a more appropriate time. Keep the ground rules the way they are now. Our members all know they must be highly productive and competitive to survive in this market. We don't need more obstacles in our path at this critical time.
It is our opinion that the Ontario Ministry of Labour should be concentrating its efforts on the preservation, stimulation and creation of jobs. After this has been accomplished is the time to review and amend the Labour Relations Act, if needed.
This new legislation would reduce the percentage of workers supporting a vote on unionization to 40%. This means that the wishes of the majority of workers would be ignored, prompting time-consuming preoccupation with a certification vote that most employees may not want in the first place.
Why do these amendments not include a change to provide a secret ballot to certify a union? The secret ballot is the cornerstone of a democratic society. The antiquated process of signing cards leaves employees open to intimidation. Without an opportunity to make a private decision, employees may feel pressured into signing a membership card. In a democratic society, shouldn't employees who do not want a union have the right to make their views known?
Employer and union representatives should have equal and fair time to present their case and respond to questions from employees when certification is considered.
This legislation will do nothing to inspire and stimulate consumer confidence and improve the economy in Ontario. It is sure to discourage further investment by Ontario businessmen and it certainly will not improve the employment situation.
In conclusion, we are very concerned and worried about what this legislation will do to the firms we represent and the jobs of the employees who depend on us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Let me congratulate you and your association on a brief which puts your position clearly and concisely, and makes your arguments but still permits time for exchanges. Mr Sterling, please. We have seven minutes.
Mr Sterling: I don't really need to ask you questions, because the Chairman is right in terms of you putting forth your position. But maybe, in terms of one of the concerns that may or may not be valid on my part, I believe that as you squeeze out small, family-run businesses by putting them more into a union situation, when the confrontations that exists between unions and their employers from time to time occur, basically I think if you are a small business person you can't last, but if you're big and you're a multinational organization you probably can withstand that kind of standoff because you have resources from another province, another state or whatever it is. Do you have any feeling on that at all?
Particularly, we heard about some retail organizations. One of the NDP members and I, when we were sitting in Ottawa this afternoon, talked about various large American retailers coming in, and my view is that there are going to be more and more large American retailers coming into Ontario and Canada because they have the financial wherewithal to withstand the kind of industrial dispute that can take place. I don't know if you'd like to comment on that or not. Do you think my fear is well founded?
Mr Caverly: Perhaps I'll ask Brian to comment on that.
Mr Brian Best: I think small business has to be flexible, has to be able to compete with larger businesses that may be associated in certain product lines. In the precast business, there are multinationals with subsidiaries that manufacture precast concrete. We have to be able to manufacture and compete in a local region against them; and yes, these companies are coming in from the US and there is concern.
One thing I would like to point out is that the working man, the hourly paid person, in this day and age is far more educated, far more aware of his rights. He feels that under the labour laws and the safety laws that are in existence at this point, he has some depth, he has some background and he has some punch to be able to do something about it if a company does step out of line. I think the need for the threat -- and I think we have to look at it that way, because usually it starts from a disgruntled person not happy with a decision and then travels into a situation where that individual wants to get revenge -- puts it in a very difficult position for the company to continue and to maintain good relationships.
2050
Ms Murdock: Thank you for staying so long; it's dark now. On your second page, in regard to shelving the legislation and the appropriate time for this kind of legislation or any kind of changes to the Labour Relations Act, a little bit of history, I guess, is that in 1985, when the Liberals and the New Democrats formed an accord, labour relations was on the agenda, because by then, Bob Mackenzie, as the critic for Labour for the New Democrats, had already received letters etc, especially from the part-time workers, women, who are now almost a majority of the workforce, complaining about the fact that they didn't have access or the right to choose if they wanted to join.
So it came out of, if you remember, the accord years. It was a big priority for us. Basically, over those two years or 18 months of the accord, we were told it wasn't the time, and that was when we had, as you recall, fairly boom years in terms of the province of Ontario. Now in hard times -- and I'm not disagreeing with you at all that jobs have, particularly in the manufacturing sector, dropped significantly, long before this legislation was even a gleam in the eye of the New Democrats -- we're being told it's not the time again. I guess what I'm asking you is, when is the time?
Mr Caverly: I state that in my fourth paragraph, Ms Murdock. It is our opinion that the Ontario Ministry of Labour should be concentrating its efforts on the preservation, stimulation and creation of jobs. After this has been accomplished is the time to review and amend the Labour Relations Act. It's a matter of priorities.
Ms Murdock: If I might, a good part of the job of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Ed Philip, is to create jobs and bring investments to the province of Ontario. The Ministry of Labour, on the other hand, is not a job creation ministry, generally speaking. It regulates health and safety in the workplace; 91 pieces of legislation, none of which are job creation bills.
So I guess I didn't read your fourth paragraph as a time to do it, at least not in relation to the Ministry of Labour, because it is being done. That's one of the problems with this bill, that we are seeing it and I think all parties are seeing it in isolation from everything else. There are things going on with Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Training, that are happening. So with that, when is the time? You can't wait around for ever to allow women access to opt to join a union if they choose to.
Mr Caverly: Do you wish to comment, Jeff?
Mr Jeff Bradfield: Sure. I'm probably somewhat ignorant of some of the things in the legislation, but are there specific exclusions at this moment excluding women from unions? What are you trying to say? I'm sorry.
Ms Murdock: Basically, right now 46% of the workforce are women. The majority of that 46%, over 70%, are part-timers, and of those part-timers then again almost all of them, 80%, are women. It's very difficult for part-timers to access any kind of union. Now, that's to say if they opt to. Only 30% of the workforce in the province of Ontario has chosen to join unions, despite the fact that it's open to 70% of the workforce.
The Chair: Can respond to that now? Has she clarified it?
Mr Bradfield: Yes.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Bradfield: That's one part of the legislation that I personally don't have a problem with, including part-timers in the unions. A lot of us are not working on profits, as people like to discuss; we're working on cash flow. We've got to keep that cash flow coming to make sure that the bank payments are made for the investments that we've made over the last few years. Prices have reduced substantially on our products. Therefore, we're not expecting profits; we're just out there trying to generate cash flow to continue the payments until we can get back to a stage of profitability.
What we're saying as an organization, an association, is that at this time, if small business takes its eye off the ball for any moment, for virtually anything at this point, there are going to be reams of businesses that go down because they're not out there actually soliciting those sales; they're attending to something else.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Hayes, and if you're brief enough, you'll allow Mr Hope and Mr Wilson each to ask questions.
Mr Hayes: Very brief, Mr Chair, and thank you.
The Chair: If not brief enough, they won't be able to.
Mr Hayes: Okay. First of all, I'd just like to re-emphasize what Ms Murdock has said, that in 1985, this government of today, our party, drew up the accord with the Liberal Party. At that time, I think it was pretty fair times, and that was the wrong time for them too.
We hear all the talk about all the bad things that are happening in Quebec; the number of strikes have increased. Are you aware that since 1978, when they implemented banning of replacement workers, hours of work lost due to work stoppages have decreased by 30%?
Mr Bradfield: No.
The Chair: All right, go ahead, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I am pleased with these trenchant presentations. The previous presenter, after 16 years of dealing with the stress and hardship of unemployment, pointed out that workers also have a lot of problems with businesses that go under. I just wonder about your view of that.
You put all your emphasis on the owners of companies, but why aren't workers also intent on making sure the workplace succeeds so they'll have a reliable paycheque?
Mr Caverly: I think they are; I don't think there's any reason to doubt that they're not concerned.
Mr Gary Wilson: Second, then, don't they deserve a voice in how the workplace is run, since it is their livelihood that is at stake here?
Mr Caverly: I think that is the situation. Consultation and communication with employees is typical. Personally, I worked in this industry for 31 years, and that was a very important part of the way we operated.
Mr Hope: Just very briefly, I was reading your presentation, and you talked about the positive work atmosphere you have in your places. Why are you worried about labour relations reform if people are happy? The other part you touched on is consumer confidence.
The Chair: All right, thank you. Can you respond to that? We've got to move on.
Mr Hope: It's very short.
The Chair: If these people want to respond to that, they can now.
Mr Best: We've worked at it in a very positive way; we have a lot of direct communication with our employees, one-on-one, as family-owned businesses. If the guy is upset, then we try to resolve it. We don't need a third party coming in.
As I mentioned before, you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time, but if we're going to have some form of counsel head-butts or whatever as a result of it, then let's have it equally. Let's say we have it on a secret ballot; we have it 50% or more as far as the employees requiring to join the union; we don't have the minority stating that the majority are going to be part of the union; we have it as a democratic society, the majority rules.
We're hoping we can maintain the sort of relationships we have with our employees right now, but we are concerned that if in the future that continued relationship changes, that when we have to, we have an equal and a fair playing field to work on.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I've listened intently to the questioning that's gone on. We have to put this in the light in which it is: We have, as you've indicated, over half a million people out of work. I think there was a report from Statscan today that indicated that the UI recipients have gone down across the country except in one province, and that's Ontario. I think we recognize in Ontario that bankruptcies are still at an extremely high rate.
I listened to Ms Murdock talk about this bill allowing part-time workers to be unionized, which is terrific, except for the fact they now can unionize without this bill. So I hope that we can deal with the facts as they are.
We talk about the rights of men and women in the workplace to organize. I agree; I believe that they should be allowed. If men and women in the workforce wish to be part of a union, then so be it.
My question to you is, in your opinion, is not the best way to accomplished this a free, secret vote where the workers are fully informed that there is an organizing drive, what it means to them and then to be allowed to cast their vote, free of intimidation and coercion, and if there are, then let there be a severe penalty on the employer and/or the union organizer? But let us free the workers from this intimidation and coercion and let them cast their vote freely, yes or no, for a union. Do you agree with that?
Mr Caverly: I personally agree with you. Yes, I would agree with you. No problem.
The Chair: I want to thank the presenters appearing on behalf of the Concrete Precasters Association of Ontario. It's the first time that your specific industry has been represented here, and the committee's grateful to you for your interest and for your participation. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr Hope, you had a matter to raise for the committee.
Mr Hope: I'd just like to ask the legislative researcher a question. I don't know if there are any written answers anywhere, but if inside the labour relations law and inside the employment standards law you decipher whose rights, whether it be the employer's rights or the employee's rights -- if it is not written in law in those two acts, who holds the dominating right then?
The Chair: You mean whose rights prevail in the absence of any direct addressing of that in the legislation?
Mr Hope: You're absolutely right. I knew you would come up with it. You're a lawyer, so I knew you'd come up with the clarification.
The Chair: Gosh. Some of these people were starting to like me until you told them that. Is that something that legislative research wants to reflect on?
Mr Avrum Fenson: Yes, maybe I should. I think the general answer is that the rights are created by statute, and if they're not addressed by the statute, there's no --
Interjection: Then it becomes the employer's right.
Mr Fenson: Well, no. Then other law applies. Property rights might dominate; it depends what the context is or what the situation is. The law of contract always exists, the law of property exists.
The Chair: And ultimately the common law. Isn't what you're trying to say?
Mr Fenson: And the common law exists. There are very few vacuums into which some law doesn't seep if another law doesn't occupy it.
The Chair: Are you satisfied with that, Mr Hope, or do you want a more elaborate response?
Mr Hope: I'm satisfied.
The Chair: Are there any other matters for committee?
I want to say thank you to the committee members for their cooperation, to the staff who have been very helpful, especially in terms of their speedy setup here, to the people who were participants and observers for their patience this evening and for their interest in this matter.
We're going to resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. We'll be sitting until approximately 5. People are welcome as observers and there will, of course, be an interesting lineup of participants. Thank you, people. We're adjourned till then. Take care.
The committee adjourned at 2105.