ALLIANCE FOR EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION
CONSUMERS' GAS; UNION GAS; CENTRA GAS
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
CONFEDERATION OF CANADIAN UNIONS
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
ASSOCIATION OF FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS OF ONTARIO
ONTARIO COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
CHINESE WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
HAMILTON AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 September 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Alliance for Employment Equity
David Onyalo, chair
George Lamony, vice-chair
Graphic Communications International Union
James Cowan, international vice-president for Canada
Duncan Brown, Canadian organizing coordinator
Consumers' Gas; Union Gas; Centra Gas
Ron Munkley, senior vice-president, Consumers' Gas
John Bergsma, senior vice-president of regions, Union Gas
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
J. Grant Smith, chair, labour issues coordinating committee
Cecil Bradley, manager, policy research
Ken Forth, chair, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association
Confederation of Canadian Unions
John B. Lang, secretary-treasurer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Fred Upshaw, president
Association of Foundation Specialists of Ontario
Bill Lardner, member
Manny Fine, member
Gordon Demetrick, member
Ontario Coalition for Social Justice
Mary Ann O'Connor, coordinator
Menno Vorster
Chinese Workers of Metropolitan Toronto
Donald Ming, chairperson
Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce
Bill Filer, president
Lee Kirby, executive director
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Ontario Provincial Council
Art McIntosh, president
John Tremble, researcher
Sue Yates, international representative
Railway Association of Canada
Bob Ballantyne, president
Don Brazier, assistant vice-president, industrial relations, CP Rail
Blake Olson, regional manager, human resources, Great Lakes division, Canadian National
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:
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Conway
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 in room 151.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Good morning. It's 10 o'clock. We are ready to resume. It would be, at the very least, courteous of committee members to be here to listen to persons making presentations; at least courteous, if not other things, for instance, displaying an interest in what these people have to say.
ALLIANCE FOR EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
The Chair: The first participant this morning is the Alliance for Employment Equity. Go ahead, people. Tell us your names, your titles, if any, and proceed with your submission.
Mr David Onyalo: By way of introduction, my name is David Onyalo and I'm the chair of the Alliance for Employment Equity. Sitting to my right is Mr George Lamony, the vice-chair of the Alliance for Employment Equity, and sitting to my left is Mr Handel Mlilo, the coordinator for the Alliance for Employment Equity.
The Alliance for Employment Equity was formed in 1987 to lobby and advocate for mandatory employment equity legislation in the province. The alliance is a coalition of 65 community and labour organizations representing members of the four designated groups: women, racial minorities, people with disabilities and aboriginal people.
Through public education and debate, forums and workshops, we make representations to governments and organizing campaigns. The alliance is dedicated to the struggle for equity in Ontario's workplaces, and equity in employment is what brings us here today.
We will be sending you a brief later on -- we do not have a prepared brief for you today -- but what we intend to say to you is already contained in one variation or another in the many briefs you have been collecting up until now.
Our intent is to talk about how those we represent, as an organization fighting for employment equity, will benefit from the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. This legislation also addresses important issues in the workplace, such as the changing nature of the workforce and workplace.
The Alliance for Employment Equity is pleased to make a submission in support of the government's intention of reforming the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We are pleased that this government has recognized that the right to organize must be equally accessible to all workers, particularly members of the designated groups and other lower-paid workers in vulnerable sectors of the economy.
From the point of view of members of the designated groups, persons with a disability, women, racial minorities and aboriginals, easier access to unionized workplaces ensures access to well-paid jobs because of a union's ability of collective bargaining. In addition, when members of these designated groups belong to unionized workplaces, they are accorded the job security that goes with belonging to a body that actually negotiates and then ensures protection of its members.
On the same note, we also support restrictions on replacement workers. The reality of today's workplaces is that they are no longer simply manufacturing industries employing large numbers of people. Legislation which allows workers in these sectors easier unionization and collective bargaining actually improves their terms and conditions of employment.
Due to the fact that most of our members are found in small workplaces and are part-time workers, we also support the idea of consolidating bargaining units that are represented by the same union.
From an employment equity perspective, just accessing workplaces is not adequate. Job conditions such as salaries and security are of equal importance. Think of the disabled person who faces intolerable conditions on the job but is afraid of even talking to someone about organizing a union to do something about the conditions; likewise, the immigrants who have no say about the conditions in their workplace and are actually afraid that organizing to do something about the situation will result in the loss of work.
That's why it's important for us that the changes that are being proposed about certification will make it easier for the members we represent to organize. For us, it's also a question of removing systemic barriers in employment.
What I want to emphasize is that these are not just hypothetical situations. Many individuals from designated groups have stories about being discouraged from organizing because attempts at doing so have led to firings, demotions and all kinds of harassment.
In conclusion today, Bill 40 has also taken a positive step in terms of empowering our membership. In closing, I also want to say that we will be submitting a brief at some point after this and we would be happy to take any questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Mr Offer.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I look forward to receiving the written brief when prepared.
You spoke about the harassment and intimidation in organizing for a union. As we near the end of these five weeks of hearings, it is very clear to me that this bill is not about whether a union is good or bad. It would seem to me that what we want to do is provide a framework in legislation that if employees of a workplace want to form a union, they should be able to form a union free from intimidation and free from coercion, not having a threat of a job sanction over their head, and then leave it up to the workers to be able to make that choice freely one way or the other. Would you agree with that?
Mr Onyalo: All I want to say is that I don't think I want to get into the debate of whether belonging to a union is good for our members or not. I have my own position on that. However, the debate around making it easier for members to organize is recognizing the fact that there's an assumption that in the workplace workers and employers have the same power, and it's usually not so.
When you talk about our members or people from the designated groups who want to organize for the first time, who have low-paying jobs and for whom losing a job means losing their livelihood, it's much easier for the employer, who is well organized and who pours in a lot of money in terms of wanting to keep unions out for his own reasons, and that makes it much harder for people from our groups. This is our reality; these are the stories we are hearing.
During the certification process, we recognize the fact that there is a power imbalance, which is something I don't know whether you've recognized. There is a power imbalance and that, for us, is a reality whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Mr Offer: Let me ask you this question. I think we agree. Do you believe that in an organizing campaign there is ever an incident where an employer could express an opinion without its being viewed by the employees as intimidating or coercive?
Mr Onyalo: Well, I mean, I'm not going to give you specific examples.
Mr Offer: No, I'm not asking for that. In general, in an organizing campaign -- this is crucial to the direction of the legislation -- is there ever an incident where an employer expressing an opinion during the campaign would not, in your opinion, be viewed as intimidating or coercive by the employees?
Mr Onyalo: The employer is entitled to express an opinion but, unfortunately for us, from what you've heard, there are stories of how -- it's how you express those opinions, and sometimes there are subtle messages. The Alliance for Employment Equity deals with systemic discrimination and systemic barriers, and some of these things are usually subtle. It's not what employers write down; it's how they go about it. That's our concern.
1010
I'm not going to say that employers are not allowed to participate in the process at all; it's how they participate that's our concern. They shouldn't participate in such a way that the people who are trying to organize feel intimidated or feel that they are in danger of losing their jobs. It's how it's done that's the issue for us. How does the employer participate in that process?
From what we've had to date, the way they participate is always in such a way that it makes it harder for our members to organize, especially in the retail sector, in the service sector, because these are sectors, as far as we know, where there is almost a phobia about organizing. A lot of employers are afraid of unions organizing their members, so they go out of their way to stop that process. The question is how they participate in that process. I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that they should somehow participate, but it's how they participate in that process that counts.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I want to touch on another aspect of the bill, or I guess maybe something the bill does not cover. I think we agree that joining a union is one vehicle which will lead to better protection for employees and better working conditions.
However, it's just one vehicle and there remain today and will remain in the indefinite future many workers who will not join unions for whatever reason. What else can we do as legislators? What is this bill not doing to protect workers who will not join unions for whatever reason?
Mr George Lamony: I think what the bill is doing is giving workers the option to be able to choose whether they want to unionize or not to unionize.
Mr McGuinty: Let me give you an example. Maybe I'm talking in too abstract a manner. Domestics, predominantly women working in individual households, will not be given the right under this bill to join a union because the minimum bargaining unit under the law is two people and generally one employer, the household owner, has one domestic. That is an example of where this bill is remiss in terms of providing protection. Then again, that's only if we view unionization as a sole vehicle towards protecting workers. Could you offer us any other suggestions in terms of what we can do to help that kind of person?
Mr Onyalo: We were going to be silent on this, but I think we might have to do something very creative. The way to look at it is that whole discussion about combining bargaining units. There might be a way, and this is something you might want to think about further on, whereby you can consider, let's say, domestics working in a certain area belonging to a certain bargaining unit. I'm working on the assumption that these are people who want to be part of a union.
I'm not sure I have the answer for you, but I think this issue about combining bargaining units might be one way of doing it, because in the same way we're saying that in some of the retail sectors we have employees working in a workplace where there are only three or four of them. What we're trying to say is that we must find a way of making sure they belong to a much bigger union. How that's done will be left up to the people who will be working on it, but that's one area you can look into if you want to address the issue of domestic workers. We don't have an answer for you.
Mr Lamony: Actually, there are organized domestic workers at the present moment. Unfortunately, because the legislation still needs to be approved, they have not had the power, if you will, or been empowered to organize themselves to become unionized, but otherwise, they are there. I think the proposed amendments to the OLRA empowers them, gives them the vehicle with which they can mobilize themselves and have a voice.
Mr McGuinty: Sometimes I get the very distinct impression that one of the problems here, in terms of regulating what takes place in the workplace, arises from the lack of enforcement of existing laws. The employers are not allowed to intimidate employees when an organizing drive is under way. They're not allowed to threaten them with dismissal. When there's picketing going on, we have laws prohibiting violence on the picket line. We have laws prohibiting harassment and threatening. Do you have any comments with respect to that? Is that not a cry for us to properly enforce the laws that are already in the books?
Mr Lamony: I don't know whether I understand what you're getting at. Would you repeat it again, please?
The Chair: It was a long question; I understand your response. Go ahead, Ms Witmer.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm pleased to see you again. We're going to have a longer conversation today than we did yesterday. All of us are here wearing a different hat today.
I do appreciate your coming forward today on behalf of your group. I now have a better understanding of whom your group represents. My concern about Bill 40 is around the fact that it gives greatly increased power to unions and union leaders, but I am very concerned that at the same time the rights of the individual are being infringed upon.
An example is that although it's easier to unionize under Bill 40 -- obviously if people choose to unionize they need to be given that option, but people also need to be given the option and the choice to decertify and not belong to a union.
Also, this makes it illegal for an employee to cross a picket line. Sometimes, in the case of a single mother, after a strike has gone on for a very long time, because of financial hardship, it might be necessary for that individual to cross a picket line. Maybe she doesn't agree with the union leadership. Maybe the union leadership has acted irresponsibly. This prevents her from doing so.
Also, in joining a union I feel that all individuals -- and you've mentioned how some of the people within your group are taken advantage of -- need to be fully informed of what it means to join a union: what the cost involved is, what happens when you go on strike. I'm concerned that the process of Bill 40 does not allow for people to be fully informed on the issue of what it means to belong to a union or what it means not to belong to a union.
How do you think this bill can be improved so that the rights of the individuals are respected and all people fully understand the implications of what it means to be or not to be a union member? I have to tell you, by the way, that I have a letter here from a woman. She is an immigrant and this is what she says about Bill 40:
"I ask that you look at this increased power through the eyes of union members who feel alienated by the power the union leaders presently exert upon their members with little or no redress within their individual unions."
It doesn't matter whether it's the employer or the union leader; people are feeling, at times, harassed and pressured and really unable to make a choice freely. What can we do to ensure that people truly, independently, can make that choice?
Mr Lamony: I think you've raised a rather important point. I'm reminded of politicians today. If people, the electorate, are not satisfied with what politicians are doing, what do they do? You talk of union leadership. Granted, that will happen. There will always be differences of opinion, but you have to understand that union leadership is elected by the workers themselves. Consequently, they speak on behalf of the workers.
By the same token, you can apply that analogy in political situations. We elect politicians to speak on our behalf. In the event that politicians are not serving our needs, we don't kick them out. What do we do? Do we have any forum in which we can redress these concerns we have?
1020
Mrs Witmer: But I'm saying to you that people feel intimidated and harassed. Whether it's, as people indicated, the employer or whether it's the union leadership, people are afraid to speak out. This woman is afraid to speak out, and I have to tell you, she's not the only one. How are we going to ensure that, whether they're in a union or not, people really feel they can voice their differences and not be penalized for it? By the way, this woman was penalized for speaking out.
Mr Lamony: By the union leaders?
Mrs Witmer: By the union leadership.
Mr Lamony: I don't disagree that there may be isolated cases, but oftentimes there is the voice of the collective, and that has to be taken into account. As I mentioned, it's just like in a political situation. A majority elects the government, but there's a minority that will always disagree with what the government says.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): No, the majority disagrees with what this government has said.
Mr Lamony: I'm not quite sure of that.
Interjections.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr Onyalo: Mine was just a way of trying to emphasize some of the things my colleague was talking about. The reality of the workplace is that there's always a perception that union leaders are the ones with power. For those of us who work in unionized workplaces, we don't see that as the case. We see the membership as the people with power in the workplaces. And talking about the internal process itself, if the union leadership is not being accountable, is not meeting the members' needs, there's an internal process that takes care of that during election times; even between elections there is a way in which members, through the general membership meetings, can air their concerns. So it's not a question of union leaders having power. I think that's just a perception. I don't think it's the reality for some of us who work in unionized workplaces.
When you were talking about members being intimidated to not cross the picket line, we have very strong views on that. We think that during the collective bargaining process, the only tool available for unions so far in terms of ensuring that they get better benefits and better wages for the employees is to have the avenue whereby they can go on strike.
There is also the assumption that strikes are something that occur every day in our society. From the information I've got, strikes only occur maybe in about 5% of the times when people are bargaining. It's not as bad as most people usually think it is.
On the issue of whether members should be allowed to cross a picket line, we have very strong views on that. That's why we are very happy with the restriction on replacement workers. We think that's a right move in the right place.
On the issue of educating people about the unions, I don't think this is just a union issue, I think this is a societal issue. If you look at our educational process, when kids go through the education system, not too many people know about unions, and the unions by and large are seen as just representing the best interests of their workers in the workplaces. Unions do play a role in society. If you look at how unions are involved in a whole range of issues in society, it's not just a matter of trying to gouge the employers.
This is not just an issue of unions; I think this is an issue society should start to really think about. If we're going to accept the credibility of unions in our society, the kind of role they're playing, then I think it's up to the government to make sure that process takes place in our society. It's not up to the unions to tell their members, "Union leaders are not really the big power chiefs you think they are." That probably should take place in our society, and we strongly believe in that.
Mrs Witmer: As I say, I have no problem with whether or not people choose to belong to a union. I'm sure many of us around this table have belonged to a union at one time or another. I guess I come back to where I started. I am concerned about individual rights and freedoms, and I am concerned that in some respects Bill 40 does limit my right as an individual.
But I'd like to ask you another question related to what you said today. Actually, it's related to --
The Chair: We're going to have to move on. If that had been a brief question, we could have done it.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much for coming forward and making a presentation on behalf of the Alliance for Employment Equity. Just as a follow-up to what Elizabeth has brought forward from the Conservative Party, if the union executive and the union president are not doing the job they're expected to do, the membership will take the vote and vote them out of office, just as they did in 1985: When they were fed up with the government at that time, they voted it out of office. In 1990, they did the same thing: They said, "It's time for a change." The same thing happens whether it's chamber of commerce, whether it's unions, whatever it is. If they're not satisfied with the leadership and it's not doing what the membership thinks it should, it's going to be thrown out of office. I'm just wondering if you agree with that concept.
Mr Onyalo: We agree.
Mr Wood: Very good. After listening to some of the questions that have been brought forward by Mr Offer, what I understand is that he agrees in questioning you that there is no equity as far as the balance of power is concerned between workers and employers. What's your feeling on that?
Mr Onyalo: That's what we're trying to put across. We believe there is not equity in the power relationship between the employer and the employees. That's our reality, that there is no balance.
Mr Wood: There is no equity in power?
Mr Onyalo: It's not quite in balance, yes.
Mr Wood: I'm interested in seeing your written brief, that you said you're going to send in to us. But over the last number of years, since 1975, there have been no major changes to the OLRA, and I'm sure you must agree that there have been major changes taking place in the workplace and in the workforce -- more women coming in, more minority-group workers out there -- that the workplace has drastically changed.
Mr Onyalo: Yes. When the OLRA was introduced -- I'm not sure exactly, but in the 1930s -- there was a manufacturing base. Now the reality is that jobs have shifted into the service sector, into the retail sector, and that is where most of our membership is. So irrespective of how the rest of the committee feels, we think the law needs to be reviewed just so it reflects the reality of our society today.
We are agreeing with your statement that the workplace has changed, especially for us -- the issue of more women, more aboriginal people, more racial minorities getting into the workplace -- and that is why it's so important for us to have the access to workplaces that are unionized, the access to well-paid workplaces with job security. So I am agreeing.
The Chair: Mr Hope wanted a brief question.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): One of the areas you touched on was education, dealing with understanding the trade union movement and understanding our social programs and how they develop. I was interested that you said we have to create a balance in our education to make people understand clearly what the rights are of the working individual. If I listen to the Tory mentality, we market our labour at competitive prices, which means we'll work for lower wages and not stimulate our economy the way we have been.
I wanted to bounce a view off you that if we were to promote more in our education field about labour -- we always expect our people to come out of the school system as little entrepreneurs instead of working people, and the majority of the people who come out of schools become working people.
The Chair: No, that's not a brief question, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: It is very brief.
The Chair: I've got to say to you people, thank you very much on behalf of the committee for participating in this process. We are grateful to the members of the Alliance for Employment Equity for their interest in this legislation, and for their readiness and eagerness to provide us with their views. We're grateful to you. Thank you for coming.
1030
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION
The Chair: The next participant is the Graphic Communications International Union. Would those people please come forward, have a seat, give us their names, their titles, if they wish, and proceed with their submissions. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges. Your written submissions will be distributed, will be made an exhibit and will form part of the record.
Mr James Cowan: Good morning. My name is Jim Cowan and I'm the international vice-president for Canada of the graphic communications union. With me is Duncan Brown, the Canadian organizing coordinator of our union.
The graphic communications union represents 14,000 workers in Ontario producing newspapers, packaging, catalogues, books, magazines and a wide array of commercial printing.
Before you is our brief for your perusal and consideration. Because of the time restraints we would like to focus on two parts of the brief: organizing and the anti-scab provision. First, I would like to ask Duncan to review our position on organizing and then I would like to make some comments on our position on section 32, the anti-scab section of the legislation.
Mr Duncan Brown: I'll just touch briefly on some of the items as they affect organizing, but I'll start first with the purpose clause.
We agree with the purpose clause being included in the legislation to assist in its interpretation. However, one of the things we'd like to see the government of Ontario do -- and this is not part of the legislative package -- is undertake a promotional campaign to promote the purposes of the labour relations legislation, as it does with other social policy objectives like health and safety in the workplace, human rights legislation, pay equity and, I anticipate, with the employment equity legislation. We'd like to see them promote actively in the media the purposes of the labour legislation.
Before I touch on some of the substantive provisions, one of the problems that we do have at the board, and I heard it come up earlier this morning, is just with delay of the board -- just plain and simple delay of the board. That might be an issue of resources to the board as well. I'll give you just two brief examples of things that have happened in the past year or so to our union.
One of them was a small plant of 12 people. When we applied for certification, the employer showed up without legal counsel. The board chairman asked him if he'd like legal counsel. He said no, and halfway through the day he decided he wanted it. He showed up at the subsequent hearing a month and a half later without legal counsel; another adjournment. He showed up subsequently with legal counsel who wasn't prepared to proceed. At that point in the bargaining unit of eight people -- low wage, high turnover. We had lost eight people, not union supporters, but eight of the people in that bargaining unit were no longer working at that employer either because they had left or they'd been pressured out. At that point you're before the board on a certificate, and then you've got to try and get a collective agreement. Just delay.
Another one was another company with about 100 employees where we went on an automatic certification. We ended up agreeing to a vote on an agreed-upon list. Immediately after the vote the employer objected to the list it had agreed to before the board, and then about six months later into the litigation on that, all of a sudden a no-pay allegation came up. In cross-examination the card signer said that he didn't sign the card, so we had to litigate whether we could bring in handwriting analysis experts into the board. Then when we finished that and we got a handwriting analysis expert, the person recanted that he had signed the card. It took us 18 months subsequent to a vote to get a certification; 18 months of litigation before the board.
That's just a couple of sort of extreme examples where there are problems at the board.
In terms of the substantive provisions of the act, the firing of the organizer clause in the act is totally inadequate, in our union's opinion -- absolutely inadequate. Our position is that at the very least what should be able to happen is the board should be required to hold a hearing within 24 hours on an allegation being filed at the board and make an interim order for relief, except in possible cases where there's something like a prima facie case of maybe theft or whatever -- you know, extenuating circumstances.
The fired organizer has to be put back in the plant immediately. This is especially critical in small workplaces. The system that is being devised here by the Ministry of Labour is just not adequate enough. There's too much room for further delay. It can be done. All you have to do is look at the practice of the board in illegal strikes. It's done, and it's done quickly. All we're asking for is the same treatment for a fired organizer.
Support required for certification: The retention of the 55% and not taking it down to a simple majority, just in principle, we find offensive. We find it insulting to trade union organizers and we find it insulting to working people. We believe the threshold for automatic certification should be taken down to a simple majority.
I'm skipping over some things here because they're relatively straightforward, and I'm sure you've heard a lot of it before.
Appropriateness of the bargaining unit: We would like to have seen an amendment in the legislation where the board would be directed to consider the need to facilitate access to collective bargaining when it's considering the appropriateness of the bargaining unit.
This has practical consequences: sometimes a strict adherence to the traditional bargaining-unit structures the board has, which we don't object to, but some cases they're not appropriate and they might impede access to collective bargaining. We'd like to see something in the legislation which would direct the board to consider that issue of access to collective bargaining and unionization. The government had proposed it in its discussion paper and then withdrew from that position.
With respect to part-time and full-time employees and the related issue of consolidating existing bargaining units, we like the move in that direction; however, we think that should be at the option of the trade union, particularly in the case of consolidation of existing bargaining units.
We have in our union a history of craft unionism. We're now an industrial union, but we do have a lot of existing craft bargaining units.
I'll give you an example of a newspaper we recently organized. We had about a 60-year history where, in the press room, there were 40 people who were unionized; a long bargaining history. To organize the rest of the plant was about 200-and-some people, of whom about 80 were part-time and casual unskilled labourers in the mail room of the newspaper.
If the employer has the option of applying for consolidation of that bargaining unit, he can immediately put those groups together and dilute the bargaining strength. The bargaining relationship and the whole bargaining history of the existing unit is thrown into question. We don't want the employers to be able to do that, plain and simple, and we don't think that should be an option for them.
First-agreement arbitration: We think it's a step in the right direction. I think the 30-day strike- or lockout-triggering mechanism is unnecessary and in fact could have adverse consequences. I've been organizing across Canada and in Tennessee and Mississippi over the last six years, and I'll tell you, when people say here that there's fear and uncertainty in the workplace during the organizing process and during the first-contract scenario, they're not kidding.
The bargaining relationship is extremely fragile. You have two groups of people who are not used to dealing with each other in this way. You have an asymmetrical power relationship and you might have some acrimony that comes from the organizing process itself; maybe just the fact that it happened. Then that can be compounded by a prolonged and acrimonious litigation process before the board. So the parties are not used to dealing with each other, and to try to put them into a strike or lockout situation I don't think is appropriate in order to get them access to first-contract arbitration.
In terms of organizing, there are a lot of problems. I think the legislation is designed to address them, and in many ways it does, but I think there are a few loopholes that need to be closed and seriously looked at.
Having said that, I'll pass it back to Jim.
Mr Cowan: First, I'd just like to clarify something that was said earlier in these hearings. On August 6, I believe, Russell Mills, the president of Southam Newspaper Group, said on page 6 of his report:
"Southam has undergone a strike under the Quebec legislation prohibiting replacement workers which has been a model for Bill 40. Our experience is that the level of confrontation and the degree of antagonism has never been worse.
"The Gazette in Montreal was struck for seven months, from July 1987 to early in 1988. Because the Gazette believed that contact with customers could not be broken, extensive planning and very costly preparations were undertaken to permit production and distribution."
While the last part of it is true, the first part of it is not. It was a lockout; it wasn't a strike. What the Gazette did in Montreal, prior to the 90-day provision, was hire replacement workers, send them to the United States to be trained and when they locked the employees out, they had ready-made pressmen. That's why there was violence.
1040
Interjections.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Cowan: I'm not accustomed to this, so bear with me, will you? With regard to the anti-scab provision, I would like to review a lockout we now have in our union that I believe not only shows the need for anti-scab legislation but demonstrates how existing legislation does in fact allow legalized union-busting.
On May 22, 1991, we had 35 bookbinders locked out at a company in Scarborough, which is still going on 15 months later. At the time of the lockout there were two major classifications in the contract, journey 1 and journey 2. The journey 1 classification is predominantly male and the journey 2 classification is predominantly female. The final company proposal before the lockout was a wage freeze for all journey 1, all men, and a $3.65-per-hour wage cut for all journey 2, all women, plus an extension of hours from 35 hours a week to 40 hours a week, 12-hour shifts and seven-day coverage. At that time, the last proposal from the union had been an extension of the existing contract, and because of that a number of the men crossed the picket line because it made very little difference to them. They were getting exactly what the union had proposed. Only because of charges filed by the union with the labour relations board and the Human Rights Commission did the company, three weeks later, change its offer, this time to a two-year wage freeze for everyone while continuing to insist on all its other give-backs.
In January 1992, after the strike had been on for approximately eight months the company asked for further meetings, we believe on the advice of its attorney. At that meeting the company tabled another proposal that called for all the employees to take a further 10% cut in wages and to pay for their own benefits and pensions. To this day their position has not substantially changed.
We believe that under the present legislation this dispute will never be settled because, given the present economic conditions and the legislation, there's no reason for the employer to settle and only in the new proposed legislation is there any hope of forcing this employer or any other employer to bargain fairly.
In closing, I'd like to add that I'm not talking here about a radical group of employees. I would guess that the average age of the people on this picket line is the late 40s and early 50s, with lengthy service in the company. In fact, at least two of the people on the line have now retired, one with over 40 years' service with the company.
That's my presentation.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Turnbull: Let me, first of all, start by further clarifying what you said at the beginning. You want the government to undertake an advertising promotion of the purpose of this bill.
Mr Brown: Purposes of the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. We have within the purpose clause a clear bias for unions, and I'm reading from it. It says, "to encourage the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance the ability...to negotiate..." to improve "terms and conditions of employment."
What is happening here is that the traditional role of government in legislation is tilting the balance. Instead of being neutral, it is saying they have to advocate for the unions and you're saying that taxpayers' money should be spent to promote this. Is that what you're saying: Taxpayers' money should be used to promote this?
Mr Brown: In the earlier presentation, prior to us coming up here, the gentleman spoke about misinformation, about the role of trade unions in our society. Trade unions have played a very important role in collective bargaining and a very important role -- probably, in my view, the most important role -- in terms of democratizing the workplace, improving the working conditions of Ontario workers and improving the standard of living of Ontarians -- and not just the material standard of living; as well, the general standard of living in terms of social policy, changes in our society.
Mr Turnbull: You haven't answered my question.
Mr Brown: I'm getting to that, sir. I believe the purpose of the legislation is to promote trade unions as a policy objective in the Labour Relations Act. If it is to promote trade unions and collective bargaining to achieve those objectives, then the government should also let the public know that. I'm not talking about advertising trade unions; I'm talking about the promotion of the collective bargaining.
Mr Turnbull: So taxpayers' money should be used --
The Chair: One moment. Once again, and I've said this half a dozen times, I could care less whether two people talk at the same time, but there are people who work hard translating this and there are people who work hard transcribing this, whose job is made all that much more difficult when people talk at the same time. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Turnbull: Very good. I'm asking a specific question. Are you saying taxpayers' money should be spent to promote unionization?
Mr Brown: I said taxpayers' money should be used to promote and educate the public on the benefits of collective bargaining.
Mr Turnbull: That's a subjective judgement. Surely it should be neutral.
There was a gentleman who sat in here throughout these hearings yesterday evening. He's been refused the ability to speak. He works for Ontario Hydro. He's among a group of employees who do not want to belong to a union and they're being forced into a union situation. The union is allowed to use the internal mail in Ontario Hydro to promote unionization, and yet this employee, who is among a group of several hundred people who are so incensed with the proposition, is being told that no, they're not allowed to use the internal mail to distribute their side of the picture. Is that the kind of thing you think is fair in our society?
Mr Brown: Just a point of clarification: Is the union using the internal mail of Ontario Hydro in organizing a non-organized bargaining unit?
Mr Turnbull: Apparently in organizing some who are not currently in a union.
Mr Brown: A group of people who are already non-union? No, of course not. In fact, that's one of the things we've said in many of our things: In organizing, it's usually the opposite case, where a union is standing in subzero weather outside a plant trying to get the workers going in, to pass out information and what have you -- then you run into the problems of industrial parks and shopping malls and office towers and what have you -- and the employer is having captive audience meetings in the plant and distributing information in pay cheques and what have you, and the labour movement has proposed --
Mr Turnbull: The employer has paid for the premises, you understand.
Mr Brown: I'm talking. If you're saying the union is using the internal mail system and a group of non-union workers is not, no, it's not fair. In fact, it is the exact opposite of the situation that happened during the Eaton's organizing campaign.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. Would you then think it would be fair that this committee should try to hear this gentleman, who urgently wants to be heard by this committee, if there is a cancellation this week?
Mr Hope: Well, let's get the other party in here too.
Mr Brown: That's none of my business, quite frankly.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. My next question --
The Chair: Mr Hayes.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): You must get the impression that the previous speaker is anti-labour.
Mr Turnbull: I'm not anti-labour; I'm anti-labour union, the union leadership.
Mr Hayes: That's clear enough.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Hayes. You have the floor, not Mr Turnbull. He's had six minutes already.
Mr Hayes: You say in your brief that there are many delays and lengthy litigations which occur as a result of organizing drives and first-contract negotiations. What I'd like to ask you -- and I'll try to lump all these little questions together -- is, how much does it cost your union, for example, if you can give us an example, for litigation or disputes over petitions? Also, what impact do these disputes, these lengthy delays, really have on the workers themselves and the employers? They certainly appear not to be really worthwhile, in a sense, because of the dollars and the frustrations that are on both sides of the litigations.
Mr Brown: I couldn't give you a dollar figure on the cost of litigation. It's obviously very expensive, and in Ontario it's extremely expensive because you don't appear before the Ontario Labour Relations Board without legal counsel. We can do so quite confidently in other jurisdictions, but in Ontario you can't do that, so you have that.
In terms of the effect on the people in the plant, the delay is a very big thing. People are extremely uncertain. We try to keep them informed. We just had an organizing campaign where about every four days we were putting information, a letter, into the plant just briefly describing what was going on. People just want to know what's going on. It's like, "Let's get a decision on this."
1050
In terms of the relationship, I think it's destructive. Most employers, if not all of them, find the fact that their employees are unionizing extremely offensive. It's an affront to their person, they think. They're just against it, and sometimes just on that basis alone. What happens is then they go to a lawyer and the lawyer says, "Well, this is how we take you up to the edge of the law," and they go through all the standard, form stuff that they do. In fact, when we organize, one of the things we do is we have a 36-page booklet which explains what the union is and all that information, how collective bargaining works, and one of the sections explains what to expect from the employer. It's pretty easy to put it down because it happens all the time.
Then they go through that process. They end up going through this litigation. What happens is that all of a sudden you have what started as a split getting wider and wider and wider, and then you end up at the bargaining table at the end of that process. So you're starting off in a very bad position. The litigation compounds that; there's no question about it.
I think the other thing it does is there's this impression out there that people join trade unions because they're going to get big bucks or something like that all of a sudden overnight, but people join trade unions based on issues of dignity and respect in the workplace. They've just had it because of their ill treatment. What happens during that litigation process -- I actually am amazed that employers don't put two and two together -- is that when they start doing this anti-union stuff and when they start playing around with the technicalities at the board and prolonging litigation, they actually turn their employees further against them. Their employees become hardened in their position, and then people who were maybe sitting on the fence all of a sudden decide what side of the fence they're on. It's counterproductive for employers, actually. But, you know, you can't tell them.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Thank you for your presentation. I think, just for the record, the so-called individual that Mr Turnbull refers to -- his presentation has been submitted to the committee and in fact is part of the record of the committee's hearings, so I think that is a bit of a red herring on his part.
The second thing I would like to refer to is in terms of Mr Turnbull's questioning around the dissemination of information about the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We had a presentation yesterday from a chamber of commerce. They raised the concern that some of their members, and indeed their small business members, did not have adequate information about the act and were not receiving adequate information about the act.
I think there's a tremendous need in this province to do exactly that, to communicate about the Labour Relations Act and other acts in ways that the people of this province can understand, in ways that don't require a lawyer to guide you through word by word. I think that's a positive exercise, and I don't see that as promoting unionism or government or anything else. It's just common sense to do that, and if we spent enough time and effort, we might even get through to people like Mr Turnbull. It may take quite some time and a lot of money, but we may even get that far down the road, where Mr Turnbull will understand the Labour Relations Act.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Brown. You can respond to that.
Mr Brown: Was it the chamber of commerce from Brantford or Guelph or whatever?
Mr Huget: Guelph, I believe; I'm not sure.
Mr Brown: Yes, I saw that, and he mentioned, "Yes, we're even getting calls from workers," and stuff like that. There's no wonder, because in our industry there's incredible misinformation going on by the employers.
The Canadian Printing Industries Association has had a misinformation campaign, whether through inadvertence or by design; I'm not one to speculate on that. But for example, they started quoting from these so-called objective studies about job loss in the province. Any careful reading of these studies -- and I have taken the time to read several of them -- would indicate that they are not that objective, and they're distributing this information. They're also distributing misinformation about what's contained in the legislation. They are, through the employers, trying to tell their employees and our members, "This is what's in this legislation," and some of it is absolute nonsense.
The unfortunate part is that not only are they confusing individual Ontarians, but I'm afraid that this hysterical misinformation campaign is going to drive investment out of the province, the exact thing that they profess to not want to do. But again, how do you tell them?
Mr Huget: I couldn't agree with you more, sir.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the presentation. Just by way of background, I have some familiarity. My father was a lithographer for 40 or 50 years -- 50 years, I guess -- in a unionized shop and I've been on the picket line with him, so I understand it.
Let me tell you how I think things will unfold, and then you tell me whether you agree or whether you have a different interpretation. I understand why the unions support the bill. If I were in your shoes I'd support it wholeheartedly, because it's a fairly significant shift. I think every single provision in here is for the unions, and I think that's fine. I understand that. I don't agree with it, but I understand it, so I understand why you're supporting it.
The challenge in your industry, though, is that, as I understand it, an awful lot of jobs have disappeared in the printing-packaging industry. As you look ahead at where the jobs are going to locate, they're fairly flexible now, because of technology and those sorts of things, so they can go to another province or they can go to a state or indeed, I gather, way offshore, Hong Kong and what not. So those jobs are fairly flexible. Entrepreneurs who are looking at getting into the business, I understand, are looking at where they're going to locate.
It is challenging enough to do business right now in any jurisdiction. We see record numbers of plant closures and layoffs. The unemployment rate right now is like double what it was two years ago, so there is a huge problem in employment. I think in particular in your industry it's huge.
If it's a challenge today and the labour legislation comes in -- which indeed provides more power to the employees; I don't think any objective person would argue that isn't the case -- my concern is that in all our businesses, and particularly in your business, we will not see the job creation in Ontario that we're going to need.
It may be your membership increases, because I'm sure the union penetration will increase, but in terms of jobs for the young people in the future of the province, I think an objective analysis would say, "This is going to result in fewer jobs, located elsewhere." That's my view of it. As I say, particularly for the people who want to work in your industry, I think you're going to be particularly hard hit, not just because of this, but this will be another kind of reason why people will look to put their capital elsewhere.
As I say, I can understand completely why you would cheer it on. I understand why the government's moving on it. But in terms of the best interests of the people of the province, I don't happen to think that's the case. I think we're going to see, slowly but surely, a lot fewer jobs created and jobs go elsewhere. I think even in your industry, an awful lot of your employers have now acquired companies in the US and are looking at balancing their workloads.
Am I wrong there? Tell me why I'm wrong, and tell me why, in terms of the future of the province, this is going to create more jobs rather than fewer jobs.
Mr Brown: We have experienced job losses in our industry. In terms of union to non-union, it's about two to one non-union jobs are being lost to union jobs. Quite frankly, my opinion of that is that the unionized shops are more productive. They have higher-skilled and more stable workforces and they're more productive workforces.
Having said that, we've also lost shops where they've been productive and profitable shops because of rationalization of production due to the Canada-US free trade agreement.
The printing industry is unique; 80% of the printing industry's establishments are approximately 20 people. Those are not the types of shops that relocate in Taiwan.
The Canadian printing industry historically has been Canadian-owned. We're now getting increased foreign investment, including from America, and I think these reforms are needed just because of that, because what we're seeing at the bargaining table are these very foreign ideas of collective bargaining brought in. Many of the big labour disputes we've had over the last few years have been where American employers have come in, taken over the plant and then insisted on concession bargaining and attempted to bust the union.
How do I see that this would create job loss or job creation? I've seen the studies that have been done on job loss. Of the ones I've taken the time to read, and I haven't read them all, I think most of them are hardly objective. I think that if I were one of the people behind them I would be embarrassed by them -- not necessarily embarrassed by the study, embarrassed by the way they're being used. They're essentially --
Interjection.
Mr Brown: I think you can't do a study of that.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Graphic Communications International Union. We appreciate your participation in this process. We're grateful to you for providing us with your views and we trust that you'll keep in touch and continue to communicate.
1100
CONSUMERS' GAS; UNION GAS; CENTRA GAS
The Chair: The next participant is Consumers' Gas, Union Gas and Centra Gas. Would they please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names and titles and proceed with their comments.
Mr Ron Munkley: Good morning. My name is Ron Munkley. I'm the senior vice-president of operations at Consumers' Gas Co. Joining me is John Bergsma, the senior vice-president of regions for Union Gas. We want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on resources development to present the views of Consumers' Gas, Centra Gas and Union Gas on Bill 40. Unfortunately, an officer from Centra Gas couldn't be with us this morning. They were tied up in a special executive meeting, but they did ask me to let you know that they are completely supportive of this presentation.
Together our companies provide natural gas service to 98% of Ontario's natural gas customers. We're here today to tell the members of the committee that we share many of the common concerns that have been raised by the business community during the course of the Labour Relations Act debate. However, providing natural gas services is a business with unique demands and obligations to the public. As essential service companies, the impact of the amendments will be more onerous for us than for other Ontario businesses. We will outline why the amendments are inappropriate for us and we will propose a solution to that problem.
Very briefly, before we discuss the impact of the legislation on ourselves, we think it's important as responsible business representatives that we draw your attention to the perception we believe has been created by Bill 40, a perception that was dealt with a little bit by the previous presenters.
In the July 20 issue of Forbes magazine, and specifically in that publication's review of the international 500 largest companies, the section on Canadian companies states: "Ontario, the most populous of the 10 provinces, has an anti-business, socialist government. This may have prompted Varity Corp, once a symbol of Canadian manufacturing, to move its headquarters to Buffalo last year."
In our view, regardless of the accuracy of the depiction of the Ontario government or of Forbes's speculation on why Varity Corp moved to Buffalo, hundreds of thousands of Forbes readers, potential investors in the Ontario economy and creators of jobs, were left with a negative perception of the province. We believe that one cannot overestimate the importance of recognizing perceptions as a fundamental basis for business decision-making, and the Forbes article is symptomatic of perceptions now generally held outside of Ontario and Canada.
Clearly, there's no agreement between the government, business and organized labour as to the effects that Bill 40 will have on business operations, collective bargaining or the economy. But if the government and the trade unions truly believe that the business community does not understand the true impact of the legislation and is therefore overreacting to it, it would seem imperative that they move to correct those perceptions before proceeding.
If these are indeed misunderstandings and misperceptions and if they are left uncorrected, business executives will proceed to make investment decisions based on them and the Ontario economy will be severely damaged. At a time of high unemployment, that's unacceptable to all of us.
In our view, the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee would seem to be an ideal forum to address these kinds of perceptions, as it brings to the table senior representatives of business, labour and the government.
Turning to our specific concerns, in February of this year, Centra Gas, Consumers' Gas and Union Gas presented a joint submission to the Ministry of Labour in response to the minister's discussion paper entitled Proposed Reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. As well, input was provided to the government by the Ontario Natural Gas Association, of which each of our companies is a key member.
Representatives of the three utilities also made individual presentations to Ministry of Labour officials during the course of the consultative process and in a number of individual meetings with MPPs across Ontario.
In our presentations, we outlined the utilities' concerns with respect to the content of two key provisions of the discussion paper relating to strike replacements and to crossing picket lines.
Giving credit where credit's due, we recognize that the government has prudently decided to drop the "hot cargo" proposal, which would have allowed employees to refuse to cross picket lines in unrelated disputes. We are, however, extremely discouraged by the government's determination to restrict the ability of the employer to carry on business during a work stoppage. For all practical purposes, Bill 40 would make it illegal to replace workers who have gone on strike, regardless of individual circumstances.
Section 73.1 of Bill 40 represents a shift of power that has far-reaching implications for the entire provincial economy and is a substantial change to the practice of collective bargaining in Ontario. More particularly, it will have a significant impact on the ability of our companies to provide a safe, reliable and economical service to consumers in Ontario.
The natural gas industry plays a major role in Ontario's energy sector and in the provincial economy. The gas utilities help Ontario and Canada compete on a global scale by providing a secure supply of low-cost energy to the province's businesses and industries. Because of its economic and environmental advantages, natural gas is the fuel of choice for many enterprises, institutions, industries and key tourist attractions across Ontario. These businesses are what Ontario has depended on to maintain its high standard of living and the level of prosperity we have all worked so hard to achieve.
Industries such as pulp and paper, mining, petroleum refining and the manufacture of steel, cement, fertilizers and chemicals rely either directly or indirectly on natural gas. They create thousands of jobs, providing wages and benefits to individuals, stimulating local economies, and they contribute to the local tax base. These customers expect that the gas utilities, with their reputation of providing dependable, high-quality service, will always be available when they call.
In addition, many of our customers are what we term essential service customers. These are gas users whose dependence on natural gas is so fundamental that assurance of supply is always a top priority and for whom any unscheduled interruptions in service cannot be tolerated. They include all residential customers, small commercial customers using natural gas for space heating, water heating and cooking and those who provide especially essential services, such as hospitals and schools, and who do not have the ability to switch to alternative fuels for prolonged periods of time.
We are authorized under the Ontario Energy Board Act to provide natural gas services in designated areas of the province. Pursuant to the authorizing legislation, we have the obligation to provide our market areas with a safe, adequate supply and reliable delivery of natural gas. In our view, it is not in the public interest for one statutory purpose to be frustrated by another.
Business investment and reinvestment decisions are made for a number of reasons. The available workforce, the regulatory framework and the quality of the infrastructure are all significant. The services provided by our companies fall into the final category. We are a very important part of Ontario's energy infrastructure.
Any business making an investment decision must be concerned to ensure that its energy source is reliable and cost-competitive. However, restrictions in Bill 40 will seriously compromise our ability to reassure business on either issue.
Continuing repair and maintenance are required in order to ensure the integrity of the natural gas delivery system in Ontario. There are thousands of miles of pipeline and thousands of sophisticated equipment installations which require constant attention.
The natural gas delivery system is maintained, upgraded and expanded on a continuing basis to meet the existing and anticipated future demands of our customers. The gas utilities deploy a field staff with ongoing responsibility for monitoring the integrity of the system. Maintenance of the system also involves emergency services to repair pipeline damage which potentially could threaten public safety and convenience.
Despite preventive maintenance, breaches in the system do occur in the course of construction by others, road-building and the activities of customers altering their premises. The time and extent of damage to the system is completely unpredictable. We require many resources and skilled employees to be available at all times to respond to emergency calls, whatever their magnitude. The reliability of natural gas as an energy source is compromised without this capability.
1110
In addition to these upstream-of-the-gas-meter tasks, which include pipeline locates, pipeline construction and pipeline damage control, there are many downstream-of-the-meter tasks which utilities perform on a consistent and ongoing basis as well. In particular, the gas utilities conduct approximately two million service calls each year, mainly for the two-million-odd residential gas customers in the province. It would be imprudent and potentially dangerous if any restrictions were placed on our ability to complete this work.
On almost all service calls we do safety checks, and we should not be editing customer requests for service based on a customer description of an apparent problem. Any equipment failure could have safety implications and should be investigated by qualified and licensed service persons. There are many public safety and company liability ramifications of not doing so.
Our greatest concern then is the impact of the strike replacement provision on public safety. Our companies are involved in distributing a volatile substance which can be dangerous if not handled properly. Safe handling can only be ensured if a qualified workforce is available to perform required maintenance and to respond to emergency calls. This is labour-intensive work. For example, when a break in a line occurs as a result of damage by outside contractors, it may well be necessary to visit several thousand homes and businesses to ensure that gas is shut off, and to return to those same premises once the repair has been performed to "light up" the system for each individual customer. If we are unable to respond quickly, safety and service are immediately at risk.
Work stoppages affecting our three companies have been infrequent and of short duration. The record does not warrant operational restrictions which would threaten the delivery of natural gas services during a strike situation. Furthermore, Bill 40 would conflict with the gas utilities' statutory obligation under the Ontario Energy Board Act to maintain uninterrupted service.
During the few strikes which have occurred, the gas utilities have maintained service largely by deploying qualified supervisors from across our respective organizations to attend to all service requirements and emergencies. It is important to emphasize that the gas utilities have acted responsibly. It has not been our practice to hire non-affiliated strike replacements. We have not taken advantage of present flexibility to undermine or challenge the position of the trade union as the lawful bargaining representative of our employees.
Our purpose has been to protect public safety and the public interest, while at the same time to achieve an early settlement of the collective agreement. Bill 40 would, however, undermine the ability of the gas utilities to react in a strike situation. Restrictions would prevent the reassignment of front-line supervisors and management personnel from one location to another. Without the ability to freely utilize supervisors and managers during a work stoppage, we can have no assurance of maintaining the safety or reliability of the gas system.
We have carefully reviewed the language of the bill. We remain convinced that this major change in the province's collective bargaining legislation is unnecessary and potentially dangerous to public safety. We believe it is responsible and prudent to preserve the right for gas utilities to deploy a supervisory workforce to maintain those services which are critical to the public wellbeing during a period when our unionized employees have withdrawn their services.
Accordingly, we submit the following revisions to Bill 40. The revised statutory language is appended to our presentation.
First, we recommend that a time frame be established within which the vote which triggers the strike replacement restriction be taken. The existing language could result in a vote early in negotiations, months before a strike deadline. Our suggestion would require the trade union to conduct the vote after the minister has released a no-board report and when the latest offer is before the employees.
Second, we recommend that sections 73.1 and 73.2 be amended so as to permit the use of supervisory resources during a work stoppage in the circumstances described.
Third, we recommend that the transmission and distribution of natural gas be included among the services listed in subsection 73.2(2).
Fourth, we recommend that subsections 73.2(7), 73.2(8), 73.2(9) and 73.2(10) be deleted. Here, we believe fundamentally that our companies should not be placed in the untenable position of having to ask for the trade union's permission to utilize the services of our own supervisory employees. Clearly, this would place the uninterrupted provision of natural gas services to our customers at significant risk.
Together these changes would recognize the existing practices in our industry. Specifically, our companies would be able to deploy supervisors during a work stoppage. We believe this is a reasonable solution for the gas utilities. It is critically important to ensure that none of our services are hindered or interrupted. The ability to resort to supervisors allows management the immediate flexibility necessary to sustain essential functions during the dispute.
We urge the government to consider this refinement of the strike replacement language. We are firmly persuaded that our ability to maintain a safe, reliable and cost-efficient service requires the right to deploy supervisory and management personnel in strike situations.
Thank you very much, and of course we'd be pleased to answer any questions that you have of us.
The Chair: Thank you. Five minutes per caucus. Mr Hope, please.
Mr Hope: Thank you for the presentation. It's good to see that you have it in depth dealing with the section of the emergency clause and replacement worker aspect of things.
Good day, John. How are you doing? I didn't hear you speaking. I would like to focus on Union Gas, which is one of the corporations in my riding and which I'm very proud to work with. On a number of occasions we've had the opportunity. Yes, we have philosophical viewpoints that are quite different, but I think all in all we work very well together.
When I was reading this presentation and hearing the potentials of strikes and that, that doesn't reflect the Union Gas workplace that I know of, both the union and non-union workplace, because how many millions of dollars did you spend on the technology that was in cooperation with the union to develop an education centre, and no government funding, I must add, was provided in this building?
I know of the cooperation of the union, the joint programs with the workers who are there and then the staff who are inside that workplace, and I see the presentation that's made today and I'm starting to ask myself the question -- you know, you talk about emergency situations. Most of the people who work for you have natural gas being provided to their homes. I'm saying, would they harm themselves as individuals or their neighbours? The corporate citizen I know of, Union Gas, has always been there to help people.
I'm going to be interested in the appendix that you've put forward in your proposals. But, John, I thought for sure I would see Union Gas and the union making a joint presentation on the role models of Ontario workforces. John, I just ask you your viewpoints on this.
Mr John Bergsma: Thank you, Randy. I have to go back to see where I can start on this.
Thank you for the kind words about Union Gas. We really do believe that we have a very positive working relationship with the Energy and Chemical Workers Union and that those relationships have been strong for a long time. I can't even recall now the last time there was a work stoppage. I think it goes back into the 1970s, but it's certainly well before my time with the company.
I think in that context yes, there have been positive working relationships and I think we have every expectation that those positive working relationships will continue. They have obviously been there in the context of legislation as it stands today. Our concern, as expressed in the presentation that we've made here that Ron has shared with you, is that in emergency circumstances and in responding to calls during a work stoppage there may be times where it is important to get people there quickly and sometimes in large numbers. We run into situations where we are finding that we've got to move people from one place and another. It has to be done in a very timely way. It's not something that you can spend time in discussion about. I mean, you've got to get there now.
One case that I'm just reminded of was a few years ago, and you may have been aware of it at the time, where a contractor broke into one of our lines doing some road work, into our one line going into the town of Amherstburg. I think in that case we lost 3,000 customers, and to get that customer line break fixed and then get those customers back on the system, first, you have to go in and shut down all these customers, make sure all their appliances are shut off and then once the repair has been made, you've got to go back and light them up. That takes hundreds of people.
We had to bring people in from other areas of our company. We brought people in from London and we brought people in from Hamilton and we brought people in from Waterloo. In fact, there were convoys of blue trucks going down Highway 401 from east to west. It happened to be at the very same time that John Crosbie walked out of the free trade negotiations. You remember that way back when? The word was that Canada actually was invading the United States and they'd seconded Union Gas to lead the invasion.
1120
The Chair: Mr Hope, you can ask another question, or Mr Huget can. The choice is yours.
Mr Hope: I'll let Mr Huget.
Mr Munkley: Mr Chairman, would I be able to add to that response a little bit?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Munkley: Consumers' Gas works with the same union, the Energy and Chemical Workers Union. We also have excellent relations with them. We have very few strikes. They're of short duration. We have very few grievances. We work together on constructive issues in the workplace.
What we wanted to impart in the text we handed out was that we really don't want to put the union or ourselves in the untenable situation, just before or during a strike, of trying to negotiate what the public safety is. I have no concerns at all in saying that they have the same commitment to public safety as us, but it's not something that is on the table for negotiations and it's not something that should get complicated by labour relations.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. How many people are using natural gas? How many customers are there in the province roughly?
Mr Munkley: It's over two million, about two million residences.
Mr Bergsma: When you take into account the number of people living in a residence, you can probably multiply that close to a factor of four. So there are a large number of users.
Mr McGuinty: There are many, many people relying on natural gas. I'm going to be so presumptuous for a moment as to speak on behalf of those customers. As a customer, I don't want to have to rely on goodwill or a good working relationship between an employer and the union to get me my gas. I don't want to have to see you folks work things out in the context of some kind of a dispute where emotions are high.
I think it would be irresponsible of my government not to put in legislation that's going to ensure that I continue to get my gas. If I smell a leak, I want somebody in. If some kind of pilot light goes out, I want somebody in now. I don't want you folks down there dickering over whether you're going to come to see me or whether it's appropriate. That's how I feel and I think that's how most of your customers are going to feel about this kind of thing.
I don't think there's any question whatsoever. You folks should be exempted from this. I don't want to rely on your working things out. I don't want to rely on goodwill. I want somebody at my door if there's a problem. There you have it.
Mr Munkley: I'm not sure how to respond to that question.
Mr Hope: You don't know Union Gas. That's another problem.
Mr Munkley: We agree with you. That's the substance of our presentation.
Mr Bergsma: Just to address that very point, I think we have also made some specific proposals in terms of some changes that might be made to deal with exactly that issue. We've not only made the general point, I think we've tried to recommend specific wording that could be considered to address that issue.
Mr Offer: If I might carry on with that, I listened to Mr Hope's question about some philosophical difference. I think the people of this province would fall off their chairs thinking there's some philosophical difference in whether their pilot light is going to be turned on or off as they need it.
I hear from your presentation that this piece of legislation will provide a barrier to your servicing individuals in their homes whose pilot light might go off, because you always say it should be turned on by the gas company. I'd like you to give me some sense as to these two million service calls. I imagine that many of them are, firstly, unanticipated and, second, for the home.
If I may, if I can get this matter in, we've heard Quebec ballyhooed as a province that has this type of legislation. There will be the provision of gas in that area. Can you share with us if there is any difference in the way in which these types of service calls are dealt with in Quebec and in Ontario?
Mr Munkley: Yes, I can. There are a couple of aspects to the question. One of them is the reference to pilot lights going out. A service call can be initiated for many reasons. It might have been a pilot going out, it might have been electronic, it might have been some problem with the supply. Any of them could have safety implications. So any of the service calls that come to us from an unknowing public could have safety implications, and we feel we have to respond to them all. It's that clarification on the point that I wanted to make.
With respect to Quebec, yes, we have heard that analogy made. In fact Quebec has been thrown up as a model in many circumstances. The only circumstance I should speak to knowingly is with respect to the gas industry, and it simply is not analogous. There are about 100,000 residential customers in Quebec; there are about 2,000,000 in Ontario. The industry and the regulations around the industry have grown up differently there.
In particular, it is not the first inclination generally of Quebec residential customers to call the gas utility for service; there's a contractor infrastructure that they tend to call. To look at the designated workforce provisions of the Quebec legislation doesn't really help us here because it is just not an analogy. You can't compare the two; they're different quantums.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's obvious that if any restrictions are placed on your ability to complete your work, it could be potentially dangerous to people in this province.
I think you've presented some excellent amendments here to Bill 40. If they are accepted and you can deploy supervisors and managers as well as utilize contracts, what incentive would there be for you to settle a strike?
Mr Bergsma: We don't think in a strike situation there are really winners and losers. I think we're all losers if we have a work stoppage of that nature. We'd like to see our employees at work, not on the picket lines, and that's why we would want to settle as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, we would have to very substantially change and modify our business operations for the duration of a strike. In our case, we've got over 700 unionized employees who are providing these services. They're fully engaged every day of the week. So during a strike period, there's a lot of work we would need to be doing that is not going to be able to be done. All the non-critical things get placed on hold, and in the long term we don't think that's an acceptable course of action. That's something our customers are not going to be very happy with.
We think there are the normal commercial incentives, if you will, to resolve strikes early, and we think in our industry the relationships have been of such a quality that under existing legislation we've been able to do that. Indeed, the relationships have been such that there have been very few work stoppages in the first instance.
Mr Munkley: I might add that our employees are essential partners here in our relationships with our customers. In fact often they are the interface, and it's simply not in our best interests to have the employees out on strike and to have the difficulty of a strike before us and them. It's hard to work your way out of it afterwards, even after it is settled.
Mrs Witmer: I hope the government does give very serious consideration to your amendments. I have one other question. As you probably know, a few weeks ago this committee heard from the representatives of the Energy and Chemical Workers Union, and I believe that they represent the workers at Consumers' Gas.
The impression was created that indeed the union and the management did work very harmoniously and well together, and there was the indication on the part of the union that it was prepared to cooperate with management to provide emergency services to customers during a work stoppage. Certainly there have been other unions in here that have indicated that.
If that is indeed the case, then what is the problem with Bill 40 and its ban on the use of replacement workers, if you could get that commitment?
Mr Munkley: I can only repeat what I said earlier, that almost all service calls have the potential of a safety problem, and that means that we would be in what I'd characterize as the untenable situation of trying to negotiate with our union what is public safety. It's just not acceptable. That's not on the table. Our responsibilities as public stewards are not negotiable. We don't want to put them in that position or us in that position. We have to be able to respond to all the incoming calls.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to Consumers' Gas, Union Gas and Centra Gas for their participation in this process, for their comments today and their willingness to share their views with us. We are grateful to you. The 11:30 participant telephoned earlier to indicate that they would not be here. We're recessed until 1:30. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1130.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1332.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): We'll resume hearings on Bill 40.
The first group scheduled this afternoon is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. If you could identify yourselves and then proceed with your presentation, you're allocated one half-hour, and certainly if you could leave some of that half-hour for dialogue, I think all members of the committee would appreciate that.
Mr J. Grant Smith: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll be presenting the brief. On my right is Ken Forth, representing the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, and on my left is Cecil Bradley, the research person with OFA.
We will try to do as you suggest, Mr Chairman. I'd like to read part of our brief -- it won't take long -- and then the balance of the time will be left for questions from the committee members.
First of all I want to say how much we appreciate the opportunity to meet before the committee to express our views on agriculture and the labour aspect of agriculture. As I said, the brief that we have will be partly read and part of it won't be.
An introduction: Ontario farm organizations are grateful for the opportunity to present their views on Bill 40 to the Legislature's standing committee on resources development. Bill 40 signals a fundamental change for workplace relations on Ontario farms. The farmers' perspective on this change needs to be entered into the record. Legislators need the opportunity to discuss the change with representatives of those who are affected. That is why we are here today.
Labour issues are important to farmers. Through farm businesses, hired farm labour makes an important contribution to the Ontario economy. Farmers paid $653 million in wages and salaries in 1990. That was the industry's second-largest expense item and represented 15% of the sector's total cash expense. For farmers in horticultural crop production, labour costs can range up to 75% of the total production expenses.
The current discussion of labour issues is not an ideological debate for most farmers. It is felt to be a matter of survival. Market pressures are intense; market prospects are uncertain. Anything adding to those pressures or creating more uncertainty is a threat, and I would like to suggest that we look upon the new NAFTA agreement that's been entered into for North America, some sectors, as a real threat.
Discussion of Ontario Labour Relations Act reform within the agricultural industry has involved a representative group of farm organizations. Early in 1991 the OFA offered to coordinate Ontario farm organizations' contributions to labour policy discussions. The agricultural associations' labour issues coordinating committee -- I'll refer to that as the LICC -- was formed in March last year. The LICC was charged with identifying issues requiring comment, assembling background information and developing a common position that can be presented to government. Those organizations active in the LICC are listed in attachment 1, and you have that. The network of interested organizations is listed in attachment 2, and you have that.
The next section I'm going to leave for your perusal, because that's the government's position. I'll move on past it to the response to the proposal.
The reaction of farmers to the ministry proposal was strongly antagonistic for at least two reasons. The first reason had its roots in farmers' acute sense of economic vulnerability. Farmers assumed that if farm workers had the right to organize, they would. Further, they assumed that once certified, unionized farm workers would make unrealistic demands at the bargaining table and strike to enforce those demands. In a worst-case scenario, farmers saw their livelihood being jeopardized when caught between the demands of workers and the inevitabilities of Mother Nature. This year's a good example of what kind of weather we farmers have had to put up with. I'm a dairy farmer, and we're running at least two to three weeks behind in our crops. So Mother Nature dictates, as most of you know, I'm sure.
Second, farmers react in a negative way to being split, and I think you understand that. They resented the apparent divide-and-conquer strategy. Maybe that wasn't the case, but that is what it appeared to be. They did not like anyone drawing a line through their ranks, applying one set of rules on one side and another set of rules on the other. One farm leader said, "A farm is a farm is a farm," meaning that no arbitrary distinction between farm operations was acceptable. For labour relations purposes, farmers did not see any value in distinguishing between agricultural operations on the basis of product produced, number of employees, level of technology, gross sales, structure of ownership or marketing methods.
I'll skip the next two paragraphs and move on.
In summary, the committee rejected the MOL definition based on proposals regarding the OLRA and the agricultural industry. The committee noted that the province of Ontario had always recognized the unique nature of farming, and varied the applicability of labour legislation in order to achieve an appropriate balance between farmer and farm worker rights and responsibilities. Consistent with that accepted approach and in response to the third question raised in the discussion paper, the committee proposed the development of a separate act that would provide a legislative framework for labour relations in the agricultural industry.
The minister accepted the committee's proposal, and in January 1992 established the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations, with a broad mandate to advise the government on an appropriate course of action.
I'll skip the next paragraph and move into the following.
The task force unanimously recommended, among other things, the extension of organizing rights to farm workers within the framework of a separate agricultural labour relations act. For quick reference, the complete recommendations of the task force are included with this brief as attachment 3. See attachment 4 for a discussion of the issues that farmers feel need to be addressed in a separate act.
Then, on August 27, the Minister of Labour announced that the government had accepted all the recommendations of the task force, and asked a task force to advise the government on the specifics of an agricultural labour relations act by early this fall.
The work of the task force has already begun. We believe the working relationship established in the first task force effort has paid dividends. We are optimistic that consensus can be achieved on many of the issues before the current task force.
Amending provisions of Bill 40: In contrast to the reception given the task force report, the farm community does not welcome Bill 40. If adopted, the relevant amendments would transfer the prerogative of applying the OLRA to agriculture from the Legislature to the minister acting by regulation. These amendments are not acceptable to us. Farmers object to the Bill 40 approach for two reasons.
1340
First, it circumvents the authority and discretion of the Ontario Legislature on a fundamental matter of labour market policy. Application of a labour relations regime to an entire sector of the economy is not an administrative matter to be left to the best judgement of the minister of the day, in our opinion. Generally, the Legislature, not the Lieutenant Governor in Council, should decide to whom statutory protections and responsibilities apply.
Second, the amending provisions of Bill 40 signal a lack of faith in the ability of the task force to develop a workable labour relations regime for the farm workplace. This apparent mistrust undermines the process and compromises its ability to achieve consensus.
We respectfully ask that the standing committee on resources development unanimously recommend to the Ontario Legislature that: (1) amending provisions of Bill 40 regarding agriculture be deleted at the third reading, and (2) the Minister of Labour be asked to bring forward an agricultural labour relations act consistent with the advice of the task force.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. We'd be pleased to try to answer questions you might have for us.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. It is, I think -- I stand to be corrected -- the first presentation that deals head-on with the issue of agriculture we have heard in this bill and I just want to be clear in my mind. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture support the task force report which calls for the introduction, after some consultation, of an agricultural labour relations act.
Mr Smith: Yes.
Mr Offer: I'm not talking about the particulars that might be contained within the act, but you support a separate piece of legislation.
Mr Smith: Yes. We requested that.
Mr Offer: Okay. My next question is one that I share with you. Under Bill 40, notwithstanding the good work that has been done by agriculture, the Labour Relations Act could possibly apply to the agricultural sector by regulation. In other words, it could be by the stroke of a pen, basically, by the ministry, and I hear from your presentation that you would want this bill to be changed to take out the word "regulation."
Mr Smith: Do you want to answer that, Cecil? Did we see this?
Mr Cecil Bradley: Mr Offer, I don't have the text of Bill 40 before me so I'm not sure whether the removal of merely that word "regulation" would be sufficient for our purpose. I think the point of the recommendation is that the entire amending provisions, which would shift to the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council the prerogative for the application of the Labour Relations Act to the agricultural sector -- it's any and all words associated with that shift that we would like to see deleted.
Mr Offer: What I want to do, with your indulgence, is be absolutely clear that basically right now there is an exemption to agriculture. You would like the status quo to remain until a new act is introduced. You do not want any changes to labour relations in the agricultural field to take place by way of regulation.
Mr Smith: That is correct.
Mr Offer: Okay. That's great. Now, I have one further question and it is not to the delegation, Mr Chair; it is to the parliamentary assistant or to the staff of the ministry.
It is my understanding that of the recommendations of the task force, of which there are six, I believe, the Minister of Labour has already committed to five -- unless you can help me out.
Mr Bradley: I don't mean to answer on behalf of somebody who is better informed, but I believe that as of a media release out of the Ministry of Labour dated August 27, the government has now accepted all six recommendations of the task force.
Mr Offer: Okay, thank you. Those are my questions.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen. I wonder if you might enlighten an ignorant city boy. I've heard several times that the farm community has special concerns when it comes to the organization of unions. I'm just wondering if you might briefly highlight those for me so I can gain a better understanding of the special concerns.
Mr Smith: I'll make a couple comments; then I'm going to ask Ken to make comments.
Mr McGuinty: Sure.
Mr Smith: I want you to understand that in agriculture everything's either alive or perishable. If we don't harvest our crop today, tomorrow it's no longer a possibility. Those are the key things in agriculture that we're concerned about. For example, I'm a dairy farmer. You milk cows tonight; you don't leave them until tomorrow morning. You feed animals; you don't let them go. It's things that are beyond our control. That's one of our concerns. Ken might want to make a comment.
Mr Ken Forth: We have a few things different in the fruit and vegetable industry. The fruit and vegetable industry is basically a price-taker, not a price-setter. They take whatever the market will pay, highly influenced by Mexico and California and the Great Lakes states when they're in season with us. Now, the labour rates in the United States are substantially lower than they are in Canada. They're substantially lower in California and the wages are a fraction in Mexico of what we pay in Canada. Those are some of the concerns we have with the free trade agreement. With Mexico now, we have more concerns.
Most of the products in Ontario are oversupplied right now and they have been for the last 10 years. Horticulture was the bright light in the 1970s, when everybody started to move to horticulture. Now there are a lot more people in horticulture and the margin of profit is almost non-existent any more.
One of the main concerns some of us have on our farms, though, is that a lot of the labour supplied on our farms is supplied by the farmer and his family. Obviously, they're not going to be included in the union. Does that mean the farmer now has to walk around with his hands in his pockets and just tell people what to do? Will he be allowed to do those special jobs?
On our farm we have a harvester for broccoli. There are only five of them in Canada. Probably 10 people in the whole country know how to run them; the rest of them are in California. Does that mean I won't be allowed to operate that machine any more? That's the problem we have. Will we have to have a union person run that machine? Those are a lot of the problems we have.
Right now the profit margin is zero or just a little bit. Any further increase in cost to us that would make us vulnerable will put us to death. All you have to do is read the newspaper lately to see what's going on in the Niagara Peninsula right now in the peach industry. The peach industry is in a terrible situation.
Mr McGuinty: I gather that if you were made subject to Bill 40 by way of regulation, the anti-replacement-worker provisions would wreak havoc, essentially, on a farming operation.
Mr Forth: It would be over very quickly. The window of opportunity for some crops, and milk and dairy cows too, is a few hours. If those two hours of opportunity are missed -- let's just say there was a strike and no replacement workers were available. If we went on a strike for three days in a peach orchard, those guys would have to wait for 365 days to come back to work again, because there wouldn't be any work, because that's where the opportunity would lie. So you're quite right that it would wreak havoc with the whole industry.
The Vice-Chair: In the absence of the third party members, I'll move to Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: It's unfortunate the Conservative members are not here to deal with this important sector in our society. However, on a more pleasant note, I would like to compliment --
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I think, and I'm speaking as one who is present, that it's highly improper and out of order that any member would ever comment on the absence or lack thereof of any member of this committee. I would ask that you would school your member in what has been parliamentary procedure in this place for many years. I find it highly improper and incredibly disrespectful.
Mr Hayes: Mr Chair, I just said it's unfortunate, and I think it really is, that they're not here, and they should be.
1350
The Vice-Chair: Can we proceed with Bill 40?
Mr Hayes: I'd like to compliment the task force on the hard work it has done, and just to quote a few people, first of all, the Honourable Elmer Buchanan. He recognizes -- and I do, as his parliamentary assistant, and so does this government -- that the separate legislation does reflect the unique characteristics of agriculture in this province.
I think it's very important for others to realize that farming, having tomatoes or whatever and stopping that product from getting to the processors, is a little different than stopping an assembly line for an automobile, where they can work overtime to catch up. I think we all realize that.
I think the committee has done a very good job and I'm very pleased that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Roger George, your president, have welcomed this announcement by the Minister of Labour that agricultural issues will be separated from Bill 40. As a matter of fact, Roger is quoted as saying, "This is exactly what we're looking for." Of course, he's repeating what Elmer has said, that agriculture is a unique industry and needs unique labour legislation.
I want to compliment the task force and Roger George for working together with the government, unlike some others who have chosen just to fight and take the government on rather than stick to dealing with the specific issues in the labour relations amendments.
We have been criticized because of the process and there are people who say there was a lack of consultation. I know you had some struggles at the beginning. Do you feel the consultation process has worked and will work? It is continuing right now, until you bring a report back on September 30.
Mr Smith: Yes, Pat, that sort of process has worked. We've talked with the minister and the deputy minister at different times, and I have to say that they're most receptive of our ideas. I made a suggestion to the deputy minister at one time, when they were talking about changing legislation or when we asked for legislation and there was some negative criticism about it. I said I thought Ontario always gave leadership in this country and I didn't see any reason why we couldn't give some leadership and have our own agricultural act. That philosophy seemed to be accepted and the minister now has announced we're going to have our own act. We're already working on what that act should contain. We'll be making that presentation.
Again, we're still concerned about Bill 40 and what needs to be done with that, and I'm hoping that can take place. That's still our request at the bottom part of my presentation. We just can't have it by regulation, because as somebody suggested, a stroke of the pen and it's over with. Agriculture can't live with that. We have to have something we can depend upon.
Mr Hayes: I'm looking forward to some more input from you and from the group. Hopefully, we can come up with the right type of legislation that will address the concerns of farmers in this province.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. Even though I'm a northerner now and I'm the parliamentary assistant to Natural Resources, I was born and raised on a farm in southern Ontario and I fully understand some of the concerns you've raised. I'm pleased that the Minister of Agriculture and Food, along with his parliamentary assistant and the group there, have listened. We had a good dialogue going there where these things can be resolved. I just want to thank you for the good presentation you brought forward. We do understand the concerns of the agriculture industry.
Mr Hope: Just to echo some of the comments that have been made, because Barry Fraser comes from my riding and is one of the people who were on the task force, I just wondered, from your viewpoint, being as the agricultural groups all come together along with the unions, do you think this is going to lead to the government's overall goal of cooperation and working harmony between trade unions and agriculture as a long-term goal?
We've been criticized by the business community, about other areas, that we've not worked with it and I was just wondering, from your perspective, being involved in the task force and now moving to another step of the task force, do you feel that's going to have the ultimate goal of success for both workers and for the organization itself?
Mr Smith: I would say that as long as we continue to talk and keep working together, the objective can be reached. I'd just like to leave that philosophy with you.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for appearing here this afternoon and each of you for presenting its views and generating, I think, some interesting dialogue with members of the committee.
Mr Offer, you have a point.
Mr Offer: Yes. I thank you for your presentation.
Before the next delegation arrives, maybe I could get some help from the parliamentary assistant or Ministry of Labour staff. I've received a news release of September 1 where, "The Labour minister, Bob Mackenzie, has today announced the establishment of labour-management services and the appointment of Vic Pathe as deputy minister of the service." I would like to get a clarification as to whether this announcement is for the establishment of a service that is in fact the service that's contained within Bill 40. In essence, has the minister established a service which is not yet passed under this legislation? Secondly, if that's not the case, then why have we now got two services under the same minister, in the same ministry, doing the same thing? I'd like that clarification.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. The ministry people are here and when appropriate they will provide a response to your inquiry.
The next group is the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.
Interjection: Mr Upshaw's on his way. I don't know if I can ask the committee's indulgence for a few minutes. My understanding was that he would have been here by now.
The Vice-Chair: We can give him a couple of minutes, but we are on a fairly tight schedule.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Mr Chair, in the interim, actually we do have somebody from the Ministry of Labour here who could answer.
The Vice-Chair: Is the Confederation of Canadian Unions here?
Mr John Lang: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Then let's move with your presentation, sir, and we'll wait for OPSEU.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): That's very wise, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: He appears to be at the presentation table and anxious to get on with it, so I think we might have his agreement.
1400
CONFEDERATION OF CANADIAN UNIONS
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir, for attending today, and thank you very much for moving yourself up about half an hour in the time frame. The committee really appreciates that. If you can identify yourself and then proceed with your presentation, you're allocated one half-hour. If you could leave some of that half-hour for dialogue among the committee members and questions and answers, I know they would all appreciate it.
Mr Lang: My name is John Lang. I'm the secretary-treasurer of the Confederation of Canadian Unions. We're a labour central that represents 25,000 workers across Canada. About 8,000 of those are working in mining and the service sector and the quasi-public sector and in communications and transportation in Ontario. Our membership constitutes a representative cross-section of the workers in the province, and of course we're very interested in Bill 40.
Members of the committee, I hope this is the last time I present a brief on this NDP government's proposals to amend labour legislation in Ontario. The Confederation of Canadian Unions made a presentation to Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie in May 1991, responding to Partnership and Participation in the 1990s, the report produced by the labour representatives to the labour law reform committee he had established. We also presented a brief in February of this year as part of the consultative process following the release of the discussion paper prepared by the Ministry of Labour. Now we are responding to Bill 40. Need I point out that in each instance the scope and the substance of the reforms being proposed have been significantly reduced? If the government keeps proceeding in this direction, there will soon be nothing left worth writing home about.
I do not intend to repeat all the recommendations and observations that the CCU has made in its previous presentations. Some of our proposals have found their way into Bill 40; others have been rejected. I want to focus my remarks today on some key issues that are facing this committee and the government in its effort to develop labour legislation that meets workplace conditions in the 1990s.
Anti-scab legislation: We might as well begin with what the fuss is all about. The CCU supports the inclusion of sections 73.1 and 73.2, which will curtail the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. We support these reforms because we are certain that the elimination of scabs in labour disputes will lead to more mature, responsible labour relations in the province.
If anyone on this committee still needs to be convinced of the need for such legislation, one need only look at the situation currently unfolding in Yellowknife among our members in the Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers, Local 4. I've included, attached to the brief, a copy of a newspaper piece that outlines that struggle.
There are 240 miners who have been locked out for over three months by Royal Oak Mines; scabs being flown in by helicopter; RCMP in full riot gear with guard dogs and tear gas, more reminiscent of South Africa than Canada; injunctions; arrests, and a community so deeply divided that the scars will remain for decades after this dispute is settled. Why? Because Peggy Witte, the new owner of the mine, figures she can make a name for herself by importing US-style union-busting into the Canadian mining industry. But she is learning that workers in Yellowknife, as in other cities and towns across Canada, will fight to the bitter end to prevent someone from stealing their jobs.
The question this committee should be debating is not why we are getting this legislation in Ontario but rather why it has taken so long.
While supporting the initiative of the Ontario government in this regard, the Confederation of Canadian Unions wants to reiterate its warning that the government risks undermining its intentions by allowing employers to move the work of striking employees to another location. This provision will invite employers to stockpile in offsite warehouses and to move their machinery and equipment to new locations where they can continue to operate during a strike. The Confederation of Canadian Unions strongly urges this committee to bite the bullet on this issue and to recommend that employers not be allowed to move the work of striking employees to another location.
Organizing activity: The Confederation of Canadian Unions is hopeful that the amendments contained in Bill 40 will enable more workers in the province to belong to unions and to participate in workplace decision-making through the collective bargaining process. The inclusion of section 92.2, which will allow unions to request expedited hearings on unfair labour practices complaints during organizing drives, should deter one of the common practices of anti-union employers. We hope this new provision will be given a broad interpretation by the labour relations board.
We are disappointed that the government has not acted on providing some means for unions to obtain the names, addresses and phone numbers of prospective members and to have access to an employer's premises during an organizing campaign in a manner that would not disrupt workplace procedures. We feel these provisions would help to recognize the legitimate role unions play in our society by enabling workers to exercise important rights they have under the law.
We support the elimination of the terminal date in applications for certification, and with it the elimination of petitions withdrawing union support that are filed after the date of application. Along with the elimination of the $1 sign-up fee, this provision promises to remove some of the major delays that are now common in the certification process.
The government's move to a 55% sign-up requirement for automatic certification from its previously recommended 50% indicates to us that it believes unions must meet a higher test to demonstrate support of their members than other institutions in our society. The same thinking lies behind the decision to require a 60% vote favouring strike action before anti-scab provisions could come into force. The CCU would have less objection to these provisions if the Ontario Legislature also passed a law requiring a political party to have the support of 55% or 60% of the electorate before it could form a government.
Contract tendering: The CCU has fought hard for the protection of workers in the contract service sector. Bill 40, with its insertion of section 64.2 into the Labour Relations Act, is addressing a long-standing injustice that should benefit some of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in the province. We support these amendments.
Grievance arbitration: The Confederation of Canadian Unions is in favour of a much more extensive overhaul of the grievance arbitration system than the government has proposed in Bill 40. We believe the basic tradeoff which underlies the arbitration system is an unfair deal for labour. This tradeoff, as expressed in section 44.1 of the current act, prescribes that an arbitration process is the sole means of resolving a dispute that arises during the life of a collective agreement. We believe the party should have the right to choose whether to go to arbitration or to invoke the strike-lockout provisions when the dispute arises.
Labour agreed to this tradeoff back in the 1940s on the understanding that arbitration would be a quick, inexpensive and fair means of settling disputes. In our opinion, the arbitration system in Ontario currently meets none of these criteria. Rather it is characterized by lengthy delays, exorbitant costs, an overly legalistic approach to dispute resolution and decisions which increasingly support the employers' perspective.
The CCU believes that the state should take responsibility for the entire cost of the arbitrator and the hearing process. If two businessmen have a disagreement over a contract they have signed, they are not expected to hire a judge or rent a courtroom for the hearing. These costs are borne by the state. Why should it be any different for labour relations? We believe that if the state were to assume these responsibilities, it would have a more compelling interest in establishing a quality system of mediation, staffed by experienced industrial relations officers who could assist the parties in reaching a settlement.
To ensure that the arbitration system operates on the basis of the equality of the parties, the Labour Relations Act must guarantee that grievors are treated with justice and dignity. It is not fair that workers must abide by the "work now, grieve later" ruling but employers can discipline workers immediately for a perceived infraction of the collective agreement. The law must provide that discipline is imposed only after it has been found by an arbitrator to be justified.
Although the proposed reforms in Bill 40 do not come close to meeting the changes we believe are needed in the arbitration system, we do feel that imposing a deadline within which arbitrators must issue a decision and providing arbitrators with the authority to require the production of documents prior to a hearing will address some of the more obvious weaknesses of the current system.
Work organization and partnership development service: The Confederation of Canadian Unions has long argued that employers must come to an agreement with the union representing their employees before implementing major layoffs or shutdowns or before implementing technological changes in the workplace. The inclusion of sections 41.1 and 44.1 and the corresponding changes to the Employment Standards Act will provide some opportunity for unions to have input on these vital issues.
1410
We hasten to point out, however, that negotiations that arise under the proposed section 41.1 will take place in an atmosphere where the bargaining strength of the union is greatly reduced. Although the requirements of bargaining in good faith and of disclosure that exist under section 15 will ensure employees have access to information, these proposals do not require that an adjustment plan actually be concluded.
We believe these initiatives need to be strengthened by making the content of the adjustment plan outlined in subsection 41.1(5) mandatory and by giving the labour relations board the power to impose an adjustment plan if the parties fail to negotiate one, or to allow workers to strike if an agreement is not reached.
The Confederation of Canadian Unions supports the initiatives being taken by the Ontario government to reform the labour laws of the province. We think the package of amendments contained in Bill 40 is a reasonable response to documented injustices and inadequacies of the existing legislation. Contrary to much of the hysteria that has been generated by the business community over these reforms, we want to assure the members of this legislative committee that the sky will not fall when Bill 40 is enacted, nor will unions be running the province. Hopefully, the reforms will extend the benefits of collective bargaining to some workers who are in most need of them and will support a more mature and responsible industrial relations atmosphere throughout the province.
I want to thank you for listening to our views today. I hope they will assist you in quickly enacting Bill 40 into law.
The Chair: Thank you. Five minutes per caucus. Ms Witmer, Mr Turnbull, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Lang. I'm not quite sure who the Confederation of Canadian Unions is. Can you just give me a little bit of an overview?
Mr Lang: Well, I said we represent 25,000 workers across Canada and 8,000 are in Ontario. In the sectors where we have workers, we have 15 national or regional unions that are affiliated to the CCU. In Ontario, we have workers in the mining sector, in transportation and communications and we have some workers in hospitals, the quasi-public sector and university employees. I think that about covers them.
The Confederation of Canadian Unions was founded in 1969 as a central organization that was committed to building Canadian unions and an independent Canadian labour movement. At the time, most of our affiliates were breakaways from the international unions or the American unions, as we refer to them, and in the interim, the CCU has been a catalyst in bringing about the Canadianization of the labour movement today.
When I began in the labour movement, less than 40% of workers in Canada belonged to Canadian unions. Those figures are reversed today. There are over 60% and the labour movement is firmly in Canadian hands. I think the Confederation of Canadian Unions has played an important role as a catalyst in keeping that issue at the centre stage of the labour movement over the last quarter of the century.
Mrs Witmer: Then you do have members in British Columbia?
Mr Lang: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: I guess that's where I'd like to focus my question. As you are probably aware, they're also making changes to the labour law in British Columbia. However, because of the process they've used, the business community in British Columbia is certainly much more receptive to the changes. They feel they've had an opportunity for identifying issues and, through consensus, attempting to resolve problems.
I'm wondering how we could have done things differently, instead of having the polarization in Ontario that we have and people beating each other over the head or making comments that certainly aren't appropriate and that have exacerbated the discussion. How could things have been done differently? We all recognize that changes need to take place, but I guess it's the manner in which it has been done.
Mr Lang: Well, I've been very active in the process that has been going on in BC. Half our membership is in British Columbia and I spend a fair bit of my time out there. I think one of the things I've learned in the labour movement for the last quarter-century is that it's always very easy to get agreement if you agree with your opponents, and I think that if you look at what the NDP has done in British Columbia, it hasn't proposed anything of any substance. It is true that the labour movement in BC, at least in its top leadership, seems to be prepared to go along with that, but I can assure you -- although it's not in the headlines -- that within the rank and file of the labour movement in British Columbia there's a tremendous amount of discontent.
I would not want to bet very much that the NDP in British Columbia is going to succeed on the current course, so there's no fuss in British Columbia because the NDP hasn't proposed anything. The most they've proposed is setting up commissions and everything, but in terms of any substantial reform of the labour relations process, there's been nothing forthcoming from the NDP on that. The labour movement so far has been silent, but don't hold your breath that it's going to remain like that.
Mr Turnbull: On the question of security guards: As you know, this legislation allows security guards to be part of the same union, albeit not in the same bargaining unit. The security guards will have the right to refuse to cross a picket line or to go to work. Can you tell me, in that circumstance where they refuse to go, who you think should be responsible for public safety in a situation like that? Do you imagine that an employer would still be liable for the safety of the public?
Mr Lang: In Ontario it's not my experience that employers, during strikes, pay much concern about public safety. In what circumstances are they liable now? I can tell you, again from our experience in BC, where for certainly over a decade security guards can belong not just to the same union in the plant but the same bargaining unit in the plant --
Mr Turnbull: You are not answering my question.
Mr Lang: I am getting around to it. I'm saying that there have been no examples that I'm aware of of the public being jeopardized by that or the employer's property being jeopardized by that. There are provisions that they can make, other means to ensure that their property is protected.
Mr Turnbull: How can they do that?
Mr Lang: But we just went through, in British Columbia, a five-week strike of the pulp industry this summer.
Mr Turnbull: Excuse me --
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Hope, please.
Mr Hope: Mine is very quick. I was just noticing the paper that you've supplied us with, called Fool's Gold. I notice there is a little child with his father --
[Failure of sound system]
Mr Hope: -- different tone, this chamber of commerce, than the one in Ontario, let me tell you. This one says here:
"`Many businesses in Yellowknife are supportive of the union as well. Nobody likes to see outside workers coming in and taking over our jobs,' said the president of Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce. `The miners are our neighbours and friends,' he added," and I find that's very different than the tone of information that we've been receiving throughout these hearings.
Then he talked about BC, and I am just wondering what the chamber of commerce and the business community are proposing as far as replacement worker legislation in BC.
Mr Lang: What I would say is that they are taking a similar position to Ontario. They're opposed in British Columbia to any laws that would prevent replacement workers, as far as I'm aware. I'm not up to date on any of their briefs, but I haven't seen any indication there that their position is much different from employers in Ontario.
1420
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your excellent presentation from the CCU. There's a rich history in my community of Brantford. I think Harding Carpets was one of the first workplaces to break away from the international. Madeleine Parent -- I'm sure you're familiar with her.
Mr Lang: And Texpack and the Texpack strike, which is probably a good reason why we should have had this legislation in 1972 and not 1992.
Mr Ward: I think you can relate to the Harding Carpet strikes in the 1950s as well.
You mentioned that you've been involved in the BC process a little bit, but here in Ontario as well you've worked with the consultation process. We've been talking about updating the labour act for going on a year. Do you feel that all the issues have had adequate time to be discussed; that both the critics and the proponents of Bill 40 have had enough time to express their opinions and have had adequate opportunity through presentations such as these hearings or to provide written submissions; that in fact it's time now to move to the next stage, which is to present Bill 40, however it ends up, in the House and finally have third reading and adoption?
Mr Lang: Yes, obviously I think that there's been ample opportunity. There's no question that there's a strong difference of opinion, but I think it's now time for the action these opinions have expressed. To my mind, quite frankly, as a labour leader and, I don't mind saying, as a supporter of the NDP, I think you've been too generous listening to the opponents of the bill. I certainly don't think there should be any more watering down of this legislation, because there's nothing left. And when you combine that with the other programs of the NDP, from car insurance to -- all we're going to end up with is anti-scab legislation and casinos. That's not --
The Chair: Not much of a legacy, is it?
Mr Lang: No.
Mr Wood: Just briefly, I notice on the front page of the pamphlet that's been passed out that "Scab labour must be outlawed." It's concerning the Yellowknife miners' battle. I can sympathize with what is going on there. As I mentioned earlier in the hearings, there is a monument between Kapuskasing and Hearst where guns were used to settle a labour dispute and 11 people ended up on the ground. Three were dead and eight survived, but history sometimes repeats itself. We're fortunate here that maybe nobody's been killed as yet, but there has been in northern Ontario over the years. It's sad to see --
Mr Lang: Can I interrupt you? I was on a picket line just last week at Unionville. It's a strike that hasn't gotten any attention; there's been no violence or what not. But a guy came through the line, a neighbour -- this had nothing to do with the company -- and said: "I feel in the mood like I should kill somebody today. I'd like to kill somebody today." Now, that was dispersed. There were union people there and the guy was sent away and everything, but you wouldn't believe what happens on picket lines. That happened last Thursday here in Toronto and I was witness to it.
There are people out there who figure that because there's a picket line, they can do things. I'm not going to try to claim that there's violence that occurs at picket lines and union members aren't involved in some of that, but there's a lot of stuff that happens on picket lines that would make people's hair stand on end because of this general atmosphere that it's fair game for violence. The anti-scab legislation should eliminate some of that if it works properly.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Lang. I want to focus as well on your presentation as it relates to the anti-replacement-worker provisions in Bill 40. Your description of what is going on in Yellowknife and Mr Wood's description of something that took place in his riding some 23 years ago I think bear little resemblance to --
Mr Lang: Excuse me. Little resemblance?
Mr McGuinty: -- bear little resemblance to what happens in Ontario in 1992.
The Ministry of Labour's own statistics tell us that, first of all, there are very few strikes. There were only 94 in Ontario last year, and only 19 of those would have been affected by Bill 40 in terms of prohibiting replacement workers.
What I'd like to focus on is that you go on to say, "Listen, we've got to get this replacement worker stuff through because it's going to lead to an end of the violence that we're seeing on the picket lines." Then, notwithstanding that, essentially you say you're concerned as well about the employers' continuing ability to stockpile in offsite warehouses and to move machinery and equipment to new locations where they can continue to operate during a strike.
So I see the main focus of labour, in connection with the anti-replacement workers -- I see the violence, given the numbers and given the recent history of what's happening on picket lines, as mostly smoke. I see the real focus of labour here as to prevent an employer from operating during a strike.
I want you to focus on that for a moment. Let's forget the violence end of it. You see it as something fair; that if we have an employer and there's a strike going on, it is fair that you shut him or her down as completely and as fully as possible. Do you agree with that?
Mr Lang: Yes, for the work that is being done by the employees on strike.
Mr McGuinty: I want to get into a bit of the philosophy of this. The worker, of course, contends that there's a job there and they do want that job to be carried on. But essentially in this province, when there's a strike, employers just limp along. Strikes on the whole don't last that long. They're ultimately resolved, and the employer pays the cost.
It just strikes me as being unfair, if you want to shut them down, to completely make them bleed as much as they can, and on the other hand, the worker, for instance, is entitled to seek an alternate source of income, if it's feasible, if it's possible. There's nothing prohibiting them from doing that; there's been no suggestion that we should do that.
Can you discuss that a bit more for me? Why is it that you think you've got to shut them down completely and you don't want them just to limp along?
Mr Lang: No, because for some employers it's true they may be limping along, but others will try to maintain the production.
The point is that it seems to me when we go through all of this process to come under the rubric of the Labour Relations Act -- organizing the sign-up, the certification, then the bargaining procedures and the mediation, all of that -- and you come to an impasse at the end, it seems to me quite reasonable that we say, "Okay, because workers have chosen this process, when you come to this impasse, the work that they have done remains frozen." That's the basis of the economic pressure for both parties. Okay?
Just say we go through all that process. Then, when you reach an impasse, the employers are free to attempt to carry on business as if all of this thing, industrial relations, didn't mean anything. It invites a system that leads to bitterness and a system where the collective bargaining process is not given any real credibility. What anti-scab legislation will do is to put more focus on the collective bargaining process. It will make that more meaningful.
We can create some examples of anti-union employers who basically don't want to settle under any conditions, and they still have that avenue. They can close up their plants and move someplace else etc, and some of them undoubtedly will do that. But in the case of hard bargaining, what we're going to eliminate is how some employers are tempted to try to stockpile, to hire scabs -- replacement workers -- to carry on production rather than focusing on the issues that are in front of them and what their employees are saying they want and dealing with that.
1430
It seems to me there's no question that the impact this legislation is going to have is that it will force the employers and the unions at the bargaining table to deal more assiduously with the differences that exist between them and to bargain solutions to them rather than hammering each other on the head on the picket line, as we've seen. Yellowknife is a perfect example of that, where it's costing the employer. When you count up for scabs, for the helicopters, for security guards, they're not making any money there. Then, on top of that, it's costing the people of Yellowknife $58,000 a day for extra RCMP. Surely we can devise a better system than that in industrial relations. I think this is an important step in that direction.
The Chair: Thank you to you, Mr Lang, and to the Confederation of Canadian Unions for participating in this process. You've made an important contribution and we're grateful to you.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, if those people speaking on behalf of OPSEU would please come forward, have a seat and tell us their names and titles, if any. We've got your written submissions. They'll form part of the record. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for questions and exchange.
Mr Fred Upshaw: Thank you very much. My name is Fred Upshaw and I'm the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. With me is my executive assistant, Frank Rooney. On behalf of the 105,000 members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, and especially the 23,000 who work within the provisions of the OLRA, I am pleased to be before your committee today.
My union's written submission addresses certain selected reforms within Bill 40. In some cases, we feel the reforms fall short of our wishes for the workers of this province.
OPSEU joins with the Ontario Federation of Labour in embracing the direction of the amendments. We also commend this government for standing up to the barrage of blatant distortions coming from elements of the business community at these hearings. They are acting like crybabies, spoiled by years of special treatment at the hands of friendly governments. Big business is used to the government acting for it rather than for our society as a whole.
Employers in this province must recognize that times have changed, just as the nature of the workplace has changed. Women have taken their place in the working world. No longer will they tolerate being stuck in low-wage jobs with no protection from the boss. They won't tolerate a situation like we had in Hamilton and Mississauga four years ago, where 60 women lab technicians were locked out by a cut-throat private employer and eventually lost their jobs after six months on the picket line. Working women will no longer tolerate being stuck in a service sector where their wages are left to the lowest bidder.
Ontario's service sector has grown. Workers in this sector need the protection of unions and the right to have their say, and we are organizing them in great numbers.
I'm here today to tell members of this committee that these labour reforms will be good for the economy in the long run. Rather than crying about these labour law amendments, the business community should be welcoming them. These amendments will help usher in a new era of less turbulent labour relations in Ontario. They will correct the imbalance of 100 years of Tory and Liberal rule.
Working people face many barriers in organizing and bargaining for decent wages, for safer working conditions, for better pensions, yet these are the things that give us a better quality of life in Ontario. These are the things that also enable us to buy the goods that will get this economy moving again. Workers spend their wages in the local communities, and that's good for business and that creates jobs. Rather than take away jobs, as some have predicted, labour law reform will help our economy in the long run. Collective bargaining helps put higher income in the pockets of the workers, who will spend it here in their Ontario communities and their local businesses. That's why I think that when the small-town chambers of commerce speak out against this reform, they are misrepresenting their own membership.
A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to spend some time in a native community in far northwestern Ontario, where an elder and the chief of the reserve shared some words of wisdom. Native people are poised to take control over services on first nations reserves. The chief of the Eagle Lake First Nation told us that he would welcome the unionization of his band's employees because it would eventually mean more money coming into his community and more benefits for his people. For example, native child welfare workers on first nations reserves earn only a fraction of the wages of provincial workers doing the same job. Unionization means bargaining for better wages, and that means there would be more money to spend on housing and services on the first nations reserves.
That chief made the vital, logical connection of why unions are good for the economy. I think the chief is very wise and realistic and showed a foresight that is missing among representatives of the employer groups and businesses that have come crying to your committee.
I'd now like to talk about the experiences of some of my own OPSEU members. We see the need for stronger labour legislation every day of our working lives. Our members work to assist all the most vulnerable groups in society: children, single parents, elderly people, disabled people, psychiatric patients, students, poor people, people who have lost their jobs, people who want to get their lives back together, people who need protection who can't fend for themselves or who have committed illegal acts. We know through our day-to-day work how hardship and struggle cause these breakdowns in society. We also know that life can be improved through better, higher-paid jobs, through better health care and benefits and through better pensions.
Our members negotiate all these things. They gain them first through the right to organize into a union and the right to bargain a contract. The better the bargaining power, the better the contract. We're glad this government has at last introduced measures to destroy many of the barriers that stop workers from gaining their fair share in Ontario.
We commend the government for introducing measures that will bring greater strength to those who have been left unprotected: women, native people, visible minorities and part-time workers. In the long run, this legislation will help them get ahead. We welcome reforms to the organizing process and the union certification process. Greater union access to workplaces, limiting the use of anti-union petitions and speedy hearings for people dismissed during organizing drives are badly needed improvements to empower many workers.
We also share the Ontario Federation of Labour's concerns about access to employee lists and a need for first-contract arbitration. We have had difficulty negotiating first agreements with small government-funded agencies run by private operators. We have been forced to strike because these agencies have no incentive to negotiate, since they are not accountable to anyone for maintaining good labour relations. They hire high-priced, anti-union lawyers, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.
1440
Now a word about the parts of the bill that allow the labour board to combine existing bargaining units, part-time and full-time.
Bill 40 recognizes that all workers, regardless of the size of their workplace or their hours of work, deserve a seat at the bargaining table.
Bill 40 recognizes that the number of part-time workers in Ontario is now almost one million, and one million women have joined the workforce since the OLRA was last reviewed.
Bill 40 goes partway towards balancing the relations between employers and employees in this province, but it's clear that we need to move even further than the provisions of the current amendments to address the changing makeup of our workforce. I'm talking about sectorial bargaining in the broader public service. The committee should consider extending the principle behind consolidating bargaining units to pave the way for centralized bargaining in certain sectors.
As the broader public service expands and we get more and smaller community service agencies, we must ensure that the principle of meaningful collective bargaining is not undermined. Workers in these agencies need to have a seat at the bargaining table with the government that supplies their paycheques. That's not how it stands now. As the provincial government divests and downloads services to the broader public sector and the municipalities, the wages and benefits of workers doing the same jobs have declined and vary from community to community.
As I have stated, we have great difficulty negotiating agreements with these small agencies. Workers delivering human services in small communities are obliged to accept less pay and diminished benefits. Is this an acceptable outcome of the drive towards community-based public services? This system means less money for people working in the communities and the whole community suffers as a result. Low wages hurt the whole community, and hurt services as well.
One of my members working in a children's mental health centre tells me that because of the difference in wages across the province for workers doing the same job, his agency has a very high turnover of staff. Workers leave for higher salaries in the public service or other agencies. They leave their communities. The result is also low morale and poor service. The result is understaffing in these agencies, leading to tragedies like the murder of Krista Sepp. She was killed while working alone overnight in an open-custody facility. You could blame her death on the young offenders who were convicted, but you could also trace her death back to the system whereby agencies are forced to operate on a shoestring and workers have little or no bargaining power.
OPSEU staff representatives working in 20 regional offices across this province know many other such stories, not as tragic but painful just the same. They negotiate collective agreements for hundreds of small agencies, more than 350 contracts in all. Our reps face high-priced Toronto lawyers across the table, retained by agencies, employers, and paid for by you and me through tax dollars. Hundreds upon hundreds of these negotiations every year eat up crucial provincial budget dollars. Is this a wise investment in Ontario's future?
I say this is a waste of money. It would be much more equitable and cost-effective for these negotiations to take place centrally, where all agencies and local unions in a sector could be represented. The labour board should have the authority to create a rational, consistent pattern of negotiations, sector by sector, right across the province. This would allow a mainly female workforce to accomplish greater pay equity, and it makes special sense now when there seems to be no new money to fund Ontario's services and there is hardship in communities like we have not seen since the 1930s. So we would ask that this committee consider giving the labour board the authority to order central bargaining for public service agencies that do similar work across the province.
Finally, I'd now like to comment on the replacement worker section of this bill, which has gotten the most publicity. We all know that when the employer buses in scabs, it provokes violence on the picket line. My union welcomes the sections of Bill 40 that will put an end to the transferring and contracting of scabs. OPSEU has had some very unfortunate situations, notably in private medical labs, where our members have been locked out, lost their jobs to scabs. The CML lockout in Hamilton and Mississauga kept women out on the street for a whole winter. Then they lost their jobs to scabs.
For the sake of all workers, but especially those working for ruthless employers, we need to put an end to the bad labour relations that follow the use of scab labour. We urge you to further close the loopholes so that employers cannot legally contract out, move work to other locations and have non-bargaining unit workers and supervisors perform our work.
My union also had concerns about the implementation of essential service provisions of the act in relation to the use of replacement workers. We were concerned that public sector workers who now have the right to withdraw services would be penalized under this bill. But this legislation strikes a balance between the public's view of some important services and our members' concern about being able to mount an effective strike. We believe that the key to maintaining services that are essential lies in both sides being able to negotiate emergency coverage in the event of work stoppage.
OPSEU members, in providing basic public services, have demonstrated a high level of commitment even when the chips were down. I speak from the heart as a psychiatric nurse working in a large public hospital. We have for years risked our jobs and our lives to make sure that public safety comes first.
Strikes in the ambulance sector have not resulted in loss of life. Correctional officers have maintained order in jails while at the same time making their feelings known. The record shows that in the few times OPSEU members have been forced to withdraw services, sometimes illegally, our patients and clients have not suffered and public safety has been safeguarded.
You will soon end hearings on this bill. I hope you will reflect carefully on what so many workers, trade unionists and other advocates of social and economic justice have been saying. Everyone in Ontario, especially vulnerable groups, women, native people, visible minorities and part-time workers, deserves a labour law that offers empowerment and protection of their rights.
You have heard the ranting of the spoiled crybabies representing the employers. In my submission, the opposition to this bill is based on shortsighted self-interest. The employers seek to maintain the current imbalance in the workplace that leaves many thousands of workers without a voice at the bargaining table. It's time to listen to the representatives of the people who will be most affected by this legislation: the organized and unorganized workers of Ontario. In the long run, this bill will benefit the economy of all of Ontario's communities by giving workers more bargaining power and better working conditions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Three minutes per caucus.
Mr Huget: Thank you very much for your presentation. There are a number of interesting issues you speak about in your presentation, but I want to deal specifically with the part-time versus full-time worker situation. In some cases, certainly that I have heard, those who are opposed to this bill have suggested that part-time workers and full-time workers have no common interests.
In fact I've heard it suggested that perhaps part-time workers are not interested in benefits and they're not interested in all those other things that full-time workers have; money is what they're interested in. I don't share those views. I would just like to know what your views are. Do you believe the suggestion that part-time workers and full-time workers have no areas of common interest?
Mr Upshaw: Whoever made those types of recommendations, I'd like to introduce them to some of my part-time people. In most instances they're working part-time hoping to get on full-time, and that salary they receive as part-time goes a long way in ensuring that their families are being clothed and fed and have a roof over their heads. And so the benefit portion is extremely important to those families. No one can convince me that part-time and full-time employees don't have the same interests.
Mr Huget: I think unfortunately there are still members of society who feel that people who work part-time are working for pin money, and that's just not the case. The workplace is changing and the needs of workers are changing as well. I believe it was a member of the third party who suggested that perhaps part-time workers were not interested in benefits and I just wanted to get your views.
I defer very quickly to Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: One of the areas I wish to touch on, Mr Upshaw, is from Project Economic Growth. They made a recommendation to us, and this morning we were briefly informed about women who were asked to take a $3-an-hour pay cut and they're still out on the strike line while replacement workers are being used. Project Economic Growth put forward that you should be allowed to use replacement workers for 60 days while workers and their families are out on the streets. I'd just like your viewpoint on that because if I wait for the Tories, they're going to tell me you're one of the fat cats.
1450
Mr Upshaw: I'll tell you, I've been out on the picket lines and it's not a pleasant situation, yet it's a necessity to force an employer to sit down and negotiate with the workers for a fair and equitable package. When you see employers who give themselves tremendous increases in wages and yet say to the predominantly women and visible minorities in the workplace that they don't deserve the same types of increases, then it's time that we have this type of legislation that says once and for all that when the workers withdraw their services, the employer should be put in the same position of having to sit at that table without profiting while these people are out on the picket line.
Mr Phillips: I must say that as this proceeding goes on I get more and more despondent about the future. My problem is that it looks like we have two camps and neither side listening to the other. I'm very discouraged by your remarks because I think you've kind of lumped the whole business community together. You're not the first union leader who's come saying -- I think you used the term -- "spoiled crybabies" and "the business community, they're all crybabies." We've heard terms like "hysterical."
We've heard another union leader say they want to start a class war, and on the other side, the business community, I must say I have not yet run into one single business person who hasn't expressed significant concerns about it. I understand there are bad apples out there in the business community, but I also truly understand there are a large number of fabulous employers out there who resent the union leadership categorizing them as hysterical, spoiled crybabies.
The point I'm getting at is that I find it very discouraging to see this tremendous, incredible polarization, with you leading one of our most respected, largest unions, representing the people who serve the public, and believing, as I'm sure you do in your heart, that the business community are spoiled crybabies. We have a huge problem here.
We talk about partnerships and looking ahead at partnerships -- anyone listening to this debate says the likelihood of partnerships is so remote as to be almost not worth betting on, because if you believe what you said today, truly believe it, there's not going to be a partnership; there's going to be an ongoing conflict.
My question, because I'm beginning to despair about the future, is this: If you were an individual who was looking to create some jobs in some environment, why would you ever want to put yourself into the Ontario environment where the future leaders -- and there's no doubt that when this bill passes, and it will pass, it's all set, the union leadership will have more say in the province.
Why would you want to go into partnership with union leaders such as yourself who believe in your heart that the business community are spoiled crybabies and exploiting people? Why wouldn't you go somewhere else where at least somebody has an open mind and will evaluate you on the basis of whether you, as an individual, and you, as a company, are fair or not fair and will not categorize you as part or total spoiled crybabies?
Mr Upshaw: Let me first of all say I'm appalled too when I see the millions of dollars that are spent out there with billboards that pop up all across this province. You tell me they got there by themselves? I'll tell you where it came from. It came from the business community.
Am I concerned about partnership? Thank God that my employer right now is a government that does work in partnership, and because of that partnership, we're finally starting to see things that we fought for for years and years under the Tories and under the Liberals. That's partnership. I'm experiencing partnership. I'd love to see this entire province operate under true partnership, not millions of dollars on billboards trying to fight against workers' rights.
Mrs Witmer: I find it unbelievable. You talk about partnership and this government working in partnership and you talk about protecting workers' rights. I don't believe you and I'll tell you why: This government is proposing to make changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. This would force over 13,000 people to join your union. These people don't want to join. I say to you, not only do they not want to join, they also don't want to give up the seniority, which you're saying they have to give up.
Are you going to force those people, if they're forced by this government to join your union unwillingly, to give up their seniority? You have demonstrated you don't care about the rights of those 13,000 people. They're not even going to have a vote on whether they want to join you or not.
Mr Upshaw: I'm rather appalled that you don't understand the negotiation procedure. I'm at a table negotiating and some people from a particular party drop some information in the House that was being negotiated at a table. There are no conclusions at this time with respect to what's happening around CECBA. I'm prepared to discuss at any time what the amendments proposed to CECBA are, but let's get some legislation so we have something to discuss.
But right now we're at the table and I've never heard of people taking things from a negotiating table. Everybody knows the process; you come in high and hopefully there'll be a win-win situation at the end. But take our opening submission and put it out in the press, drop it into the House without consulting the parties and say, "That's what's happening," it's unbelievable.
Mrs Witmer: Are you going to force these people to give up the seniority they've had working for this government 20 and 30 years?
Mr Upshaw: I don't have the authority to force those people.
Mrs Witmer: So you will not force them to do so?
Mr Upshaw: I have to wait and see what the legislation says.
Mrs Witmer: Well, if you really believe in workers' rights, I hope that these 13,000-plus people will have an opportunity to freely express whether or not they want to join your union or any other union, and I hope Bob Rae will live by the same standards that he's forcing on the private sector.
Mr Upshaw: If you look at some of the memos those very people are sending around to each other and if you look at the meetings they're having, which obviously you're aware of, you'll see that they have had the opportunity to express themselves. So I don't see what the problem is. The legislation in the end will make the determination. I don't control the legislation.
Mrs Witmer: They have not had an opportunity to express themselves. They were allowed to leave a voice message; they were not informed beforehand when meetings were taking place. If you say that's fully informing people and giving them an opportunity to express themselves, I can tell you that has not happened.
Mr Upshaw: I can show you correspondence between that group -- and they have had representatives who have gone across this province and held meetings to give everybody an opportunity to speak.
Mr Turnbull: That's not what they're telling us.
Interjection: Welcome to the new age of cooperation.
Mr Turnbull: All I can comment on is, judging by the number of calls we've had in our offices from those employees, what you're saying is patently untrue.
Mr Upshaw: You can believe what you want --
Mr Turnbull: I'm believing the people who are being pressured into this.
Mr Upshaw: -- but that doesn't mean that what you say is true.
Mr Turnbull: I'm believing what we are being told by those people who are affected by it, sir.
Mr Upshaw: Oh yes, but you don't believe in coming to the parties who are at the table --
Mr Turnbull: You stand to get something like $12 million a year in union dues out of these people, and you have stated you're not going to give seniority to these people. So please don't come to this committee and on public television suggest something which is contrary to that. You know quite well what you have said.
Mr Upshaw: I'm saying to you that we're at the negotiating table --
Mr Turnbull: And your opening negotiation is that you won't give any seniority to these people.
1500
Mr Upshaw: It's bad policy, bad practice, to take negotiating items that are still being negotiated on the table, drop them off in the House and say, "This is fact," when it's not fact until it's negotiated.
Mr Turnbull: Well, your opening position is you won't give any seniority.
Mr Upshaw: You're wrong.
Mr Turnbull: I'm not wrong.
Mr Upshaw: You're wrong.
Mr Turnbull: That's what they're telling us.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Upshaw. We appreciate your attendance here.
Mr Hope: Let's negotiate in the media.
Interjection: That's it.
The Chair: The Ontario Public Service Employees Union represents a significant constituency in this province. Your views are valuable ones to this committee and the committee is grateful to both you and your membership that you've taken the time to express those views here. Thank you kindly, sir.
Mr Upshaw: Thank you.
The Chair: My apologies to the translation staff and to the Hansard staff for Mr Turnbull speaking over Mr Upshaw. I appreciate that causes difficulties, but I apologize.
ASSOCIATION OF FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Our next participant is the Association of Foundation Specialists of Ontario. Would they please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names, their titles, if any, or if they want to, and proceed with their comments. Try to save at least the last half of the half-hour for exchanges. You can see how enlightening -- perhaps or perhaps not -- but lively they can be. Go ahead.
Mr Bill Lardner: My name is Bill Lardner. I am one of the founders of Deep Foundations Contractors Inc. With me are Gordon Demetrick, founder of Anchor Shoring Ltd, and Manny Fine, a vice-president of Bermingham Construction Ltd. We represent the Association of Foundation Specialists of Ontario, comprised of nine small to medium-sized businesses and employing about 500 people.
Our submission has three quite separate themes:
First, we believe many of these proposals, if adopted, are inequitable and, worse, are going to seriously impair Ontario's competitive position.
Second, there are changes that can be made that would improve the existing labour relations structure significantly. These changes should be incorporated in the proposed legislation.
Our third theme is a little bit long-range. We say that the construction industry trade structure is restrictive and technologically obsolete. It is maintained in the narrow interests of specialist trade contracts and individual trade unions.
As far as the current proposals are concerned, the preamble that currently exists reads:
"Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees."
This would be replaced by a purpose clause which sets four objectives:
"1. To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by facilitating the right of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union."
What about those workers who don't wish to be represented by a union? The recent Environics poll of June 1992 shows that a very strong majority of non-union workers would feel unhappy about having to join a union. We think this first objective would only be accepted if we added to it, "...and to freely exercise the right to work without being represented by a trade union."
The second objective is:
"2. To encourage the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance,
"i. the ability of employees to negotiate with their employer for the purpose of improving their terms and conditions of employment."
As an objective for a union, this is excellent, but it's not appropriate for inclusion in the Labour Relations Act. You've got to keep in mind that collective bargaining is a blunt instrument. It's intended to provide a rough balance of power between labour and management. This balance isn't easy to maintain. From time to time, unions obtain and abuse a strong bargaining position. Circumstances may demand a rollback of previously conceded benefits.
Point 2 of this objective:
"ii. The extension of cooperative approaches between employers and trade unions in adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity."
At first glance it looks as though it's non-controversial. We all agree we want to improve workplace skills, but whether the act is the best way to handle this particular objective is a serious question. We're concerned that the inclusion of this phrase could result in unsatisfactory rulings by the labour relations board, particularly in relation to the increased powers given to the OLRB in this proposed bill.
"iii. Increased employee participation in the workplace."
But in what? There should be more and better supervised participation in union affairs than is generally the case today, or is the phrase intended to mean participation in ownership? It's a good idea in theory, but in practice there are a number of problems which need to be recognized. As it stands, we think this phrase is meaningless, so we recommend that even if the purpose clause is retained in any form, at least this objective should be deleted in its entirety.
The third objective reads:
"3. To promote harmonious labour relations, industrial stability and the ongoing settlement of differences between employers and trade unions."
We get a bit nervous about this because the discussion paper for this clause of the bill originally contained the phrase, "arising in collective bargaining and under collective agreements," and that's been dropped. It makes the clause too broad, particularly when you consider it along with the additional powers given to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to impose settlements.
Objective 4 reads:
"4. To provide for effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution."
This we regard as an acceptable objective.
If the purpose clause is retained, we strongly suggest that an additional objective be included, reading, "to eliminate restrictive practices which hamper improvements in productivity." This proposal is discussed in our third item below in relation to the construction industry. It probably has justification elsewhere.
Despite the fact that we don't disagree with one of the four objectives, we have to ask if the change is necessary at all. The preamble has a significant effect on legal interpretation of any piece of legislation, and we think the proposed purpose clause should receive very strict examination to explore its possible effects before any change is made to the existing preamble.
So much for the purpose clause.
Our general comment on the bill: We share the widespread view that Bill 40 will have a bad effect on our economy. Both the Ernst and Young report of February 1992 to the Council of Ontario Construction Associations and the Environics poll should be adequate reason to question the wisdom of the proposals.
We do attach a few detailed comments on some of Bill 40's proposals in the appendix to our brief, but we think if the government is still of the view at the end of these hearings that the objections being raised to Bill 40 are invalid, at the very least it should itself commission a truly independent and objective study of the impact of the proposed legislation.
We do believe there should be some changes made to the Labour Relations Act and some that could be made now, but in general, these aren't being considered. One thing that isn't being considered is that as things stand now, not all the parties affected by the collective bargaining process are at the table. Where is the protection for the economic health of society as a whole when a strong and greedy union imposes its unreasonable demands? That does occur.
1510
If you do proceed with Bill 40, there are two basic areas where you need to look for some corrective legislation.
Union democracy: We suggest that voting procedures be legislated and that acceptable procedures be defined for the dissemination of information in connection with collective bargaining negotiations and with secret ballots on certification, strikes, election of officers and so on. Currently, in many unions the votes of a small percentage of the membership actually present at a meeting can determine an issue. On certain important issues it should be mandatory that at least a specified percentage of members cast a ballot if the vote should be acceptable. Write-in ballots should be used, with full legal safeguards to ensure the secrecy of the ballot. The voting and the tabulation should be supervised by the Ministry of Labour or by a legal or accounting firm approved by the ministry.
The other area that needs attention is the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It now has powers equivalent to those of members of the Supreme Court of Ontario. We ask: Are its members, particularly the vice-chairs, of competence equivalent to that of judges of the Supreme Court? We suggest that appointees should be people with exceptionally strong legal or labour relations background, and those appointments must reflect the absolute neutrality essential to the position.
Our last area of concern is the construction industry's trade unions. Employers are caught in the crossfire and infighting between the unions representing their workers. Assignment of work among the trades is jealously regarded by each of the trades and narrowly interpreted. Jurisdictional disputes are rampant. They are often contrived so as to slow the work, prolong the job and maximize earnings.
These barriers to efficient multitrade practice exist only because of the narrow interests of individual unions and some of the specialist trade contractors such as in plumbing, electrical etc. There are no sound reasons why this archaic system should be permitted to continue. Any qualified person should be able to work at tasks within his or her competence. It would be better if the unions in the construction field were completely revamped and rigid job classifications removed so that a worker could undertake any task within his competence.
The construction industry in Ontario set a bad example over the years of acceding to high wage claims. The settlements have contributed significantly to inflation. The fundamental reason is that the industry is virtually at the mercy of its unions.
Individual companies are relatively weak financially. Trades bargain separately. A strike by one trade can disrupt the whole industry, and this can be repeated time after time, as we've seen just this summer, resulting in a series of expensive disruptions. On the other hand, companies that are all saddled with the same cost structure have no strong immediate incentive to fight those demands. They simply feel they can pass on the extra cost to the consumers in the long run. Obviously this doesn't work.
The current balance of power in the construction industry strongly favours the unions. The result: excessive inflation and high costs. We have a very high cost construction economy here. It has caused a lot of damage to our economy and it is in society's interest to restructure the legislative framework so as to redress the balance. Provisions to accomplish this should be incorporated in any revision of the Labour Relations Act.
That's our submission, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you. We have 15 minutes, which means five minutes for each caucus.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've dealt with your themes, I think, in a very comprehensive manner. I want to, without question, move to the issue of union democracy, as you've entitled it, and this legislation, Bill 40. I think if you've been following the hearings you will no doubt be aware that the issue of the process in organizing has been one which has been discussed quite often.
I believe that this bill takes away from the rights of the workers of this province in areas of their freedom of choice whether to join or not to join a union. I think it is clear; I think it is incontrovertible, and I do not believe, after close to five weeks of hearings, that I have heard one single argument that goes against that submission of mine. Bill 40 takes away the rights of workers in this province in the area of their freedom to choose whether to join or not to join a union.
It takes away from the rights of part-time workers as to whether they wish or wish not to be consolidated and combined. I think it's a little distressing that we in this committee hear that others believe it is in the best interests of part-time workers, whether they wish to combine or not to combine. I find it disappointing that some members, some union leaders, believe that they know what's best for part-time workers, when all we say is, "Give them the right to choose."
There has been the presentation made of a secret ballot to workers, free from intimidation and coercion from an employer, free from intimidation and coercion from a union organizer, fully informed. My question to you is, is that something which you could support as moving in the direction we would all hope to move, and that is, if workers in this province wish to be part of a union, then let them have the choice? Let them make the decision. Let it not be a decision made in some committee room at Queen's Park. I'd like to get your thoughts on that.
Mr Lardner: I quite agree, and I think that's almost behind that part of the submission on union democracy, and that is, the workers themselves, when they have a proper say in things, will exercise that responsibility properly. But at the moment, in many cases, they do feel intimidated, and they also have the feeling: "What's the use? It's no use my voting, no use my going out to the meeting. There's going to be a group there that isn't going to be swayed by what I say." They feel intimidated.
I think it's quite important, if we're going to have democratic unions, that we have secret ballots, and properly supervised secret ballots too, not supervised by members of the union.
Mr Turnbull: Welcome, gentlemen, a good brief, and a particular welcome to Mr Lardner, one of my constituents. Once again, Mr Lardner, you've got a thoughtful brief, as you always do, to all levels of government you present to.
A very quick question first of all. It's asserted by the unions that the business side in this discussion is being hysterical. Can you respond to that?
1520
Mr Lardner: No. We have a serious concern. You've got to keep in mind that in order to create and keep a business going, you've got to be able to anticipate the markets. That's almost the most important facility that any owner or manager of a business has -- anticipate your markets. If this bill goes through, we see it having a very serious impact on our markets. People are not going to want to come here, invest and build. Jobs are going to be lost.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you. Turning to page 6 of your submission, "Construction Industry Restructuring," can you just enlarge for me on the question of restructuring your industry and the impacts on productivity this would imply?
Mr Manny Fine: If I may, I'll try to respond to that. Our crews are members of the operating engineers' union, labourers' union generally. They're highly skilled in all the operations required to do the work involved in foundation construction, including replacement of reinforcing steel cages, as an example. On some sites, where there are many trades present at the same time, the rodmen's union, a division of the ironworkers' union, claims the jurisdiction of placing these cages.
This work is very intermittent. On a usual job it might be done in the last hour of the day, placing concrete and reinforcing steel. The nature of the work is such that it cannot be continuous work. When rodmen are employed, they're part-time workers paid full-time. This goes somewhat against the grain.
Mr Turnbull: Can you expand on that? What do you mean by, "They're part-time workers paid full-time"?
Mr Fine: There's nothing for them to do most of the day, but they're paid for the full day. This increases our costs. The cost of construction generally goes up; it discourages investment. In the end it costs jobs rather than create work.
Mr Turnbull: Do I understand correctly that your suggestion with restructuring is that you would allow several trades to do different things?
Mr Fine: As Mr Lardner has stated, it would be in the best interests of improved efficiency and lower costs of construction for a man to be able to do anything he's capable of doing properly, rather than having this very narrow structure where a specific trade must do work that requires no real skill.
Mr Turnbull: Presumably, that is going to increase the people's chances of being employed on a continuous basis, if they have that sort of flexibility in a workplace.
Mr Fine: That is correct.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you. In your presentation you talk about the third objective, "To promote harmonious labour relations, industrial stability and the ongoing settlement of differences between employers and trade unions." What undesirable effects do you see in this proposal?
Mr Gordon Demetrick: It means, basically, the unions could grieve anything at all and the Ontario Labour Relations Board would be bound to and have the power to deal with it in their way.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, so it's a question of the wording of this that you have difficulty with. Can you suggest some sort of amendment you would propose that would take the sting out of it from the point of view of your industry?
Mr Lardner: The best thing would be to drop the purpose clause altogether, but if you're going to put it in, I'd put back in the phrase "arising in collective bargaining and under collective agreements."
Mr Turnbull: Which was in it originally.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Murdock, after Mr Wood.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for coming forward with your presentation. As you're aware, we're into the fifth week of presentations now and tomorrow will be the last day before we get into amendments.
I just wanted to clarify some misunderstanding that might be out there on the part of even some of the committee members here, that some very modest and minor changes were brought into the amendments to the OLRA to cover four main areas, which were: new workplaces and the new workforce that is out there since the major changes were brought in since 1975, promoting cooperation and partnership, reducing conflicts, restructuring and restricting the use of replacement workers on the sites because of fatalities that have happened and dangerous driving charges for people barging through picket lines and one thing and another -- it happened last winter in Hearst. This summer there's replacement workers being used by the town of Kapuskasing -- things of this kind. So it's trying to eliminate a lot of those and streamline the process.
The information I have is that they're very minor and modest amendments that are being brought in because of the drastic changes in the workforce. It's not to address so much the unionized workforce that has been out there and unionized over the last 50 or 60 years, but it's to address the changes that have been taking place, since any major amendments haven't been brought in since 1975.
I just wanted to know if you had any comments to that. Sure, it might affect some of the unionized workforce out there, but there are a lot more women, visible minorities and part-time workers out there who are screaming and have been screaming for the last 20 years, "If you ever get elected to office, are you going to make some minor amendments to address this situation?"
Mr Lardner: I don't think we disagree that there should be some changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act; the thing is like Alice in Wonderland. But I don't agree that the changes you're proposing are the ones that need to be made. In many cases, I think you're exaggerating the problems and you're trying to deal with a sledgehammer with something that should be dealt with with a fine pick.
You point to fatalities and so on due to what you call "scab labour." I suppose on the other side you can also point to the violence that's been exhibited by some of the union members and hasn't been properly disciplined by the union management. We can argue back and forth on that quite a bit.
But what's really needed for the Ontario Labour Relations Act is to sit back and take a look at this thing. It's a monster. It's created quite a few ridiculous situations. It should be totally revamped in the interests of the efficiency of our economy. You're just playing with it and tinkering with it and making it worse.
Ms Murdock: Not on the same vein at all, actually, you've made a couple of comments in your presentation in regard to the Environics poll. I want to direct my mind to that, because the Queen's Park reporter for the Ottawa Citizen wrote an article on the Environics poll specifically, and one of the first things that Environics has mentioned is that when they questioned, only 55% of the people even knew about labour relations. The reporter here goes on to say it's amazing that everybody didn't know, given the information that was out there on billboards and newspapers and every place else that you heard. Anyway, of the 45% who were unaware -- it's Jim Coyle's article, so I'll read that portion:
"As for the 45% unaware of the proposals, this was of little concern to the pollsters. Respondents developed opinions fast," Jane Armstrong said, "`once we gave them a little bit of information and sort of educated them' about the potential impact....
"The background given was this: `The new legislation gives greater power to labour unions to organize and shut down employers' operations during a strike.'"
He goes on to say that it isn't surprising that after that statement was made, 35% more people said, no, this legislation would be very bad and shouldn't be introduced, whereas if the question had been that the proposals and the amendments are to improve the collective bargaining process on an act that already exists, I'm just wondering --
The Chair: Do you want them to respond, Ms Murdock?
Ms Murdock: Yes. Do you think it's fair in the way it was purported to have been given as a poll and then to be used as statistics by the business community?
Mr Lardner: I'm not a pollster, so I'm not qualified to comment on the way the Environics poll was taken. I am concerned, when I look at the result of the Environics poll, about the lack of support for the legislation that it indicates, even if you do take those figures into account. I do strongly feel -- and I really do feel this -- this is not a statement just for the sake of making it. I really think that if the government is not satisfied with, say, the Ernst and Young study, it should have an objective study made like that. I think that would perhaps help to resolve a lot of these questions. They're very serious questions. I don't know the answer completely to your comment about Environics, but I am concerned. I think there should be a proper study.
1530
The Chair: I want to thank you for appearing on behalf of your industry and the organization that represents that industry, the Association of Foundation Specialists of Ontario. You've made a valuable contribution to this process and we are grateful to you.
ONTARIO COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice. While that spokesperson is being seated, I want to apologize to the people in Welland because I won't be able to be there tonight at St Michael the Archangel Ukrainian Catholic Church when the 13th annual Welland Folklore Festival is being celebrated. Please, if people in Welland who are watching and listening are at St Michael the Archangel Ukrainian Catholic Church, enjoying the great food and the great fellowship there this evening, I express my apologies, say hello to Father Dachuck and wish Yvette Ward happy birthday, because yesterday, September 1, was her birthday.
Please tell us your name and your title and go ahead with your comments and submissions.
Ms Mary Ann O'Connor: Good afternoon. My name is Mary Ann O'Connor. I'm the coordinator for the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice, a coalition of organizations representing senior citizens, students, labour unions, anti-poverty workers, peace and environmental activists, women and many other people. A statement of the coalition's principles and a list of member organizations is attached to my written statement.
The Ontario Coalition for Social Justice is currently conducting a province-wide campaign called "Justice and Jobs: We Can Have Both." Our six-point plan for moving towards justice and jobs is also attached to my statement.
One point in the plan concerns keeping up the quality of Canadian jobs, and it is in this context that we support the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It is also in the larger context of looking at social justice issues. I want to be clear that I do not pretend to be an expert about labour law, but I do think I can contribute something to this discussion around the issue of social justice.
I'd like to begin my presentation by looking at the concentration of wealth. There's a very simple way for us to understand the balance-of-power issues at stake in the Ontario Labour Relations Act proposed amendments. I would like to begin by asking you to imagine that all of Canada's wealth is in this room. This is it. This space has all of our wealth.
One fifth of the population has none of it, not one bit. In fact, it has negative wealth, because its debts exceed assets. That's one fifth of the population. Another fifth of the population has 2% of the wealth, so if you imagine the tiniest slice along this wall, that's another fifth of the population. Yet another fifth of the population has 9% of Canada's wealth. So let's imagine that takes us to this first row of chairs, to your seats.
Mr Wood: I'm not rich.
Ms O'Connor: You're not in that category either.
The next fifth of the population, the fourth fifth of the population, has 19% of Canada's wealth. Let's say that takes us to a point about here. That means the remaining one fifth of the Canadian population has 68% of all Canada's wealth. One fifth of the population has all the rest of the room.
I don't think we're talking about a delicate balance of power here. I don't think it's delicate at all. And when we have this kind of concentration of wealth, we have a concentration of power as well.
How does that concentration of power display itself? Let's look at what that wealthy one fifth owns. For example, they own the mainstream media. Billionaire Ken Thomson owns one in three daily newspapers in Canada. If you look at the Thomson and Southam chains together, they control 60% to 70% of all English-Canadian circulation. So we see how a concentration of wealth is fed into a concentration of power.
There's another way in which we can look at this. That wealthy fifth of the population can buy influence. With all due respect to the members here, they are able to make contributions. They are able to buy politicians when they need to.
I want to mention that the concentration of wealth breakdown is not something that I calculated. It's from Statistics Canada, release 13-588.
Under the federal Tory government, in the last eight years the concentration of wealth has been increasing; that is, the already rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer. Corresponding to this is an increasingly undemocratic society. Government actions such as negotiating and signing the free trade deals or introducing the GST have been taken despite clear majority public opposition.
Reckless megadeals, negotiated secretly and presented as unalterable finished products such as the proposed North American free trade agreement, seem to have become standard operating procedure for the Prime Minister. It's now only the rich and multinational corporations that are benefiting from this style of government. Small and medium-sized businesses are being wiped out in record numbers, jobs are being lost by the hundreds of thousands and the quality of remaining jobs is decreasing. Even many members of the business community who initially embraced the free market/free trade ideology are now opposed to it.
One thing I can tell you with absolute assurance is that the majority of people in this country do not like this concentration of wealth, and when they are allowed to understand how the Ontario Labour Relations Act functions to assist in a redistribution of wealth and a rebalance of power, they like it.
People in this country see that a concentration of wealth is undemocratic. They see that it's not a natural product of free market principles and they're angry at being manipulated and pressured by excessive talk of competitiveness and globalization when Canada already has a top-notch workforce and a strong history of international trade. People want to see a strong market, but a market that is put in its place, that's put in some perspective.
Indeed, it seems that ordinary working Canadians are much more willing to confront a complex and challenging future, a changing workplace, than many of the elected officials or leaders in the business community. Political and business leaders are thinking in narrow terms of competitiveness and quick profits, whereas Canadians are thinking in the broadest possible terms about maintaining values, raising standards and engaging in creative social and economic development initiatives that will ensure a decent future for our children.
The existence of strong, politically independent unions is proven to be both a social and an economic good in country after country. Where there are higher levels of unionization, there is more equal distribution of wealth, more stable democracy, more social support and generally a higher standard of living. There's no question that unions' successes at improving organized workers' lives also positively influence conditions for non-unionized workers. Child labour restrictions, 40-hour workweeks and pension plans are all classic examples of union-led struggles for more humane social conditions.
We need a better balance of wealth and power in Canada. We need checks and balances in our democracy, or we don't have one. Unions, that is, workers uniting for a stronger, more effective, collective voice, are one modest check. Unions are one way of achieving some balance of interest, some measure of democracy, but let's not blow this out of proportion. It's still one fifth of the population holding 68% of the country's wealth. Let's not exaggerate the impact that any amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act could have on the power of unions.
The Ontario Coalition for Social Justice regards the proposed amendments to the OLRA as very small steps towards more democracy and economic justice. In the context of the federal free market fiasco in which every effort is being made to drive down wages and working conditions and at the same time unravel Canada's social safety net, these OLRA amendments are no more than modest, hopeful attempts at worker self-preservation.
1540
It is healthy in a democracy to have competing views. It's important for people to understand what the views are and to be able to choose a political agenda that most closely corresponds to their own personal values and concerns. People do want jobs -- they're afraid now because of unbelievable job losses caused mainly by Mulroney's made-in-Canada recession -- but they want other things too. They want decent wages, good health care and education, a clean environment and a future for all of Canada's children, not just the children of the rich. They want a country that is vital, democratic and definitely distinct from the United States.
The market-takes-all mood of Canadian business, intent on restructuring, cutting labour costs and eliminating unions, is shortsighted and paranoid. It's a mood that parallels the US multinationals in their current continental power grab, but Canadian businesses adopt this mood at their peril, for US businesses do not have any interest in preserving our society. In contrast, Canadian unions, representing working people who see their futures right here in Canada, do have a great interest in preserving our society.
The Ontario Coalition for Social Justice supports the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and specifically urges the proposed changes regarding the purpose clause, the basic right to organize in certain sectors and the prohibitions on the use of replacement workers or scabs. We view the provisions regarding plant closures and worker adjustment as positive but inadequate. We also strongly urge immediate study of broader-based bargaining. Only broader-based bargaining can effectively address the concerns of the most exploited and vulnerable workers in our society, largely concentrated in the service sector, who tend also to be women and people of colour. Again, it's a straightforward matter of social justice.
The Chair: Thank you. The Progressive Conservative caucus was scheduled to pose questions to you first. We have over five minutes per caucus.
Mr Hope: If they don't carry an interest --
The Chair: My apologies. Mr Ward.
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I'd like to thank the Progressive Conservatives for allowing us to have that much more time to question you. I'm sure this is a question they would want asked. You talked about social and economic justice for working people in Ontario or indeed the country. You can define what that means in later conversations because everyone has his own idea. But to work towards that goal, do you -- I recognize you're not a labour expert -- believe that the obstacles currently in place under the existing Ontario Labour Relations Act that impede employees in a workplace where the majority consciously wish to have a trade union to represent them should be removed to the greatest degree possible?
Ms O'Connor: Yes, I certainly think those obstacles should be removed to the greatest degree possible. The proposed amendments basically just upgrade and update the Ontario Labour Relations Act to address changes in the workplace, to address the fact that now there are many more part-time women workers. I happen to be one, a mother of three and a part-time worker. Everything we can do to reduce obstacles to organizing is movement towards social justice. We need a balance, when we have a situation of such an incredible concentration of wealth and such power that can be marshalled by the corporate sector.
Mr Ward: For the benefit of myself and quite possibly the people of Ontario who are watching these proceedings -- they may not be familiar with the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice -- in looking at some of the member organizations, it appears to be quite a broad base of involvement.
Just to name a few, you have the Anglican Church, the Basic Poverty Action Group, Canadian Artists Representation Ontario, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Catholic Rural Life, Chiefs of Ontario, Coalition of Visible Minority Women, Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada, one of the finest unions, I think, in our country, and the Council of Canadians -- really a broad base of involvement here. Could you tell us, for my benefit and for the benefit of the viewing public, a little bit about your organization and how it came to be?
Ms O'Connor: Yes, I'd be happy to. The Ontario Coalition for Social Justice came together originally as a group of organizations concerned about the proposed Canada-US free trade agreement. They worked together to oppose free trade with the United States because they could see that it was a deal cut to be exploitative of most people and to enhance the concentration of wealth. So people resisted free trade.
Once the free trade deal had been signed, the Mulroney government introduced the GST, and the same group of people said, "We'd like to stay together to oppose the GST." Then they began to realize that a whole corporate agenda was being run against this country and that there had to be presented an alternative, a social justice agenda, so they decided to stay together and rename the Coalition Against Free Trade as the Coalition for Social Justice. People have been working together for some time to understand how the corporate agenda is working and not working.
Mr Ward: I think it's very informative to have the information.
Mr Hayes: Ms O'Connor, you made a very good presentation. I'm looking at your statement that you made there, the little phrase "Justice and Jobs." We can have both, and I believe this is certainly what this piece of legislation is actually dealing with.
I just wanted to let you know that this government and the minister, Bob Mackenzie, made a statement in the House, and it really relates to your presentation. It says here: "It is not a matter of choosing between jobs and justice. It's all about having both; having the justice of fair, balanced labour legislation that brings greater dialogue to the workplace and, in doing so, making Ontario economically strong."
Then it goes on to talk about Ontario's economy going through a process with the strongest resource in mind, and that's the people of Ontario, and this country for that matter.
Of course there are people who really feel that we seem to have to bring ourselves down to other people in other countries who are exploited by low wages and very poor working conditions and with no benefits. I'm glad to see that you're mentioning here what Canadians truly want, and it's not the same thing that some of these people want for a quick profit, who think the only way we can be competitive is cutting people's wages and benefits. I'm pleased to hear you say that.
I know you have mentioned that you are not an expert on the legislation, but do you feel that this is balancing things a little bit better for workers in this province? There are those who feel we're giving too much advantage to the workers and they have too many advantages now. These are some opinions of people who are opposed to this particular bill.
1550
Ms O'Connor: As I said in my presentation, our view is that the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are small steps towards a more democratic, more just society and more democratic, more just workplaces.
We do not regard them as earth-shattering changes. They are not bringing in Ontario's socialist revolution. They are not making big changes. They are making modest changes that simply address modern conditions, changes in the workplace. So we regard them as steps in the right direction. But, as I mentioned at the end of my statement, we think that looking at broader-based bargaining is essential, again for addressing the changed workplace.
Mr Offer: I have a couple of questions. Firstly, on that first page, I get a little concern. I understand maybe where you're coming from, but I get some concern where, in the last four or five lines of the first page, you intimate that opposition to a bill of this kind might be the result of somebody buying off a politician. Jeez, I think that's just ridiculous.
However, on the second page you talk about politically independent unions. Before I ask the next question, I want to sort of build on Mr Ward's question, because I think it's important to know. I note that you're located at 15 Gervais Drive and, if I'm not mistaken, I think that's the head office of the Ontario Federation of Labour.
Ms O'Connor: The Ontario Coalition for Social Justice has had offices at different members' organizations. For a while we were based in one of the churches that is a member, now we're doing time based in one of the labour offices and then we'll be moving again. So we go where there's an open space.
Mr Offer: That's fine. I just wanted to know.
On the issue of these politically independent unions, would you support an amendment that would give to every unionized worker in this province the freedom to devote certain dollars to the political party of his choice as opposed to what it is now?
Ms O'Connor: This is probably a question that would have to be discussed by members of the coalition. It's not a topic we've discussed, so I don't feel in the position to speak for the coalition.
Mr Offer: I would certainly appreciate your maybe discussing that and sending that back to the committee, because you've spoken about your concern about power, and why not give to unionized workers the ability to direct funds to the political party of their choice?
Ms O'Connor: Why not give workers the ability to unionize first?
Mr Offer: They have that.
Mr Phillips: Just to comment on that, I think we're just going by your brief, "politically independent unions." I think for the union movement this is quite a fundamental issue of whether one has ultimately a conflict in representing the broad interests of your members and also being beholden to one political party, because right now and down the road there will be conflicts between what's in the best interests of the members of the union and the direction the government is taking. I very much support your political independence and I just wonder how you would see changing the bill so that unions are assured of being politically independent.
Ms O'Connor: I don't see that there any changes necessary to the bill to assure that unions are politically independent. Canada has a history of politically independent unions as opposed to certain other countries. Mexico, for example, is a good case where the unions have been quite tied to one party, unable to act independently. Unions in this country are quite able to act independently.
Mr Phillips: I agree with my colleague that I would appreciate the coalition giving us its advice on whatever areas we can help in to ensure the political independence of unions. I hope the group might meet. I think we're going to deal with the bill in early October and any advice you could give us on that could be helpful. I guess you just deal through the clerk with your advice to us.
Ms O'Connor: Fine.
Mr Phillips: My second question is on the job situation, and I think that's mentioned in your brief.
Ms O'Connor: Yes, it is.
Mr Phillips: Right now, I don't think we've ever seen the number of unemployed people in Ontario, at least since we've been keeping records. Even going back to 1930, there were not as many unemployed people in Ontario, and all of us hope that will turn around shortly. Two years ago, Ontario had an unemployment rate below 5%. It is now at 11%, and the number of unemployed seems to be rising.
I realize your group is attacking the Tories as much as you can for their high interest rates, although I guess the interest rates are down now, and the high Canadian dollar.
Ms O'Connor: For their free trade deals.
Mr Phillips: Yes, although the Premier has indicated to us that he sees the future in Ontario being in the manufacturing sector; Ontario getting world mandates for products and being able to compete in a free trade environment. That's how he sees the future. But really my question to the coalition is: What can we be doing here in Ontario to be helpful on the job situation, particularly as it relates to this bill?
Ms O'Connor: I think it would be very helpful for this committee and other committees to look at the impact of free trade. I think it would be very helpful for this committee and other committees to think long-term about Canada's future and not to panic about threatened job loss from something like amendments to the Labour Relations Act. If we think about the kind of Canada we want, we will be able to come up with programs that do create both jobs and social justice.
As I mentioned, we have a program, a platform, that we're working on in our "Justice and Jobs" campaign. While we don't claim to have all the answers by any means, we do see that there a few very simple things that need to be done. Certainly, we can address the question of concentration of wealth through the tax structure. Our tax system currently favours the rich and places an unbelievable burden on the middle class and the poor.
The Chair: Thank you. I've distributed the Conservatives' time equally among the Liberals.
Mr Turnbull: We have no questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. As I've indicated, I've distributed your time equally among the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus. The Conservative caucus was to have been the first caucus to question you, but they weren't here at that point.
1600
Mr Hope: One of the areas I think Mr Ward forgot, because I went on and flipped your sheet over, is whom you're involved with. The National Farmers Union is one of them, the Ontario Federation of Students, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the United Church of Canada. That seems to be a credible source. As a matter of fact, I happen to be an area coordinator for southwestern Ontario, which was why I was appreciating it. You didn't only fearmonger about the projections of wages and the wealth in Canada; you also made references, so for that anybody who doesn't believe your calculations, it's there.
One of the areas that I think you really touched on is the matter of social justice. Mr Phillips always likes to be the spokesperson for the government. He has forgotten that he's now the other side. One of the things is that we have no problem with trade, and you've made it very clear in here, but we have a problem when it is taking away from our society. I know you've mentioned free trade, and I remember very clearly the arguments and the fight over free trade. As a matter of fact, there was a fight against the GST. I remember doing a skit called Brian's Christmas Tory and also Canada in Jeopardy, in which we tried to communicate to the general public what is going on.
One of the areas we found out about is that when people talk competitiveness and you ask them for a definition, they always seem to put wages in this issue. Competitiveness, in the eyes of some of the individuals, is around total wages, but most of us understand competitiveness to be around technology and to be able to compete in that marketplace.
At the end you talked about the development of our future and our children. I was wondering, because this legislation is intended to create workplace harmony: In order for us to make sure we're covering both ends of the spectrum, we must think about our youth, developing it, and more labour history so that youth understands the value of the programs we currently enjoy today.
Before I entered this job in the political life, in the factory I always made sure people understood what vacations were all about, because these were not a given; they were something that was fought for. We dealt with seniority and job training programs. We always made sure that people understood so that it wasn't abusive. You know, we were trying to save the company money. We wanted to help it make money for three years, and at the end of the three years we were coming to collect some of it.
I am just wondering about your viewpoints about making sure our education system provides a balance not only to teach us that everybody's going to come out of the school system and be little entrepreneurs, but to understand that some of those are going to become workers.
Ms O'Connor: It's interesting that you describe this educating that happens to younger people, because it happens in the coalition context. Senior citizens representing senior organizations always stress how hard they fought to get where we are now, how they fought for medicare, how they fought for these rights to organize. It's so important to them to get the younger members of the coalition, the representatives of the Ontario Federation of Students -- many of the peace and environmental activists are younger -- to realize that none of this course of history was inevitable. It was struggled for and fought for, and they can't bear to see it taken apart now. They can't bear to see it taken apart with language like "competitiveness." As I described it earlier, I think there's sort of a market-takes-all mentality right now, and that the highest premium is on the fastest profit, without any look at what it really means for society and for the future.
Many member organizations of the coalition worked carefully to connect with other young people to be able to make presentations in schools, to be able to connect with the younger workers so that there is some sense of the history and of the gains people have made by their struggle for medicare, for access to the education system and for decent work conditions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms O'Connor. We appreciate your appearing here today on behalf of the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice. We're grateful for your interest in this legislation and your willingness to participate in this very important process. Take care.
MENNO VORSTER
The Chair: The next participant is Mr Vorster. Please seat yourself, sir. We've all got your written submission. Carry on with what you want to tell us, sir.
Mr Menno Vorster: I thought I'd be boring for a few minutes and just read the highlights of this, at least, if you'll forgive me. First, I just want to thank you for allowing me to add on to what I'm sure has been a great number, in length and divergence, of views. I will be very brief.
My name is Menno Vorster and for many years I was an activist in the school teachers' federations, both in Toronto and at the provincial level. That, plus a keen interest in community affairs and labour relations, has led me to a more recent career as a self-employed labour consultant. Along with other pursuits, I and my partners at a company called Labour Resource Services spend considerable time as nominees to both rights and interest arbitration boards. It's in that latter capacity and on that specific subject that I wish to concentrate my remarks today.
As you know, subsection 45(2) of the act presently provides that where the parties in a newly certified workplace cannot agree, language will be inserted into the collective agreement to have arbitrations heard before a three-member panel. The change that the government has asked you to consider would alter that to a single arbitrator. I want to raise a couple of points on what I find to be somewhat illogical about this move, if you'll bear with me.
On the whole, it's the less mature bargaining relationships that benefit most from three-person boards. Not only does it provide the most thorough approach for those who have never been involved in a formalized process of dispute resolution, but it obviously also creates an important appearance of objectivity to newly organized workplaces.
As the relationship develops and both parties gain experience in the process, in everything from conducting a hearing to knowing which grievances are worth pursuing, parties generally move towards a more diversified process and use single arbitrators in at least some types of grievances.
Nominees, particularly those who provide the service on a regular basis, can be and are of considerable assistance to the process. Appointees provide feedback to those presenting the cases, especially for those who haven't done it on a frequent basis, and also provide some idea of where to take the case in front of an arbitrator. Their knowledge of a specific workplace can often assist an arbitrator in zeroing in on the relevant issues and understanding the consequences of collective agreement provisions, which is not always very apparent by the words written in.
In many cases, during the course of a hearing it becomes apparent that an agreed settlement is not only possible but desirable. Nominees can easily facilitate this process and can do it without having the arbitrator lose his neutrality or appearance of neutrality by trying to seek that kind of settlement.
After the completion of the evidence in a case, the sidespersons often put forward the most relevant points to the arbitrator for their respective parties, not just to persuade the arbitrator but also to ensure that all factors have been taken into account. It's kind of like the court of second resort, if you will. Even if their side does not prevail, nominees can in many cases seek changes to the final award that will make the decision more suitable to the needs of either party. Dissents and addenda place an alternative view on the record which can have a lasting impact on the precedent value of an award or the future relations between the parties.
A few years ago, however, the Ontario government felt it was desirable to insert some flexibility into the system and not simply mandate three-person panels without offering the parties an element of choice. As a result, even in workplaces only recently covered by the act, either party can currently exercise its right to have any arbitral matter heard before a sole arbitrator appointed by the minister -- that's section 46. Currently, about 60% of arbitrations are heard by single adjudicators.
I would argue that this makes a good deal of sense. Having the entire spectrum of issues heard by a three-person panel is, in some cases, a waste of time and money. On the other hand, requiring that the majority of hearings be before a sole arbitrator takes away the thoroughness that some cases require.
The real problem with the proposed amendment, I believe, is that it would remove the very flexibility the government had previously built in. Whereas either employer or the union can presently choose a single arbitrator if they prefer that to a mandated three-person panel, the suggested change would have both parties appear before a single adjudicator unless both parties agree. The amendment puts into the legislation what the parties are already able to do at the expense of making the other option readily available. As a result, the proposed amendment is far more restrictive than the provision already in place.
1610
It is not as though three-person panels are rare in other jurisdictions in Ontario. A host of other decision-making forums mandate tripartite boards as the norm, including the Workers' Compensation Board, the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Pay Equity Commission, and it seems ironic that even the Grievance Settlement Board, which deals with arbitrations for all unionized Ontario government employees, only uses three-person boards. I would have expected that if the government had had some fundamental shift in philosophy on this issue, it would have made those changes in its own house first.
The truth, of course, is that this section of the proposed amendment is not a pillar of importance in comparison to the many crucial issues you are debating. There will be few who will take their time before you to elaborate the arguments on this specific provision. It is, none the less, an important consideration for ongoing positive labour relations in the workplace.
Having regard that you have heard many words in the last number of weeks and that you're not likely to base your decision on verbal volume, I'll end my remarks there and trust you will take them into account when you make your decisions.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, sir; six minutes.
Mr Vorster: Not bad, eh?
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Murdock, and if you leave Mr Owens some time, he might be able to ask a question too.
Ms Murdock: Okay, will do. Just a couple of points. Yes, you're right in the last part of what you said: Very few groups have even spoken to this, although a fair number of employer groups have indicated that they're not pleased with the sole-arbitration deeming provision either. So it is interesting that you're coming forward with this.
I'd like to know if your remarks apply to both rights and interest arbitrations. You seem to have focused on the interest arbitration boards rather than -- they're both?
Mr Vorster: No, actually I focused on the rights. The interest arbitration boards currently are three-person boards and I think they will remain that way. I would be very surprised if anybody opted in any case for a single arbitrator in that situation. It requires so much knowledge of the workplace, and to leave it to a single arbitrator is -- I think most arbitrators would back away from that process themselves. So I'm concentrating on rights, basically.
Ms Murdock: And on rights, 60% right now, as you're saying, are basically done by sole arbitrators anyway.
Mr Vorster: Right. Yes.
Ms Murdock: The amendment says a deeming provision of a sole arbitrator, without the option you're suggesting. You're saying that you'd like -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- a subsection asking for an option choice to the sole arbitrator, or are you asking that it be left the way it is, or are you asking that there be a requirement that if the sole arbitration is left as it is, it then would be a person who has an interest in or a knowledge of that particular workplace?
Mr Vorster: A good question, and there's not a simple answer, but let me try to tackle it. What I'm suggesting is that under the current legislation the three-person board is mandated, but if any party wants, they can get out of that by going for single boards. There are options to either side to do both. The way it currently is being proposed is that it's a one-person board, and unless they both agree, it stays that way. In other words, they both have to agree for a three-person board, so the flexibility is out of the system.
Probably my first choice would be to leave it the way it is. If, however, an option is chosen, you could do similar to a section 46 by saying, "If either party wishes, they can go to a three-person board."
The difficulty with that is that sometimes what you're going to end up with is that one party or another -- and you can guess which one -- will opt for a three-person board because of the expense involved, and I say that being on the cheap side of the arbitration table, believe me. It does increase the cost, and therefore there's some caution as to when it's used, and people do opt for one-person boards when the case doesn't justify it. But if you put in an option that allows either party to go and choose a three-person board, it may well be that it's used for nuisance value, and I think that's more negative than it currently is.
Currently there hasn't been much complaint about the system, quite frankly. I know you haven't heard a lot about it, but I think that's also because of the depth of the issues you've got before you.
The final option was to --
Ms Murdock: That it be a requirement that the sole arbitrator have some knowledge of the workplace which he or she would be arbitrating.
Mr Vorster: Who's going to make the determination of which arbitrator has those? That's currently our job as nominees. When we get together and choose an arbitrator, we obviously choose one who has some understanding of it, but if it's left to sort of a bureaucratic umbrella to do it, what you will end up with is designated panels of arbitration experts in various fields.
It's going to make it difficult for anybody to break into an arbitration field or to become an arbitrator and it also doesn't necessarily -- somebody has to make the judgement and I know there are people on the employer's side who may judge that one arbitrator has a great deal of knowledge, where on the union side, "Over my dead body." I'm sure they have the same feeling of arbitrators vice versa, so expertise isn't necessarily the only requirement.
Under the current system, section 46, you do take that chance. If you opt for a single arbitrator, you're in some cases playing Russian roulette because you don't know who you're going to end up with. But neither the employer nor the union wants that to happen, so when either party opts for a section 46, very often at the same time it will agree to mutually choose an arbitrator so there isn't the threat of going to the list and ending up with someone who may know nothing about it.
Mr Hope: When you're focusing around the area of new collective agreements, and I've had a number of experiences around new collective agreements, one of the problems has always been that we get some of the lawyers who represent the companies not being involved in the workplaces. When we have representatives from the workplace speaking on behalf of their membership, one of the problems that I see is if we can get down to basics in having the companies reflect exactly what's going on in their workplace, to negotiate with the workers' representatives who are from the factory, instead of negotiating against one of their lawyers -- and I can name a number of them -- I think you would alleviate the whole problem of trying to get arbitration. With single arbitrators versus a panel, there are goods and there are bads and I'm not going to be an expert in that because my major goal has always been to try to negotiate the collective agreement versus going to an arbitrator to have somebody do that.
The Chair: Mr Vorster may want to respond.
Mr Vorster: I agree. I think the process has become one of experts rather than people who were actually working in the workplace and that's unfortunate. It's ironic that you suggest, or it's interesting that you suggest, your basic purpose has always been to negotiate and to settle, and that's exactly mine. I can tell you, as a nominee in about half of the cases that I sit on, the first thing we try to do if it's at all possible, if there's a window, is to settle it.
For example, yesterday I was on a case where a person had a suspension for three days. It's hard for an arbitrator to go in and try to negotiate a settlement in the middle of all of that. But as a nominee, the answer is obvious: If the person has some guilt in why he was suspended in the first place -- in this case he did -- you make it a day and he gets two days' pay back. The suspension stands for a day, the employer's happy and the employee is relatively happy because he doesn't have to take the chance in front of the arbitration board. But a single arbitrator simply can't do that.
Interjection.
Mr Vorster: Yes, well, we're not all of that ilk.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think the matter you raise has been brought forward throughout the hearings, but I don't know that there's been a presentation which has just zeroed in fully on the issue of arbitrator.
I'd like to get your thoughts on the expedited hearing as contained in Bill 40. It's my understanding that also would be heard before a single arbitrator. Now, there are some concerns that it maybe should be potentially a three-person board, unless both parties agree to go to one. I'd like to get your thoughts on whether the expedited hearing would be in jeopardy if there were a three-person arbitration board.
Mr Vorster: Part of the difficulty of all of this -- and the current system I think is built for that -- is that there is a whole variety of grievances. There are some which are relatively simple -- well, let me put it this way. There are currently a whole array of systems used.
I know that one union and employer use a system whereby they rotate a panel of arbitrators who will hear six cases a day and six cases are arbitrarily appointed for that day. The point is, they can't hear six, so what they do is settle three and start one, but it's intended to speed up the process. If it's another option, an expedited process, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. There are grievances that will fit that process and should be used.
1620
But the current system has been built and has over time expanded because the need was there. What I'm afraid of is that this proposal in front of you now is going to take what has been a natural expansion and shrink it back by taking some of the options away. To answer specifically your question, I don't know if a tripartite board in section 40 would slow it up. I don't think it's necessary in all cases, quite frankly.
Mr Offer: What you're saying is there's a certain flexibility that now exists in the act which has evolved and is working. Why should one try to shrink it back into something which takes away the flexibility?
Mr Vorster: If there was a philosophical shift towards a single arbitrator, then the change should be that the single arbitrator becomes the norm, with the option built in. The problem is that's not the case at the moment. It's been done so that it's very difficult to get to a three-person board. For those 40% of cases where a three-person board counts, you may not be able to get there, whereas you currently can, and for the 60%, you can get there now anyway.
Mr Phillips: I really do appreciate your thought on that. I frankly don't have a firm opinion on that. What I hear from you makes sense, and I think I would ask the parliamentary assistant to seriously consider your comments. Maybe there's a reason we haven't yet heard on why it's drafted the way it's drafted. It may be simpler in total, somewhat cheaper.
Mr Vorster: Do you want to see my fee schedule? Not that much cheaper.
Mr Phillips: Your point of view on it is valid, I think, and that is that oftentimes, particularly in a new situation, both parties would like to feel comfortable that there is someone there who tends to take their point of view more into account perhaps than if it were just a single panel, so there may be some good reasons why it's drafted the way it is. At some stage, we'll have a chance to debate those, I guess.
Mr Vorster: If I could just add one comment, it's interesting that out of the clients I've got, I don't think there's one that uses three-person boards alone. Some of them have it mandated both ways in their collective agreement. The only ones that use three-person boards by choice, because they obviously have the other choice, are newly organized workplaces. The reason for that is that at some point they may not know what they're doing and they don't have the case background for the particular types of grievances, and that's where we come in.
Mr Phillips: Just one last question on the purpose clause. I know it's not in your brief, but have you examined the purpose clause? In your opinion, dealing with the board, does it provide new directions for how the board would operate?
Mr Vorster: You mean in the overall redone structure?
Mr Phillips: Of the labour relations board.
Mr Vorster: I'm certainly no expert on that one, but I would think so, yes.
Mr Phillips: It embarks it on some new directions.
Mr Vorster: I think it embarks it on some directions that are looked upon to speed the process up and to make it tighter, yes.
Mr Turnbull: You certainly raised some very interesting points. It is a thoughtful brief. It makes a lot of sense. I want to contemplate what the implications are, but I can see that both sides can run into risks in terms of the balance that a sole arbitrator could bring to this. I'm certainly going to refer it to our research staff and consider it further. I would like the parliamentary assistant to come forward at some point with some discussion as to why they went this route.
On the arbitration aspect, I would like you just to comment. The concern I have is maintaining jobs in this province. With the first-contract compulsory arbitration after 30 days -- and I understand that you and I have to have different political viewpoints, but nevertheless I would like to draw out your view -- do you not feel it would be appropriate that the arbitration for the first contract should be compelled to take into account the ability of the employer to be able to pay any first contract?
What I'm saying to you is I'm concerned that it's all very well workers getting a big increase in pay, but if the job isn't there for them in six months' time, it really hasn't served the workers very well. Do you not feel that it might be appropriate to compel the arbitrators to consider the fiscal situation of the company in arriving at that first arbitration?
Mr Wood: You missed the previous presentation, David.
Mr Turnbull: I didn't want to --
Mr Vorster: There's a wealth of jurisprudence on the ability-to-pay argument. The fact is that even under Bill 11, I think it was, some time ago, which was the wage restraint process, even then it didn't work.
I've sat on a whole number of first-contract arbitrations and I can assure you that the kinds of increases you would fear, I guess, under such a process simply don't occur. Even if workers are well behind their counterparts in unionized or previously unionized workplaces, I'm aware of no arbitration situation which in a first contract has done a catch-up to where their counterparts are that have been previously unionized.
There may be a trend to increasing that, but inherently there's an understanding. If the industry is in trouble, even though they may not accept the brief financial statements that are presented in an ability-to-pay argument, inherently there is an understanding that you're not going to try to break the employer by putting forward increases that they simply don't have the ability to pay. There's inherently an understanding of that, and arbitrators are pretty responsible in that fashion. Certainly, the employer nominees take that route traditionally and make very thorough arguments on why certain things can't be put into a first contract simply because of the expense.
I don't want to be vague on your answer but I don't think it's as fearful as you think. The process is already under way and, quite frankly, I think it's worked rather well and none of those excessive kinds of awards have been made, certainly not the ones I've sat on, although I've pushed for them, I suppose.
The Chair: I want to express the committee's thanks to you, Mr Vorster, for wanting to participate in this process. You've played a valuable role, you've raised an important issue and obviously you may well have rattled enough cages that there'll be a response of some sort. Thank you kindly. I appreciate that.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I have a motion which I would ask the clerk to distribute at this time, and I would move it and discuss it:
Whereas in the city of Thunder Bay there were 43 requests to be heard and the committee could accommodate only 11 witnesses; and
Whereas in the city of Windsor there were 56 requests to be heard and the committee could accommodate only 15 witnesses; and
Whereas in the city of London there were 116 requests to be heard and the committee could accommodate only 19 witnesses; and
Whereas in the city of Sudbury there were 39 requests to be heard and the committee could accommodate only 11 witnesses; and
Whereas in the city of Ottawa there were 78 requests to be heard and the committee could accommodate only 20 witnesses; and
Whereas in the city of Kingston there were 45 requests to be heard and the committee could accommodate only 15 witnesses,
I move that this committee request the House leaders to amend the motion moved by Mr Cooke on July 14 indicating the dates and times of sittings for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 40 in order to allow two additional weeks for the purpose of public hearings throughout the province.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that?
Mr Offer: Yes. I recognize the interest by many groups and associations across the province to take part in these hearings. I think, Mr Chair, you and the clerk have attempted to accommodate as best you can those who wish to be heard. However, there is no question that there are still many hundreds of groups and associations representing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who want to come before this committee to express their position for or against concerns about this particular legislation.
I think we in this committee all know that as we move towards the end of the five-week allocation that has been granted this committee, every day we hear a new point, a new thought, a new concern about this legislation. I am concerned and I make this motion. This committee will embark on clause-by-clause without having the opportunity of hearing from many more people who, I believe, have some very important and thoughtful comments on this legislation. This is an opportunity to request the House leaders to give us the authority to go through the province and listen to so many people who wish to be heard.
1630
Mr Wood: I'm going to speak against this motion. It's quite obvious there were a lot of requests. A lot of people phoned in to the clerk's office; there's no doubt about that. But there were a lot of presentations that came from the same international union or the same unions or chambers of commerce. A number of them picked up on each other and started making individual presentations.
I don't see any point in dragging this out for another two weeks when it's quite obvious there is an enormous amount of support out there in the community from working men and women and visible minorities that the modest and minor changes being brought forward in this Bill 40 should be brought into law as quickly as possible; of course, after the amendments have been dealt with over a two-week period.
Even from the presentations we've heard today, we've seen that there is a lot of support for the amendments that have been brought forward, to get them into law as quickly as possible. I don't see taking it to the House leaders to extend the hearings.
The Chair: Thank you. We're going to recess for 60 seconds so a technical matter can be taken care of. People, please stay in your seats.
That was a fast minute. That was a resources development committee minute.
Mr Turnbull: The Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly endorses this motion. It's most important, when we consider this legislation, when the overwhelming amount of evidence has come in that this bill is going to harm the province and reduce the number of jobs that are available at a time when we're in desperate straits, that we should fully hear the concerns of those people who feel it will drive work out of the province. So we fully support this.
I'd like to see longer than two weeks, but I understand the government is determined to move ahead with this. I don't think an extra two weeks are going to dent its timetable unduly when we're thinking of hundreds and hundreds of people who cannot be heard.
I would urge the government members to think about voting in favour of this. I see Mr Wood is nodding his head no. Well, Mr Wood, this is pretty serious and your party will be held responsible for the damage this bill is going to cause the province. So, once again, think about supporting it. We're asking for two extra weeks. The people of Ontario want it and it's only reasonable.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chairman, first, I'd say that I think you personally have done a good job in balancing the witnesses. I have no hesitation in saying that in the time that's been given to you, you've done a fine job.
I don't think we could have a more cogent argument for the motion than the last witness, Mr Vorster, who knows this area well. He brought us a new perspective. He's expert in it, an ex-NDP candidate and a fine individual. Fortunately, we were able to hear from him and he brought us some new information.
Even though we've heard from many of the union leadership, I think Mr Upshaw brought us a new perspective today. So even though we've heard from various --
Mr Wood: You walk out of the room every time there's a --
Mr Phillips: No, I'm anxious to hear from everyone who has a variety of opinions, and while I may not agree with the message of Mr Upshaw, I agree very much with his right to be heard, and similarly the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice today. I think they had a good suggestion in trying to find ways to ensure that the union movement is free from political interference and not attached to any political movement.
I just use those three examples, from this afternoon, of new thoughts and new recommendations, and I think I can almost guarantee there are similar people, who won't be heard, out there.
I think many of us took at face value the government's commitment in its speech from the throne two years ago that it's going to be open and accessible, that it's going to ensure that every voice is heard in the province and that the doors it said may have been closed before, aren't closed.
I would hate to see you, Mr Chairman, unfairly accused -- and it would have been unfair -- of closing doors. So to be helpful to you and to the committee, on what is, I think, a fairly modest proposal by my colleague -- just two additional weeks -- we can certainly work them in. It doesn't affect the timetable and it would tend to take a little pressure off your having to play a sort of single arbiter in who comes before us. I think we could hear from additional people. It would be helpful to us.
Mr Hope: It's my pleasure to speak on this as a member of the committee. I hear what Mr Offer's saying about giving the people of Thunder Bay, Windsor, London, Sudbury, Ottawa and Kingston the ability to come forward and speak before the committee. But there's the more positive aspect of making sure these individuals are heard, and that's to the local members and giving them the ability. I'm sure they'll carry their concerns into their respective caucuses to make sure those concerns are heard.
I find it very ironic, though, that the Tory Party comes before us today and says it supports more time, when it's very selective in its hearings process as to which individuals coming before this committee it would like to sit and listen to and those it has no comments on. I only reflect on just two days, yesterday and today. In one of the areas that I talked about, the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice, they didn't even have the ability -- I asked a question of the Conservative Party and --
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chairman, I have to object.
Mr Hope: It really bothers me that we're getting very selective.
I've also reflected, while this motion is being put forward, about some of the presentations that have come before this committee where they've made generic comments: "Oh, it's just a public exercise. What's the sense? I'm here, but you're not even going to listen anyway."
I firmly believe that what we have to do is to make sure that the confrontation that has been created by billboard campaigns, by the media publicity that has been going on and that has been presented before this committee -- I feel it's very important, if there are concerns of those respective constituents out there that must be reflected, for this committee to move. I firmly believe in their going before their member and projecting those viewpoints. I just say, about making us go on longer, that I can't support it because I think we have to get on with the business of the day and make sure we move.
Mr Turnbull: I unfortunately have to spend some time refuting such an obviously stupid comment. The fact is that the Progressive Conservative Party has two members on this committee, and at this very moment Mrs Witmer is away meeting with people on this very bill. We, with 20 members of our caucus, are stretched a lot more thinly than any other party. I have seen, at times, with six members of the NDP, two of its members sitting at the other side, so the suggestion that we're not interested in listening to presentations is patently untrue. It does this committee a disservice to have that kind of silly comment, which only serves to get bad feeling among the members. It doesn't do justice to your party.
1640
Mr Huget: I think it's important to understand that this bill has been through a very long consultative process, in terms of the pre-draft legislation, where there were significant consultation sessions held right across the province and there was an opportunity to hear in those sessions from 350 groups that have an interest in this type of legislation, as well as to receive 447 written submissions at that time.
There's now the full schedule of five weeks of hearings with the corresponding written submissions. I think it should be obvious to anyone that this bill is receiving one of the most, if not the most, extensive consultations in the province's history on a provincial piece of legislation.
It's important to understand as well that there is a physical impossibility to accommodate every single individual in the province who may wish to appear. We would be in hearings for many, many years.
I would just add that in our view the process of consultation, and indeed the opportunity for input from interest groups, no matter from what sector, has been extensive.
The Chair: Mr Offer, or rather, before you speak, did Mr Phillips want to comment?
Mr Phillips: Just that I think, in fairness to people who want to present, rather than saying, "You go to your local member," this committee is charged by the Legislative Assembly with trying to ensure that people have an opportunity to present to representatives of all parties to have a chance for all of us to hear their thoughts. I'm not sure I want the union leadership's views to have to be filtered through some other member. I want to hear that directly. So I think the argument, "Tell them to go to their local member," will end up being unfair to the witnesses. As I say, I think the labour movement wants access directly to the legislative committee.
In comment to another member about this having taken a long time, I, as a member of the opposition, did not see this bill until the middle of June, barely less than two months ago. I guess it was about two months ago. I've never seen a bill proceed at this speed in the Legislature. I don't think we've ever had as major a bill that's been introduced in June and passed in October, as we have. For the sake of another two weeks, it's not going to even delay the bill, because we've got the two weeks' time. I would think the government members may want to reflect a little bit and just see if we can't hear from some additional witnesses.
Mr Hayes: Actually, I really agree with what Mr Wood was saying. I think what's happened here is that there were different groups of people or coalitions one way or the other where those coalitions came and then as a result of that there were others that belong to those coalitions and came to make independent briefs or presentations.
I'm just wondering long the opposition really wants to drag this thing out, because Mr Offer's saying -- just rough calculations -- that there were something like 286 people who weren't able to make presentations who wanted to. If he wants to go for another two weeks, of course, he's talking of approximately, what, 16 presentations a day, and that leaves you another 158. Do we not want to hear those people?
How long do you want to go on this thing and how many angles do you want to use to try to delay this legislation that's been overdue for over 30 years in this province? I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of people who are coming out and trying to exploit workers in this province and trying to keep them from getting decent legislation that is long overdue. We've got to start working together here with management and labour on behalf of the workers of this province, and your tactics are just trying to put roadblocks in front of this legislation. I think we've discussed it very thoroughly and I think there's been lots of input and lots of consultation, more than any other legislation previous governments ever tried to pass in this province, so I'm opposed to this resolution.
Mr Offer: I remember just a couple of days ago I made a motion on another matter which I was quite pleased the committee did accept. I understand that it's now in the works and I appreciate the letter the Chair wrote to the House leader and copied.
I also remember on that motion that the parliamentary assistant asked for just a little bit of time to think about that. For me, it was right and proper to give that time to the parliamentary assistant and to the members of the government to reflect on that motion and the reasons it was made, and maybe they would like time to reflect on this motion in light of the very important presentations and points that we have heard on this bill. I'm not just saying people against the bill, but people in favour of the bill.
I think it's our responsibility in this committee. The Chair has, I think, very ably attempted to hear from as many people as possible. There are a great many people who want to be heard who just haven't been able to be heard and we're hearing new points every single day. I would ask the government members, through the Chair, if that's permissible, whether they would like some time to reflect on the need for further consultation on this bill.
The Chair: Are you waiting for a response from them or are you suggesting deferral?
Mr Offer: I would certainly ask for deferral, let us say till tomorrow at noon.
The Chair: As far as I'm concerned, that's what's happened, then. The matter is deferred till the end of the morning session tomorrow. Thank you kindly.
We are recessed until 6:30 tonight.
The committee recessed at 1647.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
CHINESE WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Chair: The first participants this evening, and I say welcome to all of you, are the Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto. We've got your written submission which will be made an exhibit and form part of the record. Please give us your comments now. As well, please try to save the last 15 minutes at least for discussions and questions. Go ahead, sir, tell us your name and title, if any.
Mr Donald Ming: My name is Donald Ming. I am president of Local 2820 of the United Steelworkers of America, chairperson of the Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto, chairperson of the Chinese advisory committee of the New Democratic Party and a member of both the United Steelworkers of America District 6 human rights committee and the human rights committee of the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and York Region. I am here today to address you on behalf of the Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto.
I was born and raised in Burma and came to Canada in 1976. I began working in Toronto at a non-unionized plant with a workforce that was predominantly Chinese and Filipino. My experience with a non-unionized shop led me in 1981 to become an inside organizer for the United Steelworkers of America. I was directly involved in the organizing campaign and the ultimate certification of my workplace.
Through my involvement in the organizing campaign, I learned at first hand of the effects of employer threats and intimidation. During the campaign we were also faced with an anti-union petition for which we believed we had sufficient evidence of management involvement, but which was not numerically relevant and was therefore never litigated before the board.
Upon certification, I was elected to the position of plant chairperson of Local 2820 and remained in that position until 1987, when I was elected to the position of president of my local. The local was a composite local consisting of 10 bargaining units which ranged from office furniture manufacturing to steel parts manufacturing to auto parts manufacturing and photo-finishing.
As an advocate for Chinese workers in Metropolitan Toronto, a union organizer, contract negotiator and union spokesperson, I have come to understand the limitations of the present Ontario Labour Relations Act and why the act must be changed. Bill 40 is an attempt to make long-overdue improvements to labour legislation in this province, and I believe the bill will improve the climate of labour relations and the working life of employees.
While we support Bill 40, we do not believe it answers every problem, nor does it address the needs of many of the immigrant workers. In this respect, we would like the bill to go much further. There are a number of areas where we believe the bill is deficient and where the needs of immigrant workers have gone unaddressed.
I do not intend to review with you all of the bill's deficiencies, nor will I take you through the bill on a clause-by-clause basis. In my remarks today I want to focus on a few of the reforms included in Bill 40 which will make a real difference for immigrant workers and I will also speak on the failure of the bill to address the issue of broader-based bargaining.
I would first like to take a moment on the issue of broader-based bargaining because we believe it is a major deficiency of Bill 40. The Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto, while it endorsed the proposed amendments in the bill regarding the configuration of bargaining units, believes that the amendments simply do not go far enough.
To understand the necessity for broader-based bargaining, you must appreciate that in industries which do not conform to single plant structures, it is virtually impossible for workers to join together and speak with a single voice through a union. As a result, sectors of our labour market that are the most vulnerable and most marginalized, visible minorities and women, will not gain real benefits from Bill 40.
The Chinese Workers' Association urges the government to establish a task force on broader-based bargaining. This task force must have a mandate to thoroughly examine the issue of broader-based bargaining structures, including a review of sectoral employment standards options so that the vehicle of collective bargaining can bring more workplace involvement for those now excluded. The task force should be comprised of representatives of those groups which have been historically excluded from the benefits of unionization.
A refusal to contemplate broader-based bargaining results ignores the critical problem faced by the sectors of our labour market that are the weakest and most marginalized. We therefore urge the government to establish a task force which is open to new ideas and which recognizes the crucial importance of visible minority employees, women, employees with disabilities and others excluded from the mainstream of collective bargaining.
I will now highlight specific aspects of the bill which are important to immigrant workers in Ontario.
1. Termination of inside organizers: I have learned at first hand through my own experience as a union organizer the devastating effect an employer's threats and intimidation can have on a union organizing drive. This problem is more pronounced in smaller workplaces where employees have daily contact with management and owners of the company. Workers new to Canada who may come from authoritarian regimes may also be more vulnerable to threats and intimidation from their employers. In this context, the best way to defeat the union organizing campaign is to fire the inside organizer.
Presently, there is very little downside to an employer who fires a union organizer. Even where the inside organizer is eventually reinstated through an order of the board, the employer has in most cases succeeded in defeating the union's organizing campaign and intimidating the workers into a fearful silence. In the end, the cost in the way of damages for unpaid wages to the inside organizer is viewed by these employers as just another business expense.
Bill 40 attempts to address the problem of the discharged organizer by providing an expedited hearing at the Ontario Labour Relations Board where an employee has been disciplined, discharged or otherwise penalized during a trade union's organizing activities. The new law will require that the board begin to hear the matter within 15 days and requires that the hearing proceed from Monday to Thursday until the matter is concluded. In addition, the board will have to give its decision very quickly, with reasons to follows, if either party requests them.
The Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto believes the protection of the inside organizer is essential if the right to organize is to be provided to the presently unorganized sectors of the workforce. In addition, we support the amendments in the bill which prohibit post-certification petitions and which eliminate the requirement of the dollar membership fee.
2. Provisions respecting part-time employees: The provisions in the bill which address the issue of part-time employees are of particular importance to visible minorities and to women, as these groups make up a large portion of the part-time workforce. It is well documented that part-time workers in Ontario have poorer terms and conditions of employment than regular full-time employees.
The provision in the bill which provides for the consolidation of different bargaining units of the same employer represented by the same union addresses the issue of fragmentation of bargaining units and will assist the historically disadvantaged part-time bargaining unit. In addition, the certification of bargaining units composed of full-time and part-time employees assists in addressing the inequities faced by part-time employees when forced to bargain separately.
The Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto, while it believes the provisions respecting part-time workers do not go far enough, supports the provisions in the bill which are designed to alleviate some of the problems of the part-time bargaining unit.
3. First agreement arbitration: At the end of the union organizing drive and the certification procedure at the board, a certified workplace must now address, for the first time, the realities of collective agreement negotiation. At the negotiating table you have two parties who are relatively new to the realm of contract negotiations, and the reality in which they now operate may be tainted by their experience in the certification process. I think it is fair to say that the negotiation of the first collective agreement often sets the tone for ongoing and future dealings between the parties.
1840
First-agreement collective bargaining is precarious and fragile and often the parties require the presence of, or at least the threat of the presence of, a third-party arbitrator to come to terms with the reality that they are engaged in a new way of determining workplace practices, rules and terms for employment. Bill 40 eliminates the expensive and wasteful litigation that has been occurring at the board since the first-agreement arbitration access provisions were enacted. No longer will it be essential for a party to prove wrongdoing before being granted access to first-agreement arbitration. Instead, Bill 40 will make it possible for parties who are unable to resolve issues in the context of collective bargaining for a first agreement to have matters resolved at interest arbitration.
4. Arbitrators' powers expanded to consider relevant human rights and other employment-related statutes: Being a member of a visible minority, I can tell you from firsthand experience how important it is to have a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. I am therefore pleased to see the codification of expanded powers of the arbitrator to interpret and apply the requirements of the Human Rights Code and other employment-related statutes, despite any conflict between those requirements and the terms of the collective agreement. The Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto believes that arbitrators should have statutory approval for interpreting and applying all employment-related statutes, including the Human Rights Code, and supports this amendment to the act.
The Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto supports Bill 40. We think this committee should support the bill as well. As you know, the non-unionized workforce looks to the minimum standards set forth in the Employment Standards Act, where not only are the existing standards low, but the legislation is full of exceptions and exemptions. The well-documented lack of enforcement under this legislation reveals that the only real solution to empowering workers is to provide a realistic avenue to becoming unionized. We believe Bill 40 is a step in the right direction.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have five minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to ask a couple of questions with respect to your experience as an organizer. Could you share with this committee your thoughts as to whether in an organizing drive any expression of opinion by the employer would always be viewed in some way by the employees as a threat, no matter how it's done?
Mr Ming: Yes. I can say from my firsthand experience as an inside organizer, and as well I've been working with a couple of organizers in the Chinese community, that the threat during the organizing drive, the intimidation, is the main barrier for employees to stress.
Mr Offer: There are a number of questions I want to ask. I think this is a very important presentation. I thank you for that response.
I'm in agreement with you that where there's an organizing drive, I do not believe that employees should be under any threat, coercion or intimidation. This would not be from your own experience, but from your own thoughts: Is there ever a possibility where in an organizing drive, and it wouldn't be yours but in any organizing drive, the union organizers may unwittingly, in the way they operate, in their actions, be viewed by the employees as using some sort of coercion or intimidation?
Mr Ming: From the union organizers, I don't see this.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation too, Mr Ming. My question is on your point on the final page, which is an important one for me, and that's the implication that the Employment Standards Act is not being enforced and therefore the only course of action is for people to unionize. That's, in my opinion, wrong. If we've got the standards act, that should be enforced.
Have you, in your experience in the community, seen an increase in the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act recently, and therefore is this something that's going to correct itself, so that we are imposing the wrong solution here, the solution being trying to do it all through encouraging people to become part of a union, when the real solution might be a strong enforcement of the Employment Standards Act?
Mr Ming: As to the Employment Standards Act itself and the lack of enforcement, particularly in Chinese workplaces where Chinese workers predominate, such as in the garment industry and in the restaurant industry, we feel very strongly about the workers' lack of knowledge about their rights, and in some cases not only the workers but the employers themselves have, it seems, a lack of knowledge to provide the kinds of standards provided under the Employment Standards Act to the workers.
In the Chinese community several years ago, there was a study done among the restaurant workers. We have conducted that research; it was done by the University Settlement House. Since then the concern has been raised to the Chinese community, to the Chinese business groups and to the Minister of Labour. That issue, to me, hasn't improved today, even though some of the organizations have done some work. But the fundamental problem is that the workers still have no access to what they should do. Despite knowing what to do, they don't even know what they're entitled to.
Even in some cases where the workers feel their rights have been violated or they realize they should have certain rights, in the workplaces in the Chinese community, for the workers to stand up, to call the Ministry of Labour or call in the inspector for health and safety purposes or for workers' compensation purposes, is still a problem for the workers. They have been really intimidated by the employer. That's why we feel the only solution is to join a union and have someone to represent them, to educate them. That's the only way.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much for your presentation. I too am concerned when you suggest there's intimidation going on to your workers. You reflected on the fact that you're an immigrant from Burma. I too immigrated to Canada many years ago, and I'm sure you share my view that Canada has a great reputation for democracy and freedom.
I would suggest, first of all, that perhaps the greatest problem the workers you're referring to have is not with the existing laws, but as you have suggested, with their lack of knowledge of these laws, from the point of view of both the workers and the employers. That is a problem that is not going to be solved by this bill, I would put to you.
In that same vein, talking about democracy and freedom, which Canada has undoubtedly the best reputation in the world for, do you not think it's reasonable that workers should have the right to say no, that they don't want to join a union?
1850
Mr Ming: Absolutely. The workers have the right to choose whether they want to join a union or not. That's a basic fundamental right of workers. On the other hand, when we talk about democracy, we're talking about workers being able to have some control of their own life in the workplace. The only solution is to have some control or some say in the workplace. They invest their lives in a workplace. They are entitled, they have the right to participate in the workplace --
Mr Turnbull: They have that right today, Mr Ming.
Mr Ming: -- which in return permits them to make a living and also to provide them a healthy environment and working conditions. The only solution is to participate through the democratic system.
Mr Turnbull: I understand that, Mr Ming. They have that right today without Bill 40. I must emphasize that. But within the right to decide not to join a union, this bill has a clause that even if many of the workers wish to work, they will be prohibited from going to work under this bill. That to me seems to fly in the face of the concept of freedom and democracy.
Mr Ming: I don't see that the majority of workers will be forced to do something against their will, if it has gone through the democratic system by majority rule, if the majority has decided to change or to make any deal with the employer.
Mr Turnbull: It's very seldom that you get that many people out to cast votes in a union vote, once they're unionized, as to whether they want to work. Very often workers object to the fact that their union is going out, but they reluctantly accept it; it's just one of those things and they feel under pressure from the union to stay out. Under this law they will not be allowed to work, even if they vehemently disagree with the union's position and they're not a member of that union.
Mr Ming: I don't feel that has been the case in my organization, in my local particularly.
Mr Turnbull: I'm not saying your organization, Mr Ming.
Mr Ming: Since we were certified, up to date we had only one collective agreement settled through a strike, which only took four hours because of the solid support from the members.
Mr Turnbull: Good.
Mr Ming: We always try to negotiate in good faith. The problem is if you can build a good relationship with your employer through the union to show that you care about the business, that you care about your workers, try to build a bridge between the employer and the employee to address the problem. Actually, we are helping the employer to solve a lot of problems in dealing with -- so in my case, that's not the problem.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Ming, I have no problem with what you're saying. My problem is generally with Bill 40 and its broader implications. I have a great deal of sympathy if in fact you find that there's intimidation going on to your workers, who may not have as good a command of the language as maybe other people have, and I suspect there's great merit in what you have to say. The fact remains, though, that the application of this bill on a broader scale will mean that people who wish to work, who do not wish to be members of a union, will be forced to stay out if a strike is called. I suggest to you that smacks of being a very undemocratic move by this government. That is my concern and I'd like you to respond to that.
Mr Ming: I understand your concern. You are referring to the broader based bargaining strategy, right? I assume you are.
Mr Turnbull: I'm referring to any company where a strike vote is taken but a majority of the people don't want to be out on strike.
Mr Ming: Well, that's a strike vote, and we'll go by majority rule.
Mr Turnbull: No. You recall you agreed at the beginning of my questions that it's reasonable if somebody says he doesn't want to be a member of the union. If you've got a whole group of people who don't want to be members of the union, but they're coerced into becoming members of the union as a condition of working at this workplace because it's been organized, and they don't want to strike, I'm saying it seems very undemocratic that people who freely and willingly want to work should be disallowed to work under the terms of this law.
Mr Ming: I don't agree with that concept, because the democratic system in this country, whether it's a government or a union, is the same way. The majority of the workforce joins a union, becomes unionized and bargains collectively by elected representatives of the workers on behalf of them, and everybody pays union dues. They are protected by the binding contract and they will be served by the contract, the collective agreement, whether they like the union or not.
If they got dismissed or if they got wrongful dismissal or they were disciplined, the union has to be there. It has the obligation to serve them as a governing body, the same way as the government has. We elected a government. We voted for the government. I don't like this government. The majority voted for this government. They charge GST. I don't want to pay it but I still have to pay.
The Chair: Mr Wood, you've already given Mr Turnbull two minutes of your time and I think he's exhausted your generosity. Go ahead.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much, Mr Ming, for coming forward. I noticed with interest the last line of your presentation, "We believe Bill 40 is a step in the right direction." Although I've listened through your presentation, you're saying there should be other changes made in the years to come or whatever, but it's a step in the right direction compared to what we've presently had to live with under the two previous governments.
I notice in your presentation that you said you started in the non-union workforce. My first question would be, did you have a certification vote? How long did it take to get to that vote when you got organized?
Mr Ming: In my local? No, we got this out of automatic certification.
Mr Wood: Just for my information, Mr Turnbull was asking you a number of questions on democracy and majority: I understand when a company makes the last offer, if it's taken to the membership to vote on it, 50% plus one would ratify a contract. Is that correct? If you're out on strike, you need more than 50% of the membership to accept a last offer to go back to work.
Mr Ming: Yes.
Mr Wood: That's very similar to politics. In Ontario, on September 6, 1990, the government received 55.8% of the elected members and as a result it ended up with a majority government.
Mr Turnbull: It is 38.1% of the popular vote.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Wood: I want to ask a question on broader-based bargaining, which you covered through different areas of your presentation. I wonder, are you suggesting a hiring hall or a registration system or some kind of sectoral bargaining? I'll let you respond to that. I'm just curious.
Mr Ming: We are addressing the problem. We are addressing the fundamental right for equity for the workers. If the workers in the larger workplaces can have a representative for them to bargain for their benefits and conditions, why don't workers in the small workplace have that right? This is what we're trying to address. But how to establish that kind of broader-based bargaining? That's why we recommend the government to set up a task force to look at this.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ming. The committee is grateful to you, as the spokesperson for the Chinese Workers' Association of Metropolitan Toronto, for your interest in this matter, for your participation in this process and for your valuable contribution to this committee's work. Of course, you're invited, as well as anybody else who wishes, to stay for the balance of the evening. We'll be hearing presentations through until approximately 8:30.
Mr Ming: Thank you very much.
[Applause]
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I hope they applaud me.
The Chair: I'm confident that applause was for Mr Ming, not for me, notwithstanding that I wish it were otherwise.
1900
HAMILTON AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce having a seat. Your written material has already been distributed. It will form part of the record. It'll be made an exhibit.
People should know that the TV monitoring by the legislative broadcast system is done by technicians who are not in the room; it's done by remote. They do an excellent job of keeping track of people who are speakers and presenters. We are very fortunate to have those people working for the legislative broadcast service and we are thankful to them.
Mrs Marland: And they're not unionized.
The Chair: Maybe they will be, after Bill 40, if it ever does get passed. Who knows? You never can tell. Go ahead, people.
Mr Bill Filer: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to present our views to this committee. My name is Bill Filer. I am appearing before you in my capacity as the president of the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce. I am also president in my wage-earning life of Filer Consultants, a consulting engineering firm in the greater Hamilton region.
With me tonight are Mr Gerry Brown, a member of our human resources committee, and Lee Kirkby, the executive director of our chamber. I'll read from the prepared text, which I think you now have copies of, in order to maintain our time schedule.
On behalf of the 850 corporate members of the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce and the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and organizations that have not had an opportunity to appear before the legislative committee on resources development on the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, we are appearing before you to express our views on this very important piece of legislation.
The Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce for over 145 years has served as the voice of the greater Hamilton business community in support of policies that encourage the development of business and therefore employment in our area. Our membership comprises small and large companies representing all sectors of business and commerce and employing over 50,000 people.
The chamber has prepared this brief report to address the issues of Ontario labour relations reform as outlined in the minister's proposals. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to appear before the public hearings that the Minister of Labour held in Hamilton in January. However, we were disappointed in the government's reaction to the input given at those public hearings and hope that further modifications to the proposals will be made.
In our January submission, we outlined the impact of this legislation on the greater Hamilton business community, and we do not intend to cover all of that same material again tonight. However, most of it is still applicable, and therefore we have with us enough copies of that report to distribute to you today so that you can see directly how this legislation will impact the greater Hamilton business community.
Our findings reveal that job losses in our area could amount to almost 24,000 jobs if this legislation is passed. Future investment or expansion plans in the amount of $547 million could also be lost in the greater Hamilton area. While these figures were based on the first draft of the legislation, for the most part our members agree that there has not been a significant enough change to the originally proposed legislation to discount the figures to any great degree. These legislative changes will have a devastating effect on our community.
In this brief presentation, we will attempt to cover some of the issues pertaining to the bill and offer some suggestions for improvement in the legislation, as provided to us by our members. We would hope that the legislative committee would consider these suggestions in clause-by-clause analysis of the impacts of such proposals before proceeding with any recommendations.
Bill 40 is supposed to protect the rights of individuals, to allow freedom of choice to be represented by a union and to foster cooperative approaches between employers and unions to increase worker participation in the workforce. In several instances, Bill 40 fails in these purposes.
The act is being transformed from one which protects employees who wish to organize to being one where it is the express purpose of the act to encourage, enhance or facilitate organizing and collective bargaining. This unnecessarily advances the interests of trade unions at the expense of both individuals and business.
The purpose clause should not be altered to promote the interests of unions in advance of those of individuals and employers.
It fails to protect the rights of an individual to choose to belong to a union by allowing a 40% threshold for employees. Furthermore, the proposals provide for automatic certification on 55% of employees joining a union. When coupled with the following provisions, the results totally disfranchise the individual who is not part of the 55% who have agreed to be represented by a union. They are left with no recourse to opt out, short of leaving their employment. They will be automatically assimilated into the union process.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights of the individual and protect the democratic process of self-determination by providing for a supervised secret ballot vote for unionization to occur. In addition, there should be a requirement for prospective members to be given full disclosure of the costs of union membership prior to their signing of a union membership card.
It fails to protect the rights of an individual who is part of that 55% who have decided to join the union in an organizing drive, as there is no cooling-off process provided in the proposals. Consumers have more protection of their personal interests through the rights enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act, wherein cooling-off processes are provided in law.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights of the individual by providing a cooling-off period of at least 48 hours to withdraw from union membership in an organizing drive.
It fails to protect the rights of an individual who may wish to continue to work during a strike.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights of the individual by providing the option for an employee to work during a strike. The bill should also reflect the government's Industrial Policy Framework for Ontario, in which individual sectors of the economy are treated differently. More appropriate regulations providing specific provisions reflecting the needs of individual industry sectors would be more appropriate with regard to replacement workers and the right to refuse to strike for union members.
Bill 40 should allow for family members of owner-operators, as well as employees from other company sites, to be eligible to work in the event of a strike.
It fails to protect the rights and property of an individual by allowing third-party picketing.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights and reinforce the security of an individual and his or her property as the highest priority by establishing strict codes of conduct and restriction of hours of picketing. Stiff penalties for violations to these codes and restrictions should also be reflected in the bill.
Bill 40 should necessitate that the parties file, as a precondition to strike or lockout, a strike or lockout code of conduct which will provide a set of mutually agreeable conditions under which the parties will protect the public safety and interest while engaging in their dispute.
It fails to protect the rights of the individual by enshrining into law the practice of first-contract arbitration within 30 days, a process which discourages fair and earnest negotiations on either side.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights of the individual by providing a more reasonable approach to first-contract arbitration, with a monitoring process by the board to ensure that fair and open checks are being implemented on both sides.
1910
It fails to provide for competition among employee groups in the process of contracting services by stipulating that employees from one contract group must accompany the contract to the next successful contractor group. Contract law provides a fundamental rule of privity of contract, whereby a third party cannot be bound to the provisions of a contract between two other parties. This fundamental principle is violated by this provision. This provision of Bill 40 calls the whole basis of Canadian contract law into question and has the ability to cause total chaos in resolving contracting disputes.
Bill 40 should respect the sanctity of contract law and retain the privity of contract between parties. This provision should be substantially altered or removed completely.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights of the individual employers to hire who they wish to fulfil their contracts and thus operate their businesses in a manner they deem necessary to best serve the needs of their clients and customers.
It fails to protect the rights of the individual with respect to personal privacy in decisions relating to certification, representation, strike and ratification votes. These votes are not required to be taken as a supervised secret ballot and therefore are open to coercion and tampering.
Bill 40 should enshrine the rights of the individual by providing that certification, representation, strike and ratifications votes of a collective agreement be mandatory in all cases and be required to be conducted as supervised secret ballots.
It fails to develop a system for funding of the labour board process on a user-pay basis. These amendments will necessitate further government spending to implement. The means to pay for these costs should not be placed upon the general taxpayers but should be borne by the parties involved.
Bill 40 should include recommendations to encourage a user-pay process for funding the work of the OLRB, such as special penalties for violation of a provincial code of conduct on picket lines, contributions to the costs from union dues to help pay for the work of the OLRB and a user-pay system for arbitration.
The Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce believes that business people have individual rights as human beings in this province and that, in its current form, Bill 40 infringes on those rights as well as many other rights of individual employees as a whole.
We believe that a true consultation process is needed, one that works by starting from the understanding that all parties to the issue have genuine concerns. This means a process that breaks through the barriers of hostility and mutual distrust. We encourage a process that has all stakeholders sit down to understand the needs of all parties and to see if common ground can be found. We know that the proposals in Bill 40 are not the answer to these fundamental concerns.
It is one thing to protect an activity and declare the same to be lawful, it is quite different to say that within the province of Ontario, for all intents and purposes, a unionized business will be legally enshrined as the only way of doing business. Bill 40 seeks to create this situation in spite of the evidence that shows this is not the wish of a substantial majority of the workforce of Ontario.
We urge the government of Ontario not to proceed with Bill 40 in its present form. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have five minutes per caucus.
Mrs Marland: Mr Filer, I'd like to commend the chamber of commerce for its presentation. I think it's very well thought out and very comprehensive. Obviously, Hamilton and district, with over 850 members, has or should have a very loud voice in this province and I'm sorry you haven't been heard so far with your concerns. Obviously, you were not consulted by the current socialist government before it drafted this legislation.
I want to comment on, and ask you a question about, the importance of the supervised secret ballot. When I substituted on this committee on Monday evening this week, as I'm doing again this evening, I mentioned to the Chair at that time that the spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party, Elizabeth Witmer, is the critic for Labour in our party and that she had issued a press release on June 23 asking for a secret ballot. In fact, she tabled a private bill in the House in November 1991 requesting a secret ballot, since we could not get that concurrence from the Minister of Labour.
I think that in your brief you have outlined very carefully why the secret ballot is necessary. If we were to say, "We can't get a handle on the whole process, because the ideology of the Bob Rae government is towards unions," if we accept that as a given -- and we can't change it since it is a majority government, obviously -- if it is such a good thing for the workers of this province, in your opinion, what is it you think the government that drafted this legislation is afraid of about requiring all votes to be done by secret ballots?
What is it that you think makes them want to have public voting, as you've so well outlined here, on all certification, representation, strike and ratification votes? Why do you think it is that they are so frightened of letting people do this by secret ballot, where no one will know whether they've complied with their shop steward or anyone else who might be giving direction to them in a vote?
Mr Filer: Thank you for that question. I can only speculate since I do not know what is in the minds of the NDP government and the proposers of the legislation. However, it would be fair to say that in a democratic process, it seems the secret ballot is one of the fundamentals we treasure very deeply. I am not familiar enough with the current union operation to know whether secret ballots are normal, but I see no reason why, when legislation is being proposed, the fundamental democratic right of the secret ballot would not be included as an element of extreme fairness and protection for people under these circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Ward.
Mrs Marland: Was that five minutes, Mr Chair?
The Chair: It was four minutes and 25 seconds.
Mr Ward: The issue of replacement worker restrictions is very contentious, to say the least. During the hearings over the last few weeks, as well as in the primary consultation period of early spring, I don't think there's been one proponent of Bill 40, or proponent for updating the labour act, who has said the entire replacement worker restriction should be removed. In fact, many of the proponents have said it should be tightened, that under Bill 40 there are too many loopholes.
There have been some suggestions that part of the process should involve a tripartite system where business, labour and government get together, take a look at the act and come up with a consensus and recommendations. Since the feeling in the labour movement is so strong for anti-replacement-worker restrictions, what type of restrictions can the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce support? It seems to me if that process is to work, we have to have something. What restrictions would you see the chamber supporting as far as restricting replacement workers is concerned?
1920
Mr Filer: I'd like to ask our executive director, Lee Kirkby, to answer that, if I may, please.
Mr Lee Kirkby: We're obviously here to represent our companies and the employees they're concerned about, the people they pay wages to and to whom they give employment. Frankly, we have not had an opportunity in this whole process to analyse what elements of a particular situation there might be some value in in replacement workers being restricted or not. That's one of the difficulties of the whole process we've argued about, which is that there's never been an opportunity to sit down and deal with a single issue like that and say, "In this instance there may be some benefit to looking at alterations," or not, because it's been all or nothing in the whole process since this legislation was tabled some two and a half months ago.
At the present time, I think the thing people have to deal with is that our members are responding to what's before them. They don't see any situation where it's acceptable as it's presented at the present time. If what you're talking about is finding a compromise route, this process is not going to lead us to a compromise, because there's no opportunity for us to discuss a compromise.
Mr Ward: There have been opportunities for other groups to submit additional information. I would appreciate it if you could take that issue back to your membership and come up with what you think would be appropriate in restricting replacement workers and provide that for this committee. We'll be meeting well into this month, and probably in October as well.
Hamilton is just down the road from my fine community of Brantford. In fact, many of my constituents work in one of your plants, Camco, which has, and I hope will continue to have, a long association with Hamilton.
You're opposed to or have concerns under Bill 40 about the ability of security guards to select a union of their choice and you have some concerns about the restrictions on petitions, although you do qualify that by saying, "If the restrictions are in place, we should have a secret ballot." Both those issues are in every other jurisdiction in Canada, in every other province, and they seem to work without much controversy. Yet the secret ballot is not part of the process; it is, but they still have the automatic certification ability as well in every other jurisdiction.
I'm not sure if the chamber was aware of that upon receiving that information, and this may be the first time. Would you still have opposition, seeing how it is in place everywhere else in Canada? It seems to be working without undue stress on the ability of business to conduct their operations.
Mr Filer: I guess I would like to partly answer that by posing a question to Mr Ward that simply says, is a secret ballot commonly used in the union movement to arrive at decisions?
Mr Ward: Sorry?
Mr Filer: Is the use of a secret ballot in common use in the union movement in Canada? That's a fact I really don't know, and apparently you should know that.
Mr Ward: The secret ballot is in use when it comes to strike votes, when it comes to collective agreement ratification. Throughout Canada the secret ballot is in place if, during an organizing drive, a certain percentage of support is not gathered -- there are limits -- primarily 55%. If you can prove 55% support, it's automatic certification.
Mr Filer: It's my understanding that the proposal in the legislation is that a secret ballot in that initial organizing move is not required, is not contemplated. I guess my question is, why, if the ballot is otherwise in common use in the country?
The Chair: Thank you. I agree, Ms Marland, five minutes of Mr Ward asking questions seemed much longer than five minutes of you asking questions, but there's nothing we can do about that.
Mr Phillips: Thank you very much to the chamber. I guess I would just give the chamber an observation and then ask a question. I think Premier Rae, as he looks at the economy, has always said: "We're going to pull out of our economic malaise through partnerships. We're going to get business and labour working together." I frankly have seen nothing in his economic recovery plan to give me any hope, but that's what he talks about.
This exercise we're going through has really caused me to become depressed about that possibility. There has not been, I don't think, a leader in the labour movement who's come before the committee who hasn't universally condemned the business community, not just parts of the business community but the whole business community. You've been called spoiled crybabies, hysterical. It's been said that you want to start class warfare, that you care nothing about the workers. It seems like the labour movement's dug in, has made up its mind about the business community.
On the other side, we've heard universally from the business community, without exception -- I can't find one business person, and I challenge the government to find me one business person, to bring him before us, who says that this is going to be good for creating jobs in Ontario. Find me one.
In any event, my question to the chamber is this: I hate to be a pessimist about this, but the government members have shown no intention of accepting any significant amendments. We'll know that in a few weeks. But assume this passes, and then the government says: "Let's get on with our partnerships. Sorry about that little interruption, but let's get on with the partnerships to build the economy." How do you see things unfolding over the next two to three years in our Ontario economy when this essentially is the law?
Mr Filer: To be very brief and succinct about it, I think very badly. I think what is developing because of the denial of the Bob Rae government of any of the adverse effects which the business community is predicting -- they say we're prejudiced and those things aren't going to happen, to just keep going the way we are and see they don't happen. In fact they've already begun to happen. Mr Phillips, we've seen lots of things like free trade being blamed for the economic difficulties we are in, which in my view is a red herring. Those difficulties are there and we understand them, but the fact of the matter is that the lack of trust and willingness to be a team player in this whole issue of labour-management relationships is fundamentally getting worse day by day. The confidence of the business community to further invest in this province is being decreased by the hour, and I don't see that being reversed under the present form of the proposed legislation.
The Chair: Gentlemen, the committee expresses its gratitude to you as spokespeople for the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce and to the chamber and its members for their interest in this legislation and for your participation here. We apologize for the late hour and trust that it wasn't grossly inconvenient to you, but we are thankful to you for coming here from Hamilton and sharing your views with us. Thank you. Take care. Have a safe trip back home.
Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I notice that there are no other presenters scheduled after 8 o'clock. Is that correct?
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Turnbull: Did we have a cancellation, then?
The Chair: No.
The next participant is the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chair --
The Chair: Thank you, Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce. After we're finished with the 8 o'clock presenter, we'll entertain all the business any members want to raise, but we've got people who were scheduled here who --
Interjection.
The Chair: By all means. Feel free to stay or go as you wish. People were scheduled here and we'll not use their time. We could raise points of order promptly at 8:30 when the last group is completed.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chair, I have the right to raise a point of order at any time.
The Chair: Okay. Raise the point of order and tell me what it is.
Mr Turnbull: There's a gentleman who's sitting in the audience who was here all of yesterday evening. He's been refused time at the committee and I see that we are supposed to be sitting till 9 o'clock. I'm sure he would like to be heard. I'm sorry, I don't know his name and I don't know the organization, but I know he has an interesting point of view and he left a brief on everybody's desk yesterday evening. Could he be heard at 8:30, so that he could prepare for it now?
The Chair: I was chastised when we were travelling about and was told by committee members, as is their right to tell me, not to do that, so I won't do it. However, the committee can do it, as it wishes. If there's consent in that regard, I'm perfectly agreeable.
Mr Hope: No consent.
The Chair: I'm sorry?
Mr Hope: You say you are asking for consent to a point of order?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Hope: There's no consent to the point of order.
The Chair: You may want to talk to some of these people during --
Mr Turnbull: I'll make it a motion then.
The Chair: All right. We'll entertain that motion at 8:30.
1930
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
The Chair: Now the United Food and Commercial Workers are here, as it is 7:30. The UFCW is a long-time advocate of a common pause day.
Mr Art McIntosh: I'd like to start by apologizing for being late. We were scheduled for 7 o'clock, but I don't know which is worse, actually being late to get here or the fact that we might have to compete with Murphy Brown for ratings in this time slot.
The Chair: People are watching, they're interested. I thought for a minute that maybe you were mad about the Sunday shopping issue, because I am.
Mrs Marland: That's all right, Mr Chairman. I thought we'd really enjoy that debate.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr McIntosh: I'd like to start by introducing the people who are here for the United Food and Commercial Workers provincial council. We have Sister Sue Yates from UFCW Canada, an international representative of our union, and John Tremble, a UFCW researcher. I am Art McIntosh, the president of the UFCW provincial council. I'd like to thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to appear here tonight and give you our position on the OLRA amendments.
The UFCW Ontario provincial council strongly supports the position that's already been put forward by UFCW Canada and the Ontario Federation of Labour on the proposed reforms. Further, we would like to commend the government on its approach to this legislation and the fact that we are going through public meetings such as these.
The Ontario provincial council represents in excess of 70,000 workers in Ontario in a multitude of workplaces, including retail food, industrial locations such as meatpacking houses, poultry and canning facilities, as well as brewery and soft drink workers, just to name a few. Ideally, we would have preferred to be able to address all of the major areas the amendments speak to; however, since time is limited, we'd like to highlight some of the major areas that we feel are essential to the workers of this province.
The first proposed amendment that I will address is replacement workers or, as we call them, scabs. At the turn of the 1980s, I was involved in a strike, and I'd like to share some of the problems that we faced as workers on the picket line, just to give you a better understanding of why change in this area of the act is so very vitally important.
We were trying to establish a first contract with an unwilling employer. As workers, the issues were derived from some basic needs, including modest wage increases, job security, seniority recognition and health and safety concerns. Unfortunately, these were definitely not the issues of the employer, whose only visible concerns were focused around maintaining profits and customer service, and it was mostly about breaking our workers' will and the union that we had established in that location.
Let me explain some of the hardships that were felt by the workers when they were confronted with a strike situation. Their incomes were lost and they were replaced by a mere $40-a-week strike pay. Even in 1980, you couldn't feed a family of four on $40 a week. Their health care benefits were cut off, leaving them to pay their own medical expenses.
As the months passed, many were forced by creditors and banks to give up their homes or find alternative ways of payment, like selling personal items or seeking employment elsewhere. Even the basics became luxuries to these workers. Try telling a child that he can't attend piano lessons any more because mom and dad can't afford them or, even worse, later having to tell that same child that you have to sell the piano just to pay the rent.
These are some of the bitter realities that were faced by workers in this and other strikes as they walked the line, while employers adopt a business-as-usual attitude through hiring replacement workers, scabs, and turning their backs on the employees who had been employed there for six to 10 years.
These workers were only looking for fundamental rights and needs to be met. It's no wonder violence broke out on the picket line when confronted with the employer's lack of caring for the workers. After several months of bitter confrontation, the strike was lost, as were the jobs of those who were on strike, and all because an employer was allowed to use scab labour to continue his business. In retrospect, it is my heartfelt belief that if anti-scab legislation would have been in place at the time of that strike, the outcome would have been significantly different.
I'd like to commend the Minister of Labour for introducing the amendments in this area, and I would like you to keep in mind that over 95% of our collective agreements in Ontario are settled without going on strike, which means that the amendments themselves will have a minimal effect. Contrary to what some business interests would lead you to believe, we believe the amendments go a long way towards creating fairer, more balanced rules for workers who opt for a legal strike or are victimized by an employer's lockout.
In the event of a legal strike or lockout, the amendments would see strikes shortened and picket line violence reduced, as not only the workers would be pressed to reach an agreement, but so would the employer. These amendments will not lead to more strikes. To the contrary, they'll make the threat of the strike more credible, thereby promoting settlement at the bargaining table.
Further to the proposed amendments, we feel additional changes are required to increase their effectiveness.
The requirement of a 60% majority strike vote should be replaced by one of a simple majority of over 50%, as we strongly believe in the principle that majority rules. Further to this provision, allowing supervisors and non-bargaining unit employees at the location of the strike to continue the work of striking members will only pit worker against worker, and we'll see the effectiveness of the threat of strikes severely reduced. We would urge the government to delete this provision in the final draft of the legislation.
Notably, the restrictions on performing bargaining unit work only apply to the location where a strike is occurring, thus allowing the employer to legally shift bargaining unit work to another geographic location. This will only further erode the intent and the effectiveness of the replacement worker provision and should also be deleted.
Regarding membership fees being eliminated, the $1 membership fee will no longer have to be paid by an employee in order to become a member for the purpose of certification. While this is not going to make it easier for unions to convince workers to become trade union members, its main effect will be to make it easier to show union membership before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We support this proposal as it eliminates one of the objections an employer might use to delay or frustrate the certification application.
Under the existing law, an individual has to pay $1 to a trade union in order to become a member of the trade union for certification. The union has to submit documentation -- evidence -- to prove the payment and the receipt. These requirements lead to some disputes over whether or not the dollar was actually paid and what the effect is if someone pays $1 on someone else's behalf. Several applications for certification have been dismissed because of non-payment of $1. Many applications have also been delayed by unfounded allegations of non-payment.
The $1 membership fee can also confuse a person whom you're trying to organize. I can recall organizing campaigns where some people thought that the $1 I was collecting was my commission. I had to further explain to these people that I don't receive a commission, that I'm a volunteer and that the $1 was mandated by the government. Abolishing this $1 fee will eliminate delays and expenses associated with board hearings over this issue.
In the area of successor rights, Bill 40 amendments to the act concerning successor rights on the sale of a business represent welcome improvements. A successor employer will now be more obliged to take the place of the former employer in relation to the trade union in an expanded number of situations, including a proceeding before the board under any act, a proceeding before any person or body under this act or a proceeding before the board or another person or body pertaining to a collective agreement. These amendments are designed to ensure that bargaining rights and obligations are not delayed or avoided by the sale of business by making the successor replace the former employer to the extent possible.
Under the current provisions, problems have arisen as the parties have had to return to the beginning of the bargaining process if the business is sold during negotiations. It has led to costly duplication of effort as well as frustrating delay to the union members. With these amendments, the successor employer will be bound by any and all terms that have already been negotiated. Statutory obligations and the grievance provisions of the pre-existing collective agreement will now remain in effect
1940
What is still missing from these provisions is the inclusion of the sale of assets in the sale of the business. Successor rights is one of the most important issues to UFCW and we want to raise it because our members are hurt more than any other organization in this area, and we're very concerned that the amendments don't go far enough.
The provincial council is concerned that the proposed amendments will not adequately deal with situations where there has been a sale of assets and a purchaser conducts similar business activities on the same premises. Under the current act, this kind of transfer is not generally deemed to be a sale of business and is not covered by successor rights.
In our UFCW, Canada submission there are several examples of board decisions where somebody has moved out of a grocery store or food store or a retail unit in a shopping plaza, and there is no sale of business as such. In some of these sales the only things that they've bought are shelves, and they sublet the premises. If the previous employer had other stores in the province or in the area, the people we represented in the store were moved to other locations where possible, and now the new employer is doing the same kind of business. It could be a food store again, with no change, and the employer will be attracting the same customers as the previous one.
The board has found that this is not the sale of business but the sale of assets. So each time there is a closure, especially in a single-location store and somebody buys that store and puts in the same kind of operation, our members are out of work and we can't represent them. Almost every day in this province there's sale of assets but no sale of business and UFCW finds itself in a position where we have to go back and reorganize the store again and again.
We believe successor rights are of important interest to both the workers and business owners. What we propose to you in section 64 is that the "sale of business" includes significant sale of assets to an employer where the employees are engaged in similar work at the premises as that of the vendor of the assets who conducted business there before.
The government of Ontario is to be commended for initiating a full consultation process enabling views to be heard on the proposed amendments to the labour law. The UFCW provincial council strongly urges that the sale of assets be included in these reforms, as Bill 40 represents a progressive package of provisions that will help working people in Ontario maintain and advance their standard of living and their quality of life.
At this point in time I'd like ask John Tremble to go through a situation where we had a sale of assets.
Mr John Tremble: One of the issues I wanted to raise is one that was also raised by our Canadian director, Tom Kukovica, during his presentations, in which he raised the issue of successor rights once again.
In our submission, you'll note at the end we attach a number of labour relations board summary cases which raise the issue of successor rights. One of our union locals, Local 175, had a case before the board in which it was going against Steinberg on behalf of Miracle Food Mart.
In this instance the application rose out of the operation of a Dutch Boy store in Kitchener, Ontario, and on those premises Steinberg had previously operated a Miracle Food Mart store. From April 1980 to June 1986, Steinberg operated Miracle Food Mart in the Laurentian Heights shopping centre, which is owned by the developer Community Expansion. In that case, the UFCW sought a declaration under section 63 of the act that Dutch Boy's acquisition of the store lease and fixtures and leasehold improvements constitute a sale under the act, making Dutch Boy a successor employer.
The board found, which is typical of a number of cases of this nature, that Steinberg surrendered to Community Expansion its right to occupy the store. What generally happens in these cases is that the stores rent their space from the shopping store developers and then when they cease their business they give the premises back to the shopping mall.
In this case, Steinberg withdrew from the Kitchener-Waterloo market and Dutch Boy expanded its business into the former Steinberg premises. The board found that this transaction did not constitute a sale of business under section 63 of the act and as a result the application was dismissed. So what we are advocating in our position is that the definition of the sale of business include a significant sale of assets to an employer where the employees are engaged in the same type of or similar work at the same premises the vendor of the assets conducted its business. We believe this sort of amendment to the act would be quite beneficial in the long term.
The Chair: Thank you. We have four minutes per caucus. Four minutes, Mr Hope, please.
Mr Hope: Just four minutes? Okay. There are a couple of areas I'd like to touch on. First of all, there's getting rid of the dollar. As a matter of fact I was talking to one of my friends at lunch today and he thought it was a ploy by Mulroney. They got rid of the paper dollar because we could no longer staple it to the membership card. He was saying that one of the problems with the loonie is it creates a lot of holes in his pockets and then the money falls out of his pocket. It was just a ploy of the Tory party to get rid of unions.
The other area I wish to talk about is that the emphasis has been on replacement workers quite a bit lately. I was noticing today we had one of the national unions come before us to make a presentation. I got reading the pamphlet here and not all chambers of commerce -- I notice you're Canadian, an international union -- are against replacement workers. As a matter of fact, this president of Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce supported the miners against replacement workers. They make it very clear, because one of the areas he touches on is that there are jobs, "It's our community and these people spend the money in our community and it's not fair."
The area you really bring up, and I think is one that's been talked about very heavily, is around replacement workers. Project Economic Growth says that workers should be out on the street for 60 days before we can implement the replacement worker legislation. You just brought up about the $50 or $100 provided to feed a family of four and it's a big decrease in the pay.
I just want your viewpoint because you are democratically elected; some other people wish to make other people believe that you're not democratically elected by secret ballot. I think it's important that you're working on the shop floor, understanding what's going on, how a family feels about receiving strike pay versus a normal weekly pay.
Mr McIntosh: Quite obviously, I think you've already answered the question yourself in the fact that I would like to make it very clear to everyone who is sitting here that I am a rank-and-file member. I do not work for the union on a full-time basis. I work for Zehrs Markets in Guelph, Ontario.
I can tell you the hardship workers feel when they are on the picket line, even for one week, with the minimal amount of pay they receive and the amount of degradation they have to go through watching other people come in and take their jobs. Quite often, employers will be willing to pay premium rates -- actually pay scab labour more than they would pay their regular workers -- just so they can cross the picket line and go into work. As I said, it's no wonder you get into a situation where you have extensive violence on the picket line based on those kinds of conditions.
Mr Ward: The UFCW is a very progressive trade union. The membership I think are forward-looking. Do you have examples of where the UFCW has cooperated and worked as a team with the employers for the betterment of both?
Mr McIntosh: Most definitely. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1977, the organization I'm a proud member of -- and I'm very proud of my employer, Zehrs Markets, also. We have a joint facility in Cambridge, Ontario, where extensive training goes on between the employer and the union to make sure we have members in our workplace who are trained to the utmost possibilities in their positions as meat cutters, bakers, department heads, assistant store managers. It's a joint effort and it works very effectively.
Ms Sue Yates: Zehrs is part of the National Grocers group and in one particular instance last January the UFCW national office, with National Grocers, cosponsored a conference on balancing work and family responsibility, which is a joint partnership initiative that goes to show that we have to not only look at the concerns of putting bread and butter on the table, but also look at the issues and concerns of the workers and the company to be competitive and to be in a position to be productive as well.
1950
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. There was one aspect in your presentation which I would like to explore with you a little bit this evening. This presentation, I think, was made in Kingston?
Mr McIntosh: Not this presentation, no. The brief you have received may be similar to those that you have had before.
Mr Offer: Yes, because there's one area which appears in both, and I've been asking questions on this because I think it's a terrific idea; that is, to provide an employer with a notice of the organizing campaign, a copy of which would be sent to the board. This notice would provide the name of the employer, the name of the union, a general description of those employees the union is seeking to organize and the lawful rights and obligations of employees, employers and unions according to the act. I think that is an absolutely wonderful suggestion.
I just want to say that I've been asking people this, and they seem to be a little reticent about this type of notice, which would provide, to workers, their rights. I must say, in all candour, that it's unions that are opposed to this type of notice. I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
Ms Yates: Okay, but it goes hand in hand too with an organizing drive.
Mr Offer: Sure.
Ms Yates: As it stands right now, we've been painted with a brush of some sort of taking workers into dark alleyways and signing them up. We're asking for the employee lists, and in return for the employee lists, as a gesture of good-faith bargaining, we also give the information about the union. You have an open concept. The whole aspect is to try not to be adversarial but to work in a harmonious type of relationship to the benefit of workers. Number one, we go to Webster's dictionary and the definition of a labour union is people -- not the unions, not the bad guys, but people -- working collectively together to better the working conditions. Why should we always be in an adversarial type of role with one another? We're there for the benefit of all.
Mr Offer: I agree with you.
The Chair: Two minutes.
Mr McGuinty: That issue is one that we've raised, I guess, numerous times. I just want to second my colleague's comments to the effect that we're very pleased to see that kind of recommendation. Any genuine effort to lift the shroud of secrecy which you referred to here would, I think, be of benefit to both the employer and the employees.
I want to talk about something else you made reference to, though, and that's disciplinary action during an organizing campaign. The thrust of your presentation here in connection with that matter has been to ensure that an employer is made accountable for any reprehensible activity -- any intimidation, coercion or threat of dismissal -- when there's an organizing drive under way. I agree with that 100%.
Bill 40 beefs up the penalty provisions. It provides that if there is any evidence of that and it's proven before the board, there is automatic certification, a pretty significant penalty. However, just as there are good and bad employers --
The Chair: Ms Marland, do you want Mr McGuinty to have some of your time?
Mr McGuinty: -- I'm sure you will recognize there are good and bad organizers. We've had evidence of some --
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, Ms Marland doesn't want you to have any of her time.
Mr McGuinty: I'm just wondering if you might see the need for some kind of a provision to call for organizers --
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Marland. It's your time.
Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I really appreciate some of the viewpoints you're putting forth this evening, and I have a lot of concern with some of the others. I thought it was really significant that you said, "We're happy we're going through these public hearings, such as this evening."
I want you to know that if the government had had its way, there would have been no public hearings on Bill 40 whatsoever. We had to give up substantially, and to have the rules of this Ontario Legislature changed, in order to get something that we felt we needed on behalf of the public of this province; namely, the hearings on this significant legislation. I just want you to understand that was not the wish of the government which you're here supporting tonight.
I'm very concerned when you talk in your executive summary on page 2. There are two things I want to ask you about specifically. You say here: "We urge the government to eliminate petitions altogether as well as an individual's ability to revoke union membership during certification. A worker who wishes to decertify may do so in the normal manner by applying to the Ontario Labour Relations Board prior to the termination of the collective agreement." I really wonder how you feel, with such a strong statement against an individual worker's rights, that you are here speaking on behalf of workers as a whole in the province.
The other question I have directly is to you, Sue Yates. You're recommending that where a trade union has 10 legitimate membership cards signed, the employer must immediately forward to the trade union a copy of the list of employees, which must be provided to the board. I ask you, as woman to woman, if you can defend that recommendation. Do you not have any concerns about the names and addresses particularly of vulnerable female employees in any workplace in this province, when their names and addresses would be given out to union members for certification drives?
Mr Wood: Management has them.
Mrs Marland: Management has them and management needs to have them. They're employees. It's not a question of management having a list. That's a ludicrous interjection, I would suggest, Mr Wood.
Ms Yates: I'm going to answer the second part of your question first, because as woman to woman, I worked in a grocery store that was non-unionized for about four years, and I'll tell you that I wish somebody had contacted me from a union. I was sexually harassed. If I didn't come across to the store manager, my job was threatened.
I wasn't out there working for pin money. I was out there working because my family needed the income. I had two small kids and I was married. I lived in a small community where you couldn't say a damn word, because it would get all over the community, which would cause problems for me and my husband and my family.
I was just lucky enough that somebody else in my workplace also was having problems with the store manager. We were scared. The majority of us were part-time. There were very few people who were full-time. If it weren't for the full-time people encouraging us part-time women -- because you've got to understand, in a grocery store, the majority of workers are women.
Mrs Marland: Of course.
Ms Yates: They're not always students. A lot of them are women out there trying to better their family life.
I went through hell. I knew there was something wrong. I knew some type of law was being broken, but I didn't know where to turn. I didn't know that I could go to the labour board, I didn't know about employment standards rights, because, let's face it, society does not educate women on what their rights are.
We're supposed to look after the family, bring in whatever little income we can, but we're part of the family unit. We're there to make sure the family runs okay. We're not supposed to get involved in politics per se, the business aspects per se of the business that we maybe work in. Now that's starting to change, but I will tell you, personally, I was scared, very scared. Maybe if a union had had a list of the workers and it didn't have to be secret -- because in my community, the majority of union organizers to date are male.
In small towns and villages in this province, a couple of men go knocking on a door, knowing that the husband, or whoever, is at work, and you've got other people in that community looking at that house and saying, "How come these two men are there?" and they know for sure they're not Jehovah's Witnesses. Then the rumours go around town. If there had been a list and I had been contacted by phone, I could have talked to my husband and said: "There are some union people around. They'd like to talk to me about a union. Would you please sit here with me while they come over?"
2000
Another thing that I have learned about women, and learned greatly, is that they don't just get up and speak out without knowing a lot about an issue first. They research and find out everything they can about a subject before they'll make a comment on it. We don't tend to have our counterparts' ability to get up and maybe not know a lot about a topic. We have to know it inside and out, and maybe that's where the phrase comes from when men will say to women, "Don't say, `I told you so.'"
I know that's what I did. Before I signed that card to join a union, I had to know the dues structure, I had to know what it was going to offer me as a person and how it was going to benefit not just me but my family. I don't think that in certain cases where the lists are made available -- I mean, for crying out loud, how much junk mail do you get? I know I get a lot. You subscribe to Maclean's magazine, and the next thing you know your name's on a list.
When this deals with your livelihood, when it deals with job security -- I'll tell you I don't wish for another woman to have to go through what I did: being threatened, on the job, for sexual favours; being discriminated against and made to work the worst hours possible in a week that you had to work; plus, at the time before Sunday shopping came about, when Saturday was supposed to be the part of the weekend with your family, having to work every weekend, every Saturday, from store opening to store closing and all the night-time shifts. My children have gone to bed at night without their mother being able to tuck them in, and I've had to be at work the next morning before I could have the chance to send them off. I'm sorry. That is dear to my heart.
Mrs Marland: You don't think the existing laws protect you?
Ms Yates: No, I don't.
Mrs Marland: Even if you were familiar with them?
Ms Yates: No, I don't. I saw what the store manager I worked under did to the employees, not just to me but to other workers in that workplace.
Mrs Marland: Obviously, none of us in this room condone the experience you have had, and I share the concern that women in this province do not know they are protected today under existing provincial statutes from sexual harassment or any kind of intimidation in the workplace. They are protected today without this bill. My concern is that this bill in fact goes against 70% of the workforce which is not unionized in this province today.
In your brief you're saying that when workers wish to revoke their union membership during certification, you won't even give them that right. I think I'm very concerned about the individual worker's rights, and they're not being addressed in the recommendations you're making here.
I am sympathetic to the jeopardy of women in the workplace in any circumstance, but I believe that through education -- and it's the responsibility of all of us for the education; the fact that you didn't know what your rights were and that women today don't know what their rights are. But the fact is that they are protected today by existing statutes in Ontario. It's up to government and employers, I may suggest, to make sure that everyone knows what their rights are when they go to work.
Ms Yates: Unfortunately, we're not out there to learn what our rights are as workers; we're out there to make a living. If you've tried --
Mrs Marland: We know what our rights are with UIC --
The Chair: Go ahead, please.
Ms Yates: If you've tried to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission or with WCB, and when the majority of workers we represent are in part-time work, especially in the service sector industry, you're not out there to make a career, you're out there to make a living, because there isn't a career in the service sector and there isn't a career with part-time.
The Chair: Thank you kindly to the United Food and Commercial Workers, Ontario provincial council. To you, Mr McIntosh and Mr Tremble, and to you, Ms Yates, this committee expresses its gratitude for your contribution to this process. You've provided valuable input and we are indeed grateful to you. Thank you kindly. Take care.
RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
The Chair: The next participant is the Railway Association of Canada, if those people speaking for the Railway Association of Canada would please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names, their titles, if any, and proceed with their submissions. They've filed, and it is an exhibit, a written brief which will become part of the record. They can read part of it or all of it, but whichever way they do it, we'd very much like for them to keep the last half of the half-hour for questions and dialogue.
Mr Bob Ballantyne: My name is Bob Ballantyne and I'm the president of the Railway Association of Canada, the trade association of the Canadian railway industry. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the standing committee to comment on Bill 40, which will amend various provisions of the Employment Standards Act and other related acts.
The RAC was founded in 1917 to coordinate Canadian railway activities in the First World War, and the RAC provides a forum for developing common standards and practices for the industry and is the vehicle through which the Canadian railway industry works with the Association of American Railroads to develop continent-wide standards.
The letters patent, granted in 1953, state that one of the objectives of the association is to make representation to any level of government on matters of common interest to the members. Bill 40 is of interest to all our member companies that operate in Ontario.
The 23 member railways of the RAC account for over 98% of all railway activity in Canada, both passenger and freight, in an industry that has revenues of approximately $6 billion. Among our 23 members, the following operate in Ontario: CN, CP, Via, Algoma Central Railway, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, Essex Terminal Railway, GO Transit, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern Corp and Wisconsin Central.
There are several proposals included in Bill 40 that are of concern to the railways and these were discussed in some detail in our written brief. This evening we would like to present the highlights of that brief and we'd be pleased to answer questions.
I'd like to introduce the other members of our delegation: Don Brazier, who's assistant vice-president, industrial relations, CP Rail, Mickey Healy, who's director of labour relations, CN, and Blake Olson, who's the regional manager of human resources for Canadian National in Toronto. Mr Brazier will make the presentation based on the brief, and the other members of the delegation will comment and answer questions as appropriate.
Mr Don Brazier: Ladies and gentlemen, for your information, what I'm about to read is a summary of the brief. It tries to capture the salient points we made in the submission.
Given the extent of railway operations in Ontario, the RAC, which is the acronym for the Railway Association of Canada, naturally has a high level of interest in Bill 40. We have identified three specific areas of concern. These are: the successor rights proposals, specifically the transfer from federal to provincial jurisdiction, use of replacement workers and third-party picketing.
The first I'd like to talk about is successor rights. The proposed legislation on successor rights, if enacted, will have a negative impact on future rail transportation services in Ontario. Section 30 of the bill would provide for the successor rights provision of the Labour Relations Act to apply when there is a sale of business resulting in a transfer of labour jurisdiction from federal to provincial responsibility. This proposal impacts on current developments in the railway industry, ie, the establishment of short-line railway operations, a procedure legally sanctioned in the National Transportation Act.
2010
The RAC strongly believes that the very notion of a transfer of business from federal to provincial jurisdiction presupposes that the fundamental nature of the business is going to be altered. It follows, therefore, that to automatically extend successor rights to cases involving such a transfer militates against the policy that bargaining rights should only be preserved where there is continuity of a business and it remains essentially the same.
Short-line sales are becoming more frequent as the Canadian railways try to compete in the marketplace. By "short-line sale," we mean the sale of a major railroad or a section of track, within the industry usually referred to as a subdivision, usually of 300 miles or less to another operator. In certain instances, short lines can provide the only viable alternative to lines whose operations are marginal for major railroads and which otherwise would become subject to abandonment proceedings.
The existing collective agreements within CP Rail and CN Rail -- and the industry is 85% unionized -- entitle senior employees to exercise seniority rights if a short line is approved. As well, CN and CP's collective agreements contain substantial job security benefits. Furthermore, in short lines the new operator will of course have a requirement for new employees to operate the line. The alternative of a short-line sale would appear to be advantageous to all.
If short-line operations are required by the proposed legislation to accept employees and their collective agreements, ie, successor rights apply, the short-line operators have no greater flexibility to improve operations than the railways that are trying to sell off these marginal lines. The railway industry, with its long tradition of unionization, is of course not opposed to unionized short-line operators. However, the short-line operators must be given an opportunity to negotiate their own agreements with their own unions and not have agreements imposed on them, negotiated with respect to entirely different railroad operations running from coast to coast.
For example -- here's the practical aspect; we're getting into the practical problems rather than the principle here -- if such a provision had applied, it would have meant that as a result of the recent transaction between CN and Railtex, which is a short-line operator, the latter would have been faced with our collective agreements covering 10 employees to operate a 112-kilometre railway, and in one instance we'd have one collective agreement covering one employee. That's the kind of situation this legislation would have in terms of successor rights.
Short-line sales will stop as quickly as they started if the short-line operator is hampered by a successor rights clause as is proposed by the draft legislation. The result will be an increase in the abandonment of lines and a reduction in rail transportation available to Ontario communities and shippers.
The railway association accepts and appreciates that the proposed subsection 64.1(3) is an attempt to address the concerns made by the railway industry during discussion of the Ontario Labour ministry's white paper. From our perspective, unfortunately, the recognition by the board of matters "it considers appropriate in the circumstances" is clearly insufficient. What is required is a clear legislative directive to the board stating specifically that the successor rights provisions do not apply when the fundamental nature of the business has changed. We recommend, and I believe the words are right in the submission, that subsection 64.1(3) be reworded as follows:
"In determining applications under section 64 concerning the sale of a business described in subsection (1), the board will not consider those sales which involve a fragment of the business of the predecessor employer and where the essential nature of the business has changed."
In this way, when a transcontinental railroad sells a subdivision as a short line, the purchaser would not be covered by this proposed successor rights provision. We're clearly not opposed to the principle of successor rights. We feel, however, there are certain circumstances where it's just not practical or useful or in the public interest.
The second item deals with replacement workers. The RAC's reading of Bill 40 has led us to the conclusion that there has been no fundamental change in the position of the government of Ontario from the white paper with respect to the issue of replacement workers. None the less, the government acknowledges the need to examine the effect of the proposed restrictions on employers and specific sectors.
We believe it is important to alert you to the potential impact this legislation would have on the railway industry and the ability of the railroads to fulfil their obligations as common carriers -- that is, their obligation under the National Transportation Act, 1987 -- without delay and with due care and diligence to receive, carry and deliver all traffic offered for carriage.
A specific example of this ripple effect could be Canadian National Railway Co and CP Rail, who operate GO Transit trains for the government of Ontario. Assume GO Transit ticket agents strike and in-house managers are not available to replace striking workers. The trains which are operated by CN and CP crews would not be able to operate, thus affecting thousands of commuting customers daily.
It is our experience that essential services must be maintained for the greater good of the public. The amendments as proposed would make the provision of essential services to the public of Ontario by struck employers next to impossible.
In introducing this bill, the government has cited the experience in the province of Quebec with respect to restrictions on the use of replacement workers. However, the exceptions to the replacement worker provisions proposed in section 73.2 are far more limited than the protection of essential services provided for under the Quebec Labour Code. The protection of essential services provision enables the government of Quebec to require the parties to negotiate what essential services must be provided and prohibits strike action until an agreement satisfactory to an essential services council is reached.
If I might just digress here, I'll give an example. In the event of a public transit strike -- and there was a strike at the TTC, I think it was last year -- in Quebec, the transit operator must operate the business during rush hours, to give you an example of how the essential services provision within the Quebec law works.
The RAC believes that proposed section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act should be withdrawn. If, however, the government wishes to progress this matter, we recommend the following changes.
Proposed subsection 73.1(3) provides that a bargaining unit is considered to be on strike "if any employees in the bargaining unit are on strike or are locked out." I emphasize the word "any." This means that a union which, for strategic purposes, through use of selective or rotating strikes, withdraws its services from only a part of the operation of the work site could effectively prevent the employer from operating his entire work site by prohibiting him from replacing the striking workers. It is our position that, should this provision be enacted into law, it would cause a serious imbalance in the relative strengths of the parties.
What the provision would allow is for the union to make serious disruption to an employer's operation while continuing employment for a number of other individuals it represents, knowing that the employer is seriously hampered in continuing those parts of the operation struck by the union. It is our opinion, therefore, that if the no-replacement-worker provision is to be enacted into law, it not apply where only part of the work site is affected by the work stoppage. We believe that the employer should be permitted to provide replacement workers in instances where the union is engaging only in selective strikes.
We furthermore recommend that employers should be allowed to transfer employees from other work sites to replace workers on strike. The case for this is especially strong where there is a multilocational bargaining unit and where the union decides to selectively strike some work sites but not all. It is the opinion of the RAC that it is reasonable for the employer to counter the tactics of a union which is striking only part of the employer's operation for strategic purposes to provide replacement workers from other establishments which the union has chosen not to strike. It is our recommendation that this feature be added to the legislation.
It is the opinion of the RAC that subsection 73.1(4) violates the fundamental human rights of workers on strike by prohibiting such workers from offering their services to their employer to return to work. The legislation would allow certain employees to perform the work of striking workers but would not allow the very individuals who hold the jobs from which they have withdrawn their services to voluntarily resume work on an individual basis. This, we believe, is inequitable. We recommend that subsection 73.1(4) of the proposed bill be deleted.
The third item we want to talk about is third-party picketing. The legislation would allow unrestricted picketing at or near third-party property to which the public ordinarily or customarily has access.
The concern to the RAC is that, by the very nature of our business, the public ordinarily has access to federal properties and facilities owned and operated by RAC members. Many of these facilities contain tenant businesses and employers. As a first concern, it is clear that unrestricted third-party picketing could frustrate the ability of RAC members to secure their property and, more importantly, personnel.
In addition, a broader concern is presented were the government's proposal to become law. RAC members could experience significant disruption of their operations resulting from picketing arising from labour disputes in which we have no interest or connection. As our services are of a national scope, interference with our operations poses the prospect of service interruptions for all Canadians. A labour dispute essentially local in nature could therefore have national implications. An example could be a strike involving a business located in Union Station, Toronto.
2020
While it is well settled that peaceful, primary picketing is per se lawful when its objective is the communication of information, it is true that this objective is sometimes superseded by a more obstructionist and confrontational philosophy. The RAC submits that it is inappropriate to impose legislation that would result in obstruction and confrontation at or near the property of innocent third parties.
It is difficult to reconcile the proposed amendment with the government's stated objective in its review of the act to promote harmonious labour relations and industrial peace. It would seem that this particular amendment could in fact create industrial strife.
In conclusion, these proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act potentially have wider impact than simply affecting employers and trade unions in the province of Ontario. The concerns of mutual third parties may not have been adequately addressed in the proposed legislation.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review process. We hope our submissions may be the basis for some guidance to the minister when reviewing Bill 40. This requires a delicate balancing of not only employer and employee rights but the rights of innocent third parties as well.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, Mr McGuinty, four minutes, please.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I'm interested in the unique perspective you're bringing to this, particularly this issue of short-line sales and the impact that successor rights, as provided under Bill 40, would have on them. To be honest with you, I didn't really understand when you explained them. I'm asking if you'd go over it again and just help me to better understand the implication.
Mr Brazier: Canadian National has been more active in this area than CP Rail, so maybe if you wanted just to address that, okay?
Mr Blake Olson: Essentially, the short-line sale is an alternative to abandonment. Typically, what the railways have been doing for the last 15 or 20 years is trying to divest some of the branch lines or subdivisions which have become no longer economical. Recognizing the long and tedious efforts to get abandonment proceedings under way, we've recognized that a lot of local communities, a lot of local industries, are very interested in keeping a railway alive, not only for the business on the line but also for the vitality of the community.
In that regard, we recognized something that had been taking place in the United States for several years -- that is, a short-liner; what we've termed as a feeder network. Essentially, what the major Canadian railways would be doing is having main-line infrastructure with several feeder operations, much like you would see with Air Canada or Canadian Airlines and the various small feeder airlines that feed into the major terminals throughout the provinces and across Canada.
What we would endeavour to do is keep these branch lines open through a smaller operator who can afford to operate a small line, not necessarily having to finance a big infrastructure such as CN -- we have 25,000 miles of track -- and also as an alternative to abandonment under those circumstances.
Mr McGuinty: Who would the purchasers of these short-line sales normally be, then? A smaller operator?
Mr Olson: Usually, it's a smaller operator. I guess it's a coincidence, but the first short-line railway in Ontario has its grand opening tonight in Goderich. It's the Goderich-Exeter Railway Co. Railtex is the owner of that company and it's from San Antonio, Texas. Railtex has 18 short-line operations in the United States, and the Goderich-Exeter Railway Co in Canada was number 19 for them. They're currently bidding for another short-line operation in Nova Scotia, which would make it number 20.
Essentially, it's a small operator that attempts to purchase a line and run a small business -- in fact, grow the business. In the case of Railtex, it has increased its traffic in the United States on those short lines, from a line that otherwise would have probably been abandoned, by over 40%.
Mr Turnbull: Gentlemen, I am the transportation critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. I am well aware of your concerns. It seems to me that at a time when everybody is so concerned, and rightly so, with protecting our environment -- and we know the benefits of rail transportation -- we should be doing everything possible to encourage these branch lines staying open. You have very well put the case that the alternative is abandonment.
Let's be pragmatic about this. Let's look at the time between now and the next election because then, I think, we'll have other legislation after that. But during that time, gentlemen, what sort of miles of branch lines might be sold off or abandoned if this goes through and you're not able to restructure the nature of these operations?
Mr Olson: In Ontario right now, with Canadian National, we have some 800 miles of trackage through communities. At this point in time we have an initiative under way to sell five further lines within the province of Ontario. The whole process, with the various legislative requirements, takes approximately 18 months to two years, so of course our interest in this bill is very important to us. Yes, we have about 800 miles on CN.
Mr Brazier: I was just going to say on behalf of CP, I can't be quite as specific, but there are specific lines, some within Ontario and some outside Ontario, where CP Rail at this moment is engaged in discussions with potential short-line operators. It's impossible, though, to say if any of these will come to fruition between now and the next election.
Mr Turnbull: It's my understanding that in fact these short-line operations in the US have been highly successful in the sense that the employees have a tremendous sense of identification with the operation. In fact, the person who's driving an engine will probably have a business card because he wants to try to get some business and he feels totally involved in the operation.
I suppose my friends across the floor would have the concern, and I understand where they're coming from, that jobs will be eliminated in streamlining these operations. Do we have any alternative in this time of rationalization to that kind of streamlining, or will they go by the board unless we can get that?
Mr Brazier: Speaking on behalf of CP Rail specifically, the lines I am familiar with, where the company is in the process of discussing potential short-line operation, the only alternative is abandonment. There's not an alternative at CP Rail to continue to operate. The alternative is either to get a short-line operator or complete abandonment.
Mr Turnbull: So the jobs will be gone.
Mr Brazier: Either all the jobs will be gone or some of the jobs will be saved because, as we indicated in the submission, obviously the short-line operator needs employees to operate the business.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, four minutes.
Mr Hayes: I'll be very quick and I'd like Ms Murdock to get a chance. I compliment you on your presentation here. I see where you have actually come up with some suggestions and have not just been totally critical.
I did notice the one part where you're talking about the legislation in Quebec, where the Quebec government requires "the parties to negotiate what essential services" and which essential services "must be provided and prohibits strike action until an agreement satisfactory to an essential services council is reached." I've heard other employers who come in here who have stated, "That's not negotiable on how we're going to deal, whether it be health and safety or services." You are indicating that you feel both parties could sit down and negotiate on conditions, on what services or what workers may be allowed to continue working during a strike.
2030
Mr Brazier: Under the Quebec legislation, the parties of course are given the option of negotiating the terms and who will work and what has to remain open under the circumstances. The example I gave, which wouldn't be covered the way I read Bill 40, is a municipal transit service. For example, it must operate during rush-hour. That's a requirement under the Quebec law. The parties to the agreement sit down and negotiate, obviously, who's actually going to be running, say, the bus service or the Metro service or whatever it is. However, this needs the approval of the essential services council, because it has the final say as to what constitutes an essential service and whether or not the proposal of the parties meets the requirements of the law.
I think everybody in this room would agree that if the parties can hammer out the mechanism by which the essential service is retained and the circumstances under which it is retained, it's obviously better than some government body imposing it.
The Chair: Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank Mr Hayes.
Ms Murdock: And Mr Hayes.
The Chair: After all, he could have used up all the four minutes for himself.
Ms Murdock: Don't you use up any of my time.
Actually, I taught school in the bush at the junction of the Algoma Central Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway lines for three years and only had rail transportation to use, so I got to know both operations fairly well.
My question is related to the inclusion of the rewording of subsection 64.1(3) in relation to involving a fragment of the business of the predecessor employer and where the essential nature of the business has changed. I noticed you were here for the previous presenters, where they were talking about successor rights in relation to foodservices and retail food operations.
As soon as I read that, my immediate thought was fragment of the business being utilized in another industry, other than rail and short-line because I understand the distinction you're making, saying that if you didn't sell, say, all of the property of the previous employer in the foodservices example they had used -- how that section, the way you've worded it, would impinge upon them. Then the other thing is the use of the word "and" instead of "or" in that.
Mr Brazier: First of all, what we are proposing in section 64.1 -- don't get me wrong, I'm not going to take time just to review the bill, but certainly what we're proposing would only apply in those paragraphs that deal with a federal-to-provincial sale. That's one thing.
Second, yes, I agree, the principle applies too. Presumably, using the example from the union that was here before us from the foodservices industry, you could have a chain of supermarkets, and I guess if one supermarket is sold off, is that a fragmentation? I realize that the issue is there. I'm not trying to discount it.
Now what I didn't read, but it's included in our main submission, in the bigger submission which you all have copies of, is that by putting these words in, we think they were only following what the general rule is by labour relations boards across the country already, and that is, for successor rights to work, the essential nature of the business has to remain.
Of course, we're only proposing it for federal to provincial. Ontario's the only province where this has ever been considered before. I recognize that it could have implications if it were in the broader area.
I can't speak for other industries, but certainly we think the problems we have maybe give us a bit of a uniqueness. We are federally regulated because the Constitution says we're needed for the better good of Canada, or two or more provinces. I'm not trying to say we're better than other industries, but we're given some kind of constitutional status.
Certainly, the main carriers, CN and CP, are transcontinental in scope and I think we made persuasive arguments to show that local strikes that may affect a few employees, say, 10 of the employees in Union Station in Toronto, could actually disrupt the operations of a transcontinental passenger service, so that's the kind of thing we're concerned about.
We recognize, though, that maybe unions might have some concern if this thing was given broad application beyond what we're proposing, but we think we've got kind of a unique situation here. Where you go from federal to provincial it's somewhat different than, you know, sort of a provincial one, a provincially regulated industry being split up. We think we've got unique problems and we're not making proposals here for broader application. But since the government has proposed that there be federal to provincial successor rights, we think it should be given what we think is proper application.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the Railway Association of Canada for its participation in this committee's business. You've provided a novel perspective which had not been discussed with us before during the course of the committee's review of Bill 40. We're grateful to you for that and for your time and interest. We apologize for the late sitting in the evening. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr Turnbull: I have a motion, Mr Chairman -- I've got the name of the gentleman from last night -- that Mr Peter Kirkby be now heard, given the fact that we're allowed to sit until 9 o'clock. Can I have some discussion points on this?
The Chair: Wait a minute. You've moved a motion?
Mr Turnbull: Yes.
The Chair: That motion has been moved. Fine, speak to it.
Mr Turnbull: Just a few quick points.
The Chair: Mr Huget?
Mr Turnbull: Mr Kirkby has --
The Chair: No, hold on a minute. Mr Huget?
Mr Huget: Is that motion in order, Mr Chairman? I believe we have a motion on the floor.
The Chair: There was a motion presented by Mr Offer earlier today, which has been deferred to the point in time when the last submission in tomorrow's morning sitting is heard.
Mr Huget argues that Mr Turnbull's motion is out of order. Mr Huget would argue that is because there's already a motion before the committee. I trust that Mr Turnbull would argue in response that that previous motion of Mr Offer's isn't before the committee, because it was deferred until 12 noon. Is that what you're arguing?
Mr Turnbull: Precisely.
Mrs Marland: We had hoped you would say that, as Chairman.
The Chair: Well, I was hoping I wouldn't have to think that up, but I trust that would be the counterargument.
Mrs Marland: That's the Chairman's ruling.
The Chair: In view of that, I appreciate your concern about the motion being in order, but I'm satisfied that the motion is in order, because Mr Offer's motion is not before the committee until 12 noon tomorrow.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I will be extremely brief. I believe, from the brief that was distributed to us last night by Mr Kirkby, that he has a unique point of view that has not been heard by this committee to date. The committee is mandated to sit until 9 o'clock in the evening. This gentleman is not, as Mr Huget was suggesting, a walk-on. In point of fact, many weeks ago, apparently, he requested that he have permission to speak. He has not been granted that time. There is an available time slot.
Bob Rae, on taking the oath of office, said that his would be an accessible government which was open. I ask that it be open now and that we hear this rather unique point of view. I put the question, Mr Chairman. I request that we put the question.
The Chair: As compared to the rules that were agreed upon in the House, there's no restriction on debate here.
Mr Turnbull: The reason I am doing that is we could eat up the time, Mr Chair, and then we don't get him on. I think the people of Ontario are entitled to hear this, rather than some silly debate.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Turnbull.
Mr Huget: The subcommittee agreed on a procedure in terms of dealing with witnesses, and we have faithfully followed that procedure for the last five weeks without exception. The subcommittee agreed that there would be no walk-on presentations, and there is not unanimous consent to change the previous subcommittee agreement or the committee agreement.
Mrs Marland: I'm aware that the subcommittee agreed that this committee would sit until 9 o'clock and that it would sit for five weeks. In fact, they were only agreeing to sit for five weeks because the government House leader limited the hearings to five weeks. What is it that you're frightened of hearing from Mr Kirkby? We've got 25 minutes left. We can hear from Mr Kirkby now and we still will finish by 9 o'clock. Why is it that you don't want to hear from somebody? Is it a viewpoint that you're concerned about having aired in a public forum?
The Chair: Further discussion or debate?
Mrs Marland: We'd like a recorded vote, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: One moment, please.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, I would like a recorded vote.
The Chair: You didn't want to close?
Mr Turnbull: He's not a walk-on, and that was the agreement that was made by the people. We have plugged in those people, as we've gone along, to my knowledge, who've been on the waiting list. He is on the waiting list, so he's not a walk-on. He attended all last night. I was curious, because I had never met the gentleman before. I went and introduced myself last night. He said he was the author of this brief, and it's from a worker's point of view, about his right not to be in a union. I think we should hear that.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. About to call the question.
Mrs Marland: A recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Turnbull's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--5
Marland, McGuinty, Offer, Phillips, Turnbull.
Nays--6
Hayes, Hope, Huget, Murdock (Sudbury), Ward (Brantford), Wood.
The Chair: I want to thank the committee members for their cooperation during the course of today. I want to thank the participants who presented their views to the committee. I want to thank those people who expressed interest in the committee's process by attending here at Queen's Park and watching this committee do its work, and those who watched this on the Legislative channel.
I want to thank the staff, the research staff and Hansard staff as well as the clerk's office staff, who were crucial to the smooth operation of this committee, and of course the French-language translation people, who have worked very hard throughout the course of the day, even on occasion when people spoke simultaneously, which made simultaneous translation all that much more difficult, and of course the legislative broadcast people, who do an outstanding job of recording and broadcasting this and who will make video tapes of presentations in Beta and VHS, I believe.
In addition, of course, I thank people like Ms Marland who joined us throughout the day. Thank you very kindly, people. Take care. We're adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 2043.